Talk:Paedophile Information Exchange

Clean up

 * How
 * Why? lmno 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I still care enough to edit Wikipedia pages in a month or so, I will be removing this clean up request unless it is carried out by someone, or at least justified here. lmno 9 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Legal offense
''Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies.''

Is it a criminal offense to send "indecent material" to some other person in sealed private correspondence in the UK? David.Monniaux 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which offence it is depends on what is sent - if it is a photograph that shows a child it is an offence of distributing indecent photograph of a child; if it is a written fantasy or somesuch it is an offence under one of the Postal or Post Office Acts. lmno 05:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
The following issues need to be addressed: - Davodd 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Special attention to controversial topics needs to be taken to fully explain historical relevance of this disbanded organization to the audience.
 * 2) Needs subsections to differentiate intro, time line, history,
 * 3) Punctuation needs attention: misuse of quotations, commas and colons.
 * 4) Prose is sloppy and not well-written. Many of the claims lack context or adequate citation. For Example: "The meeting was widely covered the next morning, with many papers using it as a lead story" fails to explain which papers. U.S>, UK, International?
 * 5) Dates are not properly wikified. (i.e. 1 September instead of 1 September)
 * 6) Block quotes do not follow WIkipedia style.
 * 7) Titles of publications not correctly wiki italicized.
 * 8) In-line notation to Gary Glitter is both uncited and not formatted correctly.
 * 9) UK article is too Anglo-centric in that many of the place-name and taken-for-granted concepts are unintelligible to non UK readers.
 * 10) Tone of the article is not encyclopedia quality; reads more like a newspaper report.


 * Special attention to controversial topics needs to be taken to fully explain historical relevance of this disbanded organization to the audience.
 * What does this mean?

(Members and associates of the organisation are still alive and playing roles in contemporary society. Harriet Harman, for example, who helped draft legislation on behalf of PIE which would have made child porn legal provided the victim only suffered average phycological damage is a contemporary British politician who was recently a candidate in the Labour Party's leadership election 46.135.29.236 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Cacadores (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) )
 * Needs subsections to differentiate intro, time line, history, 
 * ditto


 * Punctuation needs attention: misuse of quotations, commas and colons.
 * Prose is sloppy and not well-written. Many of the claims lack context or adequate citation. For Example: "The meeting was widely covered the next morning, with many papers using it as a lead story" fails to explain which papers. U.S>, UK, International?
 * Thought it was too anglocentric?
 * Dates are not properly wikified. (i.e. 1 September instead of 1 September)
 * But someone else can change them eh?
 * Block quotes do not follow WIkipedia style.
 * Titles of publications not correctly wiki italicized.
 * In-line notation to Gary Glitter is both uncited and not formatted correctly.
 * This "notation" to Gary Glitter... Well, the "Gary" thing is probably one of those things that would be too anglo-centric if not explained; it is probably impossible to provide a reference - unless (possibly) one writes to Mr Goggle asking whom was actually meant.
 * UK article is too Anglo-centric in that many of the place-name and taken-for-granted concepts are unintelligible to non UK readers.
 * Examples please. Difficult to know how to satisfy foreigners without being so afflicted oneself...
 * Tone of the article is not encyclopedia quality; reads more like a newspaper report.
 * Oh.............. lmno 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples please. Difficult to know how to satisfy foreigners without being so afflicted oneself...
 * Tone of the article is not encyclopedia quality; reads more like a newspaper report.
 * Oh.............. lmno 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Reads to me like typical British English formal prose. Please be careful about making stylistic critisism based upon what an American might be used to. Cacadores (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ) Davodd 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. See: Guide to layout, Lead section
 * 2. See: Help:Section, Manual of Style (headings)
 * 3. See: Manual of Style
 * 4. See: Guide to writing better articles
 * 5. See: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * 6. See: Manual of Style
 * 7. See: Manual of Style
 * 8. See: Citing sources
 * 9. Non UK people may have no idea what the following mean:
 * Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee
 * The Telegraph or Daily Telegraph
 * Red Lion Square
 * Sheffield
 * 10. See: Guide to writing better articles

Accuracy
The objective accuracy of the article is reasonably good. :-) The Scarlet Pimpernel

Notable
Is this group notable? No time limit on improvement, well yes is that written somewhere I suppose it is as it is mantra like repeated but clearly bad articles about controversial subjects that are not improved are detrimental to the project imo, are there anyone else with any opinions about this article as regards AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As has previously been mentioned, members and associates of PIE are still alive and perhaps it's important that their past views are known, instead of hidden or lost with the imposition of the paedophile taboo. PIE conducted a national campaign in England and the response of 'intellectuals' and the public to that campaign is an important historical event which is useful to know for the future. AFD? Please communicate in English. Cacadores (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsupported Rob,, no matter how hard you try, the PIE article and the prominent people associated with it aren't going anywhere. Twobells (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material
I removed about 6 sections of utterly unsourced material. It can be re-included when and only when reliable sources are found for each statement. There has been plenty of time to fix this issue as the article has been tagged for a long time. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looks a lot better now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was only "utterly unsourced" because SqueakBox removed multiple references. Will be restored. --Michael C. Price talk 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More new sources http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2221078/Jimmy-Savile-liberal-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html

Jimmy Saville
New information has appeared that states Jimmy Saville was a PIE member. Twobells (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "information" - it's totally unsubstantiated gossip. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you defending Saville who has been confirmed to be a member of the infamous PIE. Twobells (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means share with us the reliable source in which this was confirmed. Britmax (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tweaked your link so that it works but, no, sorry some bloke from Preston telling us how reliable his anonymous source is doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Britmax (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lock this for a while?
There are many dubious edits being made to this article, often adding trivial details or - it would seem - introducing Harriet Harman's name to the text where it is not relevant. Until the political storm blows over I suggest only a few people (by no means including me) should be permitted to edit. Harfarhs (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Request temporary page protection. Give a valid reason and an admin should agree. Often they add so only confirmed users can edit for a short whille.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :) Harfarhs (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * disagree, just an attempt to suppress vital notable events associated with article, I have edited and monitored this article from inception and cannot see why it should be locked as no-one has attempted to vandalise or include trivial details, as for Harriet Harman she is central to the sub section along with the other Labour politicians involved, it is outrageous that certain editors wish to suppress her inclusion. Twobells (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is looking a lot better. I see Magpie was now cited in places as MagPIE so I've changed all of them to the latter version, and made a few other minor alterations, mostly to improve clarity and grammar :) Harfarhs (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Labour Connections: Chronology is Wrong
Someone has edited and deleted the entire section on Labour connections to PIE placing events out the chronological order, the allegations are over two years old yet someone has presented the issue as starting with Harmans 'regret' and a Newsnight interview, this editor seems to have presented the issue favorably to the Labour politicians involved, I'll have to revert and re-write now, thanks a lot for the npov. Twobells (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whomever keeps deleting, reverting and altering the chronology of events please stop. Twobells (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted the passage derived from the Daily Mirror which you then reverted. Tabloids are not reliable sources, see WP:IRS, the Telegeraph articles will make much the same point and can be legitimately cited. They also have much more gravitas. The chronology of the article is now as linear as possible with an existing/posthumous split. It makes an awkward read to repeatedly go back and forth over a more than thirty year period. Philip Cross (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed, however no other suitable source is available, subsequently we do need to cite from both sides of the political spectrum re: npov and balance. Btw, could you cite a Telegraph source similar to The Mirror's response?. thanks very much. @ Stephennewton thanks for your edit, I'd rather keep the Daily Mirror sentence it if possible for balance; I have edited to sentence to include the possibility it may not have been the official position of the paper. Twobells (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Have discussed this at Twobells talk, where it's argued that the left has been silent on this matter. If that is the case it is not the role of Wikipedia to fill that silence. Twobells reference to balance appears to be a desire to include left and right wing newspapers as sources. I'm not convinced that is the way to balance, especially as the columnist cited, while writing in a left-leaning tabloid, is right-wing. Stephen Newton (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As Carole Malone is agreement with the Mail, there is no balance, and about PIE that is impossible and undesirable. WP:FRINGE is relevant here. Malone observes "It is never okay to have sex with children" as though it is a contentious point rather than a blatantly obvious one. As far as Harman and the others are concerned, she is making a point which has been made by Roy Greenslade, a Guardian writer, on 21 February. Philip Cross (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Philip Cross that Malone doesn't provide balance. Also important that we remember this article is about PIE, which disbanded in 1984, and should not become dominated by an ongoing current event. It illustrates how not so long ago paedophiles campaigned quite openly, successfully infiltrating libertarian groups on left and right. The politics of NCCL would have been complex and the roles played by its officers are far from clear. Stephen Newton (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. The fact that certain editors are adding contentious material in possible breach of WP:BLP was my main motive in requesting admin to protect the page until the effects of the political storm can be seen with cool heads, so to speak. Harfarhs (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors only remove contentious material on BLP's if it is unsourced, any other reason looks suspicious; however 'good faith' shall rule and accept your motive in good faith, take care. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks as though history and events have moved on considerably, doesn't it? Twobells''t@lk 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Very Good Contempory BBC Article Including Interview of Members
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378 Twobells (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

National Front protesting against PIE
It is a historical fact that the NF party was one of the few British political players who vocally protested against the PIE conferences. I provided info about it in the article, with sources. My edit was reverted, accusing me of POV and political partisanship. Please note that I am not an NF propagandist, I have never met an NF member, etc. In fact, I am not British, nor do I live in the UK, so I have few, if any, regional axes to grind. Please discuss the referenced historical facts here on the talk page and not censor them without Wikipedia-worthy arguments. Zezen (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see the relevance of a small, defunct fascist group protesting against PIE (true or not). If you were to include this to be consistent, you would need to go through the history of every organisation that has faced protests of some kind mentioning the protestors.Stephen Newton (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good state of this article
I revisited this article after a 18-months break. It is looking good, with much new info added. Thank you, the new contributors! Zezen (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hanson/Hansen
"PIE was set up as a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group by founding member Michael Hanson, a gay student living in Edinburgh, who became the group's first chairman. Although Hansen did not identify as a paedophile, his sexual relationship with a 15-year-old (who he thought was 16) and the disparate age of consent laws for heterosexual and homosexual activity made Hansen sympathise with paedophile advocacy."

Spelling ought to be consistent where known—has anyone access to sources? Harfarhs (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. The Scottish Minorities Group isn't mentioned in the Observer article cited as the source, but that is verified in the book cited (available at https://books.google.com/books?id=6eu2DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA115). This also confirms the spelling of Hanson. I've edited accordingly. Stephen Newton (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't the P.I.E symbol not shown?
Would show how this psychopath organisation uses cryptic symbolism like other secret societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.239.132 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)