Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 10

Why the name change in this article?
It seems inaccurate, to say the least, to characterize a movement whose goal is to end legal discrimination against pedophilic sex practices, as a movement which advocates pedophilia. At first, the difference might seem slight. But careful evaluation will reveal just how important the distinction is.

Advocacy is promotion. It's the championing and advancement of an idea, lifestyle, or practice. A pedophilia advocacy movement would be trying to spread the practice of adult/prepubescent sex, proposing that everybody should engage in pedophilic acts. A careful reading of the article, however, indicates that it's not about people trying to get people who have never committed pedophilic acts to engage in adult/prepubescent sex. It's more about simply ending criminalization of people who have already chosen to engage in said acts.

Calling the article "pedophilia advocacy" makes as much sense as calling somebody who believes a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants one, an "abortion advocate," when in fact the person is only advocating a right to choose abortion, and not the actual act of abortion. Corax 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your argument is plain wrong. Wikipedia's own definition of "advocacy" is excellent, reflecting how the word is generally understood: Advocacy is an umbrella term for organized activism related to a particular set of issues. The issue is paedophilia. "Advocacy" does not mean "encouragement" at all in this sense (nor, really, in any sense but a very loose colloquial usage). Compare with child advocacy, which does not advocate more children. The childlove movement are without question paedophilia advocates. They speak in favour of paedophilia, they lobby for its acceptance, they defend it. These are thelements that make one an advocate. I suspect that your dislike of the title stems from your dislike of "paedophilia", which is a trigger word.James James 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Child advocacy" is a misnomer. The appropriate term is "children's rights advocacy," just as the appropriate name for this article would be "advocacy for decriminalizing pedophilia." Corax 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, and I will act upon it at once- since this article isn't about specifically decriminalizing pedophilia or legalizing porn or any specific thing, lets call it pedophile activism. After all, the article is about some diverse actions and desires of pedophiles. In total, this article isn't about pedophilia, its' about pedophiles, their goals, their differences, their forums and colloquialisms. In any case, the proper name would probably be pedophile something. This is some tricky semantics, but when the article talks about common goals for pedophile groups, it's talking about pedophiles, not pedophilia. Maybe that would help writers write about the actual politics and notable events rather than re-hashing and changing the definition of pedophilia in the article repeatedly. Lotusduck 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

are we all okay with archiving this talk page?
Although there are still additions to many of these sprawling discussions, this is all too huge. I think we should just blanket archive everything up to today, and people can just restate their arguments like they constantly do besides. Good idea? Yes. Lotusduck 15:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. = Silent War = 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom o'carrol
Is tom o'carrol's book self published? The article for Tom O'carrol seems to suggest that in saying "he published". Anyway, I'll probably delete it if someone doesn't provide me with a publisher, I looked for a while and couldn't find one. Lotusduck 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look in the References section of the article and you will see the publisher information there. No, he did not self-publish it.


 * Yep, seems to say there that the publisher is Peter Owen: their website, clearly not a vanity or self-publish job.

IPCE links
While the IPCE is reasonably scholarly, I don't believe it falls under any category for a wikipedia source. So it can stay as an interesting external link, but as far as linking to specific IPCE articles talking about certain psych papers, I'm pretty sure we're doing wrong. People can get copies of the original papers through their public libraries and can find commentaries from any perspective they like anywhere on google. Lotusduck 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is me on the talk page. I guess I can't assume silence is a go ahead. The IPCE is not a reasonable source for encyclopedic material- it's nice, but it's a think tank. They can be generally more reasonable than say, a conservative family issues group, but in that they are a discussion forum for likeminded people, we can't exclude conservative family newsletters without excluding referencing issues discussion groups like the IPCE. They are not a verifiable source. There's some info in here from newspapers, and I bet we can all find more if we really try, because I'm pretty sure we have to- by wikipedia guidelines. Lotusduck 23:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ipce is a collection of documents. In these cases, we're citing documents hosted on Ipce as we're referring to them. We cite Giels and then give a link to her ideology: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/i_did_not_know.htm . Ipce did not write it, it's simply a transcript of her newsletter where she proposed those ideas which we are describing.  23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, how is a newsletter neccessarily notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia? Lotusduck 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's a published source.  23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the NVSH really be considered an outside source publisher? Or do you mean that a newspaper picked this up? Lotusduck 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of image
The picture being added to this page does not at all illustrate pedophile advocacy, and, besides perhaps shock value, adds nothing to it. A picture of a girl would be appropriate at our girl article, to visually elucidate the subject; it does not in the least make this article more informative, however. Before readding it please provide your reasoning. 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people say
The most recent edits have pointed out a big error. A massive amount of the article conains weasel words, Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles:

* "Some people say..." * "Research has shown..." * "...is widely regarded as..." * "It is believed that..." * "It has been suggested/noticed/decided..." * "Some people believe..." * "Many people say..." * "Critics/Experts say that..." * "Some historians argue..." * "Considered by many..." * "Accusations..." * "Apparently..." * "Allegedly..." * "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..." * "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..." Apparently we need to find a source for every other sentance in this article. This is like that time I changed "Some psychologists say" to "Richard Green Proposed in a paper from the" etcetera, only everything I guess. Lotusduck 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed.
I made scores of edits anonymously to this page about a year ago. I return to find that, while the title is much more NPOV, the content is not. Examples of things to fix are:
 * There is no longer a clear summary that the mainstream and vast majority -- including the major professional associations in the relevant fields -- of the medical community does not accept the movement's scientific arguments.
 * Worse yet, the clear conclusions of the vast majority of studies and scientists are now called "scientific opinion".
 * Several non-Rind studies are listed without refutation. However, the individual mainstream studies that contradict the movement have been deleted.
 * The level of detail in some sections -- both on science and proposed ethics -- amounts to original research.
 * The IPCE site is simply listed as "scholarly discussion". It has lots of verabim scientific studies, but it also states that its purpose is to further discussion of "emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults" -- not exactly NPOV.
 * Is the "Human Face of Pedophilia" really that prominent -- it is run by the author of this article I believe? No Google hits for "related:http://hfp.puellula.org/".
 * Some bad faith edits have clearly taken root. For example, the citation of Underwager and Wakefield used to note that the researcers themselves found the movement was mischaracterizing their research by citing it in the way it now appears in the wiki -- this disclaimer has been removed. Here's the original disclaimer that was removed from the article.


 * It is important to note that, while they support the desire-action distinction, Underwager and Wakefield objected strongly to the movement’s use of their work and forwarded a highly-developed theory on why all adult-child sexual contact is harmful, regardless of the power relationships or even the ‘loving’ context advocated by the movement. (see Underwager and Wakefield, Misinterpretation of a Primary Prevention Effort)

I no longer have the time to plow into all of these on my own. I will make progress, but it will be slow. Until then, I don't think it is even a close call that this should carry the totally disptued label. Tradenowhere 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You make good points. I have a suggestion- since this article is over the upper limit of the size wikipedia articles should be, can I please delete some original research instead of trying to source it and correct it? Everything outside of the Mary DeYoung study is just a re-hashing of it. While a little bit of it is sourced, and should be kept, I think we all can blank several paragraphs in that section without being considered vandals. Lotusduck 00:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to ask *my* permission. ;-) Your efforts on this page have been admirable. Looks like you will hit some opposition from folks who are just reading the diff and not the article. I suggest you propose a new outline in this talk page. Get comments. Then make the changes. But an-edit-a-day is a fine way to get there too.
 * I do think we need a section that describes the progress -- or total lack therof -- that the movement has made in convincing scientists and medical professionals of their scientifc claims and policy proposals. I know you didn't like the "Medical community response" approach. I thought it was fine. I think presenting the two sides concisely in the same place makes sense. What do you suggest? Tradenowhere 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't like "medical community responses" for two reasons. First, I've never seen an article that was definitely written in response to pedophile activists, retractions or caveats in articles maybe, but nothing that is clearly retaliatory to pedophile activists. Second, the whole debacle in the public eye over the Rind article points out that science doesn't really have a viewpoint- it isn't perfect, and it misinterprets data or mishandles experiments maybe- but the medical community doesn't circulate viewpoints the way a political movement does, it circulates evidence and some possible assumptions that could be drawn from that evidence. Anyway, I just haven't seen evidence of as much as a back and forth relationship between the medical community and organizations like NAMBLA. What I have seen is simply some papers being reinterpreted by groups like NAMBLA and other papers refuted by groups like NAMBLA. Lotusduck 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Truths removed
The following was removed:


 * Members of the pedophile movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of illness (Fagan, 2002), exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the terms "childlover", "boylover" and "girllover" to replace pedophile. The terms have been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet. Lindsay Ashford in the Human Face of Pedophilia writes: Many have problems with the word pedophilia since its meaning has been so warped by society and the media. [It] has grown to take on the meaning and connotations of an evil person who lurks in parks. Many of us simply do not resemble or relate to this stereotype, so we have chosen to adopt terminology that better describes what we are. Ashford says that childlove is "an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them."

The reasons given were that the "Fagan" reference is only "spuriously" connected, and that the Lindford quote is "non-notable". I know these are valid reasons (though i haven't read this Fagan reference), but it seems an awful lot could be removed on those grounds. Providing dead-on scientific references to every single claim is often not possible, especially not for underground movements where attempts at research is attacked by politicians for being immoral. Avoding the perceived stigma is a major motivation for the alternative terms. Is this really a controversial claim that needs to be cited scientifically and notably? Clayboy 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim is already in this article a number of times, as well as the terminology mentioned. The very beginning of the article if I recall correctly talks about using terms less stigmatized than pedophile. There is a lot of other information that is repeated in the article repeatedly with more ethos put in each time. This article is over the advised size for wikipedia articles. There is obviously enough hard source article material to create a complete article without making stuff up or citing non-notable web pages. We don't need dead on scientific evidence, but we do need references to come from outside source publishers. Lotusduck 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Over the past few weeks I have done looking and seen several places where it is stated by "Ch. lovers" (at their sites, etc.) that they want to avoid the stigma. If you can find at least three, I'd say that would be fair grounds for a claim. In fact, any site that uses alternative terms will probably say something of this nature somewhere. --DanielCD 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: Some material is going to have to come from these sites. Perhaps Herostratus' project can help us reach a concensus on which ones are notable and long-lasting enough to deserve use. --DanielCD 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information also because it is already presented in the first paragraph. This was just a duplication, I don't see where the fire is. Lotusduck 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fire? What fire? Just commenting; no fire on my part. --DanielCD 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I have removed this "However, it is recognized that before society can come to see the potential benefits of intergenerational intimacy, the use of the term "child sexual abuse" would first have to be limited to behavior meeting a strict definition of abuse (i.e., behavior that is demonstrably harmful)."

The article goes straight from a description of a paper to a vague "it is said" type statment. Many papers are listed as discussing redefining CSA. If this paper does as well, then we can say that it does. But as it is, this statement just says that some undefined people react this way to that paper. No good. Lotusduck 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm removing the following:

''There have been varying degrees of pedophile activism since the 1970s that can be traced to the social changes that occurred during both the 1960s and 70s. Encouraged by the increased tolerance for minorities and alternative lifestyles, underground pedophile groups began to go public in an effort to garner greater social acceptance (Schuijer, 1990). ''

The references do not contain a Schuijer. Furthermore, the next sentace basically says the same thing as this one does, so I think it's perfectly acceptable to not look for this reference but instead just leave this redundant paragraph out. Lotusduck 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Impacts..., The controversy... and Other Psychology... sections
I propose replacing these three sections with three sentences:


 * Research exists that supports the theory that not all sexual contact between adults and children is harmful. For example, in 1998, the American Psychological Association published a meta-analysis of studies of the correlation between sex abuse in childhood and the later stability of the child's adult psyche. The authors of the analysis found little correlation. [7]

Joey Q. McCartney 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would we want to something so blatantly stupid? Posts like this is borderline trolling as far as I'm concerned. --DanielCD 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarification: My meaning here is that just stopping by and asking to slash material isn't productive to those of us who would like some real constructive criticism. It feels like someone with an over-rightious attitude is calling us "stupid", and hence attracted a sharp response. However, as I see it, the problem is being remedied. --DanielCD 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I've read many of your posts and respect your work here. I am a newbie at Wikipedia (though not at editing), but I have been trying to follow the guidelines. It's a big article and big history, and perhaps I need to spend more time lurking before trying to contribute. Also, perhaps my suggested edit involves too much cutting of the article. But it was not my intent to troll or suggest anything inappropriate. Thanks for your patience. Joey Q. McCartney 06:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC).


 * It does seem to me that detailed descriptions of research on pedophilia would belong, if anywhere, in the Pedophilia article. An article on Pedophile Activism, however, I think should include detailed descriptions of pedophile activists and groups and of their beliefs and goals, along with a simple statement that some research at least arguably supports their beliefs, and a link to the Pedophilia article, where all the scientific research should at least be cited, if not fully described. That puts things in their proper article and keeps the articles from being too redundant of each other. It's nothing personal, and again, I hope I'm not suggesting anything way out of line. I admit it's bold. Joey Q. McCartney 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry about all the backslashes. I don't yet know what causes them. Joey Q. McCartney 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Heading ambiguity
In the heading "Impacts of scientific papers on pedophilia advocacy," what is "on pedophilia advocacy" modifying--Impacts or papers? Assuming that it's modifying impacts, we could remove the ambiguity and preserve the meaning by changing it to "Scientific papers' impacts on pedophilia advocacy." Or if it's modifying papers, then we could say "Impacts of Scientific papers regarding pedophilia advocacy."

Also, since the title was changed to Pedophile Activism, should that change be reflected in this heading also? I would think so, but as a newcomer I'm thinking I should tread lightly. THanks. Joey Q. McCartney 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is important. The papers are used by pedophile activists. I don't think that this info belongs on the pedophilia article, the Dr. Laura debacle, the posting of APA articles on NAMBLA's website- these are more related to this page, pedophiles and politics, than it has anything to do with defining pedophilia. Lotusduck 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that that comment is replying to the followiing, which is elsewhere on the page:


 * It does seem to me that detailed descriptions of research on pedophilia would belong, if anywhere, in the Pedophilia article. An article on Pedophile Activism, however, I think should include detailed descriptions of pedophile activists and groups and of their beliefs and goals, along with a simple statement that some research at least arguably supports their beliefs, and a link to the Pedophilia article, where all the scientific research should at least be cited, if not fully described. That puts things in their proper article and keeps the articles from being too redundant of each other. It's nothing personal, and again, I hope I'm not suggesting anything way out of line. I admit it's bold. Joey Q. McCartney 08:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Lotusduck: the Dr. Laura debacle and posting of APA articles do belong in P. Activism. The question is, in how many places should we go into detail about what the underlying scientific papers actually say? I would think we'd do so in one article and then link other articles to that one. So which article should have the text and which should have the link? I think the P. article should have the text, but it may be too soon to make that call. I'm ok with dropping the subject for now. Take care. JM Joey Q. McCartney 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * THanks, Lotusduck, but I think you must be referring to a comment I made elsewhere on the page. I think I know what you're talking about, but I'd rather not address it under this unrelated heading. Cheers. JM. Joey Q. McCartney 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A very nice bibliography
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/BIBLIO7.HTM Some of these look very interesting, and would be especially good for adding more critical views of the childlove movement. 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete this external link?
 * Corrupted Justice, opposing the vigilantes at perverted justice.com, because vigilantes only hinder justice
 * If PJ is anti-pedophilia, then an anti-anti-stie would seem to be a pro-pedophila site. -Will Beback 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, WBB did you just reply to yourself? Anyway, I don't think being anti-vigilant means you're pro-pedophile. Furthermore, I'd say the issue is being pro-child-molester rather than pro-pedophile, since there's nothing wrong with being a pedophile as long as you do not influence children with it (as the people are doing so over the internet). An organization like PJ definately needs a whistleblower, as would any vigilante. CJ, an antithesis, will be listed Tyciol 09:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it does not have anything to do with the childlove movement. And, no, an anti-anti site is in no way automatically pro. If an organization is using an absolutely idiotic methodology to catch predators, and some site pops up and says they're using an an absolutely idiotic methodology to catch predators, that's not pro-predator (or pro-pedophile). --Paroxysm


 * Please explain your deletions in the future. Thanks, -Will Beback 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite I did of the first several sections of this article
In order to stimulate some ideas for this article, I invite everyone to view this page. Also, if you go to that page's history and click on "last" next to the edit I made at 01:06 today, it should show a side-by-side comparison of the actual, current Pedophile Activism and my rewrite (or the first few sections of both, anyway).

My efforts may not be any better than the current article. Heck, they may be a lot worse. But I wanted to try, and to let others see. I felt like, if I'm going to experiment with major edits on such a controversial topic, I'd better not do it on the article itself! Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Before I even read your edits, I'd just like to compliment you on the idea. I wish more people would do this for massive re-writes, they'd be a lot less confusing and people could get a chance to see all the changes. It's hard to check and revert rewrites before more changes start getting added on top, after all. Now I'll have a look... okay I looked at the difference between the first one in your history and the latest, a definate drastic improvement. Good job! It's good to see more psychology involved. Tyciol 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia
You may not find the positions that the Pedophile Activists put forth accurate, but this is not the place to debate them. If you wish to criticize the activism it belongs in a separate section, rather than peppering the factual presentation of the movement's goals with POV criticism. These people are unpopular and few share their views, but that does not merit a different standard in the article. Tomyumgoong 08:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the place where all viewpoints on the matter should be covered, pro, con, or whatever. "Neutral point of view" means giving all POV without showing bias for or against them. It is a common practice to rebut assertions as they are made. A criticism section is another way of handling it. But deleting sourced criticism is not appropriate. -Will Beback 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and the Ubiquitous "Criticisms" Subsections
I've been critical of the achievability of Wikipedia's "NPOV" policy for some time. Because no article can ever include all the information pertaining to a certain subject, every article will be the product of the selective inclusion and exclusion of factual material. The choice of which facts to include, which to omit, and the different degrees of elaboration of the various included facts inevitably create a filtered way of viewing reality, a view that is unmistakably tained by bias.

These pedophile-related articles provide the best examples. Presumably, they have all been vetted of factually incorrect information. However, because the vast majority of wikipedia editors are virulently opposed to the idea of pedophilia, every factual pedophile article contains a lengthy and detailed digression breaking down various "criticisms" that are nothing more than factual reports of people's opinions of the article's facts. Because these opinions are included as attributions to others, they are technically "factual," but only insomuch as they factually state somebody's opinion. The inclusion of these factual reports of opinions then triggers those with different opinions to play the same game. They go out and fish for opinions of other "sources" which they can then attribute as a response. The consequence of this cycle is that wikipedia articles dealing with highly controversial issues begin to morph into repositories of opinions, little forums where a person can engage in proxy debate by finding and citing others whose opinions are similar to his or her own.

What suffers is the important content -- the verifiably factual content for which a consensus exists. Instead of constituting the bulk of the articles, the factual content ends up submerged into a swamp of murky and highly unencylopedic proxy debate. This highly unfortunate practice should be remedied, perhaps by creating separate articles (titled something like "the pedophile controversy" or "the abortion controversy") where various opinions of people can be cited in a back-and-forth, tit-for-tat fashion. Those who disagree should perhaps explain why Pedophile activism and NAMBLA both have "criticisms" sections consisting of several paragraphs each, while Republican Party (United States) has no such section.

I understand that everybody harbors strong opinions about certain issues, especially when those issues touch upon the safety and happiness of young people. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, not a political, religious or ethical debate forum. It should make every effort to disentangle itself from the world of speculation and opinions, no matter how many sources express those opinions, and to stick to the world of undisputed fact. Corax 06:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Still totally disputed
Several of the problems that led to the totally disputed label remain. No one has calimed that they have been fixed. Rather, broad disputations on whether NPOV applies, or the duty to show the movement in context


 * The summary paragraph on responses to the movement has been whittled down to a stub, while the content has been dispersed. Many other articles repeat sentences in the body and the summary. A more balanced summary should be restored.
 * The Rind study discussion has no mention of the scientific and methodological criticisms of the study made by other researchers.
 * Several non-Rind studies are listed without refutation. However, the individual mainstream studies that contradict the movement have been deleted.
 * The level of detail in some sections -- in particular, proposed ethics -- amounts to original research.
 * The IPCE site is simply listed as "scholarly discussion". It has lots of verabim scientific studies, but it also states that its purpose is to further discussion of "emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults" -- not exactly NPOV.
 * Is the "Human Face of Pedophilia" really that prominent -- it is run by the author of this article I believe? No Google hits for "related:http://hfp.puellula.org/".

Corax, to your point about criticism: The Republican article is full of discussion about how the audience of the Republicans -- the electorate -- have reacted to their positions and actions. It is not a simple statement of the Republican platform. Same here, there is no way to present the movement fairly without explaining it's context, successes and failures, and mainstream response. An article that simply reports the movement's platform is inappropriate here as it would be on any other movement. That said, while I think it is sufficient to couch all of the 'criticisms' as the reaction to the movement, if you don't buy that reasoning, I do think there is more required here. Like in Flat Earth articles, our duty to explain that a scientific viewpoint is well outside of the mainstream is important to a fair article. Some of the movement's positions, such as delisting paraphilias, are part of the mainstream scientific debate. Other positions, such as hypothetical constructs of pre-adolescent informed consent, are not in the mainstream and should be stated as such. Similarly, while some mainstream scientists support changing the DSM, few in the mainstream then extrapolate that change to alter anti-CSA laws such as age-of-consent, so the article should be crystal clear about that.

Again, I don't have time to do this single-handledly. I did manage to fix a couple of the outright bad-faith quotations. But this article, from a balance and quality standpoint is in bad shape. If we just reverted to last August or July, it would be progress.

148.87.1.172 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I take it back. Bad-faith edits are still occurring. The article quotes Moser and Kleinplatz (2003). The article used to explain that, while the authors propose delisting paraphilias, they have explicitly stated that they do not support the movement's push to turn delisting into legalization. But now the sentence that describes the authors' response to the movement's claims has been deleted from this article. This explicitly takes their position out-of-context. The original sentence:
 * However, in the only section of the paper dealing with pedophilia, they write that "our suggestion to remove the paraphilias, which includes pedophilia, from the DSM does not mean that sexual acts with children are not crimes. . . Any interpretation of our work as supporting adult-child sexual interactions is misguided and wrong."

148.87.1.172 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I admire your naivete, I must still refer you back to what I said earlier about there being no such thing as an unbiased encyclopedia article or history text. Every article and every text will leave out certain related facts and include others, creating a biased and filtered view of reality.  What you choose to include as a success, failure, and contextual fact will never coencide with reality.  Wikipedia's "NPOV" policy is nothing more than an attempt to pretend that an article is "neutral" or "objective" when it really is neither, but only reinforces the dominant ideology of the editors in the community (what you call "the mainstream").  However, just because an article reinforces a dominant ideology does not mean that it is the truth.


 * I'm perfectly okay with "criticisms" being included; what I am not okay with is when the criticisms portion of the article becomes so detailed and exhaustive that it ends up composing the majority of the article -- which then creates the absurd spectacle of an encyclopedia article concerning itself more with opinions of facts than on the facts themselves. Corax 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "In 1999 Congress unanimously passed a bill stating that "children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God" and that the study was "severely flawed", although it did not cite any specific errors.


 * They said that the study was severely flawed, although they did not cite any specific errors.  LOL; that just about says it all.


 * A victory for right-wing religious conservatives over science. Ya-hoo! The Rind paper outlawed simply because their own system of morality contradicts scientific results. Brilliant.

NOT EVEN TO BE DISCUSSED
An encyclopedia should be allowed to show any article whatsoever. Nobody can say whats wrong or write since its not directly harmfull. Since its just information, not tending to one side or another , it must be able to relate anything. Its up to each one to have any reasons or views about the life, since its harmless and up to the point of view or culture one assumes.

Trying to say what to do, to any living being , is simply an imature discrimination.

Lets try to accuse murderers, thieves , corruption and not to push somebodys life to and absurd point of view. Everybody is free to think. Why is the human-being so selfish to the point if tries to say whats imoral or not. There is no imoral or moral. All individuals should be free and taught about the consequenses of their acts. Thus they should choose what he wants to do.

Albert Johnstone, Colorado Springs


 * Do you feel there is a point of view that is being suppressed in this article? Pais 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhm, what part of the article are you addressing, Albert? Hmmm "There is no imoral or moral"... in that case, you don't mind if I help myself to your stereo system? Thx! Herostratus 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)