Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 15

This is messed up...
See, Wikipedia thinks the only articles that are neutral when talking about controversial issues, are the ones written by the ones on the hated side. In this case, an article written by pedos. ForestAngel 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As already discussed, Wikipedia actually blocks pedophiles, pedophile sympathisers and suspected pedophiles from editing any articles. Would you call this article biased? If so, in what way is it? Samantha Pignez  07:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Forest, we dont all think that, but its an uphill struggle. Wikipedia blocks self identifying pedophiles it doesnt block people fopr making pro pedophilia edits, SqueakBox 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where can I find the policy about blocking pedophiles? Martijn Hoekstra 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to write to the arbcom. Drop an email to Fred or another emmber of the arbcom as this policy is not openly stated anywhere but based on a behind the scenes arbcom case, SqueakBox 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific ArbCom case I could have a look at concerning these decissions? Martijn Hoekstra 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledage there isnt such an available case, its all been done behind the scenes, for reasons that appear reasonable to me; ie I dont think self identifying as a pedophile, by which I mean someone who says "I am a pedophile" on their user page, is acceptable and as far as I know nobody has ever been blocked for what one could call pro pedophile activist edits to the main space. There is a long discussion in one of Jimbo Wales archive talk pages that could shed some light on the issue, SqueakBox 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I read some discussion on Jimbos talk page archives, which at least shed enough light on it to show it is a controversial issue, with a lot of discussion around it. I'll see if the questions I have regarding it can be cleared up through email. At any rate this is not the place for a long discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well feel free to mail me or drop a note on my talk page if you want further clarification, SqueakBox 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord could someone edit this becose this is not neutral,but pro-phedophilic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh! I asked for unprotection as you were writing the comment. great minds and all that....and we have the totally disputed tag because it isnt neutral. While I fear the banned users who think it is neutral will crawl back out of the woodwork if it is unprotected that is no reason not to unprotect, SqueakBox 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection #1
Right I applied for Page protection to be unlocked. it was declined with the following explanation


 * This article had to be protected twice last month due to edit warring. Looks like edit warring just resumed once the protection wore off last time so it seems likely that will happen again. Discussion on the talkpage seems needed so that a consensus can be reached before unprotection - perhaps avenues of dispute resolution could be explored. WjBscribe 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What will it take for us all to be inagreement? Do we need dispute resolution. Your comments are urgently required, all of you, SqueakBox 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of people including myself seem to think that the current state of the articles (barring the size of the now growing anti pedophile article, etc) is fine; fair and balanced. Others, I'm less sure about. Others including yourself and two now banned editors, unlike the majority of recent voters, seem to be constantly in disagreement with the mere existence of some of these articles. It is very hard to defend what is clearly a neutral article against people who think that it is an abomination that the issue concerned even be discussed. And I don't think that anyone is going to change their minds anytime soon.  ● F arenhorst   15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything productive happening between now and two weeks time that will improve the fortune of this article. I think that it should be unlocked. Samantha Pignez 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Sam. Farenhorst has also been indefinitely banned now and Mike D78 hasnt been around for 2 weeks so I think an unlocking would be entirely appropriate, SqueakBox 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think my inability to spend as much time at Wikipedia as of late is going to enable you to carry out your typically disruptive and out-of-process edits on this topic, then think again, Squeak. Mike D78 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I have applied for unprotection. Given I dont make disruptive or out-of-processe edits I am somewhat bafled by your comments but will point out that consensus never includes indefinitely blocked users, and the possibility of any new editors being socks is a real possibility given the problems this article has had and continues to have, SqueakBox 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Given I dont make disruptive or out-of-processe edits"
 * I think several fairly objective observers have pointed out that this is not the case. Mike D78 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized draft
A few editors are already aware of this, but I have been working on a draft version of this article for sometime now. I initially intended to enlist the help of a few other editors in working on this draft before I presented it to everyone else, but few others have seemed to have the time to do much with it, so I'm going to go ahead and seek everyone else's opinions.

This draft reorganizes the information in the article in a few places, the most significant change being the merging of the currently seperate claims and scientific views sections. This draft at this time is a bit longer than the current article; I added some more sources that I thought were of relevance, with the intention that others could help me make everything more concise (I have trouble doing this).

While we are discussing the future direction for this article after it is unlocked, I hope everyone will consider the substantial amount of work I have put into this draft. I believe the reorganization of information, as proposed by another editor, really improves this article, and I hope that others can help in fixing any problems some editors might have with this draft. Feel free to edit as you wish on this draft, as I have another copy saved elsewhere. Just try to make sure that all edits are constructive and keep the general ideas expressed in the article intact. Mike D78 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The draft is fine. It's just that I don't know what else can be done to improve this article without going against consensus.  ● F arenhorst   16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

obsession causes uselessness
Reading the original - now blocked - article and all the discussion it provoked I can only conclude that the incredible obsessiveness to this subject which started in the USA and now seems to have spread worldwide makes any kind of normal objective description impossible.

People tend to forget that through the centuries sexuality tended to be linked to the process of maturity, or better said, being of child bearing age. This is/was still true in lots of cultures that aren't linked to our western civilization. Let's remember that Marie-Antoinette was 13 years of age when she married; this was quite normal for those days and it's not a very long time ago. Nowadays in many western countries kids have their first intercourse  at age 14 or 15 even though we, their parents, would have preferred it to be different.

If we were capable of separating pedophilia more clearly from hebephilia, I think many of the senseless discussions would stop. For now I would suggest an honest but simple and factual description of the points of iew of those who violently oppose the existence of this phenomenon (in as much as you can oppose something that seems inbred in some people, similar to homosexuality and a lot more diversions) and those who feel that these sexual preferences have a right to exist.

In any case the topic should be concise and objective. If you make a total mess out of it that lastst many ages, only those who are totally obsessed with this topic themselves would take the time to read it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.42.204 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GLogo.png
Image:GLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One rule for yourself
Scenario:

Editor 1 has made a number of changes to the article after unprotection.

Editor 2 reverts a couple, accepts a couple and tweaks a couple, providing detailed explanations.

Editor 1 reverts the whole lot in one go, using only a hominem argument.

Editor 2 reverts this, asking for a better justification.

Editor 1 reverts yet again, and accuses Editor 2 of edit warring (apparently another unjustified revert is just what the doctor ordered).

To me, this all stinks. I hope it does to others as well. I might provide further justifications for my editing, if I have the time. But for now, I'll let the opening paragraph speak for itself, much like Nancy Grace. 86.150.128.67 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that your explanation for why your reverted my changes? which werere good changes. And whose sockpuppet are you? I predicted some socks of banned users would return the moment the article was unlocked and it appears I am right, SqueakBox 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you attacking me with superstition? It's my edits that you disagree with, right? 86.150.128.67 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Superstition? I beg your pardon? What has superstition got to do with anything. The sockpuppet suspicion is reasonable because it is a constant pattern on this article of previously banned users returning. You are in the same location with the same ISP as 86.131.37.130 and that ISP changes their static ip addresses every few months or so, so likely they have just given you a new IP. And that IP is associated with Farenhorst and other indefinitely blocked users. And your edit patterns, trying to keep the article POV in a way that sheds pro-pedophile activists in a good light, is the same pattern.


 * In the opening I have tried to make it more balanced, ie describing PPA's in a way that fits common usage and how society as a whole perceieves them and the broader issues. I am unhappy to see the admittedly youthful photo of Bernard in this article because of BLP, as he is a pedophile and they can be the subject of hate attacks in the real world, and we dont out people here, it should be in his bio and isn't needed here. I feel to put the criticism right at the bottom is to put it out of the way and NPOV demands that it have a more significant place in the article, SqueakBox 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if most people hold that 'pro-pedophile activism' exists only to break down the barriers preventing child sexual abuse, stating their position as fact still violates our NPOV policy - though you're welcome to point out that it's the majority POV (provided you can find a source that meets the relevant WP:RS guideline: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources..") Please explain how and why you wish to change this article here, on the talk page, so we can discuss it. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that is another sock, he was aiding Farenhorst on CSA before. It seems this article merely has to be unlocked and for anyone to come and try to striaghten out the POV issues even a bit and the socks come out of the woodwork, this is a highly predictable, highly repetitive and extremely disruptive pattern by people who are SPAs, ie they care about the articles and their POV re these articles and not at all about the project, hence the continuing and repeated use of abusive socks, SqueakBox 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet or an SPA, and I don't recall aiding Farenhorst on Child sexual abuse. This page is on my watchlist. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we get an admin to move this to the talk page of the respective authors? This is really quite disruptive. 86.150.128.67 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * British Telecom is a very popular ISP. You may have noticed that another such IP was used to revert against the NPOV policy on this article! And regardless, this is superstition, as opposed to constructive criticism. If you have a complaint about an editor, please take it elsewhere - not on the discussion page of an article.


 * You should not be seeking to represent lay opinion. We should not make the article reflect public consensus by way of tone, but rather its content. The content itself should be discussed objectively, i.e. none of the rubbish about sexual predation and falling into the hands of pedophiles, etc.


 * Frits Bernard is dead. 86.150.128.67 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Call for Discussion
Unless the goal is to get this article indef protected again, editors really need to discuss significant changes before making them. We all know how heated debates about this controversial topic can get, especially here on Wikipedia. Making radical edits to the intro and throughout the article is not a good way to proceed, when we all know what happened last time people kept edit warring. This is my call for everyone to openly communicate their concerns and ideas about this article. I'm sure together we can come up with a reasonable approach to editing this article. If anyone has constructive ideas, please voice them on this Talk Page first. The only way we can avoid edit warring is if we clearly present the issues and collaboratively work towards improving this article. ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I really don't want to get into an edit war myself, I feel obligated to undo unconstructive and/or POV-permeated edits. Such edits do not add to the quality of the article, and only seek to advance a single point of view. What's more, it is obvious that some of them are made with full knowledge of their bias and the reaction that they would ensue from certain other editors. This is why I have undid one such edit already, and will likely undo several others. If you believe my undoing of any particular edit is unjustified, please feel free to discuss the matter on this Talk Page. I really do think we're capable of coming to a reasonable consensus on how to proceed in editing this article. Sincerely yours, ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse your edits. 86.150.128.67 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure you do but we have to create a neutral article and ensure that no banned users edit here. Reverting to the editors of banned users is evidence of meat-puppetry and those who are trying to promote a pro-pedophile agenda within the article need to read NPOV and stay with it. We simply cannot have socks creagting a pro-pedophile agenda article and no established editor should be supporting that. NPOV means all viewpoints are reflected and yet the pro-pedophile agenda folk are insisting that only the pro-pedophile view is mentioned. This is a violation of NPOV. I also note that while I am bringing my reasons for editing here those who opopose myu edits do not bvring any arguments here, SqueakBox 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was me who edited late last night but forgot to log in but comparing the disputed versions I fully endorse Squeak's edits in this case. The article is very one-sided and while I don't really understand all this stuff about sockpuppets (ahh it means a user with 2 accounts, okay) I do think we should stay with Squeak's version. After all this is not a boy or girl chat site but an encyclopaedia and I certainly think that while the article is about so-called pro paedophilia activism that doesn't mean it has to be a pro paedophile article.Pol64 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These are not reasons. They are dirty, unfounded accusations that do not belong here. There are endless facilities for you to make complaints about editors. If you believe them to be of any merit at all, please pursue them down such avenues. 86.150.128.67 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, tens of socks have been blocked for editing this article already. Thus my assumption is reasonable and your defence unreasonable. Sure if this article had never suffered sock attacks it would be different but this article is no different from any other that suffers multiple ongoing sock attacks, and then when others come repeating the same old patterns as the socks...well its a reasonable conclusion and I do not have to pursue other avenues every time a banned user creates another sock, that would be an entirely unreasonable expectation to put on any user, the burden is on you to prove your innocence, SqueakBox 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Excuse me, tens of socks have been blocked for editing this article already."
 * Did DPeterson have that many sockpuppet accounts? :-) Mike D78 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having just spent half an hour reading and checking up on this page I see that there have been many users who were here and who have been indefinitely banned by wikipedia, presumably for their editing in the way that they do. This anonymous user seems to be pushing a point of view that glamorizes paedopohiles and, worse, makes them out to be the victims whereas they are in fact perpetrators of many horrendous crimes. The fact that others are so willing to join in does, I agree, look extremely suspicious.Pol64 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is the case that tens have been banned (which I very much doubt), it does not justify you defaming me in your edit summarys (note: you assume that I am a banned editor). In effect, you are using a history (be it revised or not) to outright condemn to insignificance anyone who has a certain attitude towards editing an article, which is grossly unfair. I'm also sure that you could apply such logic to disruptive "pedo killer" vandals and editors, and those who have socked (Such as DPeterson). As for me having to prove my innocence, that's just insane. I have done nothing wrong, and you have all the tools at your disposal to prove me guilty if you see it as possible and so wish. 86.150.128.67 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also your extensive knowledge of wikipedia (even down to DPetersen alleged socks) as pointed out by an admin on your user talk page and actually your claim that the asssumption is unfaitr given your editing andf your editing pattern fails to understand the burden of proof needed in such a sock case where enedless socks, many of whom sound just like you, have been banned while editing with the same pattern you are editing with. It is you who are being unfair by not accepting your ban by not returning to edit these articles on wikipedia ever again, and that is completely unfair for the honest editors here, SqueakBox 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if editors are going to revert edits they find questionable, be their course of action justified or not, there is no reason to blindly revert everything another editor has contributed to the article. Why have numerous legitimate and non-controversial edits, such as the ones correcting poor grammar, those dealing with a site that is no longer operational, and those placing the outside links in alphabetical order, have been reverted without justification? Please be careful what you revert, and provide reasoning to each and every reversion. I'm more than happy to discuss points presented by all sides, but I do not feel it is appropriate for editors to revert edits simply because they're made by a certain editor, especially when it's pretty obvious that these edits are constructive and non-controversial. The instances I named are just a few of the many useful edits that have been reverted. Others include the addition of a "citation needed" tag and various stylistical edits, all of which have also been reverted without justification. If such blatant disregard for the work of others does not stop, this situation will be reported to an admin. If disruptive reversion of edits does not stop and edit warring continues, admin intervention may very well result in yet another indef protection of this article. This is the last warning that editors engaged in such action will get. Please justify any and all significant edits and reversions. Let's actually make some headway here, instead of taking one step forward then two steps back. ~ Homologeo 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We are duty bound to remove all edits by banned users and if you want good editsd to remain and yet are removing gopod edits with no justification, well you arent being logical or reasonable. The opening is fine as it is now awhereas before it was a pro-ped POV mess. NPOV means we also incorpiorate criticisms of pro-peds and this sate of affairs where banned users and theuir supporters keep teh artiocle free of any criticisms of the pro-ped movements simply cannot last, SqueakBox 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "We are duty bound to remove all the edits ever done by people my project has gotten indefinately blocked and if you don't think my edits are the only good edits, well you arent being logical or reasonable. My project thinks the opening's POV is fine as it is now. NPOV means we incorporatate criticisms of pro-peds and this state of affairs where paedophiles get to edit the article in defense of pro-ped movements simply cannot last. Ban them all."
 * There, fixed. Now, the point I'm making:  Just like the NAMBLA article I just read the talk page on, the intro is supposed to be especially NPOV.  Calling organizations "defunct" and pointing out "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular." strikes me as, substanciated or not, VERY POV.  Save it for the criticisms section, and no independent research, find a source and reference it, it shouldn't be hard to do.  Also, ". . . activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors. . ." That's not the point, they want sexual relations accepted.  If you think sexual attraction to minors is strictly a paedophile thing, then look at an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue some time, or at the recent story about Australia's 13-y.o. runway model.  Now do everyone a favor and put away the torches and pitchforks.  75.9.210.253 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for your protectiont hreats, you are not an admin nor can you guarantee that iif it is relocked it will be to your version and your indef lock comments after edit warring strike me as trolling and very similar to those of banned user Farenhorst (ie youy appear to be a meatpuppet). The hypocrisy in telling me to be careful what to revert when you and your buddies revert every attempt by myself and others to NPOV this article shows an appaslling a[pplication of bad faith when you know full well I am not a banned user. Wikipedia does not support the dedits of banned users over those of regualr users, however much you wish that were so and I advise you to take your own advice and stiop reverting every single edit I ever make to this article. That is a blatant disregard for the effots of others and you are doing it, claiming I have to justify rverting your trashing my good work but you fdont have to justify your own reverting, trashing my good work is palin silly. Your behaviour wont result in indefinite locking but in an arbcom case which, on La Rouch precedent, would likely result in the baning odf pro-ped POV pushing, SqueakBox 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, please justify claims before making them. I have not reverted all edits by you (as you claim), and please do not pretend that is the case. I made individual reverts of edits that were either unconstructive or POV-permeated, justifying each action in the edit summary. Your constructive edits remained intact - please feel free to check the article History. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly reverted all edits made by several editors, including edits that were non-controversial. How is correcting the misspelling of the word "pedophilia" (or "paedophilia") a disruptive edit? Likewise, why have various useful stylistic edits been reverted without justification? On the same note, if a site is shut down, like Ashford's is right now, why revert an edit that removes the reference to it? Plus, it seems appropriate to place a "citation needed" tag on a paragraph that lacks citation. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the edits of yours and of others that I did revert, please actually look at the edit summaries before claiming that my actions were unjustified or POV-based. For instance, an article dealing with pro-pedophile activism should not be going into an explanation of what anti-pedophile activism entails, especially not in the intro. It is reasonable to provide the name of the main opposing movement and a wikilink to the appropriate article - information that has long been present in the intro - but going into detail should be saved for the actual article dealing with that particular subject. This is why that particular edit was reverted. Likewise, stating in numerous places that deal with the perspectives of pro-pedophile activists that the movement aims to "abuse" children and engage in other illegal and/or morally-corupt actions is folly at best. Where have you seen activists who advocate perspectives contrary to their own views? It makes total sense to state that the majority of the public, most politicians, and the bulk of the medical community disagree with the goals and ideals of pro-pedophile activists. It is also quite appropriate to point out the flaws that these groups see within the pro-pedophile activist world view. However, all of this is already covered briefly at the end of the intro, and then in full in the Criticism section. On the other hand, blatantly disregarding the viewpoints presented by the movement that is the focus of this actual article and rephrasing its objectives and viewpoints with a clear negative connotation is quite unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Statements of any particular group should be identified as such, be it the pro-pedophile activist movement or the majority of the medical community. Stating something as inherently true, despite evidence that contrary opinions exist is not what Wikipedia is about, especially in cases of articles that deal with the minority opinion in question. This is the logic that I seek to follow when editing this controversial article, and this is why I felt obligated to revert edits that did not uphold the Wikipedia standard of NPOV. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, to address your persistent weariness that puppets (be they sock or meat) are ever-present and out on the prowl, I have to remind you that groundless accusations don't carry weight in Wikipedia. I am an established editor, and always aim to maintain NPOV when editing articles, especially those of such controversial nature. Please do not accuse me of being a puppet, unless you have legitimate reason to do so. If you honestly believe I am a puppet, please follow the appropriate Wikipedia means for investigating the matter further. I do not take kindly to groundless accusations being thrown my way. I thank you in advance for refraining from further incivility of this sort. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, you seem to have misread my comments above. Never did I claim that I am an admin, nor did I ever assert that this article will indeed be indef protected. My only assertion was that, if admin intervention was once again requested and deemed appropriate, judging from what has happened in the past (on at least a couple of occasions), protection could very likely be the solution that will be pursued. The reason why I mention this possible outcome to admin intervention is that indef protection of an article stops constructive contribution from established and new editors alike. No headway can be made, and controversial articles such as this one freeze in time and cannot be improved. In my personal opinion, there's always room for improvement, and this article definitely has a long way to go - this is evident from the reactions that the current version is getting from a great range of Wikipedia editors and users. Lastly, I think many would agree that I have been pretty patient in notifying an admin of what is happening within this article. An edit war is never constructive, and evidence of POV-pushing (from whatever standpoint one takes) deserves careful investigation. A warning has been given and editors provided with an opportunity to change their behavior. Since it's obvious that the edit war continues to persist, I will be shortly reporting this matter to an admin. Hopefully admin input will set this article on the right course to constructive improvement. Sincerely yours, ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Homologeo, I was never under any illusions that you are an admin, and indeed that is the best way to be, IMO. When I checked the edits since POl64 edited it wes just a revert of everuy edit I made and I couldnt see anything else. To see all my edits reverted like that is not really acceptable especially as I am trying to get to a piont where the tags can be removed. Why are you removing any criticisms i add of the pro-ped movement, I dopnt remove any praises of them, and the openiong in your version isd tghe most blatant POV it has been my misfortune to see on wikipedia. Why do you revert to it. That is what I mean by meatpuppet but I dont think you are a sock though there are cleasrly 2 sock swroking the article right now. Making an admin report abvout edit warring in which you are engaged is probably not a good idea, and that is why I imagine you are not doing so, neither you or I are impartial here, and any admin will see thaty. I would suggest mediation cabal dipute resolution os the way to go, going to an admin and saying "help me, i am in an edit war" is not a solution, especially givent eh banned users involved. Some would argue that reverting to or supporting the edits of a banned user should be a bloackeable offence  though i dont [particularly agree with that, SqueakBox 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, I am happy to be finally conversing in a contructive manner. It is fortunate that we are both simultaneously online at the moment. This way, maybe we can figure some stuff out. I will not be able to stay online for too long, but am happy to voice my concerns and respond to any of yours while I'm here. So, let's get to it! ~ Homologeo 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Child grooming
While my link to this article remained in the revert there was a claim that it doesnt happen on the internet, a strange claim as most grooming occurs in the interent. can whoever is clainming that please bring their sources and arguments here, SqueakBox 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no such claim. Please look at the reverted edit. 86.150.128.67 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

gay rights
the claim that there are allies to PPA or were int he gay rights movement needs sourcing. This issue has proven controversial in other articles, though, SqueakBox 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? The reference was to NAMbLA. NAMbLA started off as a gay rights campaign, and was a member of gay umbrella groups up until the schism of the late 80s/early 90s. This should be basic knowledge for anyone who has edited the article as long as you have. The fact that you want something so plainly obvious sourced suggests that you have a revisionist agenda. 86.150.128.67 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, SB, you should STOP removing stuff that you disagree with. Tag it as per your comment above. This will allow someone (ideally yourself) to find the obvious link to IPCE or other historical reference to ILGA members. 86.150.128.67 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Sexual Liberation in the Eighties / Paragraph on the Impact of the AIDS Epidemic on Pro-pedophile Activism
This is such a sweeping and profound claim with no basis in fact that it would need both multiple good sources and for the obverse to eb expressed for that paragraph to be restored. Somebody thinking so and that bneing one reliable source is unacceptable. Promiscuity rates down, people rejecting sexual liberation in large numbers, less teenage pregnancies et al might be acceptable, SqueakBox 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The following paragraph has been deleted from the article:


 * During the same time, public morals concerning sexual matters were affected by the discovery of HIV and AIDS, throwing into question the social changes wrought by the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. "Pedophile emancipation is no fun for me anymore. The virus has destroyed everything", wrote German activist Wolfgang Tomasek in 1988.
 * This is the reference that went with it:


 * This paragraph is not too wordy, and relays a legitimate sourced interpretation of the impact the AIDS and HIV epidemic had on pro-pedophile activism. Unless there's a reason why this information should not be in the article, I think we should put the paragraph back in, since it's quite pertinent to the subject at hand. ~ Homologeo 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just moved your section as I already opened a section on this. As is it states something ridiculous and supported by fact which is that the sexual liberation of the sixties after neasrly 2000 years was reverted in the eighties. This is patent nonsense and the paragraph must be re-written to stand. As I said above one source will not do for such a sweeping statement that violates common sense (AIDS encouraged condoms nopt chastity), SqueakBox 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops... didn't realize that we were talking about the same paragraph in different sections. Thank you for merging our comments into one section. I was actually about to inquire what you were talking about, when you merged the info. ~ Homologeo 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyways, onto the topic at hand - I personally am not well versed in the history and development of the sexual revolution, so I cannot contribute much in this respect. If you believe that this info is unfounded and poorly sourced, let's let the paragrapoh remain deleted, unless someone comes around who knows more about the subject and can provide evidence. ~ Homologeo 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The section would be uncontroversial if not for SB. It should be reintegrated as opinion as opposed to fact. 86.150.128.67 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Age of consent article
Why was this delinked? its an internal and highly releavnt article, SqueakBox 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the Age of Consent article was previously not linked (or delinked), it is currently wikilinked within the Activities section. Do you think there should be a wikilink to this article earlier in the text? If this is the case, this can easily be done. ~ Homologeo 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization of External Links
Could some editors weigh in on how the external links section should be organized. We previously had Pro and Anti sections, but these have just been combined into a single section. I personally think that having two sections, each dedicated to resources applicable to one position, would be the most effective method of relaying information people may be looking for. The thing is that, if we're to mix the links together, we have to be very careful in the link description, because users wouldn't want to end up on a site that they're not interested in or may be upset by. What does everyone think? ~ Homologeo 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This argument has happened before, it was now banned user Jim Burton who organised it inot the opposing sections but this is a violation of our NPOV policies and always a source of contention (we finally removed it from the cannabis article and it really helped). I think any links to PPA sites that users might not want to go to should be removed and if not then flagged as such in the individual tags, SqueakBox 23:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether a banned editor brought up this argument before or not, why is it inappropriate to organize links according to their type? Mixing all the links together is only bound to confuse the reader. It's not like we're promoting any of the links by placing each in its appropriate group. Howbeit, if we're to keep the mixed format, an explanation will have to accompany each link, so that users would be able to know what the link leads to before clicking it. ~ Homologeo 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Homo is correct. I find the idea that organising links into sections is inherently POV to be most irrational, and probably a result of one editor's dislike of another. If we are to compromise with him, there must be full descriptions. As for deleting potentially offensive links, that just wont go. In case you forgot, we don't censor. 86.150.128.67 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of Sections
Which section should go before the other - "Scientific Claims" or "Criticism?" It seems to make more sense to put the scientific claims of the movement that is the focus of this article first, with criticism to follow. Generally, criticism goes after the detailing of the claims advanced by the movement in question. ~ Homologeo 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But NPOV demands a balanced article which is why the criticism section needs more prominence, as I expalined above, and buried at the bottom favours the PPA viewpoint in what is an already totally disputed article, SqueakBox 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The topic is indeed very controversial and the nature of this article has been disputed ad infinitum, but that is no reason to treat the article differently in terms of what section should go where. It does not seem logical to interupt a line of thought - in this case, the presentation of the movement's perspectives - and then to come back to it at the end of the text. Why should this article be treated differently from all other articles that have Criticism sections? ~ Homologeo 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Homo. Regardless, has SB never heard of the recency effect that would actually benefit the POV he is here to promote? 86.150.128.67 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto, what other articles have the criticisms before the science? I see this page's opposition page has it's criticisms shoved to the bottom.  And what's with all the weasel words in the Scientific Claims section?  "Attempt to debunk..." and "Some say..." reads like the talking point of a Fox News pundit.  Squeakbox, you can rip apart their arguments in the criticisms section... BELOW their claims, don't know why you wouldn't anyway.. oh wait, that's right why wait till the criticisms section to criticise.  So, as tempted to be WP:BOLD and fix it, I'll leave that to cooler heads.  75.16.108.53 09:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it would not make sense to criticize the idea before you know what the ideas are first. Yes, it is correct that articles always have criticisms at the end. Take for example self-help.--A 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Assertions Made in the Intro
SqueakBox, could you possibly address my concern over the edits you made to the intro? My comments can be found above. If you want, I can copy/paste them here. I mainly would like to inquire why the intro states that pro-pedophile activists aim to "abuse" children, among other things, when no pro-pedophile activist would ever openly advocate such goals. This is indeed how the goals of the movement are perceived by others - among them, politicians, the majority of the public, and the bulk of the medical community - but pro-pedophile activists themselves would certainly never make such claims. This simply wouldn't make sense. It is completely appropriate to include criticism within the intro, but it should always be identified as such. Assuming that any given position is inherently true is inappropriate and factually incorrect. As it happens, the existence of the pro-pedophile movement alone attests to just that. The following sentence is clearly biased towards one side, since no identification is given to the claim about abuse: "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children" (emphasis added). If at all possible, please review my other concerns above. I would very much appreciate a response. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the heart of the matter. If PPA's arent trying to abuse children (legally and with society's support) what are they trying to do? I respect that PPA's say they want to keep within the law and it is the law and society's attitudes that they want to change but they want to change them with the aim of what we would currently consider to be to abuse children sexually. And yeas, the fact that this is hjow PPA's are viewd by the great majority is why this edit should stand. Just because this is an article about PPA's does not mean we should only express the viewpoint of these folk, NPOV demands we also express the viewpoint of the politicians, medical community and genral public re PPA goals. If you want to suggest a change whereby we make it clear who thinks what that sounds good, ie that the majority think this but PA's themselves do not. I'll see what I can think up (but maybe not tonight as there is lots going on here where I am). And, hey, I am hapy to discuss these things point by point, SqueakBox 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "Neutral" is used for good reason. "Neutral" means that we disassociate ourselves from any point of view, as opposed to taking a stand in favour of what could be seen as the centre ground. As we are discussing child-adult sexual contacts in its philosophical and sociological as opposed to taxonomical or presently unitary-conceptual sense, it would be most certainly biased to state that PPAs want access to abuse children. That would be to say "it's wrong now, and will still be wrong if it is legalised". We do not make such judgements concerning other forms of legal advocacy, nor do we state that current jursdictions in which the age of consent is 12 or 13 are inductive to abuse. So why tar a future possibility with our present judgement in this most unencyclopedic of manners? 86.150.128.67 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope that it is not a future possibility, but your comments on the lack of neutrality are very correct. Perhaps a more neutral way to rephrase that lead would be "in order to allow adults to have sex with minors, an act which is considered child abuse in most nations." ...or something like that. Reading further I see "protect children from predatory pedophiles," which is also quite POV (I think it's the word "predatory" that does it there...). No need to color this article with POV on child abuse... I'm sure the readers can make up their own minds. Let's keep this encyclopedic. My two cents. WDavis1911 05:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-written the intro, paying close attention to the said requirement for impartiality. 86.150.128.67 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever redid the intro did a good job! Without changing the main points, I copy edited the text, with the goal of making the intro easier to read. In the process, I reworded some portions, removed repetition, simplified sentences, and corrected grammar. Hopefully, we're now on the right track to making this intro as encyclopedic - meaning easy to read and grasp - and NPOV as possible. I would appreciate any and all feedback you may have on the edits I made. ~ Homologeo 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess we're back to reverting each other. SqueakBox, could you please tell me what was wrong with the new intro? It seemed to incorporate neutral language, the main viewpoints expressed by pro-pedophile activists, a brief mention of anti-pedophile activism, and a summary of the dominant lines of criticism, including the public, medical and political attitudes towards pedophilia and the pro-pedophile movement. Is there something else that should have been included, or is the language used not up to par? Please share with us why you reverted the new intro. ~ Homologeo 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia and needs to read like one. To say outright that pedophiles abuse children is plainly POV, and I would even say it's on the verge of sensationalism.  Fighting for Justice 09:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line
I will keep this brief, because I'm short on time right now.

SqueakBox, you have no consensus to repeatedly insert the kind of blatantly POV language you are trying to push into the introduction of this article. Homologeo has pointed this out, 86.150.128.67 has pointed this out, FightingForJustice has pointed this out, WDavis1911 has pointed this out, and now I am pointing this out. So if this were to go to a procedural vote, the majority of users editing this page would be against the edits you are trying to push. In the spirit of cooperation, you and Pol64 need to quit reverting this edit and attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make here, so you can attempt to gain agreement beforehand. Your current actions are only provoking edit wars and are likely to eventually require admin intervention... again.

You have made your personal feelings about pedophile activists clear, and many people here agree with your stance. But we can't let our personal opinions regarding the subject of this article improperly influence how we handle an encyclopedic topic. Besides, as WDavis1911 said, readers are quite capable of making up their minds about this subject without the use of such highly-emotional language in the introduction. As I said in the summary of a previous edit, referring to these people as predatory abusers in the intro of this article is really no more proper or encyclopedic than referring to pro-choice activists as "baby killers" in the intro of the pro-choice article.

So, I'll repeat this again, in case you glossed over it the first time: a majority of editors here have calmly and intelligently expressed disapproval of these changes. So unless your aim is to simply stir up trouble and provoke arguments, you need to quit reverting this edit. Mike D78 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A majority of editors have not done anything. People who promote the crime of paedophilia are not welccome on wikipedia which is why so many of the editors have been removed. If you are a paedophile promoting your perversion on wikipedia you should be banned too. I have read the NPOV article and I agree with Squeak that we should be offering both the pro and the anti viewpoints on this article but you, sir, seeem to only want a viewpoint that promotes paedophilia and that is against the policies of wikipedia. The bottom line is that you are not an admin so do not have any special rights here and so to try and dictate how this article should be is overreaching yourself. Your claim that it is me and Squeak who are edit warring implies you and your followers are not, which would be laughable but I do not see anybody laughing. A majority of editors have not calmly and intelligently expressed anything and if you think your shrill hysteria is calm and intelligent, well go and tell it to a judge. You are the one being angry, disruptive and tyrying to promote a viewpoint that says "I have a right to abuse children and fuck you".Pol64 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pol64, please be civil in your discussion of this topic and the editors that contribute to the editing of the article. Some editors may not take kindly to the accusations you are throwing around. Mike D78 makes a valid point when stating that significant changes to the intro of such a controversial article should be discussed beforehand. The editors that he named as being opposed to the recent changes by SqueakBox and you have indeed expressed such viewpoints. Building a consensus is an established policy on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with articles such as this. Furthermore, numerous reasons have been provided on this Talk Page and in edit summaries as to exactly why the new edits to the intro are unconstructive and could be deemed POV. I personally have listed a number of concerns I have with the new intro. Up to this point, most of these concerns have gone unaddressed or have not been responded to directly. If you truly believe that the intro SqueakBox and you are promoting is the best and the most appropriate, please address the issues brought up by other editors on this Talk Page and in edit summaries. Also, please explain why the other intro that was recently proposed and added to the article - the one that aimed to strike a balance in both pro- and anti- stances and to utilize NPOV language - has been reverted and labeled as unworthy. I eagerly await your response, and look forward to the end of this persistent edit war. ~ Homologeo 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not an d cannot trump policy, ie a consensus to have a pro-ped articvle ignoring NPOV will not stand regardless of the alleged consensus. We work to policies and removing the other viewpoint is unacceptable to policy. Given the completely disputed tag etc I strongly disagree that any changes to the opening need to be consensualised, indeed I would say quite the oposite, that if we can get a good NPOV introduction then that should ber imposed on the article without any need for consensus or discussion until after the event as consensus does not ever trump NPOV, SqueakBox 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Squeak, that would be easy if "NPOV" were some perfectly objective standard with no potential for disagreement. But since one person unilaterally getting to decide what constitutes NPOV is clearly problematic, we have to be democratic about these things. So when you've got five different users telling you your edit is a problem, Squeak, you need to realize this is not a battle you're going to win. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Battle, Mike? This is not a war. And I am afraid 5 not very experienced users or 50 still wouldnt trump policy especially when there is a reasonable suspicion that some are the socks of banned users. We decide things based on our policies anmd our policies have been written to stop POV pushinmg. i am no0t a POV pusher on this subject which doesnt interest me and about which I do not have strong opinions. When you say it is a battle I am not going to win you sound like you believe the propaganda of the boy/girl chat sites who have stated very clearly that they will not accept NPOV for these articles and especially this one. You, bering an SPA, only have an interest in thios subject and an obvious agenda to push and you are sadly mistaken if you think the PPA POV will stand on wikipedia as it is contrary to policy, SqueakBox 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Battle, Mike? This is not a war.'
 * I wholeheartedly agree. You're the one that seems to think it is, though, with your bickering and your combative stance regarding this whole thing. I've tried to reach out to you several times and offered to work with you on these articles, but you seem completely disinterested in considering any criticism of your edits. You simply cannot consider that you might be wrong, and you always come up with some excuse to justify your actions, whether it be misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy or accusations that other users are sockpuppets or not as experienced as you. Mike D78 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually all you have ever done is wholesale revert my edits. We know there are many socks here, you can't deny that any more than i can, and Farenhorst and Samantah were just 2 in a long line. You think I show bad faith towards you but i have never requested a sock check on you and every user whom I have requested a sock check on editing this article or talk page has ended up being indefinitely blocked, not because I asked but because my intuition was right, I spotted the socks. And this is exhaustively disruptive, which is why i consider the extraordinary insensitivity of A.Z to be far worse than anything you have done here. We all have the right to edit in a peaceful, non-disruptive atmosphere, not just those whose viewpoint A.Z supports, as he states and appears to believe. I dont believe you can give one example of where I ahve misinterpreted policy. in terms of reaching out, my persuading you not to remove the bot-tagged image that you uploaded was entirely for your own benefit as that is the kind of thing that gets users banned. I very much want to create an article which all are happy with but more importantly one which follows POV. If the banned users were to stop launching sock attacks I believe it would greatly help improve the atmosphere here, its deteriorating into a troll magnet as the events earlier today proved, SqueakBox 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Actually all you have ever done is wholesale revert my edits."
 * Not so; there have been edits by you that I've had no problem with, and ones that I have. But I don't think you can portray me as being particularly vindictive toward you since your edits that I've disagreed with have always been disputed by a majority of other editors.
 * "Farenhorst and Samantah were just 2 in a long line."
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the given reason for these particular users being blocked was because they were socks. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any reason why they were blocked, but that seems to be the way that these sorts of things have been handled lately.
 * "You think I show bad faith towards you but i have never requested a sock check on you"
 * Are you ready to concede then, here and now, that I am not a sockpuppet, as you have accused me of ever since I got here? Or do you simply not request a sock check on me because you've preferred to hound me with these endless accusations without being forced to confront the truth that I'm not a sockpuppet, which is what I've told you from the beginning?
 * "i consider the extraordinary insensitivity of A.Z to be far worse than anything you have done here"
 * Sorry, but A.Z. is right on. You should clearly take the blame for edit warring when the edit you're reverting is disputed by a majority of users here. Moreover, your instances of unilaterally deleting and redirecting articles in the past have been even more serious, not to mention your namecalling and other repeated attacks against me.
 * "I dont believe you can give one example of where I ahve misinterpreted policy."
 * You're doing it right now if you continue to insist that the NOPV policy justifies you trying to force massive edits against the majority of other editors, then repeatedly edit warring over these disputed edits.
 * Again, I'm willing to reach out and cooperate with you, but you're going to have to fess up and admit that your conduct has been out of line in the past.
 * "If the banned users were to stop launching sock attacks I believe it would greatly help improve the atmosphere here"
 * Well, do you believe anyone who's editing here right now is a sock? If so, perhaps you'd find it more useful to go through the proper channels to resolve that, instead of repeatedly complaining about sockpuppets in order to justify yourself. Mike D78 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pol64, many users have been banned for their conduct related to these articles, including people who took stances similar to yours. If you don't believe me, see the example of XavierVE, the head of a prominent anti-pedophile group in the U.S., who was banned because he couldn't stop insulting other users and accusing them of being pedophiles. Similar action will be taken against you if you disrupt the editing of these articles with similar conduct.
 * Referring to the subjects of this article as predatory abusers is blatantly POV to anyone who isn't some crusader intent on making this article into some biased screed. Even if many people share your viewpoint, an encyclopedia entry isn't the place for this kind of editorializing.
 * "...to try and dictate how this article should be is overreaching yourself"
 * I'm not trying to dictate anything; I merely pointed out that several users here have taken issue with this edit that you seem intent on repeatedly restoring. If you plan on accomplishing much on Wikipedia, Pol, you need to learn to cooperate with other users. Dividing everyone into opposite camps as either supporting you or being against you isn't a constructive way to accomplish anything. Several very reasonable people have explained why they disagree with you.
 * So far, your antisocial conduct has been similar to that of SqueakBox, and I might suspect that you are simply an alternate username of his, except that your spelling seems to be better. Mike D78 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mike wont be banning anybody as he is not an admin and his sharkish coments about how Pol wil be banned have no basis whatesoever in reality. Mike doesnt have any influence here other than as an inexperienced SPA editor with a a bad track record opf POV pushing, incivility, etc, and he is not an example of an editor to emulate. Mike's trolish comments re my own impeccable behaviour show this to the light. When he diversifies and gets some experience under his belt then he can criticise more experienced editors who are not SPA's but not until, SqueakBox 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I ever claimed I would be banning anyone squeak. Administrators have shown that they will not hesitate to take action against disruptive users, regardless of their stance. So don't think the fact that you identify as some anti-pedophile crusader is going to excuse your actions if you continue to insist on forcing major, unagreed upon edits on everyone.
 * "with a a bad track record opf POV pushing, incivility, etc,..."
 * Again, you were the one that's been served up temporary bans for your incivility, not to mention your tendency toward name-calling. Don't know what you're talking about when you accuse me of incivility.
 * "my own impeccable behaviour..."
 * lol
 * "When he diversifies and gets some experience under his belt..."
 * I might have more time to do that if I weren't constantly forced to waste my time defending myself against against stuff like this.
 * "then he can criticise more experienced editors"
 * I'm sorry, can you refer me to the Wikipedia policy that justifies your arrogance toward users who haven't been here as long as you have? Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, Pol lives in London in the UK so how he could he possibly be my sock as I am 5,000 miiles away. Thism kind of accusation from a user with the track record of Mike is simply unacceptable, SqueakBox 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, quit faking outrage. That comment was obviously in jest, and moreover, you've accused me of being a sockpuppet ever since I've gotten here. And you've been quite serious about it. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Faking outrage? You think I fake outrage towards your attitude here? Towards the endless socks of banned users whoa re the real disruptive force here? I have good reason to believe you are a sock, the best you can come up wityh is that a user 5,000 miles away is my sock. Doh, SqueakBox 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What reasons do you have to believe I am a sockpuppet? Simply because I oppose many of your disruptive edits, as have many users? And weren't you just insisting that your refusal to request a sock check on me demonstrates good faith? As I've said many times before, if you think I am a banned user, go through the proper channels to handle that. Otherwise, quit making groundless accusations. Mike D78 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For what? So you can come back next week with a clean track record and claiming we must disoplay good faith towards you as a new user. That serves no purpose to me though it perhaps does to you. The reality is this article is plagued with banned users and socks and the issue we all need to address is how ot sytop them unduly influencing this article. How do you think we shoud deal wit the Samantha Pignez's and the Farenhorst's, Mike? Do you have any ideas, any solutions? SqueakBox 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, was it ever proven that Samantha Pignez and Farenhorst were the sockpuppets of banned users? I'm having trouble finding a reason for why they were banned.
 * Secondly, it's clear to me that you're using the occasional interference of sockpuppets here to justify your out-of-process, unilateral editing of this article without consensus. You've been whining about sockpuppets for months now, and it's clear that you're going to continue to do so as long as you feel it justifies your ignoring the thoughts of other editors. But this is inexcusable. You have to learn to get along with the other editors that are working on this article if you wish to accomplish anything.
 * You want to hear my solution for the problem? As I've said countless times before now, go through the proper channels to resolve this issue! If you truly have good reason to believe a user is a sockpuppet (and you're not just using the accusation to marginalize editors you disagree with), report it to the appropriate places. Your constant whining about sockpuppets accomplishes nothing. You've been editing this encyclopedia for a while; surely you know the proper route to take if you believe any of the users currently editing this article are sockpuppets.
 * But I think you will find that the majority of users who have opposed your edits are not sockpuppets, they are simply normal editors calling out bad edits. Ssbohio took issue with your edit on your talk page, for instance; is he another pro-pedophile sockpuppet? Is FightingForJustice? Is WDavis? Not likely. These are just normal users stating their disagreement with your edits, and you need to learn to take their criticisms into consideration.
 * Your constant unwarrented accusations that I am a sockpuppet are particularly annoying and uncalled for, and I would ask you to stop, but it's clear that you have no intention of doing so. But until you do, don't expect any kind of meaningful cooperation to be possible. Mike D78 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Farenhorst is a proven sock of Voice of Britain, you may be correct about samantha as hshe was blocked for extreme disruption. You claiming that I ma using the socks case to my advantages beggars belief, IO don't want any socks of banned users on this page. Voice got banned as a sock of a user who again got banned because of their behaviour, and he then chose to come back as a sock. I did not chjoose that as you appear to imply and such an implication is deeply disruptive and defies good faith. SAo let me make it clear, I do not want to see any socksw of banned users either on this page or the article page, ever. Is that clear? SqueakBox 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "you may be correct about samantha as hshe was blocked for extreme disruption"
 * I never saw any evidence of "extreme disruption" on the part of Samantha, so I question the reasons for her block, especially considering that such a harsh indefinite block was leveled against her.
 * Obviously you are not the one who blocked her, but I would think you would be concerned about such extreme, potentially inappropriate admin action against another user, whoever they are. But it's obvious that all you were concerned about was the fact that Samantha disagreed with many of your edits, and thus stood in the way of you imposing your version of this article upon everyone else.
 * "I did not chjoose that as you appear to imply"
 * I never said you did, but you're certainly using the threat of sockpuppets to your advantage.
 * "SAo let me make it clear, I do not want to see any socksw of banned users either on this page or the article page, ever. Is that clear?"
 * Sure. It should also be evident to you that constantly whining about sockpuppets is a distraction and is not a justification for your editing without consensus. Is that clear?
 * Again, several established users who are obviously not sockpuppets have disputed your edits, including FightingForJustice, Homologeo, and Ssbohio. Jmh123 similarly challenged you when you attempted to outright delete this article without consensus, and he was so disgusted by that kind of conduct that he's sense given up on editing these articles.
 * These opinions of other established users should be evidence enough that you need to rethink your editing style. Mike D78 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Phil sandifer is one of the admins in whom I have confidence on this project (having known him as a user and admin for 3 years now. The block log states that it is a case connected to the arbcom and I would suggestt hat if you have issues with her being blocked you contact them. I trusty Phil and have no issues re the block so I won't be contesting it. I am not using the sock threat to my advantage, there is no advantage to me to have sockpuppets on this page but it may be true that, having been exposed, the actions of these socks has weakened their cause which appears to be to promote the PPA viewpoint on this article in defiance of NPOV. I absolutely consider it vital that we address the sock disruption issue as part of moving forward with this article, that is not whining (and your claiming it is is a PA). People challenege each others edits all the time on wikipedia, that is the way we do things here, Pol64 was also challenging my edits, thast doesn't mean I have to change my edit style, what flawed logic is that? SqueakBox 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I trusty Phil and have no issues re the block"
 * Are you aware of any conduct on the part of Samantha that was "extremely disruptive?" If not, are you prepared to defend an indefinite block without any evidence that it was necessary? I think you'd be singing another tune if this happened to a user who had shown a pattern of supporting your edits rather than taking issue with them.
 * "I am not using the sock threat to my advantage"
 * So why do you continue to bring it up, if all the alleged sockpuppets have now been dealt with? Are you suggesting that all the users who continue to disagree with your edits are sockpuppets, as well?
 * "I absolutely consider it vital that we address the sock disruption issue"'
 * Hasn't it been adressed? Haven't the sockpuppets been blocked? Do you have any evidence that they are influencing the editing of this article right now? If not, your constant complaints seem shallow and unjustified.
 * "People challenege each others edits all the time on wikipedia, that is the way we do things here... thast doesn't mean I have to change my edit style, what flawed logic is that?"
 * It's not flawed logic; any reasonable person should be logically inclined to reconsider an edit when so many users have stated their concerns with it, instead of repeatedly reverting it as you have. Moreover, your editing style and conduct towards me has frequently defied typical Wikipedia policies. You yourself admitted you crossed the line when you resorted to personal attacks and namecalling against me, after you called me a pervert and a wanker. Your repeated assertions that your behavior has been "impeccable" are laughable. Mike D78 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely willing to trust Phil's judgement on this one, especially given the arbcom comments. if you have an issue perhaps you would care to direct it at Phil, not at me, as I am not an admin.


 * I bring the sock issue up because it is to my disadvantage not to and I am unwilling to accept that merely so some banned user can cheat using socks, is that clear enough for you? Without extreme vigilance this artuicle will again go from bad to worse and, let's face it, it's only in the poor state it is in because of the cheating activitiers of banned users such as VoB; eg the long article lock only happened because Farenhorst was edit warring when he had absolutely no right to edit at all.


 * Your own style is so full of PA's and bad faith assumptions that I won't comment further, indeed you come across as someone's sock partly because of your obsessive dislike of me, SqueakBox 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am unwilling to accept that merely so some banned user can cheat using socks, is that clear enough for you?"
 * What's clear enough for me is that you're going to continue making groundless accusations about sockpuppetry as long as you think it justifies your editing without consensus. But it doesn't. There's been disconduct among people who have argued viewpoints similar to yours as well, by users such as Xavier and DPeterson. But you don't see me using that as an excuse to disregard the concerns of other editors.
 * "eg the long article lock only happened because Farenhorst was edit warring when he had absolutely no right to edit at all."
 * Um, no, there are several users who have disputed your edits in the past, which has resulted in article locks because of your tenacity in frequently reverting them without consensus. You can't simply accuse others as being responsible for the edit warring, when you are the one that is repeatedly acting without consensus.
 * "Your own style is so full of PA's and bad faith assumptions that I won't comment further,"
 * I hardly think that other users have observed my conduct to be "full of PA's and bad faith assumptions," but I do hope you hold to you intention to not "comment further," because I'm really tired of you wasting my time with these petty arguments. Mike D78 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I have a right to abuse children and fuck you". I see nobody around here advocating such a thing. All I see is a group of people trying to make sure wikipedia adheres to its neutral point of view policy.  Both in content and they way it expresses that content.  The language like the content should be neutral.  I see nothing wrong with anybody wanting to do this.  Like another person suggested it is possible to achieve neutrality in this article without resorting to sensationalistic words like abuse and predatory.  Fighting for Justice 09:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fighting for Justice, please be selective when reverting the edits of others. If you're not in agreement with a particular edit and wish to revert it, please make sure that you're only reverting the edit you disagree with. Your last revert resulted in the undoing of numerous non-controversial constuctive intermediate edits. All has been fixed for now, but please be more careful next time. Thanks in advance, ~ Homologeo 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article absolutely has not been fixed. A group of POV pushing editors who are unwilling to accept our NPOV policy are causing the problems with this article. We need it to be POV not the pro-pedophilia activism article it currenlty is. Unless those editors promoting the PPA POV are willing to compromise to allow for NPOV (ie the arguments of both sides) it is difficult to see how the article issues are to be resolved, SqueakBox 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, I think you misunderstood my comment above. When I said "all has been fixed for now," I was not referring to the article as a whole, but to the reincorporation of non-controversial constructive edits (yours among them) that were undone without a reason during the last big reversion. ~ Homologeo 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You see nothing wrong with supporting paedophile activists? Have you actually read wikipedia's policies? Supporting said folk is the epitome of what a good encyclopedia is not. An encyclopedia should report the issues in a neutral fashion whereas this article writes about paedophiles as if they are great heroes and some of the editors here have no shame in trying to encourage that point of view. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on this subject knows full well the catastrophic damage paedophiles do to children again and again and this group of activists are a bit like people who encourage murder, drug dealing and other serious crimes. To take a stance against this means describing the group in a neutral way and even Squeak is lamentably failing to do this.Pol64 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the article being pro-pedophilia, and Pol64 your statement paedophiles as if they are great heroes is really exaggerating. With the article the way it is now, I do not get that impression.  And, yes, we can think pedophilia is nothing but evil, however, an encyclopedia has no business saying or implying such a thing.  THe old intro arbitrarily stated pedophiles abuse children.  This is a POV stance.  To say such a thing is in no way, shape, or form neutral in language. We are not an advocacy group for children abused by pedophiles.  If you believe that we are then you are using wikipedia as a soapbox.  Moreover, not all pedophiles end up physically/sexually abusing children.    Fighting for Justice 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Common usage of pedophile is one who abuses children  etc and common usage terms are not POV they are considered NPOV. NPOV is nopt about a balance between the views of the great majority and the views of a tiny moniority of extremeists. We are not an advocacy group full stop and the problem with the article as it currerently stands is that it reads like an advocacy fro pedophiles, which is why the PPAs are sop defensive about it and resist any change by cheating, ie being a banned user and creating a sock, Samantha, Farenhorst et al, SqueakBox 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Common usage of pedophile is one who abuses children"
 * Encyclopedias are intended to record objective, scientifically and historically-accurate information, not simply popular opinion on a topic. As commonly-held as some of the opinions you are trying to force into this article may be, they are still inappropriate. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see this where a judge describes a repeat offender as a "prolific paedophile", claerly using the common usage term of pedophile as someone whjo engages in sexual acts with children. Pedophuiles argue that pedophilia is not the same as child sexual abuse and we need to have nboth viewpoints to meet NPOV not merely that of the pedophiles themselves which is what currently happens. This is the only set of articles I know where NPOV is considered (by some) mto be setting down the viewpopint of the subjects of the article while ignoring any oposing views, SqueakBox 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But in the second paragraph it says this, Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity, which is currently defined as child sexual abuse. Pay extra attention to the last 3 words it says child sexual abuse so what are you complaining about? Why do you need it to say abuse twice in the span of 7 lines? If wikipedia is neutral then wouldn't it be appropriate to say the opposite words a pedophile would describe in order to achieve a balance??? The article is not suppose to take either side. They get their word in and you gets yours. That's how you achieve a balance.  I get the impression that you just want an article about pedophiles to be scathing.  Encyclopedias are not meant to be written that way.  Fighting for Justice 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak's version states that paedophil;es want to change the law in order to allow them to sexually abuse children. This seems very clear and straightforward to me, as does the next sentence which says paedophile activists want to remove the legal protection the law gives parents in order to be able to protect their children. I do not see what is so unacceptable in this edit, especially to justify the outburst of our young Brazilian editor. The reality is that parents can stop paedophiles from abusing their children by calling the police whereas paedophile activists want that protection removed, so if somebody abuses your child sexually there is nothing you can do about it. This kind of so-called activism is nothing more or less than an attempt to justify breaking the sound laws we have whose specific end is to protect children from predatory criminals. Fair enough for them to think that, I suppose, and as an encyclopedia I appreciate that we should have this article because the movement exists but what is not acceptable is to couch their activism in such a way that it makes out they are arguing for something very different from what they really are arguing, which is that they want the right to abuse your and my children with impunity and while we could do nothing to protect our children. What the article needs is a sensible approach based on law, current attitudes to paedophilia, and the views of those who oppose paedophilia activism as well as those who support it.Pol64 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I certianly think the openiong needs re-writing and the order of the article changing. Hopw are we all goping to reach a compromise on this one? SqueakBox 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a NPOV intro is in order. We need to find a ballance, so that the edit war will not resume once protection is lifted. While it is reasonable to note current prominent legal, medical, and public attitudes towards pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism (and these have to be idententified as such), it does not seem to be NPOV to simply state that pedophiles or pro-pedophiles aim to "abuse" children or to "take away protection offered by children's parents." It is appropriate, however, to observe that some of the goals promoted by the pro-pedophile movement are currently considered illegal, such as adult-minor sexual contact (deemed "child sexual abuse" under the current law). Still, misrepresentation of the movement's self-declared objectives and expressed perspectives is most definitely not NPOV. Further clarification of this issue can be found in a couple of my comments above, which have not been fully addressed as of yet. Also, I have requested multiple times that SqueakBox, along with others who promote the intro that was incorporated into the article not too long ago (different from the current one), respond to a number of concerns I have with the proposed text. Please see if you can provide some answers to my questions - this would bring insight into why exactly that particular intro is to be considered more NPOV than the one that is currently in place. If you'd like for me to restate my concerns, please state so, and I'll be more than happy to do just that. ~ Homologeo 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection #2
I've full-protected the page for 3 days due to the edit warring. Please sort out the issues (and make sure you do not undo constructive edits) here. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes we all need to be careful not to undo constructive edits, I ahve certainly been the victim of that and if I have also done it myself, well I shouldnt have and will try better, SqueakBox 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * psst. pull out the nails, we need your cross for firewood. 75.16.108.53 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit
This by an editor with as many edits as SqueakBox is plainly unacceptable. I don't think he should be punished, but he ought to be blocked so you guys don't have to waste your voluntarily donated time on stuff like that. A.Z. 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Though a less drastic still potentially effective measure would be for him to be stopped from editing pedophilia-related subjects, or perhaps receive a warning from the community. A.Z. 06:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a message on his talk page about that. A.Z. 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not block people for making NPOV edits, that is to fundamentally misunderstand how wikipedia works, and especialy not to give a clear run to blocked editors and their socks, as you are suggesting. I have wasted so much of my time dealinmg with these blcoked users who have no hesistaion in cheating by creating socks and you think there time is more valuabl;e than my own? That experienced users should be blocked so inexperienced ones can pursue their agenda? To block an experienced regular with the aim of leaving an open fioeld to the socks of blocked users (and many users whio edited this page have been blocked including their socks). Why would you think the community would want to warn me for making NPOV edits. That is our duty and your calls for me to be blocked appear to be based some kind of bad faith assumption. How are we ever to remove the totally disputed template with comments like this? If you think anty part of my edit is unacceptable I suggest you explain what is wrong in detail but this article currerentl;y suports a PPA stance and that is contrary to our policies and I would suggest it is your comments that are unacceptable whereas my edits had one aim in mind, NPOViong the articvle and that is never either a blockeable or warnable offence so please think more carefully about what you say in the future as bad faith assumptions based, apparently, opn a profound ignorance of the history of this article, will get neiother you nor anyone anywhere, SqueakBox 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And according to Pol64 even I am "lamentably failing" to NPOV this article. So are you planning to try and get everyone oppposing the socks of banned users blocked so that "their" voluntary time in this project doesn't get disrupted. And if this is so please explain why (indeed a good editor, if disagreeing with me, who would explain why point by point but I guess yor sweeping call to block anyionje who disagrees with you saves you the effort of having to do that, SqueakBox 17:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only solution that may be acceptable is an Rfc, though other than vandalsim there is not really any such thing as an unacceptable edit except in areas defined by the arbcom such as La Rouche. Now if yiou think the arbcom would agree with you that any edits that promote a viewpoint disputed by PPAs shopuld be disallowed on wiki[pedia then i suggest yuou engage in dispute resolution with the intention of the case ebnding up in arbcom though givent eh number of blocked users, socks and SPAs endorsing the article as a POV support of the PPA line, as well as our clearly defined NPOV and other policies, I suspect you would have problems getting the arbcom to agree with you. Because you don't like an edit is not reaosn to seek to ban the editor, SqueakBox 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is unacceptable here is the extraordinary attitude of A.Z. who is arguing to ban an experienced user in order to allow Pro-pedophiles to edit in peace. Such an attitude seems to have nothing in common with the approach to wikipedia taken by the great majority of editors and I would suggest hat if anyone needs blocking it is clearly A.Z for his extraordinary and malicious outburst. Squeak's edit was okay but it did not make the article okay, to claim that this edit was disruptive is to blatantly support the pro pedophile a viewpoint. That is fine of itself but threatening to try and block others for disagreeing with you is what is disruptive and if you to try to get Squeak blocked I'll try and get you blocked. IO have been rerading a lot of policy over the last few days and it is clearf that Squeak is not breaking policy whereas A.Z most certainly is. Squeak expressed above how disrupted he is by banned users returning as sockpuppets whereas A.Z is blatantly coming out in favour of those banned users and their sockpupets by claiming they have a right to not be disrupted but Squeak does not. Pah! This is the unacceptable edit and if we are to believe Squeak, who has far more experience of this page than the rest of us, it is an edit by a banned user. But doubtless A.Z does not care about banned users returning to edit, though personally I do. Something has got to give on this article, it cannot go on being dominated by a pro-paedophile clique as has clearly been happening for months.Pol64 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "What is unacceptable here is the extraordinary attitude of A.Z. who is arguing to ban an experienced user in order to allow Pro-pedophiles to edit in peace."
 * No, what should be unacceptable is users who try to divide everyone up into these opposing pro/anti-pedophile camps. You're only causing disruption and making it harder for us to cooperate in editing this article.
 * Feel free to adopt whatever label you wish, but I don't see others here professing these stances you attribute to them. Mike D78 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed the posts after the discussion on SqueakBox's talk page. I disagree with the edit, but it isn't unacceptable. A.Z. 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Can someone please clear this up for me. A user with a number of edits on this article appears to be placing the criticism section in the middle of the article. This seems to go against common sense (rebuttals last) and the flow of almost every other article on this website. Has this user justified their edits, or are they just vandalising? 82.45.15.121 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well its not vandalism, please see Avoid the word "vandal". I know of no policy that would support what you are saying but if you know of one please bring it here. This is a content dispute and has nothing to do with vandalism, have you read the abovce3 comments re section moving? I would like to see the history section much lower down and the criticism section is better off in the middle for NPOV reasons, SqueakBox 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you have a justification, and it isn't vandalism (I never claimed such a thing). These reasons remain unjustified, though. For example, why is moving exactly the same content to another part of the article (one that makes no sense for such content) inductive to a less "biased" article?


 * Also, exactly what is wrong with a small paragraph that explains the feelings of one commentator in the context of AIDS and sexual morality? And why must we use terms such as "create a culture of support", which suggest that such "support" or whatever is not advisable, or not deserving of simpler, shorter and less scornful terminology (i.e. neutral point of view). 82.45.15.121 22:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when the PPA starts to generalise, to claim that "pedophile liberation is no longer fun" while being an extyraordinary statem,ent is worthy of inclusion but this chap generalising about the effects of AIDS and HIV on the sexual liberation movement of the sixties is off topic and completely irrelevant, besides being a very extreme view of the eighties that almost nobody would agree with, SqueakBox 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "this chap generalising about the effects of AIDS and HIV on the sexual liberation movement of the sixties is off topic and completely irrelevant"
 * The subjects of this article would obviously consider this idea to be on-topic and relevant, and it's sourced. I say keep it in. Mike D78 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you havent proven notability nor that PPAs would agree with this statement (some other sources would help on that one) nor why their opinions on HIV and sexual liberation have any relevance for the article, this is an article about PPAs not about the beliefs of PPAs re any subject you care to mention. We need to stay on topic and this strays and as long as it remains the opinion about someth4ing else expressed by a solitary PPA it can't stay in the article, SqueakBox 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Well you havent proven notability"
 * The statement of a pedophile activist seems notable enough for an article about them.
 * "nor why their opinions on HIV and sexual liberation have any relevance for the article"
 * They obviously see it as relevant and related to what they argue for. I might see if I can find some other sources that support this claim, though. Mike D78 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability isnt proven by a PPAs statement, that is not how we work, it would be like saying we could include anything any Rasta has ever said that got published in an RS in the Rastafari movement article regardless of whether on or off topic. How is HIV releavant to PPAs. it isn't, indeed as most of them claim not to have sex it is especially not relevant. Some more substantial sources is the only way to get this statem,ent kept and even so it would need rewriting. As I say the no fun comment is of itself fine as it shows the mind set of the PPAs. The aim iof this article is to be educationally informative about PPAs, it is not a platform to expound the beliefs of PPAs on other subjects such as HIV and the development of the sexual revolution in the eighties, SqueakBox 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "How is HIV releavant to PPAs."
 * It's something that influenced shifting sexual mores, which pedophile activists apparently believe is of concern to them. Mike D78 00:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to side with SqueakBox on this one, at least at this moment in time, because notability has not been established. There are and have been many pro-pedophile activists, and many statements have been made by them. Unless something is of proved significance and is/was supported by a large enough number of activists, it probably does not belong in an encyclopedic article such as this one. If someone can provide some extra sources to prove this information's notability, maybe the paragraph can be reincorporated into the text. However, until then, I think it's best to leave it out of the article. ~ Homologeo 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A 3RR admin has just sidelined him for 48 hours after an edit war on this article. If there is anything to be done that would not benefit from his attention, best do it now. 82.45.15.121 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That statement strikes me as pure trolling. I can see we do have a problem here. Shame on wikipedia for once again taking the side of the paedophiles.Pol64 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That implication is most certainly trolling. Do you at all expect to be taken seriously making comments like that? 82.45.15.121 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is your comment that is trolling. Do you expect to be taken seriously?Pol64 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox and Homologeo that what somebody thinks about another subject is irrelevant. There was no retreat from the sexual liberation movement of the sixties in the eighties and to imply that there was is pure speculation. Merely because it is speculation by a pedophile activist does not mean it should be included in the article. It looks very odd to me. Amateur cyclone 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's check the facts. I leave a note suggesting that constructive editors should get to work because a disruptive editor has been sanctioned for... being disruptive. You retaliate by suggesting that wikipedia has decided in favour of "the pedophiles" (editors?) yet again. Who is the troll? 82.45.15.121 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note was not constructive and nor are your edits. You set Squeak up and now you have reverted 3 times yourself so expect no sympathy.Pol64 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly how did I set him up? He incriminated himself by reverting five times in quick succession. I am staying within the rules (see below). 82.45.15.121 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Romantic love
We need a source for romantic love if it is to be included as any contended unsourced material must be removed and the onus is on thiose who want to add it not on the remover to gett he sopurce, if possible, SqueakBox 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fairly apparent statement that that's part of their agenda, but regardless, I added a source that FFJ apparently thought was unnecessary. Mike D78 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Where is this information suppose to come from in order to satisfy you SqueakBox.  You aren't satisfied that Mike and I have both pointed out to you that NAMBLA stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. Fighting for Justice 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wondering - what is wrong with the source that Mike D78 has provided? On that website, in regards to the question "What is boylove?", the intro clearly states the following: "It's a phenomenon of attraction to boys that many males exhibit, in which there are erotic, aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual aspects. Many people call it an orientation just like any other." (emphasis added) The two italisized words relay the notion of "romantic love." I think it would be appropriate to incorporate this source as a reference. ~ Homologeo 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A reference surely is something formatted and not just a discussion. Did anyone put the NAMBLA as a reference that satisfies the wikipedia reliable sources policy?Pol64 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the goal of this article is to describe the views of Pro-Pedophile activists, any sources that represent a particular movement would very definitely be considered as reliable and representative of that movement's stance (as is the case with NAMBLA). After all, the sentence did read: "Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity". Thus, your continued persistence to revert after all the discussion in this regard is both completely unjustified and un-encyclopedic. Equilibrist 22:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A source would be great and I am happy to see it re-included with a source, and the name NAMBLA expounded in a secondary source could be used. But we cannot say the word love is in NAMBLA and that is the source, that is not a source it is original research which is prohibited from wikipedia. I suggest someone brings a proper source here to the talk page, based on our standards at WP:RS and WP:V. Reverting unsourced material is never unjustified and it always the responsibility of ther person who adds the infornmation to provide the source, the person who removes unsourced information is always right to do so. Discussion here is not a substitute for sources as we never assume that our readers come to the talk page to undertsand the article and neither can users insist on unsourced material remaining in this or any article as policy trumps consensus and consensus is very clear in this case. if a source is easy to find there is no reason not to bring it here and if it isnt easy to get then the information should not be in the article, SqueakBox 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this might a good source for the above statement: Manifesto of Pedophiles Against Child Molestation (P.A.C.M.) http://www.glgarden.org/kalikokat/pacm_manifesto.htm. Right at the top of the article it is claimed that: "Our romantic and loving attraction to children does not make us monsters... only acting on those feelings would." Equilibrist 08:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert vs consensus
I will not be engaging myself in an edit war against Pol64, who is now reverting to a version of the article that is a clear NPOV violation and was previously opposed by a majority consensus.

Something really needs to be done about the "PJ" contingent. This just isn't fair or factual. 82.45.15.121 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You should have reverted the changes before this page got protected. Now there's a spoiled POV article that's impossible to do anything about. I very much doubt that this page is going to be unprotected very soon. 193.217.55.23 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This not being fair is something you and I can agree on. You edit war while reporting Squeak for the same and you wont revert me because you know I will report you and you will end up blocked. What is unfair is not he so-called PJ element but the boy chat/girl chat element. To paraphrase Squeak "and whose sock are you?" The only PJ element blocked was Xavier and I am not him (being English and living in England) whereas Jim Burton, Farenhorst, Voice of Britain, Samantha Pignez and Zanthalon are just some of the users supporting the boy/girl chat line who have been blocked. Your not fair comments seem to have been made by many of these users too, so you are doubtless a banned user come back to haunt us.Pol64 17:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that I raise the "PJ" card is because you are an admitted Anti-pedophile activism editor and SqueakBox is a proud supporter of the said organisation. On the other hand, there are no grounds (that I know of) upon which you can base a link between the five said accounts and the two websites mentioned. 82.45.15.121 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I refer to specific work that I do that has nothing to do with wikipedia and certainly not with PJ either. Though I have edited the PJ article you have no more proof that I am involved in PJ than I have that you are involved in the boy and girl chat sites. Zanthalon is [refactored for BLP] while Farenhorst is Voice of Britain, and these accounts are of self-identifying pedophile activists from what I understand, having reviewed all the available material here. Pol64 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you are a PJ member or not. What matters is that you clearly behave like anyone of them would, and that's the whole point. 193.217.55.23 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice that I put "PJ" in inverted commas, as to identify ideological as opposed to organisational allegiance (although at least one of the two I imply is a confirmed supporter). Both editors are clearly part of the "activist" movement that identifies as "anti pedophile", and this is what I intended to convey (along with the harm which such editors have and continue to do to these articles). I can't really apologise if you were slack enough to believe that I was suggesting an "infiltration".


 * You on the other hand have no evidence that Farenhorst or VoB are "self identifying" pedophile activists. Indeed, Farenhorst exposes quite eloquently on his talk page, exactly why Wikipedia have no solid grounds to suspect that he is even related to his suspected sock. 82.45.15.121 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and socks

 * Mike D78 has now been indefinitely blocked, as has Amateur cyclone as a sockpuppet of Pol64 who has been blocked for a week. Any user misusing sockpuppets here is clearly in the wrong, we need to have one account per user and no banned users here if we are to give the article a chance, and all these proven sock allegations and a locked article are extremely disconcerting, SqueakBox 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are the ones with confirmed socks given a week, whilst the one without a confirmed sock is given an indefinite block, just like all the others you tar as pro-pedophile? Dyskolos 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Editorial PMS
To SqueakBox and those currently editing in a similar vein:

Have you completely lost yourselves in your own rhetorical/personal positions?!?! This article, as it now stands (based on being "locked"), is **disgracefully un-encyclopedic**. The earlier versions, however much you disliked them, did not contain the aggressive, bias-laden quality that the current version now possesses. As the person who most thoroughly edited the "Anti-Pedophile Activism" article (a perusal of the history of that article will reveal that *all* of the scholarly and *all* of the referenced materials of any academic weight were added by me ... and have all stood in their places since they first appeared there), I assert that the "Pro-Pedophile Activism" article has devolved into chaos through the editing practices of you, SqueekBox, and those following your lead. My advice is that the "lock" on this article be removed, and that the initial paragraphs appear as follows (I hate bitching about something without taking the time to try to fix it). I hope the following serves as a mediated, judicious substitute for the current editing war: Welland R 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

______________________

Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations. These arguments place pro-pedophile activism in sheer opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.

The pro-pedophile movement consists of self-identified pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists located in various countries, including the United States, The Netherlands, and Canada, a movement that is sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (now virtually defunct) and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. However, most activism of this type currently takes place on the Internet.

Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of accepting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. As a result, this movement and the positions it advocates stand in opposition to the claims of anti-pedophile activism for the necessity of upholding and applying more rigorously the current laws. Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily include a redefining of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classifications. However, seen from the position of anti-pedophile activists, such goals are merely attempts to legalize adult-child sexual relations, to remove the protection parents exercise in preventing their children from falling into the hands of pedophiles, and to foster social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to children, as well as the sexual activities that might result from such an attraction.

Increasing public focus and disapproval of pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism has motivated more stringent legislation and criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and the use of the Internet to facilitate these activities. Child grooming is also now recognized as a criminal offense in some jurisdictions. Pedophilia remains classified as a mental disorder in the ICD-9 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is considered, in most contexts, politically, morally, and practically reprehensible.

Welland R 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

Those who have been editing this article:

If the above is an acceptable alterative (though it could certainly be tweaked a bit), please say so below:

Welland R 10:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for throwing in some fresh ideas on this subject. I think that it would be a good idea if we all try to agree on the intro here and now so that we won't end up with a new edit war when the lock expires. Below is my proposal, partly based on Welland's proposition and partly on the latest version reverted by Pol64:

_________________________

Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations. The movement consists of self-identifying pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists located in various countries, including the United States, the Netherlands, and Canada, sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as North American Man/Boy Love Association (now virtually defunct) and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in sheer opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.

Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily include a redefining of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classifications.

However, seen from the position of anti-pedophile activists, such goals are merely attempts to legalize adult-child sexual relations, to remove the protection parents exercise in preventing their children from falling into the hands of pedophiles, and to foster social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to children, as well as the sexual activities that might result from such an attraction. ->(this may be included, though I would personally cut it for NPOV reasons since we already have a criticism section further below which already covers all of the significant responses of the Anti-ped movement. There is plenty of criticism already above and below in the intro anyway).

Increasing public focus and disapproval of pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism has motivated more stringent legislation and criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and the use of the Internet to facilitate these activities. Child grooming is also now recognized as a criminal offense in some jurisdictions. Pedophilia remains classified as a mental disorder in the ICD-9 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular. Equilibrist 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

PS: I also think that we should relocate the criticism section further below, as it was since the article was locked in July/August. Equilibrist 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the two editors for suggesting the new revisions. I would prefer the second, as unlike Welland's it does not give four unnecessary shots to the "anti-pedophile" lobby who have bullied other editors on this article and continued to revert against the general consensus. Dyskolos 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second Dyskolos's opinion above. Thank you for providing two alternatives to the current intro to this article. Although both intros are good, I would recommend using the one proposed by Equilibrist. My reasoning streams from the fact that there already is an entire article on anti-pedophile activism, and the Criticism section here covers its responses to the pro-pedophile movement anyways. Although it's useful to state the general stance of anti-pedophile activists (which is amply done), there's no need to go into excessive detail about their movement, since this article is not about it. On a similar note, I likewise do not think the following sentence adds any value to the intro: However, seen from the position of anti-pedophile activists, such goals are merely attempts to legalize adult-child sexual relations, to remove the protection parents exercise in preventing their children from falling into the hands of pedophiles, and to foster social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to children, as well as the sexual activities that might result from such an attraction. On the contrary, it could come off as NPOV, as pushing a bias. Such comments should be in the Criticism section and in the article on the specific movement concerned, not in the intro of this article. Lastly, I second the suggestion that the Criticism section should be moved lower in the article, per general Wikipedia practice. ~ Homologeo 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we need something balanced and and NPOV and the proposals on offer in this section are not that. Give me a couple of days and I'll bring my own proposal to the table, SqueakBox 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it reads anything like the current version, it won't get consensus unless Pol64 comes back with more sockpuppets. Dyskolos 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, as long as the intro you will propose will be NPOV, I'm sure everyone will be happy to consider it. ~ Homologeo 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments so far everyone. Quite honestly I am a bit puzzled that Squeakbox is of the opinion that the proposed version is neither "balanced nor NPOV". It would be interesting to see his version of what a balanced and NPOV intro ougth to look like. However, I regret to note that the latest disputed edit by Pol64 was in fact largely a copy of Squeak's own intro so I do hope that he has something better to offer this time. Equilibrist 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement with using the second version (it is, I must admit, very close to the version I would have put in place myself had I not been overly concerned to keep SqueakBox and others satisfied). I was attempting, given the current state of things, to achieve some form of mediation rather than an *ideal* encyclopedic entry.  I find the second version (by Equilibrist) more than satisfactory, and I feel that it should serve as the replacement for what now appears. Welland R 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this article for the best part of two weeks now, and I have to say that the two versions suggested here would fair a lot better than the current locked edition. I'm sure that many child abuse prevention, treatment and awareness charities would adopt a similar rhetoric (although they surely wouldn't claim that the movement does not exist!), but just like NAMBLA et al, this version is advocacy and similar language must be avoided (using the rest of the article as a rule of thumb). It is not at all useful that we have editor(s) claiming audaciously that the current advocacy edit is neutral and in line with whatever policy they point to, and ignoring what the majority of editors say in opposition to this. Regards. ♥ Lundiaka  18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder
There is a billboard at the top of this page, which contains a link to a document described as "official policy". The first few lines of that article read:


 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

Thus editors should refrain from using the percieved or suspected status of other editors as a battering ram on article discussion pages (as it can be adressed elsewhere). These pages are for the discussion of edits and not editors. If an editor takes issue with another on an article discussion page, he or she should be able to argue effectively against the other on the merit of his or her edits and nothing else. ♥ Lundiaka 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I do not agree and must say that your account, opened today, looks very suspicious. Which banned user are you then? Because many banned users refurse to take blocked indefinitely for an answer we must all be vigilant re the appearance of new socks. Even your sig looks very similar tot hose of Jim Burton and Farenhorst, and if you are a banmned user it will obviously be to your advantage to say what you are saying. The suspected or perceived status of new users is not a personal attack. How do you know so much about policy on yopur first day here? SqueakBox 20:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find these comments both mildly insulting and extremely ironic. Seriously. Maybe I just should leave right now, if someone lays into me after posting my first two messages and a friendly reminder. I hope that other editors will show a better attitude than this. If this is the norm, then I'll most certainly cease editing.


 * As the policy states, we should be discussing edits, and not editors. If this policy is breached enough times, it may be cause for action against an editor.


 * Finally, you ask me why I know "so much"(?) about official policy on my "first day here". Although the answer is obvious, and already disclosed, I'd like to ask you a question: What buisness do you have interfering with others, asking them nosey questions about personal information? When it appears that someone is on the ball, why must you seek to find a way to use this against them? Regards.


 * P.S. I know nothing of "Jim Burton", and only aquainted myself with "Farenhorst" due to your repeated mentions of him or her as some kind of folk devil/reason that other editors are supposedly corrupted. Maybe Farenhorst was a shameless NAMBLA activist or extremely bad editor, but as far as I know, I have no will to emulate it. ♥ Lundiaka  21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response merely confirms my suspicions. if you are the sock of a banned user such as Mike D78 or Voice of Britain I would strongly advise you not to edit the ped articles or talk pages but to edit other subjects instead. Bringing up the sock issues and my reasonable susopicions is not a reason to try to see someone take action against me and this statement indicates past resentment towards me from previous incarnations. You haven't answered my question about how you know so much policy in your first edits, and before I had even sent you a link of useful policy pages. You ask what business is it of mine? Well, I am an experienced wikipedian and editor to the pedophile articles and because we have had so many socks of banned users cheating our system it is absolutely my business to ensure that does not continue happening. I have made no attempt to extract personal info from you, as you well know, so please don't claim otherwise, SqueakBox 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just be brief here, as this obviously isn't going anywhere productive (to verge on breaking my own rule, I find your style quite demanding, paranoid and insulting). I have been watching this article and a few others within "PAW" for a couple of weeks now, have not done much research on its history, but have clicked some of the links on the billboard at the top of this discussion. I'll just wait for some of the other editors to turn up, and hope that they behave in a more honourable way, and of course, "assume good faith". ♥ Lundiaka  21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It isnt me who is behaving dishonourably but those who use socks to cheat teh process here (regardless of which side of the debate they are one) and I am afraid any new editor is bound to come under scrutiny. I am not happy about this but AGF is not written to allow socks of banned suers to get away with coming back here to pursue the same agenda. I wish it weren't so but that could onl;y happen if the pattern of banned socks stops for some considerable time. if you ahve been following this for some time you should understand, SqueakBox 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you welcomed me on to the board, you posted a set of links. One of these links points to the correct place for you to focus your "scrutiny". Your original decision to break with policy and divulge your suspicions (along with insulting assumptions) on this talk page has brought about exactly the set of circumstances that I was warning about in the OP. I hope you feel very proud of yourself.


 * As for the pattern of "socks", I am aware of none. You recently listed an editor called Samantha Pignez, who was not banned for being a "sock" (as you suggested), but for being disruptive (which is clearly not my way). ♥ Lundiaka  21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against the current opening
It appears as if one or two editors have recently been deliberately or naively inserting sentimental and biased language in to the article. The section which has been targeted the most is the introduction, which suggests that the edits may not be simple lapses in neutrality. Here are some arguments that I would like other editors to endorse, so that we can build upon the consensus established above:


 * "...and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children".

The argument here is simple, and has already been made. We are not addressing legal definitions, and we do not submit to legal absolutism anyway. As another editor put it: "That would be to say "it's wrong now, and will still be wrong if it is legalised"".


 * "The obverse movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from predatory pedophiles".

This is obviously biased language, especially following on from the previous characterisation. The editor is setting up an opposition that almost amounts to good and evil, and presenting it as fact. The use of value laden words such as "protect" for one movement and "predatory" for those represented by another emphasize this biased opposition. We can be far more sensitive in upholding neutrality here, using descriptions such as the "upholding and strengthening of current laws" in place of simplistic value judgements that will only mislead or insult our readers. Although most people would agree with these judgements, it is not our buisness to present it as fact before they can make their minds up.


 * "Goals of pro-pedophile activism often include legalizing adults being able to have sex with children".

This is very poorly researched English, and somewhat biased, as it focusses on what adults are able to do, as opposed to both adults and children. Again, most people would agree that abolition would increase adults' agency, but all we are here to do is say that a sexual contact between the two would be legal and seen as informed and consensual from that point.


 * "removing the protection parents give to prevent their children falling into the hands of pedophiles".

Again, we see a return to the value judgements, now joined by the dramatic language so typical of the early 20th century crusaders against (child) prostitution. Something is presented as so obviously good ("PROTECTION against NEGATIVE"), and we are told that the movement OPPOSES it! No thank you. I can make my own mind up, without this nonsense being forced upon me.


 * "The movement consisted of a number of self-identifying pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists...".

This is probably the strangeist of them all. Considering that the following article is an almost fully sourced explanation of how the movement continues to this very day, to claim that the movement has no publically identifiable members (or even any at all) any more strikes me as a particularly lame form of denial. I would advise any editor who can not acknowledge the existence of his or her article's subject, not to edit the article, for obvious reasons. ♥ Lundiaka 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont believe there can be any doubt that PPAs want to change the laws and social perceptions of them precisely in order to be allowed to abuse children sexually, that is the whole impetus of the movement. Your "it's wrong now and would be anyway" assumes it may become legal which is unrealistic and that society's values will change to accommodate pedophiles which is equally unrealistic but what is certain is that we should stick with current from predatory peds (note this does not claim all peds are predatory but many clearly are and organisations such as eg PJ clearly exist to protect children from their predatory behaviour in chat rooms and peds going to meet what they believe are underage minors in order to abuse them). PPAs do indeed want to revert the increasing protection eg Megan's Law, gives to parents to prevent their children falling inot the hands of pedophiles. If PPAs dont want to legalise having sex with children then they wouldnt exist at all and that clearly is a primary goal. I agree with your last point though and am happy to see the self-identifying sentence re-worked, SqueakBox 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. You have just posted eight lines of argument that prove nothing else but the fact that you believe your opinions are presentable as fact, and that when something is borderline impossible, it should not be discussed in a hypothetically neutral tone. This is not a logical argument, and is again, highly ironic in light of what was posted above. ♥ Lundiaka  21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you have lost me with this comment, I can't respond unless I understand. Would you be kind enough to reframe your comment? Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You basically believe that your opinion is high and mighty enough to present as fact. This is the major problem that I identified right from the beginning. Regards. ♥ Lundiaka  21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean it is lacking refs then I agree. I have set up a temp page in my user space to see if I can work on getting a better version and refing my previous changes would indeed be a great idea, refs shouldnt be hard to find, SqueakBox 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you miss my point. You could reference your edits, but you would be referencing them with advocacy. It would be like using the Bible to reference itself as fact. ♥ Lundiaka  22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am not necessarily refing with advocacy material (see User:SqueakBox/temp but based on your argument any PPA ref based on PPA advocacy should also be removed. Because this is an article about PPA does not mean we can reference using PPA material but not APA material. In order to fulfil NPOV we need to present both sides of the argument anmd if we can do that then we could remove the totally disputed tag, SqueakBox 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you miss my point. We could not reference either pro or anti pedophile advocacy as fact by using just advocacy material. The material, be it activist, charity or journalistic is value laden and not fit for an encyclopedia. We can however use advocacy material to prove that some people are of that opinion. The references you list are not fit for purpose, as they are either advocacy links, or articles written partially or wholly in emotive, non-encyclopedic language. These references will probably be removed on that basis, i.e. you seek to present the editor's subjective opinion as fact (as opposed to the plain facts contained in the article). ♥ Lundiaka  22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree. These are not my subjective opinions but those held by many people who oppose PPA, either actively or passively. Please do read WP:RS and WP:V, as I think you haven't yet fully got to grips with our reffing policy (which is not surprising as it is your first day here as an editor), SqueakBox 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As you admit, they are opinions, and they are oppositional. Therefore they are not neutral (another policy) when stated as fact, nor are they at all necessary in an encyclopedia, when unbiased language is available. It appears that you are of the opinion that a non-prejudicial article gives something away to the pedophile activists. Neither of the links that you provided supported such an opinion, nor the abuse of referencing practices to verify editor opinion as fact. ♥ Lundiaka  23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I back these arguments. SqueakBox's logic is light years behind the reasoning in Lundiaka's first posting on this subject. Dyskolos 00:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I back these arguments as well. SqueakBox, Lundiaka said "you seek to present the editor's subjective opinion as fact", to which you replied "they are not my subjective opinions". It doesn't matter who's opinions they are, what matters is that they are opinions. You say "having sex with children is sexual abuse", when you ought to say "X believes that having sex with children is sexual abuse", even if X meant 98% of the people in the world. What your references to advocacy groups may support is that someone thinks something, not that this something is the truth. A.Z. 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, saying that pro-pedophile activists want to sexually abuse children, when what they actually want is to have sex with children, is, frankly, treating the readers of this article as stupid people that can't think for themselves. They don't need this kind of patronizing. If they already think that having sex with children is sexual abuse, they should be able to do the following:


 * Having sex with children is sexually abusive.
 * PPAs want to allow pedophiles to have sex with children.
 * Thus, PPAs want to allow pedophiles to do something which is sexually abusive.


 * You don't need to do that for them. If they don't have an opinion as to whether having sex with children is sexual abuse or not, you can say "PPAs want to have sex with children. Having sex with children is child abuse." and obviously add a reference to support this statement. Another option would be "PPAs want to have sex with children. X believes having sex with children is sexual abuse." Another huge problem with your proposed version is that the sentence "Pro-pedophile activists want to allow pedophiles to abuse children." may be interpreted to mean that PPAs are aware and agree that having sex with children is abuse, and deliberately wish to abuse children. A.Z. 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the world considers sexual activity between an adult and a child as child sexual abuse and therefore that is what we must call it. What PPAs think may beincluded but we do not allow PPAs to define what sexual activity between a minor and an adult is because this is not an article written by PPAs or from their perspective, it is an encyclopedic article about PPAs. To claim that sex between an adult and a minor is anything other than sexual abuse is an extreme minority view and while we can say PPAs dont see this as sex abuse (with a ref) we cannot imply that their belief is so, and thus we cannot say PPAs want to have sex with children but that they want they abuse them is what must be said. Dyklos, please give reasons and focus on the edit not the editor if you want your opinion ot have weight, SqueakBox 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The following sentence seems not encyclopedic to me: "the world considers sexual activity between an adult and a child as child sexual abuse"? I really don't think anyone wishes to read something like that to inform themselves, because that sentence has loaded, vague, unprecise terms, such as "world", "sexual activity", "adult", "child", and "sexual abuse". A child could be someone of a certain age, or someone with a certain degree or maturity, and it's not clear which degree is that. It's not clear whether kissing and hugging would qualify as sexual activity, for example.


 * Sexual abuse is defined by Wikipedia as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another, which seems a good definition, so, if a child desires to have sex with someone older/more mature, who is old enough to be considered an adult, this would not be abusive, as long as it's possible to verify that the child actually wants it. If there are no references saying it is impossible for a child to wish to have sex with an adult, and no references saying it is impossible to know whether a child wants to have sex or not, by that definition it's unverfiable that sex between adults and children is necessarily a form of sexual abuse.


 * Although, if we define child as someone whose desire to have sex is unverifiable, then there's no problem with the assertion that having sex with children is necessarily a form of abuse. A.Z. 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nearly every state allows children to legally engage in sexual activity with adults, and therefore your statement is wrong. We must be very sensitive when partial abolition in one jurisdiction would not equal abuse according to the code of another (or indeed that state itself!). Your statement is also irrelevant, as the "world" still primarily considers the act to be a sexual contact. It is the legal profession and law enforcement that overlays the social judgement of abuse. However much you may protest, we are not at the stage where a sexual contact between a mid-teenager and an adult is primarily seen as an act of victimisation, in the same way that assault is for example. Whilst it would be folly to describe a mugging as a "power structured exchange of wealth", sexual touching between the generations is best described in nonjudgemental terms, especially in light of a lack of world consensus and ambiguity between jurisdictions. Yet another reason to describe the act without placing factual emphasis on an abusive interaction, is that we are trying to explain that some people believe in a hypothetical situation in which the contacts are accepted as consensual. Even if you personally see this as impossible, it doesn't matter a bit. The issue is that some people do believe in that particular dream, and we should not be sacrificing the clear explanation thereof for the benefit of dogmatically propagating conservative values as the one and only truth. ♥ Lundiaka  03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every state allows children to legally engage in sexual activity with adults? That is absolute rubbish and why are you saying it? to muddy the issue? Yopur ridiculoyus and obviously unsourced claim that that the world considers CSA as contact makes it impossible to argue seriously with you, your are stating things off the top of your head that are absically a product of your own imagination. The non-judgemental term is child sexual abuse, it is also completely neutral. Apart from PPAs everybody sees it that way and the fact that an extremist minority dont does not matter exceptt hat we can mention their extreme belief in this article. This has nothing to do with a conservative/liberal debate, both conservatives and liberals unequivocally condemn those who try to promote CSA, SqueakBox 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, SqueakBox. I think that you misunderstood me on multiple occasions, there. It looks as if you have a habit of extremifying the arguments of others, and pitting the myth against your own equally unsupportable agenda.


 * "That is absolute rubbish and why are you saying it?".


 * Because the UN and just about any state I've come across describes a minor as a child who is subject to children's protection and children's rights. Since the deregulation campaigns of the 70s, 80s and 90s, most states now allow sexual activity with minors in the upper age range. Some endorse ages as low as thirteen, twelve and seven for boys. I'd appreciate it if you could stay open minded and less hyperbolic.


 * "Yopur ridiculoyus and obviously unsourced claim that that the world considers CSA as contact makes it impossible to argue seriously with you".


 * In fact, you are refusing to argue with me, by stating that my claims are outlandish. I do not intend to source my claims, as this is not an essay or encyclopedia article. My claim, if you really didn't get it the first time around, was that most people (including nonwestern) would see a sexual relationship between partners of, say fifteen and twenty-five primarily as a relationship or contact, as opposed to assuming that it was coerced like an assault. A proportion of these may see it as inadvisable, and a proportion of these may take the extreme line of assuming that the older partner was forcing him or herself upon the other.


 * Regardless, even if 95% of people would first assume the contact to be coercive, we would not have the consensus required to describe the act as abusive in an encyclopedia. If something is anything more than minutely contested, the done thing is to describe it in a tone that gives nothing away to either side, thus "sexual contact between adults and minors", and all the more due to the hypothetical nature of the mention in question.


 * "The non-judgemental term is child sexual abuse, it is also completely neutral".


 * "Abuse" is a judgemental word. Period.


 * "Apart from PPAs everybody sees it that way and the fact that an extremist minority dont does not matter exceptt hat we can mention their extreme belief in this article".


 * This is untrue. There have been many academics who see it "the other way", many cultures both in history and in the present who see it "the other way" and a significant proportion (18%) of those polled in the UK suggested that the age of consent should be abolished (Channel 4, 2003, offering 18, 16 and 14 as alternatives). From where did you get such a sweeping assumption?


 * "This has nothing to do with a conservative/liberal debate".


 * I never claimed such a thing.


 * "both conservatives and liberals unequivocally condemn those who try to promote CSA".


 * This may be true if you pick certain groups of liberals (Feminists) and conservatives (Rightist Libertarians), but it has been the liberal regimes under which most deregulation of age of consent laws has taken place. Such was the case in the Netherlands, where the mission of many "Pro-pedophile" activists could have once been described as "accomplished". Regards. ♥ Lundiaka  17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unwilling to discuss unsourced claims with you here. If you can source your claims (eg that men can sexually abuse 7 year old boys in some jurisdictions) we can then discuss the sourced claims but without sources I am not willing to waste my time on this and nor is wikipedia, as we stay on topic and follow WP:RS. British and American men, even were they to abuse young boys in a jurisdiction where it were legal would still be subject to the laws of their own country. Here you can be sentenced to up to 30 years, SqueakBox 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your unwillingness to casually discuss unsourced claims with me to be far too convenient in light of your failure to address my broader arguments. Lets start by quoting official policy for the encyclopedia (NPOV):


 * "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions".


 * I rest my case.


 * It is untrue that I claimed a man could legally engage in sexual relations with a seven year old boy. Homosexual behaviour is outlawed in Namibia, and the AoC for girls is sixteen. However, boys can participate from the age of seven . This however, is one very extreme case.


 * "British and American men, even were they to abuse young boys in a jurisdiction where it were legal would still be subject to the laws of their own country".


 * This is irrelevant. Do you assume that Britain and America (among the most sexually conservative of nations) are to be assumed "dominant" from the neutral point of view? As an aside, the sex tourism laws to which you refer have barely been applied, leaving the doors open to countries such as Italy and Spain, even for Homosexuals who prefer younger teenage partners. ♥ Lundiaka  18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote in para 2 bears repeating and repeating again. Dyskolos 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If homosexuality is outlawed in Namibia your source proves nothing other than that 7 year old boys can have sexual contact with older women and that isnt going to help advance the PPA cause. your later arguments are unsourced and so won't get a response but we will not add unsourced pro-ped material without sources, obviously, but IMO many arab and Muslim countries are somewhat more conservatiove sexually than the UK and USA as is Spanish speaking Latin America etc and that is again another unsourced claim, and we are not here to discuss your opinions, SqueakBox 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You have claimed "Nearly every state allows children to legally engage in sexual activity with adults" and then given a rather obscure clause around male boys and older women in Namibia, I would expect a lot more than that to even begin to source this rather extravagant claim that makes it sound as if anyti-pedophile laws are an oddity, SqueakBox 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm kind of speechless, which is just as well since I'm at a keyboard.


 * "If homosexuality is outlawed in Namibia your source proves nothing other than that 7 year old boys can have sexual contact with older women and that isnt going to help advance the PPA cause".


 * I never claimed that it needed to advance the PPA's agenda. I provided the source to show you that CSA is viewed differently in one jurisdiction. And besides, why must the law refer to homosexuality, if it is to advance the "Pedophile Agenda"? You're entering AFA territory, here.


 * "your later arguments are unsourced and so won't get a response".


 * Fair enough. I have addressed unsourced arguments of yours, but you are under no obligation to oppose mine.


 * "but we will not add unsourced pro-ped material without sources".


 * I never said that we should. The only "pro-pedophile" material I would want to add, would not be sourced as the truth, but as opinion. I would do exactly the same with anti-pedophile material, and would expect the same of you, too. There is also scope for some agreed upon material to be unsourced, as is most in this encyclopedia.


 * "but IMO many arab and Muslim countries are somewhat more conservatiove sexually than the UK and USA".


 * Although Islamic cultures tend to have very low ages of marriage (Iran - 9) and have historically tolerated pederastic relationships similar to those celebrated in Ancient Greece.


 * "as is Spanish speaking Latin America etc and that is again another unsourced claim".


 * Where exactly did I claim anything about Latin America? I implied that the AoC in Italy (14) and Spain (13) was lower than that in the UK (16), and that this allowed teen attracted heterosexuals and homosexuals to embark on relationships that would be criminalised as "sex tourism" when back home.


 * "and we are not here to discuss your opinions".


 * This has nothing to do with my own opinions (barring the editing of an encyclopedia). If you wish to discuss these, please leave a note on my personal page.


 * "You have claimed "Nearly every state allows children to legally engage in sexual activity with adults" and then given a rather obscure clause around male boys and older women in Namibia".


 * Sure. But the claim is still true. You live in one of these very countries. In your jurisdiction, it is legal to engage in sexual activity with minor children as young as 14. I find it strange that you appear not to know this, despite claiming to be an experienced editor on this article. Maybe you just believe that it should not be this way. If this is so, maybe you should pursue a career in one of the many activist organisations that oppose teenage sex.


 * "this rather extravagant claim that makes it sound as if anyti-pedophile laws are an oddity".


 * Age of consent laws are not anti-pedophile. They criminalise behaviours, and not attractions. ♥ Lundiaka  19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"I dont believe there can be any doubt that PPAs want to change the laws and social perceptions of them precisely in order to be allowed to abuse children sexually, that is the whole impetus of the movement. (SqueakBox)"

We have references saying that they want to change the laws and social perceptions so people currently above the age of consent and people currently below the age of consent can legally have sex with one another. If you, SqueakBox, find references saying that all sexual acitivity of an adult with a child is sexually abusive, then the article will be able to say that, although your sentence, as I pointed out above, will still be wrong, because it can be interpreted to mean that pro-pedophile activists wish to abuse children, when they could merely disagree that adult-child sex is abusive. Wikipedia cannot speculate about people's motivations, and I don't think there are credible sources saying that pro-pedophile activists wish to abuse children. There are credible sources saying that some people believe that sexual activity of an adult with a child is sexually abusive, and there are credible sources saying that some people believe that pro-pedophile activists wish to abuse children. I don't think Ludianka's and SqueakBox's discussion about whether the world believes adult-child sex is abusive is relevant to whether Wikipedia's article should say that adult-child sex is abusive. Even if everyone believes that something is true, Wikipedia cannot say this unless there are credible sources saying it is true, not credible sources saying that some or many or all people believe it is true. a.z. 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a.z. got to the core of the issue by pointing out that, unless it can be verified that all (or most) pro-pedophile activists intend or aim for adults to "abuse" children, this claim should not be in the article. This is a point that I have stated a number of times before, and is central to my concern over that particular sentence. However, this concern has yet to be fully addressed. Whoever is still in support of keeping the sentence in question the way it is right now, I would like to ask of you to respond to this concern. Personally, I really doubt any pro-pedophile activist would assert that one of his or her goals is to allow adults to "abuse" children. This would simply be contrary to the viewpoints advanced by most pro-pedophile activists. ~ Homologeo 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Discussion (OT)
OT - originally in response to a comment in the above thread. ♥ Lundiaka 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox use spell check, before you press the "save page" button. Please stop butchering the English language. Fighting for Justice 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The day Mozilla (my browser) incorproarte a spell check that doesnt itself butcher the language (ie Americanise it) I certainly will. I always take great care when editing the main space, its not so important on the talk pages but I always double check. This kind of comment doesn't belong here, it should go on my talk page, SqueakBox 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself was going to leave a comment on that page, but you deleted FFJ's contribution (after encouraging it!). To be fair on SqueakBox, the errors are not misspellings, but typing errors. ♥ Lundiaka  18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone ridiculous isuncivil if not a PA and I always remove incivil remarks from my talk page, but especially from a user who has already received a block for being incivil towards me, amongst other things, SqueakBox 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was highlighting your spelling error. Yopur ridiculoyus and obviously <--- that's what you typed.  You'll never find me typing like that.   Fighting for Justice 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucky you, SqueakBox 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, FFJ did not call you ridiculous, but described your spelling as atrocious. You (as can be seen above) similarly described my arguments as ridiculous. ♥ Lundiaka  20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the clones II
Please do not comment here. This is intended as a redirect for a lot of the well-poisoning accusations that have been flying around recently. Hopefully, we can get back to discussing the content of the article in the appropriate place.

See my article here. Dyskolos 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, what has been tried yet
This page is clearly in dispute, and it doesn't seem that much progress is being made in reaching consensus. I was wondering what attempts to mediation have already been made. The first step would usualy be the MedCab, and if this hasn't been tried yet, I would like to propose this case to the mediation cabal. Has this attempt to reach consensus already been tried? Martijn Hoekstra 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I asked Voice of Britain for mediation re this article I was soundly rejected. I am certainly willing to go down this road but only if those who are in disagreement with me are willing to do so as well, SqueakBox 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So far I haven't been very involved yet, but I would certainly participate in mediation per MedCab. I'll go request the case, and those willing to getinvolved are free to join in the mediation. I would like to stress that for mediation to be successfull, it is important that those in conflict are willing to participate, as that makes it far more easy to get ahead with the issue. Martijn Hoekstra 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also list WellandR, Equilibrist and Homologeo who like A.Z. have very recently opposed the edits of SqueakBox and Pol64. Dyskolos 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to participate, and yes, I oppose the current version by Pol 64/Squekbox and would vote against it. Equilibrist 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was planning to make a note on the page, you are free to do so yourself, there is no harm in listing too many. I did a quick search through the talk page here, but I don't claim that it is the complete list of conflicting editors. You can find the page here. Martijn Hoekstra 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, hope mediation can lead into something positive. The current intro to the article is not neutral and must change.  Fighting for Justice 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The current sanction against Pol64 for socking on this article means that this MC pits six users against one. The primary suggestion may be that editors who are representing a minority viewpoint respect the consensus of others. Dyskolos 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try and avoid to put things in a perspective of editors against other editors. We are all here to write the best encylcopedia we can. Let's focus on that, and our common grounds, and let's see what we can do with that. I'm sure we can come up with something, even if it's hard. Martijn Hoekstra 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get to work (Suggestion for a starting point)
If this is going to progress in any way that is satisfactory, we must begin with something concrete, for which I suggest basing our discussion, especially in regard to the initial paragraphs, on the following suggested rewording by Equilibrist. I feel that this is a good starting point, a text that can be tweaked into a form that will allow for some sort of consensus: Welland R 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

________________

Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for specific changes to criminal laws and to cultural responses associated with pedophiles and adult-minor sexual relations. The movement consists of self-identifying pedophiles and other pro-pedophile activists located in various countries, including the United States, the Netherlands, and Canada, sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as North American Man/Boy Love Association (now virtually defunct) and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in sheer opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.

Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily include a redefining of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classifications.

________________

I have put this new version out due to the large consensus in support. Until MC suggests any problems with this version, or half of Perverted-Justice turn up to endorse a condemnatory rant version, it should be kept in place as per the usual community guidelines. Dyskolos 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that SqueakBox speedily reverted the above version back to the version by Pol64. Since he is definitely in the minority I suggest that we keep the above version until disputes have been resolved via Medcab. If SqueakBox thinks that the majority consensus in this case is due to sockpuppetry, he should file appropriate requests for user checks on suspected accounts and cease supporting his rationale for reverts by accusing others of sockpuppetry without any evidence whatsoever. Equilibrist 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Equilibrist. SqueakBox, you said you wanted to make headway in getting this article unprotected, improving its quality, and bringing it closer to NPOV. Please explain why you have reverted the inclusion of this proposed introduction. In what ways do you think this intro is inappropriate? Multiple editors on this Talk Page have expressed approval of this new version, and both the pro- and anti- views of the pro-pedophile movement and its goals are incorporated within. ~ Homologeo 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My ref'd alternative fots NPOV, this unref'd one doesnt, SqueakBox 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, is this reference that you added supposed to back up the statement that adult-child sex is sexual abuse? The reference doesn't say that. a.z. 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

History move - please discuss/vote.
It looks like no one is going to be happy wherever the history section goes. I suggest that we simmer down this bulky article by re-instating the seperate history article after finding consensus or at least an overall majority in favour. This would mean that we can get the criticism back to the bottom of the article (where it should be, according to nearly every article structure on this site) and that this article will once again be approaching the size of the anti-pedophile activism article, following a much bemoaned discrepency in size. Dyskolos 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose, on principal (I a merger not a separator), nothing ot do with the content of the article, SqueakBox 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like the history section stay so I oppose the separation proposal. However, I approve of moving the criticism/controversy part at the bottom of the article, as is the norm here on Wikipedia. Equilibrist 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if there is a consensus to move the history and criticism sections I can go along with that but please don't change the opening to the other version at the same time, SqueakBox 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote is to keep the History section within the main Pro-pedophile Activism article, since it is quite relevant to the topic and fills in the details on how this movement came to be what it is today. What's more, I don't think this article is too big, so I don't see a point in moving the History section. As for the proposed move of the Criticism section, I endorse this on the grounds that the viewpoints and scientific claims of the movement in question should be discussed first, with criticism to follow. Besides, that's the general policy adhered to in the majority of Wikipedia articles. ~ Homologeo 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. The main concern is that we stop the article looking like it's just been made love to by EssayBot v1.0. Dyskolos 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dripping maws
A possible justification for objections to this article.

Due to the saturation of highly condemnatory, emotionalistic and value-laden articles written on the subject of pedophilia, child molestation and its apologists, could it be that readers come to this article with dripping maws, expecting much of what they have become accustomed to? If so, the shock that they get when noticing that this article does not pass judgement on either side of the debate may be the elixir of bias accusations. Of course, I have to concede that this article is relatively biased when we take into account most literature on this subject. When this relative bias combines with the article's huge amount of disturbing and foreign ideas, the simple of mind will of course be vulnerable to gut reactions and confusion. After all, not passing judgement on pedophiles is highly sympathetic in relative terms.

But looking through this article, I can see no valid objection on NPOV grounds. No undue weight, but rather a disturbingly large amount of sourced material, concerning a movement that many people would prefer to have never existed. Dyskolos 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last paragraph. It seems like a fairly fair article to me. a.z. 04:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article still has huge NPOV issues not helped by certain editors determindedly pushing the pro PPA line using both honest and dishonest methods (socks being an example of the latter), SqueakBox 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)}}


 * Could you elaborate, and be more specific? a.z. 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please elaborate, and voice your concerns fully. There's not much headway being made by constantly claiming that editors with a pro-pedophile agenda are out to push their POV (be it via socks or otherwise), if no evidence is provided. Please impact your claims - that way they will carry more weight. For instance, simply claiming time and again that socks are rampart in editing this article will not get us anywhere. You know what should be done if actual socks are present, especially if they're socks of previously banned editors. Please take the appropriate steps to address the situation. If you're not going to do that, please do not use the "presence of socks" argument to defend edits that are against consensus. ~ Homologeo 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have elaborated on this so manmy times I do not need to repeat myself, you all know more or less who has beenn bnlockled as socks and continuously sniping at me for daring to mention the various socks (Voice of Britian has had many socks including Farenhorst while Mike D78 wasbl;ocked last Saturday as abanned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV so ithis attitude is entirely unreasonable and mine a reflection of the basic problem here which is massive use of socks month after month, SqueakBox 04:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the socks that you think have been bothersome have now been banned (leaving the justification and rationale of the blocks to the admins), why continue to stress the issue now? ~ Homologeo 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because that is no guarantee they wont return as after all they have persistently returned in the past. That is why I am interested in mediation and why it is vital that we all remain vigilant in this issue, we cannot just pretend that it wont happen again. Any article or series of articles plagued with socks faces the same issue and needs to tackle it in a highly vigilant manner, obviously. The more socks get uncovered the less possible it is that this issue will go away. if we see no socks in 6 months we could then start to relax and that is absolutely what I want. I find the presence of socks of banned users here highly disruptive tot he articles and the project as a whole and completely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DSM
The article says "the DSM defines pedophilia as a mental illness", but the article on pedophilia says "The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Which one is correct? a.z. 04:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The latter is a more or less accurate description of what DSM actually says in this regard, though it seems that pedophilia is described more as a "sexual" rather than "mental" disorder. Pedophilia is listed under paraphilia section which belongs to the "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" category. Equilibrist 04:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs
Equilibrist, do not remove ref'd material and replace it with unref'd material. Also your edit summary "If opponents believe that sockpuppets are involved, they have to present concise evidence that this is so" tries to put the onus on honest editorsw to uncover dishonest ones and given the history of this article and wikipedia as a who;le that is not the way it works, SqueakBox 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of honesty. Fighting for Justice 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Squeak seems the most honest editor here, to be honest (guffaws).Pol64 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Several well-established Wikipedia users have backed the version I was reverting to. They also agreed that your version was POV pushing. When you start (as you often do) using sock accusations against those who disagree with your edits as justification to bypass consensus, you should be able to back up your claims with solid evidence. Equilibrist 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply pathetic. ALL he can ever claim is that he is right to poison the well (accuse sockpuppetry, justify consensus-busting edits with it) because his assertions are correct (I'm honest, all of you aren't). The quality of debate is therefore atrocious. This will just go around in hopeless circles until something is done about the editor. Dyskolos 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed
I support this edit by SqueakBox. Everything should be referenced. a.z. 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I could find another solution. a.z. 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny and SqueakBox, please explain why a book or a website is not a eligitimate reference. The instance where I undid an edit by Jeeny, there seems to be a legitimate reference to a book. In a couple other places, there are references to websites. What criteria would you propose be used to judge the legitimacy of a source? ~ Homologeo 04:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They could have invented the testimonies. I think that's their objection to the previous version. Wikipedia was saying that the testimonies were real, but that's not verifiable. If the New York Times, for instance, had published such testimonies obtained from interviews, I think Wikipedia would be able to say that there are people who claim that they had sex with adults as children and did not suffer from it. a.z. 04:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Homologeo, you have added back the statement that the testimonies are true. How could one ever verify that? a.z. 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This was not my intention, and I don't think that message is relayed. The statement clearly states that this is "anecdotal material" and no claims are made about its accuracy. Furthermore, the word "claim" relays that this is what the providers of the testimonies believe, and not necessarily the truth. ~ Homologeo 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But my version is correctly referenced. We can't say that the testimonies are true, because this is unverifiable, but we can say that the websites collect them and that they say this is true. This is all verifiable. a.z. 05:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify your response to the point I made above - about the definition of "anecdotal information" and the use of the word "claim" in relation to the assertions made by the individuals being referenced. ~ Homologeo 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The version you wrote says "Some activist websites collect and publish anecdotal material from various people, mainly adults, who, having been sexually involved with an adult as a minor, claim to have enjoyed or suffered no ill effects from this experience." To me, this means that there are real adults that claim to have had these experiences. The references do not support this claim. It is unverifiable that there really are such adults. Wikipedia can't just trust the websites on that. It's verifiable, however, that the websites collect the testimonies and that they say that they are real. a.z. 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Please go ahead and adjust the test, so that this point is relayed appropriately. However, the wording previously used was very confusing, which prompted me to make my edit in the first place. ~ Homologeo 05:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad about that. Here's the diff with my changes. a.z. 05:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. This means that to qualify as such, the ref links should meet all these criteria. Not to "pro" sites. For example, White pride, should not link to websites that are only or mostly to "pro White pride" sites, same for any other article. But, especially for controversial articles. Therefore, my tags. Anything not backed by reliable sources can be deleted and/or contested. Cheers. :) Jeeny (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the information is clearly biased and skewed on any particular website, Wikipedia tends not to link to such a site. However, if an article is talking about claims advanced by a particular group, referencing that group for proof that such claims are indeed made is quite justifiable. Hope my reasoning makes sense =) ~ Homologeo 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's not justifiable. Just as White people should not link to Stormfront sites, etc., for they are not reliable sources because they are biased and skewed. Hope you can see the analogy. Jeeny (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the analogy being made, but I still have to reiterate my point. If there is a truth claim being made, then, yes, Wikipedia does not link to such sites. However, if the text is concerned about what a site says - the site being the main forum of many pro-pedophile organizations - referencing the sites makes sense. Besides, where else could Wikipedia link to confirm that a site actually says something that the Wikipedia article states it does. Unless someone else writes a critique or mentions the site in another article, there will probably be no other appropriate source to be used as a reference. Even if there is such a source, it would be considered "secondary." Wouldn't it be reasonable to use the primary source in this context, since the secondary source would only be drawing for information on the primary in the first place? ... Whew... hopefully I didn't ramble too much on this point. But I really appreciate the way editing of this article is now progressing - people are communicating and rationally presenting their positions. I'm so happy that we're making headway after such a long looooooong time of nothing productive happening here. Kudos to all who are contributing to this new effort! ~ Homologeo 05:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The article on Stormfront does link to the Stormfront website to back up the claim that "Stormfront calls itself a 'Racialist discussion board for pro-White activists and anyone else interested in White survival'". Stormfront is not a reliable source when it comes to whether white people are superior or not. However, it is a very reliable source when it comes to whether Stormfront calls itself something or not. It's the same case here. The reference we are talking about is not about whether adult-child sex is OK or not, or whether there exist adults who say they had sex with adults as children and they did not suffer: it's about whether the websites collect the information and say that this information is true or not. The sources we are using are reliable. a.z. 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it does, but does White people link to Stormfront sites? This article is not named NAMBLA. Which I would consider a better analogy. Now, I understand the citing problems with subjects such as these...but maybe I should have directed you to WP:NOR more than the others, as this may help better understand the criteria, and to verify the content and cite properly for an encyclopedia. :) Jeeny (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on white supremacy links to the website of the Church of the Creator, a racist organization. It doesn't matter what is the article's title. If the article on NAMBLA did not exist, and there were only a sub-section of the article on pro-pedophile activism about NAMBLA, that sub-section would be able to link to the NAMBLA official website, if they have any. This article is about pro-pedophile activism, but that paragraph is about pro-pedophile groups. Their websites are an acceptable primary source when it comes to backing up the information that they say they have testimonies of people who were children and had sex with adults, etc. If there were secondary sources, this would be better, but there aren't. a.z. 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) True, good points. Then maybe this article should be deleted. As this is an encyclopedia and not a place for pro anything. If articles can only link to primary sources then there is something wrong with them, therefore are not encyclopedic, IMO. The are other sites, like stormfront, NAMBLA, etc for their views. Such as a blog of sorts, news magazine, etc. :) RE: Primary sources" "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary. To quote Wikipedia again, on secondary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. ... Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Jeeny (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Using primary sources to back up your claims is not being pro nor against anything. We are being descriptive here. If there were secondary sources, what the article says wouldn't change, the references would be the only thing that would change. All information that Wikipedia contains is also contained in books, magazines, documents, etc. We just collect it in one place, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. This article can not only link to primary sources. It links to many secondary sources, but, to back up the specific claims we are discussing, primary sources are just fine, as any regular person can verify that the information is true. I don't think it's productive to just quote policy like that without explaining why you think it matters. Do you think some Wikipedian has added their personal interpretation of the sources to the article? Do you think the sources are being misused? If you do, then explain why. a.z. 06:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeeny, please wait about a week or two before bombarding this article and its talk-page with minute changes and quibbling suggestions (all of your proverbial "tweaking"). At the present moment, those of us who have been editing this article for some time are attempting to address larger issues than those that result in the changes you have made of late.  As for your comment "Then maybe this article should be deleted. As this is an encyclopedia and not a place for pro anything"--if it were not so conceptually naive, it might be taken as a failed attempt at humor on your part.  Your suggestion will certainly end the abortion debate on Wikipedia, as the "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" articles both disappear via your magic rhetorical wand. Welland R 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I resent your remarks that I am "quibbling" and "bombarding" this article and talk page, and my "proverbial tweaking". Comment on content, not on editors. Thank you very much. Also no one owns an article, so I have every right to edit this article or any other article, as long as I abide by the policies of Wikipedia. And I was being a bit sarcastic in my comment saying all pro-anything articles sould be deleted, even if I personally believe some should. I'll be careful to keep my personal feelings or judgements out of this, and I ask you to do the same. Cheers. :) Jeeny (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, Jeeny, and feel free to bombard the article and talk page with your good faith edits as much as you feel able to do. You are not the first person to want to see this article deleted and there is conceptually naive abou this. Therea re ediotrs here who appear hostuile to any change they disagree with but as this is nott heir article they have to live with others disagreeing with them also being editors here, SqueakBox 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, we were having the most constructive of conversations above, and it only stopped because Jeeny went to bed. I agree that Jeeny's edits were in good faith, yes. The rest of your post is nothing but destructive and adds nothing to the conversation. a.z. 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Jeeny's participation in the discussion on this Talk Page and in the editing of the article has been very helpful. As I stated above, it's good to have some headway happening here, after such a long standstill. Even though some big issues about the intro and in other respects still need to be worked out, there's no harm in tweaking the article, as long as the edits made are in good faith and not controversial. Welland R, I'm pretty sure all that Jeeny meant was that, if this article only linked to primary sources, than its presence on Wikipedia would be questionable. I have to say that this observation is quite on the money, for secondary sources are indeed preferred. I guess what needs to be done is to distinguish where the text warrants secondary sources and where primary. ~ Homologeo 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Two issues that need to be addressed about SqueakBox's version
There are more issues, but I have selected two of them. Until these issues have been addressed, I feel SqueakBox should stop changing the page to his proposed version.


 * Lack of references: SqueakBox's version implies that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, not in the legal sense, but in the psychological sense. It is impossible to state that because studies about this are impossible. There is no scientific study that says that sex between adults and children has something harmful to it, and that it can't be a positive experience for both. His current reference backing up this claim is this website that says nothing about the matter. I think it is unverifiable that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse.


 * Talking about people's motivations: SqueakBox's version refers to "activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children". Besides implying that sex between children and adults is the same as child sexual abuse, this sentence implies that pro-pedophile activists knowingly wish that children be abused. Wikipedia doesn't speculate about people's intentions. a.z. 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you go on please provide refs for your extraordinary claim that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse because I think this is your original research, please seeWP:NOR, SqueakBox 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no references and I have never claimed that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse. a.z. 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have no references, then the content should not be added to the article, or if you do add content that has no reliable source  reference, it can and should be contested, or even deleted. RE: "I think it is unverifiable that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse." Especially this comment. Again, if it's unverifiable it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Period. Jeeny (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At no point in the intro disputed by SqueakBox is there an assertion that "adult-child sexual contact" is or is not "child sexual abuse." There is an observation that pro-pedophile activists consider it to be not harmful (and references for this are ample throughout the article), and there is a point made that such contact is currently defined in most medical, legal, etc. contexts as "child sexual abuse." How is this information inappropriate? Please explain. ~ Homologeo 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Jeeny, I don't understand your point. I agree that, if someone doesn't have references to back up a content, then the content should not be added. That's what I am saying about SqueakBox's version. He is trying to add something without having references. I have no intention whatsoever to write in the article that sex between children and adults is not child sexual abuse, but SqueakBox wants to write that sex between children and adults is child sexual abuse, although there's no reference backing that up either. a.z. 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a ref now! Please do not remove it. Roman, please dont say don't add refs to the opening as that completely contradicts policy and how we do things here, SqueakBox 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z you complain there is no ref and when I give one you immediately remove it. That is not an edit of a good faith editor, SqueakBox 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, I don't have access to the book The Sexual Exploitation of Children that you added as a reference to back up the statement that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. Could you copy to this talk page the relevant part of the book, so I and others can evaluate whether that is really what the book says? a.z. 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. It seems that there's an online version. I'm going to read it. a.z. 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Nope, I suggest you post to Talk:Child sexual abuse as the ref came from that article, SqueakBox 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you added the reference without reading it! In the article about child sexual abuse, this reference is used to back up the assertion that "child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification." This has absolutely nothing to do with the assertion that "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children". The definition the reference backs up is legal. If the criminal laws were actually changed, then adult-child sex, currently an offense in many places and thus described as child sexual abuse in the legal sense, would stop being described as child sexual abuse because it would stop being a criminal or civil offense. I didn't read the reference yet, and I am going to do it because I am interested. But, based on the reasoning above, I reject your reference already. a.z. 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem here is that statements on the order of "always child sexual abuse before the age of 14" or "inability to give consent before the age of 16" are perfect examples of value judgements and certainly not something that is universally verifiable. There are no objective scientific tests measuring the ability to consent to sex, nor is there any conclusive evidence that non-violent, volunteer sexual contacts between certain age groups neccessarily constitues "abuse" at one instance but not in the other (such as, it is "always abusive" to have volunteer sex with a 12 yearold but possibly "okay" with a 14 yearold, etc.). Many places in the US an 18 yearold having sex with a 15 yearold would be legally defined as a "statutary rapist", no matter how volunteer and mutual the actvity in question. These are good examples of value judgements, and while as an encyclopedia we should point to the fact that ALL sexual activity between adults and "minors" are considered "sexual abuse" "in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts" it is unencyclopedic to take sides in the debate by stating that "PP activists want to abuse children. Period." as per SqueakBox's suggestion. We are not here to judge and decide the truth but merely to describe a phenomenon in value-neutral terms as appropriate for an objective, impartial encyclopedia. Equilibrist 22:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't just deal with science, that would make us a scientific encyclopedia, a great idea but not what we are. And we must not confuse our readers or we would destroy our value as educational. The reality is adults having sex with children is rape but adults having sex with 16 year olds isn't, SqueakBox 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not up to Wikipedia to decide the "reality" of your statement and, besides, your point has already been made quite clearly in the intro: Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of what they consider to be adult romantic love and sexual attraction to minors, as well as the legalization of what they believe to be non-abusive and mutually consenting adult-minor sexual activity, activity that is currently defined, in most cultural, medical, and legal contexts, as child sexual abuse. and Pro-pedophile activism stands in opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from those it considers "predatory pedophiles" and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children.. Several researchers, such as Rind et.al., have in fact opposed the orthodoxy and suggested the use of value-neutral terminology in order to properly differentiate between what might be described as "abusive", "neutral" and "positive" experiences. Equilibrist 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia, and humanities are sciences just like psychology is. No reader will know what you mean if you actually write "adults having sex with children is rape". This sentence can be interpreted in a number of ways, and you ought to be more clear. a.z. 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that sexual contact between adults and minors may not be an invariably coercive, forceful interaction is one that has been suggested and even taken for granted in various societies. Thus, when discussing it as anything bar the crime, we should avoid problematic value judgements such as "love", "abuse" and even "relationship". Describing a potential decriminalised interaction as abuse is crazy, as it would be non-abusive by its very definition! This should really end the debate! ♥ Lundiaka  01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that a decriminalised interaction is necessarily non-abusive? There have been many societies in which it was legal to physically and psychologically abuse people in many ways. a.z. 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be non-abusive by its legal definition. And the PPAs described in this article would not support any of the contact that would be prosecuted under general assault laws, as long as they did not "discriminate" by age. Of course, individual cases under a more liberal regime may very well be abusive, using a broader definition, but I'm sure you'll agree that to call all of the legalised interactions "abuse" or "love", simply because that is how they are defined now, or that is how some PPA wants to see it, is stupid, misinterprets the PPA message and is unnecessarily POV. ♥ Lundiaka  03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed information about the DSM
Jeeny, why removing information about the DSM? This is referenced and important. From where did you get the information that a paraphilia is something "abnormal and unnatural", whatever that means? Isn't that just your personal opinion about pedophilia? a.z. 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Abnormal and unnatural" does kind of fit as an unofficial, lay description of Paraphilia. The main problems with her edit is that she or he seems to be asserting that it is not only an official definition, but one endorsed by the DSM (only a ref in the Psy Today link used to back up this definition). Another problem is that the Psy Today article does not involve "behaviour" in the passage quoted. Another problem is that she or he removes at least one valid source and a copy-edit. ♥ Lundiaka  03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DSM verification
Hi, Jeeny. I am a new editor, although I have a lot of experience in this topic.

You have supported an edit that removes this valid link from the DSM verification, removes the official literature and goes on to implant a misquote of unofficial opinion as a definition of paraphilia. This makes it look as if the DSM is written by the editor of Psy Today, which is obviously not good.

Please condider the quality and applicability of your sources, and make sure not to misrepresent official texts such as the DSM. Cheers. ♥ Lundiaka 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither is an official link. Try this one, at least it's from the APA:. -Jmh123 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lundiaka, I have a problem with "cherry picking" from sources to support a POV. Yes, that blurb is in the criteria, but there is a lot more. Please see the link Jmh123 provided. It does include the text that was there before my revert, but it is taking it out of context which I have a problem with. This is a complicated subject, to use the text that was there before...seemly was to minimize what the diagnosis or criteria pertaining to the sources it actually quotes. So, IMO it it best to leave it to the reader to click on the ref to read further. That is, unless the full explanation is fully illustrated in the article. Cheers. :) Jeeny (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you add the full explanation, with context, to the article? a.z. 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you? It is the responsiblity of the editor who included the content to provide accurate content. Not me. Anything that does not support the source, or if there is no source, anyone has the right to delete it. :) btw, I'm going to bed now. I was up too late the last couple of nights, and I have to go to work in the morning. JSYK. :)Jeeny (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So what? That's not what I'm discussing. I copied the text directly from the source. The text I copied made perfect sense for me, and I think it could stay there as it was. In the future, someone could add more information. I won't add the "full explanation" because I have no idea about what the "full explanation" is. You seem to know it, so, to improve Wikipedia, you should add that to the article. a.z. 04:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added it. Jeeny (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A.Z. 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was never my intention to cherry - pick or eliminate information that was unfavourable to pedophiles. In fact, I was trying to achieve a more "official" definition (such as the one that you and I now seem to endorse). In this sense, putting back the copy edit and removing the misquote of Psy Today editorial opinion was central to my aim. Any elaboration on how my (and other editors') revert edit lead to bias would be much appreciated. ♥ Lundiaka  00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ICD-10
An editor described ICD-10 as "an international classification of mental disorders" when according to the WHO it is mainly used for classification of all kind of diseases, mainly physical disorders with a single chapter (out of 22) dealing with psychiatry (which it in turn largely borrows or infers from the DSM). Directly from the WHO website: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

ICD-10 definition of pedophilia, with a code F65.4 listed under the "Disorders of sexual preference " category: "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."http://www.reasoned.org/dir/ds/icd_f65.htm#4

PS: I forgot to sign in during my latest edit, so I accidentally edited the article with an IP address. Equilibrist 10:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why reverting against consensus is not a good idea
An editor claims that we do not revert sourced material.

This is invalid when talk page consensus has established that the sources do not support the claims.

This is invalid when the claims are laden with subjective values and oppositions as raised in my earlier arguments (NPOV). You cannot use the bible to reference the rightness of its own judgements.

This is invalid when the more popular version is supported by references in the body text. ♥ Lundiaka 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, if Squeakbox wants to keep his precious sources he can either incorporate them in the "Criticism of the movement" part or some other parts in the intro without all the dramatic (and POV) tweaks to the original text as he so vehemently proposes. However, as other editors have pointed out, it may not be a good idea to start with a heavily sourced intro since all the relevant sources are already supplied further below in the article, as appropriate. Equilibrist 00:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical definitions...
This section now goes into more detail regarding the DSM than the pedophilia article itself. I do not oppose Jeeny's new inclusion, but would rather it be moved to Pedophilia, and a shorter and more general section on the medical definition be used, if at all. ♥ Lundiaka 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw Lundiaka, aren't you exaggerating just a tad? This section had but a few lines and narrow definition, I expanded it by adding the quotes. Just two wee paragraphs. For NPOV and WP:V reasons. Thus what I added should stay in this article, as it pertains to the subject, and is backed up by a reliable source. Anyway, I was encouraged about expanding on this issue, by A.Z. I just didn't do it in the intro section. Jeeny (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, the quoted APA statement on pedophilia (2003) was motivated by moral outcry following publication of the controversial Rind et. al. study (the only academic study ever censored by the US congress). The APA came under fire for publishing Rind's study, and they were compelled to issue a statement specifically condemning pedophilia, referring to it as both "immoral" and "criminal", even though psychiatrists in general avoid such terms as they believe that someone with a mental disorder can't be accused of immorality since they can't help themselves in the first place. Other psychiatrists have criticized the APA statement as strictly politically motivated as well as being incongruent with the actual DSM definition. Equilibrist 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that a reasonably hefty section disclosing the medical definitions of pedophilia, at the start of an article about a political movement that covers even broader subjects, somewhat flattens the flow of the article. I also find it a little unnecessary, given our ability to incorporate the information into an unlocked Pedophilia article and redirect.


 * I do not see how a shortened description fails on NPOV. IMO, we had a very good version of this incorporated into the introduction, not long ago.


 * I will not undo the edit until there is a consensus to do so, as I have no policy to back myself up here. This is a stylistic objection on my part. ♥ Lundiaka  01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, Pedophilia article already contains a medical section. The only thing new that could be added there is the APA statement, though personally I think that the whole statement is largely superfluous. Another problem is that we have no idea when the Pedophilia article is ever going to be unlocked. It was locked because of an editor who wanted to add a section on a supposed association between homosexuality and pedophilia. Equilibrist 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [to your previous post] So here we go. Maybe we should include the background to that exceptional press release and its uncharacteristic language. Maybe this would better suit Pedophilia.


 * The language is of course correct. Pedophilia (when practised, as the DSM suggests is possible) is criminal, immoral and abnormal. I'm sure many of the people behind this statement believe just that, but would contest that Homosexuality was once considered similarly, rendering "criminal, immoral and abnormal" mere statements of fact. ♥ Lundiaka  01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, exactly. The ped article already has a section to which we can redirect. If the said was unlocked, would you endorse a "medical..." section that looked just like the "legal..." section below, but redirected to Pedophilia?


 * In an article about activism, legal and medical should be themes covered throughout, but lines of precise information that do not particularly relate to activism, should ideally be avoided. In general, we should avoid duplicate content. ♥ Lundiaka  01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, this whole article is NPOV. Like I said on the mediation case... I fear that this topic is abusing the Wikipedia guidelines, because it is labeled as activism, and has a very narrow view. I believe this should be merged to Pedophilia instead, where it cannot be used as a PR campaign, as this article appears to do. There are many more negative views and scientifically documented cases that prove that it does harm children. It may take years though, but it does. Pro-pedophilia cannot be backed-up by many scientific journals and/or peer reviewed journals, now can it? Other than the pro-organization itself. Jeeny (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Homosexuality argument is old. There is a BIG difference. Yes, it's true what you said, but then again it is not true anymore today. So, when pedophilia is considered natural, and non-abusive, then you can compare the two. Jeeny (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I support addding as much information as possible about pedophilia to Wikipedia. If this section gets huge eventually, due to a large amount of referenced and unbiased information, this will be great, but then the section would have to become an article on its own, called "medical definitions of pedophilia" or something like that, and linked from a shorter section of this article, as in "main article: medical definitions of pedophilia". If this happened, could add to this article the recommendation for people to read the main article about medical definitions of pedophilia. I would be against a "general" short section about pedophilia if there weren't a recommendation for people to read an article with the full explanation before reading this article. I personally don't think the current medical section is huge. a.z. 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Referenced material
SqueakBox added back his proposed version, even though none of the issues mentioned above have been addressed. Referenced material does not mean a sentence with a random link next to it. That link just does not back up the assertion, and I have said this to him above. SqueakBox's version is not referenced. a.z. 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's sourced and the one he reverted from was not. But, if the references do not support the assertions in the article itself, then it needs to. I haven't checked the refs though. I don't have time right now, though, to check them. I want to let this go a bit, so I do not become emotionally involved, and can remain neutral. :) Jeeny (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need to check the refs. SqueakBox admitted above that he didn't even read the reference before adding it. He just copied it from another article, where it is used to back up a completely different assertion, as I pointed out already. a.z. 03:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Mirkin's article tentatively added
In attempting to address a call for a citation to be added to this sentence -- "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular" -- I added both a tarty comment by Prof. Camille Paglia and a summary of Dr. Harris Mirkin's argument in "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." I felt that it was questionable for me to summarize Mirkin's article myself (which would certainly have been questioned by others as to its accuracy and would also have been time-consuming to create), and decided to go with a published summary of his article from a scholarly source. If anyone knows of another published summary of this article from a different scholarly source, please feel free to suggest replacing the summary I have quoted with another ... unless, of course, those editing this article at present feel that this summary should be removed altogether. All that said, I recognize that some here may object to the very presence of that quotation, particularly as part of the introduction; however, as far as I can gather (and omniscient I am not), it is the only scholarly meta-analysis of "pro-pedophile activism" by a political/social scientist who is not taking a strikingly "anti-pedophile activism" stance. Hence, I feel that it serves to address the need for a citation here and to pre-empt much of the discussion about why there are so few scholarly or other engagements of the "pro-pedophile activism" arguments. Welland R 06:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem is that you have entered this material into the lead of the article. See Lead_section. The lead is not the location for an extended argument.  -Jmh123 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Jeeny (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks! (Why not suggest where it should properly move to rather than bleeping it away completely?) Anyway, should it appear somewhere else? Ah, Dear, you are truly getting on my nerves by your unconsulted decision-making in an article that is already having trouble reaching consensus!!! (Did someone appoint you in charge? Maybe they did, and I missed the voting process).Welland R 07:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jmh123: Thanks for your constructive comment. It prompted me to move the material further down the page. What are your thoughts on it now? Be quick! or it might merely exist as a vague "I removed it" reference on the talk page :-) Welland R 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you may benefit from reading Five pillars as ANYone can edit Wikipedia, and dispute claims. No one is in "charge". Anyway, deletion of content is always there in the history, and if you can find a proper place for it, it's easy to add it back, in the appropriate place, that is. But make sure it is a reliable, verifiable source, and not one view that supports yours. Jeeny (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeeny: Sorry to make this personal ... but look at it from a slightly different perspective. Some here have been editing this article (and similar articles) for quite a while now.  You now make your sudden appearance and lecture all of us on how Wikipedia works (or at least your interpretation of those guidelines and rules). Get a clue! We didn't, contrary to what you might think, enter Wikipedia last week. (Put simply, the removal of your almost Pharisaic "the rules are here and I understand them better than you and plan to enforce them" is, at best, patronizing). Good day ... Welland R 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, that's all good. Wikipedia is open to anyone. If someone comes in later and adds reliable verifiable content to balance an article, that is also good. If someone needs a refresher course in core policy...that's a good thing too. So be it. There have been articles that have been complete hoaxes that have stayed for quite awhile on Wikipedia....if those who made a "sudden" appearance to clean it up, that's good too. But too bad it stay in its state so long...an embarrassment. Also, there is no ownership of articles, I don't care how long you've edited before. I can make "a sudden appearance" on any article, cuz that's the Wiki-way. Just because I have not seen it before, does not mean that I am not allowed to edit, and provide content, especially when backed by reliable, verifiable sources. Nor is it a bad thing to challenge the content. Which I have...not to make this personal. Wow, isn't Wikipedia great? Jeeny (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jeeny: We seem to be running at cross purposes today. You have just paired a major scholarly article (published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Journal of Homosexuality no less) with a silly source ... from The Star Tribune newspaper! Was that, especially put inside of a quotation box (drawing attention to it), supposed to be a bit of humor manifesting itself or what? Besides, you have made this seeming rebuttal to Mirkin ** in a section devoted to the "pro-pedophile view" ** (Talk about out of place!) I won't remove your brilliant "scholarly" source from its place ... I hope you do so yourself, after taking a moment to reconsider it, or someone else here backs me up. As an academic, I find your "verified sources" quite ... well ... hmmm! ... UNACADEMIC. Welland R 07:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work on a more scholarly source. But, it will say the same thing. Jeeny (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "unpopularity" statement: What does Camille Paglia's POV has to do as a source of what is supposed to be deemed "popular" or "unpopular"? Equilibrist 07:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what should be placed there, since the sentence seems to me to be self-evident to the point of not needing to be said at all -- "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular". (What a surprise that sentence is!) Why anyone would/should place a "citation needed" note after that sentence is a complete puzzle to me.  Nevertheless, the "citation needed" note was there, and I was hoping that the Paglia quote would at least say "Yes, it's unpopular" (Lest those who were in doubt should think that pro-pedophile activism was "popular").  Have any suggestion for a replacement source? Welland R 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Welland, you are making my point. What I really meant to say was that the unpopularity of the movement is self-evident. Thus, I think that it would have been better to simply keep this sentence as it was before someone added the "citation needed" tag. Short and concise. What do you all think? Equilibrist 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree fully. Welland R 08:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I believe the naming of this article was to avoid this type of balance, or rebuttal. Well, it won't work. It was a sneaky thing to do. And that pisses me off more than the subject matter ever will. Jeeny (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see where you're heading at here. Are you implying that you are bothered by the title of the PPA article?? Equilibrist 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in full agreement with Welland. The rebuttal has to go, at the very least into the section entitled "criticism". This is meant to be a neutral article with sections that do what they say they do. This necessarily excludes "studding" the article throughout with unwieldy and patronizing "reminders" that "no one actually agrees with these dicks".


 * I investigated Jeeny's objection to the name of the article and found that the first deletion nomination was for "Childlove movement", and more recently in the archive, that the name was changed from "Pedophile activism". Those arguing for the recent name change included editors of a similar opinion to Jeeny, and SqueakBox himself. I don't see how the naming of this, or the sister article allows a higher level of bias. This is something that Jeeny will have to explain.


 * Whilst there is a widespread public consensus concerning those who are seen as the subjects of this article's subjects (pedophiles), hardly anyone outside of activist or academic circles knows about the PP movement. Thus, a smaller criticism section is justified, IMO. ♥ Lundiaka  08:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, do you have a license to investigate? And what are your conclusions, based on my wide interests, knowledge, and edits actually have to do with this subject? Jeeny (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since others choose to wave their academic flags. I have accreditation, and am academically certified. I have other academic degrees, which I will not wave. I know very well the PP movement. Also, there is no such criteria that one needs to be for or against the movement in order to edit this or any other article. If that were the case, then all articles would be biased. Jeeny (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course. But how did you get to know about the movement? I have done some studies of both the Pro- and Anti- streams, and have gotten to know some individuals who have had passing experiences with gay and pederastic activist movements. ♥ Lundiaka  09:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the heck does this have to do with anything? Show your creditals. I know individuals who have been harmed by this "movement" via my job! Now is your's personal, or what? Jeeny (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jeeny: You are certainly in rare form today! Is it my imagination or did you just use the following edit summary: "Undid revision 163285704 by Lundiaka (talk) leave it". "LEAVE IT" -- oh, girl, is that rare form indeed. I guess we have to ignore your slight Napoleonic complex and go for a vote ... Welland R 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear whoeveryouare, buck up. Are you now using an IP to revert? Jeeny (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was me. Forgot to sign in, as usual (arggh!). I was merely reverting Welland's own edit as he agreed that it was superflous. Do you disagree with that? Equilibrist 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Equilibrist: Thanks for explaining ... ps. The last time I looked, I was a "she" :-) [See my User-page] Welland R 12:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

_______________________

Dear Fellow Democratic Wikipedians, do you think that we should "LEAVE IT!" -- as our resident Napoleon commands -- or should we, as a group, "REMOVE IT"? Please decide below:

* REMOVE IT or move it! It does not serve the purpose given in the section title. It has no proven relation to the Mirkin Quote. It sets a precedent for the disruptive, bloating and flow-destroying studding of anti POVs throughout sections other than criticism. ♥ ~ Lundiaka  09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [Indef blocked account]
 * REMOVE IT! -- Welland R 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedians, Wikipedia is not a democracy. So there should be no voting, but consensus. (sock and meatpuppets not included) Napoleon Bonajeeny Talk 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't voting evil? Please define exactly what is to be removed if you want a vote to have any validity whatsoever. We should certainly have a larger criticism section and start to trim the POV that supports PPAs, some ediotrs seem to want to make this article more POV andf that is counter-productive, SqueakBox 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should specify what you think is "POV" (it looks to me that you think that not saying that PPAs wish to abuse children is "POV"). You should also, if you want anyone to pay attention to you, say which editors seem to want to make this article more POV, and why. A.Z. 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * REMOVE IT or move it, as per User:Lundiaka. After re-reading the section I am of the opinion that the commentary by David Smith is (1) a far cry from a scholarly response that would have been appropriate in regards to the aforementioned academic article, and (2) it doesn't actually address the point in question. The quoted statement does not imply in any way that homosexuality and pedophilia are somehow related, thus rendering Smith's random ramblings largely irrelevant. Unless there is a scholarly source which disputes Mirkin's assertions, the quote should be either removed or re-located elsewhere. Equilibrist 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

__________________
 * Keep it. The quote attempts to associate the gay rights movement with the Pro-pedophile movement, and thus the quote is needed for balance.  -Jmh123 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the pleasures that arise from an entity that creates its own "language games"! Ok, my use of the word "democratic" was not exactly "consensus" (and I do recognize the fine distinction between the two) ... though one would assume, given the context (which pitted monarchical pronouncements like "Leave it" with something more collective, that it would be seen in that sense rather than how the language game of Wikipedia works). Secondly, since this request for comment by the editors (and that was all it was) was contained in a discussion thread that, for the latter half, was devoted to a consideration of the unacademic/illogical inclusion of the following by Jeeny (placed in an utterly inappropriate section of the article):

"Pedophilia is something that's abhorrent, should be condemned in the strongest of terms and should have nothing to do with gay civil rights issues," said David Smith, spokesman for the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign. Smith also spoke out against the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which has been trying to link adult-child sex with homosexual rights for 24 years.[52]"

-- it would not take a proverbial "rocket-scientist" to understand that that was the object being considered. Now, to the point of agreement or disagreement: DEAR CONSENSUS PARTICIPANTS IN THIS ARTICLE, DO WE KEEP THE ABOVE QUOTATION IN ITS PLACE OR REMOVE/MOVE IT? (I fail to see how, without the current editors affirming "keep it" or "remove it" or "move it," we can possibly determine whether we have a consensus or not ... save for something resembling a vote or a set of comments for consideration or a qualification of each editor's position, etc.

SO DO WE KEEP IT OR REMOVE/MOVE IT? Welland R 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

________________________

In an attempt to address the concerns of those wishing a rebuttal of Mirkin directly following the summary of his argument, I have supplied three more sources (quoted) to the one Jeeny added earlier, three sources that are far more "academic". Beyond serving as a rebuttal, they also allow for a broader understanding of the context of Mirkin's article and display the response of the broader society to it. For these reasons, I feel that the added quotations do not diminish the function of Mirkin's argument in this section devoted to the "pro-pedophile" stance; yet, they do serve to show that his argument is fringe and widely disputed. Does this material assist in satisfying all parties concerned? Welland R 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, now the next step is to synthesize all of this material, rather than simply posting a bunch of quotes on the page. Beyond that, your added material contributes further to the hodgepodge that is the following sections, which are arranged and organized poorly.  MikeD was going to work on that, but never got around to it.  Presentation of the perspectives of activists and research supporting these perspectives should be clear, concise, and non-repetitive.  From your added material down to controversies section, what is there now looks like "people who agree with us and what they say" and in its redundancy and disorganized mode of presentation, gives the impression of special pleading rather than an intelligent summary of the information. -Jmh123 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove/alter the materials as you see fit. I have changed all but one of the added quotations to mere citations (in the Mirkin rebuttal section). I hope that this addresses, at least a bit, your concern. I agree that someone needs to polish this article from top to bottom, creating something far more cogent and less repetative ... but, at the present moment, is anyone willing to invest the time in that project, especially when there seems no assurance that a consensus will be reached on those changes? Personally, I am not ... and admit to growing a bit bored with tinkering with this article anyway. Welland R 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Adult/youth-minor sexual interactions"
With all respect, Roman, we're not dealing with a movement whose primary objective is the legalisation of sex between minors, which is often legal or acceptable in the first place. If we are, "youth-minor" could not be classed as a form of sexual interaction at the same time as "adult-minor", as this would imply that youths are different to minors, or are a subclass of adults. ♥~ Lundiaka  10:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Lundiaka, we are! Sex between minors is illegal in Germany (see http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/176.html and http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/180.html) and as I hear in at least some of the United States as well.  There have been 17-year-olds incarcerated for intercourse with 13-year-olds or 7-year-olds put life-long on the sexual offenders registry for sexual play in the elementary classroom.  I don't know much about pedophile activism overseas, but the German pedophile activists have a history of fighting for children's rights to sexuality.   If you want, I can search for example articles on http://www.itp-arcados.net/ and http://k13-online.krumme13.eu/. Roman Czyborra 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is shocking. A.Z. 05:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially the part of 7-year-olds being on the sexual offenders list. That's what I mean, when it is obvious that the public is against this. And it is getting more and more bizarre. This is so over the top. This is not to excuse those adults who take advantage of children under the age of 12 as objects of desire, not counting those adults who do NOT act on this urge, though. Jeeny (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Children should be free to have all the sex they want between themselves. Taking this freedom from them is child abuse. A.Z. 05:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you are really from, but it's not just Germany, it is in the US, UK etc, too. They are arresting children and taking them away from their parents! It's gone too far. And it is mostly because of this friggen movement. Don't you see that? Jeeny (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am really from where I say I am on my user page, Jeeny, but I'm sure you'll explain your concerns about my identity/intentions/location on your talk page tomorrow. I would like to know what evidence there is that pro-pedophile activism somehow caused these German laws to be created. This seems like an interesting theory. A.Z. 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting as this disctussion is, it is not in fact discussion about the article, so let's keep it at this, or continue the discussion on user(talk) pages. Our opinions on wehter or not something is shocking are not all that relevant to the article. Martijn Hoekstra 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of this sentence: "Many vigilante groups also target anyone with a sexual attraction to children"
I want to stress that the focus of this article should be pro-pedophile activism. This is especially true of the intro. This being said, Barry Jameson, could you please explain why you think the following sentence should remain within the intro: "Many vigilante groups also target anyone with a sexual attraction to children." Although we both agree that this deals with pedophilia in the sense that it talks about anti-pedophile activist vigilante groups, this text is not relevant to the main topic of the article. If you want to add this sentence to the Anti-pedophile activism page, please feel free to do so, but the anti- movement is already sufficiently covered within the intro. Furthermore, what this sentence is saying is that these groups target pedophiles, and does not even reference pro-pedophile activism or activists. In that regard, this would even be more fitting for the Pedophilia article than this one. Furthermore, this sentence could come off as POV, and that's the last thing this article needs, seeing as there are already concerns about viewpoint neutrality within this text. Lastly, this sentence just looks out-of-place in the intro, since the intro is supposed to be concise and to the point, and should focus on the topic at hand, and not something else, such as a counter movement. ~ Homologeo 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. It's the pro-pedophile article. Why the hell is it so much larger than the antipedophile article, though? GrooV 06:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose because it is much more controvercial, and therefor receives much more attention in the popular and scientific media. Martijn Hoekstra 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some discussion over including this line. I oppose to including it in this place, on grounds that it may be true, but it an ambigious statement, as in that it doesn't say much about what groups are meant exactly. I think the gest of the statement would be that pro-pedophile groups oppose this kind of action. If that is the case, maybe it could be replaced with something along the lines of "some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children" accompanied with a reliable source that backs up this statement. If anyone disagrees with this way of putting it, leave your comments here, and change it to something more suitable. Martijn Hoekstra 10:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added two references, however one is a blog (although not typical blog content) and one is a media article rather than a vigilante organisation. Is it acceptable to link to CorporateSexOffenders.com following the owner's rant about Wikipedia? That website targets anyone with a sexual attraction to children and is a vigilante group, which makes it a very good example.

Your sentence is probably an improvement, but it isn't just pedophiles who oppose vigilante action against non-predatory pedophiles. Barry Jameson 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately some vigilante groups also target people whom they mistakenly believe to be pedophiles but whom are innocent people. There was a march in the UK some years ago with people carrying placards reading "send the peds to Latin America" which is completely off the wall, incendiary material that fully contradicts the spirit of the UK law and decent human compassion. It is fine to link to media, btw, but I think stuff about vigilantism should be moved to the APA article. Do others agree? If so I can do it, SqueakBox 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A person's sexual orientation does not define whether or not they are "innocent," contrary to the implications of your statement. There is some overlap between what is relevant in the pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism articles. I don't think that moving the sentence to the anti-pedophile activism article is necessary. Barry Jameson 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your first statement at all. I said innocent and I meant it, I wasn't commenting on innocent people's sexual, merely on whether they were wrongly believed to be pedophile by people who attack first and ask questions once they have done the damage, SqueakBox 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to patroll this article
Someone from a group that I frequent said that some activist editors were trying to pass their opinions off as fact. Could someone please point to some recent examples, so that I can see what I'm dealing with. This is obviously wrong. GrooV 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Grooming Victim. Thanks for dropping by, and expressing interest in improving this article. I'll give some info on what is going on with this article from my point of view. There is an edit conflict around this article, by roughly two groups. Each one believes that the other is pushing their POV onto the article. The main problem with this is that their oppinions on what to include, and how to synthesize all sources is so far apart, that it is proving hard to find a middleground that all editors can live with. As unfortunately so often with Wikipedia, both parties are digging their heels into the sand, and have dug into their positions. Fortunately, I do believe that at the moment, we are getting a little bit detached from the dug in positions, and are slowly getting nearer. A second unfortunate issue is that of sockpuppetry. On both sides, there is a history of use of sockpuppets, and discussion who is a sock of who sometimes seems to be more prominent than the discussion on the actual article. There have been quite a few indefblocks in the past of users that have edited this article, some indefblocks for sockpuppetry, some indefblocks for extreme disruption, and a few short blocks for use of sockpuppets aswell. That's it in a nutshell. If there is anything more I can assist you with, just ask, and some editor will probably answer swiftly, as there are enough editors left that watch this page. Martijn Hoekstra 10:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Groov, I started editing this article and talk page only recently, and I have seen SqueakBox doing what you are talking about. He is trying to change the introduction in order for it to say that pro-pedophile activists wish to allow pedophiles to abuse children. I think this is his personal opinion, but I don't know whether he is aware that it is only a personal opinion. He tries to add sources to the article, but the sources have nothing to do with the actual sentence that he is trying to add. Since September 21, he has changed the introduction to his version 11 times, and Pol64 had done it 5 times. Here are the diffs:


 * SqueakBox on September 21 (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "To say all pedophilia is to abuse children is very POV")
 * SqueakBox on September 21 (Reverted by Mike D78. Reason: "plenty of reason was given by FFJ; your edits were blatantly POV")
 * SqueakBox on September 21 (Reverted by Mike D78. Reason: "You wouldn't characterize pro-choice people as being in favor of baby killing in the intro of the pro-choice article, and your edit is equally biased."
 * Pol 64 on September 21 (Reverted by Mike D78. Reason: "please see talk page")
 * Pol 64 on September 22. (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "I gave plenty of reasons and my reasons still stand. This version adheres to neutrality.")
 * Pol 64 on September 27 (Reverted by 82.45.15.121. Reason: "Improve version backed by consensus on talk")
 * Pol 64 on September 27. (Reverted by Dyskolos. Reason: "Newer version endorsed by consensus on talk page (only one opposes). Please keep in place until mediation sheds light on any potential problems")
 * SqueakBox on 5 October. (Reverted by Equilibrist. Reason: "As Dyskolos states there is currently a clear majority consensus in regards to this version. If opponents believe that sockpuppets are involved, they have to present concise evidence that this is so.")
 * SqueakBox on October 6. (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "this version adheres to neutrality")
 * Pol64 on October 6. (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "you don't have to be a pedophile to abuse a child. Sexual abuse is about power the main component doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, so to say all pedophile will do this is not neutral.")
 * SqueakBox on October 7. (Reverted by Roman Czyborra. Reason: "Please see User_talk:SqueakBox#Adult-child_sex_versus_child_sexual_abuse and please avoid refs in the opening paragraph!")
 * SqueakBox on October 7 (Reverted by A.Z. Reason: "Reverted edit by SqueakBox per talk page.")
 * SqueakBox on October 7. (Reverted by Roman Czyborra. Reason: "Undid revision 162951911 by SqueakBox (talk) because of non-neutral language")
 * SqueakBox on October 8. (Reverted by Lundiaka. Reason: "references are no good when (a) they do not support "fact" (b) this (and the other edit) is suppoted by consensus (c) other edit is supported by body text references")
 * SqueakBox on October 12 (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "abuse is highly emotional word and contradicts neutrality")
 * SqueakBox on October 12. (Reverted by Fighting for Justice. Reason: "the subject is not about incest. Plus the article only contained the words pedophile once so it's hardly a testament on pedophilia. Not only that it is extremely old.") A.Z. 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood Grooming, like 100% misunderstood him. And BTW I am not an activist re pedophilia or anything else (a former peace activist about sums up activism in my life time and that was way back). I am here as a wikipedia editor of some experience and not for any other reason. I see 3 of the people in your list, A.Z are not indefinitely blocked. Clearly the PPAs do want to legalise adult-sex relations in order to be able to have sex with children and adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse. Grooming, these who oppose me are the people who I suspect you are referring to and who are are making it so difficult to have an NPOV article on this subject and there is strong evidence that several of the editors opposing me were actually the same person cheating and then being banned for it, SqueakBox 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it were a fact that adults having sex with children were child sexual abuse, you would not be able to say that pro-pedophile activists wish to allow child sexual abuse, because you don't know if they agree that it is child sexual abuse. You would have to say that they want to allow consensual adult-child sex, which would just be something that doesn't exist, but that nonetheless, fictional or not, would be different from child sexual abuse.


 * It is, however, unverifiable that adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse. We have discussed this on the talk page of the WikiProject Pedophilia article watch, and arrived at the conclusion that a scientific study about this is impossible, and therefore has never been done. You will simply never find a reliable source for the assertion that adults having sex with children is necessarily child sexual abuse. We can add opinions and arguments of various people supporting different views about the subject, but we won't be able to say about any of those views: "this is the correct one". A.Z. 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, whether PPAs think child sexual abuse is so or want to call it by another name makes not the slightest difference as they do not dictate the agenda of the article about them. It is perfectly verifiable that adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse and your claims to the contrary are original research on your part, SqueakBox 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I did not ever claim that the reason why your version is wrong is that PPAs dictate the agenda of the article about them, so your argument makes no sense.


 * 2. I stand by my position that it is unverifiable that adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse. All of this is well explained on this section. A.Z. 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you just ignore the refs eh? TYhat is not how we work here, SqueakBox 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No that is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. To say that those who call it sexual abuse are correct is wrong.  The opposing viewpoints are notable and should not be suppressed.  Fighting for Justice 20:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly disagree, the opposite view is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, SqueakBox 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So nominate the article for deletion :-) Even if the opposite view were not notable enough, even if everyone in the world thought for some reason that all adult-child sex is sexual abuse, Wikipedia would still not be able to say that it in fact is. A.Z. 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, I think what you fail to understand is that policy does not defend the right of PPAs to have their arguments presented here as fact, SqueakBox 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to? Who said that PPAs argument should be presented as fact? I think I am saying the opposite, that nobody's mere opinion and arguments should be twisted to look like facts. A.Z. 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you have nominated it for deletion, and the overwhelming consensus was that the topic is notable. A.Z. 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You do like making things up, don't you? Please don't as it gives others a misleading impression that some might construe as deliberate. For the record its been nominated twice and there was no consensus either time which is a million miles from your claim that there was overwhelming consensus that the article is notable. Assuming good faith please be more careful in future av=bout any claims you make, SqueakBox 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering me someone imaginative, although I'm not sure what this characteristic that you see in me has to do with this particular conversation :-) Regarding the deletion discussion, please, see this. To me, that looked like an overwhelming consensus the first time I saw it. When I took a second look at the discussion, I concluded it was just a consensus to keep, although not overwhelming :-) A.Z. 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree, the opposite view is not notable enough to warrant inclusion - well good thing WP:NPOV disagrees with you. Because WP:NPOV says neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views thus the side of the pedophiles is significant whether you want it to be or not. Wikipedia must represent all significant views. Notice it doesn't say the side which most of the world favors and is correct and should be discussed. You have come up with your own definition of neutrality. Please stick to the wikipedia one. Fighting for Justice 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy says significant views not views, I hope you can see the difference, and merely because this articles is about PPAs (not about pedophiles, that is for pedophilia) the insignificant views of pedophiles is almost always not worthy of inclusion any more than the views of unrepentant rapists are significant enough to go in the rape article. The person who is interpreting policy to suit there own POV, Fighting, is yourself, while I am clearly sticking to the wikipedia NPOV policy which obviously doesn't suit those who are here promoting a pro-PPA POV. I ma not promoting any PIOCV but am amused at people claiming that even if almost no-one believes some absurd claim that NPOV demands it must be included, SqueakBox 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are unilaterally declaring the pedophiles view is insignificant? I don't think so Richard.  Fighting for Justice 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PPAs opposing APAs
There is no evidence for the unsourced assertion that PPAs oppose APAs, the opposite is clearly so but no evidence that PPAs oppose those who oppose them. This material must be well sourced or it appears to be OR. Also please do not remove sourced material from the opening without discussion and replacing it with unsourced material. If this continues I will have no choice but to remove all unsourced material from the opening as we cannot allow ourselves to make up the opening with our own unsourced opinions, SqueakBox 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I referenced that claim with a link to a website which clearly opposes anti-pedophile activists. Barry Jameson 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no. I didn't remove your sourced addition and nor do I wish to, its the previous unsourced material in the opening that I oppose and will remove as unsourced if necessary. I note that fighting just reverts me without deigning to explain his actions here, which is not acceptable, SqueakBox 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Abuse is emotionally charged word that contradicts neutrality. Fighting for Justice 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree and that is why we have articles on child abuse and child sexual abuse, indeed I would go further and say that failing to use the word abuse is POV because abuse is the common usage term for children being forced into having sex by adults (or abused in other ways) while neutrality does not mean hiding or lessening this unpleasant fact of life (ie that there are real abusers of children out there), SqueakBox 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand those articles exist. But here you are using the word to suggest this is all pedophiles do.  That's not correct.  Not every pedophile is going to offend somebody and to suggest that they will is misleading and exaggerated.  Fighting for Justice 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The link works fine from here. Press the Brass Eye Special link on this page. Pedophiles clearly are human beings and therefore do other things to but common usage suggests that pedophile is a term for soemone who sexually abuses children, even indirectly such as viewing child porn, SqueakBox 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that I "suggest" any such thing though the common usgae of the word pedophile is one who sexually abuses children (including viewing child pornography as a form of abuse), SqueakBox 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the common definition is an adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. A dictionary is not gonna say sexual abuse because that goes against neutrality.  Wikipedia like your common dictionary is neutral.  Fighting for Justice 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles like this and this strongly contradict your claim, we don't use dictionary definitions from any particular dictionary but common usage terms, and we are certainly not here to either give paedophiles' self-definition of themselves or to try to reduce the impact of what these people do and believe, and certainly not in the name of NPOV as that would be to profoundly


 * A definition of a pedophile as someone who is sexually attracted to children is not a pedophile's "self-definition," it is based upon the definition provided by the DSM-IV. The DSM is a disgraceful book which considers transgenderism to be a "disorder," however it provides an official definition of pedophilia, which does not require the action of child abuse. Colloquial definitions do not belong in an encyclopedic article, which is why we should not be referring to pedophiles as people who violate the law or abuse children. Barry Jameson 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Official? You mean official in the US, which holds about one twentieth of the world's population and as you admit holds some rather distasteful, views re transgenderism. We use common usage terms which often are colloquial, eg Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States. I like this definition of child abuse from the eminently respectable NSPCC, and this one is even more concise, SqueakBox 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't wish to refer the DSM, which as you say is primarily a US manual, you can simply consider the ICD-10, which is an international manual with a very similar entry defining p(a)edophilia. The NSPCC are a commercial entity who make money by trying to induce fear about child abuse. It was even revealed that the abuse "cases" referred to in their commercials were faked, which is not even remotely respectable. Barry Jameson 22:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the NSPCC are a charity and your claims are unproven. Child abuse is a reality and nobody is trying to provoke fear about it, such a comment makes no sense, but child abuse is a reality as is the efforts of many to try and remove it from the world. sweeping it under the carpet and pretending abusers are victims rather than abusers is to turn logic on its head and, IMO, is done to argue a pro-PPA POV push, SqueakBox 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying the reality or prevalence of child sexual abuse, nor am I denying that adults having sex with children is harmful. I'm explaining that you're not being entirely honest about pedophilia or its definition, and the same is true of the NSPCC. My claims are not unproven; I linked to a reputable media source which detailed the case. Barry Jameson 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

misunderstand the NPOV policy, SqueakBox 19:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That first link took me no where, and as for the second we are not talking about pedophiles who have offended and have to reintegrate into the community. Your links contradict nothing. You do not necessarily have to be a pedophile to sexual abuse someone. To classify all pedophiles as sexual abuser is contrary to neutrality.  If you feel so certain pedophiles abuse children then may be these aren't the right articles for you to be editing.  You have some clear preconceived ideas about them and that severely hinders your ability to be neutral. Fighting for Justice 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. We are not here to decide what constitutes child sexual abuse, we leave that to others and the overwhelming consensus in the world is that adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse, which is why the article is called child sexual abuse. We are not here to promote our POVs (if we have them, I don't feel I have an agenda re this article myself other than wanting the article to be NPOV), SqueakBox 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

overwhelming consensus in the world is that adults having sex with children is child sexual abuse, which is why the article is called child sexual abuse.
 * The statement above that you made IS promoting a POV. Read it for yourself It is in italics.  How do know the overwhelming consensus of the world?  Did you interview every person on the planet?  You don't know that.  It is your feeling and opinion that it might be. A behemoth statement like that need some sources.   We can not create articles on "might be"'s.  Fighting for Justice 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing how things are is not POV, it is NPOV. If I were to interview people that would be OR which I don't do on wikipedia (and would not do so re pedophilia anyway) and the CSA article perfectly well sources my claim and you would need to find sources to contradict this and prove your rather unusual claim that most people do not consider adults having sex with children as child sexual abuse, it is the very definition of an adult having sex with a child. How you can confuse NPOV with supporting a PPA viewpoint is a mystery to me, SqueakBox 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The line you want reference from the CSA is not in the CSA article. I searched the word "pedophile" in the article and it only appears once.  It is completely deceitful to have this reference when it doesn't back up your line.  It is futile to pretend that it does.  Besides, incest is a whole new topic from pro-pedophile activism.  The two should not be mixed.  Child sexual abuse is not entirely done by pedophiles plenty of heterosexual people are capable of it too.  Not all pedophiles turn out to be child molesters.  Fighting for Justice 04:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unproductive arguments
are business as usual with these articles, and heaven forbid anyone step in the middle for any reason or you'll get slapped. I think using someone's personal name crosses a line, but I won't push it as I see that it is on the individual's userpage. In case any of you care, all this endless arguing, regardless of position, discourages anyone with a real desire to improve Wikipedia from coming anywhere near these articles. In some cases, that may be the goal. -Jmh123 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding Welland's dissertation below, I thought the idea was to get outside opinions. If you guys are just going to carry on as usual under the guise of a RfC, why bother?   -Jmh123 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. The problem is that this talk page and its arguments have gone through such convolutions that expecting someone from the outside to suddenly enter this mess and navigate it is expecting too much from them, I think. Since the object of foremost contention is really the first paragraph, I provided a framework at the bottom of this talk page for talking about that introductory paragraph ... but note that I have not commented there (nor will I) on that first paragraph in its two forms (the former version and SqueakBox's).  Perhaps that is sufficient (though I might be wrong) for allowing an outside observer to engage and comment on it.  As far as myself, I am pulling out of this debate for the immediate future, considering it futile.  I am curious what the article will look like in a few weeks, after all the alterations and the debate have hopefully settled a bit.  If anyone wishes my view on a particular point, I am willing to discuss this on my talk page (or on someone else's).  Here, I think I will write nothing for a few weeks.  Increasingly bored, Welland R 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction proposed by SqueakBox
Nowiki wrapped RFCxxx template below as RFC should not be open on archived discussion pages. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The introduction has been changed to the version first proposed by SqueakBox 18 times starting on September 21. Editors can't reach an agreement on the introduction. The disputed sentence involves the definition of pro-pedophile activism.

For more information, see A.Z.'s first post on the section I want to patrol this article. Other sections on the talk page deal with this same issue, such as Assertions Made in the Intro, Here's the bottom line, Unacceptable edit, Revert vs consensus, Arguments against the current opening, Let's get to work, Two issues that need to be addressed about SqueakBox's version, Why reverting against consensus is not a good idea, and Referenced material. A.Z. 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: I suggest that we do not use the word sock nor the word consensus in this discussion. This is supposed to be about the content. I don't see how socks and consensus should matter. Talking about this entirely different issue on this section will only distract us. If SqueakBox wants to say that socks reverted his version, and if other people want to say that SqueakBox is editing against consensus, do it somewhere else, not on this section. We should keep focused, so we can reach an agreement regarding the content of the introduction. See Welland's first post, for example. It's just about the content. A.Z. 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider this statement: "Those who believe that the manufacture, purchase, and wearing of fur items is acceptable consciously advocate the trapping, confinement, and killing of animals, and have little regard for the cruelty inflected on wildlife and animals raised on fur farms." The above might be true in many cases, though it imparts (from an "anti-fur campaign" point of view) a degree of motive -- perhaps malicious motive -- that many who are presently wearing a fur might never have thought in terms of. The outcome might be *exactly* what the description above suggests: "trapping/confinement/cruelty/killing". However, the phrasing above stresses intention on the part of someone merely wearing a fur, asserting that what might be thought of in terms of beautification or status, etc., is really an attempt to revel in cruelty to animals. My point is: the intention of the actions of an individual or group is not necessarily identical to the outcome of the actions of an individual or group.

The same applies to SqueakBox's sentence claiming that "pro-pedophile organizations and activists argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children." Even if SqueakBox is correct that the outcome of pro-pedophile activism is "allow[ing] pedophiles to sexually abuse children," that does not mean that "allow[ing] pedophiles to sexually abuse children" is necessarily the intention of pro-pedophile activism.

The argument seems to hinge on the following:


 * "Pro-pedophile organizations and activists argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response to pedophilia."


 * "Those changes of criminal laws and cultural response to pedophilia would allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children."


 * Therefore, "pro-pedophile organizations and activists argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children."

___

This argument resembles, at least to a degree, two logical fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc and cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In the Wikipedia article on the second fallacy – Correlation does not imply causation – the following comments are made:

"Examples [of this fallacy] are abundant in political debate surrounding legal issues. For example, there is a correlation between the use of pornography and sex crimes. Individuals who frequently view pornography are more likely to commit sexual offences than those that do not view pornography. Some people point to this as evidence that pornography causes individuals to commit sex crimes, and hence they argue that pornography should be made illegal. Although such arguments are based on a logical fallacy, they can be politically compelling, particularly in highly emotional situations. For example, the correlation between possession of child pornography and pedophilia may be seen as a legitimate rationale for the banning of child pornography. In such a case, it may be deemed appropriate to err on the side of caution. If there is even a chance that child pornography leads to pedophilia, then it may be in the social interest to make its possession illegal."

The above are a few of my thoughts on SqueakBox's proposed introduction. Welland R 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The 2 arguments against my version pin on (a) my version being unreferenced whereas actually mine is the referenced version and (B) the claim that sex between adults and children is not always abuse. The obsessional focus of Welland on myself in his piece is distinctly unhelpful and certainly not the way to resolve the issue. There is clearly no consensus for the pro-pedophile activist POV to dominate this totally disputed and already pro-PPA POV article and merely to focus on me as an editor is an inappropriate use of this type of Rfc. I am committed to getting an opening that is NPOV and fair (not merely fair to PPAs which is something different) nor do I keep reverting to the same version as the version I prefer is continuously being improved and better referenced whereas the version certain editors (mostly Fighting) revert to is always the same unref'd version, SqueakBox 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, I fail to see how my comments above in any way warrant your comment: "The obsessional focus of Welland on myself in his piece is distinctly unhelpful and certainly not the way to resolve the issue." My comments above focus clearly on a single sentence from your proposed introduction.  My comments above say nothing about you personally.  I have merely pointed out that the sentence in dispute is based on a logical fallacy (or two), and implies more than it should.  If you are going to take that personally, as an "obsessional focus [...] on myself," then what is the use of discussing the sentence at all?  Did you or did you not write the sentence: "Pro-pedophile organizations and activists argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children"?  Since you did, I am certainly not "obsessive" in recognizing that fact (especially in a section titled "Introduction proposed by SqueakBox").  Further, your username appears only thrice in my comments:  "SqueakBox's sentence" (a fact); "Even if SqueakBox is correct" (a gracious acceptance that you might be right); "my thoughts on SqueakBox's proposed introduction" (a designation regarding the object of my contemplation).  What in that, dear soul, displays an "obsessional focus [...] on myself [SqueakBox]"?  Please brush aside this concern for your "person" and address the "actual content of my concern" (the inadequate syllogism that your sentence seems built upon).  I really don't care *who the hell wrote that sentence*:  I am only concerned with *the sentence itself*. Welland R 09:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ps. Not to seem "personal" all of the sudden, but your "The obsessional focus of Welland on myself in his piece" is wrong in another way. One of the things that makes this lesbian rather feminine is the absence of "his piece" :-) Good day. Welland R 09:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox is clearly acting against consensus here and his disruptive edits should be reverted without any further ado. I mean, just take a look at the version he proposes. It mentions the declassification of mental illness (with a citation needed tag attached), completely ignoring the fact that this has been already addressed with supportive references just a couple of sentenced further below in the intro . Furthermore, until very recently his version (which he attempted to force against consensus at least 18 times according to AZ's summary) boldly stated that PPA wanted to "abuse children" (as if implying that they wanted to harm children in all ways imaginable, not only sexual). He doesn't even care to take a closer look at the actual text which he's reverting to. It is patently obvious that SqueakBox simply has no idea of what he's doing. 201.12.178.33 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the link got fixed and links to CSA. For you to come and say I don't know what I am doing is unhelpful and certainly is no argument while your call that my edits should be reverted without ado could be seen as provocative so please take care in what you say here, O Senhor, SqueakBox 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the Rfc is nothing more than a thinly disguised personal attack, which will not resolbve anything. We need to discuss edits not editors and continuing to dioscuss the editors and not ther edits could be taken as provocation, as IMO the description of the Rfc was just such a provocation, SqueakBox 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope Welland others are aware that these alleged 18 reverts include reverting banned sockpuppets, an important issue that some have stated they don't wish to see discussed here but this issue cannot be resolved as long as banned user socks are still editing the article or talk page, SqueakBox 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very aware of that fact (since you have mentioned your concern about this *repeatedly* for months). One of the reasons why *those users* were the only ones reverting it back was because users like myself were more concerned with allowing some form of logical discussion or group response to dictate the content of the opening section. (You will note that almost all changes I made were listed as "tentative" and other editors were welcomed to comment or change the material as the group saw fit.)  I left your continual reverts to your problematic sentence stand because I had no wish to engage in the editing war that was rampant here.  My only question is why several editors (include yourself, if you feel you belong among them) felt compelled to *insist* upon their version without some form of final or even tentative agreement being reached on this talk page?  (I will note that the last time that reversion was made was yesterday, and again the page is locked with the version that has been considered "most POV driven" left lingering on the page, which is unfortunate.)  Bravo! The *logical fallacy of a sentence* will linger for a few weeks till this dispute is, hopefully, resolved:  I wonder whom we have to thank for that? (Not sock-puppets, I fear.) Welland R 10:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for where to begin:

The disputed introductions (the earlier version and the one proposed by SqueakBox) are identical in every way except for the following, which involves the content of the first paragraph. I would suggest that we limit our discussion, for now, to the wording of that first paragraph, and merely list the positives and negatives for each of the versions. I have labeled the sentences in a way that might be helpful for referring to them. Welland R 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

_______________

Welland R 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Welland R 13:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

_______________

Yet another proposal
I would like to propose a new version of the for part of the introduction paragraph, I tried to merge both versions together. apart from some structuring issues, I removed the sentence where it is implied that it is an aim of pro-pedophile activist groups to abuse children. It does still say that anti-pedophile activism aims to shield childrem from pedophiles. I removed the qualification fo preditory there, because shielding children from something already clearly indicates that they believe the pedophiles are trying to 'get to' their children. Unfortunately, I ended up with very few refs from the original version, as most of the refs had problems. The removed refs can be found below the article, with a reason why I removed them. Be sure to stick them back in in case I missed some valid reason to include them. Here goes, hope you like it.

Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists, who concern themselves with specific changes to criminal laws on sexual interactions between adults and youths or minors like changing age of consent laws, social acceptance of adults' sexual attraction to children, social acceptance of sexual activity between adults and children, or pedophilias mental illness classifications. Amongst its members are self-identifying pedophiles. They are sometimes allied to grassroots organizations such as the now virtualy defunct North American Man/Boy Love Association and the Dutch group Vereniging MARTIJN. Most current activism takes place on the Internet. Pro-pedophile activism stands in opposition to anti-pedophile activism, which aims to shield children from pedophiles, and which claims that pro-pedophile organizations and activities are merely attempts to legalize and legitimize the abuse of children. Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children.

refs: refs that I couldn't find a place for:
 * http://www.thestandard.com/article.php?story=20040227211153249 I found nothing of relevance to pro-pedophile activism here don't really see the added value of this source. Squeak, could you give the relevant quote for this ref that makes it relevant? I might just have missed it.
 * http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/incest.html This ref was used as a reference for the line about what pro-pedophile activisims aims are, but I find nothing here about activism.
 * http://anu.nfshost.com/2007/because-its-not-about-the-children Very POV ref from a pro-pedophile activism website. Could only be used as an example of the oppinion of a APA group, and would then still be a dubious source, as it would be used as a primary source. Way to POV to be a reliable source to use their statements as a secondary source.
 * http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28336 fairly good ref, WND would probably count as a reliable source, and it talks about activism, so I'm sure it references something. I just couldn't find what exactly. If anyone uses this ref for anything, best thing to do might be using a citeweb template, and making sure you use the 'Quote' property, to show what exactly you are using as ref.
 * http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html I really couldn't get through this ref. Could someone else review it, and see what exactly it references? (with a quote from the article)
 * http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=69831, holds a copy of http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=69609. The latter should be prefered if it is used as a source, but it seems that using this source will be hard without resorting to OR, since it's a very primary source, in fact, it's a work of fiction to provoke discussion. I don't really know how to use that as a source.

The only ref I left in place is the one at the end, and that one is still not perfect, as it is a primary source, and can serve as an example, but doesn't really source the statement made. So unless I'm missing big things here, I think we have to hunt for new sources. On the upside, I do think we should be able to get sources for most of the facts tags in this proposed partial introduction.

Martijn Hoekstra 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aware that the anu.nfshost.com reference was POV when I added it, but there is an obvious reason for having a POV reference for that sentence. The statement is, Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children, therefore I provided an example of a pro-pedophile group opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children. Barry Jameson 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved reader who happened upon this article via the Rind et al. talk page (which I actually stumbled upon through the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki talk page), I'd just like to throw in my two cents by saying that after spending the last hour or so reading this talk page, I support the changes proposed by Welland R. I feel that Martijn Hoekstra's proposal is also a step in the right direction, but I find the former to be the pithier of the two. 12.42.238.243 06:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article in its present state is nowhere near the level of neutrality I've come to expect of a good Wikipedia article. The opening paragraph leaves an incredibly bad taste in one's mouth, which I could only surmise is the bitter after-finish of having to swallow somebody else's politically aligned bullshit while at the same time mouth-kissing [refactored] at a national soccer mom's convention. Using unqualified terms as "predator" or story-telling constructs such as "fall into the hands of" or "... allow to be abused" is not something a neutral article should contain, especially in its first two sentences; such naive prose is better left to Aesop. In light of that, I am recommending the intro proposed immediately above be instated, with the *exception* that the sentence "... aims to shield from ..." be changed to "... aims to prohibit interaction with ...". The word "shield" implies defence from an impending threat, but according to the article this is not necessarily the case of pedophiles (alternatively, you could keep "shield" and use the term "child abuser" instead so that the article maintains its consistentancy that not all pedophiles are child abusers and vice verca, but the first suggestion would be more on-subject). 74.12.78.68 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting we use the banned user who returned as a sock's version then? Even though it is far more POV than the current version? Since when are people who abuse children not predators? Since when is having sex with a child not child sexual abuse? SqueakBox 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You read my comment proficiently enough to refactor it, yet still did not gather its meaning. Firstly, I am suggesting the intro outlined immediately above under the heading "Yet another proprosal" be used, whether it is this you are referring to it surely cannot be, since it is hardly as N:POV as you suggest it is (as I pointed out previously, if anything, it is N:POV in favor of your current edit). Secondly, I think there is a strong possibility that you may have found yourself on the wrong talk page: you see this article details paedophilia and a movement surrounding it, clearly you must have taken a wrong turn at child sexual abuse. As a studying minor in pyschology I take mild offence when people confuse correlation with causation, it is the most naive of mistakes to make. Please re-read the article (and some independent research wouldn't hurt either): paeophilia is not child sexual abuse and vice versa; thinking all pedophiles are child sexual predators is as naive as thinking all heterosexuals are rapists or that all casual friday-night drinkers are alcoholics. 70.53.129.124 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Take Note
There is nothing worse in any discussion (academic or otherwise) than "revisionism" ... perhaps what would even be termed "histrionic." Under what *logic* did you decide to gut this talk page, removing the comments by those who have been labeled "socks" or have been subsequently "banned" ? As usual, you distract from the genuine discussion of the editing of the main page and its contents by some spurious, egocentric act. Did you discuss these global edits with the other editors before acting? As ever, the answer to that is *NO!* As for the removed materials ... most of them were probably extraneous; however, they leave gaps in the rhetorical movement of this page (causing a loss of "context" for subsequent statements), especially problematic at a time when we have asked outside editors to read this page and comment on it. I cannot find another explanation for this sudden act by you, except that it was intended (yes, intended) to cause disruption, via a form of "revisionism." Please, SqueakBox, address *the content* of the "Pro-Pedophile Activism" page, rather than getting your "socks off" in disruptive ways (yes, the sexual pun was intended). Cheers, Welland R 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the comments of banned users who have no right to edit here and who diss everyone else with their cheating ways. Zero tolerance towards these users is the only solution, any casual reader would get a distorted view of how the debate here really is because someone or more than one person have decided to cheat by using socks when already banned. Restoring the comments of known socks of banned suers is called meatpuppetry and can result in the person facilitating the banned users to be blocked and if this serious disruption continues (ie reverting the comments of banned users) the meatpuppets will be reported. Do not attempt to blame me for any rhetorical issues involved in this as the fault is clearly with the puppet master(s) of Mike D78 and Farenhorst, SqueakBox 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reply is juvenile and its logic suspect: "The fault is clearly with the puppet master." Ah, what genius that? It bespeaks the proverbial "cutting off your nose to spite your face."  Do you feel better now?  Gee, you got revenge on all those sock-puppets, didn't you? and can now feel so self-justified for all that! (Of course, now much of the content of this page is unreadable ... gaps in logic and content abound ... individuals respond to themselves or refer to items no longer there ... and the main point: the attempts at reaching a consensus are pushed further into the future ... which wouldn't be your intention would it? to leave your curious POV in the opening paragraph for just a few more precious weeks?). I'm glad your unilateral decision-making makes you feel so fine, SqueakBox ... despite the fact that it harms the project. Pleasant day to you. (Ps. Sorry for the typing mistake: the title should have read "SqueakBox, Take Nose") Welland R 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you to call me juvenile? Are you in your fifties or older? If not please remain civil at all times, and don't presume to call me juvenile. If you honestly believe an abusive sockpuppeteer is not 100% responsible for this then I suggest you familiarise yourself with our policies. Supporting abusive sockpuppeteers is unacceptable as it makes the working conditions impossible for good faith users, and chases them away. Mike D78 should never have edited here, he had absolutely no right to do so and he clearly knew that but he did not care about wikipedia, only about advancing his agenda, contravening our rules in the process and causing severe disruption. By removing these commentsw I am helping the project, your accusations that I am harming it are a bad faith personal attack which is not grounded in reality so please desist in making these wild, sweeping generalisations whose only end appears to be to support a banned user using socks to disrupt the project. The abuse must stop and it must stop now. We do not need consensus to remove the edits of banned users socks, SqueakBox 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Get a clue. My central point was that your decision to remove that material, for whatever reason, policy or no, has caused the following problems:  "now much of the content of this page is unreadable ... gaps in logic and content abound ... individuals respond to themselves or refer to items no longer there."  Address that, please.  As for your "Who are you to call me juvenile?" ... All I can say to that is: Please improve your reading comprehension skills. "Your reply is juvenile" -- the phrasing is clearly directed at "your reply," not "you".  From your user-page, I gathered that calling you a "juvenile" was a bit belated. Cheers, Welland R 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it that you can only percieve offence when it is directed towards you? You constantly, and with no evidence, accuse others of serious and solidly grounded faults of character - be it the operation of a sock account or holding pro pedophile sentiments after reverting a hysterical oprah-like edit, yet take offence when others criticise your editing style as juvenile, even interpreting their readiness to edit in itself as "bad faith".


 * With such a character, combined with your blatant disregard for editor consensus (justified with audacious claims that you know what others don't) it will always be extremely hard to maintain any kind of peaceful debate on this, or any similar articles. 82.45.15.121 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

==Massive socking of this article is proven, no amount of denial can possibly change that. Many accounts have also been blocked for pursuing a pro-ped agenda so you also cannot claim that that isn't so. When consensus is dictated by banned suers there is clearly something wrong, and I am doing my best to try to fix this problem nor is there any evidence to suggest that I am alone in pursuing my agenda, which is NPOVing this article. I am sure once we create the structure which disallows any banned suer to edit here and get an agreement that no pro-ped pushing edits will remain unchallenged that the article will calm down but as long as banned users continue to post here there will not be a suitable and relaxed atmosphere. Unfortunately this is in the hands of the banned suers now, if you are reading this, baned users, please respect wikipedia and don't edit on this subject ever again (no-one will ob ject or know if you choose to edit elsewhere on wikipedia), 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)SqueakBox


 * NPOV... Nuke Peds Operation Vigilance?


 * I am sure once we create the structure which disallows any banned suer to edit here and get an agreement that no pro-ped pushing edits will remain unchallenged that the article will calm down but as long as banned users continue to post here there will not be a suitable and relaxed atmosphere.


 * OK. OK. Let's make the wild assumption that all the SPAs bar one have been banned. It's basically you vs A.Z., FFJ, Welland R, etc... 82.45.15.121 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, who is the current SPA? I know you aren't referring to me, cos that would be stupid given my editing history and that I am here not as someone interested in pedophilia but as a wikipedia editor solely interested in creating good quality NPOV articles, SqueakBox 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this matter should be taken to formal mediation. I believe I called it "additional issue 14". My opinion is that no comments should be removed from talk pages based solely on which contributor made them. They should only be removed if they are vandalism, or if repeated comments clearly have the intent of making the discussion difficult. A.Z. 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As an idea I would describe that as facilitating banned users in editing and thus unacceptable. IMO any new user displaying characteristics of banned users should have all their comments removed without discussion, and if users try to facilitate those users they should be subject to the censure of the community, as aiding and abetting banned socks is meatpuppetry to promote a pro-ped POV agenda, not a path we want to go down, SqueakBox 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how not removing comments based on which contributor made them would be "facilitating banned users in editing and thus unacceptable" or to "promote a pro-ped POV agenda". I personally don't want to promote any agenda, by the way. I want all important information to be included, including as much criticism as possible. A.Z. 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well great, NPOV is my only interest, one can never force fellow editors to be pro-active but other editors clearly have facilitated banned users' sock by restoring their comments when they know they are restoring the comments of socks, I am not suggesting that you are facilitating banned users but that your idea above would do so if enacted even if that wasn't your intention, SqueakBox 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The part I disagree with is "and thus unacceptable". A.Z. 00:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you do not make policy and that banned editors lose their editing rights is at the heart of our policies, and it clearly is not acceptable to help them evade that or for them to evade that, SqueakBox 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We all make policy, and we all interpret policy. That is just your interpretion of policy - not mine. I suggest that, if you remove a comment by a banned user, and a non-banned user reinstates the comment, you leave as is. The banning policy explicitly allows users to reinstate edits by banned users, but, even if it didn't, I would still suggest the same thing to you. A.Z. 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We certainly do not all make policy though we all can make it by contributing to the relevant project and talk pages. Interpreting policy isn't a matter of making it up as we go along either. Actually it says


 * "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing."


 * which is nothing like what you said and users are indeed expected to refrain from restoring banned user comments, and the failure of some editors to do is here is definitely a problem, and one that makes it even more vital that nay suspected return of banned users have all their edits immediately reversed so there is no doubt of their not standing, SqueakBox 02:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll continue discussing this when we find a mediator. A.Z. 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)