Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 19

E.O. Born
"E.O. Born" appears to be a pseudonym of Frits Bernard:

http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php/Frits_Bernard

http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/leest/5001927.shtml -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern Pedophilia Groups
The links on the groups associated with the pro-pedophilia movement all point to groups which existed long ago, or which have been disbanded. These need to be updated to reflect the many groups which are currently in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.35.98 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"difference between pedophilia and sexual activity"
This seems to me a very bad/un-informative explanation of the points I have seen ppas make (and it also has the pov problem of stating this difference as a fact, instead of asserting it as opinion and explaining why)--I think a better way of stating this would be to say something like "Richard Kramer of Mhamic asserts that there are nonoffending pedophiles, and cites Okami's research that "an unknown number of pedophiles may never molest children." Kramer also notes that "(same Okami ref re sexual aspect may be subordinate to "affection" for some pedophiles), and that Johns Hopkins professor John Money has distinguished between "affectional pedophilia" and "sadistic pedophilia"--pedophiles who use grooming and persuasion as opposed to force." The subheading could be something like "Difference between affectional and sadistic pedophilia." ? (The rebuttal is, according to ATSA, "virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, and according to the FBI, 90% of sex crimes are never reported. Also, while less harm is associated with grooming rather than force, molestations that are the result of grooming instead of force are not harmless. We can discuss if that should be included.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks like an appropriate solution for that awkward text, and I concur that the section needs a title change, but I'm not sure about the title you listed. The problem with that title is that it's based on one source, but I think there are other sources that divide the types differently. In some typologies, not all uses of force in child sexual abuse are described as sadistic and that word is reserved for pedophiles who specifically prefer inflicting pain/suffering as part of their pathology, rather than those who "only" use force to compel submission.  I don't recall right now where that list is - maybe in the recent DOJ/FBI typology.  Regarding the rebuttal, I recommend mentioning it, but only in passing since this article is about PPA and not about child abuse specifically. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right about title. What about "promoting understanding of the difference between violent and nonviolent pedophilia"? This page from Mhamic goes into that in two places:http://www.mhamic.org/intro/introduction_print.htm (This is a lot of crossover into the idea that "children can consent," which is already in the article...since Kramer has developed his own neologistic phrase "male homosexual attraction to minors," and defines it as something that it nor necessarily acted upon, maybe this should go into a little Mhamic section, with an intro to Mhamic, an explanation of that phrase/the title of the website, and include mention of Okami and Money?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That new section title suggestion says it better, though it's pretty long. It could be used for now pending further improvement. I found the FBI info I had mentioned, it's here on the Pedophilia talk page. Regarding Mhamic, it could be useful to mention them in a paragraph, but a section heading would give it undue weight, since it's just one person's website.  Also, they are a primary source and not a reliable source for third-party info, so we can only use them with clear attribution that it is that one person's opinion or his way of advocating. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Promoting understanding of the difference between pedophilia and sexual activity. Some activists wish to explain the difference between pedophilia and adults' sexual activity with children.[citation needed]" -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is where this Brongersma quote from "Questioning assumptions of harm" could go, also: "Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," where he reported the result of interviews with participants in adult–child relationships wrote, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."[32]" -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's suggestion: "Title TBD"
 * "Richard Kramer of Mhamic asserts that there are nonoffending pedophiles, and cites Okami's research that "an unknown number of pedophiles may never molest children." Kramer *also notes that "(same Okami ref re sexual aspect may be subordinate to "affection" for some pedophiles), and that Johns Hopkins professor John Money has separated "affectional *pedophilia" from "sadistic pedophilia"--pedophiles who use grooming and persuasion as opposed to force. Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," *reported from interviews with participants in adult–child relationships that, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."[32] -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Kramer notes Money's statement on affectional paedophilia, though. The information could be included by mentioning that it was published in the pro-paed journal Paidika. "In an interview with the pro-paedophile journal Paidika, John Money seperated "affectional pedophilia" from "sadistic pedophilia."" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Enclave kring
The following text appears to be unverifiable, so it should not be in the article - unless sources are found to support it: A publishing company of the same name serving these purposes was founded in 1958. According to Bernard, the Enclave kring developed into an international organization (gaining support in Western Europe, New York, Japan, and Hong Kong), and Bernard made lecture tours in some of these places. He claims that results of these efforts of the Enclave kring included more positive feedback about pedophile activism in various publications independent from the Enclave kring such as the Dutch Vriendschap ("Friendship", published since 1859), German Der Weg zu Freundschaft und Toleranz ("A way to friendship and tolerance"), Danish Amigo, and Dutch Verstandig Ouderschap ("Reasonable parenthood") by the 1960s.

In 1972, Bernard's book Sex met kinderen ("Sex with children", was published by the independent Dutch sexual reform organisation NVSH). The book outlined the history of the Enclave kring and international research in adult-child sexual interaction. According to Bernard, his book "had an [public] effect throughout Europe and abroad."

All of the footnotes in that section go to a reprint of a Paidika article by Bernard, about his own organization. I did some Google searches and could not locate any information about the existence of the publishing company; the book Sex met kinderen is out of print; I found the phrase mentioned in a few other books, seemingly in Dutch, so I could not verify the context; and, I was not able to find any information about what Bernard claims was the "positive feedback about pedophile activism" or " an international organization (gaining support in Western Europe, New York, Japan, and Hong Kong)". It's possible the information can be located, but so far, there is no support for those statements other than the one primary source of Bernard about himself.

A pro-pedophile organization or activist can be used as a reliable source when they discuss their own views, but they are not a reliable source when they interpret or explain historical events that involve others, due to their involvement and agenda. So, we can use Bernard's description of the goals of his organization, but not his description of external events, such as the success of his organization. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Observations are attributed. Therefore strictly opinion. It is therefore OK. J*Lambton T/C 08:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He is not a reliable source for third party claims about himself or the significance of his "work." . (Especially self-aggrandizing ones, for which there is no other corroboration. He's not much of a reliable source at all, I don't think--he's now known to make exaggerated claims about himself via a pseudonym.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

David Joy
''David Joy --Joy was convicted of possessing 1,129 indecent images involving children as young as one year old. Several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism. Joy, a member of PIE's governing committee, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to four counts of making indecent images between January 1 2000 and January 24 2006, and to seven counts of possession. He had a string of previous convictions for child sex offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, including the attempted rape of a young girl and indecent assault. [41]''

I am not happy with this. Some of it is direct quotation from the source, but does not appear in quotation marks and this, besides being bad writing practice, tends to reproduce the bias of the source. The fact that 'several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism' does not necessarily mean that any of the images were sadistic, but this is the implied accusation. 'String of previous convictions' is crime reporter's cliche and unenyclopedic. I shall try and make adjustments to restore some balance.The Relativist (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just re-did it. J*Lambton T/C 09:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede
I see that someone restored this section. I will be happy with this, if it can be explained how the group is a manifestation of activism as opposed to a peer support group. In my knowledge, the group had no website, no public campaign and was derived from some web users who could possibly be described as activists because they once put a public site on line. J*Lambton T/C 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A peer support group is activism. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obvious question: Why? J*Lambton T/C 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's expand. In my opinion, an activist group requires a public agenda and a front of some kind. Of course, activist organisations can have a peer support function, but the MGC had none at all. It was just a semi-secret pedophile club, and we do not know exactly how it functioned. J*Lambton T/C 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also a very important question, as that section associates criminal offences with "activism". We might as well be calling the next "pedophile ring" an activist organisation - which would effectively smear ideologues like Gieles and Thorstad as participants in a criminal order. J*Lambton T/C 18:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for your opinion but I would point out that the title of this article is not pro-pedophile activism groups and we don't just restrict ourselves to groupas with a public agenda etc buut can cover any and all aspects of pro pedophile activism covered by thrid party sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategies or Arguments?
In my opinion, strategies is a biased and inferior term. It may be taken to imply disingenuity. Therefore, beliefs or perspectives is far better in my opinion. J*Lambton T/C 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strategies is the verifiable term used in the Dallam reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is because Dallam is always condemnatory about pedophilia and related activism. She writes papers for a child-protection/trauma prevention organisation, and should be expected to display that bias. Again, putting bias aside, would "perspectives" not be a less inflammatory and condemnatory tone? We don't need sources for the word we use to describe PP beliefs. J*Lambton T/C 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dallam is a reliable source; it's not Wikipedia's job to judge what she wrote, or to change its tone, simply to report it.  Regarding this: "We don't need sources for the word we use to describe PP beliefs." -- no, that is incorrect.  All content must be verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Never have I seen the fat that self-evident perspectives, opinions or beliefs need to be sourced as being such. If we were to do this in every article, we could end up with all kinds of POV descriptors - "strategies", "abominations". Why make the exception with pedophile activism? J*Lambton T/C 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing biased or negative about the use of the term "strategy" to describe the actions of "activists." Without strategy, there can be no activism:
 * Activism defined in Wikipedia: intentional action to bring about social or political change.
 * Strategy defined in Wikipedia: a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
 * And, the use of the term as in this article is specifically verifiable. So on all counts, it's the right term to use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, no. You are describing opinions as strategies. A strategy may be a course of action, i.e. use of internet, leaflets, media. An opinion may be strategically informed, but we have no way of knowing this. What is your source for calling these opinions "strategies"? J*Lambton T/C 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SHUN: pointless argumentation of the same thing over and over in the same paragraph from disruptive editor ignored. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... and the same to you. If you would care to look at the paper, "philosopy" is applied just as many times to PP beliefs. And isn't this irrelevant anyway, considering WP:NPOV? J*Lambton T/C 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Martijn's ethics
''MARTIJN's statement is equally conflicted about illegality : "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." But they also state "In relationships between children and adults that are experienced as pleasant, possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem." MARTIJN proposes four guidelines for this "intimacy" [54] ''

It's not obvious that there is any conflict here. They say that possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem, which could be read as asserting that it would not be a problem were it not for existing laws and social mores, which is compatible with thinking that existing laws should be respected. In general, looking for contradictions in the statements of these groups is really biased and/or OR.The Relativist (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um-hmm. I have to agree with that. What about:


 * "MARTIJN, for example, advises against illegal sex: "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." However, they do not believe that it necessarily has to be unethical: "In relationships between children and adults that are experienced as pleasant, possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem." MARTIJN proposes four guidelines for this "intimacy" [54]  J*Lambton T/C 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Replace 'it' in the second line with 'adult-child sex'. Otherwise, fine.The Relativist (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BoyChat in this article
Why? J*Lambton T/C 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they are paedophile activists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowhardforever (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence? J*Lambton T/C 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that SqueakBox is willing to defend the same position. Evidence? J-Lambton T/C 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be, Jovin. A somewhat suspicious statement from an alleged sockmaster of Blowhard, on the basis that you are trying to frame me in order to see me blocked. IMHO with such a statement you dig yourself a deeper hole. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to take you seriously, cracker. J-Lambton T/C 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And will you please stop bringing up lame accusations on the article talk page? <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer
Calling Fritz a pioneer is the worst kind of POV. Please do not replace it. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pioneer. Like Hitler. Descriptive, not supportive.

I guess that this should be added on to the end of this vast list of neutral terms that you see as POV. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitler clearly was a pioneer, unlike this sad loser (and sure Hitler lost in the end but was not a loser), as many evil people have not been loswers, juast that bernard was. Good comparison for studies of evil ideology though, well spotted. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. I shouldn't expect too much.


 * Here goes: It does not matter how "evil", and to what movement a pioneer's vital input was.


 * It is beyond our concern whether someone's initial effect upon the movement failed in the long run, or may succeed in the future. It does not matter, and we may be wrong anyway.


 * Opinions, perspectives, subjectivity, etc means absolutely nothing to how we describe subjects. This is merely a point - an obvious one, as your alternative version does not assert "spawn of Satan" as a neutral description, which relieves me greatly. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rind
There are two lines at the bottom of this section, that apply to the article's subject - PPA. I'm leaning towards a RfC on this, Boychat, MGC and any other fringe-irrelevant topics that editors seek to include - in what are surely attempts to dwell on peripheral subjects that can be used to conflate pedophile activism with criminal activity (at the bad end) and legitimate research (at the good end). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe sources for anecdotes
I would really appreciate it if a certain editor would be kind enough to cease her edit warring and take time out to read WP:RS and WP:V - both key policies that firmly state the relevance of fringe sources in providing information about fringe beliefs.

Oh, and by the way - providing a lot of them - far from being "gratuitous", is better characterised as "fairer sampling" and "good research". And with the rate that other editors are deleting RSs, a hell of a lot are needed. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, as usual--two of them are to the same Sandfort study, hence one is gratuitous. One is to ipce, is a few sentences long, and is attributed to nobody. One is to Newgon, and the "anecdotes" are attributed to nobody/could be entirely made up--a fringe blog is not a reliable source for claims about third parties. The other two I left in. And they need to be where de Young mentions anecdotes, it is redundant to create a separate section (it is bad enough that all kinds of OR is being stretched into the de Young framework).-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None are blogs, and their mere existence on PPA sites proves that these accounts are used. I am happy for you to insert the term "or claim to" - which is needed for some of the accounts. And please refer to present behaviour - not the "as usual" bitterness that seeks to discredit another. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are self-published fringe websites, and cannot be used to verify claims about third parties. Two refs are fine to support the claim; there is no need to spam in banned user Daniel Lievre's website, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... what exactly do you not get about this? We are not sourcing the fact that some people claim to have been in positive sex relationships with adults when they are young. We are sourcing the fact that pedophile sites use these claims - which are in some cases unverified, and in others verified as true stories (in news media, interviews with real people, studies etc). That is plainly demonstrated by the sources, none of which are spam (a moral interpretation of shit you don't like, if ever I saw one), and all of which will doubtless disappear if they are knocked down to your preferred number of two. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Model
Everybody know what an ethical model is:

A model that concerns ethics, not a "model that is positively ethical".

I propose that we agree upon "code of ethics". <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 05:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They claim it is "ethical," there are no reliable sources which verify this or also say they are "ethical,"therefore it is the claims of a fringe source, and must be characterized as such: "they claim" or "which they believe are ethical." The KKK thinks they are ethical, too, but we would say that is the "so called" ethics claimed by a fringe about itself. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't get it. "Ethical" primarily refers to something of ethics, not something that is ethically sound as in eating meat is ethical. The model is of ethics.
 * Forget it. Check out my new version. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get it. Pro-pedophile ethics are like racist ethics--they are so-called ethics.-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, Tom O'Carroll makes a direct connection between pedophile ethics and racist ethics, in case anyone was confused about his intelligence and high moral standards: -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[…] Nowadays, children are in a remarkably analogous position to thatof the white women who used to be "protected" by lynch mobs of Ku Klux Klansmen in the American South. The dominant white male culture of the old South in the slavery era held that women, like today's children, were not sexual beings; they were pure. Thus if there was any sexual contact between them and a black man it could only mean one thing: rape. White ladies were not allowed to have sexual feelings for black men; it was literally unthinkable. Women who dared to break this iron taboo were ladies no longer, just whores. Nowadays, the locus of sexual anxiety has shifted towards children. As this anxiety has been cranked up and up in recent decades, we have been seeing increasingly repressive measures designed not to protect children themselves but to protect the myth of childhood innocence in which society has invested so heavily. Punishing children for sexual involvement with adults, however, would be too nakedly a contradiction of their victim status. It would imply they had known what they were doing, and were not innocent. In order to preserve this notional innocence of the child, it is far easier to blame the adult, the despised paedophile, whatever the facts of the case may have been.

Again. Look in the dictionary. Look at WP:NPOV as well. What we preach about pedophilia and racism doesn't matter at all in this area. They all have ethical structures, and denying them positions in the all-encompassing field of ethics can only be pure folly. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedophile ethics are like KKK ethics; they are so-called ethics. No amount of fringe pov-pushing will turn them into Plato.-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are unravelling a very personal bias here. Anyway, goodbye for now. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedophile ethics are like KKK ethics, they are so-called ethics, and no amount of fringe pov-pushing will change that. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra. Are you OK? <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 06:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick, Petra, assert it again! This time your opinion might magically become relevant to the article! 219.79.186.13 (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lambton. 'Bad ethics' or 'bad ethical system' is not a contradiction in terms and so to talk about something as a form of 'ethics' is not necessarily to endorse it. The Relativist (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to support new sentence
The sentence reads "The Dutch pedophile movement of the 70s was very successful in attracting sympathetic media attention." The reference is chapter 13 of A Radical Case. In that chapter, the only information I found that might support that statement is this: "A TV programme, watched by two million viewers, [note 18] feature a Protestant minister with positive views on paedophilia, plus a enlightened mother and a medical student who felt he had received enormous benefit from a relationship he had had with a man from the age of twelve. [note 19] Feedback from the public did not indicate outrage at the programme. Dr Brongersma, who was one of the principle contributors, told me that, on the contrary, reaction was favourable from the entire press (Communist to Roman Catholic) and from the general public. " Is there anything in that chapter I missed? (Because this would have to be stated differently/doesn't really support the assertion just put in the article.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, essentially, a pro-pedophile activist reports on a media event, relying on the word of one the participants, who supports pedophilia, and is too cautious to even make the bold analysis that was added to the article? John Nevard (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as the TV show, there was an article in a national newspaper (same reference), which included interviews with young lovers. Such things are absolutely unheard of in the U.K. for example. Also, there is nothing wrong with O'Carroll as a source. His book was published by a reputable name. The fact that he has a strong view does not invalidate his information.The Relativist (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the Operation Cathedral article you will find Beeb sources discussing an interview they conducted with an indicted pedophile before he did the world a favour. In your (original) analysis, does this mean that modern Britain is accepting of pedophiles, or do we need to find a convicted pedophile to be a tertiary source on this? John Nevard (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I couldn't see the relevance of that article. Could you explain?The Relativist (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edward Brongersma by way of Tom O'Carroll is not a good source for an exceptional claim about third parties--we'd need the actual "sympathetic media attention" itself to cite. (Lexis-nexis turns up nothing, by the way). In order to use this cite as is, it would have to read, "Tom O'Carroll says Edward Brongermsa said such and such about a TV programme"--that's pretty trivial, so much so that it probably doesn't belong in the article. (And it doesn't translate to a general claim of "sympathetic media attention.") There's a danger here not just of exaggerating, but of putting actual false/misleading information in. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't relying on Brongersma's comment. I was relying on the fact that the coverage in the national newapaper and in the T.V. programme was sympathetic, as related by O'Carroll. This is almost unheard of. It amounts to PPAs being significantly successful in getting sympathetic media coverage (though it does not of course show that all the coverage was sympathetic). I could consider compromising and saying that they had significant success rather than saying that they were 'very' successful.The Relativist (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O'Carroll is not a reliable source about anything other than his own ideas and feelings. His report of Brongersma's belief there was "sympathetic media coverage" is not even a primary source first person report. Without corrobaoration by reilable third party sources, it's just gossip about something someone else told him. Media coverage of any notability at all would have been documented, sympathetic or not.  If no-one has written about it other than O'Carroll, and the media reports themselves can't be found, then it's not verifiable and can't be used.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O'Carroll is not a reliable source about anything other than his own ideas and feelings. How come? Why he is not a reliable source about some questions of fact as well? Is it because he has a strong point of view? If so, we would be hard pressed to find any reliable sources on this subject. Almost everyone who writes about it has a point of view, either for or against.The Relativist (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing that none of this "sympathetic media coverage" can be found (believe me, I have looked high and low for any media coverage whatsover, because there are practically no sources other than Frits Bernard in the Netherlands section, which could be greatly improved by finding something/anything from other sources, for diversification). If there was any sympathetic media coverage, we could document that. If you find any media coverage at all, please put in article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I can't find it either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist--which is why we must address the question of whether O'Carroll's book is a reliable source and if not, why not.The Relativist (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O'Carroll wrote one book, now out of print; a year later he was convicted of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals" in the UK - later convicted of producing child pornography. His book was a manifesto of his personal ideas of pro-pedophile activism, not a fact-checked description of events of the time; the simple fact that someone published it does not make it reliable. He's not a scientist, he's not an academic, he's not a researcher, he's an activist with an agenda.  His book is a reliable source about his own description of his own ideas but not for his interpretation of how the press responded to his ideas.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A national newspaper, The Hague Post, has run a lengthy feature article in which paedophiles and their young lovers were interviewed about their relationship. [note 17] A TV programme, watched by two million viewers, [note 18] feature a Protestant minister with positive views on paedophilia, plus a enlightened mother and a medical student who felt he had received enormous benefit from a relationship he had had with a man from the age of twelve. I suggest you don't have to be a scientist, an academic or a 'researcher' to know whether these things happened. (In any case, it is obvious that some people are both activists and reasearchers.) However, I now accept that the rules of WP:Verifiability don't really allow this source to be used and that is what we have to go by until somebody can come up with a better set of rules.The Relativist (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Childlove movement redirect
Why does that term redirect here? They aren't synonymous. There's obviously going to be a lot of overlap, but I think there are cases where things can be each independantly without being the other. In fact, the term isn't even used at all in the article, plus the term 'childlove' is only used once in with a brief mention in source #72. Unless someone is going to explain what this is in this article, or give it a home elsewhere, I think the redirect should be deleted.Tyciol (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "Childlove movement" is the same as the pro-pedophile movement. --DodiaFae (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the reason this redirect exists is because the article originally had that name, and it was decided that "Pro-Pedophile Activism" was a more appropriate title. Considering that some still refer to the movement in this way, there's no reason to delete the redirect. If there's any distinctions that you want to bring up between the two titles, granted they're corroborated by legitimate sources, please feel free to either incorporate them into the article or to suggest them here on the Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "grenzen" :
 * "tolerance" :
 * "tolerance" :
 * "tolerance" :
 * "tolerance" :
 * "tolerance" :

Boychat
This is not activism, and should be removed altogether. forestPIG(grunt) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Malesky

 * Jack-A-Roe - you just reverted my edit without explaining why the excess Malesky information is relevant to BoyChat. Just to clarify, if the BoyChat section is to exist at all (I personally see it as an irrelevant, non-activist chatboard), I am only for including information that is relevant to BoyChat. I will also accept your edit if you can extract quotes from Malesky showing how the distortions are relevant to political activism in this area instead of the thoughts of armchair pedophiles. forestPIG(grunt) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article and reproduced below for your convenience -


 * In their 2004 study, Malesky et al stated that in general, pedophile support-forum participiation can also indicate that a pedophile convicted of internet-only sex offenses may have committed undetected sex offenses:


 * "'The social reinforcement of cognitive distortions may serve to compromise the therapeutic benefit of treatment. Participation in these message board exchanges might also serve to strengthen the distorted schemata of offenders, thereby making them more resistant to treatment. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that individuals who have been convicted of Internet-related, non-contact sexual offenses are likely to have committed undetected ‘hands on’ offenses as well. Clinicians who become aware of deviant Internet usage by a client should investigate the possibility that the individual has a history of hands-on offending.'"

I would like to see evidence of relevance to activism before this is re-inserted. forestPIG(grunt) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here?
If I were ever to teach in a university setting, this is probably the article I would show any students who questioned why I enforce the common academic rule: "Do not cite Wikipedia. Ever." Why are there "strategies for promoting public acceptance" in this article? There are no such categories for "promoting acceptance" in the articles on "white nationalists", or any other group that the vast majority of people find despicable. (The article on white nationalism would also be a good example of the rule.)Dg7891 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about activism. And promoting acceptance of pedophilia happens to be a large part of that activism. It is pretty much what Pro-pedophile activists do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as Wikipedia has an article on the White Nationalist movement, it also has this article on the pro-pedophilia movement. Wikipedia has articles about many things that people commonly wish didn't exist, like diseases and political corruption. By describing them we're not advocating for them. Just the opposite - Wikipedia policies require that we give the majority viewpoint the greatest weight. I'd hope that university-level instructors would understand the need to provide information even on unpleasant topics rather than to pretend that they don't exist. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. That wasn't my point. I don't dispute that this article should exist, but it is incredibly long for the actual presence of "pro-pedophile activism" in any society that exists today. Specifically, why is there a section on "strategies for promoting public acceptance" and why was this reverted when I deleted it? Again, it is tangential to the topic as a whole, OBVIOUSLY POV, and just makes the article look terrible for anyone who actually thinks Wikipedia might be a respectable academic source. There are numerous other problems with this article, but let's start with getting rid of that particular section. Dg7891 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dg, I've only just finished reading the section you are talking about. Being an anti-pedophile activist, myself, I have to say I disagree with you on the point that this information should not be included.  It actually works against the pro-pedophile movement, in that it gives the reader information that will help in the fight against these criminal acts against children.  Practically every anti-pedophile group online posts this information for parents, teachers, and anyone who wishes to protect children from sexual abuse to review.  For example, the suggestion to separate the term "child sexual abuse" from the word "pedophilia".  I always insist that the term "child sexual abuse" be used in conjunction with the word "pedophile" at all times on my site.
 * I say leave it in. In fact, if it hasn't already been done, it might be a good idea to copy it over to the anti-pedophile activism page as well.  One website that I use as a reference on my own awareness site actually includes much of that information in their "grooming articles", which are a valuable resource. It's much easier to protect children if you fully understand the tactics used by those you are defending them against. --DodiaFae (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an activist at all, but its inclusion just does not make sense without context. It's not neutral information unless it's summarized as claims, verified by sources, rather than simple repetition of the material itself, which suggests framing the issue as one of rights. The "suggestions for acceptance" aren't for potential victims, they're for political purposes - justifying pedophilia to the public - and therefore their inclusion has to be seen as politically motivated. How can we put this to a vote? Dg7891 (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as it's useful for parents to know about grooming strategies so they can recognize them, it is also useful for members of the general public to know the strategies used by pro-pedophile activists in their attempts to legitimize pedophilia. If you have a problem with how the material is presented then the answer is to fix it, not delete it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me one article about another controversial group that has a category like this, or make a solid argument for why this one should be considered differently, and I will happily concede the point. Otherwise, I think it is obvious that this section is superfluous at best and propaganda at worst. Not all sourced material is encyclopedia-worthy. Dg7891 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda from whom? Material on the strategies and tactics of activists seems very relevant to an article on activism. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Every step of this discussion makes it harder and harder to assume good faith on your part. You did not answer my question. Dg7891 (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the article on cults is such an article. John Nevard (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When did you edit the article? I don't see it in your contribution list. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been editing anonymously before this, and registered specifically to bring this up. As with the article on White Nationalism, the state of this article bothers me deeply. Anyways, rather than a series of reverts that might get me in trouble, I wanted to ask here if there was any particular reason why a good portion of this article should not be deleted or drastically altered. Dg7891 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This section seems very strange to me as well; its like a clinical autopsy of the arguments used by such groups, instead of the presentation and criticism of those viewpoints. Imagine analogous section in say trotskysm article ("insistance the soviet union was a workers state, though a degenerate one.... "); it is clearly grossly POV. More interestingly, "history" section should at least mention the french petition from the late 70s on age of consent - that sounds like activism, right? And the related Faucault radio talk Sexual Morality and the Law is even linked in this article.. --78.1.187.100 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is 78.1 the same editor as Dg7891, or are you two different editors? As for deleting material, please don't delte source material without a good reason. So far I haven't seen any good reason for deleting anything. While I'm sorry that parts of this article bother you deeply, that's by itself is not a good reason. If the article fails to include important information then please add it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Im the 78.1 editor. Which you might have just as easily seen for yourself, given that we both left the IP address, which are on different continents. I dont know much about wikipedia customs, but neutrality desputes are not afaik settled merely by pointing information is sourced - WP:NPOV


 * A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.


 * In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Much analogous to the objection to the structure of the disputed section, its also pretty much impossible to discuss neutrality if raised points are not even responded to (even when theyre questions!) but merely described as meaning such parts of article 'bother' us, but thanfully, I dont really care about wikipedia enough to continue this tug of war... --Aryah (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that "parts of this article" bother me in a personal way, but the state of the article itself is representative of what is wrong with Wikipedia; same with the White Nationalism article. Groups that are seen as perpetrators of crimes against humanity by pretty much everyone but themselves have thoroughly tinted their articles a rosy shade of red and whitewashed the actual repercussions of implementing their "ideology" in real life. There's a lot of information that is included here, and may be sourced, but is not relevant to the average reader who does not wish to be force-fed propaganda by people seeking to justify their destructive and irrational ideologies.Dg7891 (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of Date quotation in the medical definition
The quotation in the medical definitions section as it is out of date, its from this 2003 press release. There is currently a working group which has been set up by the APA to review all paraphilia (inculding pedophilia) for the new DSM-V. ThinkingTwice ''contribs 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IP edits - potentially redundant sections
This touches on something I mentioned briefly earlier. Some sections, most strikingly those on medicine, the BoyChat pedophile chat board, online chats and "Montreal Collective" have not been shown to have any general or at least predominant linkage with pro-pedophile activism, let alone notability. I can see that a large number of editors disagree with the removal of this material, so I will leave it in at least for now. Naturally, such material would be taken out of the article until someone can demonstrate that it is relevant or notable. forestPIG(grunt) 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute With User:77.243.225.87
(The Following was posted to his discussion page in response to a request for a second opinion)

Bare in mind that I am not an administrator and thus have no privileges or authority beyond those of an editor.

However given your request I reviewed your contributions and noticed the following things:

1. You made a bona fide attempt to remove what you saw as negative bias as per WP:NPOV

2. You engaged in edit wars which obstruct the healthy maintenance of the encyclopedia.

Corollary to 2: You did not justify or explain your edits on the artice's discussion page, resulting in the aforementioned disputes

3. Insofar as I could see you replaced certain references with vagueries such as "some academics state"

4. You are an anonymous user editing a very sensitive topic, people will be naturally suspicious.

Given these factors I have no choice but to feel in favor of previous editors and thier decisions in this matter.

I shall append this to the discussion page of the article and to the talk pages of the others whose input you requested. Tennekis (rant) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Tennekis (rant) 05:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am new to dispute resolution so if this is th wong place I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennekis (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dichotomizing
From the approach of some editors here, one would be lead to believe that there are only two positions on this issue. The groups NVSH and Krumme13 are just two examples of organisations that hold vastly differing points of view, yet both have been described as "advocate groups". I even had to remove a number of organisations from the "opponents" section, that had given absolutely no position on the topic, and were probably just dumped there with because of the prejudices of our editors. The idiocy with which this topic is treated gives no room for nuance. 81.105.56.240 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By 'two positions' do you mean the prefixes 'pro' and 'anti' for this and the respective other article? If so, then I can relate to your disapproval, because it seems to clearly ignore activism on the part of people or groups who confront subjects related to these issues who are neither for or against pedophiles. There isn't a problem with grouping advocate groups though, if that's what you are protesting, so long as they are being grouped on a specific issue. For example, religious organizations can be grouped together on the basis of various for/against policies (belief in a god/old testament/new testament/aliens/creationism/intelligent design) despite holding radically different beliefs on a variety of issues. Grouping them does not signify that they cooperate or even share any goals, so much as that they share an observable trait. The problem I'm facing in reading both of them is that I am unable to determine what the(se) trait(s) is/are. It seems to be a loose collection of criteria collected together for reasons unexplained. While I don't expect the indepth basis of this to be based in the article, would anybody who has been around both of them more care to share their views on how these criteria were gathered, if/how they have changed over time, and how what to call the activism effort/group collection articles was decided? Both have extensive archives so this is really not clear to a casual interloper, especially considering the state that older archives tend to be in. Tyciol (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Boylover/Girllover
The terms are also used by individuals who are attracted to pubescent minors, due mainly to the fact that most societies criminalise contact between adults and pubescent youths with the same (or similar) laws used against prepubescent relationships. Thus the solitary use of "pedophile" is incorrect, and User:Tyciol was to correct to reword this. 81.105.56.240 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to random IP person who should register for an account: the term girl in modern use, while still used in reference to prepubescent and pubescent females, is also used in popular culture to refer to postpubescent adult women citizens who are no longer minors, as well. E.g.: Promiscuous Girl/Promiscuous (song) which is an example in song of using both 'boy' and 'girl' in a conversation between a man and a woman. Thus, while you have brought up a valid observation in how the term can be more wider-encapsulating, I must insist that it can be even moreso widely-encapsulating.
 * In response to SqueakBox's note in the history. First off, I see there is a lot of conflictory editing going on (with random IPs to boot, those are annoying and I'll totally support semi-protecting this or any other IP-heavy controversial articles) so I am sorry to jump in the middle of that. I just made a minor addition mainly because without a 'and nons alike' disclaimer, I think 'used by some pedophiles' insinuates that ONLY pedophiles use it. First off, the word 'some' makes it clear that there are pedophiles who do not use that word. So, if there are pedophiles who do not use it, why can there not also be non-pedophiles who do use it?
 * If I understand correctly, the source is (currently #46) "What Does Kincaid Want" Mark Spilka's 1993 essay review of James Kincaid's 1992 book. Not being a paying member of Jstor.org I am only able to review the first page of this essay, just as I expect most Wikipedia contributors will be in the position of being able to do. The word pedophile shows up once on this first page in the third/last paragraph in this sentence:
 * "This demonization of child-love into child-molestation and predatory pedophilia, then, is Kincaid's best argument, resourcefully and ingeniously pursued."
 * In this context, Spilka has paraphrased it and is treating pedophilia and child-love as different concepts, so why is it that it is wrong to add that it is possible for non-pedophiles to also adopt the use of this term? I just notice after this, there is a second reference immediately following that I did not notice because it didn't show up in the history. #47, which is Patrick Forde's Australian publication. I am reading this now to see if perhaps it is more based on this instead. What I have located in searching this document that is really the only thing close to relating to this is the following sentence:
 * "For the purposes of this observation, paedophile material was defined as material located at Internet venues that selfproclaimed an emotional or sexual interest in children (for example, Girl-lover, Boy-lover, “pedo” stories, binaries or sex newsgroups)."
 * So from what I can see, Spilka uses 'child' and Forde uses 'boy'/'girl'. As I explained in the above example, boy and girl no longer refer to minors in common use or slang, and slang is exactly what all these -love terms are. In terms of legal terminology, child does refer to a minor. However, that is not an authority on which to specify that the use of the word 'child' in slang will always refer to minors (nor that it would furthermore refer to prepubescents). The second sentence of child for example disambiguates: ""Child" may also describe a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; it can also signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."[1]".
 * Furthermore, in relating this to pedophilia, pedophilia as a clinical term (which I presume takes priority, seeing as how it is the first definition listed on Wikipedia, and in most legal uses since most law enforcement cooperate with their respective psychiatric boards) is a word referring to prepubescent individuals, not to minors. Not all minors are prepubescent (or arguably, even pubescent, aren't there some minors who may have concluded puberty early and be postpubescent at 17? I don't really know, it doesn't matter since it's immaterial to the point). Now there is the third paragraph which mentions "In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children". The thing is, if we are going to rely on common usage, then the common usage of the word child is "a human being between the stages of birth and puberty" as per the introduction of its article, so it would still specifically refer to an "adult who is sexually attracted to a human being between the stages of birth and puberty" when you combine the two.
 * The only way that the word pedophile would describe any adult attracted to any minor is via combining the so-called non-scientific non-legal 'common usage' of pedophile with the uncommon legal usage of child. That is an odd way of interpreting things, yet one that seems to be occuring here. Someone who says they are sexually attracted to children may mean the legal use, synonymous with 'minor'.
 * That's an odd way of saying things, because it would cause less confusion to say 'sexually attracted to minors', however it may be done with a dollop of irony, I don't know. Due to the negative attitudes that some people have towards adults who have relationships with or attractions towards minors (even sometimes towards ones who are of or above the age of consent, if it is lower than the age of majority as it is in many places), I expect that when grasping for a word to label these people that they think negatively of, they may in some cases pick 'pedophile'.
 * That would not be an appropriate use of a clinical, legal or traditional common use. Ambiguous use of this term can cause a deal of confusion, as if people continually mislabel others, people may end up mislabeling themself, and this would could cause greater confusions when people think that these statements (accusations/admittances) are in reference to a clinical/legal/common usage when they are in fact an uncommon usage manufactured in desperation for lack of proper vocabulary.
 * Another separate issue is that even if traditionally the -philia suffix meant love, it clearly is not used synonymously in either clinical, legal, or common usage. Actually I'm not sure if there even is a clinical or legal usage of the word 'love', it's a pretty vast concept which is described in a combination of ongoing slang and traditional philosophy. Therefore, someone saying 'love' may be referring to a variety of things (most conservative example: platonic love) of which would not indicate an attraction that is predominantly sexual or a sexual preference, either of which is required as an aspect of diagnosing and/or accusing/convicting a pedophile in a clinical or legal sense respectively.
 * There is also a lot of slang usage of the suffix -phile in manufacturing terms of endearment with a more platonic and less sexual kind of love in mind, such the ironic use of the term arborphile/dendrophile to indicate being an avid botanist as opposed to the presumably rare condition of literally finding bark attractive. Btw I just realized I rattled on an amount that's hard to read so if anyone wants to respond to a specific section or feels adding a blank line between paragraphs to enhance legibility, please go ahead and break this up as much as you like. Tyciol (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So anyway Squeakbox, I realize that rant is a bit indiscernable, so to simplify, is there a way for that subject to indicate that pedos don't have exclusive use of the word, or is that considered to go without saying? I noticed the removal of the dash/space/-r etc. which was probably a bit overcomplicated and also common sense and didn't need to be said either I guess. Tyciol (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Identification
This is somewhat separate as it concerns a different aspect of the sentence. "These are terms of self-identification" This statement is accurate, but why does it specify self-identification? To a reader this implies 'only' self-identification. It's not a stretch of the imagination that people use these words to describe or identify how they perceive another person as well. I figure this is pretty minor but I should ask first, is anyone opposed to taking out 'self' and just having the phrase "terms of identification"? Tyciol (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoting beliefs through child porn
This Guardian article at the end of it implies that PPAs use CP to spread their beliefs, albeit the word PPA is not used. I want to bring it here for ref while I see if there is a way to enter it into the article, and to see what others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about "pro pedophile activism" or anything that could be seen as "activism". EmilianaMartín (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mention the word activism but it does talk about people motivated, like terrorists, by a belief and not by money, and the belief is pedophilia. PPA is just a term and clearly not allt he groups mentioned here have specifically labelled themselves PPAs00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
 * That doesn't equate to activism. Either Gamble has to use the term, or has to be referring to something that is clearly "activism". Then we can consider notability, etc. EmilianaMartín (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

YR
Should activism directed at the sexual rights of children be addressed here? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its completely different, pro-pedophile activists take away from the sexual rights of children such as the right to not be molested by an adult. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. One would imagine that "pro pedophile activism" (a made up term that I had never heard of before) only involves children according to pedophiles. That is obviously a problem with some of the Youth Rights positions articulated in the article. Also inherently, because there is no actual reason to distinguish an activist movement because one believes it is characterised by pedophiles (clearly, there are other factors here). I suggest merging some content into the more neutral Age of consent reform and maintaining an article on "Movements to de-stigmatise pedophilia" - relating solely to the attractions. EmilianaMartín (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Movements to de-stigmatise pedophilia" is a highly POV term as well as describimng something highly unnotable. I don't understand your comments on children's rights, whata re yuo claiming, that children's rights means the right to be abused by pedophiles? I would certainly support getting rid of this article and moving any notable content to the AoC reform article but strictly keeping said article NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything biased about the proposed title. Are you suggesting that there is not a massive social stigma around pedophilia, or that there have been no movements (or let's say "manifestations") to de-stigmatise it? EmilianaMartín (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Without an article about stigmatising pedophilia it would be POV. I agree that there has been much stigmatisinfg of pedophiles but this is not a negative thing; really we should just scrasp this article and merge any notable bits inot pedophilia or AoC reform. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reference to children's rights refers to the right to consensual sexual activity, SqueakBox. MaxHarmony (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "child" in the context of this article does not refer to "youth" (ie, teenagers), it refers to children during and younger than puberty, because attraction to post-puberty youths is not pedophila. The way pedophiles use the term "children's rights", it refers to what they consider to be the rights of children to engage in so-called consensual sexual activity without constraints of adult authority.  That is mentioned in the article, with a source.  However, in the larger sense, that idea is a red herring, because researchers in psychology, clinicians,  and mainstream society all consider that children are not able to consent to sexual activity, especially not with adults, for many reasons.   There is indeed a global movement for children's rights, but those actual advocates for children take the polar opposite view to what is described in this article - they work to protect children from child sexual abuse, and the related crimes of child pornography and child sex tourism.  That is widely documented with endless reliable sources available. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there are organisations that campaign for the rights of youth of all ages, including the right to make sexual decisions, that are unrelated to pædophilia. See, for example, Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions. MaxHarmony (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought the original contributor to this section meant by the rights of children, ie their right not to be sexually abused or exploited, inside or outside the family, and I see no reason why this should not be included to give balance to the views of PPA advocates. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

< 50 Bytes
Yes, I agree with most of those edits, but I think that they could be restructured somewhat in light of Bernard and Brongersma's positions as major historical activists for the movement. EmilianaMartín (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Leading sentence is POV
"Pro-pedophile activism, also spelled pro-paedophile activism, refers to efforts by pedophiles to re-define pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder" I see no reason to assume that it's only pedophiles who want pedophilia to be de-stigmatized. Sure, there's not many people, but I think this has to be changed. Dex Stewart (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Emiliana just made an interesting revision, citing her reasons for doing so, which was immediately reverted here. Jack, could you explain why you said this was 'incorrect'? What you two seem to agree on is that activism is something requiring an 'effort'. Emiliana correctly observed that activism is done by activists. You seem to think more specifically that it is an effort by pedophiles. Pro-pedophile is the topic of the activism, not a description of the activists behind it. This would be like saying 'women's liberation is an effort by women'. Women are certainly involved, but men were also involved. Similarly to this, efforts promoting the human rights of pedophiles is not done only by pedophiles. Your reversion has implied that anyone who is labelled a pro-pedophile activist is a pedophile. The wording of Wikipedia can not be misleading. I am changing this although avoiding EM's 'primarily' because really, activism is ALL by activists, I don't think you can contribute to activism without being an activist.
 * A lot of people probably stop by this article and make minor biased changes like this. We need to keep an eye out, and rather than simply reverting them (they are often overlooked), confront vandals like this. I have trouble continuing to assume good faith when this happens so regularly. While having opportune moments to respond to this, Squea has joined Jac to persist in reverting (probably to avoid Three-revert rule via tag-team) without adequate justification. Tyciol (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack's use of the references was improper, as was his decision to make the edit. There are a few other mistakes that I do not have the time to correct, especially without the guarantee of sanity of discourse of consensus. EmilianaMartín (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Squeak
In this edit you said to 'see talk' when you fact-tagged the word 'activists'. What reference needs to be provided where you will accept that activism refers to efforts by activists? That word doesn't claim anything about them, but you can't really do activism if you're not activist in some degree. I think adding the link is a great idea though, so people can actually understand what it is. One thing that's curious is that neither the pro or anti articles show up on that page. Is that because they're not notable or unified enough to even be considered activism by the standards of other movements collectivity and stated goals? Tyciol (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu
The page move discussion has been going on for a year or more.

There are zero references supporting the title of "pro-pedophile activism". That is a neologism used only in Wikipedia. There are some google-hits for the term, but they all come from here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and by maintaining an article by that title, that's what's been happening.

The term "pedophile movement" does have a few - though only a few - sources available that use the term.

Page has been moved, per WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:V. -Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this new location, and the new emphasis on the largely outdated organizations. Per several reports already source in the article, modern online pedophile activity seems to be largely confined to...personal pursuits rather than any sort of broad sociopolitical goal.Legitimus (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. With all the ongoing problems associated with this and related articles, changing activism>movement doesn't bother me. They seem about equal though. I am mostly happy with the removal of this 'pro' thing. Although now -movement is not exactly opposite anti - activism so the relationship between the two may need exploration. I do notice that this last section uses the previous terminology, I can't think of how to rephrase it though. Tyciol (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong bias
This article seems to have become very biased since I last visited. It's OK to point out out that the movement is contrary to mainstream opinion but not to repeat this, in one form or another, several times. It's almost as if the writers are 'protesting too much'. Also the word 'fringe' is judgemental. It seems wrong to treat the movement as more or less defunct when it still has a strong presence on the Internet. I would appreciate comments from other editors on this.The Relativist (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, well one would ask 'when did you last visit?' to know what version to be comparing it to. I think what happened here is that the article is focusing more on measurable real-world organizations (key word: organized). I know about the internet presence but it doesn't have the organization or real-worldness that they had in the past. The only exception I could think of is that one thing in the Netherlands which I forget the name of. Maybe it is wrong to treat it as defunct if it has a strong internet presence, but the key thing is: it the strength of that presence observable and demonstratable? Due to the controversiality, pretty much any statement in here needs to be supported by sourcing, so if you know good references that support this viewpoint of yours then you can introduce them (in the talk page for now since the article got locked until you and Jack sort this out) and we can review if they're good sources to support it. As for 'fringe' being judgmental: being judgmental does not violate Wikipedia policies. A 'judge' is a fine occupation to be in. Only religions say not to judge. 'Fringe' is an evaluation meaning to me, something outside, on the edges, a small amount and not the core or centre. I think that applies, or can you display evidence that it's of siginifant size? Tyciol (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move
I don't think the content of the article refers to its title anymore. Since the only focus in the first sentence is on pedophiles who are being activists (and the focus being that they are doing activism moreso than the topic of that activism being pro-pedophile (because the stated intentions include goals beside that of self-promotion, even if this is surmised to be the true goal). Recently I restored a redirect here from pedophile activism because I thought that addressed a separate topic than this one. If this article is not going to describe non-pedophile activism which is pro-pedophile in nature, then I don't see the point of also have 'pro' on there.

Unless of course, this is to distinguish it from pedophile activism which is anti-pedophile or neutral in nature (I don't know of any). Activism like that may exist (like pedophiles who are undergoing treatment who reject rather than embrace it). In which case shouldn't there be separate articles: pedophile pro-pedophile activism and pedophile anti-pedophile activism? The thing is, titles like this could be invented for all other sorts of positions (awareness activism, etc), so I think collecting it under the simplest term which described a wider variety of topics would be easiest.

If this intro is going to maintain that this is by pedophiles (implying that there are no non-pedophiles active in any of the groups) then I think it would be prudent to remove mention of any groups who have any members not diagnosed as that.

Jack did add references (7) which I am looking over. #1 does use the term, but it seems to be paraphrased. Firstly, the title needs to be changed, NYT may have changed it, because it went from "From their own online world" to "On the web". Another thing is, while the quote in question does simply say pedophiles, the first use of 'pedophile' in this reference uses "self-proclaimed pedophiles". There is a clear difference here, one which indicates an assertion of a diagnosis, the other of people who are proclaiming to be something (whether diagnosed or not, honest or not). So on the basis of #1, I believe the phrase "self-proclaimed" would be appropriate, as to indicate that this is what people call themself, and not what they necessarily are.

I'm not sure how ref#2 supports this at all, because the word doesn't even come up. #3 says "Pedophile advocacy group", an advocacy group is not necessarily composed of the group it is advocating for. #4 is describing NAMBLA as a 'pedophile organization'. I read this to indicate that it is an organization FOR pedophiles, and that it would be primarily composed of them, but not necessarily exclusively by them (they have no visible means of excluding non-pedophiles from membership, for example). As such, I think the disclaimers such as 'primarily' are good to be present. They still reinforce the easily assumed predominance while making clear that due to being used in favour of 'exclusively' that it is not making that claim, whereas with the absence of the adverb that is the impression a reader gets, which is an assumption that may be false. That study is 20 years old, even if activism was solely composed of pedophiles back then, that is no indication that it still would be. Activists constantly leave an join activist movements, and the minds of members are rarely all known (especially due to privacy). All you can describe are individuals, the stated goals of an organization, and what the organization has done, you can't make an assertion about what members are for having been a member (especially with moles, spies, etc).

Ref #5 is more modern, which is good (like the internet actually existed when it was made). The problem is that ZDnet doesn't really list any authorities for these statements to take them as valuable references at face value. It is by an anonymous "ZDNet Editor" and actually seems to have little if any independant content. It actually sites the NYT article listed as #1 (which is a very thorough multi-page article, better as a reference, from a more known news source). This should really be removed due to being a secondary and dependant source with no evidence of originality. It's b-use already has 53/54 about the Ohio case which look to be better sources from NBC and... admittedly I haven't heard of Buzzle but at least it doesn't depend on another newspaper to tell their story for them.

I can't analyze sources #6/#7 since there are no URLs for them (these are annoying references for controversial Wikipedia articles with ongoing change, better references for things like this, especially when being used as a source for an introduction, are ones that can be verified easily by other editors. Most people do not have Journal of Homosexuality or Sexualities available in their library, so to contribute here you basically have to have access to a university psychology library or buy it yourself... Tyciol (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The references do not prove what the article or Jack says.


 * The whole idea of activism being subdivided on the basis of its proponents' thought processes and sexual desires is an Orwellian joke that has no grounding in the writings, activities and affiliations of the activists concerned. You may have noticed that the editor who is promoting the idea that "there are no pro-pedophile activists who are not pedophiles" also supports the inclusion of the generic NVSH sexual reform group as an "advocate" of this movement - which is somewhat hypocritical.


 * That "all proponents are pedophiles" is a false axiom borne of deep-rooted cognitive dissonance in one of our editors and the absurdity of running an article about a movement that does not even exist under said name.


 * As I have said before, information relevant to the Age of Consent should go to Age of consent reform, and information about de-stigmatizing/normalizing pedophile attractions should remain in its own (~20 small) article "Manifestations to de-stigmatise pedophilia" here, and will include both professional and activist manifestations. I may propose this as a change.


 * This article is an exercise in argument by conflation and dirt-digging, more reminiscent of yellow journalism than scholarly work. In its present form, it will either assume the role of an advert or what "every parent should know" by thinly-veiled suggestion. EmilianaMartín (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like a lot of subjects mushed together in this article. Could we perhaps delete it altogether and move relevant portions to appropriate articles?Legitimus (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm serious. Any objections?Legitimus (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article should be deleted. The term is a neologism used almost exclusively in Wikipedia and by extension, the many websites that scrape content from here. Google Scholar and Google Books show no hits for the term.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't use 'delete' so hastily, this article has a valuable history, if it were split into better articles then redirecting to the most appropriate (or having a disambig page) would be better. I totally agree though, this is almost exclusively used by Wikipedia. I do see the term mentioned on certain activist sites (like ones that show up under the anti article). Even that one could use splitting since there are anti-pedophilia activists who aren't anti-pedophile. Tyciol (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one am firmly against the move proposal. I agree, the best term for this might be "pedophile activism" but there was heavy discussion at the pervious Pedophile activism cases that led to the split off of two articles; this one and anti-pedophile activism.  Those two topics really don't belong in the same article together, and neither one can appropriately claim to be the topic "pedophile activism" should refer to.  I might favor a restructuring where this article was moved to Pedophile activism (pro-pedophile) but that title just seems clunky to me compared to the current one.  Mango juice talk 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the word activism. Can we source this? as the most common term? I favour the deletion option but otherwise I would be looking to a title that removes the word activism. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I did find this study from the Australian Institute of Criminology, pages 2,4, and 6.Legitimus (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good find, a reliable report about how pedophiles use the internet, yet does not mention activism at all - and not only that, specifically states that their use of the internet is almost completely anonymous. Activism can't be anonymous, that's an oxymoron.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has advocated merging anti-pedophile activism back into this one, this is what I gathered you're fearful about in your statement? Pedophile activism as an article should cover both pro/anti activism orchestrated by pedophiles. Pro/anti could have their own articles both covering pedophiles and non-pedophiles in each movement. The problem here: do we group activism by its topic, or by its activists? The reason I made this topic is because of Jack's reiterating that only pedophiles promoted their welfare. This has changed so there's not any reason for the move, although I do think something a little more spefic than a dumbed down 'pro' and 'anti' would be more useful. Especially since many are not for or against individuals or disorders, but molestation or online luring, rather.Tyciol (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "only pedophiles promoted their welfare" - that's not what I wrote, don't misquote me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well since I didn't put it in quotes, I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing my perception of your statements. What you actually wrote in this summary was "there are no pro-pedophile activists who are not pedophiles". Using logical simplification of your confusing sentence, this would be identical to the sentence: "(all) pro-pedophile activists are pedophiles". They have the same meaning, one is just difficult to grasp, and thus has less emotional impact, whereas with how I have simplified it, the meaning is more clear, and more likely to be more glaringly enflaming to people's sensibilities. Tyciol (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote this?
Perhaps better as an article that focuses on pedophilia and not issues only associated with it by a few orgs and for the rest, blind prejudice. The rest belongs in Age of consent reform.
 * If the article is being renamed as it is, I'd support Advocacy for adult-minor erotics, and oppose the even more misleading Pedophile activism. The first is a) Plainly generic and not a neologism b) References advocacy, and not non-existent activism/linked-up movement c) excludes "pedophile" (multiple reasons, see article) d) specifies erotics, as to reference feelings and behaviours. EmilianaMartín (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't most of this material be moved to Age of consent reform? BTW, that proposed title just sounds weird, and no reader would ever go looking for that.  We need to use real terms.Legitimus (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of this does seem relevant to AoC reform, but probably not everything. Like, some of this activism may not involve reforming the law, just the acceptance of feelings or something, I dunno. As for awkward titles, they aren't a problem with adequate redirection, but at the same time 'erotics' sounds incredibly odd to me too, so something different would be better. Tyciol (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored comment
The following comment was misplaced when I undid edits to this page by Tyciol in which he reformatted other people's comments, including even merging a comment by one editor into another comment by that editor at a different time stamp. His refactoring was so confusing that I could not figure out where to put this text that he added during that series of edits, so I am placing it here to make sure it is not lost. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) After reviewing the comment, it looks like it belongs in this section, if not feel free to place it wherever it was intended, as long as other's comments are not modified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack: When I merge statements by the same user with different time stamps, I only do it in the case when they are 'consecutive'. As in, when there haven't been any replies to it yet. That's not a problem. Otherwise I could put time stamps after every sentence and you couldn't remove them for fear of offending. There has to be realistic guidelines here. As for if I misquoted you: since I can't remember where I originally placed this comment, I don't know where to look to see if I was right or not. That's why I put comments in a specific place, they're directly indented with exactly one colon more than the one I am replying to.
 * In doing a bit of extra work, here is you reverting my changes. Anyone looking at this can see for themself that they were not confusing at all, especially to a keen mind like yours. I took two edits to make this comment. Instead of doing a separate date for this second paragraph, since they are in close proximity and you have not replied to it yet, I simply delete the previous date and update it with the new one. It is spamming Wikipedia to reply to yourself only a day later to say "I'm serious". I didn't even notice Leg complaining about that. You seem mad that I merged your one-sentence (a short one) with the following paragraph. Doing a separate line for a single sentence is annoying for readers. If I did that when I talked then conversations would be very difficult. If people want to wrap and condense someone's statements within reason (ie don't merge 2 10-sentence paragraphs together, that makes it less legible) then I don't see the problem with it.
 * As for the position of my reply: it has 5 colons, so it is a reply to the earliest preceding 4-colon comment. On reviewing that here I realize the fault is mine: I should have made it a 6-colon indent, because it was made in reply to Mango. Once we have concluded discussing this issue, I would like it if you would (or I will) move (or copy, if you want to keep it here too) it back to the thread you removed it from, but in the correct position (with the extra colon that I ommitted in error) to avoid confusion. If you would consent, I would also like to move your response to it there, along with my own, which I am about to make (with a separate date tag, because it is using a separate indent.
 * Furthermore, while I thank you for restoring the one comment of mine that you deleted, there was a second comment made, in response to Legimentus, which you can see on that same page. ("a lot of this does seem relevant...") You can see this is not there anymore. This is why using revert is not good for resolving formatting disputes, because you end up making a far graver error: censoring me, whereas I was only fixing up the presentation of others. So, if you would like to restore that it would be nice, otherwise I will along with the others. Tyciol (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to restore your comment, I did not delete it intentionally. I'd restore it myself but I don't know where it is. Also, it's fine with me if you move the restored comment back to the correct place, and keep my reply with it - as long as you don't change the signatures or dates. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Change is a strong word: I deleted consecutive unnecessary dates+sigs. You don't need to keep the old date when simply updating a previous statement. It's spam. Anyway I moved them up there. I'm going to go find the other part you didn't restore and put that back. Also I made a new subsection for a confusing statement, EM may have made it but I'm not sure due to indent. Tyciol (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mango's change
This changed "advocating for minor children's free choice to engage in sexual relationships without constraint by their parents or other adults" to "often portraying themselves as fighting for the rights of children to engage in sex with adults". Why was the word 'minor' removed? Why was 'free choice' removed? Why was 'sexual relationships' changed to 'sex with adults'? These are strange changes to me, could you explain them? Tyciol (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Minor children" is redundant. "Free choice" is opinion; "rights" captures the concept equally well.  The other part makes no difference to me; I suppose sexual relationships is probably more accurate.  Mango juice talk 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is redundant. 'Minor' has a clear legal meaning. 'Child' while used in law, has a wider variety of definitions in common usage. 'Child' used in a parental sense could indicate adults, so that is why 'minor' is used because it helps to clear up what it means. Also, doing it doubly helps to indicate that it doesn't mean ALL minors (because some minors, in terms of voting, are above the age of consent in some places) but those under it. 'Children' in common usage is sometimes used to indicate prepubescents or something. Tyciol (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected
Due to unhelpful reverts, I've protected the page from editing. Please try to find consensus rather than reverting each other's work.  Will Beback   talk    01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it was locked a couple of hours ago? Lemme see what caused this... okay recent stuff is between JackaRoe and Relativist (only editors save bots since May 27). Er... so people don't need to look at each reverts, what's happening gents? Tyciol (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion is located at Pedophile topic mentorship.  hmwith  τ   21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Carleton Gajdusek
According to his obituary, "He remained unrepentant about his sexual relationships with the young boys. He often said he thought American law was unduly prudish and argued that he had chosen boys only from cultures where man-boy sex was common and unremarkable." Does this cultural argument fit into this article? I think it may fit under "Historical anthropological references." I am not aware of Gajdusek being involved in any particular pro-pedophilia organization but the fact that he was a Nobel prize winner and an important scientist may justify adding his pro-pedophilia arguments to this section of the article.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems appropriate to me.The Relativist (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, well here's the wrinkle that's been plaguing this whole subject: There are two issues here that seem to overlap.  One is organized social/political action seeking to bring about change in both views and laws about child sex and pedophilia.  The other is the opinions and arguments made by individual persons.  It was my understanding that this article is meant to be about the former, while Gajdusek would be the latter.  Frankly, Gajdusek's remarks are not that different from Vincent's about murder-for-hire being ok because thousands are killed in Rwanda every day.Legitimus (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's where my suggested name change to something like 'pro-pedophile ideology' would be an advantage--it would enable us to include individual opinions even when it is questionable that they form part of a 'movement', as long as those expressing those opinions are sufficiently notable--which Gajdusek clearly would be. (See my comments on Pedophile topic mentorshipThe Relativist (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)