Talk:Tom O'Carroll

Old posts
"In 1981 he was imprisoned due to his published views on pedophilia"

What? That sounds terrible. Is it possible, in the UK, to imprison people for their views? Clayboy 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, No. He was imprisoned for "conspiracy to corrupt public morals" (whether or not this is the same thing....) lmno 15:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This article contains a statement from O'Carroll which seems to concern the Sun article referenced, and it is copyrighted 2003 (but can only be found in the Internet Archive in 2005.) JayW 22:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.779431.0.police_charge_man_over_child_sex_ring.php uh, what? JayW 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added material from that source to the article. Thanks for finding it. -Will Beback 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I pasted a link to his book. Already listed under 'pedophile activism', but would be stupid to leave out. --Jim Burton 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to a proposal to remove/delete this item on O'Carroll from Wikipedia (18 Nov., 2013)Italic text

Alternative view:

It is this idea of resistance (a self understanding Tom O'Carroll has offerred about how he wants to position himself in relation to his critics) that carries special import for a sociological gaze. It can be argued a concern for a sociological perspective involves what C. Wright-Mills talks of as the process where one has to "translate private troubles into public issues" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills). According to this guide Tom O'Carroll certainly qualifies as a person of considerable interest, and helps a wider society look sociologically at the issue of pedophilia.

Consistent with this point is how the Collins Internet-linked Dictionary of Sociology (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collins-Internet-Linked-Dictionary-Sociology/dp/0007183992) writes about deviance. One can view deviance as involving various responses to such a label, two of which are 'disavowal' or a 'career' response. In Tom O'Carroll's case it is the second way of seeing the person that appears to be in play. Career deviancy The Collins Dictionary writes (p.154), is where "the individual comes to accept the deviant 'self-identity,'...".

To assess Tom O'Carroll simply from the viewpoint of whether he does or does not have a criminal conviction for Child porn is reductionist because it leaves out so much. This view is consistent with a number of the people cited above. First, barrister in the 1981 court case where O'Carroll was convicted for 'conspiracy to corrupt public morals', Peter Thornton, later a QC and senior circuit judge is cited above as saying "O'Carroll had been convicted on little evidence". Second, D. Franklin who had edited Paedophilia: The Radical Case, again sited above. Third, Alan Watkins who stated in The Observer, that O'Carroll had been penalised effectively for nothing more than campaigning to change the law. . These individuals all argue there is a bias and a failure to be balanced in how judgements had been made in the past about Tom O'Carroll. The point here is that a witch-hunt is not a good path to take when dealing with a person like O'Carroll, in the end the attackers only convince a thoughtful reader a situaiton shaped by prejudice is attempting to rule the day.

The view that all individuals convicted of sex offences against children should be errased from history would remove the possibility of a sociological gaze. Sociology is a way of looking that plays a significant role in the world of the social sciences and critical thought. That critical attitude of accademic openness is what sits behind the more recent response of J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern University to Tom O'Carroll's texts cited above.

Comment: This text is positioned here rather than in the main body of the item since the norms governing such articles would suggest this is a better location for the points offered. --Peterhoo56 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhoo56 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

O'Carroll's own take on events leading to his conviction in 2006.
Why is it not possible to include this? It is true that the link is a personal website, but the edit was carefully worded so as not to endorse O'Carroll's account. We are only pointing out that O'Carroll has made these claims and that they can be found on this website, the website of a distinguished academic.Researcher1000 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We need reliable thrid party sources, we are not interested in O'Carroll's take on things unless published in reliable third party sources, a blog simply wont do♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Researcher1000 is correct. From WP:Verifiability: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (see WP:SELFPUB).  Giving O'Carroll's account (clearly labelling it as such) is perfectly fine (again, emphasizing that his take is his take, not that of a court or other legit body.)— James Cantor (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * James, are you seriously defending the inclusionj of a blog? We dont even have any guarantees it isnt soemone masquierading as him, you or I or anyone could easily do so, which is why of course wordpress blogs are not considered reliable sources by wikipedia; if O'Carroll published in a reliable source we could review this of course but if the website were to advocate pedophilia in any part of it it would be likely to fall foul of arbcom rulings on the subject of pro-pedophile activism links and pro-pedophila activism generally on wikipedia. Having had a look at the blog it does seem to me to be advocating pedophilia, which would be a second reason to reject the link, though that isnt required as a wordpress blog is simply not reliable♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But what this overlooks is that the website belongs to Professor Percy (you don't question that, do you?) and he obviously thinks it really is Tom O'Carroll. And again, you are still being much too free with this term 'advocating pedophilia'. I'm sure it wasn't the intention of Arbcom to ban all links to sites that suggest that under certain circumstances--which may not be realised in this society--pedophilia might be morally acceptable. That would be censorship, wouldn't it?Researcher1000 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am defending only the WP policy, which permits blogs in situations exactly like this, as noted in the policy statement I already pasted here. You are free to want the standard to be higher, but that is a discussion for that policy page, not here.— James Cantor (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to O'Carroll's blog
From my reading of Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that this link qualifies as an 'official link', so I have restored it. Researcher1000 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a blog so it doesnt qualify and it advocates pedophilia, two reasons not to have it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Definition of an 'official link'

''An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:


 * The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
 * The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.''

The site clearly qualifies on these criteria. Note that the 'no blogs' rule doesn't apply when the link is an official link. Researcher1000 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But its not an official link, its a blog written by the subject of the article which is very different from an official link, and also you havent addressed the issue of the arbcom banning sites which promote pedophilia from appearing on wikipedia♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate Squeak's desire to prevent the promotion (or the potential perception of promotion) of pedophilia on wikipedia. However, it is my experience that Squeak can sometimes be overzealous in that regard. Squeak's comments on other pedophilia-related pages suggest that we differ in basic ideology here, and that Squeak's input often opposes or disrupts the consensus rather than facilitates it.  I suggest, therefore, skipping the drama and asking for otherwise uninvolved input from WP:RS/N or other appropriate noticeboard.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Err claiming that you and I differ in ideology (as if I would bring ideology into ANY wikipedia article I edit, sigh) and then that your ideology is the consensus smacks of something not quite right. And I dont agree that RS is exactly the place to go cos its an official site link not a reliable source link, and indeed the link would obviously fail as a reliable source. Getting consensus to include a pro pedophile activism link is going to be tricky, I hope James isnt though claiming the consensus he talks about includes to have pro pedophile activism links in wikipedia cos if he were claiming such a thing I would have to say IMHO he is wrong. I also hope James doesnt think the consensus was that this puffed-up peacock piece was in any sense of the world neutrasl a day or two ago. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog doesn't promote paedophilia. If you understand the word 'paedophilia' in terms of a disposition or preference then the idea of promoting it wouldn't make any sense. If instead you understand it in terms of actually having sex with underage people, you'll see it doesn't promote that if you read the blog.


 * You haven't justified your claim that this is a 'puffed-up peacock' piece. It may be that the wording could be made slightly more neutral in places (though these would very fine matters of expression), but every point made is backed up with a credible, reliable source. There are no grounds either for deletion or for substantial change.Researcher1000 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the blog promoting pedophila. Unlike say the Virtuous pedophiles the only thing o'Carroll claims is wrong with child sexual abuse is that it is illegal. Selective use of reliable sources is never an excuse to violate our NPOV policy, which is required for all articles, we cant make Barak Obama into a brilliant hero so we cant with O'Carroll either♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The comment above is rather off the point. A source can be perfectly acceptable for supporting statements about its own author's views, but still unacceptable for other claims.  The reference in the comment above about selectively using RS's is similarly irrelevant---I am pointing only out that Squeak's claims contradict WP:V (as shown in my quoting of the policy).
 * Just for the record: O'Carroll is no friend of mine. We dislike many of each others' opinions, we have had harsh words about each other on listservs, and he certainly has not had anything kind to say about me on his blog.  (That is, if I had a bias here, it would be to help Squeak invisibilize O'Carroll and O'Carroll's statements.)  However, it is the WP policies that matter, whether Squeak or I like it or not.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored this link. It does not 'promote pedophilia', as you will see if you read it with any care. I doubt that there actually exist any blogs that do this. They wouldn't last more than a few days. As I said before, this link qualifies as an official link. And purely in terms of usefulness, it is well worth having, as readers are bound to be curious about what O'Carroll is up to these days. Taking it out is pure censorship, as far as I can see.Researcher1000 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are claiming it doesnt advocate pedophilia but I dont agree and as a blog it isnt an official link either. I agree wioth James we need to stick to wikipedia policies so I have removed the link♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Squeak is free not to agree, but not free to enact his beliefs over the consensus. Moreover, despite Squeak's repeated challenge regarding the "officialness" of O'Carroll's blog, there is no such "officialness" requirement, in either WP:BLOGS or WP:SELFPUB. Indeed, the word "official" never appears in either.  In general, where the word does appear, it is very clearly referring to corporate or other collective entities wherein an "official" identification is need to know which of potentially multiple sites is the citable one.  This does not apply to an individual person expressing his own opinion on his own site.  I am restoring the link on the main page, and I would urge Squeak to seek other input from other relevant talk pages and to establish a consensus rather than to engage in an revert war.— James Cantor (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In looking over the whole set of edits from the past day or so, they are a mix of legit and illegit (IMO) changes (plus several for which I am neutral). I have reverted the whole set, so that each may be discussed here to establish a consensus first.  I also reiterate my point that a productive discussion will be better had by recruiting folks from other relevant pages.— James Cantor (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to discuss not reverrt, James Cantor. The arrogance of removing the NPOV tag without discussion or any attempt at making the article neutral staggers me as does your undoing good formating and restoring highly unneutral edits. As wi9th other articles you are acting as if you own the article but I am happy to discuss any changes you would like to see happen♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
Thisa rticle is not neutral acc our WP:NPOV policy, I have done some work but it needs a lot more. Somebody seems to have gone out of their way to make this a peacock piece in praise of O'Connell♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the neutrality tag and my attem,pts atb neutrality looks like trolling, James Cantor, why did you do it, you didnt even bother to discuss♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To repeat, I reverted the entire set of edits; it was not my goal to remove the tag, and I have no issue with the tag being rescued from the block revert. Squeak's presumptions about the state of my mind are his own, and there is little I can add that would not be already apparent from anyone reading this or the related talk pages.— James Cantor (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP
James Cantor recently made what seems to be a well-intentioned edit to this article (see here). Unfortunately, the edit restored a violation of WP:BLP, specifically, the unsourced statement that someone suggested Carroll be placed in a mental hospital. I'd encourage Cantor and others to not restore that material. Note that removal of BLP violations does not require prior discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct. I have no trouble reinstating the correction to that BLP violation (and I note it's already been corrected on the main page).  Thanks for catching that.— James Cantor (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing a neutrality tag weithout discussion is not a good faith edit, this was James edit warring with someone he holds a personal grudge against from another article not a good faith edit at all and so no suprise that he re-inserted a BLP vio♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutrality tags are, in my view, appropriate only when more than one editor is disputing an article's neutrality. I'm not sure that this is the case here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My changes
It looks to me that James cantor reverted me wholesale because he couldnt be bothered to edit in more detail, though perhaps I am wrong, still the removal of the NPOV tag without discussion makes me have to work at assuming good faith but lets discuss some of the changes anyway. I sectioned the article, why James thinks the article with no sections looks better is baffling given he is an experienced wikipedian who knows sectioning is totally normal and to revert sectioning without discussion is not good faith behaviour in a normal article, its clearly long enough to require sections. If James disagrees with the way I sectioned why didnt he do his own sectioning, or was reverting the "easy option"? I also separated out the child porn convictions from the so-called activism, why was this reverted? It seems to me perfectly logical to do this and I look forward to hearing the arguemnts as to why these two areas should be mixed together in a disorganized way. I also have concerns about the ref'd praising of this character which violates our NPOV policy, the fact that james reverted my attempts at neutrality while removing the tag is like having your cake and eating it. Why are you so right James to be able to do this; I again I look forward to hearing why this praise is necessary and why it isnt an NPOV vio♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no issue re-sectioning the page nor (as I've said) returning the tag to the page. Do please continue listing individually whichever other changes you believe should be made/reinstated.— James Cantor (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well in that case why are you reverting? Your actions defy your words here, you can easily section if you could be bothered, not saying I wouldnt still revrt making the article less POV than ever but it would be a start. And the disorganising of the two themes so they arent spearated out for the benefit of the reader. What is your objection to this? Its you who is objecting to the changes and you need to explain why. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Its comments like "gave high praise", "“The book,” he wrote, “is fascinating, challenging and discomfiting. Anyone wanting to understand Michael Jackson will need to read it" and "argues “persuasively” that Jackson was “almost certainly pedophilic”" whi9ch are not neutral and the last is a slur on Michael Jackson. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is little I can say beyond what would immediately apparent to anyone reading the edit history of the page: Between 1 Jan 2013 and 1 Nov 2013, there were exactly 9 edits to the page, all very minor. That is, I think we can call that a stable page (even if a low quality one). Squeakbox then made 21 edits over three days in November, after which I made my very first edit to this page ever (reverting Squeak's changes and indicating BRD on the talk page).  That is, to any outside reader, it is clear where in the BRD cycle we are; it is up to Squeak to justify the changes to the otherwise stable page.  Squeak has misapplied several editing guidelines already.  So, I can only repeat what I've already said several times: List the changes you'd like to make (I recommend numbering them), we can likely agree on several very quickly, and we can discuss the others.— James Cantor (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please discuss changes on the talk page instead of edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We very clearly have differing opinions over the applicability of WP:CHILDPROTECT.
Some of us believe that WP:CHILDPROTECT applies here, and others that it does not. I don't believe there is much point to the continued reverts, but the underlying issue is worth examining. Although it is my view that WP:CHILDPROTECT does not apply here (advocating adult-child sex is distinct from writing BLPs about notable/infamous individuals who are such advocates), I cannot say I am very much invested. It is not clear to me, however, whether such a discussion of WP:CHILDPROTECT is most appropriate here and/or at some other forum.— James Cantor (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP's comments appeared to condone pedophila. As such, they violated WP:CHILDPROTECT and had to be removed. This is an absolutely unambiguous and straightforward issue: no form of advocacy of pedophilia, whether in the form of talk page comments or in the form of edits to articles, is tolerated on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to O'Carroll's self-published account
Information about O'Carroll's most recent conviction has recently been added with a Daily Mail article used as the source. I also created a link to this section of O'Carroll's blog. The latter link was removed by Philip Cross, who (on his talk page) cites a section of Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPSELFPUB) in support of the reversion. The section concerns the use of self-published sources, which is generally allowed provided certain conditions are met, the two relevant ones being:

1. It is not unduly self-serving; 2. It does not involve claims about third parties;

Philip maintains that these conditions are violated in the present case. I am not so sure.

That the account is not unduly self-serving is shown by the fact that O'Carroll concedes that it was wrong of him to violate the law. He now realises that this can be damaging to children in the long term even when (as in the present case) no trauma appears to be experienced at the time of the sexual activity. Because of this, the account comes across as an honest, balanced one.

As far as condition 2 is concerned, while it is true that claims are made about third parties, their real names are not revealed, so that there is no danger of any embarrassment being caused. Since it was presumably to avoid such dangers that this clause was included, we can regard the rule as having been honoured in spirit at least.

The cited source for the story is the Daily Mail. Tabloid newspapers are not ideal sources, though they may of course be used in some cases for want of anything better. In this case, O'Carroll does not dispute the facts presented, but if we believe him, a lot has been left out, much of which gives an interesting new perspective. If court records were readily available, then they would provide the obvious solution, but they are not. Researcher1000 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Court records, if they were publicly available, would count ass WP:PRIMARY, and could not be used. The Daily Mail source needs replacing, if possible. Tabloid sources are not supposed to be used when they are the only source available. Philip Cross (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We agree that the use of the Mail reference on its own is unsatisfactory, but do you still reject the use of O'Carroll's blog and if so do you have any further arguments against it? Researcher1000 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. My emphasis.


 * This article is not itself about paedophilia, a criminal activity pursued by a small minority of men with fringe arguments for its acceptability. Philip Cross (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if the link is included, there will still be more weight given to the bare facts of the case as reported in the Mail, as the material in the blog will not actually appear in the article.


 * 'This article is not itself about paedophilia, a criminal activity...' Paedophilia is a sexual attraction, not a criminal activity, though it does lead some individuals to perform illegal acts. True, the article is not about paedophilia per se. It is about Tom O'Carroll, but the same applies to the web page linked to. Its relevance to the subject-matter of the article is indisputable.Researcher1000 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you want to come back at me on this or are you OK with the link being restored? Researcher1000 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading past discussion of this issue, it is worth noting that I am not the only editor who objects. It would be best if you desisted, Researcher1000, from restoring a link to O'Carroll's blog. Since it may not have been pointed out before, you should read the Conflict of interest article. You also appear to be pushing an agenda, so I suggest you read Child protection as well. Philip Cross (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading past discussion of this issue, one might have got the impression that the matter was settled in favour of those wanting to broaden the article in the ways suggested rather than the reverse. But in any case, you still haven't answered my point about WP: UNDUE. The purpose of linking to that particular page of O'Carroll's blog was not to promote 'the views of a tiny minority' but to throw light on some questions of fact by linking to an account that is just as likely to be true as anything appearing in a tabloid newspaper with certain axes of its own to grind (mainly to do with attacking the Labour party). Note that the statement in the article didn't say it was true, just that it was another perspective. The Mail account still gets more weight by having its actual statements reproduced in the article. Researcher1000 (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed citation of Daily Mail
In accordance with Wikipedia's new policy, I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the section about O'Carroll's most recent conviction, as the source was the Daily Mail. I don't know if there's an alternative source.TruthSerum (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There appears not to be, although O'Carroll's blog confirms most of the details. I have been through the reasons not to cite his website with another anonymous user above. Philip Cross (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If an alternative source cannot be found, what happens then? TruthSerum (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry. If an alternative acceptable source remains absent, it will have to be removed eventually. Still plenty of inevitably 'unsupportive' evidence in the article and no reason to think O'Caroll's fringe theories should have a greater outlet here. Philip Cross (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Balance of article
For some reason - and a I note there are signs of significant ownership efforts on this page - O'Carroll's criminal convictions are downplayed. This hasn't only been true in the lede - but also in suggestions that he was "temporarily" found guilty by a court, a very strange concept. Courts make findings. If they are overturned on appeal, then so be it. But they are not temporary verdicts or sentences. I also note that somebody has sought to play down the evidence against O'Carroll, by pointing out that there were allegedly only three photographs that were subject of charges and it was said that they might have been totally innocent if taken by a parent. That is utterly irrelevant material, evidently inserted in an effort to assist O'Carroll's image. I think other editors, and possibly the public, coming upon this page would be concerned to see efforts to soft soap someone with convictions such as O'Carroll's. Bluehotel (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "...it was said that they might have been totally innocent if taken by a parent."

This was a point apparently made in the ruling, presumably to explain why the appeal was successful, so I don't think we can regard them as irrelevant.TruthSerum (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Paper in Sexuality and Culture
I don't understand why this was reverted. It's verified and written in a neutral way. It's also notable as it is a paper in a peer-reviewed journal but has been released on an open access basis, as stated in the edit. Why was it removed?Anotherultimatename (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Could we maybe have a discussion about this?Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article deals with an interesting subject, but I'm skeptical about the importance of something that was apparently only published online rather than in an actual print publication. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Sexuality and Culture' also exists in print form, as shown by this page.Anotherultimatename (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the journal exists in print form, but I see no evidence so far that the article we are discussing was ever published in print. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anybody purchasing a print copy of the relevant issue of the journal would necessarily purchase this article along with all the other articles. It would have been subject to exactly the same peer review process as the others. (Of course this article happens to be open access and therefore free on-line and so hardly anyone would bother to buy the issue in print form just to have this article, but that's beside the point.)Anotherultimatename (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You said in the comment accompanying your latest reversion that 'no clear reason has so far been established why that particular paper by the article subject should be mentioned here'. Now clearly one would not wish to mention just anything that O'Carroll has published. There may well be minor pieces in non-peer-reviewed publications that do not deserve inclusion. But books by major publishers, such as his first book Paedophilia: The Radical Case (which is already mentioned), as well as any papers published by major publishing organisations that have been subject to peer review surely do belong here. The article in question is one such paper. Anotherultimatename (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)  Anotherultimatename (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, are you still there? Anotherultimatename (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still "there" yes, but this discussion is going nowhere. There is no agreement to add mention of the paper, and I doubt there will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In your view, what would make a paper notable enough to be worth mentioning in this article?Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is really a need for me to make any comment here except to note that trying to force through a controversial change on a pedophilia-related article despite disagreement from other editors, and an absence of anyone supporting your change, is a terrible idea. Given the nature of this topic, it is by far best to simply accept that there is not going to be consensus for your addition and move on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In what sense am I 'trying to force' anything through? I'm just asking you under what circumstances you would think it would be right to make an addition like this? I ask because all the conditions seem to be satisfied in this case (notability, an impeccable source etc.) Why can't you answer me? Anotherultimatename (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, Responding to third opinion: This article is organized a little strangely, I would argue that it should be re-organized, probably into: or something similar. That being said, I don't see a legitimate reason for the disputed content not to be included. Not being published in a paper journal in my opinion is not a valid reason to doubt the legitimacy of a source; I'm unaware of that as a successful argument against peer-reviewed online published material. If it were up to me, I would re-organize as previously proposed and I would move all content related to written works, without subheaders, to the proposed "written works" header and have it all summarized there. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  00:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * Pro-Paedophile advocacy
 * Paedophile information exchange
 * Convictions
 * Expulsion from labor party
 * Written works
 * Is the fact that the paper is a piece of pro-paedophile advocacy "a valid reason to doubt the legitimacy of a source"? The fundamental issue is actually not its "legitimacy" as a source at all, as you wrongly seem to suppose, but rather why it should even be mentioned. Encyclopedia articles do not and cannot mention all articles and papers written by an writer, so a reason needs to be given why this particular paper should be mentioned. You have provided none. Your third opinion is thus useless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would be. If I understand the disputed edit correctly, the editor is basically just trying to add "O'Carroll wrote this paper", they aren't trying to make the argument that the paper is making and use the paper as supporting evidence, they are just writing about its existence. An editor is trying to add properly sourced content; I would argue the burden of proof for deletion is on you. The editor above asked you, reasonably, what you believe would be sufficient criteria to be included here and you did not answer. I am trying to have a content based discussion with you, I'd appreciate civility. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk
 * I'd appreciate it if you could actually respond to the question I asked: since an article about an author does not and cannot mention each and every paper or article they may have written, what specific reason is there to include this specific pro-paedophile paper? If you don't see that mentioning a pro-paedophile article that has no apparent larger significance beyond the simple fact of its appearing on a website somewhere could be considered a way of promoting its author's views, then that does seem like ignoring the obvious. As for "An editor is trying to add properly sourced content; I would argue the burden of proof for deletion is on you", that is made up nonsense. It is the person who adds content who has to show a reason for its inclusion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

After this comment (and any rebuttal you would like to offer) I will be pausing this conversation to allow for to add their remarks. My argument is simple: these are the facts, and they are relevant to the subject's notability. Do I think it needs the weight of its own subheader? No. I don't think any of the works do, as I argued above. Would a sentence that says something to the effect of "In 2018, O'Carroll published a paper in the online edition of Sexuality & Culture, arguing against Malón's views on paedophilia." be unreasonable? not in my opinion. Respectfully, your argument appears to me to be one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and censorship. Again, I respect your opinion and hope for a civil content-based discussion. I would like to wait for the other editor to respond, and if there is still disagreement I think the most productive thing to do would be open it up for an RfC. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't mention "facts" just because it can, it mentions facts because they have some encyclopedic significance. The article subject is notable for his advocacy of paedophilia. The article already makes that clear. Mentioning a single obscure paper by O'Carroll does nothing to make it any clearer. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV. See in particular one section of that policy, WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." A single paper by O'Carroll is a very, very minor aspect. You suggest that I am trying to reject it on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Respectfully, you are completely mistaken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The paper is notable because it is in a peer-reviewed journal (print as well as on-line). It is, as far as I know, O'Carroll's only peer-reviewed journal article. It is also very unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) for someone who has been on the sex offender's register (for child-related offences at that) to achieve such a thing. Some might say 'disgraceful', but it is not Wikipedia's job to make such a judgement. The paper is also open access, meaning that it is likely to reach a much wider readership than the average academic paper.
 * Hovering in the background of FreeKnowledgeCreator's critique (though he does not make it his main objection) is the fear that adding this information is 'promoting pedophilia'. He doesn't need to worry about that. Mentioning a publication in Wikipedia does not involve endorsing its views - otherwise it would not be possible to mention 'Mein Kampf', for example. Anotherultimatename (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is a test used to determine whether a subject merits a dedicated article, per WP:NOTE: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It is not relevant here. You may be extremely impressed by the fact that "someone who has been on the sex offender's register" would manage to get a pro-paedophile article published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, you should not expect most editors to agree that a pro-paedophile paper by a person who has been registered as a sex-offender should be mentioned because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and this is impressive. Perhaps this would be a good moment to mention that advocacy of pedophilia is strictly prohibited in any form, per WP:CHILDPROTECT. As for your comparison with Mein Kampf, it is completely specious. Mein Kampf is a work that obviously has major historical significance, meaning that discussion of it is merited. Furthermore, the article on Mein Kampf is full of critical information about the book. You are advocating that an obscure paper that obviously does not have major historical significance should be mentioned without any form of criticism of it or its author's views. There is no comparison between the article on Mein Kampf and what you are proposing here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You misquoted me regarding my attitude to a child sex offender getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. I said it was 'very unusual'. I did not make a positive value judgement about it, as the word 'impressive' seems to be imply. My point is that it is so extraordinary as to be worth mentioning. You can think that without believing it to be a good thing.
 * Regarding 'Mein Kampf' and critical information, I didn't say that O'Carroll's article should be mentioned without criticism. You can add criticism if you want to as long as it is well sourced. What you can't do - and nor can I, nor have I - is add your own personal criticism representing your subjective viewpoint. Anotherultimatename (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is how the 'votes' seem to go at the moment:
 * User:Basilosauridae FOR the edit.
 * User: Anotherultimatename FOR the edit.
 * User: Carrite Marginally FOR the edit (but they would really prefer the whole BLP deleted. Their views were expressed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).
 * My revised view is that the paper should be included at the bottom under a heading of Works or Further Reading, but not discussed as a full subsection of the bio in the body. But I do prefer deletion of the entire biography as a general statement of principle. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User: FreeKnowledgeCreator AGAINST the edit.
 * User: ScrapIronIV AGAiNST the edit. (Their views are at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).


 * I think that's everyone who's expressed a view. It seems pretty finely balanced with a slight tilt towards allowing the edit. Where does that leave us? Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Id suggest opening a WP:RfC to attract more input to establish a more clear consensus either way. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Tom O'Carroll dispute
Requesting comment on a proposal to mention a specific journal article by Tom O'Carroll in Tom O'Carroll. Opinions are split and we need input from other editors. Details in penultimate section of talk page. Anotherultimatename (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment please be more specific concerning the article at issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This The debate is about mentioning this in O'Carroll's BLP would satisfy requirements of neutrality, notability etc. Anotherultimatename (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they mean specifically what content you would like to add regarding the article. Maybe including the exact verbiage you would like to add to the article and where it would go. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  17:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposed wording is: In April 2018, 'Childhood 'Innocence' is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex', a peer-reviewed paper by O'Carroll, was published by Springer in the journal 'Sexuality and Culture'. The paper, which is published on an open access basis, examines and criticises views of pedophilia expressed by A. Malon and Roger Scruton, arguing for an alternative view based on virtue ethics. Anotherultimatename (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest putting it at the end of the section entitled 'Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons'. Anotherultimatename (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Several days have now elapsed with no further comment. In order to break what seems like a deadlock, I am prepared to offer a compromise. I will agree to simply including a reference to the paper in a 'Further reading' section, as suggested above by Carrite. What do people think? Anotherultimatename (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no deadlock. There is no consensus to add this work to the article.  That consensus is unlikely to change, so I suggest you drop the stick  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ScrapIronIV that there is no dispute here. There clearly is a valid discussion taking place, so telling someone to drop it without offering any opinion is not helpful to anyone. Regarding the proposed compromise, I would argue that it is not a better option and would appear much more like an endorsement than the proposed line of text in the article. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Not in a million years. Let's put aside for a moment the other thousand and one other pragmatic reasons why we will never be including content in a Wikipedia article which appears to suggest credibility within the behavioural sciences to the disturbing pet theories of a man who self-avowedly promotes acts of sexual predation upon children (which is about as offensive a misrepresentation of the truth regarding a field of study as I have ever seen in a decade with this project) and instead focus to begin with on two (of numerous) important policies:


 * First off, I doubt very much that what we are dealing with here is an appropriate WP:RS for the purposes invoked. Quite aside from the fact that this is an open-access journal, likely of the most questionable sort, there's a virtual mountain of red flags here (you know, other than the fact that they decided to publish the ravings of a repeat sex offender): the journal has a not very credible impact factor, and it published this piece despite the fact that the author has exactly zero relevant credentials to any empirical field or practice that has any relevance to human sexuality (unless of course you consider having been on a sex offenders registry a credential). The journal has virtually no online footprint, that I can find, other than the springerlink hosted articles and some independent analytics of their bibliometrics. There are serious indications that the publication may not be in any significant sense a peer-review publication, but rather something much closer to a combination vanity publisher/predatory publisher, utilizing the most questionable form of pay for publish mechanics.  And if some of the predicates of my conclusions there seem to be begging the question, so be it; I'm normally a strong stalwart against letting our editors go too far in second-guessing the internal processes of a publication, but even I have no reservations in utilizing the first order assumption that if a sex offender author got past their editorial process on article about this particular subject matter, this publication is not looking very much like an "academic journal".


 * All of which is perhaps secondary to the WP:NEUTRALITY/WP:WEIGHT factor involved here. Even if this were not as dubious a cite as it clearly is, but rather was somehow a reference to a work published in a major and widely respected journal (as inexplicable and fantastical as that notion is), it would still be inappropriate and irresponsible beyond description to throw it into the article as if to suggest there is any kind of field legitimacy to the idea that the activities O'Carroll supports are seen by experts as anything other than sexual assaults of the most abhorrent, violent, violative, and life-destroying kind.  We have on one hand every single finding of every legitimate modern researcher and genuine academic in relevant psychological, medical, and behavioural research and then we have the self-rationalizations of a man convicted of trying to distribute images of child sexual exploitation on the other.  I don't see any possibility that any single experienced and neutral editor (let alone a consensus of such editors) would ever see the balance of that sourcing analysis as allowing for a journal cite to this dubious publication, especially if it would suggest even a scintilla of support within the research establishment that a description of how someone can "ethically" initiate a sexual encounter with a child is anything other than horrendous and dangerous. Snow let's rap 21:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No per Snow Rise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking your points in order:
 * 1) '...a man who self-avowedly promotes acts of sexual predation upon children.' What he actually does is promote legal and social change. In any case, citing the article in no way endorses his views, as I have several times mentioned.
 * 2) You seem to be under a misapprehension about the journal. It is not an open access journal. It is just this particular article that is open access for some reason. If you look at (most?) of the other articles, you will find that you will have to pay to read them.
 * 3) '... the journal has a not very credible impact factor'. But see:
 * https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3318
 * This gives rankings among Gender Studies journals. Sexuality & Culture is ranked 31 out of 50, ahead of Glq (35) and Hypatia (36) both of which are well-known names in gender studies. It is also ahead of the International Journal of Sexual Health (42), which is the official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health, a NGO that works with the World Health Organisation.
 * 4) You say 'there are serious indications that the publication may not be in any significant sense a peer-review publication, but rather something much closer to a combination vanity publisher/predatory publisher, utilizing the most questionable form of pay for publish mechanics.' What serious indications? There appears to be no justification for these claims. Actually, the publisher Springer also publishes the world's most prestigious science journal, Nature. They have a reputation to uphold, which makes your allegations seem highly implausible.
 * 5) I would like finally to do something to correct the impression that O'Carroll is not a credible figure in this field. The fact is that his views have been seriously discussed by social scientists and philosophers, even if they do not always agree with them. See, for example, this piece by philosopher Igor Primoratz and a discussion in Li, C.K., West, D.J., & Woodhouse, T.P., Children’s Sexual Encounters with Adults, London: Duckworth, 1990, pp. 304-316. A few short extracts from the latter are found here. Anotherultimatename (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you genuinely feel that O'Carroll is "a credible figure in the field", that speaks volumes to the confirmation bias you must be applying to the editorial considerations here--and (I must be blunt here) that perspective on O'Carroll raises questions, given the apparently quite long history of disruption by socks trying to glorify this convicted sex offender for sticking to his guns (edit: or who it seems may be socks of O'Carroll himself). I don't know what "the field" is that you think he is a credible expert within, but he has no academic degree remotely associated with psychology, mental health, or child wellfare, nor any connection to research, practice, or academia in any other relevant field; his only "credentials" in this area are his repeated convictions for trying to distribute pornographic photos of minors and an autobiographical book justifying his perspectives on sexual interaction with children.  The fact that actual experts have occasionally mentioned him when discussing the self-rationalizations of convicted offenders does not in any way make O'Carroll himself an expert in any relevant field; serious scientists respond to or observe the lunatic fringe all of the time. Likewise, the fact that he occasionally gets some of his ravings posted on to some fringe part of the internet these days does not make him a figure of status or influence in "the field".


 * Honestly, I am going to tell you plainly, you need to drop this line of argument immediately. In many years with this project, I've never come to the point where I felt it appropriate to completely shut down another editor's expression of their opinion on a content or factual matter, but it's going to happen today.  Saying the man is a credible expert is another way of saying that his ideas could be right.  And given that the foundation of his arguments is that there is an ethical way to sexually abuse a child, that's puts us square into WP:CHILDPROTECT territory.  Please understand that if I see the man and his ideas portrayed as "credible" within the scientific and child well-fare fields, in discussions here again, I'll have no choice at that point but to refer the matter to WP:ANI.  I consider myself quite fortunate that I have been on the project for as long as I've had without ever feeling I absolute must do so, but if ever there was an occasion to necessitate it, this would be it.  The notions which O'Carroll espouses are not just every day fringe ideas, but arguments in favour of activities which constitute criminal sexual violence directed at children.


 * As to another matter raised, I don't see the need to debate the quality of the journal at length; I honestly don't know if this was a case of poor editorial controls or something else entirely--that's for their editorial board to decide if they ever end up facing legal or reputational blowback for publishing this piece. As I said before, even if this were an otherwise stellar and widely cited publication, it would still be irresponsible as an editorial matter (and indeed, on numerous other levels) to include reference to this piece so long as there is any chance of implication that O'Carroll's ideas have any form of legitimacy anywhere in the actual scholarship and study of child sexual abuse.  Putting aside the fact that we clearly are not going to let our content imply an idea that we do not even allow our editors to suggest (for good reason), this is simply the most straightforward WP:WEIGHT analysis I can imagine ever taking place with regard to any article; every respected name in the fields of child development and well-fare, psychology, and medicine (and related research for the purposes of law and policy) are in universal opposition to O'Carroll's view that sex with a child can be made "ethical", and it would be incredibly misleading to include anything that could suggest otherwise. And as other editors have stressed here before me, there is no other purpose for including reference to the article.  There aren't any independent secondary sources discussing it; it certainly isn't going to be cited by academics (except maybe as a footnote some day in another piece disusing sex offender apologisms, as with his book).  Maybe there will be some fallout/controversy regarding the article, at which time we may have to discuss it, utilizing secondary sourcing, but at present time, a naked primary reference is as massively WP:UNDUE and innately misleading as a piece of content could ever be in a biographical article. Sno<b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem for your argument is that the academic authors cited do not regard O'Carroll as merely a peddler of some fringe theory. They discuss him as an intellectual equal who has something important to bring to the debate. Of course, they do not necessarily agree with him. In the article by Primoratz, for example, the latter concludes by stating an argument in favour of continued proscription of adult-child sex based on a precautionary principle. Anotherultimatename (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No As much as it revolts me to read the theories of this unspeakable person and to know that he is not locked up behind bars for the rest of his life I am having trouble with the idea that we should not allow mention of this paper in the article on the basis of it being objectionable or that we feel the journal was wrong in publishing the article. Lists of works as per the goals of WikiProject_Bibliographies include articles published in Journals. As per WP:UNCENSORED Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable... "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.. Fortunately Wikipedia has given us a means of refusing the inclusion of this horror with the Child protection policy. A link to this article which advocates a change in the opinion concerning adult-child relationships is without a shadow of a doubt a means of widening the readership of these truely horrific ideas. I would suggest that the continued addition of links by Anotherultimatename puts them squarely in the sights of a block under this policy. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per Snow Rise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * And as for WP:Uncensored, also see WP:Offensive material. I do not see why this content needs to be in the article. If it were included, it would be very important, per WP:Fringe, to make clear that these views are fringe and are not held by the vast majority of experts on child sexual abuse. And it is indeed child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * unless I have misread the offensive material guideline it specifically covers words and images in the article but not material in links. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned WP:Offensive material with regard to including material. I don't view the WP:Offensive material guideline, which I watch, as excluding offensive external links. But whatever one states on that matter, I oppose the link as well. It is not needed to enhance readers' understanding of this topic. This article is no less encyclopedic without that link. On a side note: I ask that you do not ping me to this talk page. I'll check back here for replies. If I want to reply, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to ping on talk pages out of politeness when I am replying to a particular editor as often comments get lost in the middle of other replies and the watchlist only contains the last edit. Pinging, in my opinion, is not a way to oblige someone to comment but I have duly noted your wish not to be notified. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that it's common to ping people, especially if one is not sure if they are watching an article. I do it as well. I'm just stating that I don't need to be pinged in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters so much if we frame the issue through the lens of WP:WEIGHT or WP:CHILDPROTECT or WP:Offensive material; indeed, these are not the only important policies that could be invoked here to arrive and the correct conclusion in what is a clearly a WP:SNOWBALL situation. The important consideration, and the one I think we are in agreement concerning, is that including this reference without additional context for doing so (for example, if there were a criminal prosecution, which is not a pie-in-the-sky notion given the UK's policy standards on such material; O'Carroll has already been convicted once of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, which is now just one of many offenses under which someone can be charged when they promote the sexual abuse of children) would serve no other purpose but than to imply that some experts agree with O'Carrol's outright insane ravings about how one supposedly goes about having sex with a child in a "safe and healthy" way.


 * Even if we weren't talking about such sickening (indeed, evil) acts, it would still be WP:PROMOTIONAL to mention this essay if it weren't already discussed by independent, secondary sources. When you combine this obvious editorial call with the fact that the notion and material that would be promoted in Wikipedia's public content would be an idea so ugly that we don't even let our editors forward it as an argument, its pretty clear why this can never and will never be added to an article.  But this is just the beginning of the scrutiny that needs to be brought to this situation, on a page which has been continuously overrun by socks who give every impression of being O'Carroll himself, trying to reframe the narrative on this article and use it as a platform to express his horrific views on why there is nothing wrong with sexually assaulting a child, so long as you are polite about it.  Incidentally, I must warn you, that the first of the links there, from before O'Carroll adjusted his strategy to work through socks, is truly disturbing.  I'm not one who is usually for "trigger warnings", but it would be irresponsible for me in this case not to warn that you'll be reading an extensive monologue by a sociopath as he describes why his crimes involving child sexual exploitation are not, in his disturbed view, truly immoral. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 04:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that a particular work has to have been discussed in independent secondary sources to be included in a list of works so long as it has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I have never seen any discussion about removing an entry of this kind in a bibliography simply because it has not been discussed elsewhere. This is the kind of notability coverage we look for when a publication is to have its own page but as per WP:NNC this doesn't apply to content within the article. I am also not sure that undueweight applies to this publication, due weight is to determine what should be included in an article because of its importance to the subject. I would say that if we were talking about, for the sake of argument, a human rights lawyer that had published a single paper in a peer reviewed law journal no-one would object to it being included in a list of works on the basis that it did not have due weight in the page on this person or ask for proof that it had been covered in independent RS. I really believe that the most compelling argument for not including this reference is the WP:CHILDPROTECT WP:POLICY. The publication of this link is IMHO is a means to "facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships" because it is "expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children". By allowing a link to this open access document we are allowing direct unfiltered acces to a document that advocates that the sexual assault of children by adults is normal and beneficial to the child...simply writing those words makes me nauseous. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree as to several points there (I've seen many occasions, for example, where adding a paper from a legitimate expert, such as the lawyer you describe, has been opposed as WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:UNDUE and the weight issue is even vastly more substantial here where we have this one maniac rationalizing predation on children on one side, and all of scientific and medical consensus on the other), but I don't think it makes sense for us to debate the minutia at length here. It suffices that we agree on the necessary course of action and the profound need to keep this argument from ever being advanced on a Wikipedia page, even indirectly. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note: User:Anotherultimatename has been blocked as a sock of Researcher1000, the user who previously abused multiple accounts here to push support for O'Carroll's views. Since there is no longer any user here pursuing the insane notion that O'Carroll's views have support in the scientific communities that study child sexual abuse, nor any user supporting the inclusion of this content on any other argument, we could safely close this matter as consensus achieved. Arguably this is the appropriate thing to do given the WP:SNOW matter at hand and the fact that far too much WP:CHILDPROTECT violation has occurred in the discussion already. On the other hand, we could leave the discussion open if only to drive the consensus home; with the sock activity abated for the moment, I doubt we will have any more !votes suggesting that O'Carroll receives welcome support among experts in child wellfare fields, or any other such lunacy. So I'll recommend a middle-ground solution: leave the discussion open for a couple of days, to allow for anyone wishing to comment again to do so, then take the matter to WP:AN to request a formal close. But if anyone wants to act more quickly and summarily close the thread as "SNOW Oppose", I for one certainly could not find cause to question that approach either. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 17:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This RFC has been here for 26 days and there has been no support !votes apart from the nom. As per WP:RFCEND there is no real contentious aspect and consensus is clear so no real need for an admin closure. I agree to ending it as per #2 we just need and  to agree and we can forget this. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, I agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final matter, I think we should consider requesting semi-protection for the article and maybe even the talk page for a time, to keep any further socking activity from bringing the WP:CHILDPROTECT issues back again. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 06:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Paedophilia: The Radical Case into Tom O'Carroll
This WP:PROFRINGE book is not really notable as a separate topic from its author, Tom O'Carroll. Additionally, O'Carroll's convictions for child pornography and his lifelong pedophilia advocacy are highly relevant context for understanding this book, per WP:Due weight. The content in the book article is also of dubious trustworthiness. The original, shorter version of the article was written by, a user who edited only pedophilia articles and was indeffed by ArbCom in 2014. Most of the later expansion was by, who was a sockpuppet and is now blocked. Freeknowledgecreator had POV issues related to Freudianism, sexual development, and homosexuality; the ANI discussion on him goes into more depth. Whatever should be said about this book can and should be said in the context of its author. Crossroads -talk- 03:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a merger between the two articles is needed. Tom O'Caroll is notable in his own right for his membership of PIE and his convictions. The book is evidently notable in its own right, since it's been reviewed by several journalists, commented and cited by academics, and is apparently recommended reading for sexology students at Cambridge. I don't see that "trustworthiness" is a good criteria. The creator of the article undoubtedly had an agenda, but the article cites reliable sources. Paedophilia is certainly a taboo topic, but that is no reason to "censor" content (not that I'm suggesting this proposal necessarily constitutes censorship). The Paedophilia: The Radical Case article is a little under 1000 words, which is substantial. I guess that if the proposal is to copy the content of that article over to this article with minimal reduction in the text then that can be justified, but I worry that much of the content will be lost. --Hazhk (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up notability since it reminds me of a crucial point I forgot to mention, which is that per WP:No page, there are times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. No matter how much is kept, the book article can be merged into Tom O'Carroll without causing any size issues (see WP:SIZESPLIT; the two articles are less than 30 kb in total, not just in readable prose, and this isn't accounting for the fact that much of the book article content is already here). Crossroads -talk- 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Redirect per . The notability is well-analyzed and agrees with policy and sources so there's not much more to add to their excellent analysis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC) edited to add: After reading 's post and reviewing the old RfC, the article on the book, and the section on the same book in this article, I don't see anything worth merging.  The only content in the book article that is not already here is extended discussion of its reception which would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. A simple redirect is enough. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Redirect per Crossroads. Placing the book in proper context -- as a book written by a sex offender attempting to justify his criminal activity -- is necessary not only in the interest of accuracy, but also as our legal obligation per WP:CHILDPROTECT, which says that edits must not advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships...e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children. In the process of merging, I would support substantial reduction of text to eliminate WP:FALSEBALANCE in the discussion of reviews of the book. The existence of a few positive reviews can be mentioned, but without giving credence to their POV. For example, I am very bothered by the wording of the part about Monk's review (he credited O'Carroll with being the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and with making a compelling case). The words credited...with making a compelling case gives credence in wikivoice to a POV that is not allowed on Wikipedia. So I hope that the merger will be combined with major cutting, in compliance with WP:CHILDPROTECT. Please also note the closing of the RfC immediately above this thread. NightHeron (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC) added per Eggishorn: I agree with 's comment that a simple redirect would be best. NightHeron (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn and NightHeron, if there really is nothing (or much) to merge, then, yes, a redirect is best. And I support that as an alternative. But as one of the editors who was in the thick of it when Wikipedia had a rampant pedophile/pro-child sexual abuse problem and WP:CHILDPROTECT was created as a result, I must point out that the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy is about editors "who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely." It is not meant to state that we can't have an article on a pedophile's book. And we do cover the views of pedophiles and child sexual abusers on Wikipedia, but with WP:Due weight. If the book is notable, we should cover it. It's also true that the book has been recommended to students to get insight on pedophiles' thinking. It was recommended to me years (and years) ago, but, like I noted on my talk page, I had to force myself to read it (after getting further and further into the book) and I did not finish it. I had enough data from sources and peers about what is in the book. But it is concerning that a pro-pedophile editor created this article, which is a WP:CHILDPROTECT matter. So if you were talking about WP:CHILDPROTECT in the context of the "05:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)" closing argument of the discussion (which I had forgotten about) above, I agree that WP:CHILDPROTECT applies. And like Crossroads stated (and like I have argued times before), not every notable topic needs its own article.


 * As for Freeknowledgecreator? Having taken the time to read both the short version pointed out on my talk page and the current version, it looks like he added more text from the negative side of things. Given his feelings about child sexual abuse, seen in the "RfC on Tom O'Carroll dispute" and sections above, I question the view that he was trying promote views in the book. I state "question" because I'd need to review his behavior with regard to conflating child sexual abuse with gay men (or homosexuality in general). I didn't notice an anti-gay side to him, but he edited Freudian topics and books that I didn't edit or barely edited, and I didn't read much of the ANI thread that led to him getting indefinitely blocked. I also didn't study that old account of his (reported in the ANI thread). In the case of this article, while he reported on the pro-child sexual abuse viewpoint, I see more negative than positive material in his version. His version removed "The gay press was broadly sympathetic." piece that was there and relayed it more accurately, giving in WP:In-text attribution instead of painting the gay press with such a broad brush.


 * Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not making my !vote based on editors' identities or pasts. I think the case against a stand-alone article on the book has been well-stated and I don't see any disagreement on that.  It's just whether it's worth adding anything from the other article. I don't see any significant content there that's not already here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Flyer22 Frozen, for your comments. I knew nothing about the history of this problem on Wikipedia. I think that in the case of a fringe view, especially one that advocates harmful and illegal activity, it is important to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia does not usually provide extensive coverage of individual books with summaries of book reviews, and to do so for this book is WP:UNDUE. As Eggishorn pointed out, if the undue material is removed, then what's left is already adequately covered in the O'Connor article. Concerning the point about the book's value for people who study pedophilia, by the same token there are researchers (psychologists, criminologists, etc.) who have legitimate cause to study child pornographers and what they produce. But that doesn't mean that child pornography should be publicly available. Wikipedia, as a public website which young students are encouraged to use, should not contain material that advocates for or lends credence to pedophilia. Researchers and students who have a scholarly interest in the pathology can find out what the various book reviews have said on their own, without Wikipedia's help. NightHeron (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NightHeron, of course, we wouldn't include child pornography on Wikipedia. But we cover the topic of child pornography, and that includes child pornographers' activities and views (or motives). You stated, "Wikipedia, as a public website which young students are encouraged to use, should not contain material that advocates for or lends credence to pedophilia." Wikipedia covering the material is not the same as promoting it, just like Wikipedia covering rape, violence, racism and sexism is not promoting any of that. Wikipedia noting the views of pedophiles, child sexual abusers, racists, etc. is not lending credence to any of it as long as the prevailing viewpoint is made clear per our WP:Due weight policy. That's my point. Hazhk gets that. And so does Crossroads. You have gone beyond what Crossroads has argued. From your involvement with the race and intelligence topic, you know that we commonly cover controversial and/or discredited views and then we we also note the mainstream, scientific views. Per WP:Fringe, we cover fringe material, but with WP:Due weight. That is, unless the fringe viewpoint should not be covered at all. In any case, I see no need to keep discussing this. We are agreed on this book not needing its own article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I never said that the topic should not be covered. I said the views should not be covered in a way that lends credence to them, which is the way they are being covered currently in the article on the book. I even said that there's nothing wrong with a brief mention of the favorable book reviews, although upon reflection I agree with Eggishorn that anythihg more than what's already in the O'Connor article is undue. I have no disagreement with what you say. I just commented that the argument that sometimes students and researchers might want to know about the book is not a reason to give it undue coverage, especially not undue coverage that promotes the POV through false balance. I also cited the closing of the RfC immediately above, which referred to WP:CHILDPROTECT as a reason not to give undue attention to an article by O'Connor. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In your previous comment, you stated, "Wikipedia, as a public website which young students are encouraged to use, should not contain material that advocates for or lends credence to pedophilia." In your latest comment you stated, "I just commented that the argument that sometimes students and researchers might want to know about the book is not a reason to give it undue coverage, especially not undue coverage that promotes the POV through false balance." But reporting on what he wrote or said is not lending credence to those views. And we are allowed to report on such views. It's about how we report on them. The article on the book reports on what he stated, and mostly includes criticism of it leans a bit more toward the negative side of the reviews. I never stated or implied that students and researchers wanting to know about the book is a reason to give it undue coverage. And we judge undue coverage by how much coverage a topic is given in the literature and/or the consensus of whatever community (such as the scientific community), not on how controversial a topic is. We have whole articles on fringe viewpoints. The book is just another article on a fringe viewpoint. But, anyway, we can move on now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave a specific example of "lending credence", namely, stating in wikivoice that a certain reviewer credited the book with making a compelling case. Thus, Wikipedia thinks that a compelling case can be made, and this reviewer credits the author with making it. Is this the impression we want to give? NightHeron (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That piece has in-text attribution. It has that per WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:In-text attribution. Sure, it could be relayed better, but it's Wikipedia relaying someone's opinion. Either way, I'm done debating this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, but false balance is a crucial problem with the status quo we have. Your leans a bit toward the negative side still means false balance, which is inexcusable when we're talking about a book claiming to justify the criminal abuse of children. The word credited, like other editorializing words (pointed out, noted, observed, see WP:SAID), implies approval of what the writer (in this case the reviewer) is saying. NightHeron (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I stated above. For arguments' sake, since you want to keep arguing about this, let's say that the book had gotten mostly positive reviews. Well, then we (Wikipedia) are going to relay that. We are not going to censor it. Likewise, if it got mixed reviews, we are going to relay that. We are not going to censor it. Likewise, if it got more negative reviews than positive reviews (which may align with "leans a bit toward the negative side"), we are going to relay that. We are not going to censor it. The text that you take issue with has in-text attribution. I already stated that the way that this in-text attribution is relayed can be improved. Credited with are words used all the time on Wikipedia without issue; using them is not WP:Editorializing. I don't need to see WP:SAID. I cite WP:Editorializing and WP:SAID plenty, and commonly weigh in at that guideline's talk page. While credited with can be replaced with some form of said in this case, it's not like it equates to a synonym for said. Apparently, that person did credit O'Carroll with what is mentioned. The text is noting that he did. Like all words, credited with can be used inappropriately, but it's usually used just fine on Wikipedia as a result of editors summarizing a matter in their own words. The wording you take issue with can be easily be reworded. It could be changed to "he said that O'Carroll was the first to bring those arguments together into a comprehensive work, and made a compelling case." Or "he said" could be changed to "he argued", if "he said" makes his claim come across as true when it's not. And "those arguments" could be changed to "those viewpoints" to avoid seeming redundant to "argued." I see what you are arguing, but we clearly are not in full in agreement about how Wikipedia works on a matter like this. And we won't be. I see no need to keep talking about any of this. Let's move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After consideration, I now see a merge would be best – as Crossroads notes, much of the content of the book's article is covered here. Some other text can be copied to this article to provide balance. Of course I object to the argument that the article should be removed because it 'promotes' child sexual abuse, but I recognise that wasn't the argument behind the original proposal. --Hazhk (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge, leaving a redirect here based on the excellent arguments above. I found the context argument particularly compelling. In this case, Knowing the author really does help you to know the book. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Whatever we decide to do - merge, redirect, or reduce to a stub - the coverage of the book is its present form is unacceptable, per WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:CHILDPROTECT. It describes glowing praise for the book (broadly sympathetic, comprehensive work, compelling case, the solution to problems facing the gay rights movement in Canada) and only mild criticism (not academic, arguments had been made before, had reservations). The page ends with a stand-alone out-of-context 1-sentence paragraph stating that a professor at Cambridge University (which everyone knows is one of the best universities in the world) assigns the book to his students as recommended reading. Sounds like a good book to read, according to Wikipedia, wouldn't you say? I gather (from comments above and in the link provided to a user talk page discussion) that much of the content was added by a now-banned sockpuppet. The usual purpose of creating a sockpuppet is to promote a POV. In this case the POV that's being promoted is particularly problematic. To get perspective, I asked an off-wiki friend to read the section on reception of the book, and they commented that it's "really awful" and "distastefully slanted" in favor of the book. NightHeron (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vagueness
Currently, the lead states that O'Carroll was "imprisoned for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the distribution of child pornography, and with multiple convictions for sexual crimes against children.

The phrase "sexual crimes against children" was initially in front of existing references by User:Bluehotel in February 2017, as "offences against children". Early/mid 2021, this was to "sexual offences against children", then  to "sexual crimes with children", finally  to "sexual crimes against children". In other words, the current phrase related to child abuse has been modified multiple times, and was initially added in front of existing references. Additionally, the phrase "sexual crimes against children" is vague. Also, its wording is confusing enough that it prevents readers from questioning the reliability or factuality. Particularly because the phrase is part of an enumeration that already includes "distribution of child pornography", which infers the child abuse must have been rape. However, looking through the sources used as references, I fear the article may be imparting wrong or biased information, and that - at the very least - it is too easy to misinterpret the phrase. If he's not a serial rapist (it says "multiple convictions" for rape), isn't the phrase libellous, and shouldn't it be removed immediately? --77.162.8.57 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your request requires an administrator, and a general request would have been fine. However, I  have checked what you say, and it is substantially correct, apart from the fact that "sexual crimes" doesn't necessarily mean rape. I have removed the content which is not supported by the sources cited in references. JBW (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)