Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03

Childlove movement was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear consensus, the default decision is to Keep. In addtion, there were strong suggestions for future mergers or content changes (which may, of course, be carried out by any reader/editor). Rossami 22:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current tally

Keep: Acegikmo1, Aljandy, bbx, Cecropia, CesarB, Darksun, Dmn, Elf-friend, Erich, Gary D, Golbez, Meelar, Mr. Grinch, Rhobite, ShaunMacPherson, SWAdair, The Steve, Sethmahoney, Spleeman, SWAdair, Zanthalon, Starx

Neutral: Geogre

Delete: Neutrality ; Lucky 6.9 ; Il&#947;&#945;&#951;&#949;&#961; ; siro&#967;o ; Fire Star ; WOT ; Samboy ; Mark ; Ambi ; Bishonen ; Danny ; Andris ; Aris Katsaris ; SV/Stevertigo; Mike H/TheCustomOfLife ; DanLovejoy ; Andrevan; rico

Merge: Cecropia ; Golbez ; Mark ; Stormie ; Sean Curtin/Gtrmp ; Robert Merkel ; Jallan ; Dpbsmith ; Ilya ; BryanNR ; Chameleon

Keep: 21 Merge: 8 ; Delete: 18 Golbez 05:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tally 2
I dont know where Samboy's tally numbers are coming from, but these are mine. Are there comments here that are not visible or were deleted since I cant find Ambi anywhere except in the tally. --ShaunMacPherson 08:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok I found it, someone verify my numbers, we should do a real tally and have people verify their vote is in the right spot. --ShaunMacPherson 08:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see Ambi is a "keep" instead of a delete vote; however he clearly votes for delete (do cntl+F and look for "Ambi" on this page) Samboy 09:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep : Merge : Delete

14:8:14

Keep
Acegikmo1, Aljandy, bbx, Cecropia, CesarB, Darksun, d8te, Dmn, Elf-friend, Erich, Gary D, Meelar, Mr. Grinch, Rhobite, ShaunMacPherson, SWAdair, The Steve, Zanthalon, Sethmahoney, Spleeman, SWAdair, Zanthalon, ReallyNiceGuy

Merge
BryanNR, dpbsmith, Golbez, Ilya, Jallan, Robert Merkel, Sean Curtin, Stormie,

Delete
Ambi, Andre, Andris, Aris Katsaris, Bishonen, Danlovejoy, Fire Star, Il&#947;&#945;&#951;&#949;&#961;, Mark, Mike H, Samboy, siro&#967;o, SV, WOT, Neutrality, Ta bu shi da yu

Since Cecropia voted "Keep or Merge", I will make his vote a keep vote. Based on this tally, we have seven votes to keep, one abstainer, seven to delete, and two to merge. If we make the other two merge votes votes to delete, we will have seven to keep, one abstainer, and nine votes to delete. Samboy 21:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * LOL! This guy must be the same one that invented the hanging chad... --Zanthalon 19:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This isn't Slashdot Zanthalon; keep your personal attacks to yourself. Samboy 20:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Samboy is absolutely right. A bit of good-natured ribbing has no place whatsoever in such an austere place as Wikipedia. I consider my hand duly slapped. ::ouch!:: --Zanthalon 19:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Since when are "merge" votes synonymous with "delete" votes? If anything, they're votes to keep at least some of the content, and should be counted as keeps (as you note Cecropia wishes, and as I state below). But then the total would reach the result you aren't voting for. Not exactly honest tallying. tsk, tsk. -Sean Curtin 00:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that decisions to delete or keep are admin decisions (which explains why some "tough" decisions aren't made for days and days). Admins are given much more discretion in this than in RFA, but consensus to delete is about 2/3 with consideration given to the content of the comments, also in regard to what to do with the material is the article is not kept (remove entirely, merge part or all of the content with other articles). Since I have participated in this, I won't be making the final decision one way or the other, but just wanted you to know, since a tally is being kept. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current tally: Keep: 10 ; Neutral 1; Delete 8 ; Merge 4. Samboy 05:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Keep: 10 ; Neutral 1; Delete 9 ; Merge 4. Samboy 07:26, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Keep: 10 ; Neutral 1; Delete 10 ; Merge 3 Samboy 08:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Keep: 10 ; Neutral 1; Delete 12 ; Merge 5 Samboy 19:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Keep: 11 ; Neutral: 1 ; Delete: 14 ; Merge: 7 Samboy 08:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Keep: 13 ; Neutral: 1 ; Delete: 15 ; Merge: 8 Samboy 18:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If keep wins, I'll switch my vote to delete. I don't think an article by this name should continue to exist, but I don't think the information should be summarily destroyed, either. Merge with pedophilia. Count mine as Delete/Merge. Which is the proper vote if this is how I feel? --Golbez 05:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a "merge" vote to me. Samboy 06:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Failed the Google Test with only five hits (two from Wikipedia and three from Usenet). Non-notable, delete.--Neutrality 02:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If only you were right. The pages that redirect to that article, most prominently boylover - shortform for camouflage BL - get you thousands of google hits. As you see on the talk page, because pedophiles attempted to abuse wikipedia for propaganda about harmlessness of child sexual abuse the title was changed to what it is now. Get-back-world-respect 02:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We have sunk to an all-time low by allowing this "article" to be posted, complete with its image of the cover of a child porn magazine. Let's get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this.  No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities.  If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well.  Sysops, take note.  If I blank my pages over this, I demand to have my history removed as well.  I've never been so nauseated in my life. - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to speedily delete this, and any blanking of pages will be reverted as vandalism. The article is legitimate, and so is the image. &mdash;Mr. Grinch [[User talk:33451|(Talk)]] 22:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Lucky, in my limited experience on VfD, I've found you to be a valuable contributor. But a vote like this is rather disappointing.  As for the article itself, the "childlove movement" itself certainly exists, and regardless of what we think about it, as encyclopedists we have a duty to write about it from a neutral point of view.  Of course, we should keep and rename the article to "childlove", which gets 26,600 Google hits, but that's beside the point.  The point is, if this were any other topic with the same characteristics, it would deserve an article, and your objection is based solely on the topic itself, not the content or any other objective criterion.  As for the rest of your statement, writing about the childlove movement is, of course, not illegal.  Nor is the movement itself.  Nor is pedophilia.  Child sexual abuse is illegal, but advocacy in favor of changing its definition or legalizing it is not, and writing about such efforts certainly is not.  So what do you want to report?  And to what authorities?  Your final statement shows that you probably feel very strongly about this subject and are letting your emotions cloud your judgment (which is ok).  But I think it's rather foolish to put your potentially very productive future at Wikipedia on the line over ONE article, which objectivly should be kept.  Of course, you know that user histories cannot be removed and that threats about leaving the project are not very useful.  Please don't make threats and demands.  Please don't leave Wikipedia because you don't like one of its articles.  If you don't like the content of Childlove movement, fix it by bringing it to a neutral point of view.  Acegikmo1 04:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No way should this be renamed to childlove. That is, at the same time, overly euphemistic, POV and inaccurate. The proper term for this kind of "childlove" is paedophilia, plain and simple. And "childlove" could mean the love of children non-sexually, of the non-sexual advocacy for children, or even the love of a child. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The article is about something real but distasteful. It is hardly the only article on Wikipedia that many find offensive with good reason but they remain. The existence of such movements is important to know. Having said that, the article need not be a propaganda piece for pedophiles. So I say Keep or Merge the relevant content with Paedophilia. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps the pictures should go, but "nauseating" isn't criteria for deleting an article. This is nauseating, but what good can come from deleting it? Lucky 6.9, maybe you need a break from Wikipedia if you're saying that people should be arrested simply for writing an article. Rhobite 03:33, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not a nice subject but still an article worth including in an encyclopedial like this. We shouldn't start censoring. bbx 03:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While I might not've used the strong words that Lucky 6.9 did, I agree with him. We do not need child porn on wikipedia. The article about pÆdeophilia (or however it's spelled, I don't care) is enough. &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  04:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that we were advocating for 'child porn on Wikipedia', but writing an article about the pedophile movement. If the article NPOV, as it should be, then it should be neither advocating nor impugning their point of view but simply discribing it. --ShaunMacPherson 08:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There are any number of distasteful articles on this site, and I've even stepped up to defend their inclusion. This is not censorship but common sense.  You ask what good can come by deleting this?  Are you serious?  My vote stands as does my decision. - Lucky 6.9 04:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete : Abstain/Conflicted (see below) I have been over my feelings on the need to delete these images before. We are not compelled by mission to include this article.  My grounds for deletion are notability.  First, remember the Google bias:  people who manage to get talked about on the web get Google hits, even if they are few but dedicated people or few people who are widely reviled.  Secondly, if one takes a subfractional libidinal preference from all the scattered populations in the Anglophone world and add them together in one place on the web, you can get mighty numbers without actually reflecting anything that is even substantial enough to be called "fringe."  I believe the "notability" of this movement is notoriety, on the one hand, and an artifact of the online world.  Were this article to survive VfD, I would strongly urge paring it down severely.  We surely are not compelled to devote this much space and attention to such a non-notable "movement." Geogre 04:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment/Expansion: Obviously, this is a topic on which many voters find neutrality difficult.  I almost wrote, "Hands up, all the parents."  Parents are going to have monumental difficulty.  Even setting aside my feelings, though, while I agree that a neutral portrayal of what the advocacy groups do (as we have Klan and Nazi-related advocates), and I realize that this article is an attempt to cover the matter without having it at a magnetic name (as I understand the material above, this is not the name of the movement, because the movement by name attracts pedophile apologists and edit wars), I think we're better off referring the reader to the pedophile equivalents of Simon Wiesenthal for the images.  We are not advocacy or counter-advocacy, so I don't think we need to include the magazine covers even as a warning, and as documentation they are likely to offend or titilate our readers.  If we agree to take the risk of attracting pedophilic editors who attack the article or use it to find brothers, I think we need to pare it down.  I think merging with pedophile is a bad idea, as that article surely does attract potential edit wars.  It is still my desire and belief that we need as minimal a coverage as possible.  My vote is to clean it, but not via Clean Up.  The fact that listing it on general Clean Up is liable to draw someone with a motivation to sneak in pedophilia is one argument to delete: the article is simply so difficult to maintain that it needs to be permanently protected, which makes keeping it on a wiki really difficult. Geogre 13:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about this article attracting pedophile editors. It was started by pedophile editors (or their sympathizers) as a warm and fuzzy discussion of the movement. It was originally titled "childlover." A number of editors (just look at the history) have been trying hard to move this to NPOV. And NPOV is possible in the writing. Of course the content is going to be POV from both sides. C'est la guerre. It is not practical to change the images to the "Simon Wiesenthal" equivalent. (1) That would be POV because "childlovers" would say "that's what a sick person does, that's not what we advocate." (2) they would probably be pornographic or close to it, which the current images are not, and (3) the current images speak eloquently: they show what childlovers (not closet pedophiles) are interested in. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Does a reader who has heard someone refer to the term and so enters it here deserve a blank screen? This is the kind of issue that tests our mettle as purveyors and sharers of information. There's a riddle that goes, "Q: Why do criminal lawyers defend guilty drug dealers? A: They don't defend guilty drug dealers, they defend the law and the process so that it will uphold and protect innocent men when they are charged." The moral (and I pun that word deliberately) is, we cannot afford to begin whittling down the margins that protect the information flow when we come upon something distasteful, or even abhorrent. If we do, they'll come for us next, sometime on down that slippery slope. --Gary D 04:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to voice my opinion that this is a singularly inappropriate use of Niemoller, who could have said "First they came for the child molestors" but had the wisdom not to. - Nunh-huh 05:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We already have articles on this subject. The problem is real, it exists, fine.  What possible reason do we have for keeping this monstrosity?  If there is any information in this that can be merged to the main article, fine.  I still can NOT believe that there are people here crying censorship.  With freedom of speech comes an awesome responsibility.  This goddamned article is patently irresponsible.  I stand by my vote. - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is many things, but it's no more irresponsible than National Alliance or Al-Qaida. Rhobite 04:46, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lucky, I came here primarily because of your talk page. (the odd things I have in my watchlist) I'm going to read the article now, line by line, and see if anything is exploitative or unencyclopedic... My verdict: It's encyclopedic, BUT the magazine pictures should go. You don't see pictures of covers of PC Gamer and Computer Shopper on computer, and you don't see pictures of the covers of Atlas Shrugged and The Wealth of Nations on objectivism or libertarian. The remainder of the article is encyclopedic; as distasteful as it is, it does appear to be an actual movement. I say merge with pedophilia; that is the primary article in the situation, and any information on the movement should go there. In fact, there's already a section in pedophilia for it, "Advocacy of pedophilia". This can include the history of such advocacy, and link (as it already does) to appropriate groups. Ethics can be successfully merged. Furthermore, Boylove, etc., are more accurately redirected to pedophilia. Redirecting to Childlove movement implies boylove et.al. are movements instead of concepts and actions. So, in short: Merge with pedophilia. --Golbez 05:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * We are not obligated to devote this much space to this article nor are we obligated to merge the information, such as it is. We are obligated to remove the magazine covers.  I ask to be met halfway and to have the illustrations permanently removed immediately.  In fact, I may go into the article myself and remove them from sight for the time being. - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I've taken the liberty of removing all of the illustrations and a lot of outside links. If this can now stand on its own merit, so be it. - Lucky 6.9 05:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And I've taken the liberty of reverting your unilateral censorship. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I commend you for removing ALL outside links, even the JAMA link. Then again, some of those seem useful... the question is, what is the threshhold? Should Wachovia have a link to Wachovia's website? Likewise, should a page that mentions Alice Day have a link to that Alice Day website? (different question: does Alice Day deserve its own article?) What's the threshhold? --Golbez 06:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey! that JAMA article should stay! Erich 02:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the Alice Day article (stub) which I wrote? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this content should be deleted. It's distasteful, sure, but it would appear to be a real movement. I say merge the article into the section in pedophilia, and remove the images. If it comes down to a choice between keeping as-is, and deleting, as is apparent by the way the votes are going, I choose to delete it. - Mark 06:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) (edited 01:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * Just a note. I'm not arguing with your vote, but if the article is "kept," there is no reason it cannot be edited to continue to move it to balance, so it would not be "as is." I and other editors were working to do just that. I would definitely argue to keep the pictures if the article is kept, for reasons I've already noted. -- Cecropia | Talk
 * My position is that the content should not have its own article. I feel that either it should be merged, or deleted if the merge is out of the question. - Mark 08:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the subject matter so repugnant that it reminded me I haven't cleaned my rifle recently.  The article itself, however, under the careful editing of several people, has become what a Wikipedia article should be -- informative, impartial reporting on a topic.  I already respected the work of the editors involved, but now I respect them even more.  You are to be commended for exceptional efforts in exceptional circumstances.  Keep the article, hand me my rifle.  I'm going to the range to fire a few rounds before I clean it.  SWAdair | Talk  08:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone 'neutral' (hard to find someone neutral on an issue like this) edits it, and the article is then locked, I would have no objection to keeping it. Yes, it discussed a movement that performs illegal, and for most people, horrific acts of abuse, but that is no reason to delete it, since having the article doesn't advocate the acts. If you're going to delete it because you disagree with the 'Childlove movement', then you mayaswell go and delete articles on the Nazi party aswell. I can see this article being useful, since if someone needed information on this (a sociology/psychology student, for example), Wikipedia would be a better source than just searching on Google, which could result in some undesirable hits. Darksun 09:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My NPOV vote is to keep but shorten considerably. Most of the content should be contained in pedophilia only. All the external links could be deleted and placed in pedophilia as appropriate. My biggest concern is with external links that need to be vetted by somebody (not me). If the lot got deleted I won't be upset! best wishes Erich 02:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why the images are important to keep if the article is kept Those of you who are against the article should be especially interested in keeping the images, which are disturbing, but not pornographic and certainly not advocacy for paedophilia. Please read the discussion I had with Samboy concerning the images at User_talk:Samboy -- Cecropia | Talk 06:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Unilateral censorship?!? Fuck this whole thing once and for all.  Keep your precious article.  Damn you.  Sysops, please delete my pages just as soon as I'm through blanking them. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess that means you didn't read the material at Samboy's user page. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, I about to respond saying, why keep the pics? Then I actually looked. You do make a point, but how about a compromise... is it possible, in the text of the article, to make it clear that the pictures are present to make a point, rather than to show an endorsement? I ask because, offhand, I can't think of a way.. --Golbez 06:48, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a way, either. But I have to ask: how is this in any way either an endorsement of, or an enticement to, pedophilia? Trust me, a real pedophile has seen much, much worse, even in other covers of that magazine, no less the illegal stuff. Now if you're not a pedophile, and you saw the cover with the smiling boy, you'd think it advertised a water park or a beach resort. When you learned what it was really advertising, you wouldn't be inclined to say, "hey, what a great idea!" More likely, you would react the way many here have. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Kind of ironic, because the retention of the pictures is being advanced actually for a horrendously POV purpose, only it's "good" POV. I must admit, though, I had similar feelings about that very point. I also admit I engage in the same sort of thing when I argue to people on POV topics, "present all the facts neutrally, and if these people are really the rotters you say, the facts will sink them, so you don't have to use sneaky POV to do so." I'm sorry Lucky left. =sigh= Big-time button, apparently. I'm sorry when people suffer; very little is worth that. --Gary D 07:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, we don't expect articles to be NPOV. A controversial article is going to be full of POV--it almost has to, unless it is very, very short. An NPOV treatment of this article would say "The childlove movement is a political and social movement of people who advocate that adults should have legal sexual access to children." Period. Anything much more has to be POV because it will divide between advocates and opponents. What we do expect is that the material be presented in an NPOV fashion and that it be balanced. The magazine cover with minimal caption is NPOV. If you say "This cover illustrates the admiration that childlovers have for children" or "This cover shows what pedophiles really have in mind," that is POV, even if some people would think one or the other statement was true. == Cecropia | Talk 07:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that my previous comment here has been deleted, by Neutrality if I'm reading the history right. The comment went like this:


 * (Headline: Lucky 6.9 is a big loss to take over this.) Hey, it looks like it's still possible to e-mail Lucky, at least it seemed to go off allright when I just did. Isn't that interesting? Wikilove, anyone? Bishonen 12:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if the e-mailing is still possible at this time--it's hard to test it without spamming Lucky--but then it must have been obvious that my factual info was going to date, and it was properly timestamped, so it could hardly have been misleading people. My intention was to express through this info frustration that Lucky was leaving, and to a call for others to join me in asking him to stay. To make this clearer I put a big honking headline over it. All was deleted. Why was that? --Bishonen 09:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have emailed Ralph (Lucky) in the past. I will send him a letter and then send the email address on to you. Mike H 18:56, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

More Votes


 * Delete. I've read most of these arguments through, and after thinking about it, the non-notability of "childlove movement", combined with the butchered, euphemistic ambiguous phrasing of "childlove" makes this article POV.  I could deal with title change to "Movement to change the legality of paedophilia" and some changes to the article itself, (it reads like an argument in defense of the movement, rather than an encyclopedic article) but the current title is inherently POV and irresponsible, and should not even exist as a redirect  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  12:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with moving it to Movements to change the legality of pedophilia, but even if it were moved there or to pedophilia or to child rape (which would be absolutely and specifically POV) or anywhere else, it would still have to appear under a section called Childlove movement, so I don't see how that is going to make you feel better about it - an article or a section, its still got the same title and content. As far as it reading like an argument in defense of anything, drink some chamomile tea, sit down calmly, and take a good, thorough read.  It reads exactly like one would expect a description of any movement to read - specifically, it contains the movement's goals, reasoning, and so on, and some objections to the movement from outsiders.  It is not POV, it is not promotion, and it is not irresponsible.  Its really disturbing to me how people are so upset about this article that they can't seem to do anything other than call it names and then not justify their opinions.  That unreasoning frenzy, not writing an encyclopedia article, is real irresponsibility. -Seth Mahoney 22:35, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with User:Siroxo's reasoning above. Fire Star 16:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Title is a neologism and a euphemism of an already existing article. Furthermore, the information in it could easily be compressed to a couple of sentences, if you think about it.  -- WOT 19:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete Childhood sexual abuse is a horrible tramua that affects a person for their entire life, and this article only describes the BS that childhood sexual abusers create to justify their actions. As for the images: They are here so people who read the page know what we are really talking about; I find the page, the images, the whole topic distasteful; I only supported the images so people realize what we're really talking about.  Samboy 21:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that the article should go, but if the article stays, the images should stay for the reasons cited? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, if we merge, I think it would be best to remove the images; the point of the images is to kill the pro-pedophile arguments this pro-pedophile page has. Samboy 00:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I maintain my vote at Merge; there is a problem though, because if we keep one of the images, then it could seem that we are endorsing it. Then again, we have a picture of the KKK in hoods. So I think a successful merge (of the relevant info) is possible; then we can deal with it in a vote on pedophilia specifically. --Golbez 00:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect; or if not merged, keep. Either way, remove the pictures. -Sean Curtin 00:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep both words and pictures. This seems to be a valid and fairly netural article. We can't start censoring on the basis of knee-jerk emotional responses, however understandable they are. The argument that magazine covers of PC Gamer etc. wouldn't be put on its page does not quite seem analogous to me - it is easy to guess what would be on the cover of a copy of PC Gamer, whereas many (all?) people have preconceptions about paedophilia/the childlove movement that, according to the article, are incorrect and need to be corrected. Aljandy 00:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge into Pedophilia and redirect - the NPOV policy of Wikipedia demands that we acknowledge and document the fact that there is an advocacy movement here, and the traditional way to do that is to document all POVs in a single article. Also, it's becoming very apparent that having an article which only covers the "Childlove movement" point of view is always going to provoke extreme negative reactions as people see it as an article promoting pedophilia. &mdash;Stormie 04:19, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Freedom of speech is not an easy thing to uphold, and now I'm sure you can see why. The Steve 04:28, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a Freedom of Speech issue here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that operates according to its own rules. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The question is whether this article is encyclopedic, is significant, accurate and written in an NPOV fashion.
 * The movement exists and is notable and it comes under the aegis of free speech. Deleting an article about it because you find the movement and its proponents distasteful is just as much censorship as if you did not allow them their say.  An article about the movement is certainly significant and encyclopaedic, accuracy and NPOV are more difficult to achieve or even ascertain.  The Steve 20:09, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's notable? If this "movement" had been notable under *this* name then the majority of Google finds about it would not take us back to Wikipedia. Aris Katsaris 04:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You must realize that the childlove movement is disliked, especially disliked if so many people are acting hysterical here over a mere encyclopedia article on the issue. As such, i expect that any websites on this topic that google covers would be short lived, but that does not mean that the movement does not exist or is not notible. --ShaunMacPherson 08:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. With Lucky 6.9 having retired from the fray, someone else has to support doing the right thing. Ambi 07:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, and I want to quote a missing wikipedian: No redirect, no nothing. That's my knee-jerk response.--Bishonen 08:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with User:Siroxo above. We should also have a look at other related articles that have been created recently. Andris 11:53, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge. What stormie said.  Much as we wish these scum didn't exist, they do.  The other reason why I think it should be merged is it makes sure people keep an eye on the article, where as all sorts of excrement could slip through in the future otherwise.  --Robert Merkel 12:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Keep an eye on" the article? Are you kidding? Do you think I want Ashcroft to have a file on me showing that I once "had an article on pedophilia in my watchlist?" How am I going to explain that if the times change and we have another McCarthy-like era, and if you think that can't happen all I can say is that a lot of people didn't think it could happen the first time, either. I'm not even all that happy about having my username appearing in this deletion debate, if you must know.


 * Merge. The childlove momement means pedophilia. It's not a charitable save the children from poverty movement or save children from sexual abuse movement. It is a pedophile movement. And drop the pictures. Jallan 16:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, unfortunately, although the subject matter is hideous. I can recall seeing more than one news reports about this movement here in the Netherlands, so they are certainly notable. Elf-friend 21:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just because something is unpleasant to discuss does not mean it needs to be deleted.  The same thing happened with Sexual Slang. &mdash;Mr. Grinch [[User talk:33451|(Talk)]] 22:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge. Or delete. It should not be kept under the present title, because the title is promotional and is advocacy for a point of view. It should not be deleted because the movement exists and the extremely disturbing content is itself written in a reasonably objective and neutral way. I think the images should be deleted. If they are not deleted, then, as with other images that are likely to be extremely offensive to most readers, the image of the child-porn magazine cover should require clicking on a link to view; it should not be directly visible when the article is viewed. And the links should be delinked to avoid promoting the sites. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aris Katsaris 04:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - Redirect to paedophilia article, under "advocacy." -SV 06:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge - the movement needs to be acknowledged, but the current article has too much advocacy to remain free-standing. There's no need to provide a full history of every movement – - i.e. we might not want a detailed history of contemporary pro-fascist movements either, though they need to be mentioned in the relevant articles. Ilya 08:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the same reasons as Samboy and Siroxo. Two POVs battling over supremacy is not NPOV. I'm sorry. Mike H 18:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete Isn't "childlove" just doublespeak? I agree with dpbsmith. The word obscures the meaning. If delete doesn't win, then this content should be heavily redacted to remove POV and moved into pedophilia. Images of children should be perma-deleted, regardless. It is very likely this child has been abused. (Use of this photo alone in this context could constitute abuse in some juristictions) As such, his image (and identity) should not be disclosed. Danlovejoy 22:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of what individual editors think about the people about whom this article is, they continue to exist, their movement continues to exist and it should be documented. Deleting this article will not make them go away. --Zanthalon 02:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've thought about this a bit now - as a father of two small children and as a doctor. I do not think my kids will be made safer by deleting this article - if anything pretending that pedophiles do not exist exposes them to greater risk. If we are serious about protecting our kids, we need to improve and strengthen this article by providing evidence to show what a fringe movement it is, and why society finds it so revolting. Unfortunately, as Zanthalon says "deleting it wont make them go away". I'd rather that people googling on "childlove" hit wikipedia than some other web-site. By presenting the truth we can do some good. Think about it. best wishes to all (and to the pedophiles: I hope your counselling is going well) Erich 04:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge with Pedophilia or split back to Boylove and Girlove seperate entries, then it will pass the Google test. Regardless, the information should not simply be deleted, but needs to be presented in a more accessible way since "Childlove movement" is not used by either group and was virtually made up for the purposes of this article. --BryanNR 06:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Erich's comments above (except I'd spell it paedophile instead) Dmn 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to pedophilia. Andre 02:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - The childlove movement clearly exists, if you dislike the term the pedophilies call their movement then argue for putting a sentence in the article to the effect: 'many people consider the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all child adult sexual contact to be abuse'. --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep--there's the movement and the disorder (YES, it's a disorder) and the two are separate. As for the pictures, hide them behind links--those are far more offensive than anything at clitoris. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:30, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * That's a worthy distinction, movement vs disorder, that I hadn't considered. Still, those who sponsor the movement are pedophiles, by the pure definition of the word, are they not? So it could still be merged, with a large section in pedophilia about the movement. --Golbez 23:08, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's necessarily true. An example might work best (and bear in mind I'm not trying to offend anyone): I myself support the gay rights movement, yet I am heterosexual. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:12, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Changing to Keep. --Golbez 05:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - While pedophilia is a big enough issue to demand several articles, it has been going on since the Greek times and probably before it. There is no 'movement', merely additional media coverage. They have caught on and now give it priority, but I don't there is any risk of pedophilia becoming more acceptable in society, therefore no movement. Rico 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. The movement is real, removing it from Wikipedia does not make it go away. But please remove the magazine cover pictures, and NPOV as needed. cesarb 02:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with CesarB. Though I find this "movement" extremely distasteful, we can't deny it does exist.... Also, BryanNR's suggestions ("split back to Boylove and Girlove") seem reasonable. I can't find much mention of a "childlove movement" outside of wikipedia. Spleeman 03:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think splitting it back into girllove movement and boylove movement maybe a good idea. We can keep childlove as a pointer to these two articles.  As well it would be useful to state in the introduction that the main *type* of love that these members advocate is usually sexual in nature. --ShaunMacPherson 07:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what purpose could be served by splitting this into boylove and girllove. They both describe the same notable behavior--the desire to have and justify sex with prepubescent children. What substantially different things can be said about the two "branches" of pedophilia? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So, I ask again, why don't we have a Child rape article instead of this mealy-mouthed "love" crap? In the UK, Canada, the USA, Australia and NZ (whence most of our editors hail) that is the legal definition of sex with children. Much less POV and more accurately encyclopaedic a title, that. Fire Star 02:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, that would be pretty much definitionally much more POV. -Seth Mahoney 16:28, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge.   &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its not POV (it presents both sides of an issue, and only presents particular views as the views held by proponents of the movement, not as fact), that the movement is offensive, perhaps immoral, psychologically sick, or whatever other attributes we may want to give it doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve an article, as has been established many other times on VfD, and it is certainly a topic of enough social importance to warrant its inclusion.  As far as its use goes, imagine that I am researching pedophilia for a psychology or human sexuality project.  -Seth Mahoney 16:28, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * A suggestion: How would everyone feel if the title of the page was changed to have quotes around the word "Childlove"? And that likewise quotes were used around most of the instances of "childlovers" in the text itself? That would probably make me reconsider my own deletion vote. Aris Katsaris 16:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That would be POV. You would be making it a point of saying in the article, "their words, not mine".  -Seth Mahoney 17:12, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain. As someone who identifies himself as a boylover, I've been watching this page transform from something that describes what boylove is in a fairly NPOV manner (it was named "Boylove" back then), into something that perverts boylove into being a gang of pedophiles arguing they should be allowed to have sex with minors. Having been part of online boylove communities since the mid-nineties, I don't recognise myself nor any of my boylover friends in the current revision of the article. Many in the community (myself included) do in fact argue that abstaining from sex is the preferable and morally correct lifestyle of a boylover. Personally, I'd sooner chew my hand off than lay a hand on a boy. The term "Boylover" was in fact adopted by the community to get away from the kind of stigma put on "normal" non-monster pedophiles by the current article, so I suppose it's all very ironic. I'd vote merge, since the current content is more suited for a general article on pedophilia, but I'm abstaining since I hope one day the article can be brought back into line with how the community views itself. This community is very real and deserves fair treatment. (Please understand my posting "anonymously" on this subject) 213.145.178.57 22:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your viewpoint. I do agree that there is a lot of prejudice against pedophiles, but I am willing to make the discinction between an active pedophile and a recovering pedophile.  Just as, in the 1950s, groups of addicts getting together to recover from drug addiction were arrested, it may be possible for groups of recovering pedophiles who are seeking recovery today to get arrested, so strong is the anti-pedophile sentiment in our soceity today.  I very strongly oppose any group which encourages pedophilia in any way, shape, or form, but support pedophiles getting together for the express purpose to encourage each other to not act out on their horrible sexual desires. Samboy 05:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your sense of morals and what you are willing to accept or support is entirely irrelevant to whether this article belongs in Wikipedia. --Zanthalon 06:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No wonder you voted to keep the article. A quick perusal of your user contributions would suggest you wrote half of it. - Mark 06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Boylover communities also strongly object to the notion of being sick, since it's not exactly productive (and, depending on your sources, not exactly true). I absolutely resent being called "recovering". I am what I am, and I can never change it, but I can decide how I act. Also, I object to your using "pedophilia" as if it was a form of activity. Anybody opposes child sexual abuse, which is what sex with children almost always is, so call it that. Anyway, I was just offering my viewpoint, I'm afraid this thread will turn into a flamefest that will be completely off-topic to the subject at hand, so please, how you would like to distinct people to fit into your world view is not pertinent to whether or not we should keep, merge or delete this article. Addendum: Looking back through the revisions, I see the last "good" revision is 00:20, 7 Jul 2004, IMNSHO. This is an accurate and NPOV description of boylove (which is a good achievement considering there is no official definition or requirements for affiliation). Renaming the title to cover both girl- and boylove is strange, since a term like "childlove" is not something that's very much in use at all, and as has been pointed out here, sounds ambigious. I would probably recommend writing a seperate, though brief "Girllove" article and refer to the Boylove article from there. Also, make "Boylove" an alias for "Boylover" and likewise for "Girllove". Alternatively, extend Pedophilia to cover the movements and not be the purely clinical treatment it is today. As for the current "Childlove movement" article, upon further review, I feel like it has completely hijacked the Boylover article and I'm completely offended that it claims to represent me and the community I care so much about.


 * I can not fantom how desiring to have sex with a child is anything besides sick. Your desires are not normal, and acting on them can traumatize a child for life.  Samboy 07:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My desires are certainly not normal, but abnormality per se should not be shunned in a society. I am well aware that soliciting children for sex can traumatize them for life, which is exactly why i choose not to act on my sexual desires (I'm most likely the oldest "virgin" you'd ever know, and I intend to die as it). But thanks for the information anyway. 213.145.178.57 17:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea is that the ones purposefully never acting on their desires are the honourable ones. Unfortunately, this article has been twisted in a whole other direction, to be almost propoganda for those who think it IS okay. - Mark 08:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'''By "delete" I meant "merge" with the main article, redirect this one to that. I'm wondering if other people in the merge/delete categories dont think the same way... maybe there can be a "merger" between these two camps?''' -SV 18:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I initially voted merge, then changed my vote to delete. I just don't wa0nt it kept as it is, that's all. - Mark 01:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely delete. Normally, I'd say keep, but this is not a normal subject. It's strictly here for the sick and twisted people of society who need psychiatric help. This whole "childlove" concept discusts me - these pedophiles are only thinking of themselves, and not thinking about the children. The whole concept of childlove is so totally wrong! I've basically added the opposing view into the article in case this page doesn't get deleted, but let me be clear: THIS ARTICLE MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch and new project
While everyone is here debating thw fate of this article (where consensus to delete isn't even close) I see that Boylover is back, or never left, with much of the same generally sympathetic content that Childlover (previous name of this) had before some of us tried to move it to NPOV. Reminds me of the line from Hammer to Fall: "Lock your door, but rain in puring through your window pane." -- Cecropia | Talk 22:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

well spotted! and now stepped on. Erich 06:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mmm Cecro, that gets me thinking... I suspectect we need a WikiProject Child safety to protect wikipedia from ongoing POV that may endanger children or bring wikipedia into disrupute. I created Category:pedophilia the other day to help group these articles together so we can all watch them. what people think about starting a project? Erich 06:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I'm not thrilled about this article, but the existence of an article describing a movement to repeal certain laws and transform societal taboos that will probably never be repealed or transformed doesn't harm children. Kids aren't going to go on Wikipedia, see this article, and say, "hey!  I can meet some cool grown-ups here to have sex with!" (unless the people who wrote the article are right), and adults aren't going to see this article and think, "ohmigod!  I never thought of having sex with children before!  What a great idea!"  Likewise, pedophiles aren't going to see the article and suddenly lose control and molest thousands of children.  Of course, if you want to start a "child safety" group that's certainly your right, but I'd hope that you at least plan to use the Cleanup and Votes for deletion pages rather than go after articles all vigilante style as Lucky advises above.  -Seth Mahoney 07:06, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * ah Seth, we need you on the project - which would hopefully be very quiet. My concern is misrepresentation of the truth and the promulgation of the idea that sexual activity is alright with children if X, Y and Z. I'd see a project doing some to the reconnaissance and helping to facilitate a true NPOV using the usual wiki mechanisms as you say. Have a look at the recent edits to Child sexual abuse... and child sexuality is a complete can of worms that needs some very careful science-based editing - I'm waiting for the resident pediatric endocrinologist to return from diabetes camp before nagging him to help me! Erich 07:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed already that I'm a little concerned with the tendency toward censorship and violently emotional, rather than rational, display that has been evident in this particular vote, so please bear with me while I tiptoe down this here slippery slope. What exactly is it that you're proposing?  Where exactly do you draw the line?  What, specifically, do you aim to protect children from?  How, specifically, do you aim to do so?  I'm assuming you're going to restrict your actions to articles specifically oriented toward pedophilia in our time and culture, but really, why stop there?  Freud, for example, frequently argued that children, babies even, are very sexual beings, though he did stop short of saying that children should have or be allowed to have sex.  Throughout most of human history puberty has been considered the marker of when it is permissable for a child to engage in sexual activity.  Should we include a proviso on any article that discusses historical attitudes toward sex and age stating that this is not acceptable in our age?  In some cultures that survive today, pre-pubescent children are expected to engage in what we would consider sexual activity (in the particular society I'm thinking of, its more of a ritualized coming of age thing), and grow up to be perfectly healthy.  If we write articles on this interesting bit of sexual anthropology, should we include a note saying that, according to modern psychology, this society harms their children?  I'd be glad to join the project, to censor the censors, as it were, but I'm remaining skeptical and cynical, and staying far away until there are strict guidelines as to its scope, methodology, and goals.  -Seth Mahoney 09:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Seth, i suspect we'd not disagree much at all. My motivation for a project comes from:
 * the belief that this page contains an important debate that will not end after the fate of this page is resolved and
 * a fear of the ongoing insidius POV insertion of our the pedophiles
 * Overall, I think by bringing together the advocates, censors and censors' censors we'll end up with a better outcome. sound reasonable? Erich 22:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Seth, I'm afraid I do fundamentally disagree with your approach, which might be appropriate to an article on cultural attitudes toward children and sexuality, but this article is not about that. It is about a modern movement among adults that wish to change law and culture in order to have sexual access to children. It's as simple as that and should be approached on that level. They say that there is evidence that even babies may have sexuality and that may be true, but they cite this to justify their having sexual access to children; they say that age-of-consent laws are arbitrary and that may be true, but they cite this to justify their having sexual access to children; they say that some young children may be competent to agree to sexual behavior and that may be true, but they cite this to justify their having sexual access to children; they say that young children may engage in sex play, and that may be true, but they cite this to justify their having sexual access to children, they say that some parents would heap guilt upon children for having sexual thoughts and that is bad, and that may be true, but they cite this to justify their having sexual access to children.


 * IOW, we are not dealing with scientists objectively trying to determine psychological truths and apply them to social reality, we are dealing with people working backwards from their personal desires to justify their behavior. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comments are well-written and interesting, but have nothing to do with mine. -Seth Mahoney 18:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * COUGH*


 * Since when have scientists, mental health professionals or the intellectual elite been wholly objective in their anaylses of moral issues? Au contraire, science is often very sympathetic to the moral climate of the day (for a good example of what happens when scientists defy moral authority, see Galileo Galilei). In the last two centuries, homosexuality, masturbation and feminism have been shown to be bad, perverted or "against nature" by leading experts of the day in the "enlightened" nations of the West, whilst racism and slavery have been defended by them. "...we are dealing with people working backwards from their personal desires to justify their behavior..." could have been (and was) used by the opponents of any of the 20th century's civil rights movements in the same way that you are using it now. The process of writing this article has shown quite clearly that even highly intelligent people are often unable to suspend their own moral judgments in the interest of true objectivity. --Zanthalon 13:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Insidious, eh? I haven't been keeping up with the various pedophilia-related articles, so I suppose I can't judge.  Regardless, and I don't mean to be a jerk here, its certainly within your rights to create a child protection group, though to my knowledge a group aimed at censoring edits by and supporting a particular, well-defined group of people is unprecedented.  If you do start this group, I'll certainly check in, and if, as I've stated above, you have clearly outlined goals, methods, and a strictly defined scope, I'd certainly consider joining.  -Seth Mahoney 22:55, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * As you can see, Seth, I am in favor of keeping this article. I think we need to know what a real movement of a group wants, why they want it, how they hope it get it, and why they think they are entitled to it. As to a group to look at children's issues, some might want to use it for censorship, but I see nothing inherently wrong, any more than there are groups who interest themselves in other specialized issues. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily saying that there is anything inherently wrong with a group to protect children, though as you can see above I'm not exactly sure what the group is supposed to protect children from. What I am saying is that it is, again, as far as I know, something new in Wikipedia's history to create a group whose sole purpose is to watch and censor the edits of one particular, well-defined group of people (which I gather is what the planned group will be about).  Singling out a group of people like this is fairly disturbing to me.  My second concern, and its not that I honest-to-God believe this will happen, but that I want to be sure it doesn't, is that the group have immaculately defined boundaries so that members don't feel justified going into unrelated articles (say, articles on Freud or ancient Greece) and saying "this is harmful to children!", followed by VfDs and edits.  -Seth Mahoney 18:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * hey Seth, I really don't think you need to worry about Cecro and I. Anyway I've created a project stub. Please sign up or at least put the project on your watchlist! All NPOV editors welcome. Erich 19:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Zanthalon actually gets to the point when he criticizes scientists and casts this as a moral issue. Pedophiles (and also, I understand, supporters of Bestiality) have come to say, "well, society has been against civil rights and feminism and homosexuality, and was wrong, so society must be wrong here and we are right." Why? Is everything that someone wants to do that society prohibits really good? Why? Because you want it? You are trying to back your self-serving theory with science and then portray yourself as more moral. Civil rights, feminism and homosexuality all have one thing in common: the argument that a group of adults are prevented from having the same rights as others similarly situated. Pedophiles are fighting for the right to have access to other people's children in the guise of "liberating" them. I grew up when Jim Crow was legal in the U.S. South. Black people (and many whites) were fighting for the right of all people to walk into a lunch counter, purchase a sandwich and sit down and eat it. They weren't fighting for the right of any group of people to walk into someone else's home and "liberate" their food. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "They weren't fighting for the right of any group of people to walk into someone else's home and "liberate" their food." Yes, ownership is the issue here. This society does not treat children as human beings, but as property, just as men once treated their wives as property, slave owners treated their slaves (who were not, after all, even fully human) as property and landowners treated their peasants as property. In each case, the enfranchised claimed that some sort of "special status" entitled them to rights (to political and economic power as well as to ownership of the disenfranchised) that the disenfranchised did not have. Examples of such "special status" in the past are landowner or white or male. Now the "special status" of the enfranchised is adult. --Zanthalon 16:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again you move to the heart of the issue. Minor children are a/the property of their parents in several meanings of the word. They are not the property of their parents in the sense of other property, that they may be bought and sold, or their persons or labor rented out at their parents' whim, but they are property in the sense that parents must protect and provide for them, and have the right to control many aspects of their lives, and it is expected that they will do this in a manner that is in the child's best interest. Many societies (and the U.S. especially, it would seem) are loath to step in the way of the parent's judgment on discretionary matters affecting their child.


 * Now let's be clear: there are organizations which attempt to intervene on behalf of children when they think the parents err, but the bar is, and should be, high where contravening the parents' wishes is concerned. But what these organizations all have in common is that, even if their concern or interest is debatable, they are expected to genuinely be interested in the child's welfare, without enhancing their own self-interest. We would not tolerate an organization that "rescued" children from an unfit parent in order to provide child labor to make cheap products for the organization's profit. Similarly, pedophiles are at interest in their concern for children's rights. What standing does an adult who wants to use a child sexually have to assert that the child is not the parent's "property," but is, in effect, their own? -- Cecropia | Talk 05:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was my doing. This was not the article under dispute anyway, but I suppose it having been made a referer may perhaps include it as disputed. I don't believe in editing wars, and it won't happen again. That said, I tried hard to make the reinstated page completely objective, but focused on the boylove movement, not pedophilia as a clinical case or the kind of NAMBLA political activism of the current "Childlove movement" article (there are seperate pages for both of those). You have to understand that this article tries to document a social and widely online community and movement, and as such it has to be largely about how that community or movement views itself. In covering that aspect, some may perceive it as being "sympathetic", as was pointed out here. However, it also covers how the community is viewed from the outside, so it does attempt objectivity. I suppose we are at the limits of what is possible with a format such as Wikipedia -- covering this subject encyclopedically is not possible because of the strong moral feelings people have, and their firm beliefs about what is true. "Field experts" are disregarded. So the only way of covering the Boylove community is in such a way that readers from the community doesn't recognize it in the article and are left offended at the suggestion that they are criminal by association or clinically ill, when crime and illess is not even relevant. So, although my vote cannot count because I am not logged in as I post this, I now appeal to everyone to vote to delete "Boylove" as well as "Childlove movement". I hope to write a few sentences of the subject in Pedophilia perhaps, and we'll see if that is acceptable. 213.145.178.57 09:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please vote on Protection
Sethmahoney just reverted a number of edits by User:Ta bu shi da yu. I'm taking no position on the quality of the edits, but I agree with Seth that major changes should not take place while we hash out the article's fate here. Protection is essentially frowned on in Wikipedia, but in special circumstances it can be useful, and I think this is one. So please vote whether I or another admin should Protect the article page until this is resolved or until we have a consensus to unprotect either here or on the article talk page. Addendum: Ta bu shi da yu has decided to continue editing the page despite the request to leave it be while we work here, so implicit if we agree to protect is that it will be the version standing before that user's edit.

Yes, Protect until we resolve this or agree to unprotect


 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 07:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) A good idea. --Zanthalon 07:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Definately protect. -Seth Mahoney 07:34, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, don't protect

Discussion
 * Comment: Most of the edits for the past week plus have either been very minor, or extensive changes that were reverted, or vandalism.
 * Normally, I think VfD can serve as a call for people to edit articles, but since this is so highly charged I don't think we're going to get a lot of NPOV edits. By the way, anyone know offhand how long until this vote is over?-Seth Mahoney 07:34, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Technically, the vote is over. An admin can take action after five days, but admin actions on VfDs are way backed up and policy and practice has been that people can continue to discuss and vote until an admin gets around to making a decision, so, as of now, this is an open issue. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it had been going on a long time... -Seth Mahoney 07:45, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: OK. But let's face it, it HASN'T been protected yet. Until then, I can't see why we can't edit this article, especially because of the way it is now! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Because then it will be different from what people have been voting on. Please be a little patient. This has been a long process. -- Cecropia | Talk 10:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please vote on the next step
This has been up for almost two weeks now (minimum time=five days) and I think we need to begin to move toward resolution. Two points from the Guideline for administrators and Deletion policy tell us that this article isn't going to be deleted. First, there needs to be a "rough consensus" to delete, generally accepted for purposes of deletion to be ~2/3. Second, is the boldfaced admonition: When in doubt, don't delete. So there is a prejudice on Wikipedia against deleting articles, and any admin that deleted this article now would be looking at a messy RfC.

Now this article, if the tally is correct, shows a plurality (21/8/18) to Keep the article. Even if we consider all the Merge votes to be Delete votes, we have a vote of 26-21 (55.32%) to delete, not even close to a rough consensus. So the question logically is: "do we prefer to keep this as a separate article, or delete it as a separate article and merge the content into Paedophilia?

Please, let's take this one step at a time. After we've decided this point, then we can discuss the mechanics of implementing the consensus. I'm leaving an Absolute Delete option, so deletionists don't feel disenfranchized, but please be aware that there is no consensus for absolute deletion, and your vote may be thrown out where you could have an opportunity to go for keep or merge.

Note: "Delete" with or without merge implies keeping a redirect, so there is no need for a separate category for these that would muddy this vote further.

Keep this as a separate article


 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 08:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Zanthalon 08:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Seth Mahoney 08:50, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Lussmu 10:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Starx 16:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:08, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
 * 7) Acegikmo1 18:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) &#26716;&#33457; 08:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) BryanNR 15:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Erich 17:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Gary D 23:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) cesarb 01:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete and merge into Paedophilia
 * 1) Neutrality 18:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sean Curtin 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Kevin Rector 18:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Delete without merging
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu 09:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment

I think that any discussion of the future of this article needs to include a comprehensive discussion of the disposition of other articles dealing with this topic as well. I think that much of the trouble here began not just as a result of the controversial nature of this article, but as a result of not having an overall strategy for addressing the various issues in play here. Rather than approaching things in a logical fashion, more articles got tacked on here and there.


 * IMHO, there should be one article, Pedophilia that deals with the medical, psychological and forensic definitions of the word pedophilia. There might be an argument for keeping the ephebophilia article as well. The other articles (chronophilia, nepiophilia, etc.) should just be redirected to the main article.


 * The Rind et al. page has been overwhelmingly rejected as a candidate for deletion, but I think that it desperately needs to be renamed, or expanded to include other controversial academic studies or books (like Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors or Harris Mirkin's The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia.


 * This article should include all articles dealing with the "pedophile rights movement" and perhaps should be renamed such. All other articles (Girllover, Boylover, Childlover, etc.) should redirect here, and the newly established Definitions of Pedophilia should be incorporated into it.
 * --Zanthalon 08:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to keep, but ultimately keep or merge doesn't make a lot of difference to me. If it is merged, it is almost going to have to be a section in Pedophilia with the same title (which means more people will probably see it), and it will result in a pretty long article, but if it makes people happy I'm all for it.  -Seth Mahoney 08:50, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The subject matter is pretty sick, but no less real. --Starx 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement with Zanthalon. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:08, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
 * keep article, but not images (questioning rights of children to have thier image used in this context) agree with Zanthalon to some extent. we may find groups undersirable but they exist, and there for we should documant them, information is better than ignorance if we wish to protect children from Pedophilia. &#26716;&#33457; 16 Aug 2004


 * I would recommend adding the following text to Pedophilia, "The apparently synonymous term childlove (along with the more specific terms boylove and girllove) have been floated as less pernicious sounding. Some advocates of decriminalizing pedophilia, as well as some pedophiles who choose sexual abstinence, have promoted these terms in hopes of reducing the social stigma of both the desire for and the practice of adult-child sex." and then delete this article. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE DELETE WE SHOULD GET RID OF THE PICTURES Kevin Rector 18:40, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * comment: I agree, although I would rephrase that as "The terms boylove and girllove have been floated as less pernicious sounding. Some advocates of decriminalizing adult-child sex, as well as many pedophiles who choose sexual abstinence, have promoted these terms in hopes of reducing the social stigma of the attraction to children or the practice of adult-child sex." Reasons: 1) The terms are not necessarily synonymous. 2) "childlove" is a word invented by wikipedians to come up with a general article title, and is not used in general. 3) "Pedophilia" is not criminalized, adult-child sex is. 4) The terms are used mainly to describe attraction (hence the "love" part), not necessarily desire for sex. I realize the term is from Definitions of pedophilia, and in fact I am one of the editors of that article. So I like the sentence to begin with, but the rewrite is a lot closer to the truth and has a lot less biased language in my opinion (in fact, I'll update the definitions article). Disclaimer: I am a boylover (one who has chosen a life of abstinence) and although I as such know plenty about the terms and the communities behind them, you can't know if my rewrite of the term is part of a grande conspiracy to enslave your children. You have only my word to believe when I say I would really, really like the truth to be covered about this topic. Clayboy 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm voting keep only because there's too much "worthy" content to go into the paedophilia article. This is something we should mention, not throw a blanket over and ignore, but there's just too much useful material that it couldn't be crammed into the paedophilia article. The image of the girl is rather questionable, though &mdash; I suggest that that be removed. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * I think that this article presents an interesting documentation into the existence of movements whose stated goals is to have some specific practices that most of society considers "bad", "digusting" and harmful to others. Removing the said documentation won't make those people go away. I'm unsure about merging this into the main pedophilia article. The main pedophilia article documents some emotional and sexual urges and practices; this article documents some attempts at making these practices legal. This is the same difference as documenting homosexuality, and documenting movements which pushed for the legalization of homosexuality and the repealing of so-called sodomy laws (caveat: I'm not claiming pedophilia and homosexuality are closely related phenomena, just that they are practices that were at some points judged disgusting and immoral, up to the point of sentencing those who practiced them to very hard sentences). David.Monniaux 15:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)