Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Size of "movement"

I object to the change from the word "tiny" to the word "small," and furthermore think tiny should be qualified as "extremely tiny." We are talking about 2,000 or so people. More people believe in Bigfoot or belong to the Flat Earth Society than belong to pro-pedophile organizations. The real world existence and significance of pro-pedophile activists is being vastly overstated just by claiming it is small--it's miniscule; tinier than the tiniest other fringe group I can think of.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree, I know somebody's going to pitch fit any second now. So let me try to set some guidelines (I'd rather stay out of this in a direct fashion, because I am not knowledgeable enough when it comes to raw data).

I predict one of confounding variables is going to be the ambiguity of what a pedophile is vs. what a pro-pedophile activist is. For instance, many pedophiles are ashamed and remorseful, and make no attempt at "advocacy." Another issue is whether certain academics can or cannot be considered advocates based on their opinions/data interpretations/statements/affiliations. Some academics are really out there, where as some make little statements that are up to interpretation. Just keep this in mind before anybody gets emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We report on real world debates; we don't carry them out or try to redefine them. Speculating about what constitutes an advocacy group member outside of the groups' reporting on their membership numbers be original research. We need to be clear that the membership of the advocacy groups is 'beyond extremely' small. At its height in the 80s, NAMBLA had 1,000 members for example. European membership is about the same. Pro-pedophile activism is in no way a large or significant "movement" (it really doesn't qualify as a movement at all, actually). It's an extremely tiny fringe POV with hardly any adherents; that's just factual. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We report on verifiable facts. I've argued against the assertion that the PPA movement is extremely small before with walls of text, but now I'll just say that I dispute it, and you haven't sourced it, so it doesn't belong in the article. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think in order to reinforce your simple and possibly equivocal disputing it you might care to source that the movement is more than the few hundred people whom we have extensively documented, as you well know the coverage of pro pedophile activism is, for its size, the most widely covered wikipedia subject of them all, and reading NAMBLA, MARTIJN etc it is clear that the movement has never amounted to more than a few hundred people, and we cannot have anything that is unsourced but implies that it is more than that. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But on the last count, Nambla has a membership in its thousands. And that's not counting other groups, activists without membership and the online realm that is now being described as the main cause in this article. To assert that something is "very tiny" requires sourcing. Lambton ^T/_C 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a mis-statement of NAMBLA membership information. Here's what Wikipedia's article reports:

Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries; it has essentially ceased to exist. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings and few local monthly meetings.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't membership information. On the last count, the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members. Lambton ^T/_C 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you source the 1,100 Lambton, as that is truly tiny and we could use such a source to ref tiny. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you source the numerical limit of the word "tiny" and the logical rule that one small group can be assumed indicative of its wider associations? Lambton ^T/_C 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, that's clouding the issue. You claimed "the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members". When you were asked the source of your claim, you diverted the question with other questions.

Please provide your source for FBI information about NAMBLA membership. It would be useful in this article, even if it's not generalized; and it wold also be of use in the NAMBLA article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is there a specific number associated with the word small? This could, in fact, mean "several thousands," and could sometimes be even less. Besides, tiny or extremely tiny are definitely POV descriptors, in contrast to small. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was at another debate on wikipedia where someone called a movement containing a million members/followers "small", which makes mere thousands into tiny. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a specific number as the fact that the largest group in a movement where proponents tend to be associated with multiple groups claimed to make up about 0.001% of the population at their largest. That's pretty big for a pedophile group, that's pretty big for a comparable fringe group like the National Alliance, but it's extremely tiny for the umbrella group of a movement that wants to make vast societal changes. John Nevard (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hoped that some editors here would reflect on the stylistic differences between an encyclopedia and a parental awareness group leaflet. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also reflect on the difference between an encyclopedia and a piece promoting the article (whatever the nature of the article) as preventing the latter is why we have NPOV and Fringe policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in order to be useful to a general reader, some indication of the size needs to be made clear. Reading the article as it is, one might get the very misleading impression based on the length of the article that this is a large or significant thing, or a "movement," and it most certainly is not. Perhaps an adjective such as small or extremely tiny should be replaced with specifics/what the sources say re numbers. "Approximately less than 2,000 people wordwide" is acceptable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, Petra. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In reference to what. Quoting policy pages without explaining what you are alluding to is not an argument.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need some research to show what numbers are involved. Obviously, without this research, specifying a number or any highly assertive descriptor such as "tiny" as opposed to "small" is irresponsible. Given that we don't even know what it takes to be "part of the movement", it's not really ours to judge. We would at the veryy least have to specify that pedophile website subscribers are not members (as these numbers are surely reaching toward and above 1/4 of a million). Lambton ^T/_C 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps a definition of what it means to be part of the movement, it clearly takes something more than sitting around thinking it is a good idea and telling nobody, as indeed does any type of activism. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• As stated above, the sources put the numbers at less than 2,000 worldwide. There are no reliable sources to support your fanciful web numbers. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not seen the source, I accept that 2,000 is a reasonable grassroots membership estimate at least. However, we return to the point that this is not the same as the number of people "within the movement". If we are to define websites with PP agendas as rough counts of potential participants or subscribers, there is over 50,000 on the count of one website (boylover.net) alone. Lambton ^T/_C 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And although that is no absolute measure of affiliation, you can't simply sniff at numbers like that and call the movement "tiny". That is the behaviour of someone who is expressing an anti-subject agenda. Lambton ^T/_C 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not agree with that, ie that I or others have an anti-subject agenda, indeed I very much want to see a verifiable and accurate article that presents the subject in a clear way and small for a movement even with 50,000 members worldwide is tiny by any measuring stick. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And subscribing to boynet does not make one a pro-pedophile activist. Where is the charter, the statement of purpose, the planned demonstrations, the ten point program, etc. (I'm sure if I said subscribing to boynet makes one a pedophile, let alone a pro-pedo activist, there would be a clamor of objection.) And comment on content, not contributors, Jovin. Thanks for understanding,-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, Petra is correct. Boylover.net is not a PPA website. It is a pedophile resource and support site, therefore its membership count does not offer any information about the size of the PPA movement . Here's their mission statement:

"BoyLover.net provides a safe, supportive, and legal environment where boylovers, boys, and others interested in boylove can share thoughts, opinions, feelings, and experiences. Its forums are online meeting places where questions, advice, and debate take place freely in an atmosphere of comfort and mutual respect, and where educational material and information about boylove can be shared."

... nothing there indicates any activism; it's a support group.

Even though it's not a PPA site, as a pedophile support site, information about the size of its membership may be of use to this article and perhaps to the article on pedophilia. Where did you find that count of 50,000 members? -- Please provide the reference.

Also, two editors asked previously that you supply a reference for your claim (18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)) regarding NAMBLA that "the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members", but so far, you've not replied. Please provide your source for FBI information about NAMBLA membership. It would be useful in this article and it would also be of use in the NAMBLA article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1100 figure is in the second paragraph at NAMBLA already.

"2000" does not appear in any reliable source I have seen. I guess it's a WP:SYN of various membership counts, in which case it would be inappropriate for the article. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic is not SYN, but if you would prefer only to use the NAMBLA number, I do not see the difference between 1,000 and 2,000 for the purposes of indicating to a general reader how extremely marginal pro-pedophile activism is.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA is not the entire pro-paedophile movement. And yes, synthesizing multiple sources to make an original conclusion ("arithmetic") is certainly SYN. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, simple arithmetic is not SYN. Ask for yourself at the village pump or the OR talkpage of you need clarity for future reference.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Editors may make straighforward mathematical calculations." :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  That policy applies when the calculation involves numbers from a single source, as the context you omitted clarifies. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it says "topic," not source. But go ahead by all means and ask your question at the Village Pump or the OR board. Meanwhile, as Jack explains below, 1,000 is probably too high and I'm happy with a single source that gives that number or lower, because there's no difference between 1k or 2k for giving a general reader a sense of the marginality of pro-pedophile activists.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

←reply to User:AnotherSolipsist 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC): Thanks for locating that reference for the information Lambton presented. Let's take a look at the contex from the article:

...an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. It is the largest organization in the umbrella group Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation").... Since 1995, public criticism and law enforcement infiltration have heavily impaired the organization. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries; it has essentially ceased to exist. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings and few local monthly meetings, and that as of the late 1990s to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.

So, ten years ago, NAMBLA had 1,100 members. Since then it's declined to a POB, a website, no magazine, and no meetings (none are mentioned on their website currently). And, in 1996, even with only 1,100 members, NAMBLA was the largest organization in the umbrella group ICPE. The most recent ICPE report shows that in late 2007 they had only 65 members.

Is there any organization that can be named that has more substantial numbers? Danish Pedophile Association - disbanded in 2004; Vereniging MARTIJN - from the article: "It was at one point, and probably still is, the second largest pedophile activist organization in the world, after NAMBLA.... In August 2000, it had 270 members (a decline from past counts)."

It gets smaller and smaller the more we look. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this too, for instance in considering the article René Guyon Society. This entity self-reported a membership of 5,000 to the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, which Gale then printed. In reality it appears it actually consisted of one person. Then we have the Dutch political party Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit which is apparently also notorious enough to have an article but which consists of three people. I would have to agree that the case for "tiny" has been pretty much proven. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. How can you prove a case for something without a set number or definition? I will say again, "tiny" refers to anything falling below an extremely strict limit. "Small" not only includes the former, but controls for anything in excess. For example, how would you define the membership of the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform? Although that organisation is not specifically pro-pedophile, it supports more PPA initiatives than many individual PPAs and their groups. If we really want to waste time on calling the movement "tiny", we will need:

1. A numerical definition of tiny.

2. A definition of belonging to that movement.

Then we can research the movement's size effectively. I could only consider using the term for a small artistic movement for example. Such a movement would contain no more than ten or so self-identifying members, would produce a much smaller article than this, and the evidence for "tiny" numbers elsewhere would therefore be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Lambton ^T/_C 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Dutch society for Sexual Reform, since it is not a pro-pedophile organization, should not be counted or misrepresented as a pro-pedophile activist organization. Whether there is a "movement" or not is highly controversial. The New York Times called it a "perceived movement." That there has been some support for some goals of pro-pedophile activists--from the Dutch government, and from a handful of people in academia, should be noted in the article, but doesn't make peripheral "supporters" pro-pedophile activists. For example, when gay rights groups did include NAMBLA, that did not make the gay rights groups into "pro-pedophile organizations," just as allowing pro-life feminists to march in international women's day doesn't make international women's day a pro-life activist holiday.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The art movement Lambton speaks of falls under miniscule, which I am not suggesting for the PPA movement which after all does, all things considered, have probably close to or more than a score of activists.

I guess it would be better if we could show, not tell, e.g. "...a movement consisting of fifteen or twenty activists worldwide..." or some such. We don't, however, have those figures. It would be great if INTERPOL or someone had hard numbers but I guess they don't.

At any rate, the words "small", "tiny", "miniscule", and so forth are impossible to define exactly. They mainly exist as a comparison to something else. What are we comparing to here? Well, to other political entities, I guess. In constrast to (let us say) the anti-landmine movement or the ant-female-genital-mutilation movement and so forth, where does PPA stand? Well if Philadelphia is a "large" city and a town of say 2800 is a "small" town, what is village of say 80 inhabitants? It is a "tiny" village. Similarly the PPA movement stands in contrast to other global movements in the relationship of "tiny". I mean, if the PPA movement is "small", how the heck small do you have to be to qualify as "tiny"? 3 members worldwide? 2? We are not talking about the fringe here. We are talking about the utter fringe of the fringe. We are talking about a "movement" so small that it can barely be said to exist at all. How much smaller can you get, really? Unless you are making the case that no movement can be "tiny", this one is.Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

fringe movement

I was reminded of this discussion by the new user Daniel Lièvre, who wrote in a different thread at 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC): " this article is actually about the political fringe."

He's right that this is a fringe movement. The word "fringe" would be appropriate in the lead. Also, the movement is not organized, it's just a few websites. Instead of "a small, loosely-organized socio-political movement ", a better description is: "a tiny fringe socio-political movement". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Alice Day

The source provided for the claim that this holiday exists is a website/blog, not RS:[1] ref#68. Also, does someone know how to remove/correct this disambig?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Day There shouldn't be a redirect without an RS, and the name of this article is no longer "childlove."-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

it appears that has already been removed --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted here, saw your thrread, Peetra, looked at the article and edited to remove the unsourced otheruses template; one for the watchlist though16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-pedophile activism

"Opposition to pro-pedophile activism is known as anti-pedophile activism."--I think this statement is somewhat misleading. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "In addition to mass public opposition to pro-pedophile activism, there are also anti-pedophile activists."  ? The statement implies that the only opposition to pro-pedophiles activism is anti-pedophile activism, but anti-pedophile activists are not the only ones who oppose pro-pedophile activism, and opposing pro-pedophile activism does not make one a pro-pedophile activist. We would not say that the NIH and the APA and the FBI are "anti-pedophile activists"; they are the mainstream of law, medicine, and science.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Petra, i'd support editing to change this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this also. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only public, but legal, medical and psychological (see departments you just mentioned).Legitimus (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Lambton ^T/_C 13:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Problemmatic statement and refs

"Some but not all pro-pedophile activists self-identify as pedophiles [7][8], or as adults attracted to children in a sexual or romantic way [9]."

Ref #9 doesn't mention anything about activism. Refs #7 and #8 are to the same blog, and the two people don't state that they belong to any organization, or are activists, merely that they have opinions about "laws" and "the movement." Opinions do not an activist make. A better source or sources needs to be found in order to keep the statement above in the article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that those sources are not reliable. As you say, the first two are a blog, and regarding the third one, that goes to a website of self-published essays; and, it's not an activist website, it's a support-group site of resources and information for men who are seeking information about their feelings of attraction to boys.

I added that sentence as part of a rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the intro during a time when there was a lot of conflict about the way the intro was previously worded (I did not change the third paragraph or the last sentence of the first paragraph; and, some of the text has been changed since then). My intent was to provide accuracy while also helping to resolve some of the issues that had been repeatedly argued at the time. So I tried to write for both sides of the issue and did my best to avoid adding bias that might cause new problems.

However, I did not have a source for the statement, so when I included it, so I tagged it with {{fact}}. Later, others added the sources that are now there, and those sources do not satisfy WP:RS. I would concur with either leaving the sentence, and restoring the {{fact}} tag, to allow time for finding the sources, or, I would also consense with the removal of the sentence in full. Either way, we should not leave those unreliable sources in the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--the statement would be fine with RS refs. If the statment was there for a long time with fact tags already, someone should provide RS source(s) though.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was added around a month ago. Maybe that's long enough, since only unreliable sources were found since then. I'd suggest deleting the sentence soon and if a reliable source is found the text can be restored later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref 9 is a scientific advocacy site that presents a certain (Anti CSA) perspective. It is not a reliable source for the text concerned.

7 & 8 are wordpress, not blogs. Wordpress is a kind of blogging software which allows for collaborative publishing of static pages, as appears to be going on with this site. It appears that this is the website of an organisation, which has a "mission statement". I would say that they are RS. Lambton ^T/_C 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The userpages are published on a blog. It says, "A Blog About Paedophilia - Facts, Studies, Editorials, Information and Law." Surely a better source can be found than userpages on a blog. It's not really different than selectively linking to Friendster profiles (Also, the use of the two userpages is a synthetic argument, and two examples of anecdotal evidence doesn't support any generalizations.). I think that this statement probably can be referenced appropriately, but these blog userpages are not RS (and don't adequately support the statement).-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: at least one of the two blog userpages is that of a banned user. Why are we promoting the personal blog userpage of a banned user? I think this not only need to be deleted asap but oversighted.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove refs 7, 8, and 9, per discussion above (but leave statements intact with "citation needed.") Ref #7 is of particular concern because it links to the personal blog userpage of banned user BLueribbon/is very unduly self-serving, per the policy on exceptions to reliable sources.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done unreliable references 7,8,9 removed. Happy‑melon 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very bad match between source and claim

"Present-day pro-pedophile activism occurs mostly through websites and internet discussion forums;[15]"

--the ref, #15, is to Eichwald's article in the NYT, which pretty much calls online pedophile support group activity "an echo chamber" of self-reinforcing delusions about a "perceived movement" that doesn't exist. Eichewald is not a reference which can support the claim above. He calls it a "community," not activism, and notes that " the existence of this community is significant and troubling, experts said, because it reinforces beliefs that, when acted upon, are criminal. Repeatedly in these conversations, pedophiles said the discussions had helped them accept their attractions and had even allowed them to have sex with a child without guilt. Indeed, law enforcement officials say that the refrain of justification from online conversations is frequently voiced by adults arrested for molestation, raising concern that such conversations may lower pedophiles' willingness to resist their temptation."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But how do we source the fact that most of this takes place on the internet. Maybe we don't need a source? Lambton ^T/_C 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the social networking sites are not activism. Perhaps info about social networking sites for pedophiles belongs in child sexual abuse. We have two reliable sources which make that connection--here is the second: "In addition to child pornography, the Internet facilitates child sexual abuse in the following ways: It allows networking among child abuse perpetrators. The Internet facilitates a subculture of pedophiles, who may share information and tactics and support each other’s belief systems." O’Connell, R. (2001). “Pedophiles Networking on the Internet.” In C. Arnaldo, ed., Child Abuse on the Internet: Ending the Silence. New York: Berghahn Books.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that if PPA is not using the internet, then it can't exist at all, because it doesn't exist in any other form. There used to be groups that had meetings and published magazines or newsletters, but those have all dried up, and only the internet sites are left, like the web site of NAMBLA and MARTIJN. They're tiny, and there are only a few of them, but they exist so it seems they should be mentioned. I am not suggesting that pedophile resource forums like boychat are PPAs - they're not. But the small number of people who still consider themselves activists are only operating online. I don't know how we would source this though. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps we need to distinguish between online activity which has been called both support group advocacy and pedophile networking (i.e, it is not "activism") and the web presence of pro-pedophile activist orgs which no longer really engage in activism. I looked at the NAMBLA website, and they do appear to have a letter writing project that could conceivably be construed as activism: http://www.nambla.org/prisoner.htm Or maybe we just need to clarify in the article what the NYT says: some pedophiles claim their online chatgroup activity is "activism," and a "movement," but no one else sees it that way. ? -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The last part of your comment is the best approach, since it's based on the source and it's on-topic: ... to clarify in the article what the NYT says: some pedophiles claim their online chatgroup activity is "activism," and a "movement," but no one else sees it that way. The other option of distinguishing between support groups and activism might be less useful because it strays from the topic of the article into general support groups for pedophiles; since that's not activism, it should be omitted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See bottom for restructuring proposal/where accurately quoting the NYT could fit.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

overwritten

The section on Fritz Bernard/Netherlands in the 50s is so weighed down with trivial backstory it's practically unreadable. For relevance, readability, and summary style, I would advise trimming everything from "Fritz founded the Enklave" to the sentence telling us what the Enklave was. That's all of this:

"They built upon pre-1940 member information of the surviving Dutch branch of German Magnus Hirschfeld's sexologist Wissenschaftlich-Humanitäres Komitee (WHK) (Scientific-Humanitarian Committee) provided by former WHK member Arent von Santhorst (see interview with Bernard led by ethnologist and political scientist Dr. Joachim S. Hohmann).[32] Bernard, through this Dutch WHK connection, built upon contacts he had established in 1940 for the same purpose with Dutch WHK president, donzel Dr. J. A. Schorer and sexologist Dr. Benno Premsela. Bernard apparently was aware that the German WHK along with its international organization Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, ("Institute for Sexuology"), had published articles on adult-minor sexual interactions prior to 1933.[31] However the German invasion of the Netherlands in 1940 prevented any further co-operation until the end of World War II.[31] One of the very first German occupation regulations in the Netherlands was public declaration of enforcement of German Penal Code sections 175 regarding same-sex activities and 176 regarding adult-child sex interactions in Verordnungsblatt Nr. 81 dating July 31st 1940.[33] WHK members von Santhorst and Bob Angelo (alias Niek Engelschman, later a pedophile activist) had destroyed all Dutch WHK documents to prevent Nazi investigations,[32] and member information was re-constructed after the war by von Santhorst in order to form the Enclave kring.[32]"

-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. If the information is notable enough (doubtful), there could be an article on the history of PPA, but in this article, that's way too much detail that's not relevant to the main topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there once was a separate "Pro-pedophile history" article, but it was merged into this piece. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads well to me. The subject is a foundational to the article. I see no problem at all with it. Lambton ^T/_C 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Petra on this one. We absolutely do not need a history article either, our coverage of this minute fringe group is already completely over the top14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Not only is the above section too much historical detail, but it's off-topic - not even about pro-pedophile activism, just some pre-WWII publications about adult-child sex and the general suppression of all deviant sexuality by the Nazi's. That's of no relevance to this article at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Bernard and the Enclave Kring being the movement's roots. What a misrepresentation. Lambton ^T/_C 12:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, "misrepresentation" implies a willful act of deception. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but next time, please try to be more precise so no one will get the wrong idea. You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation of the material for debate purposes, of course.

Regarding the content, I don't see anything in that paragraph about the PPA movement, I only see information about some people who publised articles about adult-child sex. If there is something about a pro-pedophile movement in the references listed, please show us the quotes to make that clear, because as it is now it's vague, confusing and does not seem to address the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The COC

The article states that "In 1980, the COC declared pedophilia to be a gay issue." Buried in the reference for this (#37) is the statement that the COC declared pedophilia to be a gay issue, with no date. I think this is extremely misleading, because as indicated below, the COC explains that the gay issue was discrimination regarding the age of consent, not that pedophilia in general is a gay issue--until 1972 in the Netherlands, the age of consent for heterosexuals was 16, but it was 21 for homosexuals. Once this disparity was corrected and the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike was 16, "the age of consent stopped being a matter of concern for the Dutch LGBT movement." It is not that the COC supported pedophilia, or "declared pedophilia to be a gay issue," but that they objected to a discriminatory law regarding the age of consent.

"Hekma's right to speak and write freely was supported by his university, but he was publicly disowned by COC and Pro Gay, both of which issued statements criticizing his views.

'Hekma is for lowering the age of consent, but that's not on our agenda,' van Dalen told this reporter. "And we resent the things he has said."

COC's statement criticizing Hekma argued: "Gay liberation focused on the discriminatory aspect of the age of consent, not on the principle of an age of consent as such. As soon as the age of consent for both straight and gay/lesbian sex was equalized [in 1972 in the Netherlands], the age of consent stopped being a matter of concern for the Dutch LGBT movement.'"

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17855971 -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that ref doesn't support the statement at all. this does though (quote:

Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia." In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) "adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue... [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished... by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity."

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's not a good reference, that is Sandfort blowing smoke. Please reference an actual position paper or other document from COC itself. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends on your view of Sandfort... who is a very well renowned academic of both issues. 86.27.72.85 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hero is right; we need a statment from the COC itself. If they supported it, the reference shouldn't be hard to provide, right?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

this seems to support it, it's on the pro-pedo site martijn.org. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in dutch though. If you google for pedofilie coc 1987 you can easily find the particular petition. I don't doubt the truthfulness of it, though I do wonder if it is still supported by those parties. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We still need something from the COC, not something republished on a pro-pedophile site. Nothing even on this pro-pedo site says the COC "declared pedophilia to be a gay issue," Moreover, what is cited here is a statement affirming the age of consent at 16 years and a criminal ban.

(In 1987, no one proposed that the age of consent be lowered from 16 to 12, it was proposed that there be exceptions which were exempt from criminal prosecution. Among the reasons cited for exemptions in some cases were 1) trauma to children resulting from being involved criminal prosecutions 2) situations in which a 15 year old and a 19 year old were dating and the parents of the 15 year old did not object. It is also my understanding that at some point in Dutch history the exemption for some 12-16 year olds was passed, and that it was later overturned about a decade or so later. Finding refs for this/the dates would be helpful to the article. The way the Dutch petition of 1979 is currently presented in the article is completely inaccurate, for example--the petition was not presented to "demand" the rights of pedophiles to have sex with children, it was a bid to lower the age of consent from 16 to 12 if people under 16 but 12 and over consented (and it did not pass)--the later version which did pass contained the parents and child must approve and can bring criminal prosecution if they don't clause, with a lot of other caveats too, such as no teacher-student power imbalance situations, or giving of exensive gifts. There were many counterproposals endorsed by many people which recommended limitations on the exceptions--presenting any of these counterproposals as activism to lower the age of consent would be inaccurate, because they were responses to proposals for exceptions--designed to uphold the age of consent at 16 and limit proposed exceptions.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, Martijn itself says it is in disagreement with the COC regarding the 1987 petition, so the COC's position can hardly be said to be pro-pedophile: http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=206006

Here is more, also from Martijn, regarding the confusing state of affairs in Dutch history 1987-2002, about which there were many proposals and counterproposals, regarding exceptions to the age of consent for 12-16 year olds:

"In the Netherlands, no sexual preference is punishable by law. However, sexual contact with a child is not allowed. In 1990, parliament passed a law that criminalizes all sexual contacts with minors under sixteen. For this to be penalized, there used to be a requirement of complaint from ages 12 and up. This requirement was dropped in 2002, which leaves a strict age of consent of 16. MARTIJN advocates the replacement of the current law with a law against sexual violence, where the abuse of trust would be the main criterium."

http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=212000

-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"The persectives of pro-pedophile activists"

First of all, Harris Merkin is not a pro-pedophile activist. If he fits anywhere in this article, it would maybe be under "academic defenses of pedophilia." Second, the paper he published in a journal article in 1999 is very dramatically overemphasized out of proportion to its notability. Third, an incredibly long quote is not at all necessary in any way to summarize his argument. Fourth, I would suggest that the MASA quote rebutting it would be better placed as a general rebuttal of academic defenses of pedophilia, and that a better reference for rebuttal would be this New Yorker review of Merkin's specific article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/05/13/020513ta_talk_menand This paragraph in particular: "No reader of Mirkin's article will think that he is advocating sex with children (he has said that he is not himself a pedophile), but few readers will feel that he is committed to presenting a balanced analysis. The article falls short of advocacy, but it feels some distance from disinterestedness. For millennia, many human beings believed that the institution of chattel slavery was unexceptionable. That is hardly an argument for viewing a revival of the practice with equanimity. The campaign to abolish slavery, like the campaigns to grant women and homosexuals equality, was inspired less by a concern with what is "natural" than by the feeling that it is wrong for some people to have power over the intimate lives of other people. Surely the prohibition of pedophilia is part of the movement for civil and sexual freedom—in this case, the freedom of children from grownups who are in positions of authority over them." To summarize, Merkin's argument is that there is a comparison between pedophilia and social justice movements for women's rights and gay rights; critics think the opposite is true, that the more apt comparison is between pedophilia and slavery, and that the prohibition against pedophilia, not the advancement of pedophilia, is part of a larger movement for sexual and civil freedom.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying this line of argumentation as a defense of pedophilia makes sense. Though, I don't really see that being any different from pro-pedophile advocacy. As for block quotes, they are usually not the best way to go, so a strong summary of the argument would be preferred (as long as it is of good quality). ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Harris Mirkin should go in "other papers supporting some activist opinions," and the section titled "perspectives of pro-pedophile activists" should be retitled "strategies for promoting acceptance." If you look at it, the section is all strategies for promoting acceptance, except for Harris Mirkin, which doesn't really fit. An academic who publishes a single controversial paper is not a "pro-pedophile activist"--that could even be a BLP issue.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, unless a source can be found stating that Harris Mirkin is a "pro-pedophile activist," it's original research. The only google hits on Harris Mirkin + pro-pedophile activist are to Wikipedia--that means Wikipedia is publishing this first/all by itself.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Invoking ideas of continuity between pedophile and other minority activists. Some activists argue that pedophile activism, feminism, gay activism, and anti-racism all relate to the experiences of suppressed and misunderstood groups. This argument is made by Harris Mirkin, in the article quoted above.[86] Other scholars, such as Camille Paglia, have asserted that gay rights (from which much of pedophile activism diverged) should never have rejected the pederastic themes which some activists claim were the "giveaways" required to make homosexual culture acceptable.[87]"--this is probably where mention of Mirkin should go (and he should only be in one place--he's used three times in the article; in the lead, in a giant block quote misrepresenting him as a pedophile activist, and here. That's really overstating/exaggerating. This passage also suffers from the weasel-worded "some activists"--2x).-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

• This first part should just go at the end of "Decline of the movement":

Recent developments After the International Lesbian and Gay Association was granted consultative member status within the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1994, the United States (including President Bill Clinton) publicly threatened to cancel its annual financial contributions of US$1 Million to the UN because ILGA had four pronouncedly pedophile activist member groups: NAMBLA, MARTIJN, US-based Project TRUTH, and German Verein für Sexuelle Gleichberechtigung (VSG, "Association for Sexual Equality"). As a result, the UN status of ILGA was suspended and ILGA expelled all four organizations. The German Bundesverband Homosexualität (BVH, "National Homosexuality Association") called for international protests on ILGA for expelling these groups, in spite of the fact that BVH never before had been observed as sympathizing with pedophile activism.[42][43][39]

• Instead of being called "recent developments," this section could be called "Internet Activity" or somesuch, and include everything in "Activities" as well, since it's primarily about the internet. Also, this where points raised by the NYT, and about pedophile networking and child abuse could go? Also more that is critical about Robin Sharpe and the Ganymede collective regarding the internet from ref #63:

In the coming years, pro-pedophile advocacy began to make use of the Internet: "For socially isolated pedophiles, the search for 'human companionship' was a salient concern, and Internet technology provided a virtual solution to the absence of physical convergence settings."[44] This use of the Internet as a space for advocacy and as a "convergence setting" began with the establishment in 1995 of BoyChat, a message board for "boylovers." In 1997, participants on BoyChat and other online resources formed Free Spirits, an umbrella organization with the mission of raising money and providing Internet hosting services: "Web sites such as Free Spirits can be viewed as 'convergence settings' in the sense that they provide structure and continuity in [the] face of any given individual, group or network instabilities."[45] Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation"[46]) is a leading activist site. The Montreal Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal by Free Spirits members in 1998 as a forum for pedophiles to meet in the real world.[47]

Activities

Some pro-pedophile activists attempt to create a culture of support to pedophiles who are afraid to discuss their attractions for fear of being criminalized and ostracized. To this end, some pro-pedophile organizations provide online counseling and suicide prevention services.[60] Organizations, like the Krumme 13, have been accused of encouraging pedophiles to act out their desires, thus break laws regarding child sexual abuse and the legal Age of Consent.[61] Other organizations strongly encourage others to take care in not breaking local laws.[54][62] Much online pedophile activism takes place on message boards, the most prominent ones being based in Montreal, Canada.[63] Some pedophile activists now have blogs.[64] Many of these blogs, especially those at blogger (owned by Google) have been removed for alleged Terms of Service violations.[citation needed] MARTIJN, as well as publishing a magazine called OK and providing support for pedophiles, is also involved in overt activism, distributing flyers and pamphlets at public gatherings and gay pride marches.[65] Robin Sharpe, a Canadian pedophile, successfully challenged some aspects of child pornography laws in the Canadian Supreme Court in 2002, arguing that his fictional writings were not illegal because they had artistic merit.[66] -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, how would "child abuse" fit into a section entitled "Internet Activity"? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The proposed restructuring is primarily to combine two sections-- "recent developments" and "activities" --into "Internet," since they are both primarily about the internet.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting information currently within "Recent developments" and "Activities" into a section entitled "Internet activity" is reasonable enough. What I'm inquiring into is the following comment by PetraSchelm up above: Instead of being called "recent developments," this section could be called "Internet Activity" or somesuch, and include everything in "Activities" as well, since it's primarily about the internet. Also, this where points raised by the NYT, and about pedophile networking and child abuse could go? I would like to know how "child abuse" would fit into a section of this sort. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's two separate matters, one noncontroversial (merging "activities" and "recent developments" into one better named section), and the second an NPOV rewrite of the internet section to include this reference: O’Connell, R. (2001). “Pedophiles Networking on the Internet.” In C. Arnaldo, ed., Child Abuse on the Internet: Ending the Silence. New York: Berghahn Books, and a better summary of the NYT article, etc. More critical information should be included in the article about internet activity whether there's a new section or not/that's definitely a separate issue that I assume will require much more discussion before consensus is reached. But, we have agreement that merging "activities" and "recent developments" into an "internet activity" section is noncontroversial and makes sense? (Also, moving the ILGA thing that starts "recent developments" into "Decline of the movement).-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of page protection

It seems that the page protection was a really good idea. The escalation of edit warring and heated discussion has abated; while productive discussion and work is continuing.

The page log indicates protection expires at 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)), in just a day or so. Previously, this page was protected for several months due to edit-warring. An extension of the protection might be beneficial so we can edit more slowly, with more consideration and consensus process, using the draft page to try out ideas and come to agreement before implementation by requesting protected edits.

I'm posting a a link to this note at the Pedophile topic mentorship page to request comments on this from the topic mentors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think continued page protection with consensus edit changes made by an admin after discussion here/requesting protected edits is an excellent idea.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with this proposal, especially as the article is now tagged as through its talk page BLP, and for good reasons. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update: thanks to the help of topic mentor Jmlk17, page protection has been extended. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While edit warring is never beneficial, do we have to presuppose that it must necessarily break out? If everyone just agrees to edit in a respectful and conscientious manner, and to discuss any controversial changes on the Talk Page before implementing them, there's really no need for further protection of the article. This is important to note, because many editors are discouraged to edit when an article is fully-protected, especially new users and anons. Fully protecting an article this way somehow seems very unwikipedian, to tell the truth. So, how about it, ladies and gentlemen - could we edit in peace, and have this page back open for hassle-free improvement? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• To avoid confusion and duplication of comments, let's centralize the discussion of page protection in one place. This talk page is already very busy with content editing, so I suggest we discuss the page protection issue at the topic mentorship page. That way, we can focus on content here, and focus on the Wikipedia process issue on the mentorship page. Homologeo's comment above is also on the topic mentorship page, so let's continue this discussion on that page.

Here's the link:

• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship#PPA page protection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Go-forward consensus process suggestion

I suggest using a new procedure for updating the article for a while. It's getting confusing with so many changes discussed on the talk page but not implemented in the article. So I've copied the full, unchanged article to this page:

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Re-draft consensus version

If anyone wants to make changes there, they can be done as usual, and we can use diffs as usual to discuss the changes.

When we have consensus on a particular section or organization scheme, we can use the {{editprotected}} template to request that the changed section be copied to the main article page.

This could be effective, but if it turns out not to be, the draft page can be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedure recommendation

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Re-draft consensus version

I've noticed that there are already some edits to the draft page. Here's a procedure we could try:

• Edit subpage as if it were the main page, following all of the usual policies and guidelines
• Discuss content edits on the talk page here as usual
• When ready with a particular edit or series of edits, place a note on this talk page to request comments/consensus
  • include a diff to the edit with a summary of the rationale, so we can discuss and re-edit the section if needed.
    • (For the benefit of new editors - If several edits have been made to a section that need be combined in one diff for discussion, that can be done by viewing the history of the subpage and using the compare button to create a summary diff.)
    • If there are intervening edits on other sections, diffs alone might not be able to summarize, so we might need to copy some text here, or use multiple diffs.
• Discussion of particular edits/diffs could be started in new sections here, or could be added to sections above if the relevant material has already been brought up previously; whichever is more convenient.
• When we have an agreement on this talk page about the particular edit, use the {{editprotected}} template to request the main page be updated to match the modified text.

It's an experiment... as a procedure this may help to move the article ahead with consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not be editing the new article. When/if a merge is suggested, I will judge it on its merits. Lambton ^T/_C 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

subpage deletion

I've seen this method work well on other articles, but since other than one editor no-one has expressed interest in using this method, it appears the subpage is not needed

If anyone does want to use the subpage, post a note here; otherwise after a while if there's no positive response, I'll request it be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Four days - no replies - so, deletion request has been placed on the sub-page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

continued discussion of page protection

But that's exactly it, article protection was put into place because a single editor would not follow consensus. Outside of a now-banned editor, this user was the only one that was inserting controversial changes without seeking discussion. Thus, article improvement can easily go forward, and with consensus, as long as everyone agrees to discuss significant changes before making them. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, this kind of unhelpful comment is all too typical of you, and unquestionably part oft he problem, page protection is never done based ona single editor nor, in my experience, has a single editor ever edit warred. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Homologeo I don't know which editor you're referring to, but there were at least 3 SPA/sock accounts involved in that disruption, in addition to whatever edit warring may have been done by established editors.

Regarding your prior comment about the page protection, I've replied further at this link:

• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship#PPA page protection.

I hope you will agree to discuss the page protection in one place, because splitting the conversation between two threads is less effective and diverts attention on this page from the content issues that are currently under active discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And this would be the place to discuss it, since it's directly related to the editing of this article. Having the discussion on a seperate page is only slightly better than the previous use of the private Mediation Committee wiki to discuss issues among a select group of editors. The effect of either is to obscure the discussion and opacify the process. --SSBohio 17:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my intent. It's not at all like the private wiki, because it can be accessed with one simple click and requires no registration or permission to be involved; it's clearly visible to anyone who wants to participate. This article is under mentorship, and that's the mentorship page.

Making an issue over where we discuss this seems unnecessary, but obviously, if you or anyone else wants to discuss it here instead, they can do so. My suggestion was simply a suggestion. There is some discussion over there if you want to add to it, or you can write what you wish here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You start out by denying the likeness to the MedCommWiki situation. I disagree with your denial. It is similar in that it is a way to divide up the discussion about this article, rather than centralize it. Stating that it is "not at all like the private wiki" is not supported by the facts. Similarly, mentorship is voluntary, not mandatory, so the article's being under mentorship doesn't require that discussions about it be conducted elsewhere.

As to your allegation that I'm "making an issue," that is also unsupported by the facts. The talk page guidelines describe the article talk page as the forum for discussing the editing of the article. Article protection would, to my mind, be part and parcel of that. The divide and conquer approach with respect to articles in this topic area seems to interfere with collaboration, consensus-building, and productivity. I think that the encyclopedia would be better were it to stop. --SSBohio 19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment seems to indicate ideas about me that have nothing to do with what's going on inside my mind. I was not involved with the MedCommWiki in any way and to this day I have no idea what happened with that.

There is no divide-and-conquer approach. If you want to discuss the page protection here, go ahead and discuss it.

If you decide to do it here instead of on the topic mentorship page, then you might want to post a note there to let people know the discussion has moved. Or not, whichever you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My ideas about you are internal to me. My words are based on the position you've taken here, rather than inside your mind. Here, you said that I was "making an issue over where we discuss this," when the issue was no invention of mine, but a legitimate, existing concern. Here, you say that sequestering discussion about the protection of this page into a separate mentorship subpage is "not at all like the private wiki," denying even the possibility that they have any similarity whatsoever and denying the validity of my view out of hand. Here, you use loaded words and phrases, like "one simple click," "making an issue," "obviously," etc. Your words here are what I'm responding to, not your ideas. Having faith in you as a Wikipedia editor requires that I not worry about what your thoughts are on this subject, since your edits will be good ones. My responses here are, to the best of my ability, directly focused on what you've said. --SSBohio 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not contribute to the dozen ongoing discussions about article content which have been started since the page was protected?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the article cannot achieve meaningful progress toward neutrality as long as page protection and dispersion of the discussion are used as tools in service of one point of view. As I've long maintained, if articles on this topic are written neutrally, the reader will have no problem making out what's right & wrong. We don't have to tell people that Adolf Hitler was a really bad person; We let them draw the obvious conclusion from the evidence. A partisan article is not an encyclopedic treatment of any topic, no matter how good the intentions. --SSBohio 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But this article is not by any stretch of the imagination merely reflecting one point of view, and I for one think getting neutrality right is the only important thing. We equally don't have to tell people that Mother Theresa was good, they can work that out for themselves too. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have advocated some of the most hideous introductory sentences that force-feed the "truth" to readers. This is why I cannot take anybody seriously when they use the term "neutral". Some people are so ingrained in their thinking patterns, that emotive terms and horror stories become the new "givens". Lambton ^T/_C 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor's content contributions appear to be what Lambton was commenting on. Squeak's contribution history contains several examples of the "thumb on the scale" approach to NPOV. There would be more examples than that, but they were in articles subsequently deleted, some of which he campaigned to have deleted, thus deleting the contributions. While Squeak is operating from the best intentions, his strong views come out in his editing on this topic. Under his advocacy, the entire encyclopedia is restricted from discussing adult-child sex except as it relates to child sexual abuse, despite the need to take a broader, more anthropologically and historically complete perspective. --SSBohio 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have advocated some of the most hideous introductory sentences blah blah is very incivil (and boring) commentary on a contributor. As we are not having a discussion about an introductory sentence, it is not a content discussion. Again, why are you not contributing to any of the many ongoing discussions about content?-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even granting that Lambton's comment was intemperate, it was a comment about content. Your chastisement to "comment on content, not contributors" is falsified by that fact.
• Again, why are you not contributing to any of the many ongoing discussions about content? -- Two things about that: First, I am contributing to an ongoing discussion about content; Second, I've explained above why I'm continuing to discuss the merit (or lack thereof) in continuing to protect the page. To wit: Because the article cannot achieve meaningful progress toward neutrality as long as page protection and dispersion of the discussion are used as tools in service of one point of view.

The assertions you're making don't seem to flow from the available facts. Why is that? It would appear to be either the fault of the facts or the assertions, but, as a participant, I'm not in a position to decide which. --SSBohio 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, [2] (Seriously, that is one of the most ridiculously POV edits I have ever come across. It was defended by the editor for some time afterwards.) is probably the type of edit Lambton is refering to. Perhaps the editor has changed his position on neutrality (or lack thereof) since then, however. 219.79.186.13 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Califia-Rice

Two of the three references supporting this statement are links about Pat Califia, now known as Patrick Califia-Rice:

"some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12]"

Califia-Rice has since repudiated his/her previous position:

"Over the years, probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization rejected by most of the gay community for its stance on legalizing sex between men and boys.

Califia-Rice said he has shifted his position on both of those issues. ``I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity.

``I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed, and there are members of that organization who think it's OK for prepubescent children to have sexual relationships with adults, and I just cannot agree with that. I think it's developmentally inappropriate.'"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2000/10/27/WB78665.DTL&type=printable

I think maybe information about Califia-Rice's former and current opinions could be in the article somewhere, but considering the change in Califia-Rice's position it's not appropriate to use him to support the statement in the lead. Unless someone thinks the statement should be changed to "Some call for what they describe as children's rights..." Followed by "some have since completely repudiated that position."?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting that Califa-Rice has reversed his prior position - good work digging that up. I concur that with this new info, we need to either remove the two Califa footnotes from that sentence, or, add text to indicate that he's retracted. While the retraction is interesting, I'm not sure if it's useful to this article. It may be best to simply remove the Califa footnotes there, along with related ones if they appear elsewhere. But if you'd rather keep the references and add the repudiation, I'm open to that idea too.

Regarding the text itself though, about PPA's calling for children's rights, that's an accurate statement so we should retain it. We may need to seek more references to support it, but it is one of the PPA talking points as part of their attempt to leverage other social movements in support of their cause. Even though it's based on false analogy, it is a method they've tried to use, so it's appropriate for us to report it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Does anyone have thoughts on which solution they think would be better for the article--1) removing Califia-Rice citations 2) adding text re Califia-Rice's retraction?-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Califia-Rice is also referenced in "recategorization of data," with this article: Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77 (HTML). The Culture of Radical Sex.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The revised position relates to his position on AoC and NAMBLA. He is not revoking either this:

"some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults".

OR this:

Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77.

Editors should not engage in mind-reading, however attractive it is for the prevailing opinion. Lambton ^T/_C 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me--could you clarify?-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"but considering the change in Califia-Rice's position it's not appropriate to use him to support the statement in the lead."

This does not revoke the observation in the lead, nor the fact that it was made by the author in question. It does not revoke the merit of any of his works, or the fact that they were written. Lambton ^T/_C 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would prefer to include the cites with information regarding Califia-Rice's retraction, in the lead?-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, none at all. No extra quotes are required because the quote in the header is not in any way a statement of opinion. Even if it were, a second quote would only be required if the retraction was on the same issue and the text could be read as suggesting that the cited text was the author's current position on the matter. Lambton ^T/_C 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I misinterpreted the quote on the talk page as being lifted from Califia's literature. But the point still stands. I would support removing the reference to Califia's support for removing AoC laws, unless it is described as a "some have argued for" as opposed to a "some call for". The bit regarding young people matches well with an author who appears to have recently drawn the line at prepubescence. Lambton ^T/_C 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty semantic. How is it not "the same issue"? Also, the statement in the lead is the weasel-worded "some say" --and then 2 of the 3 citations are to Califia-Rice. Clarifying Califia-Rice's current position on prepubescent children isn't just essential if he is to be used, it's a BLP issue. I don't mind if Califia-Rice is used with the retraction, but I do think it would be clumsy in the lead, and other sources should be found.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As clarified in my edit, I would have the weasel word changed, or one of the refs removed. The observation in the second Califia-related ref is not at all effectively retracted by his change in opinion. Lambton ^T/_C 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"and some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12"--this is the statement in the lead for which two refs to Califia are used. Are you saying one of the refs should go, and one should stay without retraction, or are you referring to the third Califia ref, located much further down in the article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

Based on WP:BLP, all of the references to Califa-Rice should be removed from this article. Not only has he fully retracted his earlier positions, but in the recent article the interviewer states that due to pending legal matters, there are some issues that Califa-Rice cannot discuss. We can't use the writings of a living person to support a position that person has retracted, thereby making it appear that they still support those positions. It would be way too much detail and off-topic for this article to explore Califa-Rice's statements and later retractions, with the level of precision required by the BLP policy. Even if we decided that we would do that work, with perfect sourcing to meet the BLP requirements, then, it would have to go into the section on the decline of the movement, showing how even one of the most famous prior supporters now repudiates the main goals of the activists.

The referenced sentences can be left unchanged for now, since the first is probably accurate though it will need more sources, and the second has several other supporting references, so the Califa footnote is not needed there.

Here are the references that should be removed, based on reference numbers in the version of the article at time stamp 03:46, 20 April 2008:

• from this sentence in the lead: " some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12]"

11 -- ^ Anne-Marie Cusac. "Profile of a sex radical - lesbian, sadomasochist author Pat Califia", The Progressive, October 1996. "Califia's most controversial stance--her opposition to age-of-consent laws--has provoked heated debate. Her critics are dismayed by her belief that society should suspend rules that say minors do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. ... Califia believes young people can be sexually active without being exploited, and she says we need to stop regarding young people as 'the property of their parents.'"

12 -- ^ Pat Califia. "'Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights". Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia 1991. “The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims.”

• from the last sentence in the section "Re-categorization of data":

98 -- Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77 (HTML). The Culture of Radical Sex.

I request conensus on this so we can initiate an editprotected request. If we don't have agreement on this, then we should bring it up at WP:BLP/N for clarification. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should get an edit protected removal of the Califia-Rice refs asap for BLP reasons.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anne-Marie Cusac seems redundant, editorialising around the direct cite. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be as polite as I can, Jack, thanks for wasting ten minutes of my day. There was nothing new in the policy doc that supported the removal of sources used to support positions of no relevance to those retracted by the individual we are citing.

Again, the one source dealing explicitly with the AoC (12) should be ditched, or the body text should put it into a historical context. Lambton ^T/_C 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for incivility. Again, there are two links to Califia-Rice in the lead, specifically referencing the words "children" and "consent." There is a third, further down in the article, also referencing children and consent: "Re-categorization of data": Some pedophile activists attempt to refute scientific research that finds sexual contact between adults and children as predominantly harmful by stating that there is a variety of different categories for adult-child sex interactions that are commonly not acknowledged by mainstream scientific research. They claim that studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown that some types of contact are harmless, if only the studies had carefully categorized the contacts into more narrow categories, such as "consensual" contact versus "non-consensual" contact.[33][98][99][100][101][102][103]"

Since Califia-Rice has retracted his views on children and consent, it is a BLP issue to have these references in the article without notice of retraction. I think even you agree that explanation regarding retraction would be tmi in the lead--isn't that what you say above? We have agreement on that? So that leaves the third reference, in "recatergorization of data."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to User:Jovin Lambton 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC): "To be as polite as I can, Jack, thanks for wasting ten minutes of my day." - Lambton, I have no idea what you mean by that, so, I'll ignore it. I also don't understand why you object to removing footnotes referring to a statement by a living person who has retracted their statement. Califa-Rice has changed his position on the issue. That means that his prior statements no longer apply and cannot be used to support content in the article that Califa-Rice repudiates. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Califia retracted his position on NAMBLA and sex with prepubescent children (no AoC). Explain how this retracts anything but ref 12. Honestly, the best option would be to mention the retraction, as it appears that we can all support such a move. Lambton ^T/_C 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Here is the direct quote from Califa-Rice:

"I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed''

That's about as clear and unambiguous as can be. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that make me incorrect? I stated that he retracted his opinion that there should be no AoC. This revised opinion relates to prepubescent children, according to him. Lambton ^T/_C 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that that's what you meant by "(no AoC)". Aside from that though, none of the statements by Califa-Rice can be used. I'm not interested in a one-to-one debate with you about it; we'll find out soon enough how this is seen by others. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All three places where Califia-Rice is used refer to children. The word child or children is used. The two refs in the lead should obviously be deleted; and so should the third. A small section about Califia-Rice could be somewhere else in the article, clarifying past and present positions.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of this info from the article via the editprotect mechanism. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SqueakBox and Petra that the Califa-Rice info should be removed. I don't think a section should be added about the changes in his views though, because it's not important to the article topic and anything written here about him would need extensive vetting under the BLP policy, while adding no value to the article since he's retracted his activism support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of this info from the article via the editprotect mechanism. Thanks, SSBohio 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ssbohio, on what basis do you oppose? Do you not find it a BLP issue that someone who has retracted and repudiated their prior position on the matter publicly is being quoted inaccurately in the article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SSB's comment was a deliberately unthinking opposition, a la SB's unthinking support. It was intended to be and suceeded in being a bait for all those who are only willing to ask questions to those on the opposing isde of the debate. Lambton ^T/_C 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, if a glib statement of support is acceptable without substantiation or reasoning, then why should such be needed for a statement of opposition? Blind support and blind opposition are both anathema to consensus-building.

Also, I've checked into your allegations, and find no inaccuracy in the cited text. It is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate quote, not an inaccurate quote. What evidence do you present to backup your allegation of inaccuracy? --SSBohio 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Squeakbox of "blind" support with your own "blind" opposition is WP:POINTy. It's disruptive (and boring). The arguments for deleting the Califia-Rice references pertain to his published retraction of his views on children and consent, as is detailed above at length. There are no "quotes" of Califia-Rice in the article; the "accuracy" of quotes is not an issue... because there aren't any.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Let me take each of your assertions of fact in turn. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be supported by the facts in this matter.

• I haven't disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. I haven't disrupted Wikipedia at all. Your accusations of a WP:POINT violation don't match what WP:POINT actually says.
• There are no "quotes" of Califia-Rice in the article -- I note that you've put the term quotes itself in quotes, to cast further doubt on my assertion, yet you accepted without comment Jack's assertion that Califa is quoted in the article. The same standard should apply to all arguments, not selectively.
  • There aren't any [quotes] -- Only one refutation is needed to invalidate an absolute assertion such as yours. Here's a quote from Pat Califa that was lifted from the article and restated above: “The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims.”
• The "accuracy" of quotes is not an issue -- Yet, mere lines above, Jack says that Califa is being quoted inaccurately in the article. Jack raised it as an issue and you're asserting that it's not an issue, but only when I reply to it.

If you want to pick apart my responses but leave untouched the ones that agree with you, that's simply not a neutral or equitable approach to reaching consensus on the content of this article, especially when the factual disputes made are readily dispelled by evidence close at hand. --SSBohio 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was in fact WP:POINTy. I think i see where this is coming from: you were banned from harassing Squeakbox by Ryan Postlewaite in February.

• 1. No, I think it is you who accepted Jack's accidental use of the word "quote" without comment and then parroted it; I understood that he meant "referred to" because I've read and participated in the whole discussion. (And if you read the discussion, Jack and I do not agree with each other about whether Califia-Rice should be in the article, with past and present positions clarified. So he is hardly making arguments that agree with me that I leave untouched...) If you notice, Lambton also agrees that explaining the change in Califia-Rice's position in the lead would be too much information, and that the references there should be removed.
• 2. The quote from Califia-Rice regarding his third reference (the one not used in the lead) is not in the article per se, it's buried in the footnotes.
• 3. Further attempts to harass Squeakbox, be WP:POINYy , or instigate disruptive tedious meta-arguments- about- arguing based on your apparent grudge against Squeakbox will be ignored and/or mentioned to Ryan.
• 3. Regarding the actual content discussion: there are two places where references to Califia-Rice are used. The first is in the lead: "some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12]"" --Two of the three references backing this statement up are to Califia-Rice. Califia-Rice has since said in print that he used to support NAMBLA, but no longer does, because sex with prepubescent children is "developmentally inappropriate." The only way the statement could remain as-is in the lead with 2 of the 3 references being to Califia-Rice would be to modify by it by adding info about the change in Califia-Rice's position. It would then read something like, "Patrick Califia-Rice and some anonymous pedophiles interviewed by the New York Times have called for what they describe as "children's rights,' to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. However, Califia-Rice no longer supports the repeal of age of consent laws or NAMBLA, because they advocate sex with prepubescent children, and Califia-Rice believes that is 'developmentally inappropriate.'" I think it would be more neutral to find other references to support the lead statement, which do not necessitate additional information such as "completely retracted position later." (But I also think information regarding Califia-Rice past and present should be elsewhere in the article, just not in such a prominent position like the lead, which would give Califia-Rice's retraction undue weight.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You say: you were banned from harassing Squeakbox by Ryan Postlewaite in February -- Half the truth is hardly a fair statement of the situation. The ban was not a ban on harassing SqueakBox, but a ban on mentioning him. Postlethwaite threatened me in order to get me to shut up about SqueakBox's use of a fictitious right to vanish claim to erase the history of his userspace. Admins, as far as I can tell, have no power to unilaterally issue bans. Postlethwaite's purported ban lasted all of 24 hours, during which I deescalated the situation by not mentioning SqueakBox, though I had every right to.
• I think it is you who accepted Jack's accidental use of the word "quote" without comment -- What you responded to was my comment about Jack's statement. Jack complained that Califa was quoted inaccurately. I looked at the one quote in the article and determined it to be accurate. An accurate quote is never an inaccurate quote.
• You initially denied that the quote exists and now say that the quote isn't in the article because it's in the footnotes. The footnotes are part of the article, and no amount of hair-splitting can belie that.
• [A]ttempts to harass Squeakbox, be WP:POINYy , or instigate disruptive tedious meta-arguments- about- arguing based on your apparent grudge against Squeakbox will be ignored and/or mentioned to Ryan. -- That's a terribly incivil set of accusations to make. I haven't harassed SqueakBox, I haven't disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, and I bear no grudge against SqueakBox. In fact, several times, we've previously been on the same side of these issues. You operate from what I perceive as a lack of understanding of my history with him and a lack of good faith in what I'm doing here. However, feel free to invite Ryan.
• The lead: I don't think that Califa's change of heart would make such a wordy construction necessary, to wit: "Califa, who has since changed his views, supported yada-yada-yada."
• The lead, itself, is quite hefty as is, and should be pared down. Such details belong in the article, but not in the lead. Give a lead of 2-3 (or so) sentences, followed up by an introductory section that can go into more detail.
• Issues like this one sometimes stem from attempts to pack as much into the lead as possible. Each faction tries to add details that bolster its contentions, leading to a back-and-forth pattern of bloating the lead. Even a dictionary definition would be better than what we have now. --SSBohio 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ssbohio, if you are still incapable of telling even remotely the truth re me I suggest you continue not to mention me, your attacks are offensive and out of order. Unlike you I do not try to out the identity of other users and I am baffled as to why you are still allowed to edit at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Squeak, I'm capable of telling the truth about you; In fact, I've told the truth about you. Your not wanting the truth to be known doesn't change its being true.
• I have made no attacks on you, though I have criticized your editing on this topic. The two aren't the same thing.
• I have never tried to "out" another editor's identity. To make such an unsupported accusation is preposterous and offensive. Even the information you've shared willingly with me I've kept private.
• I am still allowed to edit because I haven't done anything to cause my editing priveleges to be even temporarily rescinded. You imply with your statement that I have, but you make no specific complaint, nor do you provide any facts. On the other hand, you yourself have been blocked more than once. Pot and kettle, sir.
• If you continue making reckless unsupported allegations in this vein, we can go to dispute resolution. Conceivably, we could both be part of your second ArbCom proceeding. --SSBohio 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggerence: simply make an editprotected to add the retractions. If his former assertions are notable for the subject and published on reliable sources, then deleting them would be a breach of WP:NPOV, *and* would be also a violation of WP:BLP, as these articles "must adhere strictly" to WP:NPOV --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree fully with the strict application of BLP to this situation, I like the idea of simply noting the retraction and moving on. What we have to consider is that when Califa reconsidered his opinion, his mind changed from that point forward. It's not the same as his never having held the previous view. He cannot unsay what he's already said. --SSBohio 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Califia-Rice isn't quoted--the references to PCR are just tacked on among others to back up a general assertion that is not a quote. It would really be cumbersome in the lead to publish any retraction, however brief, indicating that some of the references tacked on to support the statement have changed their mind, but not others. Why not just use references that don't require a statement to be partially nullified by a retraction, and put PCR somewhere else less prominent. I noted a reference below that might work for the lead statement better than Califia-Rice or Eichenwald's NYT article, and I expect there are others. Those three weren't very strong/a good match to begin with. (A general problem in this article seems to be "footnote-festooning" that doesn't really add up when the references are checked.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

International Boy Love Day

I can't find a single RS that confirms this exists. While a pro-pedo blog might be a reliable source about what pedophiles think of "IBLD," whether or not it exists should have at least one RS? A single news cite saying that ten people somewhere celebrated it at least once?-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be by David Riegel, who is pretty well regarded by boylovers. I found a few articles on google, but see no problem in the self-apparent nature of these aditional celebration and protest sites:

http://www.daretospeak.net/ibld/

http://www.thecpac.com/protest/1.htm

http://www.radicalilecce.it/?q=node/576

Media refs:

"'BoyLove' Day raises concerns about pedophilia," St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri), by Carolyn Tuft, December 20, 1999; "International BoyLove Day," 550 KTRS-AM Paul Harris Talk Radio (St. Louis, Missouri) December 20, 1999 Lambton ^T/_C 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. I agree the St.Louis Post-Dispatch is defintely RS.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

P.I.E.

One of the founding members-->multiple criminal convictions. [3]-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another P.I.E. member: [4]. Tom Carroll is already in the article, so that's three--enough for a subsection under activists with criminal convictions, or inclusion in the PIE section in "Decline of ..."? (According to Frits Bernard, the group had 96 members at its height.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this reference in the bit about O'Carroll in the article--Sex abuse - Inquisition 21st century - Resisting the absolutism of our times--does not support the statement "Whilst he admits to the illegal activity itself, O'Carroll defends his actions on an ethical basis.[148]" The reference doesn't contain that quote, and it isn't RS--it's a long, poorly written sort of persecution fantasy editorial on a blog by someone else.

Here are two additonal references re O'Carroll : 1 [5] 2 [6] --the first is more informative than than the one currently in the article, and the second provides information about O'Carrol's previous arrest for taking full frontal nude shots of prepubescent children in Qatar and smuggling them into the UK. It should also be noted that he was a member of ICPE after PIE folded.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with the pro-pedophile movement itself? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already a subsection:

• 8 Controversy and public reaction to the movement
• 8.1 Criticism of the movement
• 8.2 Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse
• 8.2.1 Child abuse cases in relation to members of NAMBLA
• 8.2.2 Criminal cases in relation to other pedophile activists

One P.I.E. member, O' Carroll, is located now in 8.2.2. Since there are three P.I.E. members with criminal convictions, P.I.E. could be 8.2.3, or additional PIE info could go in 8.2.2 with the other PIE member.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to tell the truth, I've thought for some time that the list of criminal cases included within the article is a bit iffy, in the sense that it doesn't quite belong there. Although there may be several cases that are directly related to PPA, most of these are not that relevant. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All the cases involve pro-pedophile activists; it's at the very bottom of the article, and it's some of the only critical information included.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While these individuals may have been members of certain PPA groups, what is the link to the movement at large? These individuals committed crimes, and thus were persecuted for it. Unless there is a direct link to the pro-pedophile movement, there is no reason to list these cases here. Otherwise, sex offenders would be listed in a variety of different articles, seeing as sex offenders come from a variety of paths in life and belong to great many different organizations. Thus, the several cases that include direct links to PPA groups should stay, while the other references should be removed, since they don't really belong in this article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

? All these cases "include direct links to PPA groups"--they are members of the groups/activists. They fit under "skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse."-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no one is denying that these were members of various PPA groups. However, what does membership have to do with the fact that they committed the listed sex crimes? To be more specific, while it may make sense to include Charles Jaynes case, seeing as a wrongful death suit was filed against NAMBLA, mentioning that Rev. Paul Shanley "allegedly participated in early movement workshops and advocacy" (italics added for emphasis) really doesn't add anything to the article. As stated above, if Wikipedia is to list what members of what groups committed sex crimes, there would be too much useless and red herring information in a bunch of different articles. The only cases that there may be a reason to keep in this section are the following: Charles Jaynes, Johnathan Tampico, and Ad van den Berg. The others are too minor, do not have a direct link to the movement at large, and/or do not really add anything significant to the article. For instance, Edward Brongersma is said to have had "sexual contacts with a male of around 17 years old" - it would be difficult to make a strong case for keeping this information in the article, considering that the age of consent has since been lowered to 12 in the Netherlands, and sexual attraction to or relations with a 17 year old does not fit under the definition of pedophilia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Chris Langham and Charles Rust-Tierney articles go into great detail about their arrests for child porn--so if it's notable that a public figure who is not a pro-pedophile activist has been arrested for a sex crime, it is certainly not irrelevant or unnotable if a pro-pedophile activist is arrested.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo. There's no reason to turn this article into a smear campaign. The only convictions that should count are those related to activism, such as Thomas O'C. 86.27.72.85 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They're all related to activism--the arrests are of activists, not random members of Boychat. In the pathetically small criticism section, the countercriticism that citing the arrests is a "smear" is already there (without any citation, in fact). And it is in fact true that the mainstream remains very skeptical that PPAs do not break the law, even though they claim they don't, and does cite arrests of PPAs for sexual assault as evidence that the skepticism is sensible.

"Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse

Many child abuse prevention advocates, law enforcement officials, and journalists note that various child molestation convicts were also members of the movement. Those involved with the movement have responded by claiming that this was either not true, the acts were victimless "crimes" (before intervention), or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse by giving them a more positive identity than society does.[127][128][129] Some claim that dwelling on these arrests attempts to smear the movement through guilt-by-association. Nonetheless, mainstream observers remain skeptical that ardent advocates of adult-child romance and sex stay within the law – citing these arrests as evidence.[130]"-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if we have a source that somebody is a PPA and then have a source that they have been convicted of pedophile related crimes (and only pedophile related crimes) that this is highly relevant and should certainly be included. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if the crime is related to activism, or some commentator decided to embark on some Reismanesque smear of the advocate in question. This article is not here to bring attention to little mentioned or previously unheard of facts whose relevance was conceived by an unknown wiki editor. Lambton ^T/_C 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All the references are from mainstream news-- UK Guardian/BBC--and each reference notes the arrest and the activist's relationship to pro-ped activist org within the text of the same news report.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The questions I see arising from the inclusion of this material are:

• Were these only arrests, or have there been trials, convictions, sentences, and appeals?
• If so, then how does the presumption of innocence influence whether and how the arrests should be mentioned?
• Does the source cited establish that the arrest was related to the activist's role in the organization?
• What reference should be made to the members of the organization who have not been convicted of a child sex offense?
• Does only mentioning the criminal members of the organization affect the neutrality of the organization's portrayal?

Before we start using individuals' legal entanglements to paint a picture of the organization, we need to establish that the individuals were convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested, and that their criminal activities are somehow representative of the organization. Has anyone established what proportion of these organizations' members are child sex offenders? Inclusion of individuals' crimes may be probative, or it may be inflammatory. Only the facts will tell. --SSBohio 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• They were all convicted, which you could have determined by reading the cited sources.
• The cited sources link the crimes and the organizations, as is stated above.
• The crimes are not used to "paint a picture" of organizations, they are in the criticism section at the very bottom of the article, where they support the skepticism from the mainstream that pro-ped activists do not break the law, even though they say they don't, as the criminal convictions are evidence that the skepticism is sensible.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you mean convictions or crimes, then speak of them. Speaking of arrests makes me think that you meant arrests. I never thought to check the sources, since you stated that "each reference notes the arrest and the activist's relationship to pro-ped activist org." I took that at face value.
• Does the source cited establish that the arrest was related to the activist's role in the organization? By your statement, the sources say that person X was convicted of crime Y and that he is a member of organization Z. In itself that doesn't link the crime to the organization, other than by association.
  • The Guardian story doesn't make this link
  • The Independent story is about an espionage conviction, not a sex crime. Membership in PIE was ostensibly unrelated to his crime.
• You state that "the crimes are not used to 'paint a picture' of organizations" --
  • Each offender but one is linked in the article to an organization, many to NAMBLA, whether or not the organization had any criminal complicity.
  • The one not so linked, Edward Brongersma, wasn't even convicted of any pedophilic offenses, but of having consensusal sex with his 17-year-old boyfriend.
  • Another had sex with someone "underaged," which doesn't tell us whether the sex was pedophilic or not, much less whether the organization or movement was a cause.
  • Only two of the descriptions contain any allegation that the organization was involved in any illegal activities. The rest rely on association, rather than causation.
• The scpticism my be sensible, or it may not be. We're not providing enough information to say. We need to ask:
  • Are the crimes pedophilic sexual abuse, and are they related to these organizations, to being a part of "the movement," or to neither?
  • How do the crime rates for members of "the movement" compare to the general public? What proportion of these organizations' members are law-abiding?

I'd like to know that there's a strong enough link between these anecdotal examples and this topic to include them. --SSBohio 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guardian article

The Guardian story doesn't make this link--where in the Guardian article is the link not made between David Joy, sex offenses, and P.I.E?:

"A paedophile who campaigned for the age of consent to be lowered was today jailed after a collection of hardcore child pornography was found at his home. David Arthur Joy, 66, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an international organisation which believed that children were sexual beings in their own right.

The former teacher had pleaded guilty at Leicester crown court to 11 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children in April this year. Today he was handed an indeterminate prison sentence and told he must serve a minimum of 18 months before he can be considered for parole. But the judge, Michael Pert QC, said that given Joy's beliefs, that day "may never come". He added: "It's clear that you hold firmly to a set of beliefs involving sexual activity with adults and children."Those beliefs are wholly in variance to the views held by most members of society, views that most of society would find abhorrent." The PIE made national newspaper headlines in the early 1980s when members faced charges of publishing and sending obscene articles through the post. The practice caused widespread concern and MPs lobbied the then home secretary, Leon Brittan, to ban the group. Police eventually unearthed some 1,129 indecent images involving children as young as one held in files by Joy's bed, between the pages of books and on two home computers. Several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism...Joy, a member of PIE's governing committee, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to four counts of making indecent images between January 1 2000 and January 24 2006, and to seven counts of possession. The court was told he had a string of previous convictions for child sex offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, including the attempted rape of a young girl and indecent assault."-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, "By your statement, the sources say that person X was convicted of crime Y and that he is a member of organization Z. In itself that doesn't link the crime to the organization, other than by association." The argument is that because Y & Z are both true, they must be related. This argument relies upon a logical fallacy. The newspaper article you cited does not link the sex offenses to his membership in the organization, except that he was related to both. --SSBohio 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Joy case is clearly relevant and should be included, not because he is a sex offendor (which does not give notability) but because he campaigned as a PPA and was then convicted for sexual offences against minors. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder abouty the extremely interestin comments the Judger made. Having given him an indeterminate sentence with a very low minimum he then basically said joy's PPA beliefs might mean him spending a far larger period of time in prison. I think we should add this Judge's comments to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How was his political activity as a PPA connected to his criminal activity as a child molester? drink Pepsi; I get cavities; That doesn't establish Pepsi's relation to my cavities. We can say that he's a member of P; We can say that he committed crime Q; What we don't have evidence of is that P & Q are linked.

As an aside, if we can't imprison someone for holding or expressing pro-pedophile views, can we extend their existing imprisonment because they hold or express those views? --SSBohio 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in the case of P.I.E., the criminal convictions should not be in the "criticism ghetto" at the bottom of the article, but should be addressed in the section of the article which talks about PIE in general, and features the PIE sticker. The UK police--the Scotland Yard Pedophile Unit--did target PIE. They investigated them because they believed that people who thought they had the right to have sex with chidren were likely to commit sex crimes against children. This is evidence that the mainstream believed the "political views" of PPAs are evidence enough to suspect them of criminality related to their views; just as police investigate groups who talk about how great the anarchists' cookbook is. Some "protected speech" is evidence enough for a search warrant. If you notice at the bottom of the Guardian piece, someone says, "now all the leaders of PIE are serving prison sentences"--police investigation of PIE, the demise of PIE, and the criminal convictions of PIE members/leaders are related. Also, Squeakbox is right that the judge's comments should be included--right now in the article we have the statement that PPA is "socially unacceptable." What the judge says is it is "abhorrent to most people," which is more accurate. (It's a huge omission and not NPOV to fail to state this somewhere in the article.) If someone wants to find crticism of Scotland Yard investigating PIE, "targeted unfairly for their politcal views" that could be included if its sourced. (I have a feeling the only source will be a PPA website; no one else has taken up the cause of PIE. It's not as though PIE was secretly investigated cointelpro style; without warrants, a subversive group targeted for their views without evidence of criminal intent. The police had warrants. PIE's views were sufficient evidence of criminal intent. A judge kept Joy in jail because he deemed that Joy's views were evidence of his likelihood to reoffend.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid tarring PPAs with the criminal brush when the evidence hasn't been put forth.

• Are the crimes and the activism connected? So far, no cited source states such a connection.
• What proportion of PPAs commit criminal acts against children? No cited source tells us.
• What proportion of non-PPAs commit criminal acts against children? No cited source tells us, but the statistics should be available from the BJS.

My personal bottom line is that this article should focus on the activism and not go into detail on subtopics, like individual activists' criminal records. Discussing PIE, for example, should include reference to the successful police effort to investigate and prosecute their leadership, but that doesn't make it necessary to detail individual cases, except where they are directly connected to activism. --SSBohio 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post a very similar argument to Ssbohio. I am very concerned that we might be engaging in synthesis by reporting on convictions of PP activists for anything vaguely related (child porn, child abuse, etc). I was prepared to get a very hard time for saying this from various editors here. What I see in the Guardian article is that the writer not only makes the connection, but attributes that link to the judge. That's just my opinion, of course, and perhaps I'm still in for a hard time, but that's how I see it. I'm not in favour of carte blanche for reporting "related" convictions of activists. I think we need to be very careful indeed, on a case-by-case basis, to verify that the source makes a connection to PP activism. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent article

The Independent story is about an espionage conviction, not a sex crime. Membership in PIE was ostensibly unrelated to his crime--? The article states: "Mr Prime, 62, became one of Moscow's key agents over a period of 14 years. When he was finally jailed for his activities that threatened Nato plans for defending Western Europe, he was also convicted of indecently assaulting three girls aged 11 to 14... ...His secret life also continued through his activities as a paedophile. He was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange and had a card index of more than 2,000 girls he targeted by telephone."-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Accept my apology; In my reading the article, I missed the paragraph that talked about his conviction for indecent assault. As far as showing a link, there's as strong a link from his PIE membership to his espionage as there is to his age-of-consent offenses.

It's analogous to a NORML activist being arrested for posession of marijuana. His organization advocates changing the law, not breaking it; The link between the organization and the crime is only made by inference. I think that NAMBLA membership is related to a member's sex crime against a child, but I don't know it to be so. As an aside, since he was involved in both espionage and pederasty, did he go to an English public school like Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt? --SSBohio 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In both news reports, the source makes the association. "Association is not causation" is a semantic OR argument--you would need a source which voices this as countercriticism.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither source (to my understanding) connects the crime to the organization or to the larger movement. The sources have only stated factually that the person they're writing about is both a convicted sex offender and a member of PIE. To use two sourced facts as support for a third fact that doesn't appear is potentially a form of original research called synthesis. It's not up to me to find a source that denies the connection; It's up to the editor making the claim of connection to source it. A newspaper reporting that "John was convicted of drunken driving; John was part of the Campaign for Real Ale" does not establish that the Campaign had any connection to his drunk driving. --SSBohio 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong (and tendentious): the source makes the connection. If we had one article saying that Joy was arrested, and another saying he was a founding member of PIE, that might be a synthesis. But we have one source making the connection. (Moreover, as stated above, criminal investigations of PPAs were conducted legitimately, with warrants obtained on suspicion of probable cause--> suspicion of sex crimes against children on the basis of PPA published views. In the case of NAMBLA, they were infiltrated by FBI agents.) I think one of the things lacking in the article is information regarding law enforcement responses to PPA orgs, as that has played a significant role in their demise. (Whether one is for it or against it, law enforcement has been significant to PPA history.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong (and tendentious): The source says no such thing. If you believe it does, then point me to a quote. If you want to use the probable cause for the warrants to bolster your position, then provide a citation for that. Either the link is in the article or it isn't. Arguing around the point without presenting your evidence and bandying about unsupported accusations against me is not the same thing as supporting your assertion. --SSBohio 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

? The police can't get warrants or conduct undercover surveillance without probable cause. What probable cause did the police have to put PIE and NAMBLA under long term surveillance and infiltrate the groups with agents? Are you saying there was an alternate probable cause to assign agents to infiltrate the groups? Such as...?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I said: "If you want to use the probable cause for the warrants to bolster your position, then provide a citation for that." You're making a claim about the probable cause for the warrants without backing it up with anything. If you intend to rely on it, then you should support it. I said nothing about the police not having probable cause or about alternate probable cause, whatever that is. I'm saying that if you want to cite the probable cause to support your claim about these organizations then back it up with something. And, as I said, the source you've cited doesn't support your contention about the connection between the activism and the crimes, rather than the activists. Can you show me where it does, as I asked above? --SSBohio 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No link has been established between the movement and the criminal behavior of a number of its adherents. Presumably, the vast majority of child sexual abusers (to whom no activist status is ascribed) aren't part of the movement, so it's not a case of res ipsa loquitur. --SSBohio 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a case of Loki's wager--where does the "activist" end and the "activism" begin? Since the organizations consist only of people--the activists--it's a pretty semantic distinction to separate activists from organizations consisting only of people who are activists. When is the person's activity relevant to their activism? I think Squeakbox made a sensible point when he said the crimes were only relevant if they were sex crimes against children, because the activism concerns sex crimes against children. We would not consider arrests for drunk driving, drug trafficking, theft etc. relevant. All of the crimes included in the article are reported in reliable sources who make the connection crime-activist-organization; there's no synthesis. Geoffrey Prime and Tom O'Carroll have their own articles--these were notable arrests of notable people. The NAMBLA sting and David Joy were major press stories. In addition, the NAMBLA sting and the David Joy case directly address the link between PPA and sex crimes against children in interesting ways that should be described in the article in the appropriate sections. (FBI infiltration + first amendent; indeterminate sentence for activist based on activist's views, etc.) I do agree that Edward Brongersma doesn't belong, though, as he was a victim of a homophobic discriminatory age of consent law which did not apply to heterosexuals.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Righton

"Police also discovered that Righton was a founder member of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, which campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to four. In 1992, Righton was convicted of importing child pornography from Holland." [7]-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Was his criminal activity something directly connected to the P.I.E. or its activism? Did the P.I.E. advocate legalizing child pornography and its import? If so, was Righton's action directly tied to that activism? --SSBohio 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King

"A predatory paedophile who established himself as an "expert" adviser to the police and courts on sex crimes was jailed yesterday for seven years for systematically abusing three girls.

King, of Herne Hill, south London, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. He plied the children with alcohol before abusing them, the court heard. One of the victims had learning difficulties and all three had been severely traumatised by the assaults. One had attempted suicide."[8]-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Was his criminal activity something directly connected to the P.I.E. or its activism? Did the P.I.E. advocate legalizing plying children with alcohol to make adult-child sex more likely? If so, was King's action directly tied to that activism? --SSBohio 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Geoffrey Prime and Tom O'Carroll, Mr. King has a Wiki article--perhaps you want to suggest that his activism and his conviction for a sex crime against children shouldn't be mentioned in it because it wrongfully besmirches the reputation of the activist organization? Meanwhile, it is public perception and law enforcement perception that advocating for a criminal act--sex with children--is a good indicator that someone intends to do so/that pedophile activist organizations are suspected fronts for criminal activity, such as trading child porn and arranging sex tourist trips. The fact that they deny this, or issue disclaimers, is what they are expected to do, not proof that they aren't fronts for criminal activity. We would not, for example, exclude news reports about John Gotti's racketeering conviction from the mafia article on the grounds that the mafia has issued statements affirming that the Ravenite Social Club is just a hang-out where guys drink espresso and play cards, and that given this disparity between what the mafia says the purpose of their social club is and what members of it have been arrested for, we would be "tarring" the whole mafia by reporting criminal convictions of its members.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

=NAMBLA sting

This article from the Chicago Trib is interesting, because it mentions that a NAMBLA member raised a first amendment defense to undercover infiltration, but a judge refused to dismiss on those grounds:

"Mayer had pleaded guilty to the sex offense on the condition he be allowed to appeal the judge's refusal to dismiss the charge on 1st Amendment grounds.

The defense alleged the government had over-reached after an undercover FBI agent infiltrated the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, secretly tape-recording discussions at annual conventions in 2003 and 2004."

It also raises interesting questions about whether PPAs themselves believe their groups are "political":

"Within half an hour of meeting the FBI agent at the 2004 convention, Mayer expressed frustration at the group's political agenda, authorities said. The organization, formed in 1978, is dedicated to eliminating age-of-consent laws

"I don't know who's lying to who or if ... they're lying to themselves and saying, 'This is all political. This is all to change society,'" Mayer said of conference organizers in the tape-recorded conversation. "[Expletive], it's like, bring on the boys."[9] -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Ganymede Collective members and sexual assault against children

The Montreal Ganymede Collective, described in the article under "recent developments," includes two pedophiles arrested for sexual assault:

Ian Hodgson

"In 1990, Hodgson was convicted of gross indecency and sexual assault against boys as young as 11. Nevertheless, the 63-year-old has been an active member of the city's pedophile community, particularly as a founding member of the Ganymede Collective." (Quote is from ref that is already cited in the article: ^ Patriquin, Martin (May 28, 2007), "A paradise for pedophiles: Montreal, it seems, is the place to be if you're attracted to children")

John Melanson:

"In 2000, while he was a member of the Montreal Ganymede Collective, described as a group of 50 to 60 pedophiles based in this city, Melanson sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy from a western Montreal suburb." [10] -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Put them in when you can. They should only be described in the context of their relevance to the media, though, and this is something that I will be watching carefully. Lambton ^T/_C 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

balancing re Boychat/internet

There is currently nothing critical re Boychat in the article--the "recent deveopments" section presents Boychat in a very pov-unbalanced way. I suggest inclusion of this study:

A 2004 analysis of Boychat communications found that cognitive distortion was present in 27% of posts, and concluded that participation in pro-pedophile internet forums presents a relapse risk for pedophiles in sex offender treatment. In addition, the authors stated that forum participiation may also indicate that a pedophile convicted of internet-only sex offenses has committed undetected sex offenses:

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

"Supportive distortions: an analysis of posts on a pedophile Internet message board" L. Alvin Malesky and Liam Ennis, Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling April 2004 Volume 24-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the passage is to be included, it would have to be summarized, as it it too long as is, and lengthy quotes are generally not the most effective way of relaying information. However, adding this text to the article may prove inappropriate altogether, because these are all conjectures, with no actual solid scientific or other results derived. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with psychological analysis of pedophiles, this is probably not the appropriate forum to discuss it. John Nevard (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What counts is that if it is included it is done sow ith reliable sources. i see no notability issues in terms of including this material, and I dont think there are any real length issues other than for reader readability. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How on earth does this study balance things? It not only tips the scales in one direction, but crushes them under the sheer weight of its bulky, ungainly nonrelatedness to anything this article is about.

This isn't "Give any quack who can puiblish a paper a shot at today's folk devil". We operate to much higher standards. Lambton ^T/_C 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, which of the authors and publishers of that information do you consider to be quacks?

• Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling is published by the International Association of Addictions and Offender Counselors (IAAOC), a member association of the American Counseling Association.
• Dr. L. Alvin Malesky - Department of Psychology - WCI campus of the University of North Carolina - specialities in Forensic and Counseling Psychology; Internet sexual predators; attachment style and abuse history; the insanity defense;
• Dr. Liam Ennis - Faculty in Psychiatry - specialities in Etiology of sexually abusive behaviour; Internet sex crimes; Risk for violent and sexual re-offending

I concur with SqueakBox and Petra that the above content is appropriate for inclusion, per WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jack. The above is appropriate for an article on pedophilia, as it represents an analysis of pedophilia. Just a moment ago, you and other users were arguing that members of a forum did not represent even supporters of a movement. Now you argue that an analysis of members of a forum can be used to represent the movement itself. Lambton ^T/_C 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But the article already has almost a paragraph about the pro-ped internet sites, including Boychat...what it doesn't have is any criticism or balance at all. Are you saying you think all of the information about the pro-ped internet sites should be removed from the article on the grounds that they are not activism? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's already in the article or not. Material is judged on its merits, not its status.

Regardless, the presence of Boychat and the presence of some fringe activist elements and organisation can be described as activism, but an article that is critical of almost anything said on the forum is not only irrelevant and bulky, but curiously biased in that almost everything in this article would have to be criticised if such a standard were to be adopted throughout. Remember, the main body is a descriptive element of the article. Only major controversy should be involved in it. Obscure criticism should be included in the latter portion of the article, where it can be found by those wanting to view it. Such commentary should not impede and dilute the rest of the article. Lambton ^T/_C 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem confused on NPOV and how it applies to articles about fringe views: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." This article is not a place for PPAs to "tell their story" without any reference to the majority viewpoint or criticism. If Boychat is included as "recent developments" in pro-pedophile activism, criticism regarding whether or not it is activism of any kind is more than relevant; it is necessary. And any "description" of pro-pedophile activism necessarily includes criticism and the majority viewpoint, which should be included throughout the article. The article is about pro-pedophile activism, not "positive views of pro-pedophile activism from the perspective of pro-pedophile activists."-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a Straw Man. Lambton ^T/_C 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Smell the biomass. Lambton ^T/_C 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic priests and pedophile activism

"Concerning the recent sex scandals involving Catholic priests in the US, some pedophile activists say that these scandals only or prominently involved minor partners that during the times of sexual interactions were adolescent and thus, these scandals have nothing to do with pedophile activism.[131][132][133]"--this makes no sense, and is not supported by the references. Nowhere in the article--let alone the criticism section--is it asserted that catholic priests have anything to do with pro-pedophile activism; and nowhere in the references does anyone say "this has nothing to do with pro-pedophile activism." This is completeley gratuitous.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is rubbish. It should be deleted. Lambton ^T/_C 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The sentence above, in the subsection of the article "Skepticism that the movement doesn't support child abuse," is gratuitous, makes no sense, and is not supported by references.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Removed Happy‑melon 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad refs in criticism section

"Many child abuse prevention advocates, law enforcement officials, and journalists note that various child molestation convicts were also members of the movement. Those involved with the movement have responded by claiming that this was either not true, the acts were victimless "crimes" (before intervention), or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse by giving them a more positive identity than society does.[127][128][129]"

Not one of the three references supporting the second statement even mentions arrests of pro-pedophile activists:

1. Long, delusional poorly written editorial which doesn't once mention arrests of pro-pedophile activists for sex offenses:

^ Uittenbogaard, Marthijn (April 2005). "Possible causes of the pedophile witch hunt". OK 91.

2, Editorial about pedophilia in general, which does not address arrests of activists at all:

^ Sandfort, Theo. Constructive Questions Regarding Paedophilia

3. Pro-pedo editorial about sex offender treatment, says nothing about arrests of activists:

^ Frans Gieles (2001). "Helping people with pedophilic feelings". 15th World Congress of Sexology, Paris, June 2001 & the congress of the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology, Visby, Sweden, September 2001. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Reisman. She has a thrilling tendency to poison the well. Lambton ^T/_C 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad refs need removing, we should only have reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rabat is the capital of Morocco. [waves arms like an excited child] Lambton ^T/_C 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the refs are bad because they do not support the statement--they mention absolutely zip about arrests of pro-ped activists for sex offenses.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tremblay quote in Montreal Gazette

I think this quote should be worked into the Internet section, or used as a reference, as it clarifies the mainstream view of the difference between "activism" (trying to change the outside world) and "community" (hanging out in and trying to expand one's own subworld by preaching to the converted). It has still not been made clear in the article what the difference is between PPAs and peds who merely participate in or run internet sites, etc. (Although we have some text that implies that these internet sites are activism, and gives the pro-ped explanation of what they are.)

"Some groups want to attract outsiders, convince outsiders of their positions. Other groups, the more deviant groups (like Free Spirits), want to convince latent members of their group to join in." -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The quote is on p3 of this article: [11]. Note also that Tremblay is heavily referenced in the "recent developments" section, but nothing critical he says has been conveyed yet.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frits Bernard in 2005 on age of consent

"Should the age of consent for sexual acts be zero?

'No, but twelve years old should be an option. " [12]

Does this represent a change in his position?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether he ever went with another position on under 12s. This would need some researching. Lambton ^T/_C 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that Frits Bernard was always considered very liberal on this question. Maybe in "sexual acts" he interprets "penetrative sex", or maybe it was a translation error. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation error sounds highly unlikely as Dutch and English are very similar. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I know that many of the most liberal people in this movement are just pro-touch with pre-pubescent youngsters. I couldn't imagine Bernard being in any way anti-touch. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words in "scientific claims" section

Not once are any of the activists mentioned by name...who are the "some" of "some say..."?-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of the movement have referred

Activists argue

Activists question

Pro-pedophile activists claim

Some activists again cite

Some cite

Some also cite

Some pedophile activists attempt

Some activists claim

Some also claim

This is indeed true. Still, over the last couple of years, I have seen all of these positions taken up by those on-line identities who the creators of this article are most likely referring to when they use the (rather misleading) term "pro pedophile activist". Maybe we should just outline research citations that are "commonly used by the movement". If this is not good enough without sourcing, I will be able to produce some personal links to websites that have used papers to reinforce positions taken against anti-pedophile or ageist / protectionist assumptions about sex and children. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to give us a lot of fringe beliefs whereas what this article needs is mainstream beliefs, not those of a political fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the movement. Derision has a place, but this article is actually about the political fringe. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some really good examples of the movement using papers come from sites like IPCE, anu.nfshost.com, glgarden, newgon.com etc. I can provide links from these sites if required. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Lièvre is involved in the operation of at least two of these sites. Tiny fringe movement of a few incestuous groups, anyone? John Nevard (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the article is about the movement, but as when we deal with any fringe movement we have to distinguish between describing the movement in a neutral way using only mainstream sources and trying to promote the beliefs espoused by the movement using marginal, fringe sources. We don't allow LaRouche's beliefs to define the LaRouche articles etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox is right. Also, each instance needs to be attributed to an "activist," or else it's original research. If the only attribution possible is a pro-ped website in general, who are the "activists" who run these websites? (My concern is that "some activists claim..." implies that there are a lot of them, or that they are publishing in reliable sources. If there are two or three, and they are running no RS websites, that needs to be made clear.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article does not advocate the movement, it describes. Fringe sources can be used to verify stuff about those sources. That is what the article does.

Am I too presumptuous in assuming that you may have gotten so used to the vitriolic tabloid editorials, that anything factual and non-aggressive is seen as an apologia? Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm: Online and RL organisations such as IPCE are well known, mentioned by the media and do not need to attributed to anyone. Other websites using the papers to their advantage do not need to be reliable sources in the "institutional" sense. We can allow sites to speak as an authority on themselves. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the scientific claims section needs to be attributed to "a pro-ped website," and each claim needs to be attributed directly the website, so that we can see it's one or two like IPCE and mhamic. Right now the scientific claims section is a compilation of original research, attributed to no one.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The websites that I listed are very good as a starting point for this sourcing. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, Ipce have most of this stuff on their website anyway. I think that a link to the IPCE copy is good enough. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I know you are a brand new user without about 10 edits to your name so please do not presume that you know what our policies are, that is simply impossible. please trust that I do know what I am talking about in terms of policy and start familiarising yourself with how things work here, perhaps consider staying away from this controversial subject until you are are more of a regular user. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, each claim has to be specifically sourced, and if the only source is a pro-ped website with unknown authorship, that needs to noted. (And is perhaps not RS even to verify what a fringe group thinks of itself.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I am editing is to keep this, and maybe a few other articles free from bias. I read the policy years before I created this account. What exactly do you object to in my suggestions? I am positive that it all conforms to policy. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your positiveness is what concerns me when you seem to be promoting a fringe viwe and justifying it with a completely mistaken idea of policy. if you read policy years ago that isn't much use, if you re-read it just now that is better but certainly does not give me any confidence that you understand policy in a way a regular user does. The evidence in your comments speaks for itself in terms of you not having a good grasp of our policies and this may not be the first article to throw yourself into int he way you are given this. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for example, a website with no known author is not a reliable source about what anyone thinks, not even someone with fringe views. We do not know that whomever authors it is a pro-pedophile activist.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
  2. it is not contentious;
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I would not describe most of these sources as questionable. Whilst extreme, they are reliable authorities on themselves. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they fail on "contentious, unduly self-serving, no reasonable doubt as to who authored it" and in the scientific claims section, "not based primarily on such sources."-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They also fail by being unduly self serving. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The rejection of any pro-pedophile source on such a charge is outright ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that all pro-pedophile sources can only function to serve their own ends, instead of - for example simply informing others of what they are about? This is an article about PP activism, and accusations of self-serving sources depend on whether the source is relevant to the corresponding text in the article.

Petra, I am not denying that some of the sources fall short of those guidelines, if considered questionable in the first place. However, there is nothing to suggest that all extremist sources are considered "questionable", have a poor reputation for fact checking, only that extremist sources are often questionable.

As with all of these disputes, organisations, even without author attribution (often rare for any such sources) will stand as authorities on themselves, as pointed out by the guidelines:

"Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience) should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to summarize the views of the proponents of that subject".

It should also be noted that the reliability or questionability of a source depends on what it is being used for. Is it being used to verify self-evident truths such as what the source espouses? Or is it being used to verify scientific theory? In the former case, policy and guidelines clearly set out a valuable exception for such sources, and the encyclopedia as a whole would be worse off without it.

And if you haven't read the previous, read this: You will need to provide solid, literal support for removing such sources once they are added. Any attempt to twist and constrict the reasonable permissions of policy and guidelines is and should be treated as lawyering. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off-topic. The initial post at the top of this section is not about reliability of sources. The issue that was mentioned is that the article is full of weasel-worded statements that are not attributed. They are vaguely written and give an inaccurate impression. To clear that up, each of those questionable statements should be attributed, by adding the name of the person who said it, with the support of the footnote. If no author can be found, then the statement is not WP:Verifiable and can't be used. If the author is quoted on a PPA website, that might be OK, depending on the particular context and particular website. Each of those issues would be decided individually as they come up, not en masse.

One by one, the unattributed statements in the article should be cleaned up, to take the vagueness out of the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Judge's comments in the Joy case

What i find interesting in the Guardina article over the convicted PPA offender David Joy [13] is the comments made by the judge. He siad PPA beliefs

are wholly in variance to the views held by most members of society, views that most of society would find abhorrent."

He also gave Joy an indeterminate sentence based on the fact that as a convicted sex offender the views he held (PPA beliefs) meant the day of his release

may never come

. I think this all highly relevant, from a reliable source and needs including int he article. I suggest we put the abhorrence quote in the opening and something about his lack of remorse embodied in his PPA ideas meaning he has an indetyrem9nate sentence and may never be released somewhere int eh bulk of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, and ultimately neutrality, there should really be nothing such as a "PPA offender". Subjective views and criminal convictions should ideally not be intermingled. For example, I tend to have very liberal beliefs on all issues sexual, including children and young people. But even in an article about myself, it would not be appropriate to link to an obscure (hypothetical) indecent exposure conviction for example, or at least not unless it is appropriate to my biography as a whole.

The only thing that can do, is to provide a one-sided affirmation of the common prejudice "they always practise what they preach", which is not at all demanded by an encyclopaedia article.

But even then, the material you provide contains important information about the public perception of pedophiles in activism, and the publicity surrounding them. I suggest that you integrate it, but integrate it carefully, avoiding the SOR-style "list of criminals". Daniel Lièvre (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to avoid WP:SOAP. That aside, I agree information on the criminal convictions--and the matters surrounding them, such as how the crimes relate to subjective views--should be integrated into the article in the appropriate sections, instead of laundry-listed at the bottom. I also agree with Squeakbox that "abhorrent to most people" should be quoted, as it is sourced, and it more accurately represents public sentiment. "Socially unacceptable" is currently in the lead, and that is rather an understatement.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the dispersal and paying attention to the wider abhorrence in official circles and society. That can certainly be done without turning the article into a series of mainstream rebuttals. However, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising"... please explain, possibly on my talk page. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into interpretations of WP:SOAP here, or on your talk page. I recommend we leave that comment in the past and - unless it becomes an issue in the future - let it drop and keep the conversation focused on the topic of the page. Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lievre blog reference

I think the use of Lievre's blog as a reference for this statement (and the statment itself) is "unduly self-serving" etc:

"Elsewhere, it is argued that, in evolutionary terms, it makes sense for prepubescent humans to be educated in affective sexual intimacy before the age of fertility (hence the development of reproductive potential).[89]" -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That reference doesn't lead to a blog, and the claim isn't even disputable: PPAs do say that. It doesn't reflect positively on them, so I don't see how it's "unduly self-serving." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have the preceding statements: "Pointing to juvenile sexual activity in the animal kingdom and invoking evolutionary arguments. Other species are sometimes used as examples of beneficial or normalized sexual contact between grown animals and infants or adolescents. One popular case is that of a close relative to humans, the Bonobo, where infant-initiated sexual touching is part of everyday life, and intercourse is sometimes initiated by the young.[88]"

So why do we need this as well: "Elsewhere, it is argued that, in evolutionary terms, it makes sense for prepubescent humans to be educated in affective sexual intimacy before the age of fertility (hence the development of reproductive potential).[89]"

It's a very self-serving statement, implying that Lievre self-publishing on his website is somehow significant (the other references are journal articles), and that his personal argument bears repeating/merits a one sentence summary.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources in "Re-categorization of data"

"Some pedophile activists attempt to refute scientific research that finds sexual contact between adults and children as predominantly harmful by stating that there is a variety of different categories for adult-child sex interactions that are commonly not acknowledged by mainstream scientific research. They claim that studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown that some types of contact are harmless, if only the studies had carefully categorized the contacts into more narrow categories, such as "consensual" contact versus "non-consensual" contact.[33][98][99][100][101][102][103]"

[14] "What about all those Studies?". Lambton ^T/_C 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, they're not "all these studies." There are studies listed by layperson David Miller aka David Manseco, so that's good in at least as much as there is clear attribution to somebody with a verified identity who is also a pro-pedophile activist. But what can we attribute to him? Not the study citations, but perhaps a summary of his idiosyncratic assertions about them, and the link you have supplied. He's still very dicey even under the permissible excpetions for non reliable sources; so the key in including him is to lucidly summarize his argument so that it's not msrepresented as plausible scholarly opinion, because it's not.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bauermann

Bauermann (33) doesn't support anything in the above paragraph; the study found differences in injury between exhibitionist crimes and forcible rape, and that fondling etc was comparatively harmless in comparison to forcible rape, not that it was "harmless consensual adult-child sexual contact." Nowhere does Bauermann make the assertion that "studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown..." etc. A third party "activist" would have to make this argument about Bauermann; Bauermann can't be cited as a "pro-pedophile activist" making these claims.

^ Baurmann's criminological study published by the German Federal Criminal Police Office in 1983 (English translation of its original conclusions summary).

Who is Arne Frederiksen?

(102) I don't believe that there is a match between reference and claim for Frederiksen. The claim is "...if only they had separated consensual and nonconsensual into separate categories." Frederiksen's argument is that "if a pedophile says the child consented, then the pedophile should be believed; since 1/4 of pedophiles say this, 1/4 of children consent (therefore there are two categories, consensual and nonconsensual, which are not separated in research?)" The premise underlying Frederiksen's argument is much too bizarre and fallacious for it to be summarized merely as an objection to research methodology; tacked on to four other references supporting the claim. (Also, his whole piece is definitely contentious and self-serving, and completely unscholarly.) I can't find any information on Arne Frederiksen other than this self-published screed--who is he, what has he published, where was it published, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Frederiksen, Arne (1999). Pedophilia, Science, and Self-deception: A Criticism of Sex Abuse Research (HTML).

Patrick Califia-Rice

(98) This 1977 essay doesn't once mention research on child sexual abuse, recategorization of data, etc--says nothing whatsoever about it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Carolingian

(99) Where in this reference does it say anything about research and recategorization of data?-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

^ "Carrolingian" (2002). Paedophile Ideology (HTML). Understanding Paedophilia For The Law.

Better described as "criticising categorisation", and that is what I found (in the small bit that I read - [15]). Lambton ^T/_C 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the direct quote/page number which refers to recategorization of data/criticizing categorization, so that we can evaluate?-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Structural limitations. Studies may be structured so that there is no room for reporting positive sexual experiences."

"Sample not representative. Many studies are carried out on psychiatric patients who, of course, will show psychiatric symptoms, whether sex-abused or not."

"Missing control group. Many studies fail to compare with non-abused persons."

"Pooling together dissimilar events. Many studies use a very broad definition of sexual abuse, including very dissimilar events. This tends to exaggerate the harmful effects of the less severe forms of abuse, and at the same time dilute the effects of the most severe forms of abuse."

Etc. I agree with you, but only to the extent that the sourced sentence needs generalising to complaints about the selection and use of samples, and suggested alternatives. Lambton ^T/_C 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what you have quoted supports this, for example: "They claim that studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown that some types of contact are harmless, if only the studies had carefully categorized the contacts into more narrow categories, such as "consensual" contact versus "non-consensual" contact."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pooling together dissimilar events. Many studies use a very broad definition of sexual abuse, including very dissimilar events. This tends to exaggerate the harmful effects of the less severe forms of abuse, and at the same time dilute the effects of the most severe forms of abuse." Lambton ^T/_C 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are either failing to read articles, or misunderstanding the very simple solution of tweaking the article text. Whilst this article does not mention "harmless", it easily displays similar arguments. The problem is the text, not the article. Lambton ^T/_C 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. In no way does "less severe forms of abuse" translate to "harmless."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is the text. Your problem is to imply that this is a significant problem at all. Lambton ^T/_C 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The other problems with Carolingian are 1) who is he? and what credentials does he have? (his editorial is completely unscholarly.) I don't see him identified anywhere; is it a pseudonym? 2) he says, "Three psychologists have researched the sex abuse research and made a synthesis of the results" but doesn't identify the "psychologists." 3) according to ipce ed notes attached to Carolingian's editorial, Carolingian is referring to/repeating Arne Frederiksen almost wholly--these are not his observations; this is a self-published editorial reprising Arne Frederiksen. Per points 2 and 3, it is completely unclear to whom or what Carolingian is referring to when he makes generalized opinions and statements about research.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Constantine

Where in Constantine does it say anything about research or recategorization of data? (It looks like this is 30+ years old, pre-dating most research anyway. But it might be a good reference for "children's rights" assertion in the lead, or somewhere in history of PPA.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Larry L. Constantine (1977). "The Sexual Rights Of Children: Implications Of A Radical Perspective". International Conference on Love and Attraction: 255-262.

I read it, and it contained:

"Their approach suggests that the effect of the experience on the child can differ, and that effects themselves might distinguish sexual abuse of children by adults from legitimate sexual expressions of affection between children and adults.

A careful review of the literature on adult-child sexual encounters (Constantine, Chapter 17 in this volume), indicates that immediate negative reactions are minor or completely absent in the majority of cases and significant long-term psychological or social impairment is rare, truly remarkable findings considering that most studies have dealt with criminal or clinical samples."

I am tiring of your attempts to present a lack of knowledge as a lack of evidence. Read the papers before you do this again. Lambton ^T/_C 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a better debate would be to question whether the article reflects PPA. Given Constantine's background, and his use of an implied "radical" perspective, I am guessing that he refers to the POV of childlove pressure groups. Lambton ^T/_C 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Constantine is from 1977. How could it address--let alone scientifically "refute"--the 30 years of research since then? (What "literature" is he "carefully reviewing"?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not. He is attributing an opinion (or possibly what he sees as a correct reading of the research) to what I assume are PP "radicals". The age of the study is irrelevant. That it includes a criticism of previous research is not. Lambton ^T/_C 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that needs to be reflected in the article--"Larry Constantine, referring to research pre-dating 1978..." -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Van Ree

(103) Van Ree makes a subjective criticism of the research in general, there is no attempt to "refute" it scientifically, nor is there a call to recatetegorize data.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Time magazine

Time makes a reference to Rind, but it certainly not a pro-pedophile activist, nor does it quote any. What might work is a PPA making a claim about Rind.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Cloud, John. "Pedophilia", Time Magazine, April 29, 2002.

Protected edit requested

{{editprotected}}

This text, in section 5 of the article, is not supported by a reliable source:

"Alice Day is celebrated by female-attracted pedophiles, on April 25.[68] This is the day Lewis Carroll met Alice Liddell, the girl for whom he wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, on April 25, 1856."

Discussion was here: [16], 10 days ago. No one has objected to removal of text/unreliable source. Thanks,-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Per the linked discussion above. There are no reliable sources confirming the existence of "Alice Day". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disapprove. All that needs to be done is the text be made more specific. If the problem is that this is not a widely-known celebration, then maybe it's best to simply attribute it to the group that acknowledges the holiday on this day. The ref currently in place leads to the website of "Youth Attracted Network International," and there a description is provided of this celebration and of the reasoning behind it. If there are other organizations that celebrate this holiday, their involvement could then also be attributed. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The ref currently provided is not a reliable source, and no alternate reliable sources have been provided. We cannot link to a fringe website to verify such a claim--it could be a hoax, or an attempt to establish a nonexistent "holiday" by advertising it on Wikipedia.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The text appears to be well-supported by the source cited, and the source appears to be reliable as a self-reference to the PPA movement. Other places using "Alice Day" similarly are: article by Cory Doctorow in Boing Boing, calendar entry, another calendar entry, PPA Lindsay Ashford's blog, anti-pedophile blog entry, and an early pedophile use (warning: disturbing content) of the term from January 25 2000. As high as its squick factor is for me, it exists as a facet of PPA.
  • If the text needs to be more circumscribed in its scope, I would support that. For example: According to the pedophile group Youth Attracted Network International, "Alice Day" is celebrated every April 25 by female-attracted pedophiles.[68] This comemorates the day in 1856 that Lewis Carroll met Alice Liddell, the girl for whom he wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." --SSBohio 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Cory Doctorow piece and the calender entries note that April 25 is Alice Liddell's birthday, not that her birthday is a pedophile holiday. Lindsay Ashford's blog and Clogo are more fringe unreliable sources. Again, this could be a hoax or an attempt to use Wikipedia to establish a "recently invented" holiday that does not exist. (In the case of "International Boy Love Day, for example, at least one newspaper notes that the holdiday exists, although it may still fail notability). Unless or until a reliable source can be cited to verify that "Alice Day" the pedophile holiday exists, Wikipedia should not be used to advertise or promote it by claiming that it does.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • All Wikipedia is reporting is that some members of this movement mark a holiday called Alice Day, and why they do it (and have done for 8 years or so). It's well-known enough that mainstream and anti-pedophile sources specifically warn against it.
    • Your statement about the calendar entries is mistaken. The calendar entries make specific note of April 25th as "Alice Day." Quoting ExperienceFestival.Com: April 25 - "Alice Day - a holiday celebrated by some pedophiles." Quoting Calendar4ever.com: "Alice Day - celebration of the relationship between Alice Liddell and Lewis Carroll."
    • May 4 is Liddell's birthday. A closer reading of Doctorow's article does reveal that he is referring to her birthday, not to April 25. My apologies for missing that detail.
    • A reliable source can be reliable as a self-reference without being a reliable source for anything external. All that needs to be established here is that the "holiday" is marked within the millieu of PPA, not that it is marked in society at large or reported on by external sources. --SSBohio 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• If it's been around for 8 years, why has no reliable source reported this. (in addition to failing RS, it fails notability-they're related.).

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: 1. the material used is relevant to their notability; 2. it is not contentious; 3. it is not unduly self-serving; 4. it does not involve claims about third parties; 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it.

• How is the purported existence of "Alice Day" relevant to the notability of PPAs? (It's not; neither the purported holiday nor the association to PPAs has a reliable source establishing notability.) Also fails on every other criteria. Again, Wikipedia exists to document verifiable facts, not to advertise and promote made-up holidays by a fringe minority that might be a hoax. Right now, Wikipedia is the most prominent conveyor of this information, which amounts to abuse of Wikipedia to establish notability which does not exist for a holiday that probably doesn't exist.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now - no consensus for change means maintaining the status quo, however wrong it might be. If you establish a consensus for change, readd the tag. Happy‑melon 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stacy Mccain

"Regarding the foundation of positions that in some ways mirror later pro-pedophile activism, Robert Stacy McCain writes..."--this sentence is opinion, and a real stretch to link Kinsey to the history of pro-pedophile activism via McCain (who has also written about Kinsey and pedophilia here: [17]). Kinsey may be relevant to the topic somewhere under "academic defenses of pedophilia," if a pro-pedophile activist is quoted as making the link.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain writes blah. This is mirrored by pro-pedophile activist X, who said blah. Assuming such can be sourced, would that address your concern? --SSBohio 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That would establish a link between Kinsey and a pro-pedophile activist, but not a link between Kinsey and the history of pro-pedophile activism. Putting Kinsey in history implies that there has been a US history of pro-pedophile activism dating from Kinsey.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that AK is not a PPA. But since he legitimised the observations of child sex offenders and believed that the harm done to children in CSA was not likely to be due to organic factors, why is he not a PPA in your opinion? I thought the threshold was way lower than that. Lambton ^T/_C 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: 1) is he a pro-pedophile activist 2) what relationship does he have to the history of pro-pedophile activism. He's not a ppa, (just like Harris Mirkin is not a ppa) but he might have a place under academic defenses of pedophilia, if a ppa makes the connection. He has no link to the history of ppa, and info about him doesn't belong in the beginning of the history section.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Goals and victories of the movement

Since PPA blogs and websites are reliable sources about themselves, I think we should have a section to report their account of their top 5 "victories" of 2007, to give our readers a better sense of "where the movement is at now"; what it's ideals and objectives are. Activists for social change do try to define their groups partly by cataloging their victories in accomplishing their aims--if they're for saving the environment, they might keep track of how much they have helped reduced carbon emissions. If they're for gay rights--they might celebrate that they have helped pass domestic partner legislation. These accomplishments give the public a picture of what the activists stand for, what they believe in, in what ways they would like to change the world. Let's take a look at what PPAs achieved in 2007, according to one of their leaders:

• "Daniel Says: January 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
• The top 5 victories of '07 -
• Webhosting
• Persistant editing of Wikipedia
• Von Erck humiliation
• The success of AZU as a prominent hate group
• Accounts not banned on YouTube"

[18] -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a comment on a blog, and thus fails notability. Also, using it in the way you appear to be suggesting probably equates to something of a Scare Story. Lambton ^T/_C 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that representative of the movement at large? Besides, this addition would be blatantly colored with POV. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But, don't you think "accounts not banned on You Tube' has the gravitas, dignity, and public impact of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus? It's very moving, and it really illustrates how contemporary PPA activism is akin to other civil rights/social justice movements. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that other editors will take your proposed edit seriously, go ahead and argue your case. To me, personally, this awfully looks like a colorful distraction. I would prefer to focus on actually improving the article, and I unfortunately don't have the luxury to spend every minute of my day bickering over issues that really are not that important. Sorry, please feel free to pursue this further, if you so wish. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's such an in-universe article already--what could be more fittingly apropos and meta than pointing out in the article that a major goal of "the movement' is "persistent editing of Wikipedia"? I think it should be included in the lead.-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a handful of online-active PPAs are possibly obsessed with editing pedophilia-related articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that the text should equate their goals and so-called victories with those of the pro-pedophile movement at large. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? (It's probably the most relevant information that could possibly be in this article).-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your question has already been sufficiently answered up above. Also, as stated earlier, feel free to argue your case, if you honestly believe it holds merit. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would help explain to readers why the article is absurdly long and appears to have been written by pro-pedophile activists...-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess here we also have a difference of opinion. To me, this article is of healthy length, and I fail to see how it "appears to have been written by pro-pedophile activists." Considering all the recent attempts at controversial edits, I could justly claim the opposite is true, and anti-pedophile activists are out and about. However, I don't use scare tactics like that, and prefer to focus on improving the article through my own editing. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has massive NPOV problems throughout, as the result of years of coordinated, disruptive editing and pov-pushing by internet focused fringe zealot pedophilia advocates. (And it's far too long--especially in the three sections about the Netherlands, which should be summarized into one para.) The mainstream of society, and law, medicine, and science are not "anti-pedophile activists," as noted above. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You know perfectly well who I was referring to. However, I think both of our takes on the situation are clear enough now, so let's move on to something actually productive. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, who are you referring to? And the huge pov problem in this article is very much an active concern. I read through the talk archives. A message to someone named MikeDV8--who was blocked--was most instructive. It was a caution to him to stop guarding the article like "a pitbull" against any changes, and pointed out that the article has remained pretty much in its same form for about three years, which is bizarre for any Wikipedia article. Let's start with why the term "the movement" is used throughout the article, when it's patently absurd. There is no "movement."-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) PetraSchelm, all I'll say is this: Why fix something that's not broken? Take this statement as you will, and keep on stirring up editor polarization and anxiety if you so wish. Hopefully users are not blind, and can tell honest concern from scare tactics. Even if there are some annoying or disruptive PPA editors, APA POV-warriors are not any better and currently appear to be much worse. Finally, what would you call this, if not a movement? Do questions of semantics really bother you so much? ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But something is broken--I'm very concerned that the article is hugely slanted towards a fringe pov; that's why I've done careful analysis and proposed so many changes for the better. Again, there is no movement--note the fringe/size discussions above. One big step we can take in the right direction is eliminating "the movement" from all the section headers.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're free to think what you want. I would personally contend that the article is doing just fine. As for your so-called "many changes for the better," the verdict is still out, and they're not necessarily for the better. Lastly, this has been a movement historically and still is one today, albeit somewhat minor. More than enough reliable sources have referred to pro-pedophile activism in this manner, ranging from pro to anti to neutral parties. Howbeit, I honestly fail to see how semantic issues of this nature are supposed to improve the article in the first place. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Less than 2,000 people doesn't equal a movement; it's an extremely minor fringe group. Making that clear would be a big step not just toward NPOVing this article (and ceasing to vastly mislead readers of the article into thinking there is a quarter million PPA activists or something) but from ending the abuse of Wikipedia by PPAs to try to promote the idea that there is one; making Wikipedia less of a convergence point for such absurd pov-pushing.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you, PetraSchelm, are definitely appalled and would never condone any sort of "absurd pov-pushing." Tell you what, once you establish all the sources referenced in the article that refer to pro-pedophile activism as a movement to be unreliable, and build a strong case for this semantic distinction really making the article better, then please feel free to pursue the change you propose. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen one source that says there was a movement (note the past tense) and that was in reference to NAMBLA in the early 80s, and a journalistic overstatement. In the cases of the civil rights, gay rights, and women's rights movements we would have our choice of 50,000 references affirming that there was a movement, and that the term movement was appropriately descriptive. There is no PPA movement; 2,000 people is not a movement; and there are not sources to confirm that there is a movement. Wikipedia is the only widely known source which reports that there is. Wikipedia is being abused to promote the falsehood that there is a movement.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You already know that I don't see any problem with calling this a movement - there is simply no established definition or size requirement for what constitutes a movement, and many people do indeed view this as such. What's more, I've already expressed my doubt that this semantic distinction really matters in terms of article improvement. So, please seek consensus from other editors if this is so important to you. If you manage to gain proper consensus, your proposed change will likely be implemented. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a PPA movement for short time; even in its prime it was a fringe movement. Now it's almost completely gone other than a few websites. There are no meetings, rallies, magazines, news reports (other than arrests of offenders) - none of the public activity associated with the term "activism" or "movement".

The movement started sometime in the 1950s or so in Europe. In the 1960s and early 1970s, it gained some small momentum; there were a few publications like Padika and maybe a couple others; it associated with the gay rights and feminist movements as part of the new atmosphere of sexual freedom during those times. But after a while, those movements chose to distance themselves from the pedophile movement for various reasons; perhaps they had different values, or perhaps they didn't want to be associated with an unpopular idea that might interfere with the progress of their main goals (I don't know the reasons - that could be researched). In the 1980s-1990s the pedophile movement declined, their magazines ceased publication (Martijn's last issue seems to be from 2006, not sure on that), law enforcement clamped down, in the early 1990s NAMBLA and other pedophile groups were expelled from the ILGA as "not compatible" with their goals, and by the mid 1990s it was over... leaving the current situation of a handful of websites preserving writings from the past and mostly functioning as resource and support forums, but not as activists.

There was an effort in 2006 in the Netherlands, a political party formed by three people, not able to raise 570 signatures to get a candidate on the ballot; they still have a website but activity is minimal, nothing in the news about them.

Here are some references not yet used in the article that show the fringe nature of the movement, as it was during the time when it was active:

• Stanton, Domna C. (1992). Discourses of Sexuality: From Aristotle to AIDS. University of Michigan Press. pp. p405. ISBN 0472065130. not many people have been prepared to support the emancipatory potential of the pedophile movement. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• Hagan, Domna C. (1988). Deviance and the family. Haworth Press. pp. p131. ISBN 0866567267. ...marginal liberation ideologies promoted by the Sexual Freedom League, Rene Guyon Society, North American Man Boy Love Association, and Pedophile advocacy groups... {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Jenkins, Philip (1992). Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain. Aldine Transaction. pp. p75. ISBN 0202304361. In the 1970s, the pedophile movement was one of several fringe groups whose cause was to some extent espoused in the name of gay liberation. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• Jenkins, Philip (2006). Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford University Press. pp. p120. ISBN 0195178661. at the fringes of the gay movement, some voices were pushing for more radical changes, including the abolition of the age of consent, and were extolling 'man-boy love.' {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

This is not a POV-push or effort to hide something that actually exists. This is what the references show. There are no references discussing a current, present-day pro-pedophile activist movement. If there are such references, where are they? Why are all the references in the article from the past?

The article should be changed to be written from a historical perspective, for example:

"Pro-pedophile activism was a small fringe movement that existed from the 1950s to the early 1990s and is now maintained only through a few websites..."

or something to that effect. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a belated comment. I agree the "movement" is indefinitely catatonic, but pedophile activism is a perpetual thing, like most types of activism. Websites, (failed) political parties, and interviews count; you can't kill ideals backed by vigorous self-interest. It should be stressed that pedophile activism rose to prominence only during the sexual liberalizations of the 1950-80s and withered shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, "was" goes too far. More, it seems a bit odd to start the article by saying something is dead rather than explaining what it is. I see something more like this.

"Pro-pedophile activism refers to advocacy by fringe, loosely-bound social groups in favor of acceptance and political rights for pedophiles. From the 1950s to the early 1990s, these groups formed consolidated into a social movement with groups such as P.I.E. and NAMBLA. At present, the movement has largely disappeared, and is maintained only through several websites and communications on the internet...."

Another option is to move the article to Pro-pedophile Movements, where we could put a nail in the coffin, so to speak. As it is, this article seems torn between explaining a specific movement (your focus) and the long-running political arguments of miscellaneous pedophiles. --Estemi (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've done some research based on this discussion - it appears the article may need a change of title. If I decide to present that as a proposal, I'll add a new section to the talk page below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Or what about "pro=pedophile advocacy" or "pro-pedophile activism," sidestepping the "movement" problem altogether...? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit re sourcing

To sort out the sourccing dispute, I propose the following (please share your opinions):

1. Change text to "Some Pro-pedophile Activists claim that studies showing extreme harm from adult-child sexual contact suffer from methodological flaws such as a failure to discriminate between non-violent and/or "consensual" activities and overtly abusive contacts.

2. Include the NAMBLA ref provided by me at the top of the poor sourcing section.

3. Exclude all but Carolingian from the sources. Lambton ^T/_C 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First, you have to specify who "they" is--who says this/what activist(s) are you attributing it to?-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I too think this proposed edit needs a bit of clarification. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Altered. Lambton ^T/_C 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's still problemmatic because 1) Carolingian found "less severe harm," not no harm 2) Van ree can't be tacked onto that statement, and 3) Constantine isn't a pedophile activist--he's referring to them, pre-1978.-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Constantine and v Ree are not required, so I removed them anyway. I don't see how your other objection applies, but I controlled for it by including the word "extreme". Lambton ^T/_C 06:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's being attributed to Carolingian, then it's "Carolingian says..." not some activists. Also--see above. Who is Carolingian? What are his credentials? What research is he talking about? Where was this published? Are these his opinions, or Arne Frederiksen's?-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA + organization of history section

Why is there no link to "main article," with a summary of it. The whole history section--the bulk of the article-- is really disorganized, with a huge overemphasis on the Netherlands. It should probably be Netherlands + UK/PIE + NAMBLA with link to main article, in equal proportion.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clogo

How exactly is this being used as a general reference for the article?:

CLogo Team (2003). Pedophiles-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to un-protect the page

It may be a good time to request unprotection of this article.

The wave of sock-puppets seems to have abated for now, and talk page discussion has become more calm, so I suggest we give it a try to return to normal editing.

I request comments to determine if we can find consensus to request un-protection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true there was no new sockpuppet or Tors yesterday for a change, and everyone seems to be reasonably discussing things. I would support, with caution.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Most of the warring is between editors who don't get banned. Lambton ^T/_C 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, I'm all up for unprotection, as long as all involved editors agree not to unilaterally insert controversial changes. Discussion and consensus-seeking on the Talk Page should come before any controversial edits are implemented. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll unprotect the article, provided everybody behaves well. I expect the other mentors will be as equally unhappy as me if the trust I'm placing in all of you is abused. east.718 at 23:26, May 9, 2008

Article unprotected. east.718 at 20:35, May 14, 2008

Underwager and Wakefield

This is listed as a general reference for the article--I don't see the connection. Can someone explain how this informs the article in general/what section or aspect of PPA it is supposed to have illuminated in the article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Underwager R., Wakefield H. (1997). Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases. Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, Supplement to the Fifth Edition (Out of Print) (pp. 136-147). Los Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.

Scientific claims section moved to talk until it can be attributed/weasel words are gone

Questioning assumptions about pedophiles

Members of the movement have referred to a few scientific studies which document the percentage of people that responds to pedophilic stimuli, including papers such as Hall et. al., in which 26.25% of male volunteers exhibited equal or greater sexual arousal to pedophilic audio stimuli, and 33% for pedophilic imagery.

Activists argue there is a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters, citing, for example, Fagan, Wise, Schmidt and Berlin, who wrote, "Pedophilia is a diagnosis applicable to only a portion of individuals who sexually abuse children. Information has been drawn from published research about pedophilia and child sexual abuse in general to present the current state of knowledge. Despite a sizeable body of published, peer-reviewed articles about topics such as child sexual abuse, child molestation, and sexual offenders, data and our knowledge base about pedophilia have significant limitations."

Activists question assumptions about personality correlates of pedophilia as a condition. Some cite Okami and Goldberg, who stated in 1992, "The scientific support for the belief that pedophiles are passive, dependent, unassertive, isolated, and socially awkward is weak. Almost all studies are based on offenders against minors rather than on pedophiles. They typically find that such offenders are similar to other kinds of offenders." Some also cite Langevin, who wrote in 1983 that, "The data also do not support the theories that pedophilia is due to fixation at an immature stage of development, to an inability to relate to women, to mental retardation, or to senility," and noted that, "One non-clinical study suggests that studies of clinical samples may be biased toward finding pathology which is not an inherent part of the sexual anomaly. There may be well-adjusted pedophiles living in the community... Even when characteristic traits are found, they may be due to society’s reactions rather than be causes or correlates of pedophilia."

Pro-pedophile activists claim that pedophiles' feelings toward children include other emotions besides sexual attraction. Some activists again cite Okami and Goldberg, who wrote, "Several studies have shown that men whose sexual preference is for children often have a complex set of attitudes, beliefs, and feelings about children in which sexual desire may be subordinate. They often interact with children in ways that include many non-sexual aspects, including affection, which children experience positively." They concluded that, "An unknown percentage of true pedophiles may never act on their sexual feelings, and many sex offenders against minors are not pedophiles. Pedophiles probably cannot be studied due to social stigma and mandatory reporting laws."

"Socially Representative" sampling and change in ethos

Some activists claim that "sexual abuse" studies, by their very definition and aims, self-select the categories of interaction that involve negative experiences, even in those cases where medical or legal samples have been avoided and a sample more representative of the general population has been used. For example, Edward Brongersma criticizes these studies for being tainted by three problems that result in what he terms "Inadequate Research" — "First Source of Error: Sexual Activity as the Decisive Test," "Second Source of Error: Mingling Boy-Lovers and Girl-Lovers," and "Third Source of Error: Bias." The result, for Brongersma, is that "The influence a man may have on a boy in a man/boy-relationship is a difficult subject to broach: empirical research is conspicuous by its virtual absence and theory has been highly distorted by social prejudice and the seeming inability of most investigators to make proper distinctions. Thus an outsider who wishes to gain some insight into what really happens in a sexually expressed relationship between a man and a boy has very little to go on."

Some also claim that there is political pressure on scientists not to produce results that are contrary to the political consensus, leading to fundamental biases in research techniques (such as the confusion of correlation and causality). Other criticisms such as the use of confusing terminology, confusion of morality and ideology with science, and the generalisation of clinical and criminal samples to society as a whole are mirrored by the Male Homosexual Attracton to Minors Information Center.

Other papers supporting some activist opinions

Ben Spiecker and Jan Steutel, in a paper entitled Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity, argued that consent is possible in some older prepubescent children. They concluded, however, that, "Paedophile sex is a form of exploitation because it endangers the long-term welfare of the child. Consequently, paedophilia involves desires towards behaviour that is morally wrong, but only in some forms of paedophilia are these desires perverse." In Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences, Joan Nelson wrote, "De Young (1982) reports that 20% of her 'victims' appeared to be 'virtually indifferent to their molestation' Instead, they tended to be traumatized by the reaction of adults to its discovery." Theo Sandfort's 1980 study in which 25 boys aged 10 - 16 and involved in pederasty were interviewed concluded that, "Except on the basis of violation of moral standards, there was nothing in what these boys said that would justify punishment. …[The laws] should be so drawn up that the kind of sexual contacts which these 25 boys experienced would fall outside of their application."

References

more unattributed/"some argue..."

This has many unattributed statements, and uses weasel words--no one is named, it's all "advocates of pedophilia," "pedophile activists have argued," "some support." There are also attribution problems with "the most common stance" (who takes this stance; the stance doesn't take itself) "this claim is taken as true at face value" (by whom-the claim doesn't take itself). Also, seesm like a lot of unneeded repetition of the sections directly above from the "scientific claims" section. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Questioning the assumption of harm. The most common stance against child-adult sex is the assumption that it causes psychological harm to the minor. This claim is taken as true at face value, and any criticism about it is taken as a defense of pedophile activity. This remains to be one of the biggest barriers against pedophile activism, and advocates of pedophilia have attempted to change these barriers in a variety of ways. For example, pedophile activists have argued that there is little or no harm from child-adult sex. Some support their arguments by citing various studies that have argued that the negative outcomes attributed to adult-child sexual relations can usually be better explained by other factors, such as a poor family environment or incest.

References

Dubious

I believe this may need to be rewritten--where exacty is it that "situations where adult-child sex interactions are not illegal and no negative effects are observed"? (Also, more weasel words--who are the "pedophile activists" who "point" to these situations?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Referring to experiences of situations where adult-child sex interactions are not illegal, both historical and anthropological. Pedophile activists often point to situations where adult-child sex interactions are not illegal (though not necessarily common) and no negative effects are observed. Some refer to ancient Greece, ethnological studies and post-antiquity historical situations in the Western world where such conditions existed.[77]"

Brongersma quote

This is in "Question assumptions of harm," but I'm not seeing the connection. Is there a better quote that somehow connects Brongersma's ideas to "questioning assumptions of harm"? -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," where he reported the result of interviews with participants in adult–child relationships wrote, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."[32]"

Trivia

Wouldn't this factoid be better placed in the Edward Brongersma article? (And if it stays here, it should be integrated somehow into the Netherlands section/seems very out place in PIE/NAMBLA section...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"On February 5, 1987, Bernard appeared as a guest on the Phil Donahue show and advocated pedophile activism, accompanied by a 23-year-old male who had allegedly been involved in a sexual relationship with an adult as a child.[31]"

I've moved that text to integrate it with the part about Brongersma's retirement. I think it's OK in that context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it makes better sense there. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Repetition/unattributed

Changing age of consent laws/mental disorder classification is cited already elswehere. "Redefining contemporary authority..." is unattributed (and vague). -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other goals of pro-pedophile activism may, but do not necessarily include a redefining of contemporary authority relations between adults and minors and the changing of institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws and mental disorder classification.[81]"

Orphaned refs

Neither of these appear to be attached to any text that I can see...? -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

^ Noncewatch - Assorted Nonces ^ Alert!: Right-wing demonstration prevented

Ah, nevermind, I see- they are refs in "opponent groups," not the article text.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vague

"Significant" is one of those words to avoid--what's the rough estimate of the number of the papers. Also, "topic" should be specified--pedophilia? And who is in the "number" of Dutch researchers besides Sandfort, Brongersma, Bernard, and Gieles? If there aren't more, isn't it more accurate to say, "Four Dutch researchers..." ? -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"In the 1970s, most organized pedophile activity was centered in the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree in The United Kingdom.[31] A number of Dutch researchers, among them Bernard, social psychologist Theo Sandfort, lawyer and politician Edward Brongersma and psychiatrist Frans Gieles, wrote a significant number of papers on the topic, both from theoretical and practical standpoints."

Recent Edits

I wanted to get the opinion of involved editors regarding PetraSchelm's recent edits. Since unprotection, this editor has almost single-handedly revamped the entire article, without giving other users any time whatsoever to assess and respond to incremental changes he or she wanted to introduce. This individual knew that his or her changes would alter the article significantly in a controversial manner, yet chose not to edit in a gradual manner. In my opinion, this is very disrespectful to all the editors that put in countless hours trying to make this article into what it recently was. Even if some of PetraSchelm's edits are legitimate, it is standard practice to allow others to evaluate individual major edits as they are made, before introducing any other significant changes. What's more, a number of edits made by PetraSchelm never attained consensus and/or were inadequately justified. For instance, the editor removed the entire "Scientific claims" section from the article. However, no sufficient reasoning has been provided for such unilateral action. If the concern is over some possible weasel words, it's up to the concerned editor to address his or her own worries, if he or she expects others to follow suit. Considering that this is a long-standing well-sourced section, there's no excuse for removing the entire passage, even if there are some weasel words.

Further discussion of PetraSchelm's recent editing spree can be found in the section entitled "Concerning unprotection of Pro-pedophile activism" on east718's Talk Page.

Please voice your opinion on this situation. If it was up to me, I would undo many of the edits made in this unilateral manner by PetraSchelm. However, I will not be reverting this editor, because I see no way to do this without undoing constructive non-controversial edits by another user. Also, I recognize that there may indeed be some legitimate edits made by PetraSchelm (but it's hard to tell which they are, since this user edited almost non-stop for the past two days, and has altered a few sections beyond recognition), and I don't want to undo anything that is actually constructive. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tonight I have to study, but tommorrow I'll help sort out Petra's changes. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, so you are fully in favour then? Just tweaking? As a whole sale revert will be met with strong resistance as will any repeat of your pro pedophile activism edits or disruption, which is getting hugely tedious. But don't worry, I also have some changes planned for the weekend, when I will also have a bit more time on my hands too. But what I do see is Petra pushing this article in exactly the right direction, that is towards neutrality. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert edits which I disagree with individually, and explain my objections here point-by-point. I'm glad to hear you'll have free time for Wikipedia on the weekend. Perhaps you could spare a bit for a comment on my talkpage? It's been too long. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will encourage him to give you back the "wikilove!!!" cookie like you gave him, if you sort out all the Harvard reference copyvios and trim +attribute the bogus "scientific claims" section.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my support for the reversion of these edits - the blatantly biased ones that is. J*Lambton ^T/_C 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not supporting edit warring. Reverting what Petra has done would be profoundly negative and moving in the wrong direction. IMHO the article is looking better than I have ever seen it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree that the article is much improved. Any new updates need to start where the article is now, not randomly go back to prior content just because that's what was there before. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Would either of you mind justifying why you think that the article has "improved" under the undiscussed edit-spree of mainly one editor who has not sought consensus for ther removal of a lrage number of sources...? J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing style/copyvios

These Harvard page refs should be replaced with inline refs for consistency; also, I don't see where Jones' book is listed as a ref that can be converted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Redefining the term child sexual abuse. Another recurring theme among those seeking to gain social acceptance for pedophilia is the need to redefine or restrict the usage of the term "child sexual abuse", recommending a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse" (Rind et al. 1998). For example, Gerald Jones (1990), an Affiliated Scholar at the Institute for the Study of Women and Men in Society at the University of Southern California, suggested that "intergenerational intimacy" should not be considered synonymous with child sexual abuse. According to Jones, the "crucial difference has to do with mutuality and control" (p. 278). Jones suggested, "Intergenerational attraction on the part of some adults could constitute a lifestyle 'orientation', rather than a pathological maladjustment" (p. 288)".

This too: "Promoting "objective" research. Pedophile advocate Edward Brongersma, have argued that investigators of child sexual abuse have biased views (Brongersma, 1990), also calling for a less "emotional" approach to the subject (e.g., Geraci, 1994, p. 17; Jones, 1990). Brongersma and Jones have cited Theo Sandfort's (1987) research on boys' relationships with pedophiles,[74] published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research, as an example of what they consider "objective" research (e.g., Brongersma, 1990, p. 168; Jones, 1990, p. 286). However, critics suggest that the study was "politically motivated to 'reform' legislation," and that the sample of 25 boys used by Brongersma was unrepresentative. (Mrazek, 1990, p. 318). Robert Bauserman (1990"--and I can see why now. These passages are copyvios lifted wholesale from an article by Stephanie Dallam. I think they can stay with slight rewording, but the Harvard refs have to go and the works have to be looked up and cited. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious refs

There may be some refs to back this statement up, but the ANU editorial is way too self-serving/deranged persecution fantasy rant, (not sure if it qualifies as "involved in opposing") and a single news article about public loathing for Jack McClellan doesn't equal "vigilante groups," especially not "vigilante groups that target anyone alleged to have an attraction to children"--Jack McClellan has a self-admitted attraction to children, not an alleged attraction, and he's one guy, not "anyone." I'm going to take the refs out, but I'll leave the statement in with fact tags. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone alleged to have a sexual attraction to children.[13][14]"

Problematic edits: one by one

I concur with AS regarding the tone of recent edits:

212438110

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=212438110

It is blatantly obvious from the article that follows, that activism still continues in the open. Martijn, Amikejo etc still publish mags, Martijn and Nambla still have letterboxes, with some members acting as contact points, being interviewed for newspaper articles. What is worth mentioning is the demise of organisations, and falling memberships.

• Partial Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about that is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Goals_and_victories_of_the_movement -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An outdated, nonconsensual discussion that has already been "used" to justify your behaviour. Again, I am not going to lend support to your behaviour, I am not going to bury my own comments, I am not going to write a single word there. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212438480

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=212438480

Not overwritten. In fact, this contains valuable, sourced information, including that concerning Germany. Editor actually manipulates the header, implying activity in the Netherlands only.

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about that is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#overwritten -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An outdated, nonconsensual discussion that has already been "used" to justify your behaviour. Again, I am not going to lend support to your behaviour, I am not going to bury my own comments, I am not going to write a single word there. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212438480

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212438480

Removes sources which clearly demonstrate an opposition towards sampling bias, in the PP community and PP websites. Cynical. Should have changed the title, instead of deleting it.

• Revert/Change title to suit refs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about that is above--"recategorization of data"--none of those refs support the statement. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212438708

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212438708

A perspective is a perspective. A "strategy" implies disingenuity.

• Revert biased title. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"other strategies for promoting acceptance" was already in the article as a title...-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And is equally biased. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212439095

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212439095

Being at the centre of goings on, Sandfort is best informed to report this fact. IPCE as a mere republisher does not matter.

• Revert COC comment, attribute to author. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about that is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#The_COC -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. An outdated, nonconsensual discussion that has already been "used" to justify your behaviour. Again, I am not going to lend support to your behaviour, I am not going to bury my own comments, I am not going to write a single word there. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212441320

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212441320

Removes sourced information without consensus. Information regards PP use of science and science that supports some PP perspectives. Looks fairly neutral and accurate as a whole, but should be open to discussion.

• Revert and discuss. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212443113

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212443113

Unreasoned removal of citation. This position was not disowned by the author, as some have suggested. He changed his mind on the age of consent. Even if it were a complete reversal, the position (which was after all espoused) could be atributed to the date.

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212444439

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212444439

Adds inappropriate, fringe crit source (best in criticism, if anywhere) and repaints recent public campaigning, court cases and magazines as "internet" (rather confusing).

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about that is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#balancing_re_Boychat.2Finternet

(I'm noticing that a lot of your numerical listings refer to prior discussions above, as if they were new topics...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They are brand new topics, because they have not been discussed. You referred to these talk "discussions" to justify your edits, and I stand firmly against this. I will not allow my own comments to retroactively "justify" your editing spree, and if you seek to play it that way, I will just reset the board. J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You should address the discussions which are already on the page, so people don't have to follow discussion on the topic in two places--it's unwieldy and confusing. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer address such distraction. Let the others decide where they want to discuss. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212449097

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212449097

Adds unnecessary "look how bad they are" bias/surplus about the reported state of victims, when we are actually discussing activists and their convictions.

• Partial Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212451727

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212451727

The source is as direct as they come.

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212457019

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212457019

They were members of a support group, not activists (backed up by Tremblay, who you added as a cite).

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not add Tremblay as a cite. Not only was he already there, he was the only reference cited for Ganymede (which was also already there). I pointed out above that Tremblay was the main source used, but that nothing critical he said had been incorporated yet. (Which is very strange, and unrepresentative of Tremblay's work on the Montreal pedophile community, of which he is very critical. Someone cherry-picked a few quotes they wanted to use about "convergence settings" and how groovy they are...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain [19]. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I explain it? I noted above that I was going to add another Tremblay (in fact I added two)--but the section on Ganymede was based entirely on a third Tremblay ref. Tremblay was the only source used. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212458366

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212458366

This is not a blog. It is a PPA site!

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about that is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Lievre_blog_reference -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? And that non-consensus was meant to be authoritative? J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to the already existing discussion; it's not a new topic. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I totally oppose your use of that discussion to justify an edit. I do not want to retroactively lend support to your edits. Get it now? J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Where previous discussion exists on this page, I will respond. The disruptive split of discussions on the same topic/edit into two locations will be ignored at the second location (esp. as you have made them in the form of lists, instead of separate topics). No one will be able to follow the discussion in this format.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

212461714

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=next&oldid=212461714

Either try to convince us that they are all offenders, or don't. But please don't assert the fallacy that they must be convicted of sex that is immoral in today's world. This is an easily sourced fact, and I can see no other reason for you removing it.

• Revert. J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it per Ssbohios's request/discussion above. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of seeng good articles ruined like this. Can someone else please continue the list? J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's reversions/changes

• 20:42, 14 May 2008

  There was no consensus on the talk page to insert the word "fringe," despite extensive discussion. The term is subjective (as the German and U.S. governments both recently funded pro-paedophile projects, I disagree) and highly emotionally charged. The early Dutch movement certainly wasn't fringe, seeing as they succeeded in lowing the age-of-consent.

  This changes also introduces a self-contradiction: it existed until the 1990s, yet continues to exist ("on a few small websites"). Another editor has already objected to the replacement of "is" with "was:" [20]

  Besides that, the "only on a few small websites" bit is not verifiable. It's not even true -- for instance, the PPA print magazine Koinos[21] is still distributed 4 times a year. PPA organizations like MARTIJN and PNVD exist not only as web presences. PPA books and articles are still being printed -- even in mainstream publications like the Journal of Homosexuality. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

  Consensus was for "fringe," wand Jack made the case for the past tense. Perhaps sentence in lead could be modified to say "mostly through a few websites," since article give detail later about the one magazine, and NAMBLA's p.o. box, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Many editors opposed "fringe." If you would like to insert it, I suggest you request an RfC. In its prime and mostly doesn't address the fact that was implies pro-paedophile activism no longer occurs. "Mostly through a few websites" is not verifiable. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, consensus was for fringe. And what to you mean a few websites isn't verifiable--isn't that what ipce and mhamic are?-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  The fact that a few websites exist is verifiable. The claim that most of the movements consists of these websites, is not. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "fringe" and "was" came from the five or so references that support that sentence. An RfC would be interesting. It would be great to get much wider participation for this topic from established editors. This and related topics should be advertised far and wide on Wikipedia on a regular basis to attract as many editors as possible. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fringe - These groups are on the political & social fringe in terms of their numbers and the widespread nature of the opposition to what they advocate. That said, I worry that fringe has an overly negative connotation (cf. lunatic fringe, Derby Lunatic Fringe, radical fringe),^[22] particularly for the article lede. I'd suggest describing the activism as having a small number of supporters that face widespread and socially accepted opposition termed anti-pedophile activism.
• Was - This indicates a preterite condition, one that both began & ended in the past, like "I was a farmer" indicates that I no longer farm. Pro-pedophile activism (unfortunately) still exists, and will exist as a concept long after any PPA movement ceases to be. I would suggest that on first use we should stick with the definitional is and on later reference qualify that it had been more active but now consists of a small number of organizations and websites (mostly?) in Europe & North America.

In general, it would make sense to structure the article to be coherent with its topic, which is activism, not activists or activist groups, which can sidestep some of these semantic disagreements. --SSBohio 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 20:44, 14 May 2008

  Restored with changes for readability. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

  No, you just reinserted the entire overwritten tmi section, despite prior consensus, and without addressing the discussion. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Wrong. Compare my version to the previous. I reworded parts for understandability and deleted a few overdetailed sentences.--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was for that whole florid tmi paragraph to go. (The section is still overwritten and overly detailed even without it, with undue weight on Frits Bernard, as it is). -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Frits Bernard is the founder of the movement. Some weight is due for that. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• 20:45, 14 May 2008

  The references appear to support the text, contrary to Petra's edit summary. Frederiksen, for example, writes: "The most common flaws are: Failing to isolate significant parameters. Certain parameters are known to have a large effect on the psychological outcome of a sexual encounter. These include the use of force, the sex of the child, and whether the child is related to the perpetrator. Failure to isolate these parameters tend to muddle the results." Fringe sources are reliable for citing their own opinions. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

  No, none of the references support the text, and you haven't addressed the extensive discussion about that above. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Simply re-asserting a misconception does not make it any stronger. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Let's see.

  • Brongersma: "All too often research is unreliable because: [...] No difference is recognized between boys and girls as partners. [...] This stresses the importance of differentiating between casual meetings and longer lasting relationships."
  • Frederiksen: "The most common flaws are: Failing to isolate significant parameters. Certain parameters are known to have a large effect on the psychological outcome of a sexual encounter. These include the use of force, the sex of the child, and whether the child is related to the perpetrator. Failure to isolate these parameters tend to muddle the results."
  • Carrolingian: tl;dr, we can delete this
  • Time: While this article recommends distinguishing types of abuse ("important distinction between a 15-year-old who has sex willingly and a 5-year-old whose father rapes her"), it doesn't clearly apply that to research, so it can be deleted.
  • Constantine: "Only a few writers have attempted to differentiate abuse from non-abuse in this context. [...] Their approach suggests that the effect of the experience on the child can differ, and that effects themselves might distinguish sexual abuse of children by adults from legitimate sexual expressions of affection between children and adults. [...] Where negative consequences of a shorter long-term nature are manifest, they are generally associated with identiable factors: use of physical force, coercion, or psychological pressure [...] Again, it has been shown that the absence of force or coercion; openness of communication in the family, especially about sexual matters; and knowledgeable, positive attitudes about sex appear to contribute to positive (or less negative) perceptions of the experience, and to favorable outcomes."
  • Ree: "Lack of differentiation: [...] One finds only infrequently descriptions in the belles lettres of what are often very tender and moving love relationships. But those researchers who work with statistical methods pay no attention to these or consider such descriptions to be false romanticism and deception. As for the power advantage of adults, one encounters generalizations almost unremittingly, regardless of whether the contacts involve babies, small children, pubescent youngsters, or older adolescents. Consider for example how great the difference in maturity is between a five- and a fifteen-year-old. This lack of differentiation is characteristic of much of the reporting in the media and also of a considerable portion of the articles in psychological, psychiatric, and legal professional publications." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it would be helpful if you responded above, where the discussion has already been started. This is becoming incrediby muddled, and no one will be able to easily follow it. In the case of "recategorization of data," this is particularly the case, as you've isolated the discsussion from the statement the refs are supposed to back up--none of what you have quoted backs up that statement. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 20:46, 14 May 2008

  Mirkin's article, and the controversy surrounding it, is notable enough to be mentioned twice. The section should be expanded to reference the extensive news coverage and the $100,000 budget cut incurred by Mirkin's university as a consequence of the article.[23] [24] [25] [26] — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

  Mirkin is dramatically overemphasized, and you haven't addressed the discussion about that above. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Mirkin's paper is notable enough for an article of its own. Search Google News Archive for his name. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who he is, but he's been given far too much weight in this article. He only needs to be mentioned once, not four times in four places--that's really overplaying it; creating the illusion that there is a lot of support for the idea of "invoking continuity to other movements" by making one guy appear to be four to the casual reader. Discussion about that is above. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 20:56, 14 May 2008

  I've restored most of this information with some new sources and without the weasel words. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

  You added a single reference--the whole section needs to be attributed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Better than having no section. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  I added at least five references. Everything is now attributed. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 22:03, 14 May 2008

No, what you did is 1) added JAMA, which is not a ppa, and then 2) mhamic and ipce, as refs to a lot of "some argue..." What you need to do probably is give a little intro to what icpe and mhamic are, who runs them, and then a brief summary of their main points. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add a citation to JAMA. I replaced the weasel words with specific websites ("MHAMic") or people ("Lindsay Ashford") and added citations to them. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• 22:03, 14 May 2008

  Contrary to the edit summary, the deleted source was not a blog. Again, fringe sources are reliable for describing their own views. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

It's a self-published, non-notable source--unduly self-serving to afford Lievre imprtance he does not warrant; discussion about that above, already. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lievre is a PPA. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 23:07, 14 May 2008

  O'Carroll sez: "I joined Ipce (www.ipce.info/ipceweb ) many years after it was founded."[27] Thus I have removed the claim that he was a founding member. — AnotherSolipsist — continues after insertion below

Reliable sources report that he was a founding member. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So we disbelieve O'Carroll? We disbelieve his book? We disbelieve the history of the movement? We disbelieve that these are RS? J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland Yard is certainly a more reliable source than the words of a convicted criminal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• 16:40, 15 May 2008

  I changed "Brongersma" to "Sandfort," as Sandfort was the author of the study.--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That will be fine--once the section is attributed and can be incorporated back into the article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Amikejo, Koinos

What are they/do you have refs for them? -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

http://amikejo.org/. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok--Amikejo publishes Koinos. This could be added to Misc. section. Is there any other info about Amikejo other than that they publish this mag 4x a year? -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent content removals

It seems like a relatively large fraction of the article (over 20% by byte count) has recently been removed. I don't think that either wholesale removal or wholesale reversion of that removal does more than put us back in the edit warring, article protection cycle that we've seen before.

Concentrating solely on the process for achieving consensus and moving forward, I'd suggest that sweeping changes (e.g. >5% of the article) shouldn't happen, but that edits should rather be of an incremental nature. My thinking is that it's much more likely that a large change will be reverted by someone than a smaller change, and that small changes would be a more reasonable way to move this article forward. What do y'all think? --SSBohio 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The only large chunk that was "removed" wasn't permanently removed--it was moved to talk, with two weeks advance notice. The section is a big compilation of OR. When it's attributed, it will be moved back in. (But it should probably be pruned a bit, too). Discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Weasel_words_in_.22scientific_claims.22_section -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I take your point, in simple terms, wherever the text went, it was removed from the article. I'll scroll back and have a look at the discussion above. --SSBohio 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SSBohio, thanks for that suggestion. (As an aside, content removal is not always a bad thing, for example, when the content is vague, not NPOV, not reliably sourced or not attributed).

To add to what PetraSchelm noted, there was much opportunity for discussion prior to the recent edits - the plans for the edits were posted on the talk page during the time of protection. The changes were not a surprise or done on a "wholesale" basis, they were considered and presented for discussion.

We're in agreement that incremental changes with discussion are the best approach to find consensus. It seems there is conversation happening today, that's a positive development. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You've made a few points, which I'll take in turn:

• Content removal is not always a bad thing - You're right; Bloat, POV-pushing, and plain old bad writing need to be excised. In my experience, however, content that meets the objective requirements of the project is sometimes removed using subjective criteria even while the point is still unsettled. It's the hidden danger in the application of policies like NPOV & BLP. My experience with another article has instilled in me a hearty skepticism about the removal of large swaths of content, particularly when the substance of the content opposes the editors' espoused view of what is appropriate for the article.
• Much opportunity for discussion prior to the recent edits - There was opportunity for discussion in the section Petra mentioned above, it's true. However, as you pointed out there, the discussion was about the weasel-worded statements that are not attributed. I would never conclude from that (accurate, IMO) description of the issue at hand, that 20%± of the article was set to disappear.
• Incremental changes with discussion are the best approach to find consensus. - Hear, hear! Talk it to death if we have to, but reach a working consensus before any substantial change to an article on a topic as prone to controversy as this.

Nothing in what I've said on this topic is meant to focus exclusively on the removal of a substantial fraction of the article (though the removal was the impetus for the current in-article kerfuffle), but to apply equally to a similar addition of content. This article could (without controversy) benefit from gnomic improvements to the existing references, particularly in finding (even partial or summarized) online links related to the offline sources cited; Doing so would make the task of reference-checking much more straightforward and less open to being another topic for argument. We're here to write this article, all of us; That means we have to find a way forward, preferably by discussion and preferably not by excessively BRD'ing or DR'ing ourselves along the way. --SSBohio 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the substance of the content opposes the editors' espoused view of what is appropriate for the article.--no, the opposite is the case; this is exactly where this content should be (as opposed to in the CSA article...) The problem with it is what I said above "some argue" implies that there are a lot of them, or that they are publishing in reliable sources. (Also, the summaries of fringe arguments should be fair summaries; they shouldn't make the arguments seem more plausible than they are, or seem scholarly if they are not).-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

• Your premise is where you lost me; The substance of the content (a support of pedophilia) opposes the editors espoused view (opposition to pedophilia). The opposite is not the case; The case is as I've explained it. I'm not passing judgment on the edit itself, but defining the circumstances under which it happened. When an editor makes a subjective decision to remove content that in addition to their policy-based judgment to remove the content, they still separately object to the content on other grounds. That makes the removal seem suspect, regardless of the actuality.
• The problem I see with some argue is that it's a weasel word open to wild variations in interpretation, as well as abusive use to introduce unsupported statements or even original research. It doesn't, in itself, imply how many some are or whether or where their arguments were published, but it leaves the question open, which is practically as much of a problem.
• The summaries of pro-pedophile arguments should be just that: summaries. If the argument is pro-pedophile, then its summary will be similarly so. There should be no false attribution of scholarly worth in the summarization of the source text, and the copious refutation of the arguments should be given their due weight, but the summaries should present the same arguments as the sources they summarize. --SSBohio 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted you--I thought you were saying I'm opposed to having that info here; not at all, this is exactly where I think it should be. (Also, there's no rebuttals in the section at all--not even asking for that. What's wanted is just attribution to avoid original research and inflated claims, and summarizing succinctly to avoid repetition). Have you read through the section, and then looked at ipce amd mhamic? (Those are the sources AS added, also). As I mentioned, what probably needs to happen is that a little intro to what ipce and mhamic are should be written, with a very brief summary of some of their main points. I brought the issues with the "scientific claims" section up on the talkpage, it was ignored/they did nothing/consensus was for attribution and proper sourcing. I could redo the section myself, but I expect that would generate endless complaints, so it's better if AS/JL do it themselves (or are offered the opportunity at first shot, in which case they have nothing to complain about later...) But that can't go back in its current state--it's a huge mess of OR. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• And: there is lots of bloat and repetition--Rind is mentioned over and over; the crossover between "scientific claims" and "strategies for promoting acceptance" is pronounced. (And that section is really bloated, too. Not to mention that it has copyvios, and the addition of tons of stuff to Mary's article is OR...but I figured, one at a time...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that is stuff I agree with you on in broad terms; The article is of declining quality as a comprehensible piece of writing, due in part to the factors you identify. What I'd like to focus on, however, are better methods for editing the article to avoid the delete/revert/lather/rinse/repeat cycle we seem unable to break away from. My thoughts remain the same: smaller edits, more testing for consensus, and more limited remedies for content problems. --SSBohio 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion format

I do not think it is productive/will be at all possible for people to follow discussion on topics/edits in the format introduced by AS and JL--first, they are introducing previously discussed topics as if they were new topics, instead of responding to the discussions in progress already on the page. Second, they are both introducing the exact same topics as "new topics"--and in list form, instead of separate topics. (It would be confusing enough to have everyhting introduced as a "new topic" and cut off from recent previous discussion, but it is being done twice, and without separation-by-topic. So, essentially, in order to follow discussion on something, a reader will have to look in three places, and somehow know that a string of numbers and part of of AS most recent post are the continuation of a previous discussion...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well put. I've thought of going through this page and boldly refactoring the discussions by topic. My concern is that doing so would not be perceived in the way I intended. We can't have a coherent discussion in the current way (one of the limitations of this Wiki implementation), that's for sure. One option I've thought of would be to have separate talk subpages for particular issues, such as sourcing, POV, copyediting, etc. It's a method I used to tame my personal talk page when it threatened to get out of hand. --SSBohio 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not object at all if you boldly refactored to combine--that would be a tremendous positive difference. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move proposal

Further to the discussion in the section above at #Goals and victories of the movement, I've done some research into the terminology used in the sources for this topic.

It appears that the term "pro-pedophile activism" is a neologism used almost exclusively in Wikipedia and the many websites that scrape content from here. A basic google search for the term brings in only 3,000 hits - a very small number for Google. Even the more general term "pedophile activism" only gets 6,000 Google hits, with lots of Wikipedia scrapes and blogs, but minimal significant coverage.

More importantly, on Google Scholar and Google Books, all of the following get zero hits:

• "pro-pedophile activism"
• "pro-paedophile activism"
• "paedophile activism"

and this version gets only one hit on Google Scholar, with none on Google Books:

• "pedophile activism"

On the other hand, the following terms get a total of approximately 58 hits on Google Books and Google Scholar, between the two spellings:

• "pedophile movement"
• "paedophile movement"

This is seen in the references in the article itself as well. There are a variety of sources that refer to the "pedophile movement", but as far as I can tell, none of the sources refer to "pro-pedophile activism".

Since the term "pro-pedophile activism" does not appear in any of the sources, that makes the title of the article original research, and unverifiable, therefore the page should be moved to a title that is supported by sources.

The best candidate for page title is the term found in the sources: Pedophile movement

Although the pedophile movement is not active today beyond a few websites, it's notable as a small fringe movement in recent history, and in that context is verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno. What about "pedophile advocacy"--does that get any google hits? I'm just not crazy about the word "movement" for something that involved such small numbers (and doesn't exist anymore in anything approaching that form...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check on that and found 9 hits total for these two terms on Google Scholar and Google Books:

• "pedophile advocacy"
• "paedophile advocacy"

But - those are not unique hits - 3 of them are quotes of the Dallam paper where the Rind paper is described as "pedophile advocacy" and 2 of them are quotes of a paper that debunks the Sandfort interviews as an invalid sample because the boys were chosen for the study by members a "pedophile advocacy" group. So those 5 hits collapse to 2, making the unique number 6. Then again, I haven't analyzed all 58 hits for "pedophile movement" to see how many of those overlap; with these there were fewer of them so it was easily visible. Still, even at 9 hits for the advocacy version, it's still significantly fewer.

Google Scholar/Books test is overly simplistic, but it's a way of getting a quick read on the situation. The main point is, whatever the new title is, the existing title appears to be OR, because none of the sources use that term.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Pro-pedophile advocacy. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not oppose a move I share Petra's concerns re the word movement. We need to call the article according to common usage and I think part of the problem is the movement is so fringe. I'd go for child sexual abuse advocacy but I imagine that would meet resistance from certain quarters. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that concern. I don't know the solution though. I made the proposal for two reasons. "Pedophile movement" is what's used in the available sources while "pedophile activism" is synthesis, since none of the sources use that term. Also, a "movement" can come and go; it can be something that existed in the past and now does not exist. So while I understand the concern that it might imply something larger than what it is, placing it in historical context can solve that, once the reader gets past the title of the article, in the first sentence.

"Activism" denotes real action in the world to attempt creating change in society; without documentation of the term, it's hard to place that in the historical context, so in a way, that term makes it seem more current and active than the term "movement" that can refer to historical action. Whatever small opportunities for those changes in laws and attitudes may have existed 30 years ago are now completely gone; even though some pedophile websites post goals of change in their mission statements today, there is no activism happening, they function as support and resource sites. Today it's not activism, it's more like "philosophy"; in other words, there is still discussion among some small number of people, but even the proponents of those ideas know that their goals are impossible and have given up the activism.

Based on the above, term "advocacy" would be better than "activism", since one can advocate something without engaging in activism. So if we don't find consensus for the term "movement", I'd agree to "advocacy", though I still have concerns regarding the lack of sources for any of the terms other than "movement".

Here's a suggestion that could keep the benefit of verifiability while avoiding the impression that there is any sort of active movement today: Pedophile movement of the late 20th century.

I don't know which title is best for all the reasons, but it's a problem that the current title is a neologism not in any of the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made the case for "Pedophile movement of the late 20th century." -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Simplicity is best. So, if a title change is necessary, "pedophile movement" would be the most appropriate new title, since it's concise, to the point, and seems to have actual corroboration among legitimate sources (according to the Google Scholar search mentioned above). ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to sites such as Absolute Zero United, Wikisposure, and any pedophile's blog or message board, you will be able to see that the "movement" is quite alive and active. So the term "pro-pedophile activism" is quite appropriate, though the pedophiles don't use this term, themselves. They use "child love activism", or "child love movement" in an attempt to make it seem like it's actually a good thing. This term, however, would not be appropriate. Especially since school children of every age use Wikipedia as a source of information, and using that term would only serve to validate the grooming process tactics used by pedophiles on children.

Their symbols can still be found in some jewelry stores and on bumper stickers, and the likes of Lindsay Ashford and Jack McClellan are still alive and out there trying to convince others that child rape is OK and does not harm the children involved. They are still out there, networking with one another, sharing info about potential victims and stories about those who already are victims, and being active as ever for their cause.--DodiaFae (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)