Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-pedophile activism

Pro-pedophile activism

Pro-pedophile activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a POV fork started by a now banned user now banned for engaing in activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia and for the prurpose of promoting pro [pedophile activism to a wider audience. Whil;e we have articles on the mainstream animal rights activism there are many other notable activisms that do not have articles such as peace activism, earth activism, cannabis activism etc and I see no reason why the much less notable pedophile activism should have an article. We already ahve articles on specific groups and individuals within the movement and that, along with a brief mention in the pedophile article, is sufficienet for the notability of this tiny, extremeist organisation. SqueakBox 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While I'm going to read more in detail to check for possible POV, as far as I can tell this is not a POV fork in any way. It is a history of an international movement by well-known individuals and lobbying groups, not simply an article detailing arguments for pedophilia. However repulsive the actions of this predatory subculture may be, it is a very high-profile and well-documented history of their attempts to be legitimized. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The sections on "Other significant views" and "Ethics" need to be swiftly removed, as they are basically either improperly sourced, irrelevant, possibly OR, and most of all, totally POV. The early history section needs to be cleaned up as well, and for a subject with so many opponents (basically, everyone) the criticism section should be expanded. I am also concerned about the statement that a Dutch gay-rights group publicly supported pedophile activists. It is my understanding, from sourced information in the main homosexuality history articles and personal experience, that the international gay rights movement has always been extremely strident in their criticism of pedohilia in order to deflate accusations that homosexuality is linked to child abuse. But these issues irregardless, I still think it's a notable encyclopedic topic that should be covered. Who else but Wikipedia is better equipped to keep this neutral? We have a whole Wikiproject to watchdog this type of article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the POVness of the ethics and views sections, articles that document activist groups are obviously going to document their POV. We can objectively document what a group's POV is without endorsing it. The pro-choice article, likewise, would document the POV of the pro-choice movement without endorsing it. Let's not let the controversial subject matter of this article influence us to edit it with unreasonable standards.

The statements of the Dutch gay rights movement supporting pedophile activists are documented, as are the movement's shifts toward disassociating itself from pedophiles and pederasts. Phenomenons such as pederasty are very much related to homosexuality, especially if you look at things from an historical standpoint. Mike D78 22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying the source was false, I was saying that I didn't want a single group's statement used to make it look as if the gay rights movement in general has ever supported pro-pedohile activists. Because, if you look at the numbers of gay lobbies for/against pedophile groups, you'll see that that is overwhelmingly not the case. As to the archaically close relationship between homosexuality/pederasty, I think it goes without saying that it's pretty well documented. And I really object to the ethics section in that it seems pretty obvious that part of the agenda is changing ethical standards when info about their intention to change perceptions about them and their activities is both outlined in their goals, and more importantly, something that goes without saying. That's what a lobby/activist group does, is change perceptions on issues. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; most modern homosexual activism distances itself from pedophiles and pederasts, if not condemning them completely. But the history of the relationship between homosexual and pedophile activism, not just in Holland but in the U.S. as well, to an extent, cannot be objectively ignored. I know people hate that, because fundies love to derisively associate gays with pedophiles, but the facts are the facts.

I feel the conclusion of the history section, detailing the actions of the ILGA, etc., pretty well establishes the distance between these two camps at this point. Mike D78 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the reasons for deletion stated. If the article is not deleted, it should, at the very least, be merged with the Anti-pedophile activism article, and probably both should then be merged into the pedophile article. DPeterson^talk 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article however much we may not like the subject. It has far too much verified information to be merged into another article. It is not an inherently POV article and can be kept to NPOV as VanTucky says. Davewild 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning keep On one hand, it would be egregiously POV to delete this article while leaving up anti-pedophile activism. But on the other hand, the article as written needs some work. If it's improved, I'll change to keep. Blueboy96 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The original creator of the article is irrelevant; this article has been edited by many people over the years who have worked to keep it NPOV. As for the other claims of the person who proposed this idea, they are simply incorrect. We do have articles for various other forms of activism such as the Peace movement, the Ecology movement, and activism related to cannabis. Clearly this movement is well-documented enough to warrant its own article, and the alleged "extremist" nature of the movement is irrelevant in determining whether an encyclopedic entry should be maintained or not. Mike D78 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Mike D78 --ざくら木 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This proposal is the latest in a rapid succession of merge and delete snowballs. This subject understandably shocks most people (hence the veiled moral protectionism), but as the sources show, the article is noteworthy and represent a lot of good work on the part of many editors. SqueakBox's fallacious guilt-by-association argument about banned editors is also embarrasingly grubby and unwarrented for an informational resource with no single author, such as Wikipedia. Samantha Pignez 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I vigorously disagree with the approach described, but I just as vigorously sympathize with the motivation behind it. Keeping the entry NPOV is not as simple as some folks are making it sound. It is zealousy guarded against any changes. Would be happy to have the future participation of the editors voting here to keep, especially those that see a need for improvement. -Jmh123 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If there's some a group of users who think they own this article, you've got my full support and attentions in debunking that notion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the problem with this article as of late is that people are jumping in and making significant changes without properly discussing them first. What little discussion has been had has consisted of a lot of hostile comments, unrelated discussion, and frequent distracting procedural votes concerning merges, etc. I think this article can be improved, but everyone involved must make a greater effort to cooperate. Additionally, people must not let the controversial subject matter keep them from making objective judgements. Mike D78 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you just said sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation about a lack of inclusiveness to me. Users are directly instructed to be bold in updating articles, especially in cases of clear violation of policies. Distracting procedure on merges? Merges happen because of a clear procedure establishing a majority consensus. Unless major changes were made without any explanation or discussion at all (which I don't see happening consistently) then it looks to me like users are just fighting edits by "outsiders" in order to preserve their version of things. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply agreeing with Samantha that it seems like there has been a snowballing of proposals concerning merges, deletions, etc. lately. These proposals have been considered unnecessary in the past, and there has been blanking, redirecting, and attempted merging as of late that was carried out against consensus. These things are against the rules, distracting, and only cause increased resentment. Mike D78 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps overly detailed, somewhat in need of fixing, and definitely in need of careful watching -- but none of those come close to reasons for deletion in the face of the actual referenced notability and impact of the subject. WP:AFD ain't for clean-up, and certainly not as a tool in someone's personal crusade. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reading this talk page makes me realize how few people actually read this articles and check them out in-depth before commenting. 90%+ of this article was created and added by now banned pedophile SPA accounts. Check the history of the article, don't just take my word for it. The vast majority of references to the article are from IPCE.info, a source that only a moron could claim meets Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Many of the sources now link to websites that have been knocked off of the internet in general. Simply because people have added a ton of sources to an article doesn't mean an article is "well-sourced." That's ridiculous. LOOK at the sources themselves. A majority of them source one website, a poorly-coded HTML page which is kept up by one guy... whose claims are taken as gospel when you read this article. Ridiculous.

Both this article and the anti-pedophile activism article fail notability as well, I can count on one hand the amount of actual news stories done on both the pro- and anti- pedophile movements. This article is openly referenced by those who created and populated it with content as being little more than their own propaganda that they can use to recruit and steer pedophiles towards their organizations as the article itself comes up as one of the top google searches regarding this topic... again, due to the non-notability of the topic itself.

I'm certain that this article will be kept and I'm equally as certain that it will continue to be dominated by POV pedophile SPA's that will continue to spam it with propaganda, using Wikipedia as a vehicle to try to gain credibility. At the end of the day, nothing will change regarding this article or the reality surrounding this article since it's creation. XavierVE 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: XavierVE is a self-admitted single-purpose account, and the owner of Perverted Justice. See here. While I am just as opposed to pedophilia and feel self-identified pedophiles should not be allowed to edit, NPOV is NPOV. Blueboy96 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am POV and I've said that a million times, which is why you can count the number of edits I've done in these areas on one hand. Do note that I also believe the anti-pedophile activism article should ALSO be deleted for non-notability, which at the end of the day would remove a good chunk of hits we get from that article. Still, if a SPA sockpuppet like Mike D78 is going to vote then this SPA non-sockpuppet will do the same thing. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The question here Xavier is not "Does this article need wresting from the hands of those who are pro-pedophilia activists?", or even simply, "Does this article need quite a bit of cleanup?" but "Is this a historical topic that is notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment?" The answer is yes. The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. But how can we delete a pro pedophile activism article and leave up an anti-pedophile activism article, and still claim to be neutral and comprehensive? Doesn't only providing information on groups and individuals on only one side of a contentious issue fundamentally violate a neutral point of view? I despise those who would pervert (how apt a word) Wikipedia to legitimize organizations (such as this Dutch group, who has ever heard of them?) that are not notable. But at the same time, if we can remove the subtle (and not so subtle) language that puts these activists and their crimes in a positive light, then it is obvious to me that the positive role that Wikipedia can play in this arena is to expose the simple, neutral facts about a long history of these predators attempts to have their crimes legalized. For people who hate those who perpetrate violence against children, the crime would be to not make the facts about pro-pedophile activists known. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read my actual comment, I said that both the anti- and pro- articles should be deleted but check the history, someone vandalized my comment. In short, don't try to throw out random straw men at people, please. Otherwise: The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. That will never happen and if you try it, you'll end up meeting the same opposition Squeakbox has by those interested in ramming crap sources into this article since it's creation. Good luck though. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I count over 40 non-web sources. Even discounting the books related to the movement, there are major news sources. and non-movement related academic journals. Individual items thought not to have RSs can be challenged. DGG (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)