Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

• Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 2006 to February 28
• Talk Page - Archive 2 - Febuary 29 2006 to April 25 2007

Temporary watch request for new article: False allegation of child sexual abuse

I created this article and am consulting knowledgeable people to help flesh it out. Some of these people are pedophiles.

Please keep an eye on this for the next few weeks for NPOV issues. I see no need to publicly tag the article.

If you have your own ideas on improving the article, please contribute. Likewise, if you know any other experts, invite them to join in. Dfpc 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. Voice of Britain 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trilogy of activists listed for deletion

All three founders of the PNVD have been listed for deletion. Let's reach a consensus here. Jim♥Burton 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here? No, they are on afd and need to remain there, SqueakBox 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a mannerism of my prose. Don't worry Jim♥Burton 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap

Apparently Jim Burton has been permabanned by User:Fred Bauder of the ArbCom. My understanding is that the reason for this was the contents of his userpage (archive here). Hmmmm. Again: I thought that the solution to an offending userpage was to request, then force, the removal of the offending material, not freaken ban the person for life.

We ordinary editors can't even read about this. I suppose it's thus a double-secret ban. Furthermore, WP:BAN states that in the past, Arbcom bans have never been for more than one year, so obviously this policy is out of date if we're now going to be seeing secret Arbcom-generated "permabans." That sounds even nastier than "indefinitely and *potentially* permanently banned," which is what you read about in WP:BAN for the communal ban and the Jimbo-ban, and which appears now to have been superceeded for certain high crimes (doubtless involving "children," (definition left vague) else the discussion wouldn't be HERE). Do we have a wiki sentence of life without possibility of parole, per ArbCom, now? There's a certain irony in all of this, from a community which supports aggressive bios of unwilling seminotables, all in the name of openness of information. SBHarris 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, political considerations. Herostratus 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno man. You can be a Nazi holocaust denier and at least still get your day in court on Wikipedia, but not Jim Burton. It kind of takes the fun out of it if the referee just occasionally shoots members of the opposing team... Herostratus 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter which has been settled on easily, and we shouldn't assume that it's a step taken lightly. It's a bit frustrating because it's all happening out of sight, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. While editing disputes may sometimes seem like contests we do have a purpose here. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Burton did a great job on many articles, this is a big loss for wikipedia considering how few there are who has the knowledge and can stay neutral in these very difficult topics. I guess they will be comming for the rest soon enough. V.☢.B 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping these articles neutral is what I am editing here for, SqueakBox 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can never tell when you are joking and when you are serious. V.☢.B 07:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Burton neutral? Uh I don't think so. He was a problem as an editor, and if he had left on his own accord that would be fine with. He did play by the rules though. His punishment was severe. How much this had to do with his editing and how much with his userpage I don't know. Herostratus 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He was banned because they thought he was a pedophile, or supported pedophilia. End of story. V.☢.B 07:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the case. It seems like a one-step perma-ban. For the case of Clayboy, he was Jimbo-banned[1]. However, if my suspicions are correct that this is what I think it is (i. e. the same), then it would be obvious that the ArbCom is doing this only through e-mail, to "protect their reputation."[2] In other words, the reason is not encyclopedaic, but political. I am somewhat disappointed that Jimbo would decide that he would let his encyclopedia succumb to political pressure or do anything political with his encyclopedia at all. Oh well.--A 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-deletion of editors from the roster

User:Addhoc, who I don't personally recall meeting and who is not a member, removed the names of two banned editors. I don't agree with this action. The editors didn't behave in a manner to have them drummed out of the project. Their status per the Wikipedia in general is not necessarily germane. I restored them, but with a strikethrough as a compromise. Herostratus 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case you could consider reinstating user:Silent War, again with a strikethough for an indefinitely blocked account. Addhoc 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I dunno. I guess if they're banned they can't be members anymore. Strikethroughs just look weird. I don't like the idea of Unpersons going down the Memory Hole though. Herostratus 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the commotion

Having been directed here by another concerned user, it is easy to see that the spread of misinfornation and subjective opinion on to these pages is out of control. Now that this partisanship has peaked with censorship and witchhunts, I have decided to get involved. Ignorance and misinformation will not win, and my participation is intended to demonstrate that. --βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bow Ty created an account at 03.35 today and may be an SPA, SqueakBox 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith! V.☢.B 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am, just letting people know, SqueakBox 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Jim, then no. Jim is a friend, and the main person from an online community which pointed me towards the P-A-W. Although I have edited before (as a different user), I've only had a short time to get used to these articles, so hopefully, Jim will give me some pointers, especially if he is allowed back.

He's told me stuff about you that I couldn't risk repeating. So I won't. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Are you threatening me? My contribs are puiblicly available and Jim knows nothing else about me, SqueakBox 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So much for good faith. I see the pro-paedophiles tactics are getting dirtier and dirtier, somewhat appropriate for these folk I guess, SqueakBox 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser shows they edit from different ips in different countries, so they probably are different people. Fred Bauder 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please stop deleting stuff from my talk page. Secondly, Jim has only told me about the goings on at wikipedia, and nothing else. He related them in rather graphic terms, thats all. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and what tells you that I'm pro pedophile simply for wanting balanced articles which don't sound too emotional? If you want the facts, you can discuss how my relationship with Jim effects my ideals about man-boy etc, on my talk page. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This brings to mind the slogan of H.Y.D.R.A.: strike one of us down and another will arise (yes I know what a Hydra is). Things are not always as easy and simple as we might like. Herostratus 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

HYDRA

I thought you were exaggerating but I've changed my mind. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If just wikipedia had the same rules for all users then much of the problems would never arise. Now I must go do more damage control because some users never get banned no matter how bad they behave. V.☢.B 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have the same rules for all users, SqueakBox 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory maybe but not in practice. V.☢.B 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

constructive editors requested

there is presently a dispute at child sexual abuse, and though i'm not completely sure what the dispute is over since the editors there have been less than forthcoming, i would appreciate if any constructive editors could help me in neutralizing the article. special knowledge in the area of child sexual abuse is definitely a plus. ~[[kinda]] 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the clones?

The last weeks have certainly seen an energetic effort on the part of editors pushing pro-pedophile-activist POV. Is there a concentrated externally-coordinated effort to push POV going on here? It has been suggested and seems likely. At the very least, one user (Voice of Britain) has been accused of sockpuppetry and been indef blocked. (And expelled from the project.)

As a result of all this activity, some big guns, ArbCom members and old hands, have taken an interest. I don't think its any surprise that the approach likely to be used by these folks is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, involving blocks and deletions at whatever level is necessary.

This is probably a good thing. We have to remember that Wikipedia is an extremely popular and, therefore, influential site. I started up this project when I found that the #1 result for a Google search on "child sexuality" was our article, which was a mess of pro-pedophile-activist POV at the time. So we have an obligation to the world to make sure that toxic POV doesn't pollute our articles, using whatever means are necessary. Herostratus 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At one point recently folks were using BoyChat to recruit involvement in Wikipedia. In one case a poster even impersonated an "opposing" Wikipedia editor. However the Wikipedia discussions apparently have moved to less public forums. Regardless, it's important that we keep trying to get this material right. Like it or not, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information on many topics, including this one. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which....Can someone with more experience with deletion protocol take a look at this page, Hey_There,_Kids? It's the first edit by new user Viper2k6. Thanks. ETA: Taken care of. Thanks, SqueakBox. -Jmh123 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

in re: Warriors for innocence and LiveJournal incident

Could I ask people from this group to please take a look at the article Warriors for innocence & the associated section of the LiveJournal article LiveJournal Account suspension controversy.

Please note that I am just someone who came to this article when the actions of WFI et. al. had an effect on a small "Survivor" Group's Website - so I know little, have NO attachments and have NO axe to grind. I was just looking for information myself and what I found was a lot of talk-page drama on one article and a messy stub on the other. Since I wanted info anyway, I looked lots of things up and attempted to put down what I found in proper fashion.

But the incessant wrangling going on over topics I never HEARD of before yesterday, makes me feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole and it's clear that people who know what they are talking about should look into it instead of me. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this topic. While I think the article should be merged with the LJ article, that's not because of any editing failure on your part. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought LiveJournal Account suspension controversy was excellent. I don't know why the not-neutral and insufficiently-sourced tags were on it; I didn't find either to be accurate IMO and so removed them. Whether Warriors for innocence deserves its own article is kind of debatable, but it might. You did fine work and I appreciate it. Herostratus 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan as Lolicon

Wikipedia now has its very own Lolicon image to illustrate that article: [3]. I and one other argued on that "talk" page that it could be construed as implying endorsement by Wikipedia, but others disagreed. It was pointed out by a sysop, Merovingian, that there is precendent, as with a sexual fan service image here: Fan_service. But that image is not a child, nor is it particularly sexual. It was argued by several other registered editors that the previous image (still present) was not sufficiently childlike or attractive. The new image was temporarily deleted over questions of its origin/copyright, but Merovingian has just re-added it. Maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a regular viewer of anime, but the image is creepy to me, and definitely not attractive. It also felt strange to have a Wikipedia sysop essentially strong-arming it in over objections, based on supporting arguments that the old image--which is still there--is ugly, and that someone was nice enough to draw a better one for us. This comment [4], "the copyright issue arises just because some prudes think that the image is too explicit and offensive" was made by an anon who just signed on in the last couple of days, one of at least three new anons who fought to push this through. The image was restored with this comment: "There seems to be enough wiki-side support for the current image to suggest to me that it should not be removed," which if you count the three new anons is probably true. -Jmh123 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the image on the basis that we do not include elements from the Foundation logos in kiddie cheescake pics, period. If the author removes those and gets an OTRS ticket proving his authorship, then hmmmm. I guess we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it. Herostratus 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Getting the logos out is primary to me (although I'm still not thrilled with the image). I checked, and the three newbies are from Finland, Antwerp, and Brussels, so I'd guess there was a parallel conversation going on somewhere else. -Jmh123 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ETA: I think your edit was superceded by another simultaneous removal on the basis of copyright, so your edit note isn't there. The Foundation logo issue may come up again if copyright is settled. If you could leave a note on Lolicon:Talk that might forestall another debate over that aspect. -Jmh123 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's back. The individual who drew it has followed procedure in uploading it this time, and Merovingian has readded it. -Jmh123 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And I deleted it again. I'll have a chat with Merovingian Herostratus 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that it's very gone, gone from Commons as well. Wikipedia should thank you too--this one had PR nightmare written all over it, if not worse. Thanks. -Jmh123 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. It looked like a good example of what lolicon usually looks like. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, cheer up, it's back again. -Jmh123 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone again. I'll continue to delete it until I get blocked or desysopped or until the artist removes the puzzle pieces, whichever comes first. Herostratus 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But now its on Commons, where I have no authority, so... the encyclopedia loses one round, I guess. Herostratus 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that others in the community will make an issue of it as soon as they see what it's being used for. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How was my comment "trolling", Herostratus? --Anonyymi 07:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The afd is still open methinks. Anyway I just voted there to keep the deletion, and would encourage others to vote their opinion too, SqueakBox 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the AfD? regards DPeterson^talk 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

here, SqueakBox 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A note has been added at the top of the Deletion request page:

Clarification: Since several people seems confused, I will clarify several issues.

1. [Free] "Porn" is more than welcome on commons as for example it can be used to illustrate (*drum roll*) porn. Commons is a free image repository. Anything within our project scope is more than welcome. It is neither filtered for minors nor is it censored.
2. You cannot really {{agree}} or {{oppose}} this nom. Correct template to use would be {{vk}} or {{vd}}. Votes (they really are comments) without a rationale may be ignored. Comments without a valid rationale may also be ignored.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No help as to what a "valid" rationale might be. {{vd}} is a vote to delete. -Jmh123 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately certain editors/admins are insisting the picture stays and refusing to use my cropped version, using the wikipedia is not censored argument etc, this is very depressing and any thoughts should be listed at Talk:Lolicon, SqueakBox 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Squeaky, I don't love that image, but I don't think your crop was an improvement. I thought your crop was more salacious, actually. But I do understand that it was a better alternative for you. I just don't share your opinion. The image that is there was added after long debate over images for Lolicon--that's why it is called "final solution". It's been there for ages. I don't like it personally, but I can live with it for the encyclopedia. I'm just happy that LoliWiki is gone from that page. -Jmh123 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have yet another brand new anon from Belgium with a special interest in Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Thanks. ETA: page has been protected. ETA: now trying to insert a link on Wikipetan Talk from a Flickr account. ETA: I think the revert war has stopped for now. I managed to get a warning onto his page in between reverts and to get him communicating on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Jimbo Wales has unilaterally deleted LoliWikipe-tan from Commons, thus ending the deletion debate [5] and [6], and this guy wants to get the word out and the image onto the page. I've reported the abuse to Flickr, where I have an account, and explained the situation. He (the anon) was helpful in providing Wales' language with his upload. (Flickr deleted the image within 24 hours.) Hopefully this will be the end of this round. I don't know how to report trolling, but will report a 3RR if necessary. -Jmh123 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with the Commons admins. They appeared to less interested in the arguments than in jeering at one side. Because of this Jimbo had to come downstairs and clean up, which is never good. Herostratus 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

The PAW barnstar, awarded to XXX for contributions to project goals.

Don't be shy about giving your fellow editors project barnstars:

I have given out project barnstars to DanB DanD, Monotonehell, Will Beback, SqueakBox, Jmh123, and DPeterson; but I can't keep up with who is doing what and I'm sure there are deserving contributors who deserve recognition. It's just a project star so the qualifications are not so high - I would say anyone who's done say 50 useful edits (talk or article) or something along those lines, probably deserves a star. Editors do not need to be project members to get a star. This is difficult work, so let's make sure everyone gets recognized. Herostratus 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia campaign"

I recommend that everyone involved in this project read this article: "www.corporatesexoffenders.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Campaign". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

please see my new thread on Corporate Sex offenders below.Tony 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

It is chilling. I think it very important to remain vigilant. DPeterson^talk 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting. I don't find it chilling. This subject area contains so much bottled-up frustration and suppressed energy on all sides. All initiatives that aim for release through a cathartic confrontation (either knowingly or by consequence) and subsequent relief is a good thing. I looked up my my own name and online alias (as I operated an FTP site containing boy child pornography in the 1990s), but I wasn't included (yet?) in their database. __meco 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. A few messages recruiting meat puppets have been posted to boychat, but there has never been a "co-ordinated campaign," only a few unconnected posts about Wikipedia (one of the largest websites on the internet, big surprise). Typical conspiraloon tactics. I mean... "Remember, No Original Research and keep a Neutral Point of View. This means use verified sources and don't be biased." is chilling? Ohhhhkay... 66.79.168.150 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that comments like these are indeed worrisome:

• It is of the utmost importance that pedophiles newly daring to google "pedophile" or "pedophilia," or look them up directly in wikipedia, in an effort to understand themselves better, are able to get unbiased information and are presented with links to a support forum like GC and/or sites like Lindsay's human face of pedophilia...This community needs that to happen. Wikipedia provides the opportunity for a widely recognized channel to fairly present the story. This community must do what it can to keep that channel open. And again, we need to keep the links in that article as well...If you have to "lie and hide" to keep our influence balanced against the bigots, then by all means lie and hide to do it.

When users of a forum plan to "lie and hide" in order to promote an agenda on Wikipedia it's a red flag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree a really co-ordinated campaign would be more difficult to fight but what I see is its mostly the same few hardcore who come back again and again who give us trouble and do indeed manage to retain a much stronger pro pedophile POV than I am happy with. Wikipedia in its present structure is open to abuse by determined bad faith individuals so I guess that means plenty of vigilance is required, SqueakBox 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The commenter (Student) has - to my knowledge - not been active on paedophilia-related articles, and he's not even a paedophile. (He was advising an actual Wikipedia editor after the userpage debacle.) It might be worrisome if it was from someone who was involved in the supposed "Wikipedia campaign." 66.79.168.150 00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but, unless you're the person who posted that there's no way you could know if he's contributed to pedophile-related articles here much less whether he's a pedophile. The fact that he posted advice on a pro-pedophile forum about how to undermine Wikipedia though lying for the purpose of helping the pedophile "community" is pretty clear evidence of the person's interests and intent. If there weren't at least some poeple who've made a campaign out of this then we wouldn't have to face the "hydra" of sockpuppet accounts that have come through here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know all of the people listed on that website, (except moonlight who hasn't edited for ages) so unless there's someone they've missed, Student hasn't been active here. He's a bystander. A backseat wikipedian? I don't know... but it's disingenuous to project his "by-any-means-necessary" attitude onto all apparently pro-paedophile editors (some of whom clearly tried to be neutral, also evidenced by Xavier's page).

There are certainly a few persistent people who edit Wikipedia from an allegedly pro-paedophile bias, but there is no co-ordinated campaign. That was my point. 66.79.168.150 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The implication here is that you are a regular editor of Wikipedia (else you wouldn't have found this page). Further, since you are not editing with a username it appears you are likely a previously-blocked editor. So you appear to be following the advice to "hide" in order to keep editing. Furthermore, there have been other BC postings directly calling on forum members to come to Wikipedia to influence articles and AfDs, and even to harass an editor at his place of work. That's "co-ordination". Since these efforts have stretched over some time, they can reasonably be called a "campaign". Squeakbox is correct that all but the best organized campaigns fail (we've seen plenty from various fringe communities). They fail in part because responsible users are alerted to watch for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "hiding" anything, and I am not editing articles any longer. I'm just raving on this talk page out of boredom. "That's coordination." Perhaps, if BoyChatters weren't too lazy to follow up on it. Xavier's page implies there's some backroom conspiracy by pro-paedophiles to subvert Wikipedia, rather than just a few pro-paeds who asked for assistance at BC (without much effect). It's hyped nonsense. 66.79.168.150 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it is a fact that there is a persistent and unending succession of new single purpose accounts who appear on Wikipedia pages pertaining to pedophilia to attempt to insert the POV that having sex with adults isn't harmful to children. That POV, often supported by the ubiquitous Rind et. al. study, is represented in these entries already, but it should not carry undue weight, nor should it be the primary content of these entries, nor should readers be directed towards that conclusion in articles like child sexual abuse or pedophilia. If there is no conspiracy, perhaps you could encourage those rogue individuals to discontinue those efforts. It's not Wikipedia's job to make pedophiles feel better about themselves. -Jmh123 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Wikipedia bans everyone whom anyone accuses of being pro-pedophile, a codeword for anything other than the usual sex abuse agenda spewage people attempt to force-fit into certain articles, and yet, a cadre of self-appointed busybodies functions unhindered, quoting the nutjobs at Perverted Justice, raising the spector of a "conspiracy" everytime Wikipedia is mentioned on a pedo chat board, and guarding every article on Wikipedia against the notion, however well supported by academic research, that sexual activity by persons under 18 might not defile them and ruin them for life. Jim Burton, who to the best of my knowlege, has made only high quality edits, has been banned and his user and talk pages blanked. We're not allowed to discuss that here, of course, because it has been taken up by the Arbcon Star Chamber, in secret. You really have to wonder if this were the 1950's, whether certain people would be getting their panties in a knot over an imagined Communist slant to Wikipedia, or perhaps, in the 1930's, an imagined Zionist slant. There comes a point where vigilance against a "pro-pedophile" point of view turns into pedo-bashing, and the promotion of pseudoscience, and sexual McCarthyism, and in my opinion, that point was passed long ago here on Wikipedia. Hermitian 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many aspects of child sexual abuse and pedophilia are ignored in an effort to use Wikipedia to campaign for the moral acceptance of sex between adults and teenagers. Honestly, I have no problem with adult-teen sex when it's genuinely consensual, and does not arise from an unhealthy imbalance of power, but pedophilia is often about grown-ups having sex with babies, toddlers, and little kids. It's sometimes about violent assaults, and physical harm. It's the narrow definition of pedophilia you're describing that I object to, and the persistent efforts to shift the focus of so many articles to that narrow definition. Do you honestly think that objecting to sexual assaults on infants and young children by adults is sexual McCarthyism? -Jmh123 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think trying to transform every nuance about this issue into "sexual assaults on infants" and "sex with adults isn't harmful to children", the canonical talking points of the sex abuse crackpots, is the very definition of sexual McCarthyism. Hermitian 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is bashing anyone here. Everybody involved in this project, whether signed up or not, has acted in a civil manner. The problem of editors pushing at pro-pedophile POV into Wikipedia existed before Perverted Justice noticed it. BC is not the only special interest forum that has hosted discussions about "fixing" articles. A couple of years ago folks from the neo-Nazi forum StormFront made a concerted attempt to influence articles but editors caught on, saw the notices, alerted others, and the community was able to thwart the effort. I could name other instances. The pro-pedophile editors are mostly like other POV pushing groups, except they may be better educated, more patient, and are certainly held in lower esteem by the public. That of course, is a part of the problem. At some point a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. The goal of everyone here should be to help Wikipedia create a neutral encyclopedia. When we see blocked editors talking offsite about which articles to vote on with the intent of promoting an unpopular, fringe viewpoint then we should alert other inlolved editors to be on the look out for problem behavior. That's all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a "neutral encyclopedia" is created by banning people accused of being "pro-pedophile" and letting a mutual admiration society of people who imagine a pedophile conspiracy under every rock and shrub edit away with no supervision, having as their goal, not balanced factual accuracy, but articles no one might possibly interpret as suggesting that sex between legal adults and legal minors is sometimes free of harmful effects.

I don't know if you watched Babylon 5, but near the end of the series, there was an episode in which the government had two kinds of facts, "Good Facts" and "True Facts." Good Facts were facts that made the people behave the way you wanted them to, and True Facts were facts that were actually correct.

I think there's an attempt here on Wikipedia to edit articles on pedophilia and child sexual abuse from a "Good Facts" and not a "True Facts" point of view. This is a bias which is not confined to these articles alone. If you look at the English Wikipedia article on adolescence, for instance, it's all about how rotten, emotionally immature, and inferior kids are, and how terrible it is if they have sex, or do drugs, or get pregnant, or don't do what they're told. If you look at the German Wikipedia article on adolescence, it's all about youth rights.

Too much of the content on controversial issues in the English Wikipedia falls into the trap of not neutrally stating the facts, because everyone is bending over backwards to avoid anything that could be twisted by right wing kooks into an accusation that something nefarious is being "advocated and promoted." Sex abuse, adult/minor sex, and underage porn are of course the favorite moral crusades of the religious and political right wing, hyped way beyond their actual incidence at every opportunity in the media, and I think we need to be careful to avoid writing articles that play to emotion, employ booby-trapped vocabularies which build their conclusions into their definitions, and represent anecdotal horror stories and analyses of small samples of non-representative populations as scientific fact. Hermitian 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of which facts are better. "Facts" are not the only issue in maintaining a neutral point of view. There are many scholarly books that offer factual information showing why Jews should be dicriminated against. That is one viewpoint and we should describe it in a neutral manner. But we should not allow our articles on Judaism to be overwhelmed by "facts" in support of a minority viewpoint. An important part of WP:NPOV is avoiding giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints. With perhaps a few exceptions no one here wants to censor the pro-pedophile viewpoint. But the pro-pedophile viewpoint is held by a minority and so it should be given only the weight commensurate to a minority viewpoint. Quoting the same controversial study over and over again does not help build a neutral encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no "pro-pedophile" viewpoint. That's just a political construct similar to carping that everything to the left of center is "advocating and promoting" some objectionable activity. Obviously, if you eliminate all input from the left of center, you move the average opinion to the right of center.

This project started out as an attempt to make sure that Wikipedia's articles on child sexual abuse and child sexuality consisted of something other than value-laden hysterical sex abuse industry groupthink. It worked well for a while, until a certain bunch of people hijacked it, characterized everything they didn't agree with as "pro-pedophile," and tried to eliminate competing points of view.

This project is now a joke, and lacks only "bad clowns" and "anatomically correct dolls" as props. I'd propose it for deletion, but that would just give the people using it another forum to claim that "pedophiles" were persecuting them. Hermitian 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to say that there is no "pro-pedophile" viewpoint. Anyone who makes that claim is willfully ignorant of the history of pedophilia-related articles on Wikipedia, and of the entire pro-pedophille movement (AKA "Childlove"). The purpose of the WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch is to make sure that our articles on pedophilia-related topics are neutral and otherwise compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If we spotted forum postings on PJ or a similar "anti-pedophile" site in which blocked users discussed how to "lie and hide" in order to promote their viewpoint here then we should likewise alert other participants in this project to their improper efforts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia bans everyone who admits to being attracted to minors, effectively implementing a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy for people with such sexual attractions, and then when the necessity of not publicly mentioning such things while editing Wikipedia is discussed in other forums, you invent the term "Lie and Hide" to describe it. You can't have it both ways. Most of what you negatively characterize as actions by the "pro-pedophile movement" is simply one or more individuals trying to restore neutrality and factual accuracy to articles that have, through repeated editing by those pushing the sex abuse agenda, been reduced to inflammatory value-laden tripe. That you invent terms like "Lie and Hide", and "Pro-Pedophile" to label otherwise unremarkable activities, smacks of political dirty tricks and culture war. It certainly has nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia. Hermitian 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some general observations:

1. Pedophilia has nothing to do with (say) relations between an 18-year-old legal adult and a 17-year-old legal minor, and dragging in all adult-minor sex (as opposed to adult-child sex) into this is a bogus red herring designed to confuse the issue.
2. The true pro-pedophile point of view - which is never given voice - would be to advocate sympathy and understanding for pedophiles, who after all have a very tough row to hoe, without suggesting that actual adult-child should be seen as anything but horrific or that pedophiles should be encouraged to be around children. Most pedophiles are (I assume) both moral and law-abiding and are certainly not well served by the posturings of Lindsey Ashford et al.
3. The idea that adult-child sex advocacy is in some way leftist is just crazy. An examination of so-called "children's rights" advocates reveals that those who want to remove protections against child sex are of a piece with those who want to grant eight-year-olds the "right" to "choose" to work sixty hour weeks in the mines. Removal of child sex protections is an extreme right-libertarian position.
4. If more people would wake up to the above point we would have less problem with people who are not pedophiles but who wish to take a Bold Stand to Subvert The Dominant Paradigm and just generally be cool.
5. When this project began I expected it to spend about as much time reverting die-pedo-die nonsense as pro-child-sex nonsense. It hasn't happened to turn out that way yet, but as Will says we are on guard against all attempts to hijack the Wikipedia for others' agendas. Herostratus 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As the country has moved to the political right, "child protection" has stopped being about helping children, and started being about "hurting perverts," which has become the new national bloodsport. "Childrens rights," which used to be about helping children get the civil rights they wanted, has been replaced by the sound-alike term "child advocacy", which is all about adults doing what they "think is best" for children, and generally enforcing the rights of other authority figures over them. Whipping up hysteria over child sex and child porn and stranger predation has been instrumental in deleting all the rights kids gained during the 60's and early 70's, and recriminalizing status offenses like truancy and "running away."

Most people, regardless of their sexual interests, have the capacity to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law, and do so. Pedophiles are not an exception to this. Genuine pedophile activity is pretty rare. Most sexual assaults on small children are opportunistic in nature, and are not committed by pedophiles. Relations between adults and sexually active teens should not be tagged with the "pedophile" label, and should probably be referred to by some non-inflammatory label like "illegal sex," which avoids the usual abuse buzzword-ology.

The myth of "pro pedophile activism" should not be waved everytime someone criticizes an age of consent law, a flawed research study, condemns discrimination against those perceived to be pedophiles, points out outrageously heavy sentences for absurdly insignificant sexual offenses, or advocates genuine civil rights for minors.

Anyone who quotes Xavier van Erck on anything related to Wikipedia should be flogged. :)

Hermitian 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much stepped out of trying to edit these articles of late, due to the frustrating amount of team-sport style editors involved. A piece of advice; if you've chosen a "side" in this debate. Bugger off and edit something unrelated. Your bias on either side of this debate will hurt any contributions you care to make, and frustrate those attempting to address topics properly. It's worth noting that it's not only articles regarding paedophilia that we are seeing this worrying trend occur in. If you have strong partisan opinions in any field, I'd suggest that you don't participate in Wikipedia. NPOV is there for a reason. --Monotonehell 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reporting editors?

Is there a place to report editors who have made pro-pedophilia edits so they can be watched or blocked? I've been dealing with an editor who operates under a wide variety of IPs (they were all tied together in a sock puppet case)[7] who has made several edits to an article about a children's show, Kids Incorporated, adding information of an inappropriate sexual nature, including adding links for porn sites and inappropriate information regarding the child actors on the show. Examples: [8] [9] [10]

The information has been deleted as soon as it's been put up, and they've blocked several of the IPs, but since he vanishes periodically and hops around he slips through the AN/I process. I'm not sure if anything could be done but I thought I'd ask here in case you had any suggestions. Any thoughts? Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to report this. DanielEng 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that sort of intense vandal-hunting can be tiresome, but I think you need to wait for the sockpuppetry case to run its course. If he is guilty of repeated sockpuppetry, that alone will probably get him an indef block. I don't personally see the chances of a more efficient system than ANI, except if you can rally the support of a specific admin or two. If they get invested in it, then they're liable to take over some of the hunting for you. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good place to report this. Fortunately the porn site only involves adults because if it were a child porn site the edits themselves would have to be deleted from the record by an admin. its on my watchlist, SqueakBox 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Sex Offenders (CSO)

Will suggested that we click on a link to the CSO site. I've just done it and found that my name has been added. CSO is therefore a libellous site and should not be linked to from Wikipedia. It is designed to look like a Wikipedia page. Tony 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

It's a wiki. Wikis tend to look like Wikipedia... I disagree with your removing of the link from the project page as it is a useful resource for the project considering its scope. It's not displayed in the main namespace so rules applied to encyclopedic articles on what may or may not be listed do not apply. __meco 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if a link was provided here... -Unknown

Tony is correct in a fashion. According to WP:EL, blatantly libellous sites should not be linked, if only for ethical reasons. The question is, is CSO really potentially guilty of libel according to the legal standard? Seems to me as if this might an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. Not that I'm assuming you actually are what they might be accusing you of Tony. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL does not apply here. It only applies to encyclopedic articles. __meco 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also we shouldnt link to any site that attacks wikipedians for their work here, SqueakBox 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you propose we sequester ourselves into a cocoon rather than stay aware of what is happening around us? __meco 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel and a simple "attack site" are two very different things. Libel has a very clear, and prosecutable, legal definition. But an attack site is not something punishable under any laws (at least US ones). Conservapedia, Wikitruth and several other "attack sites" are perfectly legit external link candidates. Blacklisting any site, organization or individual critical of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is sophomoric, and clearly would be a detriment to Wikipedia's credibility as a neutral encyclopedia. Let's not stoop to the level of our bastard children shall we? VanTucky ^(talk) 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A site that claims someone is a pedophile just because they contribute masses of stuff to Wikipedia on the subject is clearly libellous. How would you like your name added? Also, I didn't understand meco's comments on a 'Wiki' site. Surely CSO is nothing to do with Wikipedia yet its page layout makes it look like a Wiki page and therfore visitors will think it's a Wikipedia page. It even has a log in/sign up link for editing which is not, of course, functional.Tony 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

Well I dont think they would add my name to the site and while, according to our policies we cannot link to sites and especially pages that attack wikipedians for their work here we also cant defend wikipedians from such attacks off site. I suggest you take a look at your contribs to see why they might have added your anme and if you think they are being unfair then contact the site. I do though see where Meco is coming from, this is an important issue and you might care to start a thread at AN/I to get further input, SqueakBox 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My using the term wiki relates to wiki, not Wikipedia. Any sites using the MediaWiki software are going to have a "Wiki look". That doesn't mean they are attempting to plagiarize Wikipedia or fool visitors into thinking they are part of Wikipedia. __meco 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to look up Tony Sandel there but nothing came up. __meco 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ, the following if from CSO's wiki: "From the age of 8, she and her mother have had a sexual relationship. This relationship continues to this day.". Wow. Absolutely stunning. The unverified accusation of a (completely illegal) incestuous relationship sure sounds like libel to me. As to yourself Tony, your authorship on the Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film article certainly gives me pause to think. I suggest you take Squeak's advice and examine some of your work. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I know for a fact that the incest story is true, and so much is claimed by that person. She even has an account here!

Needless to say, I am AGAINST the use of this multiply defamatory blacklist, as are the rules of Wikipedia!

And Tony has nothing to worry about. I see no biases in his writings, despite his focus on the man-boy scene and obvious fascination with pederastic literature. 86.131.37.130 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the type of material on CSO, especially their wiki, I don't think we should link to it. While many may support the efforts by PJ and related sites to unmask pedophiles, it's not part of the mission of Wikipedia. Our job is just to write an encyclopedia. We can't use CSO as a source, so I don't see any point in linking to it from this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This project's scope is quite different from the task of sourcing an encyclopedic article. As I wrote towards the beginning of this discussion, for a project such as this, I would deem it highly pertinent to keep somewhat abreast, if not track, of initiatives external to Wikipedia that take aim at influencing the internal workings of Wikipedia, e.g. by exposing contributors here to libel or harassment. That's why I entered "ostrich mentality?" in my previous edit commentary. __meco 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you quoting? Who is this quote relating to? __meco 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been in touch with CSO and they have immediately (and willingly) removed my name.Tony 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

Participation

I just discovered this project and it's interesting. How does one become a participant in helping to remove biased editing on these topics? Is there some kind of evaluation process or voting or is it voluntary and you just add your name like other projects? I'm also sort of curious how these libel accusations work since CSO says a lot of untrue things and draws many unwarranted associations. Tyciol 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just put your name down ●Farenhorst 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apples and Pears

There is a difference of opinion on this article. I'd like some others views please. Two questions:

• Should the article be linked to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)?
• Should it be included in the category Novels with a pedophile theme?

Tony 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

Apples & Pears is the least of the problems of the articles entitled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction". I question how such biased pages can exist in Wikipedia? Firstly, why are pedophilia & sexual abuse joined? Secondly, can anyone name a fictional text with children that does NOT contain pedophilia? Thirdly, the articles claim that "pedophilia and child sexual abuse [again, that inexplicable coupling] are important themes in many fictional works". The notion of "theme" in texts is one of individual interpretation & has no place in the strictly factual world of Wikipedia. James Nicol 05:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi James. Having the phrase "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse" occur in many places on Wikipedia is an example of a rhetorical technique called "lying by juxtaposition." It's one of many ways in which Wikipedia is able to present bias on certain subjects without actually making misstatements of fact. Don't complain too loudly about it, or you'll be banned for life with no explanation. Enrico Dirac 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the book some time ago and I remember there was a lot of sex with kids described all thru the book so yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.173.55 (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I had moved all the titles to "sex and children in..." Editor Tony considers this name to be unacceptable, and has accordingly tried to help Wikipedia by moving the article back to its previous name. I didn't read Tony Sandel's rationale for why the name is unacceptable because he didn't write one.

The current name doesn't allow for child-child sex, nor for attractions of a child to an adult, and it also can be offensive to pedophiles. OK, the intention is not to associate pedophilia and child sexual abuse, but are readers supposed to assume good faith as well?

The name of an article doesn't have to explain in details what the article is about. In this case, it would be quite a long title if we tried to do that. The introduction can make it clear what the article is about. It can say that, although the title is "sex and children", the article includes instances of mere sexual attraction (which can be considered nonetheless to be sex, because this word doesn't mean just sexual physical activity; lonely mental activity is sexual, I think).

The above are my reasons for changing the title. I started a request for move on the appropriate page, in order to attract more people to the discussion. A.Z. 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any name changes that remove the words pedophilia or abuse from the titles. Your claim of children attracted to adults is original research and we don't do that here, SqueakBox —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about fiction, SqueakBox. A.Z. 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, SqueakBox 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that there be children sexually attracted to adults in fiction. I'm not sure that it is that unverifiable that children can be attracted to adults in the real world, though. Scientists should spend more time studying this matter, I think. They could use machines that scan the brain to see whether children react to photographs of naked adults by being sexually aroused. A.Z. 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things are possible. When it comes to article titles we need to use terms that are neutral, that readers would expect and understand, and that reflect the contents of the articles. I believe that the "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction" formula meets all three needs and I oppose changing them to anything that's less clear, less neutral, less succinct, or less reflective of article contents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "sex and children" is more reflective of the article's contents (especially pedophilia and child sexual abuse in television). I think that pedophiles may be offended by the title "pedophilia and child sexual abuse". A.Z. 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to worry about offending a generic group like pedophiles any more than a generic group like LaRouche supporters, it certainly doesn't violate BLP, SqueakBox 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to worry about offending any person. A.Z. 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but not any group of people and the difference is critical. Anyway wikipedia is not censored on the basis of I don't like, I am offended by the opening pic in Lolicon but that's the way it goes, and we certainly cannot just worry about offending pedophiles as the basis for PAW related articles, SqueakBox 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Z. (talk • contribs)

Justin Berry Rfc

I have started an Rfc on this article's talk page. I am posting this notice here since you have aproject tag on the article. Editors dispute both the notability of the subject as well as the reliability of sources and verifiability of facts. There are also concerns related to abuse of administrative/bureaucratic powers. Article has been reduced to a stub twice, and nominated for deletion. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Comments from outside observers would help to clarify issues and point a way forward. Jeffpw 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism unprotected

Editors are now free to work on this article.

Some of the early edits have been questionable to say the least. 86.150.128.67 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that your explanation for why your reverted my changes? which werere good changes. And whose sockpuppet are you? I predicted some socks of banned users would return the moment the article was unlocked and it appears I am right, SqueakBox 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Squeakbox, you are required to show WP:AGF|good faith even to anonymous IPs. If you don't like it and want the policy changed, take the appropriate steps. Until such time, however, please refrain attacking anybody--even if they are anonymous--personally. Jeffpw 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Child sexuality

Asking for input here. SqueakBox and I are in disagreement about a silly citation issue on Child sexuality. The first sentence (and in fact sole lead of the article) reads Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children which appears as uncontroversially bland as a lead sentence can be. But SqueakBox decided to remove the word "feelings" saying in his edit summary [11] "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I think we can all agree that this is ridiculous POV pushing. He was reverted and reverted back saying [12] "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept". For some reason, this ended up on ANI and I reinstated the word "feelings" explaining on the talk page that "sexual feeling and the development of sexual feeling in children is an integral part of scholarly work in child sexuality, dating way back to Freud". SqueakBox seemed to grudgingly accept that but added a {{fact}} tag to the word. I argued that this is part of subject-specific common knowledge and that it is completely coherent with the rest of the article which is thoroughly cited. I also provided many references that show that the emotional aspect of sexuality is definitely accepted by everyone as part of the subject. So SqueakBox added these as references for the word "feelings". This is nonsense: the references are only tangential to the use of the word "feelings" so I removed them and SqueakBox has now reinserted the {{fact}} tag and insists that it should stay there unless the word is referenced. Oh and of course, it has to be an online source because SqueakBox won't be happy if we just say "open any book on child sexuality and read page 1" because he does not have access to a library. Please help, Pascal.Tesson 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse that we need input here. I suggested an Rfc but this is an excellent first step. My point of view is if the material is sourceable let's source it in the opening. We cant really assume people will know this alleged fact especially if, like me, we feel we are writing for uneducated third world children and not an educated western elite, and thus good sources would be fantastic. Actually I would be fine with an offline source added by a respectable, trustworthy editor (such as Pascal though he hasn't so far offered me one) but am not happy with no source. WP:RS states that any disputed material must be sourced or removed, and he is claiming he can source but doesn't, SqueakBox 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what third world children have to do with all this. The recognition that children have sexual feelings is an undisputed fact of psychology and in fact, third world children also live through sexual development which is an emotional issue as much as it is a biological one. It seems to me that you're objecting because you think "sexual feelings + children = slippery slope towards justifying pedophilia". But the fact that children do have sexual feelings in no way excuses an adult from seeking or encouraging sexual contact with children. Pascal.Tesson 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Third world children are our typical clients and the kind of client I and many of us are writing for, so what? you arenn't? You think we shouldnt' be writing for third world children, just an educated first world elite? Why not start a post on Jimbo's page saying that you dont think third world children should be our intended clients etc, and I mention there because I don't think he would agree with you. I am objecting because it is unsourced, not for any other reason, and I think of our intended clients when making any edit, SqueakBox 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very silly. I've reverted him and supplied an argument in my summary. 86.150.128.67 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is absurd, and obstructionist. Squeakbox is engaging in typical behavior of someone who is willing to edit war to win: asking for sources for each and every word. It wouldn´t surprise me if next he said that any reference provided (even an AMA journal or the NYTimes) was not a reliable source. In any event, here is a reference that actually uses the words child, sexual and feelings all in the same sentence: [[13]], though I should also point out that most Wikipedia editors prefer that the lead contain no references, since the lead shuld summarize the article, and the article should contain the refs. Jeffpw 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in..."

It seems to me that the following articles need to be split into two, namely "Pedophilia in..." and "Child sexual abuse in...", since they are two separate and unrelated topics:

• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs

A.Z. 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When I started these articles, I just had pedophilia in the title, but child sexual abuse (CSA) was added later. There has been much debate since. I personally would like to have them simply titled Pedophilia in fiction (girls) etc. Pedophilia is present in all the works. That is the criterium for inclusion. Many of the works also have CSA or sexual activities that constitute CSA even if the activity is not identified by the author/producer/dirctor as abusive. One of the advantages of the simpler title is that it would remove the POV problem because some editors disagree that sexual activity with a child is necessarily CSA. See the acrimonious debate on the discussion [page] of Apples and Pears.

Pedophilia and CSA are not always 'separate and unrelated'. CSA can result from a number of conditions. Inter-familial incest is sometimes driven by pedophilic desires (sexual attraction to children), sometimes not. The CSA of post-pubertal children is frequently driven by inappropriate heterosexual and homesexual behavior. Pederastic relationships can be formed by homosexual men or male pedophiles. Some CSA is a part of a cycle of child abuse that is not primarily sexual at all.

I don't think splitting would work as there would be a 90% overlap. About 10% of the works feature non-abusive pedophiles.

So to conclude, if it came to a vote, I would go for Pedophilia in films etc. Tony 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

Is the preferential sexual attraction to children by adults (pedophilia) present in all the works and that is the criterion for inclusion, or is sexual activity of an adult with a child present in all the works, and that's the criterion for inclusion? A.Z. 05:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children by adults. The issue of whether it is 'an' attraction, a preferential or exclusive one depends on which country you live in. So we cannot have a definitive POV on that. In most cases, the motivations and feelings etc. of the pedophile character are not examined. Sexual activity is not a criterion. Death in Venice, for instance, is included. Hope that helps. Tony 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

I'm confused as to which is the criterion, sorry. You say the motivations are not examined, which means that we don't know if the character is attracted to the child, which means we don't know whether they are pedophiles. You also said that sexual activity is not a criterion. Could it be that there are two independent criteria for inclusion: sexual activity of adults with children and sexual attraction of adults to children?

The article on pedophilia says it is a "preferential" attraction, but I think this is a problematic and rather useless definition. A.Z. 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite confusing! The article on pedophilia is regularly disputed and I agree with you that the 'preferential' adjective is problematic. The word I used 'motivation' was not that good a one to use. The criterion for inclusion is pedophilia (i.e sexual attraction) of all varieties: inter-familial & predatory; fixated & situational; inactive & abusive. Sexual activity is not a criterion, but if there were two criteria (as you pose the question), the works to be included would be huge, incorporating, for instance, sexual attraction to mature (but underage) teenagers of both sexes.Tony 10:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

I was one of the editors who supported the addition of "...and child sexual abuse..." to the titles. The various books, movies, etc., sometimes center on the adult characters and their pedophilic motivations, but they sometimes center on the children, and in many of those cases the activities are depicted as child sexual abuse. And in yet other cases the distinction is not clear. So rather than have to decide on each entry (which would be orignial research) it's best to keep the scope wide by mentioning both aspects in the articles titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Will on this one, SqueakBox 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that it might blur the line between pedophilia and csa and people might start to think they are the same thing and we don't want that of course. Ospinad 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the line is blurred and indeed in common English usage they are pretty much synonymous, and while I diont think we should merge CSA and pedophilia I dont think we need to worry re this issue, SqueakBox 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones II

It has recently been asserted that the PAW articles are under attack from a succession of sockpuppet editors, and that this is good enough evidence to cast doubt upon and undermine the arguments and consensus of editors who some may see as Pro-pedophile, and others such as myself would see as strict NPOV adherents.

So lets put this to the test. Although we have seen cases of multiple socking by both DPeterson and Pol64 (who edited with an anti-pedophile bias), I shall list all of those banned editors who may be seen as Pro-pedophile (by some) and give the reason for blocking.

• BLue Ribbon - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Rookiee - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Zanthalon - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Clayboy - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Kirbytime - Banned for odd behaviour on Child Porn article and others.
• Silent War - Banned for "Damage to Wikipedia's reputation".
• Dfpc - Banned for "Single purpose account".
• Paroxysm - Banned for "multiple accounts" (no checkuser given, suspect given).
• Jim Burton - Banned for "Pattern of Pedophile advocacy".
• Kinda0 - Banned for being a "Pedophilia activist".
• Tolerance 01 - Banned as "sock" (no checkuser evidence given, no suspect, used a proxy though).
• Voice of Britain - Banned for no given reason, supposedly multiple 3RR violations.
• Fabian Dindeleux - Banned for "disruption".
• Bow Ty - Banned for "sockpuppet" (no checkuser given, no suspect given, one assumes Jim Burton)
• Revolt against the modern world - Banned after two edits for "pedophilia advocacy".
• Nandaba Naota - Banned as troll.
• Farenhorst - Banned as "sockpuppet" (no checkuser given (but implied), suspected Voice of Britain, contested here.
• Happy Camper II - Banned for socking - checkuser provided.
• Samantha Pignez - Banned for "extreme disruption".
• Mike D78 - Banned for "editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV".
• 86.150.128.67 - Blocked for 1 month for "abusing multiple accounts" - no checkuser or suspect given, contested by editor.

What strikes me is the lack of evidence and number of contests (given that users can simply start new accounts). Only one of six cases presents a public checkuser, and the rest are abnormally secretive and underhand. All the more worrying, at least one case appears to be based on the suspicion of an administrator, and the last one is most probably based on the user's admission to having another inactive account on Wikipedia (which is allowed).

But administrators' concerns about editors' relation to pedophile advocacy is far more common a concern than socking. This is a frighteningly easy charge to level, and in nearly all the cases (bar the obvious ones) it appeared to be invalid. And besides, what's wrong with having an agenda, if the end product is fair and balanced? Remember, admins never contested the end product of these editors. Dyskolos 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why sockpuppets should make any difference. If we focus on arguments, not votes, it won't matter whether someone has three hundred accounts or one account. A.Z. 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we work on consensus, so it is obviously quite important. But from the evidence produced, it seems like we have very little grounds to base assumptions of socking on. Complaints and suspicions should be reported to the relevant administrator's board, not raised on talk pages and used to gain a moral advantage in edit wars. Regardless, as it stands, only one "pro" editor has been blocked for socking after a full public enquiry, whilst two "antis" have faced similar consequences. Notice also the indefinite or month long bans for "pro" editors and the weeklong blocks for "antis". In addition to this, administrators have recently ignored some quite compelling evidence presented by myself, which implicated another editor in the Pol64 threesome. They then proceeded to ignore unrelated complaints of incivility and rulebreaking against the same user, because he had been cleared of using the same IP as Pol64 (kind of a Chewbacca defense). They then refused to re-instate a withdrawn 48 hour ban against this user, even though there was later found to be no checkuser connection between the user with whom he was edit warring and the banned user suspected to be the puppetmaster of this account (using the same totally unrelated defense). Whilst a checkuser result of no connection between the editor I implicated as Pol64's puppetmaster and the said edit warrior is taken as absolute evidence of unrelatedness, a similar result of no connection between Farenhorst and Voice of Britain did not present any challenge to a suspicion - fuelled indef block leveled against the former, for being a duplicate account of the latter.

And thus I have little faith in the administration right now. Dyskolos 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no evidence DPetersen ever edited PAW articles with any socks (the allegations relate purely to attachment therapy) nor that Pol64 used other than one sock, Amateur cyclone, who never edited any article spaces but made one comment on the PPA talk page[14]. You hyave no evidence that check user was never used in the cases of Farenhorst and Bow Ty as not all CU's are made publically, and because there is an arbcom case off site lack of on site evidence proves nothing. A.Z, sockpuppets are worrying and your view that they aren't has no consensus on wikipedia, indeed the overwhelming consensus is that they do matter and if you wish to change that policy you need to go to a policy page but you won't have much joy, methinks. What Dyklos fails to realise is that because socks have appeared in large numbers supporting the PPA viewpoint that we have to be vigilant against them everywhere and his claim that the only thing we should do is reportt hem to the relevant admin pages is simply incorrect and wont be happeneing until this problem has stopped for months, regardless of what you want. You are just trying to create a situation in which your views get advanced, Dyklos, and it doesn't work. If you have little faith in the administration you could try to change that on wikipedia, put up with how things work here or leave, SqueakBox 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other baned editors you did not mention, Dyklos, are

• Drogheda
• Nandaba Naota
• Revolt against the modern world
• Kartikabalaji

these 4 have been shown to be more socks of Voice of Britain by CU, SqueakBox 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of a link with VoB. It turns out that Kart/Drog were the barely used socks of Happy Camper II (the only proven checkuser sockpuppet), and Revolt plus Nandaba were both dismissed for trolling - the former after two edits. However, Tolerance01 is another editor who was dismissed as "sock" after no checkuser or even public notification. I personally know that the person who operated this account was very strict about his security and used a proxy. Whether he was socking or not, I don't know, but the issue is, there would never be any solid evidence of it. I'll update the list. Dyskolos 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thee vidence isnt availabl;e on site but was given to me by a mamber oft he arbcom who has CU status. Because a lot of the evidence is accumulated off site no CU on site evidence is not an indication that no CU information is available. I suggest you write to the arbcom. In terms of using a proxy, see Wikipedia:No open proxies, all open proxies should be indefinitely blocked, SqueakBox 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't believe you. The checkuser here returned a result of no relation between two of those accounts and VoB (as well as indicating that a similar result for Farenhorst was quietly ignored!). And why would arbcom have any interest in privately disclosing to you, information that would strengthen their case if made public? On the other hand, it is very possible that the original person behind VoB has socked on multiple occasions, with or without the listed accounts.

Tolerance01 should have been blocked for NOP, not socking. Dyskolos 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't believe me you are not going to get anywhere with this. If you are accusing me of lying that is a personal attack and really invalidates any argument you might have here but go check with the arbcom, as I said before, before making ridiculous and childish accusations that make it impossible for me to see you as a good faith user. Until you become an admin yourself I suggest you don't go round telling people what other people should be blocking people for or telling people who know far more about the project than you do that they are lying just because yopu dont want to hear what they have to say or dont like it. Given your comment I suggest we close this thread as there is clearly no point in trying to explain anything to you, you think you know it all already but it seems increasingly obvious to me with all this talk of various editors using open proxies that it is unlikely that there are more than 2 or 3 real users who are using all the rest, including yourself, as socks in order to evade bans and that your obsessional behaviour re this sock issue over the last days amply confirms this. And BTW using open proxies is not blockable its the OP's that are blockable, but SPA POV pushing may well be blockable and I certainly haven't seen a single unjustified indefinite blocking so far, SqueakBox 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have some nerve calling him childish after the way you just acted. And he had a valid argument, why would an arbcom disclose privately to you, without making the evidence available to everyone else? You are the one making the personal attacks, accusing him off-handidly of using socks with no proof. Or do you have proof but for some reason can't show anyone that either? Ospinad 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! 21 editors. That's one hell of a crackdown! Having myself been accused from the moment I turned up, it gives me the suspicion that a whole load of them weren't too bad. Correct me if I'm wrong. ♥ Lundiaka 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 21 accounts, fewer editors. I don't know about every one of them, but several of these accounts were real pests, insisting on promoting pro-pedophile POVs rather than promoting the project's best interests. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I find this comment rather inaccurate. Sure, these editors were on the radical side, when viewed relatively, but this was not of their own making, it was exactly because the other editors displayed higher levels of bias and disregard of official policy. These editors are suffering the fallout from the blocking of self-identifying pedophiles, fuelled by the witch-hunt against anyone who could be identified with them thereafter.

Lets get back to basics. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

I challenge you to demonstrate how decent editors such as Jim Burton and Samantha Pignez were breaking with the NPOV policy and forcing a fringe POV upon the encyclopedia. This idea has been oftentimes asserted, but at the very most, rarely supported. Dyskolos 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the Farenhorst evidence, which is looking even more dodgy. As we already know, he was put through a checkuser with VoB, which failed to link him (despite the fact that he was banned because of that link). Notice how the admin phrased it to look as if they had not run those two users off against each other. Wishful thinking. It looks as if they're covering for the original mistake of banning a project member with no proper evidence. As I said - little faith. Dyskolos 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't convince me that Rookiee, Zanthalon, Clayboy, et al., were editing neutrally on pedophile topics unless they made edits that don't appear on their contributiosn lists. I worked with them and they were tireless at promoting their POV and using every loophole or Wikipedia policy to help press their case. They made kepping articles NPOV a real struggle and I'm glad they (and their sockpuppets) are gone. They have their own wiki that they can edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been working with PAW articles more recently and hearing what you say, Will, I have to say I don't believe these editors you mention have gone, indeed IMO they have been here until at least very recently, tirelessly pushing the same old POV as Farenhorst, Mike D78, Samantha Pignez etc, SqueakBox 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't personally speak for Rookiee or Zanthalon (as far as wikipedia contributions go), but as far as I know, Clayboy was no problem, although still, I may be wrong. I am commenting about editors such as Jim Burton and Samantha Pignez who focussed in on the PAW, but did not seem to be in any way sympathetic to its subjects. If we're talking loopholes, one has to look at how harshly they were treated in recieving indefinite blocks without warning, previous sanctions or even public notification in some cases. If, in maintaining a position of zero judgement towards pedophiles, pedophile activists, anti pedophile activists, etc (in the article voice), these editors were doing something wrong, then exactly the same could be said of myself.

Your assumption that the following accounts (Farenhorst, etc) are the sockpuppets of self identifying pedophiles demonstrates perfectly how the legacy of BLueRibbon et al has been used to unjustly attack other editors. We have to remember that the ped accounts were largely inactive, with Rookiee, Zanthalon and Clayboy being occupied with other projects or otherwise disinterested after banning, Silent War disappearing into internet wilderness and dfpc swearing never to return. IMO, it is very possible that some of the following (non pedophile or otherwise neutral) editors felt that thay had been witchhunted and returned with new accounts. Thus, bad behaviour on the part of these editors was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you unjustly ban them as POV pushers when they are the only ones treating the subject fairly, and they will return with a vengence, looking for justice.

If you have any interest in taking a look at the accounts that you know less about, these are the ones that to me, looked most unjust (barring the "socks", which although VERY shaky, are harder to argue against):

• dfpc
• Jim Burton
• Fabian
• Nandaba Naota
• Mike D78
• Farenhorst
• Samantha Pignez ... Dyskolos 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the rationale for banning all self-identifying pedophiles? Is there a written policy about this?

Dyskolos, it would be great if you provided more evidence of what you are saying, such as diffs, and explain why you think banning those people was unjust. I, for instance, don't know anything about all those editors and their histories. I could check their contributions, but I believe some of it was deleted, and this would take too much time. a.z. 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z, there is most definitely a policy against self-identifying pedophiles because of the harm self-identification does to the projecdt. If you want more information I suggest you write to the arbcom but it was BLueRibbon's self-identifiaction that, to the best of my knowledge, provoked all this and if you check Jimbo Wales talk archives you will see the various discussions there re this issue and the comments of BLueRibbon and Jim Burton.

Dyklos, for the record I strongly disagree that Jim Burton wasn't POV pushing a PPA line and disagree that the others weren't as well, SqueakBox 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many different editors may show up claiming that mainstream psychology supports the notion that sex between adults and children is not harmful to children, or claiming that mainstream psychology is moving towards acceptance of adult-child sexual relationships just as homosexuality has been accepted, or citing any one of a limited number of studies to support the cause, the fact remains that these claims do not represent a mainstream perspective on this topic. Pro-pedophile activism is an POV agenda, and it is and has been pushed aggressively on Wikipedia for some time. Sure, some editors with a pro-pedophile POV are nicer than others, and MikeD78 was one of the nice ones, but he was not neutral on this topic. If one edits on these articles regularly, one comes to "know" certain individuals--whatever their names may be, and there is no doubt in my mind that the pro-pedophile POV pushing is being done by a very small group of people who do return and edit again and again under different IDs. Problem is, regardless of the "side" on is on, the situation is intolerable. Most Wikipedia editors simply can't stand to have anything to do with these pages, no progress is made, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I admire SqueakBox's tenacity, but I can't stand his manner of dealing with others, his incivility and flaunting of procedures. DPeterson's sockpuppetry was obvious and unconstructive. Neither one of them has demonstrated any knowledge of the research on this subject. In a sense, the pro-pedophiles are winning, despite this claim of unfair bannings, because the articles are still not truly neutral or balanced, and do not represent a mainstream perspective on the topic. Many editors, including myself, have been driven away by the relentless pushing and bickering and arguing and incivility on pedophilia related pages. The blame for that lies on both "sides". -Jmh123 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, while I agree that those individuals are biased, I believe that it is not so bad if they are sincerely trying to be as unbiased as possible. Besides, nobody can sincerely claim to be unbiased. These people hold a fringe view shared by pretty much less than 1% in the first-world countries, but that does not mean that having views is equivalent to having an agenda. Indeed, one can be pro-choice or pro-life and earnestly try to edit Wikipedia articles about those topics for non-activist reasons. I have been here for a quite a short time (for a short time with User:An_Extropian before switching to this account), so I can't tell whether they were trying to be NPOV or not. However, I have looked over their user contributions and some of them have certainly not stated their cause to be to edit Wikipedia to be biased towards pro-pedophiles. I do not believe that self-identifying as a pedophile is equivalent towards being biased towards pro-pedophilia any more than self-identifying as a Muslim is biased towards pro-Islam. For example, XavierVE - he was indef blocked because he himself stated that he does not intend to contribute to Wikipedia with NPOV, but possibly could return if he would retract this and would agree to try to contribute to Wikipedia with NPOV. --A 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that characterizing criticism of the plethora of biased and misleading Wikipedia articles on sex and kids as "editors claiming adult/child sex is not harmful to children" just mirrors the tactics used by those pushing the CSA moral panic in regular society. Publish a paper debunking bogus numbers on the incidence of child porn and child abuse, propose a population-based peer-reviewed study which might produce an unpopular result, or suggest a change in the extremely value-laden terminology presently used in the CSA field, and no matter what your academic reputation, the usual Dr Lauras and Judith Reismans and "family values" organizations of the world will bombard the media with claims that "so-and-so says sexual abuse isn't harmful" and "so-and-so is pro-pedophile" and "so-and-so wants to legalize adult/child sex." This is always tremendously successful, and the resulting noise completely obscures any attempt to discuss the research on its merits.

Given that tremendously sucessful political strategies generally manage to get adopted in new venues, it's hardly a huge surprise that Wikipedia now has its own little cadre of True Believers, beating their little sex abuse drum, and running around shouting "pro-pedophile activism" every time they see something which violates the party line on the topic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that what currently passes for NPOV in some of these articles reads like a press release from some conservative religious pressure group.

Sexual abuse is certainly a bad thing, but the type of hypervigilance that leads to sex abuse witch hunts like Wenatchee and the daycare scandals of the 1980's, which put scores of people in prison based on fabricated evidence, is also a bad thing.

I can't ever remember anyone getting banned from Wikipedia for turning a sex abuse article into a hateful pejorative-laden rant. But I've seen a lot of people banned after their edits annoyed the current Kiddie Sex Cabal that has arrogated to themselves the right to make sure that all such articles on Wikipedia contain the approved amount of anti-pedophile innuendo and vitriol. Some are banned with vague references to Pro-Pedophile POV, whatever that is. Others just disappear at the hands of Arbcom after secret proceedings. Entire articles which have been worked on by hundreds of editors, and which certainly represent community consensus, just arbitrarily disappear if someone high up decides they don't have enough anti-pedophile innuendo in them. This isn't an open and transparent process, where actions may be reviewed and commented upon. It is a fiat process in which talk pages get protected, and replaced by Wikipedia's version of what Wikipedia alleges transpired.

Now Wikipedia is a privately owned resource, with complete and total control over what it publishes. Oh, there's a lot of handwaving about consensus, and how it's actually run by the editors, and editorials making fun of anyone who suggests a Cabal exists. But in point of fact, Wikipedia has a certain political tone, and although anyone is free to contribute, it is a hierarchy of plebian editors, admins, Arbcom members, with Jimbo Wales at the top, and each level learns what the level above it wants, and exerts veto power over the levels below it.

NPOV is in reality the official Wikipedia POV, and the official Wikipedia POV on Child Sexual Abuse is fully supportive of the current hysteria and moral panic, and cares not a whit about what the actual facts are, and will always favor innacurate "mainstream perspective" over the truth. Wikiality and Truthiness aren't just amusing words on late night TV. They are an accurate description of what is produced by the Wikipedia process. 66.109.192.105 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

66.109.192.105, Wikipedia already favors inaccurate mainstream perspective, and always will be. You must realize that coverage is given in proportion to its notability. Also, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The way private non-profit-organizations like these work is that there is pretty much a single person (like Jimbo Wales) in charge, and that is pretty much just the way it is.--A 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is broadly correct, SqueakBox 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that the move to ban pedophiles is political. I has even been stated several time on the edit histories of the talk pages of some of those banned accounts "account page blanked and protected to protect Wikipedia's reputation." Moreover, I would disagree with saying that someone is a "POV-pusher" just because they have a bias. Even if people are biased, they can still at least try to be NPOV. The problem, of course, is when people do not try to be NPOV, like the case of XavierVE. I do not like this, of course, because encyclopedias should not be political. I do sincerely believe that accusing such biased people are POV-pushers is uncalled for, and politically motivated for the aforementioned reason. If you, 66.109.192.105, want to do something about this, you can only take this up to Jimbo Wales, since it is he who personally blocked Clayboy, and with the reason that it is to "protect Wikipedia's reputation."--A 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I support a generally tolerant line around not seeing people banned for POPV pushing but I do think that self-identifying pedophiles being blocked is correct, and wikipedia's reputaion as the stated reason also mnakes sense. I also think that banned self-identifying pedophioles should not be welcome back on to the PAW related pages (for me they are welcome to come and edit other topics and we wouldn't know if they did anyway). I think these PPA supporters are willing to go along with our policies as far as it helps them in their aims whereas Xavier wasn't but his aim was never really top help wikipedia, his focus is on PJ and his stated reason for editing was his didslike of the wikipedia article on PJ. I may not always come acropss as the msot civil editor but Im ma genuinely committed to NPOV and the project as a whole, SqueakBox 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To say that they were banned for POV-pushing is a red herring, and I just want you to get that straight. If they "these PPA supporters are willing to go along with our policies as far as it helps them" as you say, then the NPOV rule is among them. They are banned not for POV-pushing, but to protect Wikipedia's reputation, although they have been described as POV-pushers by some admins (even though it is not the reason). I disagree with the notion that biased or bad people are unable to contribute to Wikipedia if they try to follow NPOV and all other policies as well, because even if their worldview is egregiously wrong, it does not mean that they cannot contribute material of encyclopedic value. You have said that to protect Wikipedia's reputation is a good reason. I will not contest that however. It is up to Jimbo to decide, and for the moment, I do not care.--A 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just banning "out" pedophiles. It's the banning of anyone who repeatedly objects to the slanted and deleted articles, and it's usually done by Jimbo or Arbcom with the excuse of "disruption" or no reason given at all. If this were just a case of people getting banned for saying "Hi, I'm a pedophile" on their User page, it would be a less complicated problem to deal with. It's just extremely annoying to have people suddenly disappear without explanation after they have pointed out censorship, especially when Wikipedia attracts editors to donate their time based on a representation that the article development process is an open and transparent one. Enrico Dirac 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because Jimbo currently thinks that anyone who wants the fringe opinions of pro-pedophilia to be fairly represented must be a pedophile. He has even said in the ArbCom against the sysop who deleted the lolicon image that shocking things have the burden of proof to be included, that the ones who want process to be followed for pro-pedophile things are automatically pedophiles, and that such shocking things do not deserve process. I myself think that such an opinion is shocking, since not all such people are pedophiles. However, this is Jimbo Wales you are talking about, and you can take this up only to Jimbo Wales. He is the one to decide how things are run on this website.--A 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, for I've been wondering about this, why does self-identifying as a pedophile or a pro-pedophile activist supposedly gets one banned from Wikipedia, but self-identifying as an anti-pedophile activist is considered completely acceptable. I think there's a definite bias to this unsaid policy, for anti-pedophile editors that edit PAW articles with an intention to skew the subject their way are just as disruptive to the project as pro-pedophile activists pushing their POV. Basically, editors like Pol64 can openly self-identify as anti-pedophile activists and nothing happens, but anyone even suspected of being affiliated with the pro-pedophile movement gets reprimanded and often blocked. I don't know, but something is definitely fishy about this "policy." ~ Homologeo 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because Jimbo Wales thinks that they are a detriment to the reputation of Wikipedia. Whether this is fair or not is up to you to decide. This is actually the first case I have ever heard of people being banned for brining bad reputation. As far as I know, people can be banned for making racists comments, but not for saying that they are racists.--A 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the ways that previous accounts have furthered the "PPA" POV is by contending that it is morally, legally, and/or encyclopedically equivalent to the "anti-PPA" POV. The fact of the matter is that in modern western society the PPA viewpoint is heavily denigrated. To the PPAs it may seem unjust that their viewpoints are not respected as much of those who oppose them, but Wikipedia can not and should not do anything to change that fact. We're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. Not only must the project be neutral on the topic, it must appear neutral. If it did not appear neutral on such a delicate topic it would impede the encyclopedia's value as a reference work.

No one is ever banned from Wikipedia based on their private thoughts. People are only banned for actions that disrupt the project. Posting a notice that says "I support pedophilia" on a user page is disruptive. Saying, ";I'm here to defend the PPA viewpoint" is also disruptive. In fact, most promotion of the PPA POV is disruptive because it puts a viewpoint ahead of WP's goals.

The requirement for being neutral does not mean presenting all sides equally, it means presenting all sides with appropriate weight. The PPA POV should be acknowledged and presented neutrally, but it should not be promoted beyond its position in society. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that there should not be any bias at all, even towards the majoritarian viewpoint. This is the case with human and with Adolf Hitler. While Wikipedia is not to right the world's wrongs or anything of that like, it is not supposed to report on the wrongs/rights saying that something is good or bad even if it is plainly obvious that it is - that is to say, if pedophilia is a great evil, the encyclopedia itself should not say so, but should merely tell that people think so.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it may be disruptive. I would disagree that it would constitute a COI, however. To say one supports something, like Neo-Nazism, is not a COI, as long as one's interest is in bettering Wikipedia rather than to advance one's viewpoint. I am quite sure that even if one said something heinous like I support PPA, that is not equivalent to saying that one wishes to make Wikipedia support PPA.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It would really be nice if people stopped weighing these articles on some imaginary pro-pedophile/anti-pedophile scale, and started weighing them as verifiably true versus deliberately misleading. People do get banned for trying to point out that almost all Wikipedia articles on minors and sexuality weasel and lie by omission, juxtiposition, and innuendo to some extent, often with elaborate twisting of policy by admins to try and justify their bias. That's not even counting the articles that just get deleted because someone thinks their tone will make various child sexual abuse pressure groups attack Wikipedia. Quite a bit of the discussion about these things is done by Arbcom in secret, and all mention of it on Wikipedia is generally deleted after the fact. What we have here is censorship, with the clever ploy of labeling what is being censored as "pro-pedophile." This allows the censorship to be represented a fight against "pedophilia" and the people who object to it to be labeled as "pedophiles." Facts aren't pro-pedophile or anti-pedophile. They are simply facts. Facts shouldn't be vetted by who claims to be pissed off by them, or by what agenda someone claims they promote. Enrico Dirac 15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Pedophilia Article Watch was originally started in order to try and inject some accuracy into Wikipedia's generally venomous and hysterical articles on youthful sexuality, sexual abuse, and related political issues. It seems to have been hijacked by people who now use it as a platform to censor these very same articles, calling anything that upsets the mainstream "pro-pedophile," regardless of whether it is a sourced verifiable fact or not. Again, this is simply censorship. Enrico Dirac 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you are not implying that only pro pedophile POV people should be members of PAW which is open to anyone who has an interest in the subject. And in hecting accuracy into articles choked up with a PPA viewpoint is exactly what I am trying to do, and that is not censorship. Wikipedia is not censored is a policy but that does not eman that any minority group can hijack articles in order to [promote their own POV, whether that is Democrat and Republican supporters (in the US) La Rouche followers or PPAs. Right now the balance is far too in favour of PPAs throughout the totally disputed pedophile articles and so I find your comments surprising, SqueakBox 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe people who think this is some sort of war between so-called PPA and anti-PPA factions should be editing these articles at all. The articles should be edited by people with the ability to find verifiable sourced facts on the relevant subject matter, and weave them into an article, letting the chips fall where they may. Such people should not try to present as unqualified truth stuff which is clearly fabricated with a political purpose in mind, nor should they omit sourced facts solely because someone is going to claim the "wrong message" is being sent. The wrong message suffers from the same problems as the wrong version. Enrico Dirac 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you are entitled to your first sentence view but the reality is that anyone other than banned editors can eidt this series of articles. I agree with the rest of your statement and we absolutely should avoid political POV pushing by those with an agenda re this subject and I would urge PPA supporters not to oppose neutral editing on the basis that it sends the wrong message, nor should they try to fabricate the truth in order to push their beliefs that, say, its fine for adults to have sex with children, SqueakBox 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that much. These articles should neither stipulate that it is harmful nor unharmful for children to have sex with adults, but merely report on the relevant things.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, a correction. NPOV does not mean presenting all viewpoints equally, but rather not presenting a non-neutral viewpoint. This means that both PPA and anti-PPA are to be excluded.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so, it is harmful and we must make that clear as we are an educational encyclopedia. Your understanding of NPOV is also incorrect, SqueakBox 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will look into it more clearly. As I have said, if it is harmful, then one can conclude that it is harmful without an anti-PPA viewpoint. If it is obviously harmful, then there needs not to be any commentary on it. If it is not obviously harmful, then there needs to be reliable sources documenting that it is harmful. The anti-Hitler viewpoint would be excluded from the Hitler article, but even to the exclusion of that viewpoint, one can conclude that he did some very bad things. For now, my opinion is muddled; I shall think about it, but I still contend that if a word is as vague as "harmful," then it needs to be replaced by more specific words. I believe that Wikipedia is not to make judgements on what is good and bad, and "harm" has connotations of badness. Instead, speak of its effects rather than its vague word.--A 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read this and it sounds like I was somewhat correct. It does not mean eliminating all viewpoints. It tells that each one should be given due weight. According to this non-negotiable policy,

1. Neither the PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints should be given undue weight. That means treating each of them in portion, as Squeakbox has mentioned.
2. Neither the PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints should be treated as the truth.
3. The articles should be sympathetic to neither the PPA nor the anti-PPA.
4. The debates on the goodness of PPA or anti-PPA should be described, not engaged in.
5. There should be background on who believes what, as Squeakbox has mentioned.
6. There may be evaluations of both viewpoints, but should refrain from asserting which is better.

So, according to this, it should be made clear that PPA is very unpopular, describe all the arguements, people, and everything else against them, and make the description (but not endorsements) of their arguments due weight, but should refrain from giving PPA a full condemnation. I am not quite experienced here, so correct me if I am wrong.--A 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's closer than your earlier formulation. All significant points of view should be included, but minority POVs should not be given more weight than they're due. Wikipedia should not present any POV, even that of the majority, as the "truth". We should describe controverises bu t we should not take sides. So, it's appropriate to say that there is a PPA POV, but it should not be given the same weight as the more widely-held anti-PPA POV. Efforts to give the PPA POV excessive weight is a form of "POV pushing" and is unhelpful or even disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is not to remove descriptions of PPA, but to add more descriptions of more anti-PPA things, again not endorsing either.--A 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If articles could be infinitely large, yet still readable, that would be the best solution. But in the real world we need to keep articles reasonably compact. The PPA side appears to be fairly verbose and pro-PPA editors appear to be familiar with a broad range of material that supports their POV. Inserting all of it would give that POV undue weight. Therefore it's necessary to balance articles by presenting only a proportional amount of PPA material, which may even involve cutting sourced text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering, why are not anti-PPA just as familiar with a broad range of material which supports their POV? Just wondering. If the amount of verifiable material supporting anti-PPA is that large, (which it must be if there is much support for it?) I think that we could add much to it without removing much pro-PPA material. After all, pedophilia is a big subject, not a small one, and much attention is paid to it, so I think that it would be more appropriate to add material than to remove.--A 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We can only speculate, but my guess is that PPA folks feel the need to justify their position and so make more effort to seek out material that supports it. Anti-PPA folks don't feel the same need and so may tend to spend less time researching the field. Another issue is that quantity is not equal to quality. In the past some dubious studies, or dubious interpretations of studies, have been advanced to promote or excuse PPA. OTOH, the materials that show harm from CSA may be more definitive. Pedophilia is not that big a subject, compared to many others. Most of the coverage in the general media does not address the academic pros and cons of pedophilia, but rather the enforcement of laws against CSA. I suppose we could add more of the legal material, of which there is plenty.

However PPA editors in the past have complained that pedophiles don't (necessarily) engage in CSA, and that those who do are not (necessarily) pedophiles. The PPA editors have tended to seek to portray pedophiles as harmless gentlemen who simply have warm feelings for children but who would never dream of doing anything to hurt them, whereas those guilty of CSA are opportunistic lechers who are only branded pedophiles by an ignorant public. The effort to depict pedophiles and PPA as guiltless for the effects of CSA is another form of POV pushing that has been disruptive in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you're complaining about is that the facts have a "pro-pedophile bias," and that a "PPA editor" is anyone who doesn't agree to suppress those facts? It's not like the statistics breaking down molesters by opportunistic, situational, and pedophile aren't easily available. Again, let's just report the truth, and not worry about whose ox gets gored. Enrico Dirac 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall repeat, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Will Beback is referring to a PPA editor as one who gives PPA its undue weight. I do, however, disagree that it is merely PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints, but outside expert viewpoints which must be given its due weight. I am unfamiliar about their viewpoints, but Wikipedia editors should do some research, I think. I believe that activist viewpoints should generally be given lower weight.--A 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The English word "verifiability" implies not only that something can be checked, but that it can be checked for truthfulness. If the standard here is prior publication elsewhere in some source generally considered "reliable" by the mainstream, regardless of truthfulness, some other word should probably be used to describe such information. Unfortunately, there seems to be no concise English word which means "information republished from sources the general public thinks are reliable, even if it's wrong, but no information from highly credible sources the public doesn't like, even if it's right." Enrico Dirac 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree partly. The fact is that if things were given representation proportionate to how much the population believes things, then the articles pertaining to evolution and creationism would half or even more give credence to creationism. Ultimately, it should not be for the common population to give consideration to weigh, but rather from good authorities on truth, not just the commoners. This includes favoring researchers, academics, and specialists over common people or activists.--A 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While such opinions are quite fringe, they are somewhat significant. I think that PPA just needs to be condensed without removing anything. What needs to be noted is the opposition throughout. After all, I do believe that all the arguements for Flat Earth people are presented. I think we should take Flat Earth as a reference to how to treat PPA. If there is a high volume for anti-PPA, then it should not be too hard to find. To combat efforts against the introduction anti-PPA material by pro-PPA people, of course, is something that must be done, but the wording should still not make it so that Wikipedia would endorse this anti-PPA POV.--A 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If dubious studies are to be included, then I think they need to be condensed into one sentence telling what they are, and a phrase telling that it is found to be dubious (with a sourced statement). I think that the studies should be included as much as they are given serious consideration by non-activists.--A 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue against the idea that purely PPA and anti-PPA are involved. There is also the academic, legal, and other views which must be given its due (higher) weight, whatever side they come down upon. Surely this must not be just a dispute between activists of opposing viewpoints, but of experts as well.--A 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

I think this article should be created. I would like to know whether there have been any scientific studies concerning adult-child sex, to see whether it causes psychological damage. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this information. If there hasn't been, then there could be just information about how society sees adult-child sex, and how the scientific community sees it, so people can have information to decide how they should see it. I feel the scope of this article would be different from that of the articles on pedophilia, child sexuality, and pederasty.a.z. 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have said it before, and it is slightly off-topic, but just for the emphasis, I would like for the articles to be mostly scientific/legal/psychological or something like that rather than political. If there has been any studies on it, the only cases would of course be criminal? That would be difficult for scientific researchers to obtain, I would think, so I would think that there would not be much. It would have to focus on legal and social aspects instead, but still preferably favoring academic views. As for this particular article, I feel, however, that this has already been created under the title "Child sexual abuse."--A 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on child sexual abuse seems to focus on legal stuff. a.z. 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not like that, then perhaps you could add some material not focusing on the legal aspect.--A 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's better to move it to Child sexual abuse (legal), then make child sexual abuse a disambiguation to adult-child sex and child sexual abuse (legal). a.z. 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex is covered in child sexual abuse and we dont need another article on this subject. Many studies have been done indicating children (and adults) get damaged by such activity and I strongly oppose your suggestion to split the legal bit of CSA and then use the rest of the material to create an adult-child sex article which would be asn immediate candidate for afd and whose POV pushing title would not be accetable to our NPOV naming policy. Of ocurse, you can expand the CSA article but your renaming suggestion would be a seriously backward step in temrs of trying to NPOV this series of articles, SqueakBox 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite one study about adult-child sex that wasn't done in a society in which adult-child sex was illegal? Doing something illegal with a child, and asking the child to hide it from people, so you don't get arrested, could be the cause of the psychological damage in children that have had sex with adults in recent times. I believe the only way to really know whether adult-child sex causes psychological damage or not would be to observe a society where there are no laws and pejudice against this. SqueakBox, if there is not a study like that, then there is no proof that adult-child sex causes psychological damage, nor there is a proof that it doesn't. I believe Wikipedia should say whether there is or there isn't such a study. I am personally interested in knowing that, so I can have an informed opinion, and you should be as well, otherwise your opinion is simply not based on facts. a.z. 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it given I couldn't name one society in which child-adult isnt illegal and really we should not assume scientific studies depend on the law in those places where the studies are taking place. You could argue laws against cannabis effect studies on that subject because scientists cannot easily if at all obtain the cannabis legally in order to make the study but adult-child sex laws do not effect scientific studies in that way and certainly scientists dont allow the filter of the law to affect their work in a case such as this. Adults asking children to hide illegal sexual activity with the adults does not effect scientific studies and your claim that it is the law and not the adult that abuses the child is a classic piece of original research. Your claim that there is no proof that adults forcing children into sex is contradicted by thousands of studies and its your original researc h in claiming otherwise, SqueakBox 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am skeptical that adults asking children to hide illegal activities don't affect studies on whether those illegal activities cause harm to the children or not. It looks to me quite difficult, with the current technology, to separate the obvious harm caused by telling children to hide things from everyone because they're illegal from the possible harm caused by the sexual activity itself. Has any scientist ever claimed to be able to do that? a.z. 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have zero chance of getting an Adult-child sex article into Wikipedia. Even if it wasn't an immediate AfD, Jimbo would delete it the minute he saw it.

As for studies, they are largely irrelevant. We don't make sex between adults and kids illegal because studies show it causes harm. We make it illegal because it is dirty, filthy, disgusting, immoral, and something only an icky pedophile would want anythng to do with. You can pick studies to show just about anything you want, anyway. Someone once said that the results of any social science experiment could be correctly summarized as "Some do. Some don't." Enrico Dirac 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Enrico Dirac, isn't the very reason why it is considered immoral that it is thought to cause harm? a.z. 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Even if it made children happy and contented, it would be considered immoral and wrong. It's a cultural thing. Enrico Dirac 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Do you disagree with Wikipedia pointing out that there are no studies proving that adult-child sex causes psychological harm? Do you agree that Wikipedia should not say that adult-child sex causes psychological harm? a.z. 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There's really no way to conduct such a study in a way everybody on both sides of the issue would endorse, so it's kind of a moot point anyway. You can do double blind randomized studies of people, and look at indicators of harm in later life, like mental illness, unemployment, and alcoholism, and see if there is a correlation with early sexual behavior with adults. But all you can prove is that girls seem to be harmed more than boys, most people have moved on and don't give a shit, and frightening coercive situations do more harm than situations the kid feels comfortable with. There's no way to control for other factors, like harm from society's attitudes vis a vis harm from the sex, and as with studies on things like whether there are racial differences in intelligence, there's always the suspicion that the investigator had ulterior motives to start with.

Besides, when we say that adult-child sex is harmful, it is not a statement about every sexual act between a legal adult and a legal minor harming that specific minor. It is a statement about presumed harm to "children as a class," which is not really quantifiable.

It's much like the statement that not fastening childrens' seat belts harms children. We don't mean that it harms every specific child whose seat belt isn't fastened. We don't even mean that it doesn't fatally rupture the livers of some children during accidents, who otherwise might have lived. We just mean that in general, it is a good idea, and on the average benefits "children as a class." Most people think kids not having sex with adults is a good idea too. Enrico Dirac 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A correction there. The difference is that pedophilia is a want, whereas nobody wants children to not wear seat belts. Also, child sexual abuse shares a slight similarity to prostitution in that it might be safer if it came under the regulation of the public eye, unlike an unfastened seat belt which is always bad, so your analogy fails. You said that "it is not a statement about every sexual act between a legal adult and a legal minor harming that specific minor." Contrarywise, it is actually. People who believe that child sexual abuse is harmful believe that it is harmful regardless of whether there was any physical, mental, or other kind of harm except for the fact that it is child sexual abuse. It is the belief that it is inherently harmful. If a child had sex with an adult and did not suffer any mental consequence, or any physical consequence, and grew up to be successful and never did suffer anything from it, people will still say that the child is abused, and that is the fact.--A 05:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this is just the sex abuse pundits building their conclusions into their definitions, as opposed to actually doing research which might produce results that some in the mainstream wouldn't like. Instead of defining what constitutes harm, and then doing research to see what things lead to harm, and calling that abuse, they simply define all sexual contact between people of certain specified ages as "abuse," per se. This isn't a definition anyone can try and change after the fact, because it leaves one open to the charge that one is saying that "some sexual abuse isn't harmful," which is the kiss of death to ones professional career. This is a problem which invariably occurs when a common English word is given a scientific or legal meaning which differs from its conventional definition.

Examples abound. "abuse", "rape", "force", "consent", "violent", "molest", and "child" are all words which have carefully crafted meanings within law and the abuse industry which differ from their former dictionary meanings, to send the "right message" about how we're all supposed to feel about the things these new meanings describe.

Perhaps what we really need is an article on The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse, where we can discuss things like the daycare witchhunts, claims of Satanic abuse, accusations of child porn against internationally renowned artists, and the games played by various factions of child abuse researchers, as they try to define the vocabulary, control public opinion, and discredit each other. Enrico Dirac 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Right or wrong, this POV is clearly not mainstream. You should not try to insert this, and you should try to work with the mainstream POV instead. I caution you against saying this POV, because this implies that you may have an agenda or something. I repeat, do not try to advance this POV. It has been the demonstrated opinion of Jimbo that people are pro-pedophile pushing POV on these PAW-related subjects.--A 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not editing the articles in question, aside from reverting vandalism and making minor spelling corrections, it's really not an issue. I really wouldn't waste my time editing such articles in a substantive way, as the Wikipedia administration has demonstrated time and time again that they want articles with an abuse industry bias, and they are quick to indefinitely block editors who try to introduce balance, and delete their content, using the pretext that they are supposedly "pro-pedophile."

That Wikipedia permits politics to influence article content is one of the reasons academic institutions have banned its use when writing scholarly papers, and even Jimbo admits that Wikipedia is credible only as a secondary source, for the purpose of locating primary sources to cite. The first thing I noticed when I arrived on Wikipedia, and one of my first corrections, was that the Chocolate pudding article stated that "chocolate pudding is brown, because it's melted elephant poop." Wikipedia's articles on child abuse and child sexuality are also comprised of elephant poop. It's just elephant poop that Jimbo and most of the public agree with. But I certainly wish you luck in trying to get Wikipedia to cover these subjects accurately and in a balanced way, even though the likelyhood of failure is high. Enrico Dirac 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia doesn't permit it but it happens anyway. We are not here to promote politics but to reflect how things are and it is the supporters of PPA who are resisting removal of political ideology from these articles, much to the frustration of everybody else, SqueakBox 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that anything that deviates from the abuse industry perspective is "pro-peodphile" is the standard method used by the abuse industry to discredit its critics. Since the abuse industry perspective is criticized by numerous persons, from academics to journalists to social pundits, few if any of whom are pedophiles, the fact that it is also criticized by pedophile organizations is an unimportant sidenote. Therefore trying to attach the pedophile label to such criticism, and state that it has as its primary goal "allowing pedophiles to abuse children" is highly POV. We need to do a better job of not having articles suggest that anyone who opposes the status quo is a pedophile, and wants to change things to make abusing children easier. Enrico Dirac 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we do say such a thing, merely that pedophiles who want to change the law do so because they want to sexually abuse children (and the resistance to such a simple and accurate statement is itself telling). The PAW articles suffer from way too much pro-pedophile activist belief POV pushing and to claim that the opposite is the case is a statement I cannot get my head around as it appears so obviously so far from the truth. We need better NPOV for the PAW articles not making it worse, SqueakBox 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we can never know intent, even the statement that pedophiles who oppose the abuse industry have ulterior motives should be avoided. Doubtless some pedophiles have this as their motivation, but others are probably critical for the same reasons that non-pedophile academics are critical, and their pedophilia is incidental to their criticism. Intent is always unverifiable, unless we are talking about one specific person or a specific formal organization, and they have publicly stated what their intent is. Enrico Dirac 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing all objections to adult-child sex as stemming from an "abuse industry" is just as narrow a point of view, and as skewed a mischaracterization as you are claiming others are guilty of. The "abuse industry" didn't make adult-child sex illegal, nor did it originate the public objection to pedophilia. -Jmh123 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, but I have not stated that all objections to such sexual activity stem from the abuse industry. I have merely pointed out that the abuse industry frequently employs the subterfuge of trying to pin the pedophile label on various criticisms of its junk science. Much like the Neocon philosophy of never engaging critics in debate, and instead seeking to discredit and destroy them. So we are talking about an ideological group, and a tactic they use. This doesn't imply that others don't support the same thing for a variety of other reasons. Enrico Dirac 19:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the article is made now, despite objections to it. There are studies that show the harm to children in this area. sigh. Jeeny ^(talk) 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which studies? A.Z. 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

• Talk:Human sexual behavior#Adult-child sex
• User talk:SqueakBox#Adult-child sex
• Talk:Adult-child sex
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Z. (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about whether Adult-child sex should be there or not.
Take a look at whether it is redundant or not (a summary):
Pedophilia - not quite related, because it is a mental condition
Child sexual abuse - focuses on legal and clinical aspects
Child sexuality - Perhaps it could be added into here?
Before adding all that stuff about adult-child sex, think about how there is no article called Same-sex sex. Clearly there is no article on Wikipedia dealing with every possible permutation for sex. Content focusing on adult-child sex would deal exclusively with sex, and thus should be added to another article dealing with sex. Human sexual behavior is not the appropriate one, I believe, because it is focusing on human sexual behavior in general, and certainly should not talk about a specific permutation. If a new but gender neutral article like pederasty is to be included, it would exclude the "sex" from "Adult-child sex" because it would have to not focus on sex. Instead, I believe that it should be included within broader context of content for adult-child relationships. I also think that an article titled similarily to adult-child relationships should be created with the stuff about adult-child sex added in, but not being its main focus, if an article like pederasty is to be created.--A 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I had moved all the titles to "sex and children in..." Editor Tony considers this name to be unacceptable, and has accordingly tried to help Wikipedia by moving the article back to its previous name. I didn't read Tony Sandel's rationale for why the name is unacceptable because he didn't write one.

The current name doesn't allow for child-child sex, nor for attractions of a child to an adult, and it also can be offensive to pedophiles. OK, the intention is not to associate pedophilia and child sexual abuse, but are readers supposed to assume good faith as well?

The name of an article doesn't have to explain in details what the article is about. In this case, it would be quite a long title if we tried to do that. The introduction can make it clear what the article is about. It can say that, although the title is "sex and children", the article includes instances of mere sexual attraction (which can be considered nonetheless to be sex, because this word doesn't mean just sexual physical activity; lonely mental activity is sexual, I think).

The above are my reasons for changing the title. I started a request for move on the appropriate page, in order to attract more people to the discussion. A.Z. 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any name changes that remove the words pedophilia or abuse from the titles. Your claim of children attracted to adults is original research and we don't do that here, SqueakBox —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about fiction, SqueakBox. A.Z. 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, SqueakBox 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that there be children sexually attracted to adults in fiction. I'm not sure that it is that unverifiable that children can be attracted to adults in the real world, though. Scientists should spend more time studying this matter, I think. They could use machines that scan the brain to see whether children react to photographs of naked adults by being sexually aroused. A.Z. 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Many things are possible. When it comes to article titles we need to use terms that are neutral, that readers would expect and understand, and that reflect the contents of the articles. I believe that the "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction" formula meets all three needs and I oppose changing them to anything that's less clear, less neutral, less succinct, or less reflective of article contents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think "sex and children" is more reflective of the article's contents (especially pedophilia and child sexual abuse in television). I think that pedophiles may be offended by the title "pedophilia and child sexual abuse". A.Z. 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to worry about offending a generic group like pedophiles any more than a generic group like LaRouche supporters, it certainly doesn't violate BLP, SqueakBox 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to worry about offending any person. A.Z. 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but not any group of people and the difference is critical. Anyway wikipedia is not censored on the basis of I don't like, I am offended by the opening pic in Lolicon but that's the way it goes, and we certainly cannot just worry about offending pedophiles as the basis for PAW related articles, SqueakBox 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry Rfc

I have started an Rfc on this article's talk page. I am posting this notice here since you have aproject tag on the article. Editors dispute both the notability of the subject as well as the reliability of sources and verifiability of facts. There are also concerns related to abuse of administrative/bureaucratic powers. Article has been reduced to a stub twice, and nominated for deletion. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Comments from outside observers would help to clarify issues and point a way forward. Jeffpw 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism unprotected

Editors are now free to work on this article.

Some of the early edits have been questionable to say the least. 86.150.128.67 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that your explanation for why your reverted my changes? which werere good changes. And whose sockpuppet are you? I predicted some socks of banned users would return the moment the article was unlocked and it appears I am right, SqueakBox 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Squeakbox, you are required to show WP:AGF|good faith even to anonymous IPs. If you don't like it and want the policy changed, take the appropriate steps. Until such time, however, please refrain attacking anybody--even if they are anonymous--personally. Jeffpw 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Child sexuality

Asking for input here. SqueakBox and I are in disagreement about a silly citation issue on Child sexuality. The first sentence (and in fact sole lead of the article) reads Child sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in children which appears as uncontroversially bland as a lead sentence can be. But SqueakBox decided to remove the word "feelings" saying in his edit summary [15] "rm feelings as unsourced and because children precisely do not have the emotional maturity to have sexual feelings". I think we can all agree that this is ridiculous POV pushing. He was reverted and reverted back saying [16] "dont are-add unsouirced material go source it otherwise yopur edit is unaccept". For some reason, this ended up on ANI and I reinstated the word "feelings" explaining on the talk page that "sexual feeling and the development of sexual feeling in children is an integral part of scholarly work in child sexuality, dating way back to Freud". SqueakBox seemed to grudgingly accept that but added a {{fact}} tag to the word. I argued that this is part of subject-specific common knowledge and that it is completely coherent with the rest of the article which is thoroughly cited. I also provided many references that show that the emotional aspect of sexuality is definitely accepted by everyone as part of the subject. So SqueakBox added these as references for the word "feelings". This is nonsense: the references are only tangential to the use of the word "feelings" so I removed them and SqueakBox has now reinserted the {{fact}} tag and insists that it should stay there unless the word is referenced. Oh and of course, it has to be an online source because SqueakBox won't be happy if we just say "open any book on child sexuality and read page 1" because he does not have access to a library. Please help, Pascal.Tesson 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse that we need input here. I suggested an Rfc but this is an excellent first step. My point of view is if the material is sourceable let's source it in the opening. We cant really assume people will know this alleged fact especially if, like me, we feel we are writing for uneducated third world children and not an educated western elite, and thus good sources would be fantastic. Actually I would be fine with an offline source added by a respectable, trustworthy editor (such as Pascal though he hasn't so far offered me one) but am not happy with no source. WP:RS states that any disputed material must be sourced or removed, and he is claiming he can source but doesn't, SqueakBox 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what third world children have to do with all this. The recognition that children have sexual feelings is an undisputed fact of psychology and in fact, third world children also live through sexual development which is an emotional issue as much as it is a biological one. It seems to me that you're objecting because you think "sexual feelings + children = slippery slope towards justifying pedophilia". But the fact that children do have sexual feelings in no way excuses an adult from seeking or encouraging sexual contact with children. Pascal.Tesson 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Third world children are our typical clients and the kind of client I and many of us are writing for, so what? you arenn't? You think we shouldnt' be writing for third world children, just an educated first world elite? Why not start a post on Jimbo's page saying that you dont think third world children should be our intended clients etc, and I mention there because I don't think he would agree with you. I am objecting because it is unsourced, not for any other reason, and I think of our intended clients when making any edit, SqueakBox 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very silly. I've reverted him and supplied an argument in my summary. 86.150.128.67 06:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is absurd, and obstructionist. Squeakbox is engaging in typical behavior of someone who is willing to edit war to win: asking for sources for each and every word. It wouldn´t surprise me if next he said that any reference provided (even an AMA journal or the NYTimes) was not a reliable source. In any event, here is a reference that actually uses the words child, sexual and feelings all in the same sentence: [[17]], though I should also point out that most Wikipedia editors prefer that the lead contain no references, since the lead shuld summarize the article, and the article should contain the refs. Jeffpw 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in..."

It seems to me that the following articles need to be split into two, namely "Pedophilia in..." and "Child sexual abuse in...", since they are two separate and unrelated topics:

• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls)
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre
• Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs

A.Z. 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When I started these articles, I just had pedophilia in the title, but child sexual abuse (CSA) was added later. There has been much debate since. I personally would like to have them simply titled Pedophilia in fiction (girls) etc. Pedophilia is present in all the works. That is the criterium for inclusion. Many of the works also have CSA or sexual activities that constitute CSA even if the activity is not identified by the author/producer/dirctor as abusive. One of the advantages of the simpler title is that it would remove the POV problem because some editors disagree that sexual activity with a child is necessarily CSA. See the acrimonious debate on the discussion [page] of Apples and Pears.

Pedophilia and CSA are not always 'separate and unrelated'. CSA can result from a number of conditions. Inter-familial incest is sometimes driven by pedophilic desires (sexual attraction to children), sometimes not. The CSA of post-pubertal children is frequently driven by inappropriate heterosexual and homesexual behavior. Pederastic relationships can be formed by homosexual men or male pedophiles. Some CSA is a part of a cycle of child abuse that is not primarily sexual at all.

I don't think splitting would work as there would be a 90% overlap. About 10% of the works feature non-abusive pedophiles.

So to conclude, if it came to a vote, I would go for Pedophilia in films etc. Tony 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

Is the preferential sexual attraction to children by adults (pedophilia) present in all the works and that is the criterion for inclusion, or is sexual activity of an adult with a child present in all the works, and that's the criterion for inclusion? A.Z. 05:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children by adults. The issue of whether it is 'an' attraction, a preferential or exclusive one depends on which country you live in. So we cannot have a definitive POV on that. In most cases, the motivations and feelings etc. of the pedophile character are not examined. Sexual activity is not a criterion. Death in Venice, for instance, is included. Hope that helps. Tony 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

I'm confused as to which is the criterion, sorry. You say the motivations are not examined, which means that we don't know if the character is attracted to the child, which means we don't know whether they are pedophiles. You also said that sexual activity is not a criterion. Could it be that there are two independent criteria for inclusion: sexual activity of adults with children and sexual attraction of adults to children?

The article on pedophilia says it is a "preferential" attraction, but I think this is a problematic and rather useless definition. A.Z. 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite confusing! The article on pedophilia is regularly disputed and I agree with you that the 'preferential' adjective is problematic. The word I used 'motivation' was not that good a one to use. The criterion for inclusion is pedophilia (i.e sexual attraction) of all varieties: inter-familial & predatory; fixated & situational; inactive & abusive. Sexual activity is not a criterion, but if there were two criteria (as you pose the question), the works to be included would be huge, incorporating, for instance, sexual attraction to mature (but underage) teenagers of both sexes.Tony 10:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

I was one of the editors who supported the addition of "...and child sexual abuse..." to the titles. The various books, movies, etc., sometimes center on the adult characters and their pedophilic motivations, but they sometimes center on the children, and in many of those cases the activities are depicted as child sexual abuse. And in yet other cases the distinction is not clear. So rather than have to decide on each entry (which would be orignial research) it's best to keep the scope wide by mentioning both aspects in the articles titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Will on this one, SqueakBox 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that it might blur the line between pedophilia and csa and people might start to think they are the same thing and we don't want that of course. Ospinad 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the line is blurred and indeed in common English usage they are pretty much synonymous, and while I diont think we should merge CSA and pedophilia I dont think we need to worry re this issue, SqueakBox 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones II

It has recently been asserted that the PAW articles are under attack from a succession of sockpuppet editors, and that this is good enough evidence to cast doubt upon and undermine the arguments and consensus of editors who some may see as Pro-pedophile, and others such as myself would see as strict NPOV adherents.

So lets put this to the test. Although we have seen cases of multiple socking by both DPeterson and Pol64 (who edited with an anti-pedophile bias), I shall list all of those banned editors who may be seen as Pro-pedophile (by some) and give the reason for blocking.

• BLue Ribbon - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Rookiee - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Zanthalon - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Clayboy - Banned as self-identifying pedophile.
• Kirbytime - Banned for odd behaviour on Child Porn article and others.
• Silent War - Banned for "Damage to Wikipedia's reputation".
• Dfpc - Banned for "Single purpose account".
• Paroxysm - Banned for "multiple accounts" (no checkuser given, suspect given).
• Jim Burton - Banned for "Pattern of Pedophile advocacy".
• Kinda0 - Banned for being a "Pedophilia activist".
• Tolerance 01 - Banned as "sock" (no checkuser evidence given, no suspect, used a proxy though).
• Voice of Britain - Banned for no given reason, supposedly multiple 3RR violations.
• Fabian Dindeleux - Banned for "disruption".
• Bow Ty - Banned for "sockpuppet" (no checkuser given, no suspect given, one assumes Jim Burton)
• Revolt against the modern world - Banned after two edits for "pedophilia advocacy".
• Nandaba Naota - Banned as troll.
• Farenhorst - Banned as "sockpuppet" (no checkuser given (but implied), suspected Voice of Britain, contested here.
• Happy Camper II - Banned for socking - checkuser provided.
• Samantha Pignez - Banned for "extreme disruption".
• Mike D78 - Banned for "editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV".
• 86.150.128.67 - Blocked for 1 month for "abusing multiple accounts" - no checkuser or suspect given, contested by editor.

What strikes me is the lack of evidence and number of contests (given that users can simply start new accounts). Only one of six cases presents a public checkuser, and the rest are abnormally secretive and underhand. All the more worrying, at least one case appears to be based on the suspicion of an administrator, and the last one is most probably based on the user's admission to having another inactive account on Wikipedia (which is allowed).

But administrators' concerns about editors' relation to pedophile advocacy is far more common a concern than socking. This is a frighteningly easy charge to level, and in nearly all the cases (bar the obvious ones) it appeared to be invalid. And besides, what's wrong with having an agenda, if the end product is fair and balanced? Remember, admins never contested the end product of these editors. Dyskolos 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why sockpuppets should make any difference. If we focus on arguments, not votes, it won't matter whether someone has three hundred accounts or one account. A.Z. 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we work on consensus, so it is obviously quite important. But from the evidence produced, it seems like we have very little grounds to base assumptions of socking on. Complaints and suspicions should be reported to the relevant administrator's board, not raised on talk pages and used to gain a moral advantage in edit wars. Regardless, as it stands, only one "pro" editor has been blocked for socking after a full public enquiry, whilst two "antis" have faced similar consequences. Notice also the indefinite or month long bans for "pro" editors and the weeklong blocks for "antis". In addition to this, administrators have recently ignored some quite compelling evidence presented by myself, which implicated another editor in the Pol64 threesome. They then proceeded to ignore unrelated complaints of incivility and rulebreaking against the same user, because he had been cleared of using the same IP as Pol64 (kind of a Chewbacca defense). They then refused to re-instate a withdrawn 48 hour ban against this user, even though there was later found to be no checkuser connection between the user with whom he was edit warring and the banned user suspected to be the puppetmaster of this account (using the same totally unrelated defense). Whilst a checkuser result of no connection between the editor I implicated as Pol64's puppetmaster and the said edit warrior is taken as absolute evidence of unrelatedness, a similar result of no connection between Farenhorst and Voice of Britain did not present any challenge to a suspicion - fuelled indef block leveled against the former, for being a duplicate account of the latter.

And thus I have little faith in the administration right now. Dyskolos 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no evidence DPetersen ever edited PAW articles with any socks (the allegations relate purely to attachment therapy) nor that Pol64 used other than one sock, Amateur cyclone, who never edited any article spaces but made one comment on the PPA talk page[18]. You hyave no evidence that check user was never used in the cases of Farenhorst and Bow Ty as not all CU's are made publically, and because there is an arbcom case off site lack of on site evidence proves nothing. A.Z, sockpuppets are worrying and your view that they aren't has no consensus on wikipedia, indeed the overwhelming consensus is that they do matter and if you wish to change that policy you need to go to a policy page but you won't have much joy, methinks. What Dyklos fails to realise is that because socks have appeared in large numbers supporting the PPA viewpoint that we have to be vigilant against them everywhere and his claim that the only thing we should do is reportt hem to the relevant admin pages is simply incorrect and wont be happeneing until this problem has stopped for months, regardless of what you want. You are just trying to create a situation in which your views get advanced, Dyklos, and it doesn't work. If you have little faith in the administration you could try to change that on wikipedia, put up with how things work here or leave, SqueakBox 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other baned editors you did not mention, Dyklos, are

• Drogheda
• Nandaba Naota
• Revolt against the modern world
• Kartikabalaji

these 4 have been shown to be more socks of Voice of Britain by CU, SqueakBox 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of a link with VoB. It turns out that Kart/Drog were the barely used socks of Happy Camper II (the only proven checkuser sockpuppet), and Revolt plus Nandaba were both dismissed for trolling - the former after two edits. However, Tolerance01 is another editor who was dismissed as "sock" after no checkuser or even public notification. I personally know that the person who operated this account was very strict about his security and used a proxy. Whether he was socking or not, I don't know, but the issue is, there would never be any solid evidence of it. I'll update the list. Dyskolos 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thee vidence isnt availabl;e on site but was given to me by a mamber oft he arbcom who has CU status. Because a lot of the evidence is accumulated off site no CU on site evidence is not an indication that no CU information is available. I suggest you write to the arbcom. In terms of using a proxy, see Wikipedia:No open proxies, all open proxies should be indefinitely blocked, SqueakBox 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't believe you. The checkuser here returned a result of no relation between two of those accounts and VoB (as well as indicating that a similar result for Farenhorst was quietly ignored!). And why would arbcom have any interest in privately disclosing to you, information that would strengthen their case if made public? On the other hand, it is very possible that the original person behind VoB has socked on multiple occasions, with or without the listed accounts.

Tolerance01 should have been blocked for NOP, not socking. Dyskolos 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't believe me you are not going to get anywhere with this. If you are accusing me of lying that is a personal attack and really invalidates any argument you might have here but go check with the arbcom, as I said before, before making ridiculous and childish accusations that make it impossible for me to see you as a good faith user. Until you become an admin yourself I suggest you don't go round telling people what other people should be blocking people for or telling people who know far more about the project than you do that they are lying just because yopu dont want to hear what they have to say or dont like it. Given your comment I suggest we close this thread as there is clearly no point in trying to explain anything to you, you think you know it all already but it seems increasingly obvious to me with all this talk of various editors using open proxies that it is unlikely that there are more than 2 or 3 real users who are using all the rest, including yourself, as socks in order to evade bans and that your obsessional behaviour re this sock issue over the last days amply confirms this. And BTW using open proxies is not blockable its the OP's that are blockable, but SPA POV pushing may well be blockable and I certainly haven't seen a single unjustified indefinite blocking so far, SqueakBox 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have some nerve calling him childish after the way you just acted. And he had a valid argument, why would an arbcom disclose privately to you, without making the evidence available to everyone else? You are the one making the personal attacks, accusing him off-handidly of using socks with no proof. Or do you have proof but for some reason can't show anyone that either? Ospinad 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! 21 editors. That's one hell of a crackdown! Having myself been accused from the moment I turned up, it gives me the suspicion that a whole load of them weren't too bad. Correct me if I'm wrong. ♥ Lundiaka 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 21 accounts, fewer editors. I don't know about every one of them, but several of these accounts were real pests, insisting on promoting pro-pedophile POVs rather than promoting the project's best interests. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I find this comment rather inaccurate. Sure, these editors were on the radical side, when viewed relatively, but this was not of their own making, it was exactly because the other editors displayed higher levels of bias and disregard of official policy. These editors are suffering the fallout from the blocking of self-identifying pedophiles, fuelled by the witch-hunt against anyone who could be identified with them thereafter.

Lets get back to basics. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

I challenge you to demonstrate how decent editors such as Jim Burton and Samantha Pignez were breaking with the NPOV policy and forcing a fringe POV upon the encyclopedia. This idea has been oftentimes asserted, but at the very most, rarely supported. Dyskolos 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the Farenhorst evidence, which is looking even more dodgy. As we already know, he was put through a checkuser with VoB, which failed to link him (despite the fact that he was banned because of that link). Notice how the admin phrased it to look as if they had not run those two users off against each other. Wishful thinking. It looks as if they're covering for the original mistake of banning a project member with no proper evidence. As I said - little faith. Dyskolos 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't convince me that Rookiee, Zanthalon, Clayboy, et al., were editing neutrally on pedophile topics unless they made edits that don't appear on their contributiosn lists. I worked with them and they were tireless at promoting their POV and using every loophole or Wikipedia policy to help press their case. They made kepping articles NPOV a real struggle and I'm glad they (and their sockpuppets) are gone. They have their own wiki that they can edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been working with PAW articles more recently and hearing what you say, Will, I have to say I don't believe these editors you mention have gone, indeed IMO they have been here until at least very recently, tirelessly pushing the same old POV as Farenhorst, Mike D78, Samantha Pignez etc, SqueakBox 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't personally speak for Rookiee or Zanthalon (as far as wikipedia contributions go), but as far as I know, Clayboy was no problem, although still, I may be wrong. I am commenting about editors such as Jim Burton and Samantha Pignez who focussed in on the PAW, but did not seem to be in any way sympathetic to its subjects. If we're talking loopholes, one has to look at how harshly they were treated in recieving indefinite blocks without warning, previous sanctions or even public notification in some cases. If, in maintaining a position of zero judgement towards pedophiles, pedophile activists, anti pedophile activists, etc (in the article voice), these editors were doing something wrong, then exactly the same could be said of myself.

Your assumption that the following accounts (Farenhorst, etc) are the sockpuppets of self identifying pedophiles demonstrates perfectly how the legacy of BLueRibbon et al has been used to unjustly attack other editors. We have to remember that the ped accounts were largely inactive, with Rookiee, Zanthalon and Clayboy being occupied with other projects or otherwise disinterested after banning, Silent War disappearing into internet wilderness and dfpc swearing never to return. IMO, it is very possible that some of the following (non pedophile or otherwise neutral) editors felt that thay had been witchhunted and returned with new accounts. Thus, bad behaviour on the part of these editors was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you unjustly ban them as POV pushers when they are the only ones treating the subject fairly, and they will return with a vengence, looking for justice.

If you have any interest in taking a look at the accounts that you know less about, these are the ones that to me, looked most unjust (barring the "socks", which although VERY shaky, are harder to argue against):

• dfpc
• Jim Burton
• Fabian
• Nandaba Naota
• Mike D78
• Farenhorst
• Samantha Pignez ... Dyskolos 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the rationale for banning all self-identifying pedophiles? Is there a written policy about this?

Dyskolos, it would be great if you provided more evidence of what you are saying, such as diffs, and explain why you think banning those people was unjust. I, for instance, don't know anything about all those editors and their histories. I could check their contributions, but I believe some of it was deleted, and this would take too much time. a.z. 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z, there is most definitely a policy against self-identifying pedophiles because of the harm self-identification does to the projecdt. If you want more information I suggest you write to the arbcom but it was BLueRibbon's self-identifiaction that, to the best of my knowledge, provoked all this and if you check Jimbo Wales talk archives you will see the various discussions there re this issue and the comments of BLueRibbon and Jim Burton.

Dyklos, for the record I strongly disagree that Jim Burton wasn't POV pushing a PPA line and disagree that the others weren't as well, SqueakBox 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many different editors may show up claiming that mainstream psychology supports the notion that sex between adults and children is not harmful to children, or claiming that mainstream psychology is moving towards acceptance of adult-child sexual relationships just as homosexuality has been accepted, or citing any one of a limited number of studies to support the cause, the fact remains that these claims do not represent a mainstream perspective on this topic. Pro-pedophile activism is an POV agenda, and it is and has been pushed aggressively on Wikipedia for some time. Sure, some editors with a pro-pedophile POV are nicer than others, and MikeD78 was one of the nice ones, but he was not neutral on this topic. If one edits on these articles regularly, one comes to "know" certain individuals--whatever their names may be, and there is no doubt in my mind that the pro-pedophile POV pushing is being done by a very small group of people who do return and edit again and again under different IDs. Problem is, regardless of the "side" on is on, the situation is intolerable. Most Wikipedia editors simply can't stand to have anything to do with these pages, no progress is made, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I admire SqueakBox's tenacity, but I can't stand his manner of dealing with others, his incivility and flaunting of procedures. DPeterson's sockpuppetry was obvious and unconstructive. Neither one of them has demonstrated any knowledge of the research on this subject. In a sense, the pro-pedophiles are winning, despite this claim of unfair bannings, because the articles are still not truly neutral or balanced, and do not represent a mainstream perspective on the topic. Many editors, including myself, have been driven away by the relentless pushing and bickering and arguing and incivility on pedophilia related pages. The blame for that lies on both "sides". -Jmh123 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, while I agree that those individuals are biased, I believe that it is not so bad if they are sincerely trying to be as unbiased as possible. Besides, nobody can sincerely claim to be unbiased. These people hold a fringe view shared by pretty much less than 1% in the first-world countries, but that does not mean that having views is equivalent to having an agenda. Indeed, one can be pro-choice or pro-life and earnestly try to edit Wikipedia articles about those topics for non-activist reasons. I have been here for a quite a short time (for a short time with User:An_Extropian before switching to this account), so I can't tell whether they were trying to be NPOV or not. However, I have looked over their user contributions and some of them have certainly not stated their cause to be to edit Wikipedia to be biased towards pro-pedophiles. I do not believe that self-identifying as a pedophile is equivalent towards being biased towards pro-pedophilia any more than self-identifying as a Muslim is biased towards pro-Islam. For example, XavierVE - he was indef blocked because he himself stated that he does not intend to contribute to Wikipedia with NPOV, but possibly could return if he would retract this and would agree to try to contribute to Wikipedia with NPOV. --A 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that characterizing criticism of the plethora of biased and misleading Wikipedia articles on sex and kids as "editors claiming adult/child sex is not harmful to children" just mirrors the tactics used by those pushing the CSA moral panic in regular society. Publish a paper debunking bogus numbers on the incidence of child porn and child abuse, propose a population-based peer-reviewed study which might produce an unpopular result, or suggest a change in the extremely value-laden terminology presently used in the CSA field, and no matter what your academic reputation, the usual Dr Lauras and Judith Reismans and "family values" organizations of the world will bombard the media with claims that "so-and-so says sexual abuse isn't harmful" and "so-and-so is pro-pedophile" and "so-and-so wants to legalize adult/child sex." This is always tremendously successful, and the resulting noise completely obscures any attempt to discuss the research on its merits.

Given that tremendously sucessful political strategies generally manage to get adopted in new venues, it's hardly a huge surprise that Wikipedia now has its own little cadre of True Believers, beating their little sex abuse drum, and running around shouting "pro-pedophile activism" every time they see something which violates the party line on the topic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that what currently passes for NPOV in some of these articles reads like a press release from some conservative religious pressure group.

Sexual abuse is certainly a bad thing, but the type of hypervigilance that leads to sex abuse witch hunts like Wenatchee and the daycare scandals of the 1980's, which put scores of people in prison based on fabricated evidence, is also a bad thing.

I can't ever remember anyone getting banned from Wikipedia for turning a sex abuse article into a hateful pejorative-laden rant. But I've seen a lot of people banned after their edits annoyed the current Kiddie Sex Cabal that has arrogated to themselves the right to make sure that all such articles on Wikipedia contain the approved amount of anti-pedophile innuendo and vitriol. Some are banned with vague references to Pro-Pedophile POV, whatever that is. Others just disappear at the hands of Arbcom after secret proceedings. Entire articles which have been worked on by hundreds of editors, and which certainly represent community consensus, just arbitrarily disappear if someone high up decides they don't have enough anti-pedophile innuendo in them. This isn't an open and transparent process, where actions may be reviewed and commented upon. It is a fiat process in which talk pages get protected, and replaced by Wikipedia's version of what Wikipedia alleges transpired.

Now Wikipedia is a privately owned resource, with complete and total control over what it publishes. Oh, there's a lot of handwaving about consensus, and how it's actually run by the editors, and editorials making fun of anyone who suggests a Cabal exists. But in point of fact, Wikipedia has a certain political tone, and although anyone is free to contribute, it is a hierarchy of plebian editors, admins, Arbcom members, with Jimbo Wales at the top, and each level learns what the level above it wants, and exerts veto power over the levels below it.

NPOV is in reality the official Wikipedia POV, and the official Wikipedia POV on Child Sexual Abuse is fully supportive of the current hysteria and moral panic, and cares not a whit about what the actual facts are, and will always favor innacurate "mainstream perspective" over the truth. Wikiality and Truthiness aren't just amusing words on late night TV. They are an accurate description of what is produced by the Wikipedia process. 66.109.192.105 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

66.109.192.105, Wikipedia already favors inaccurate mainstream perspective, and always will be. You must realize that coverage is given in proportion to its notability. Also, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The way private non-profit-organizations like these work is that there is pretty much a single person (like Jimbo Wales) in charge, and that is pretty much just the way it is.--A 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is broadly correct, SqueakBox 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that the move to ban pedophiles is political. I has even been stated several time on the edit histories of the talk pages of some of those banned accounts "account page blanked and protected to protect Wikipedia's reputation." Moreover, I would disagree with saying that someone is a "POV-pusher" just because they have a bias. Even if people are biased, they can still at least try to be NPOV. The problem, of course, is when people do not try to be NPOV, like the case of XavierVE. I do not like this, of course, because encyclopedias should not be political. I do sincerely believe that accusing such biased people are POV-pushers is uncalled for, and politically motivated for the aforementioned reason. If you, 66.109.192.105, want to do something about this, you can only take this up to Jimbo Wales, since it is he who personally blocked Clayboy, and with the reason that it is to "protect Wikipedia's reputation."--A 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I support a generally tolerant line around not seeing people banned for POPV pushing but I do think that self-identifying pedophiles being blocked is correct, and wikipedia's reputaion as the stated reason also mnakes sense. I also think that banned self-identifying pedophioles should not be welcome back on to the PAW related pages (for me they are welcome to come and edit other topics and we wouldn't know if they did anyway). I think these PPA supporters are willing to go along with our policies as far as it helps them in their aims whereas Xavier wasn't but his aim was never really top help wikipedia, his focus is on PJ and his stated reason for editing was his didslike of the wikipedia article on PJ. I may not always come acropss as the msot civil editor but Im ma genuinely committed to NPOV and the project as a whole, SqueakBox 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To say that they were banned for POV-pushing is a red herring, and I just want you to get that straight. If they "these PPA supporters are willing to go along with our policies as far as it helps them" as you say, then the NPOV rule is among them. They are banned not for POV-pushing, but to protect Wikipedia's reputation, although they have been described as POV-pushers by some admins (even though it is not the reason). I disagree with the notion that biased or bad people are unable to contribute to Wikipedia if they try to follow NPOV and all other policies as well, because even if their worldview is egregiously wrong, it does not mean that they cannot contribute material of encyclopedic value. You have said that to protect Wikipedia's reputation is a good reason. I will not contest that however. It is up to Jimbo to decide, and for the moment, I do not care.--A 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just banning "out" pedophiles. It's the banning of anyone who repeatedly objects to the slanted and deleted articles, and it's usually done by Jimbo or Arbcom with the excuse of "disruption" or no reason given at all. If this were just a case of people getting banned for saying "Hi, I'm a pedophile" on their User page, it would be a less complicated problem to deal with. It's just extremely annoying to have people suddenly disappear without explanation after they have pointed out censorship, especially when Wikipedia attracts editors to donate their time based on a representation that the article development process is an open and transparent one. Enrico Dirac 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because Jimbo currently thinks that anyone who wants the fringe opinions of pro-pedophilia to be fairly represented must be a pedophile. He has even said in the ArbCom against the sysop who deleted the lolicon image that shocking things have the burden of proof to be included, that the ones who want process to be followed for pro-pedophile things are automatically pedophiles, and that such shocking things do not deserve process. I myself think that such an opinion is shocking, since not all such people are pedophiles. However, this is Jimbo Wales you are talking about, and you can take this up only to Jimbo Wales. He is the one to decide how things are run on this website.--A 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, for I've been wondering about this, why does self-identifying as a pedophile or a pro-pedophile activist supposedly gets one banned from Wikipedia, but self-identifying as an anti-pedophile activist is considered completely acceptable. I think there's a definite bias to this unsaid policy, for anti-pedophile editors that edit PAW articles with an intention to skew the subject their way are just as disruptive to the project as pro-pedophile activists pushing their POV. Basically, editors like Pol64 can openly self-identify as anti-pedophile activists and nothing happens, but anyone even suspected of being affiliated with the pro-pedophile movement gets reprimanded and often blocked. I don't know, but something is definitely fishy about this "policy." ~ Homologeo 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because Jimbo Wales thinks that they are a detriment to the reputation of Wikipedia. Whether this is fair or not is up to you to decide. This is actually the first case I have ever heard of people being banned for brining bad reputation. As far as I know, people can be banned for making racists comments, but not for saying that they are racists.--A 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the ways that previous accounts have furthered the "PPA" POV is by contending that it is morally, legally, and/or encyclopedically equivalent to the "anti-PPA" POV. The fact of the matter is that in modern western society the PPA viewpoint is heavily denigrated. To the PPAs it may seem unjust that their viewpoints are not respected as much of those who oppose them, but Wikipedia can not and should not do anything to change that fact. We're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. Not only must the project be neutral on the topic, it must appear neutral. If it did not appear neutral on such a delicate topic it would impede the encyclopedia's value as a reference work.

No one is ever banned from Wikipedia based on their private thoughts. People are only banned for actions that disrupt the project. Posting a notice that says "I support pedophilia" on a user page is disruptive. Saying, ";I'm here to defend the PPA viewpoint" is also disruptive. In fact, most promotion of the PPA POV is disruptive because it puts a viewpoint ahead of WP's goals.

The requirement for being neutral does not mean presenting all sides equally, it means presenting all sides with appropriate weight. The PPA POV should be acknowledged and presented neutrally, but it should not be promoted beyond its position in society. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that there should not be any bias at all, even towards the majoritarian viewpoint. This is the case with human and with Adolf Hitler. While Wikipedia is not to right the world's wrongs or anything of that like, it is not supposed to report on the wrongs/rights saying that something is good or bad even if it is plainly obvious that it is - that is to say, if pedophilia is a great evil, the encyclopedia itself should not say so, but should merely tell that people think so.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it may be disruptive. I would disagree that it would constitute a COI, however. To say one supports something, like Neo-Nazism, is not a COI, as long as one's interest is in bettering Wikipedia rather than to advance one's viewpoint. I am quite sure that even if one said something heinous like I support PPA, that is not equivalent to saying that one wishes to make Wikipedia support PPA.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It would really be nice if people stopped weighing these articles on some imaginary pro-pedophile/anti-pedophile scale, and started weighing them as verifiably true versus deliberately misleading. People do get banned for trying to point out that almost all Wikipedia articles on minors and sexuality weasel and lie by omission, juxtiposition, and innuendo to some extent, often with elaborate twisting of policy by admins to try and justify their bias. That's not even counting the articles that just get deleted because someone thinks their tone will make various child sexual abuse pressure groups attack Wikipedia. Quite a bit of the discussion about these things is done by Arbcom in secret, and all mention of it on Wikipedia is generally deleted after the fact. What we have here is censorship, with the clever ploy of labeling what is being censored as "pro-pedophile." This allows the censorship to be represented a fight against "pedophilia" and the people who object to it to be labeled as "pedophiles." Facts aren't pro-pedophile or anti-pedophile. They are simply facts. Facts shouldn't be vetted by who claims to be pissed off by them, or by what agenda someone claims they promote. Enrico Dirac 15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Pedophilia Article Watch was originally started in order to try and inject some accuracy into Wikipedia's generally venomous and hysterical articles on youthful sexuality, sexual abuse, and related political issues. It seems to have been hijacked by people who now use it as a platform to censor these very same articles, calling anything that upsets the mainstream "pro-pedophile," regardless of whether it is a sourced verifiable fact or not. Again, this is simply censorship. Enrico Dirac 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you are not implying that only pro pedophile POV people should be members of PAW which is open to anyone who has an interest in the subject. And in hecting accuracy into articles choked up with a PPA viewpoint is exactly what I am trying to do, and that is not censorship. Wikipedia is not censored is a policy but that does not eman that any minority group can hijack articles in order to [promote their own POV, whether that is Democrat and Republican supporters (in the US) La Rouche followers or PPAs. Right now the balance is far too in favour of PPAs throughout the totally disputed pedophile articles and so I find your comments surprising, SqueakBox 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe people who think this is some sort of war between so-called PPA and anti-PPA factions should be editing these articles at all. The articles should be edited by people with the ability to find verifiable sourced facts on the relevant subject matter, and weave them into an article, letting the chips fall where they may. Such people should not try to present as unqualified truth stuff which is clearly fabricated with a political purpose in mind, nor should they omit sourced facts solely because someone is going to claim the "wrong message" is being sent. The wrong message suffers from the same problems as the wrong version. Enrico Dirac 18:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you are entitled to your first sentence view but the reality is that anyone other than banned editors can eidt this series of articles. I agree with the rest of your statement and we absolutely should avoid political POV pushing by those with an agenda re this subject and I would urge PPA supporters not to oppose neutral editing on the basis that it sends the wrong message, nor should they try to fabricate the truth in order to push their beliefs that, say, its fine for adults to have sex with children, SqueakBox 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that much. These articles should neither stipulate that it is harmful nor unharmful for children to have sex with adults, but merely report on the relevant things.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, a correction. NPOV does not mean presenting all viewpoints equally, but rather not presenting a non-neutral viewpoint. This means that both PPA and anti-PPA are to be excluded.--A 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so, it is harmful and we must make that clear as we are an educational encyclopedia. Your understanding of NPOV is also incorrect, SqueakBox 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will look into it more clearly. As I have said, if it is harmful, then one can conclude that it is harmful without an anti-PPA viewpoint. If it is obviously harmful, then there needs not to be any commentary on it. If it is not obviously harmful, then there needs to be reliable sources documenting that it is harmful. The anti-Hitler viewpoint would be excluded from the Hitler article, but even to the exclusion of that viewpoint, one can conclude that he did some very bad things. For now, my opinion is muddled; I shall think about it, but I still contend that if a word is as vague as "harmful," then it needs to be replaced by more specific words. I believe that Wikipedia is not to make judgements on what is good and bad, and "harm" has connotations of badness. Instead, speak of its effects rather than its vague word.--A 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read this and it sounds like I was somewhat correct. It does not mean eliminating all viewpoints. It tells that each one should be given due weight. According to this non-negotiable policy,

1. Neither the PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints should be given undue weight. That means treating each of them in portion, as Squeakbox has mentioned.
2. Neither the PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints should be treated as the truth.
3. The articles should be sympathetic to neither the PPA nor the anti-PPA.
4. The debates on the goodness of PPA or anti-PPA should be described, not engaged in.
5. There should be background on who believes what, as Squeakbox has mentioned.
6. There may be evaluations of both viewpoints, but should refrain from asserting which is better.

So, according to this, it should be made clear that PPA is very unpopular, describe all the arguements, people, and everything else against them, and make the description (but not endorsements) of their arguments due weight, but should refrain from giving PPA a full condemnation. I am not quite experienced here, so correct me if I am wrong.--A 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's closer than your earlier formulation. All significant points of view should be included, but minority POVs should not be given more weight than they're due. Wikipedia should not present any POV, even that of the majority, as the "truth". We should describe controverises bu t we should not take sides. So, it's appropriate to say that there is a PPA POV, but it should not be given the same weight as the more widely-held anti-PPA POV. Efforts to give the PPA POV excessive weight is a form of "POV pushing" and is unhelpful or even disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is not to remove descriptions of PPA, but to add more descriptions of more anti-PPA things, again not endorsing either.--A 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If articles could be infinitely large, yet still readable, that would be the best solution. But in the real world we need to keep articles reasonably compact. The PPA side appears to be fairly verbose and pro-PPA editors appear to be familiar with a broad range of material that supports their POV. Inserting all of it would give that POV undue weight. Therefore it's necessary to balance articles by presenting only a proportional amount of PPA material, which may even involve cutting sourced text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering, why are not anti-PPA just as familiar with a broad range of material which supports their POV? Just wondering. If the amount of verifiable material supporting anti-PPA is that large, (which it must be if there is much support for it?) I think that we could add much to it without removing much pro-PPA material. After all, pedophilia is a big subject, not a small one, and much attention is paid to it, so I think that it would be more appropriate to add material than to remove.--A 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We can only speculate, but my guess is that PPA folks feel the need to justify their position and so make more effort to seek out material that supports it. Anti-PPA folks don't feel the same need and so may tend to spend less time researching the field. Another issue is that quantity is not equal to quality. In the past some dubious studies, or dubious interpretations of studies, have been advanced to promote or excuse PPA. OTOH, the materials that show harm from CSA may be more definitive. Pedophilia is not that big a subject, compared to many others. Most of the coverage in the general media does not address the academic pros and cons of pedophilia, but rather the enforcement of laws against CSA. I suppose we could add more of the legal material, of which there is plenty.

However PPA editors in the past have complained that pedophiles don't (necessarily) engage in CSA, and that those who do are not (necessarily) pedophiles. The PPA editors have tended to seek to portray pedophiles as harmless gentlemen who simply have warm feelings for children but who would never dream of doing anything to hurt them, whereas those guilty of CSA are opportunistic lechers who are only branded pedophiles by an ignorant public. The effort to depict pedophiles and PPA as guiltless for the effects of CSA is another form of POV pushing that has been disruptive in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you're complaining about is that the facts have a "pro-pedophile bias," and that a "PPA editor" is anyone who doesn't agree to suppress those facts? It's not like the statistics breaking down molesters by opportunistic, situational, and pedophile aren't easily available. Again, let's just report the truth, and not worry about whose ox gets gored. Enrico Dirac 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall repeat, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Will Beback is referring to a PPA editor as one who gives PPA its undue weight. I do, however, disagree that it is merely PPA and anti-PPA viewpoints, but outside expert viewpoints which must be given its due weight. I am unfamiliar about their viewpoints, but Wikipedia editors should do some research, I think. I believe that activist viewpoints should generally be given lower weight.--A 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The English word "verifiability" implies not only that something can be checked, but that it can be checked for truthfulness. If the standard here is prior publication elsewhere in some source generally considered "reliable" by the mainstream, regardless of truthfulness, some other word should probably be used to describe such information. Unfortunately, there seems to be no concise English word which means "information republished from sources the general public thinks are reliable, even if it's wrong, but no information from highly credible sources the public doesn't like, even if it's right." Enrico Dirac 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree partly. The fact is that if things were given representation proportionate to how much the population believes things, then the articles pertaining to evolution and creationism would half or even more give credence to creationism. Ultimately, it should not be for the common population to give consideration to weigh, but rather from good authorities on truth, not just the commoners. This includes favoring researchers, academics, and specialists over common people or activists.--A 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While such opinions are quite fringe, they are somewhat significant. I think that PPA just needs to be condensed without removing anything. What needs to be noted is the opposition throughout. After all, I do believe that all the arguements for Flat Earth people are presented. I think we should take Flat Earth as a reference to how to treat PPA. If there is a high volume for anti-PPA, then it should not be too hard to find. To combat efforts against the introduction anti-PPA material by pro-PPA people, of course, is something that must be done, but the wording should still not make it so that Wikipedia would endorse this anti-PPA POV.--A 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If dubious studies are to be included, then I think they need to be condensed into one sentence telling what they are, and a phrase telling that it is found to be dubious (with a sourced statement). I think that the studies should be included as much as they are given serious consideration by non-activists.--A 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue against the idea that purely PPA and anti-PPA are involved. There is also the academic, legal, and other views which must be given its due (higher) weight, whatever side they come down upon. Surely this must not be just a dispute between activists of opposing viewpoints, but of experts as well.--A 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

I think this article should be created. I would like to know whether there have been any scientific studies concerning adult-child sex, to see whether it causes psychological damage. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this information. If there hasn't been, then there could be just information about how society sees adult-child sex, and how the scientific community sees it, so people can have information to decide how they should see it. I feel the scope of this article would be different from that of the articles on pedophilia, child sexuality, and pederasty.a.z. 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have said it before, and it is slightly off-topic, but just for the emphasis, I would like for the articles to be mostly scientific/legal/psychological or something like that rather than political. If there has been any studies on it, the only cases would of course be criminal? That would be difficult for scientific researchers to obtain, I would think, so I would think that there would not be much. It would have to focus on legal and social aspects instead, but still preferably favoring academic views. As for this particular article, I feel, however, that this has already been created under the title "Child sexual abuse."--A 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on child sexual abuse seems to focus on legal stuff. a.z. 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not like that, then perhaps you could add some material not focusing on the legal aspect.--A 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's better to move it to Child sexual abuse (legal), then make child sexual abuse a disambiguation to adult-child sex and child sexual abuse (legal). a.z. 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex is covered in child sexual abuse and we dont need another article on this subject. Many studies have been done indicating children (and adults) get damaged by such activity and I strongly oppose your suggestion to split the legal bit of CSA and then use the rest of the material to create an adult-child sex article which would be asn immediate candidate for afd and whose POV pushing title would not be accetable to our NPOV naming policy. Of ocurse, you can expand the CSA article but your renaming suggestion would be a seriously backward step in temrs of trying to NPOV this series of articles, SqueakBox 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite one study about adult-child sex that wasn't done in a society in which adult-child sex was illegal? Doing something illegal with a child, and asking the child to hide it from people, so you don't get arrested, could be the cause of the psychological damage in children that have had sex with adults in recent times. I believe the only way to really know whether adult-child sex causes psychological damage or not would be to observe a society where there are no laws and pejudice against this. SqueakBox, if there is not a study like that, then there is no proof that adult-child sex causes psychological damage, nor there is a proof that it doesn't. I believe Wikipedia should say whether there is or there isn't such a study. I am personally interested in knowing that, so I can have an informed opinion, and you should be as well, otherwise your opinion is simply not based on facts. a.z. 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it given I couldn't name one society in which child-adult isnt illegal and really we should not assume scientific studies depend on the law in those places where the studies are taking place. You could argue laws against cannabis effect studies on that subject because scientists cannot easily if at all obtain the cannabis legally in order to make the study but adult-child sex laws do not effect scientific studies in that way and certainly scientists dont allow the filter of the law to affect their work in a case such as this. Adults asking children to hide illegal sexual activity with the adults does not effect scientific studies and your claim that it is the law and not the adult that abuses the child is a classic piece of original research. Your claim that there is no proof that adults forcing children into sex is contradicted by thousands of studies and its your original researc h in claiming otherwise, SqueakBox 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am skeptical that adults asking children to hide illegal activities don't affect studies on whether those illegal activities cause harm to the children or not. It looks to me quite difficult, with the current technology, to separate the obvious harm caused by telling children to hide things from everyone because they're illegal from the possible harm caused by the sexual activity itself. Has any scientist ever claimed to be able to do that? a.z. 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have zero chance of getting an Adult-child sex article into Wikipedia. Even if it wasn't an immediate AfD, Jimbo would delete it the minute he saw it.

As for studies, they are largely irrelevant. We don't make sex between adults and kids illegal because studies show it causes harm. We make it illegal because it is dirty, filthy, disgusting, immoral, and something only an icky pedophile would want anythng to do with. You can pick studies to show just about anything you want, anyway. Someone once said that the results of any social science experiment could be correctly summarized as "Some do. Some don't." Enrico Dirac 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Enrico Dirac, isn't the very reason why it is considered immoral that it is thought to cause harm? a.z. 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Even if it made children happy and contented, it would be considered immoral and wrong. It's a cultural thing. Enrico Dirac 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Do you disagree with Wikipedia pointing out that there are no studies proving that adult-child sex causes psychological harm? Do you agree that Wikipedia should not say that adult-child sex causes psychological harm? a.z. 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There's really no way to conduct such a study in a way everybody on both sides of the issue would endorse, so it's kind of a moot point anyway. You can do double blind randomized studies of people, and look at indicators of harm in later life, like mental illness, unemployment, and alcoholism, and see if there is a correlation with early sexual behavior with adults. But all you can prove is that girls seem to be harmed more than boys, most people have moved on and don't give a shit, and frightening coercive situations do more harm than situations the kid feels comfortable with. There's no way to control for other factors, like harm from society's attitudes vis a vis harm from the sex, and as with studies on things like whether there are racial differences in intelligence, there's always the suspicion that the investigator had ulterior motives to start with.

Besides, when we say that adult-child sex is harmful, it is not a statement about every sexual act between a legal adult and a legal minor harming that specific minor. It is a statement about presumed harm to "children as a class," which is not really quantifiable.

It's much like the statement that not fastening childrens' seat belts harms children. We don't mean that it harms every specific child whose seat belt isn't fastened. We don't even mean that it doesn't fatally rupture the livers of some children during accidents, who otherwise might have lived. We just mean that in general, it is a good idea, and on the average benefits "children as a class." Most people think kids not having sex with adults is a good idea too. Enrico Dirac 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A correction there. The difference is that pedophilia is a want, whereas nobody wants children to not wear seat belts. Also, child sexual abuse shares a slight similarity to prostitution in that it might be safer if it came under the regulation of the public eye, unlike an unfastened seat belt which is always bad, so your analogy fails. You said that "it is not a statement about every sexual act between a legal adult and a legal minor harming that specific minor." Contrarywise, it is actually. People who believe that child sexual abuse is harmful believe that it is harmful regardless of whether there was any physical, mental, or other kind of harm except for the fact that it is child sexual abuse. It is the belief that it is inherently harmful. If a child had sex with an adult and did not suffer any mental consequence, or any physical consequence, and grew up to be successful and never did suffer anything from it, people will still say that the child is abused, and that is the fact.--A 05:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this is just the sex abuse pundits building their conclusions into their definitions, as opposed to actually doing research which might produce results that some in the mainstream wouldn't like. Instead of defining what constitutes harm, and then doing research to see what things lead to harm, and calling that abuse, they simply define all sexual contact between people of certain specified ages as "abuse," per se. This isn't a definition anyone can try and change after the fact, because it leaves one open to the charge that one is saying that "some sexual abuse isn't harmful," which is the kiss of death to ones professional career. This is a problem which invariably occurs when a common English word is given a scientific or legal meaning which differs from its conventional definition.

Examples abound. "abuse", "rape", "force", "consent", "violent", "molest", and "child" are all words which have carefully crafted meanings within law and the abuse industry which differ from their former dictionary meanings, to send the "right message" about how we're all supposed to feel about the things these new meanings describe.

Perhaps what we really need is an article on The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse, where we can discuss things like the daycare witchhunts, claims of Satanic abuse, accusations of child porn against internationally renowned artists, and the games played by various factions of child abuse researchers, as they try to define the vocabulary, control public opinion, and discredit each other. Enrico Dirac 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Right or wrong, this POV is clearly not mainstream. You should not try to insert this, and you should try to work with the mainstream POV instead. I caution you against saying this POV, because this implies that you may have an agenda or something. I repeat, do not try to advance this POV. It has been the demonstrated opinion of Jimbo that people are pro-pedophile pushing POV on these PAW-related subjects.--A 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not editing the articles in question, aside from reverting vandalism and making minor spelling corrections, it's really not an issue. I really wouldn't waste my time editing such articles in a substantive way, as the Wikipedia administration has demonstrated time and time again that they want articles with an abuse industry bias, and they are quick to indefinitely block editors who try to introduce balance, and delete their content, using the pretext that they are supposedly "pro-pedophile."

That Wikipedia permits politics to influence article content is one of the reasons academic institutions have banned its use when writing scholarly papers, and even Jimbo admits that Wikipedia is credible only as a secondary source, for the purpose of locating primary sources to cite. The first thing I noticed when I arrived on Wikipedia, and one of my first corrections, was that the Chocolate pudding article stated that "chocolate pudding is brown, because it's melted elephant poop." Wikipedia's articles on child abuse and child sexuality are also comprised of elephant poop. It's just elephant poop that Jimbo and most of the public agree with. But I certainly wish you luck in trying to get Wikipedia to cover these subjects accurately and in a balanced way, even though the likelyhood of failure is high. Enrico Dirac 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia doesn't permit it but it happens anyway. We are not here to promote politics but to reflect how things are and it is the supporters of PPA who are resisting removal of political ideology from these articles, much to the frustration of everybody else, SqueakBox 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that anything that deviates from the abuse industry perspective is "pro-peodphile" is the standard method used by the abuse industry to discredit its critics. Since the abuse industry perspective is criticized by numerous persons, from academics to journalists to social pundits, few if any of whom are pedophiles, the fact that it is also criticized by pedophile organizations is an unimportant sidenote. Therefore trying to attach the pedophile label to such criticism, and state that it has as its primary goal "allowing pedophiles to abuse children" is highly POV. We need to do a better job of not having articles suggest that anyone who opposes the status quo is a pedophile, and wants to change things to make abusing children easier. Enrico Dirac 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we do say such a thing, merely that pedophiles who want to change the law do so because they want to sexually abuse children (and the resistance to such a simple and accurate statement is itself telling). The PAW articles suffer from way too much pro-pedophile activist belief POV pushing and to claim that the opposite is the case is a statement I cannot get my head around as it appears so obviously so far from the truth. We need better NPOV for the PAW articles not making it worse, SqueakBox 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we can never know intent, even the statement that pedophiles who oppose the abuse industry have ulterior motives should be avoided. Doubtless some pedophiles have this as their motivation, but others are probably critical for the same reasons that non-pedophile academics are critical, and their pedophilia is incidental to their criticism. Intent is always unverifiable, unless we are talking about one specific person or a specific formal organization, and they have publicly stated what their intent is. Enrico Dirac 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing all objections to adult-child sex as stemming from an "abuse industry" is just as narrow a point of view, and as skewed a mischaracterization as you are claiming others are guilty of. The "abuse industry" didn't make adult-child sex illegal, nor did it originate the public objection to pedophilia. -Jmh123 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, but I have not stated that all objections to such sexual activity stem from the abuse industry. I have merely pointed out that the abuse industry frequently employs the subterfuge of trying to pin the pedophile label on various criticisms of its junk science. Much like the Neocon philosophy of never engaging critics in debate, and instead seeking to discredit and destroy them. So we are talking about an ideological group, and a tactic they use. This doesn't imply that others don't support the same thing for a variety of other reasons. Enrico Dirac 19:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the article is made now, despite objections to it. There are studies that show the harm to children in this area. sigh. Jeeny ^(talk) 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which studies? A.Z. 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

• Talk:Human sexual behavior#Adult-child sex
• User talk:SqueakBox#Adult-child sex
• Talk:Adult-child sex
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Z. (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about whether Adult-child sex should be there or not.
Take a look at whether it is redundant or not (a summary):
Pedophilia - not quite related, because it is a mental condition
Child sexual abuse - focuses on legal and clinical aspects
Child sexuality - Perhaps it could be added into here?
Before adding all that stuff about adult-child sex, think about how there is no article called Same-sex sex. Clearly there is no article on Wikipedia dealing with every possible permutation for sex. Content focusing on adult-child sex would deal exclusively with sex, and thus should be added to another article dealing with sex. Human sexual behavior is not the appropriate one, I believe, because it is focusing on human sexual behavior in general, and certainly should not talk about a specific permutation. If a new but gender neutral article like pederasty is to be included, it would exclude the "sex" from "Adult-child sex" because it would have to not focus on sex. Instead, I believe that it should be included within broader context of content for adult-child relationships. I also think that an article titled similarily to adult-child relationships should be created with the stuff about adult-child sex added in, but not being its main focus, if an article like pederasty is to be created.--A 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child relationships

I think this article should be created as a gender-neutral parallel to pederasty. The fact is that this title does not have the word "sex" in it, although it could contain facts about sex. This is much broader, and any material that A.Z. has can add it in there. Well, any thoughts?--A 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made comments about this on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7. a.z. 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All this material is adequately covered in pedophilia, child sexual abuse and pro-pedophile activism, no need for anything else, SqueakBox 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asking about a gender neutral version of pederasty. Perhaps it can be made by converting the exiting pederasty article into a gender-neutral one by inserting information. Or is it just too historically insignificant to justify any information on non-males? I am not an expert, so I would like more opinions.--A 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be an over abundance of man/boy. What about balance, such as woman/boy and man/girl? Jeeny ^(talk) 00:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this website could be useful as a starting point. It has links to many papers with current views on adult-child relationships. A.Z. 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing sections

I don't know if I'm correct, but it seems that there are sections on this page missing. See this version and then the next version. It looks that the section "Adult-child sex" is gone. A.Z. 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring to this edit, check the diffs and look for a reduction in bytes is how to find such a thing, SqueakBox 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say that the section "Adult-child sex" is gone, SqueakBox. Can you see the section "Adult-child sex" now? I can't. It was there, and that edit was me rephrasing a post by myself, not removing the whole section. A.Z. 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right, it disappeared between this and this edit, perhaps removed by an admin and if so should be left as is, but I don't know, SqueakBox 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please! Just because a diff was deleted by an admin, without any discussion, you think it should be left as is? Wikipedia doesn't work like that. People must know who was the author of the edit, and why it this was done. A.Z. 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not agree but anyway I have helped you out all I can (by identifying where the problem is) and if you wish to take this further that is your choice, SqueakBox 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Further it has been taken. I left a note on the Users's noticeboard, and another on the Administrators' noticeboard. A.Z. 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't set up pages on the wikipedia space single-handedly, SqueakBox 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor simply broke an HTML comment left by SineBot by leaving it open, thus removing everything between <!-- and -->. Nothing's missing. — madman bum and angel 05:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — madman bum and angel 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this in a way that lay people can understand? Also, check the section apples and pears. There's a large chunk of discussion missing. A.Z. 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Look. The previous version of the page, before you edited it, had a lot more posts. A.Z. 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

At this diff [19] you appear to have accidentally deleted several paragraphs. Are these the ones you are looking for? That was after deleting the same paragraphs here [20] to move them here [21]. -Jmh123 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, those edits by me have nothing to do with this (I think). What I did wasn't an accident. I chose to remove the posts and replace them with the new, short post. Please, see the links provided on this section. See this version, then click on the button newer revision. Seven sections disappear, but the edit history has no record of what happened. See also this previous version of the section apples and pears. It has many more posts, not only by me, but by other users, and the current version of the page doesn't have these posts, but the edit history has no record of their removal either. A.Z. 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The diff you linked is exactly where the code was broken that was just restored by Madman. Click on "diff" next to new revision and you will see the break. I've compared an older version of the page side-by-side with the current one on two different windows, and see nothing else missing. Some of the discussion under Apples and Pears was moved to a section called "more discussion" but everything appears to be there. -Jmh123 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So you mean there's no conspiracy? Thank you for the explanation, and thanks to Madman for fixing the problem! A.Z. 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're safe from the Secret Deleters Cabal for now. Twirls mustache.  :) -Jmh123 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:-) -A.Z. 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Loving Sander and Dares to Speak: sanitised by author/editor?

These books are written (Loving Sander) or edited (Dares to Speak) by Jospeh Geraci. Geraci, who says he is Joseph Geraci, has removed the articles and replaced both with the publisher's cover blurb. The blurb does not, in my opinion, describe the works from an independent POV. Thoughts anyone? Tony 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

The book's plot in Tony's version is more complete. I think that it's important to have the information that there's sex between an adult and a child. The only thing about which I disagree with your version is that it calls the sex "molestation". If the boy is a willing participant, then it makes no sense to say that. A.Z. 00:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there are serious BLP issues with having an unsourced biased and value-laden description of an author's work, instead of material taken from reviews and the publisher's synopsis. While it's typical of Wikipedia to try and stick the word "pedophilia" in every paragraph and weasel-word descriptions of youthful sexual activity with "appears to be" and "taking advantage of," and impune unsourced ulterior motives to the characters, that temptation should probably be avoided, as much as it warms the cockles of certain peoples hearts. Enrico Dirac 00:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the assertions are about the author then WP:BLP would apply, but BLP does not apply to novels and fictional characters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting a work is an assertion about the author. Much of what is in the Loving Sander blurb at the moment is unsourced original research, not to mention the gratuitous buzzwords. Enrico Dirac 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an enormous stretch that I've never seen anyone else assert. A book is not a person, and a person is not a book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If I say Alan Dershowitz's "A Case for Israel" is a manipulative screed by an bleating uber-Zionist apologist, it reflects on Alan differently than if I say it is a bestseller examining criticisms and myths about Israel. Similarly, Wikipedia's typical "Pedophilia Expose'" rendition of Geraci's work reflects on him differently than a more academic description would. The current article is full of unverifiable opinion and unsourced assertions. I don't waste my time editing articles on contentious subjects, but both articles definitely need a calm rewrite by someone who isn't trying to sell something. Enrico Dirac 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling an author a "bleating uber-Zionist apologist" would be a BLP violation. Calling a book a "manipulative screed" isn't a BLP violation, though it may be an original research or NPOV problem. Putting advertising copy into a Wikipedia article is also a NPOV problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If a book on the Middle East was written by a member of the "Zionists Association" then it would be important to mention that fact in our article on the book. The author of the books in question is a prominent pro-pedophile activist.

• I also tried to order a copy of PAIDIKA, The Journal of Paedophilia, a European magazine with a more academic slant than the [NAMBLA] Bulletin. The editor, Joseph Geraci refused because he was advised that to do so would be in violation of Canadian child pornography laws, which was true. [22]
• Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia's "Statement of Purpose" reads, "The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles..." [23]
• Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience. (“Paidika: Statement of Purpose,” pp. 2-3). [24]

While being a pro-pedophile activist or the editor of Paidika doesn't make someone a pedophile, it does mean that when he writes a novel about an adult desiring sex with a child then it is fair to say that the book deals with pedophilia. The other book, Dares to Speak, is a compendium of articles from PAIDIKA, The Journal of Paedophilia. To delete all reference to pedophilia from our article about it is censorship that harms the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Judith Reisman is a well-known right wing kook, who managed to get a PhD before anyone noticed. Even Ed Meese wouldn't associate himself with her "research", for fear of appearing foolish. While I haven't read the book in question, I've read a bunch of reviews of it, and I don't see any mention that the older character is a pedophile, that the minor only "appears to be" willing, that older character befriended the minor's parents in order to maintain access to the minor, that the intent of the older character was to victimize the minor by taking advantage of the fact that he was "vulnerable and troubled", or in fact, any evidence that the sexual acts between the older character and the minor constitute the entirety of the plot of the book, an impression certainly given by the article on it. Now these things might be true, or they might be opinions of the respective Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia is (cough) verifiable, it might be nice to substantiate some of these things, so the article doesn't look like someone pointing at something with underage sex in it, and yelling "pedophile" as loud as they can while waving a Bible open to Leviticus. Advice you can take or leave, of course, since I have absolutely no intention of editing the article myself. As an aside, the article on Paidika states that articles from the publication are available online from "pro-pedophile activism" websites, which I suppose, is some clever tautological naming convention you employ for every Website that has an article from Paidika and isn't critical of it. If you want to scribble "pedophile" and "pro-pedophile activism" all over everything without a conservative POV on child sexuality and child sexual abuse, by all means go ahead. But it's pretty transparent, and judging from the "how many people found this review helpful" ratings of reviews of the book on Amazon, public opinion is heavily weighted towards the intelligently written reviews of the book, and not the shrill child sexual abuse drumbeating by a few loud idiots. Enrico Dirac 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call your fellow editors "loud idiots". I'm not sure how you can admit that you haven't read the book in question while asserting that the plot summary is incorrect. As for Reismann, she is simply quoting the "Statement of purpose". Unless you assert that she is quoting inaccurately she isn't a factor in this. Reviews on Amazon aren't worth the paper they're written on as far a being reliable sources. I'd note that Amazon does tell us that this author's books all have rankings of well over a million, meaning there are at least a million titles that sell more copies. If that's the case are we sure that the books are even sufficiently notable to have articles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am referring to a few "loud idiots" who posted extremely negative reviews on Amazon.com, demanding the book be banned, that it is child porn, etc... This is clear if you correctly read my prior comments, where the last section discusses the public rating of user-posted reviews on Amazon, and that public opinion is weighted towards the more reasonable reviews. I am stating that the plot summary here on Wikipedia contains both opinions and unverified material. While replicating the publisher's blurb would be advertising, and COI demands that the author propose changes on the talk page, rather than leaping in and making them himself, I think a better description of the book can be written. I would like you to withdraw your claim of a personal attack against Wikipedia editors, as it is clear I am referring to user reviews at Amazon.com and not editors at Wikipedia in my final few sentences. Enrico Dirac 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may seem like it would violate WP:NOR, but if you review other articles on novels and other fictional works you'll see that they all include plot summaries written by Wikipedia editors. While we could argue over whether the themese are pedophilic or merely pederastic, I think we should first determine wther the books are even notable enought to worry about. Wikipedia:Notability (books) reflects our normal standards. It appears to me that neither of the books meet out criteria. I've aleady looked for reviews and found little. Unless anyone can find some factors that show they meete the notability standards I'll just nominate them for deletion and shortcut this debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The books are notable within their genre. The genre, on the other hand, is a very tiny fraction of all printed works. Does Wikipedia have articles on other representative works from this and other niche publishing genres? Based on a quick perusal, it seems the answer is "no."Enrico Dirac 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be notable, but we still need some sign of that notability. If you want the articles to stay I suggest you find material of the type listed in Wikipedia:Notability (books): significant articles or reviews of the books, awards, use in the classroom, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand again. I'm saying that Wikipedia doesn't have many similar articles, and apparently doesn't cover things this obscure, notable as they may be within their little communities. It doesn't, for instance, have articles on all the best books on Morris Dancing. So I was actually arguing for deletion. Enrico Dirac 13:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Expand scope to ephebophiles or at least pederasts

The ephebophile apologists are just as bad as the pedophiles. There was recently a concern about Historical pederastic couples which is a lot better now than it was a few weeks ago, but there are many more similar problems. For example Spartan pederasty and Pederasty in ancient Greece have the same primary historical source from an author with a reputation for biased inaccuracy, claiming that pederasty was mandatory in Sparta.

The risk to the project's reputation is similar as with pedophile activists. Is there any objection to expanding the scope of this WikiProject to articles concerning ephebophilia? 1of3 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PAW is not a battering ram for the puritan antisexual revisionist agenda. You seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of PAW, which has nothing to do with the recent administrative corruption in blocking unpopular editors. 82.45.15.121 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Paul Neil

A current events article I found you might like to watch. Lots of useful comments on the discussion page (lol). --DanielCD 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I created an article on Chester Stiles, another one for the watchlist, SqueakBox 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

An editor is removing all reference to pedophilia and child sexual abuse from the brief descriptions. He clearly has not read many of the books. Could any third parties come to the rescue of the article please. Leaving sanitised descriptions will encourage a charge of pro-pedophilia aactiviam and have the article removed. The same editor reverted to Geraci's version of Loving Sander without joining in the current debate. Tony 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

All these articles are listcruft and OR anyway. They serve only two purposes. They make people happy who like to see the words "pedophilia" and "abuse" next to each other, and want anything and everything presenting a non-critical view of underage sex labeled with these words; and they serve as a list of recommended reading and viewing material for people interested in child sex. The first thing is highly POV, and the second reflects badly on Wikipedia, and is provided in numerous other places on the Internet. AfD fodder. Enrico Dirac 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A highly personal POV and really quite insulting. Should an editor be allowed to make insinuations like this? I hope not. Tony 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

We could make an article called "Spanking and child physical abuse in fiction (boys)" and please the people who think spanking is abuse, want all fiction depicting it so labeled, and attract all the spanking fetishists who want to find good books to read. As with the article you are discussing, this would be both POV and would provide a service to pervs. Simply making a list of things is not encyclopedic. Making a list of things to politically scribble on them even less so. Enrico Dirac 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)