Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

Serious revision needed

Articles like these are prime reasons why real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations from their students and peers. NPOV does not mean "both points of view." It means a neutral point of view, and does not mean that all positions on a subject have to be given equal weight. I realize that the Internet is one of the few places where unabashed pedophiles can express their views (which they do have) without suffering damage to their reputation (or selves) in their real lives. But statistically they are an extreme minority and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for child molesters. The information here is incongruous with other articles dealing with child molesters and therefore serious revision of this article is very necessary. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would specify the views/information you are referring to. Crimsone (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that NAMBLA organising is political activism, and not necessarily molestation of children. You are specifying your own belief, and that is far from neutral. forestPIG^(grunt) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the link between pedophiles and child sexual abuse as the first is a psychiatric disorder and the latter child sexual abuse a legal issue. Although I do agree with your statements that pedophiles are a minority and Wikipedia ought to have a neutral point of view. But as with any organization, the organization's views should be listed on this page.

User:Aparthia^(grunt) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations because Wikipedia is tertiary (generally speaking). A good wikipedia article would contain references that could be used as a source, but it would not itself be a source. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the popular media

Could be added: There's a song by The Wonder Stuff on their 1993 album Construction for the Modern Idiot which lyrics explicitely are adressed to the MBLA: "I wish them all dead". --78.52.142.220 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I second this suggestion, this song really should be added to the NAMBLA page, the lyrics booklet clearly states that the song is about the (NA)MBLA.
-- Hego99 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT???????

I object strongly to the listing of this article in the LGBT category. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, and I think it is highly offensive to lump people into a category with people who exploit children for sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenaChemistry (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't about 'people who exploit children for sex' -- or at least that's a highly tendentious interpretation.The Relativist (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkout the archives it's been discussed several many times with strong arguments on both sides but comes down on the keep side. It could be discussed again but check the archives first as you may find someone has already answered your issues...—Ash (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Check your favorite dictionary sometime. If pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to children, then homosexual pedophilia certainly exists. What you probably intend to say is that pedophiles shouldn't be associated with mainstream gays. 174.126.77.173 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality" Sure it does. Doesn't the Catholic Church, among others, have this problem with homosexual pedephile priests? Many of their victims claim that they are homosexual today because of the homosexual pedophile priests.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Earthfast you are mistaken to a great degree - pedophile has nothing to do with being homosexual because the two terms have different meaning. Plus heterosexual can also be pedophile, not exclusively homosexual. Regarding the priest-homosexual thing, do you have any source to back up that frivolous claim?74.216.18.241 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedophiles

Why is the fact that these ppl are considered by many to be pedophiles not mentioned in the opening paragraph? Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It should really be. Disguising a truth doesn't make it less true. 88.17.179.212 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also in the first paragraph there's a typo: NAMBLA is spelled NAMLBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.158.93 (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction of citation

{{editsemiprotected}} The sixth citation that is from the "Journal of Homosexuality" only lists the name of the journal and the page numbers but no further information. The complete info is Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 20, Issue 1 & 2 February 1990 , pages 251 - 274.

This should be edited to reflect the full citation information. Below is the link to a verification of this information. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a904834876~frm=abslink

Thanks.  Done  Chzz  ►  06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

reqphoto

Resolved

 – Photo added. --Lionel (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for an overhaul

The article is in poor shape. Content is in the wrong sections, and there's redundancy throughout. I propose an overhaul, the first step being tweak the outline to encompass all sourced content, and then move items to their appropriate section, then delete redundancies. Looking at FA and GA articles for orgs, this outline should work well:

1. Goals and positions
2. Operations
3. History
4. Relations with LGBT organizations
   1. ILGA controversy
5. Curley v NAMBLA
6. Criticism and response
7. Notable members and supporters
8. In popular media
   1. Film
   2. Television
   3. Other

Founding, 1990s, Today would be absorbed into History. LGBT condemnations would go in Relations. Criticism would obviously go in Criticism per policy. There is an article for Curley now so that section needs a {{Main}} I know this is a group for, well, pedophiles, but if we're going to have the article we should make it... decent (if you'll pardon the term). Opinions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a workable plan. I'm all for it. Btw. I downgraded the article in its present state to C-class. After the proposed changes have been implemented, we'll yank it to 'B' and perhaps even attempt a GA nomination. Don't you think that could be achieved? __meco (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the re-assessment! And I'm not surprised about the 'C'. GA? What a hoot! It's certainly doable. Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that some material has been taken out of the article in the last day. Unreferenced material can and in some cases certainly also should be excised. However, if valuable information is being removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, it would certainly be a good idea to try and look for the references as well. __meco (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wolfsie & Oprah, don't know it it's valuable. "Notable members" is definitely valuable but due to BLP needs citations. "In pop culture" is an interesting read, but will inclusion get us to a B rating, and then GA? This might make an interesting entry since it's not trivial, i.e. the entire episode is devoted to NAMBLA. Lionel (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Spirit of Stonewall pic

The pic is being repeatedly removed. NAMBLA attended the march per Bronski as cited. Harry Hay was an outspoken supporter of NAMBLA (no cite really necessary). The pic is the march and Harry Hay. Do we want a pic in the article or not? Lionel (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No rationale for exclusion after 9 days. Reinserting the pic. Lionel (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To the editor who who keeps reverting the pic, you have offered a littany of reasons for exclusion, "this picture misrepresents these men as somehow with NAMBLA, the photo itself shows they were in a parade but not that they were with them," "...the ones who claim that there is a NAMBLA banner is NAMBLA," "it's actually a banner of the parade with some other banner behind it, but no source claims it's NAMBLA," and lastly "using images for decoration does not make them helpful." Decoration? What is that? Is that another way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I'll repeat: the pic is the march that nambla attended. Harry Hay, nambla supporter, is in the pic. The pic is relevant just based on the fact that Hay was a huge, notable supporter. The parade makes it doubly so. Do you have any legitimate WP policy you want to discuss? Lionel (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Hay was not a "huge, notable supporter" he protested their exclusion from the LA Pride parade as well as another person but you deleted this information. Hay supported them for various reasons but mainly because he felt that sexual minorities had been excluded too long to turn around and do that to anyone else. Cat clean (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Relevance: Is the Stonewall March relevant to nambla? Is Hay relevant to nambla? Yes to both.
2. Related: Participation in the march is obviously significant in the history of nambla. Hay's continued support of nambla is significant as found in multiple sources. The reason for his support is just context: not justification for exclusion of any sourced content whether prose or image.

Multiple sources support relevance and significance of participation in the march and Hay's participation in nambla. The pic is appropriate. Lionel (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A relevant image would be of the group itself marching, not someone famous you're attempting to link to them. The Stonewall March was just as relevant to the hundreds of groups and thousands of people in it, which is not so much. Their participation in the march doesn't seem to be much more significant than their marching in any other gay parade. I support you finding an image of them actually marching or doing anything else. Show them doing something not other famous people who you want to link to them. Cat clean (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Goals and positions

Historically this section has addressed NAMBLA's goals, initiatives, and the reasoning or logic behind them. Admittedly the "logic" is disturbing to most people. However, it really is the starting point at which to understand this org. Several months ago nambla.org was blacklisted. Then refs to this section were removed due to NAMBLAs website is "not reliable" e.g. nambla.org/welcome.htm. Now the section is essentially empty. (I just recreated it.) nambla.org/welcome.htm should be a source for their goals per WP:SPS an org can reliably talk about itself. If there are no objections, content sourced to nambla.org will be restored to this section. Lionel (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's role to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind any organization other than to report WP:DUE material from a suitable analysis presented in reliable secondary sources – we should not perform original research to explain the position of some group. While it is not possible to meaningfully comment on your proposal without seeing an example, this article should not mirror the website of an organization. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That is reasoning that makes no sense. It is standard practice to cite either an individual or an organization on their/its aims and stated purposes. We do not have to go to secondary sources for that. __meco (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I find edits by SqueakBox[1] and Jack-A-Roe[2] disconcerting and ominous for the future collaboration environment on this article. If the normal Wikipedia editing practices are to be discarded for this article in exchange for extraordinary and draconian requirements we are indeed in for an unpleasant experience. I take the reasoning of Johnuniq above as an indication of such a trend in addition to the removal of the following paragraph by the aforementioned two editors:

The group stands for the position that [[age of consent]] laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and children, particularly boys.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws."{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers" in 1996.

__meco (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, we should report WP:DUE material; that means there is no need to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind the organization other than what is currently in the article (if there is such a need, please explain it). An encyclopedic article on this topic needs to describe the facts and leave it at that, without any unsourced analysis of the goals/reasoning/logic. Many organizations have websites with hundreds of pages of details: we do not emulate those details unless secondary sources have shown such details to be warranted for mention. Re the quote in your last comment, I do not see what that would add to the article. Further, I would not want to hold an informal group like this accountable for some resolution from 1980, even it was in some papers in 1996. To do so, merely because the information is or was on their website, looks like cherry picking with no purpose to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The point about the 1980 resolution is well taken, but that doesn't mean the entire section should be edited into oblivion.

I think we can all agree that content in Goals should be reliably sourced and exclude any WP:OR. Question: is nambla.org a reliable source about itself? Lionel (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use their self-published website for that. There has been enough written about Nambla in the news and in books that reliable secondary sources can be found to document their goals. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be 2 notable positions that nambla expouses which seem to recur throughout the references:

1. Age of consent laws require reform
2. NAMBLA is a gay org

I propose addressing only these 2 positions in the section by providing a brief sourced statement of nambla's position (taking into account (1) fringe theory and (2) wording so as not to promote their positions) and then a brief sourced rebuttal. Comments? Lionel (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Skewed discussion of Curley v. NAMBLA

I find that the extensive discussion of the two Curley v. NAMBLA lawsuits, the first of which was dismissed by the court and the second dropped by the plaintiffs, presenting the allegations and arguments of the accusors in lengthy detail, to be quite inappropriate, even infringing on BLP. Comments anyone? __meco (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I was just thinking that myself. Until a verdict is rendered, it's really just hearsay on the plaintiff's part. The other problem with the section is that it doesn't address it's significance: the lawsuit generated intense negative publicity for NAMBLA and intensified the pressure to go underground. How could that not be included in the section? IMO we should trim the legal details and focus on the impact instead.

As a side note, what do you think about similar treatment at Curley v. NAMBLA, and then adding content about the victim and moving it to Murder of Jeffrey Curley with the lawsuit as a section? Lionel (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that murder case could be detailed in a separate article. As the legal cases centering on NAMBLA fizzled out I think it would be more appropriate to have those discussed in the murder case article, i.e. my opinion is that the current Curley v. NAMBLA article should redirect to that. You have probably noticed like me that the content of the Curley v. NAMBLA article is almost a copy of the text covering that matter in this (the NAMBLA) article. __meco (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ

North American Man/Boy Love Association has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ. You are free to edit the content of North American Man/Boy Love Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

In case interested editors did not notice the transcluded MfD warning above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial tag violated

An editor has made substantial changes without discussion nor consensus. I reverted. There are several active discussions on this talk page relating to article organization, Stonewall picture, goals, Curley. I recommend that the editor in question, and all editors desiring to improve the nambla article, join us. Lionel (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit, which can be seen here[3] was clearing up substantial changes that you had made like "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA" which does not match the source. I replaced that with "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups." This is sourced and accurate and not misleading in any way. Similar to plopping the name of Samuel R. Delany completely out of context, - I added "In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society." This makes it clear that Delany, a living person, supports a group "like" NAMBLA and it explains why a similar group should be allowed free expression of their ideas. That is different than a misleading statement they support the group on a page that misrepresents the group as being only about pedophilia. Until I cleaned up the Curley v. NAMBLA article I didn't know that pedophiliacs in the group were a minority and that there was internal struggle with that issue. All the recent discussions on this page are either by you or about your actions. I invite anyone else to look at the version that Lionelt simply reverted on principal and see if it isn't better quality and sourced better. Cat clean (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the parts about the group being for both pedophiles and pedarists and the context for including Samuel R. Delany, who is a living person, to make it clear in what ways he was supportive of the efforts of a group "like" NAMBLA. Cat clean (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the summarization in the lede is accurate and defamation would be an unreasonable stretch in this case. The Delany item has been in the lede for quite some time, there is no consensus to make this substantial change, and your lengthy edit represents half of the lede which is discouraged. However, in the spirit of collaboration, I'd like to open a discussion regarding where the Delaney edit should go. How about Criticism and response? (Deleny edit moved here temporarily.) BTW 4 editors including myself have posted to the talk page in the last couple weeks.

NAMBLA has been defended on free speech basis by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg. In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society.

Lionel (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The positions of these "supporters" are incredibly nuanced and most certainly need, particularly in the case of living people, to be fully and accurately "summarized". If you dont want that much detail in the lead, then take out the names. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Samuel Delany in the now twice deleted "notable members and supporters" section. He stated his support for a group "like" NAMBLA. The use of his quote in the beginning was ideal but singling him out as a supporter is not accurate. Cat clean (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Effort to replace current LGBT section

I put all the LGBT content together in order of events and went back to the original sources to ensure we accurately reflected them, I also included a very brief overview of early LGBT movement formation. This would replace the LGBT and ILGA controversy sections. A version of this was deleted on the basis that my changes were too substantial without talkpage consensus. I feel this version is closer to being unbias and adequately explaining these connections. Cat clean (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

“ The social rigidity of the 1950s and early 1960s encountered a backlash as social movements to improve the standing of African Americans, the poor, women, and gays all became prominent. Of the latter two, the gay rights movement and the feminist movement connected after a violent confrontation occurred in New York City in the 1969 Stonewall riots. The sexual revolution in the 1970s introduced the differentiation between identity and sexual behavior. With the advent of second wave feminism, lesbian as a political identity grew to describe a social philosophy among women, often overshadowing sexual desire as a defining trait. Militant feminists expressed their disdain with an inherently sexist and patriarchal society, and overcoming sexism required focusing on politics. Lesbian-feminists strove to separate themselves physically and economically from traditional male-centered culture. In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups. However, opposition to NAMBLA was evident months after NAMBLA's formation in the conference that organized the first National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1979. The feminist movement which spawned the sexual revolution and lesbian movement saw all forms of prostitution and intergenerational sex with teenagers as institutionalized problems created by patriarchal societal structures. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands"). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." One point agreed on was that age of consent laws should be equal for all people regardless of sexuality.

In 1980 "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. Fresh from defending themselves from Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign, the assassination of LGBT rights leader Harvey Milk, Ronald Reagan's presidency with the increasing influence of the Moral Majority as well as negative political fallout from the early AIDS epidemic, gay groups in a "climate so hostile to gay and lesbian people generally" dis-included "fringe" groups including NAMBLA, opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades. In 1986 Harry Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me." Although LGBT parades and organizations have tried to prevent NAMBLA from marching and participating, the efforts are sometimes seen as violating the groups' First Amendment rights (many gay free-speech marches are now organized parades) and remains a form of cultural hegemony that gay groups have had to face themselves. Even as late as 1994 a NAMBLA contingent participated in the "The Spirit of Stonewall" march which commenorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA and gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994. IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. were finally successful in 2006. In 1994 both Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted resolutions condemning NAMBLA "and any other such organization" that in any way contributes to the abuse of children. In 1994, Pat Califia argued that politics played an important role in the gay community's rejection of NAMBLA, and has since repudiated any support for the group.

Almost all gay rights groups are opposed to the pedophile agenda of NAMBLA and similar organizations, and reject claims that homosexuality and gay rights can be seen as an analogy for pedophilia or the abolition of age-of-consent laws. Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."

”

• Aldrich, Robert, ed. (2006). Gay Life and Culture: A World History, Thames & Hudson, Ltd. ISBN 0-7893-1511-4
• Bower, Lisa C., David Theo Goldberg, Between law and culture: relocating legal studies[4] - U of Minnesota Press, 2001.
• Faderman, Lillian (1991). Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth Century America, Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-017122-3
• Jennings, Rebecca (2007). A Lesbian History of Britain, Greenwood World Publishing. ISBN 1-84645-007-1
• Schlager, Neil, ed. (1998). Gay & Lesbian Almanac. St. James Press. ISBN 1-55862-358-2

My initial reaction is that this reads like a history section. And we already have a history section. Items regarding African Americans etc. are probably too much contrext. The section is very long for an organization which "is not a gay org." The ILGA Controversy is one of the more notable incidents in the entire article and deservedly should be in its own section. IMO this effort might be better managed on a subpage. Lionel (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still better and more accurate than what we have. Cat clean (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede, it's thorough. Allow me to ask a question: did you notice the thread regarding getting the article to GA/FA? And, what do you think about that? (OK that's 2 questions.) Lionel (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The section presented here is more accurate and better sourced. It shows how utterly dismal the rest of the section are, that's why I put in the effort to see what the sources state. The summary at the top omits many keys points about the group and the whole article tries to reinforce they were only about raping pre-pubescent boys. I believe a source you found actually spells out that nambla has never been tied to any crimes and in fact is shown to be more of a solution than a problem in that actual pedophile who join a group are much less of a problem than pedophiles who operate with no social oversight. This confirms the Delany quote. Insisting that every change you deem major must be approved by you will hamper improvements. I'm adding better reliable sources and removing bad sources and bias editorializing. Cat clean (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try another tack. The article used to be a B. It was just downgraded to a C. We're trying to get it up to GA!!! Let me be candid: your proposal for the section is a bit verbose. GA and FA articles typically don't have sections this long. The article will certainly fail the Review. So, are you interested in improving the article so it gets a GA rating? Lionel (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually good articles include background and context and try to explain how a group like this formed, initially was accepted then completely ostracized. Including this content will show how poor the rest of the sections are and hopefully will inspire those to be improved as well. You seem to be stating this content's biggest fault is that it's too long. That is a rather odd reason that we should leave the poorly sourced content that is not presented neutrally. The current article is a mess, this is a step in the right direction. Cat clean (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding background and context (yes, I wrote that). But too much background can obscure the main points. I'm not advocating that we leave the current section: I submit our chat here and the tag on the section. May I suggest we start by figuring out what material we can both live with, and worry about the contentious stuff later. It could be helpful if we first identify perhaps 5 main points for the section--an outline as it were--just to keep us on topic. Are you amenable to these two suggestions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed outline of rewrite:

1. Prehistory
2. Support by gay left
3. Lesbian opposition solidifies: 1980 march
4. nambla ped platform unacceptable to gay community
   1. ILGA controversy
   2. political motivations of ostracism
5. nambla responds to ostracism Lionel (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT NEEDED

It says in the article that the child absue group wants all child absuers freed expect in cases where vicitms were coerced. All cases of child abuse qualify as coercion due to the victims not being able to judge the situation. Pedophilia is immoral because it causes terrible life-destroynig harm. Whether coercion, using this group's definition, is involved does not change that fact as the scientific evidence clearly showsLink to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Paedophilia. Therefore the sentence should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)