Talk:Pedophile movement

Psychological Effects

When reading this article, I noticed there was a bit about the activists' questioning of psychological harm, but I saw very little info on any actual scientifice research on the topic (I think the only evidence was described as "anecdotal"). Anyone know of any info on this? I don't happen to be a psychologist/victim of pedophilia myself, but I would be rather surprised if there was much data lying around saying it produced no effects.

NPOV

This page needs a lot of work to get it up to scratch re our POV policies. Merging into anti-pedophile activism would be a start, SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute a lot of the statements in this article. Yes, merging it with the "anti-pedophilia activism" article would be a good first step. Lots of work is needed here. BTW, the totally disputed tag should stay. DPeterson^talk 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you find the article to be problematic in its current form, but "this article needs a lot of work" is not a reason to place the TotallyDisputed tag. I am removing the tag because no one has made it clear why it should be there. Please note that I have not even read the article myself, so it's not as though I disagree with you or have an opinion one way or the other about the content. The point is that the template is being used inappropriately. Please discern the specific items, themes or concepts that are "totally disputed". Joie de Vivre 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being polite when I said the article needs a lot of work...to be blunt, many of the statements here are POV, without Wikipedia:Verifiability support, and wrong. The tag belongs and work can proceed to improve the article...or we can just argue about the tag...I, for one, would prefer to move on with fixing this article. DPeterson^talk 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not being used inappropriately, indeed I have rarely seen a more appropriate use of it, especially given the recent history of the article that perhaps you are unaware of, Joie, SqueakBox 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Anyone just joining in cannot discern why the TotallyDisputed template is in use, because no one has explained. That is the problem. Please elucidate what you think the problems are and what you think needs to be changed about this article, in order to justify the use of the template. Joie de Vivre 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WEll they could try reading the article, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked why the template was placed, what the problems are and what needs to be done to rectify the problems. Squeakbox has become rude (above) and Dpeterson reverted without comment. I don't see what can be done at this point. Joie de Vivre 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this page. if you want to help create a better article that would be fantastic but until then stop making demands on other editors time and energy, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Joie de Vivre, avoid Personal attacks. We should focus on the content of this diputed article. The content is under dispute as the editing history and revert history shows. Now, it would be more productive to spend our time improving the article rather than arguing about the tag. My comments and reasoning are stated above. You certainly may disagree with me and prefer I argue differently, but I stand by my statements. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, so be it, but I don't see that on this page about this issue. DPeterson^talk 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that I have done any such thing. I have asked politely many times for an explanation as to the use of the template. Instead there has been name-calling and accusations of trolling. I am really not sure how to proceed if requests for explanation result in persecution.

It is not a personal attack to express that I believe that someone is being rude, by saying "this person was rude", and nothing more. Joie de Vivre 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given your behaviour on my user talk page and here I find it hard to believe you have any good faith intentions here. The accusations of trolling are based entirely on your behaviour on my user talk page. We are working hard to get an NPOV article and once that happens, assuming it does without encountering the kind of stiff opposition we hasve encountered very recently then the tag will be removed. You dont have the right to demnad we ex[plain ourselves ad nauseam, SqueakBox 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys!! Joie de Vivre is not one of the heads of the hydra come back again. The template is still there, but there's no evidence of the POV pushers around. Talk is all archived, so there's nothing to see (except 12 pages of archives -- which indicates there's been a lot of fighting). Joie, the editors at this and other pedophilia related pages can get testy sometimes because of the endless trolling that's gone on here and on other pages for a long time. SqueakBox and DPeterson^talk can both be argumentative, which has been an asset under the prior circumstances, and will be again next time another troll comes along. I think you know that several relentless POV pushing editors have been banned indefinitely, as well as sockpuppets of those users who've been back to deliberately cause trouble. People are taking a deep breath, but there's still a lot of history to overcome, and a defensive stance is sometimes hard to let go. There are a lot of issues that were challenged left on the page. The existence of the page itself was roundly contested. There are other pages that need work too. It's hard to get to every problem, everywhere at once. I do not blame them for not wanting to outline all the POV issues that remain right now--bleah--but I also don't think it's wrong of you to ask why the template is still there but nothing is going on with the page. Now I hope I haven't pissed off both sides by getting in the middle here, but we all need each other and it would be nice not to fight for a change and finally get these articles cleaned up. -Jmh123 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the history of this page better now. Joie de Vivre 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on! What good logical reason is there to merge this with the anti article? We're talking different movements, here. It's already big enough with the (disputed) merge with the history article, and the anti page is barely a stub, with lots of work to do, IMO. (f a b i a n) 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone posted a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion about the TotallyDisputed tag. Having read the discussion, it sounds like the problem is resolved; i.e. this article still contains a history of issues that had been challenged in previous archived discussions and those issues haven't been addressed. If that is the case, then the TotallyDisputed tag should stay. Perhaps someone could go through the archives (ugh, what a lot of work that looks like) and list the remaining issues that had been challenged, so that they might be addressed. -Amatulic 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabian discussion

**Please revert your 3RR violation. Personal discussion does not belong on this page**

• • What is this above? there is no 3rr violation, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus. (f a b i a n) 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The opposers all got banned, and as their views now dont count a clear consensus was indeed a reality, SqueakBox 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fabian is another SPA with contribs dating back to Junne 5, SqueakBox 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you so confident that I'm an SPA? Even if I am, you better read WP:SPA (f a b i a n) 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your contribs and the history of this article, SqueakBox 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact you know about SPA's etc makes me wonder whose sock you are, SqueakBox 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging

A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus.

Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the last discussion I found on this issue. (f a b i a n) 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see it was 3 permanently blocked users and one user who changed his name before being permanently blocked in his new name who opposed the merge so I felyt it right to ignore their opinions and thus there was a consensus for the move, SqueakBox 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So let's have this discussion, now that the merge tag in on Anti-pedophile activism. The proposal is, in effect, to move some of the content of Pro-pedophile activism into the anti article, and then redirecting pro to anti. I would have two comments: 1) it seems the resulting article should be called "Pedophile activism", since it presumably would be about both directions, 2) why merge, when the resulting article is likely to be quite large? Discuss. --Askild 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the article

There is a lot of bickering and infighting going on here; which is not productive. I think it would be better if we all were to focus our energy on fixing the article instead.

Part of the problem is that what needs to happen is not clear. I think a good first step would be to identify the problems that need to be fixed. Joie de Vivre 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article merged into anti-pedophile activism and then that whole article can be written in a strictly NPOV fashion. This article tends to glorify pedophilia and make it somehow seem alright which is not a neutral perception. I see no evidence of in-fighting or bickering going on and am surprised that you would make such a comment, SqueakBox 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating; this is good. I understand your concern that the existence of this could be construed as giving credibility to the concept. I certainly have seen many articles that are very WP:SOAP-y, and use the existence of the article as a platform for espousing certain views. See Feminists for Life; it is pretty darn sudsy by my account. I understand the frustration, so let's look at how we can fix the problem.

As far as whether the existence of the article itself is POV; I don't think it is; the reason is that there are many articles written about social groups that are considered terribly unsavory. That an article's subject is widely considered unsavory is not usually reason to merge the article elsewhere. Neo-nazi, for instance, is not merged to Nazi or Holocaust for glorifying Nazism. It is a discrete concept and brought towards NPOV on its own, in its own article.

As WP:NPOV is required for all parts of all articles, I think a better way in which to approach this would be to bring this article towards NPOV, on its own, before discussing a merger. The content has to be NPOV regardless of whether it is its own article or part of another article. I think merging before we have brought it to NPOV is not a good approach, because therefore we dump a lot of material that needs work into another article, creating a bigger mess.

I think NPOV should be the first goal. Rather than getting caught up in where it should be, I think we should focus on the content and bringing that to an encyclopedic standard first. We can certainly make it clear that the movement is widely considered offensive (as is done with Neo-Nazi). I think we should work towards NPOV within this article.

Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly dont object to your approach, SqueakBox 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important that this article be NPOV and properly balanced. Criticism of the pro-pedophile movement should be included here but that doesn't mean we have to merge the "anti-" article at this time. For example, groups like Perverted Justice are anti-pedophile but they are not chief critics of the pro-pedophile movement. Also, we need to coordinate this article with Age of consent reform better, as there is some overlap. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed individuals listed as supporters

There were a number of individuals who were listed as being supporters of pedophilia, without supporting references. Unsourced assertions of this nature should not be allowed to remain for one moment, regardless of whether they are true. I am investigating the truthfulness of these claims and will add them back if sources are found. Joie de Vivre 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I personally think that this is silly, you will find proof within the aricles for the people themselves. Good luck, and please don't take too long over it 153.19.178.28 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs

We have 101 and only 96 are turning up. Can someone better at these things than me please fix it? SqueakBox 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all there; one thing you can do to check is to go to the last reference, and click on the little carat (^). That will direct you immediately to the place on the page that the reference is used, and it will highlight it as well. (At least it does on my Windows machine with Firefox). Joie de Vivre 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should've posted on talk--it was a coding error, which I fixed that day. -Jmh123 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why must we refer to DSM?

Why should we do this in the opening couple of paragraphs? The DSM bears little relation to activism, and it just seems like we're listing "negative things" against pedophile activism, because we foolishly think that it "balances" the article (when it actually introduces subjectivity galore) 153.19.178.28 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With ref. to Mr Petersen, your revert was kind of a broadsweep on all the changes that I had done (as if the lot were vandalism or something). Surely not all are reverts? 153.19.178.28 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a new user with a controversial special interest and a perspective you apparently wish for the article to convey. Normally on pages that are controversial, edits are discussed on the talk page first. -Jmh123 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a tag to this page to underscore and suppor twhat Jmh123 said. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is DP willing to discuss why exactly my edits are inferior? 153.19.178.28 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question, it makes sense to present the existing view of pedophilia, as represented by objective, mainstream sources like the DSM, that the activists are working to change. They are not acting in a vacuum. The alternative to DSM would be to represnt the often cruder viewpoints of pedophilia held by less professional commentators. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to anon user, I don't think your edits are inferior. I do think that that the points made by Jmh123 and Will Bebecak address your concerns. DPeterson^talk 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the article (round II)

Hi, all. So, it looks like we actually got somewhere in the section titled #Let's fix the article as far as determining what to do; we had several editors in agreement that bringing this article to NPOV was a good first step. The momentum was lost before any changes were made, so let's get it going again. Currently the {{totally disputed}} tag is still up, but we haven't identified what content should be changed in order to bring this article to NPOV. I actually don't see much that is explicitly POV; the material is presented in terms of what the activists do, say, and believe, i.e. "this is what they do", "this is what they believe". It is not used as a platform for espousing or legitimizing personal views as far as I see. However, Squeakbox had advocated for including the template, so I thought that perhaps he could outline the things that need changing most. It's not good to leave an article hanging around in a state of dispute, so let's fix it. Joie de Vivre 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's been a couple of days. I'm removing the totallydisputed tag. If someone wants to put it back, they should explain why it is there and what needs to be changed in order to bring the article to NPOV. Joie de Vivre 11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article continues to strongly favor and "normalize" child sexual abuse and the molestation of children. DPeterson^talk 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, sections in the research section. DPeterson^talk 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no section called Research, I really don't know where you mean. Please be more specific about what information is problematic and what needs to be done to bring the article to NPOV. Saying "it's legitimizing pedophilia" does not help bring the article to NPOV, we need to outline specific changes. Joie de Vivre 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific Claims," Sorry about the miscue there. Also see: "Papers supporting some activist opinions" Too much there of questionable valdity. DPeterson^talk 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, thanks for clarifying. Good, we've identified two areas that should be addressed. OK, if these are of questionable validity, how do you want to demonstrate that? Can you introduce any contextual arguments, i.e. similar studies that refute the claims? Should they be removed altogether? Would a Criticism section at the end help? Just throwing out ideas here. Joie de Vivre 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre is right to point out that we need a more concrete reason to remove the said references to and summaries of said studies from the article. The papers currently referenced within the article appear to be legit. There is no doubt that a great deal of mainstream research will disgree with the findings of these works. However, the text clearly states that studies used by pro-pedophile activists to support their position generally criticize mainstream research findings, and suggest that there are ways to improve on the way mainstream research is conducted. However, since this article is specifically about pro-pedophile activism and its rationale, it makes sense to concentrate on the research that pro-pedophile activists utilize within their movement. Articles that deal with mainstream research into child sexual abuse are accordingly found within the article on that subject. Thus, in my opinion, the "Scientific Claims" and "Papers supporting some activist opinions" sections should stay as they are, unless more specific rationale is provided to support changes within the corresponding text.Homologeo 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem is it is still not clear why the TotallyDisputed template is in place. I understand that the topic is upsetting, but we have upsetting articles all over the place, Torture, Fascism. I just want to get this article to NPOV. We can't just slap an orange warning label on this one because we don't like it. That isn't what the template is for. If we can write a neutral article on Global warming, we can do it here too. I am still waiting for the people who placed the template to explain what is wrong and what we can do to fix it. Joie de Vivre 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see on one reading. 1) I do think the scientific aims and claims section appears biased. Even though it is true that this is a section about what studies are used by pedophiles to rationalize their position, it is also true that these studies have been refuted. The entry doesn't make that at all clear. At the very least it should be stated that mainstream science does not concur or that studies exist to contradict these (and I don't mean with a disparaging dismissal as in the case of Rind). 2) There are "citations needed tags" throughout, because there are many unsourced statements. 3) There's a conflation between pedophilia and same-sex attraction in the entry as written that is exacerbated by virtually no discussion of age. The statement by one organization that this is "a gay issue" seems to erase completely other possible forms of pedophilic acts and lump all of these together as one issue. Relations between a 25-year-old male and a 14-year-old male, or between females of the same ages, versus a 50 year old man claiming he is having a love affair, including intercourse, with a 3-year-old girl--are we to assume that, to these organizations, both situations are the same in every respect? 4) Psychological harm is addressed, but physical harm is not. Again, age is clearly a factor here. -Jmh123 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You raise a number of good points. I think all unsourced statements should be deleted now. Unless the other improvements you suggest can be made, I support deleting the offending sections DPeterson^talk 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained my problem with the "scientific claims" section here and got no responses. --P4k 23:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct and all that material should be deleted now. You have my support DPeterson^talk 23:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested link

"David.L "Dave" Riegel is mentioned - but his home page (http://www.shfri.net/dlr/) is not linked to his name. Should it be? If so, could someone who knows how do so?24.229.103.183 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Abstinent Childlove, Non-Abstinent Childlove, and Anti-Childlove

I think this article puts too much emphasis on Non-Abstinent Childlove and it's opponents. Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. However, the article largely ignores Abstinent Childlove, which opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, Abstinent Childlovers work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. There should also be mention of Anti-Childlove, which opposes social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.{{subst:unsigned|68.1.124.88

You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like any topic, we can only talk about Abstinent Childlovers if we have reliable sources for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Merting the two articles really makes sense. That way both points of view can economically be cited, assuming there are reliable and verifiable sources to support statements. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it makes sense to merge the Pro and Anti articles together, for they both deal with the same topic - pedophile activism. One is the actual movement of individuals in support of advancing the pedophile perspectives on life, and the other is an attempt to counter such ideas and their influence on society. Both views deserve to be viewed from a neutral point of view. This is the key to making the two articles work well together on the same page. The goal should be to ballance the information, and to make sure that it is clear who is making what claims. Likewise, it is important to be as thorough as possible (to a reasonable degree of course), thus it's a good idea to distinguish the different stances that people take in regards to pedophile activism. This measns that the article should explain the different kinds of pro-pedophile and anti-pedophile activists there are. However, truth be told, until we're capable of bringing each of the two currently seperate articles to NPOV, it does not seem wise to merge the two. What's more, we need to finally reach some consensus on the issues that have been causing discord among the major contributors to these articles. It's now clear to all that change is necessary - the point is to determine what change is warranted, and how to make it reasonable enough for all (or most) editors to agree on.Homologeo 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support independently bringing each article to NPOV. However, merging the two together does not make sense. By that logic, should we merge the White supremacy and the Anti-racism articles together, on the grounds that it is not possible to present one phenomenon without presenting the opposition in its entirety? I hate to sound like I am defending adult-child sexual contact, but melting two opposing camps into one article doesn't make sense. Should we merge Pro-life and Pro-choice into Abortion debate? If we can independently bring each article to NPOV, there is no need to merge the two. Joie de Vivre 12:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo that merging the two articles is in order. If someone can tell me how that is done, I will begin that process. DPeterson^talk 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Merge. First step is to open the process for discussion, thusly: Proposing a merger. -Jmh123 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Pro and Anti Pedophile articles

Please comment here on this subject.

So let's have this discussion, now that the merge tag in on Anti-pedophile activism. The proposal is, in effect, to move some of the content of Pro-pedophile activism into the anti article, and then redirecting pro to anti. I would have two comments: 1) it seems the resulting article should be called "Pedophile activism", since it presumably would be about both directions, 2) why merge, when the resulting article is likely to be quite large? Discuss. --Askild 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (copied from above by DPeterson^talk 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the proposed title. I don't think the article would be that large. It would eliminate the necessity to having each POV in each article in order to create two NPOV articles. DPeterson^talk 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is worth reading over discussion here. In particular, if a merge is decided upon, I quite like Will Beback's suggestion to call it "Pedophilia-related activism", for the sake of NPOV and unambiguity. --Askild 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read it now. I like your new suggested title, Pedophilia-related activism," and support that. DPeterson^talk 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is actually reached on how the two articles are to be bonded together, and it is established that pro- and anti- pedophile movements are indeed different versions of the same phenomenon, then it would be reasonable to use the title "Pedophilia-related activism." This would be a neutral way of relaying what such an article would be about. All the while, I still believe that "Pedophile activism" should redirect to the new article. However, the concerns I voiced in the section below still stand...Homologeo 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since pro-pedophile activism is one of the primary catalysts behind the creation and growth of anti-pedophile activism, and the latter often focuses on countering the claims of the former, it seems to make more sense to merge the anti- into the pro- article. Besides, in all honesty, the anti-pedophile activism article is not even close to being as developed as the pro-pedophile activism article is right now. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to combine such uneven articles into one, especially since there are concerns over NPOV in both cases. For this reason, since both articles still need to be tagged due to the repeated suggestion that they should be merged, I switched the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on the respective pages. Please respond on my reasoning here on the Talk Page before reverting my edit. Thanks in advance, Homologeo 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homologeo. Switching the merge tags is fine with me. DPeterson^talk 11:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Agree to Merge?

The result was no consensus to merge Pro- and Anti-pedophile activism. -- Jmh123

No consensus was achieved on this discussion. One can find a new vote for merging the two articles into Pedophilia below

1. Yes Based on discussion above in this and other sections. DPeterson^talk 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Absolutely not, because they are opposing camps. Shall we merge Black supremacy and White supremacy? Or pro-choice and pro-life? I realize that the topic is unpleasant but that does not mean it should not be documented. However distressing it is, pro-pedophile activism is an entirely separate phenomenon from anti-pedophile activism. Joie de Vivre ^T 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Although I have previously stated that an eventual merger would be preferable to having two seperate articles, due to the current state of the pro- and anti- pages and the ideas that each movement seems to promote, I have to agree with Joie de Vivre for the moment. What's more, I think Joie de Vivre makes a valid point - the goals and essense of each type of activism appear to be grounded in quite different fields of action. Thus, at this time, my vote is No. Homologeo 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
4. No, they are distinct things which cannot be combined under one heading and I can't understand why anyone would want to do so. --Coroebus 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
5. No. Silly idea, don't see it applied to other topics. We should not be shrinking the profile of valid and notable topics, however distasteful they may be. Samantha Pignez 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes and no. Yes, criticism of the "pro-pedophile memovement" should be included in this article. Longtime readers of this page may remember that the "anti" article was created as a POV fork to contain criticism. No, if there is such a thing as an "anti-pedophile movement" then it should have its own article. However it isn't clear to me that there is such a movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will, criticism of the pro-paedophile movement should be included in this article and not hived of into a POV fork, but this article should not be about 'all activism relating to paedophilia, pro and anti', because that is just an arbitrary conjoining of two separate topics. --Coroebus 07:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. No. I also agree with Will and can assure him that there is such a thing as a strong anti-pedophile movement. Xavier van Erck of Perverted Justice for example stated that his goal was not to protect minors but to go after pedophiles and he has pressured Wikipedia into banning pedophile editors through his 'corporate sex offenders' registry. Google already has 27,100 results for anti-pedophile opposing 801 for pro-pedophile. Is that proof enough? Roman Czyborra 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Von. I'm not Dutch. XavierVE 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, this topic was recently separated by a now banned user so really we should be arguing whether the separation was acceptable rather than treating it as the default, SqueakBox 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, that would be interesting. But do you have any evidence? From what I can see, this article was started with the current topic. If you are referring to the anti-p article, then isn't that a whole different topic? Samantha Pignez 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the separation which was started in the anti not the pro article but still an unwanted and non consensual separation, SqueakBox 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the objection. The version of the pro-p article from that time has no such material removed from it, making the anti-p article an original piece of work. You don't need consensus to start articles. Anyway, thanks for showing me. Samantha Pignez 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Jim's response to attempts to include anti pedophile material in what was then pedophile activism so I think I am right in saying we need to justify this separation and not see it as a default position. If I cant get consensus for merging I will consider afding this article, SqueakBox 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see any splitting of actual content. Anyway, I think that housing anti-pedophile material in its own article is a pretty smart move (since it is, you know... anti-pedophile) Samantha Pignez 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt logical then as the article on pedophile activism should have contained both pro and anti material. I believe Jim created the article to kee anti pedophile material out of the then pedophile activism article for his own pushing of pro pedophile activism and that this needs tio be urgently undone for NPOV reasons, SqueakBox 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as to this article containing material on anti-pedophile activism (enough to justify not having an a-p article), thats your fringe point of view. As far as I can tell, the article was started and consensually maintained with the aim of documenting one movement, not two.

May I ask why you think it is "POV" in one direction, to have an article which documents a notable movement that opposes the said direction? Samantha Pignez 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe view? What on earth are you talking about? I dont understand any of your poin ts in your last edit, and as to any fringe POVs I have, you've completely lost me. Can you try to reframe your points please, SqueakBox 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From the vote so far, the idea that one article should encompass two movements is rather fringe. The idea that the article was actually "merged" or "should have" contained documentation of two POVs when the anti-p article was started is even more fringe IMO. Most people seem to accept that this article is centred on one movement, and always has been, no? Anyway, no need to take offence. Simply being outspoken does not lower the virtues of your argument, but just makes your task harder. Samantha Pignez 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes. Also, notice how the pro-pedophile activism article is more than 10 times as long as the anti-pedophile activism one. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? --Potato dude42 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes. You're not the only one that sees something wrong with that picture, it's due to the fact that pedophiles have organized a campaign of editing that article with every crackpot statement they can source. It's a big target and goal of theirs in order to recruit more members into their organizations.

This topic is not analogous to topics of racism or abortion and the individual making that comparison is not doing a valid audit of how controversial topics are handled on Wikipedia. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking - There is not the "anti-smoking article" and the "pro-smoking article", there is an article about smoking, period, with both viewpoints contained therein. Why, why on any earth that there is even a pedophile activism article or a pro-pedophile activism or an anti-pedophile activism... when it should simply be a sub-category under the pedophilia article (which, btw, is a shorter article than the pro-pedophile activism article... by far) is beyond the pale. The vast majority of the information in both the pro- and anti- articles is mostly trivial, unworthy of inclusion into Wikipedia in general. Both pro- and anti- should be merged into the main pedophilia article with most of the non-notability of these articles (vastly contributed by now banned members who are pedophile activists themselves) excised from the project. XavierVE 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree but figutred merging the 2 articl;es was a first step toward merging both with pedophilia, SqueakBox 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in having three articles that essentially cover the same subject. It would be best to merge all three into one article. Pedophilia would be the main article with the "Pro" and "Anti" articles merged into subsections. In this manner the dispute between the two can be clearly stated in separate sections. Otherwise, we should put the entire "Anti" article in the "Pro" article in a criticism section and then need separate sections in the Pedophilia article. That would just be too much and too silly. So, I'd suggest merging the two into the Pedophilia article. Again, let's try to build agreement here. I'll start a section to discuss this idea.

1. Neutral - I don't think it really matters; the only substantive question in my mind is on length, and I think this is cuspy. However, I think "pedophile activism" is a bad title, and should be re-worked before any merger. --Haemo 22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
2. No per Joie de Vivre and Will Beback, though I think "activism", rather than a "movement", is all that's really necessary to merit separate articles. --Maxamegalon2000 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If I counted correctly, this is how the final vote count looks (each side could have one extra tally, depending on Will Beback's vote):

4 (or 5) Yes vs. 6 (or 7) No

Homologeo 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Pro" and "Anti" Pedophilia into Pedophilia article, preliminary discussion only

1. YesDPeterson^talk 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you already cast your vote. At this point, the votes are 4-4. Samantha Pignez 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this was a "vote" on an alternative proposal for a different merger, not yet formally proposed--hence my comment directly below. -Jmh123 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's a bold and interesting proposal. Procedure requires that before a proper discussion and "vote" can take place, the appropriate tags should be placed on the appropriate articles. An archive of the discussion will remain on the talk page which is designated for that discussion. Unless you're just getting opinions before starting that discussion. My opinion is that it is definitely worth considering. -Jmh123 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The combined article would be quite long. A good first step, which may be helpful regardless of the outcome of the merger decision, would be to trim down excess material from both articles. There's plenty of unsourced material, and even some sourced material may need to be removed to ensure balance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Look at some of the queer articles. This article is one of the most sourced on this website, whilst other equally important ones have no sources, or one book in their reading list.

We should not go about destroying sourced, notable material for the sake of "balance". If "balance" is required, there should be anti-pedophile material available to add. If not, then an article that does not document much anti-pedophile activism is balanced.

And the reason that this article is bigger than the anti-pedophile aricle is because the anti article was only created a short time ago, and because pro-pedophile activism is relatively uncontested!

Not my POV, but isn't it just the case?

Another problem that the merged article would introduce is the fact that pro-pedophile activism argues for the emancipation of pedophiles, whilst "anti-pedophile" activism argues against child porn, violent rape and a lot of other things that (from this article, it appears), the pro camp oppose vehemently Samantha Pignez 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's relatively "uncontested" because the vast majority of pro-pedophilia activism is non-notable, not reported and not known by the general public. The idea that anti-pedophile activists argue against mere child porn and violent rape... incorrect. Anti-pedophile activists argue against the sexual fetish of pedophilia period. I have no idea how you would come to such a conclusion.

The non-notability of the vast majority of BOTH the pro- and anti- pedophile activism means the articles could be trimmed to even ten percent of their current size and no real loss to Wikipedia quality would occur, especially considering that the vast majority in both articles were added by banned SPA's in order to advance their cause and viewpoints, certainly not keeping in line with the NPOV standards people expect from Wikipedia. No other solution than reworking the articles into the pedophilia article makes sense. XavierVE 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of rape at all, and I must've missed that vehement opposition to child porn on the part of the pro camp? I see "In Germany, the Krumme 13 organization, founded in 1993 and dissolved in 2003, stirred up massive mostly negative press coverage in the years 2001 through 2005. In 2005, krumme13.org won a penal court case that a textual depiction of a love relationship between an eleven-year-old boy and a thirty-year-old man in the Pedosexual Resources Directory was not child pornography." and "Robin Sharpe, a Canadian pedophile, successfully challenged some aspects of child pornography laws in the Canadian Supreme Court in 2002, arguing that his fictional writings were not illegal because they had artistic merit.[53]" Well, there's this: "The movement's members have vehemently opposed these characterizations.[citation needed]"

Pro-pedophile activism is relatively uncontested because most people aren't aware of its existence. -Jmh123 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

'COMMENT'I am in agreement with Jmh123. I think we should proceed with this NEW proposal in a formal manner and see what develops. OK? Next question, is how to do that? If someone knows and can start the ball rolling, that would be great. DPeterson^talk 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, ball is rolling. -Jmh123 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism into Pedophilia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, but the merger was carried out nonetheless. -Jmh123 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bringing XavierVE's proposal to this new discussion:

This topic is not analogous to topics of racism or abortion and the individual making that comparison is not doing a valid audit of how controversial topics are handled on Wikipedia. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking - There is not the "anti-smoking article" and the "pro-smoking article", there is an article about smoking, period, with both viewpoints contained therein. Why, why on any earth that there is even a pedophile activism article or a pro-pedophile activism or an anti-pedophile activism... when it should simply be a sub-category under the pedophilia article (which, btw, is a shorter article than the pro-pedophile activism article... by far) is beyond the pale. The vast majority of the information in both the pro- and anti- articles is mostly trivial, unworthy of inclusion into Wikipedia in general. Both pro- and anti- should be merged into the main pedophilia article with most of the non-notability of these articles (vastly contributed by now banned members who are pedophile activists themselves) excised from the project. XavierVE 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

'Agree' The three articles cover the same topics...see discussion above for me details. DPeterson^talk 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarity of the archive, please copy over to or repeat any prior discussion of this topic in this section. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, merge. This entry states that this is a "homosexual issue," and I've also seen the argument repeatedly in various articles to wit, "homosexuality was once a DSM category but now it isn't; pedophilia is next." The first statement appears to ignore the fact that some pedophiles seek sexual contact with adolescent children of the opposite sex, and others with very young pre-adolescent children, even toddlers. The article puts a lot of emphasis on homosexual attraction between adults and same-sex teenagers, particularly men and boys. The title "Pro-pedophile activism" implies support of all forms and types of pedophilia, and this entry could be construed as presenting a distorted notion of what pedophilia is by couching it in such limited terms and framing it as a homosexual issue. Isn't most of this article really about activism in support of legalizing a very specific form of pedophilic attraction, as opposed to some kind of Pro-pedophile activist movement in general? The Pro-pedophile activism entry should be pruned considerably prior to merging, and clarified when merged. -Jmh123 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Xavier's example is insignificant. We have articles on pro and anti smoking campaigns and legislation. Whilst these are equivalent to activism, smoking is equivalent to pedophilia. This pattern is replicated throughout wikipedia, in that we have an article documenting a highly prevalent subject such as pedophilia, and articles that describe for and against positions, based on their notability. Whilst the pro article is just about the right size for its notability, the anti article needs massive expansion.

May I also add that we should not be aiming to "downsize the target", as DPeterson seems to be attempting at his own exhaustion. However unsettling we find a subject, we must afford it an article who's size equates to its notability. For pro pedophile activism, this has been achieved (as our many sources show). For anti pedophile activism, this is not the case.

And lastly, I will reply to Xavier's argument that "pedophile activists" have infiltrated wikipedia. Look, Xavier. As a wikipedia editor ans supporter of NPOV enforcement, it is not my concern who is editing, and what their personal opinions are. I am concerned with what has been produced, and from the look of it, our current article is fair and balanced - if anything slightly biased towards your lobby. I am all for specialist information being integrated into this article, and I look forward to working with people who know what they're talking about. Samantha Pignez 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support this is the only real solution to avoid POV in this area. I disagreew ith Samantha that this article is even close to NPOV, SqueakBox 00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No - Pedophilia is a separate subject, and these articles are legitimate daughter-pages of it. Linking to them from within the body, and a short summary, is totally appropriate -- merging them back would make the page too long, and distract from the substantive content there. I agree with Samantha, and I think that the incessant fear of "infiltration" is getting out of hand. I don't have the time, energy, or incentive to track who believes what about what every time I edit; instead, I look at what has been produced. --Haemo 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Struck per the below.

What fear of infiltration? People who actually promote pedophilia on wikipedia get banned so there is no fear but there has been infiltration and if there hadnt we wouldnt be having this dicscussion, SqueakBox 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just remarking that people have previous expressed concerns over the provenance of the content; I'm merely support Samantha's assertion that it's too complicated for us to go around judging articles on that basis. --Haemo 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Those users were appropriately banned by administrators for their actions.

The people who were banned were not promoting pedophilia. That is the flaming problem. No justification at all was made for these multiple, and sometimes privately enforced bans and no appeal was accepted by arbcom. [anon insider]

SqueakBox, please stop reversing this edit. I have as much right to speak out as you do. [anon insider]

SqueakBox, you have no way of telling that I am a banned user, and I am most certainly not a banned IP! The people who I have been talking to have contacted Arbcom, and no reply has been given. Unless you wish for Wikipedia to be internally corrupt, I have as much right to speak as you do. Please feel free to move this discussion to PAW, since it is OT. But DO NOT delete my comments again. [anon insider]

Jmh123 suggested I elaborate my reasons here and not refer to previous comments. OK.

1. . First, it will reduce needless redunancies. Each article has criticism sections that repeat material in the other articles.
2. . Second, it will be easier for the casual reader to find all relevant materials regarding Pedophilia, pro and anti groups views in one location.
3. . Third, Pedophilia is a DSM-IV diagnosis. It is a mental disorder, regardless of whether the victim is of the same or opposite gender as the perpetrator. Uniting "pro" and "anti" articles is appropriate under this rubric...within the Pedophilia article. Despite objections to the diagnosis, at this point in time it is a clinical mental health diagnosis. Besides being illegal activity. DPeterson^talk 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the pedophilia definition in the DSM is terribly inadequate, as it doesn't imply activity. Using this as a reason to merge articles is dishonest and irrelevant. The DSM is controversial, for the right reasons. Consider the claims made against transgender people. Barry Jameson 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - First of all, when there is a proposal such as this, the discussion is supposed to take place on the talk page for the article that the others are being merged into. That the discussion is taking place on the talk page for "pro-pedophile activism" suggests that the supporters of this proposal are more interested in dealing with this article, which they apparently have a problem with, rather than making any constructive changes to the article on pedophilia.

Xavier's opinion that the information in the pro-pedophile activism article is "non-notable" or "trivial" is irrelevant, as is the relevancy of the article to the general public, to an extent. The very purpose of the Wikipedia project is to provide a scope of information that would not be possible in traditional sources, such as print encyclopedias. Much of the information documented in the pro-pedophile activism article HAS, in fact, been reported in the media at various points. Finally, it is unlikely that this article would've been the topic of such extensive discussion on its talk page were this subject simply "non-notable." If Wikipedia can have a page dedicated to every known fictional character in the Star Wars universe, for instance, it can certainly have a page dedicated to this documented series of people, groups, and events in the real world.

Xavier has made his intentions for this proposal clear; there's not even the pretense that the merging of these articles would in any way provide a more clear or extensive overview of the topics at hand. The intention is to have the content of the pro-pedophile activism article "trimmed to... ten percent of [its] current size." Whichever side of any hypothetical issue you are on, the fact that the intention here is to outright censor such a large amount of valuable, hard to come by information currently available on Wikipedia should be unacceptable to everyone.

Finally--and this should not be interpreted as a personal attack on Von Erck--this move is consistent with the efforts of his group to censor information related to pedophile activism on the web. Von Erck no doubt sees this article as the next target on his list of blogs, websites, and other resources which through sheer intimidation he has attempted to have removed. That there is an actual debate on this topic suggested here and demonstrated by the documentation of groups involved in a "movement"--regardless of its alleged "notability"--must irk him to no end (pun INTENDED =) ). I am not saying that Von Erck cannot contribute and offer his own two cents on this topic, as all Wikipedians with their own diverse points of view can. But the idea that he doesn't have a thinly-veiled agenda here is ridiculous. Additionally, the fact that he sees fit to criticize an article he alleges was created by biased "infiltrators," when his own strongly-biased viewpoint is no secret, is equally ridiculous. Apparently he sees himself as being the only person with a biased point of view that should be allowed to edit regarding this topic. And his point of view is decidedly different from the unfavorable view surrounding this topic held by the general public. He is essentially actively involved in undermining the activities of the subjects discussed in this article. He is more biased regarding this topic than your average person and certainly just as biased as any activist “infiltrator” who has contributed. So the obvious conclusion here is that the intention is to censor information he wishes were not available rather than make constructive changes to Wikipedia regarding this topic.

Also, regarding DPeterson's claims: the "DSM-IV diagnosis" is irrelevant in this particular debate. The article on "pedophilia" discusses the medical concept of the condition, whereas this article documents people and groups that claim to be part of a movement. The concepts described in these articles are distinctly different in scope, and trying to merge them would create a mess. Ultimately, most non medical-related information would be removed from the pedophilia article (as it should be) and we would be left with all information on activism being lost (no doubt the goal of the supporters of this proposal).

If you take a look at the article for Deafness, for instance, you will find that all of the medical-related information on the condition is in the "Deafness" article, while most of the socially-relevant information is in the "Deaf culture" article. As should be obvious, the scope of information related to the medical definition of deafness and the sociology associated with the condition are vastly different, thus separate articles are necessary. The same concept can also be observed with the separate articles for "Autism" and the "Autistic rights movement," and the same would logically apply with pedophilia. Your view of the "notability" or legitimacy of the movement is irrelevant toward deciding whether a separate article on it should exist or not. The movement exists, thus the article on it exists. The information is out there, therefore Wikipedia, in its mission to make available the "sum of all human knowledge," has an interest in documenting it.

Mike D78 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, welcome to Wikipedia. You've obviously given this a lot of thought. I don't think Wikipedia was ever intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge," but, rather, to make quality information available to those who might not otherwise have access to it. -Jmh123 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, thank you for the welcome. I thought I saw the "sum of all human knowledge" quote in an article or press release about Wikipedia somewhere, but maybe not. Regardless, Wikipedia's existence as an online repository of information obviously makes it well-suited to document topics that could not be available in more traditional media. So Xavier's claim that this article is "non-notable" to the general public is irrelevant; many other articles are likewise "non-notable" to the general public but still provide quality information that is highly relevant to certain groups of people. Furthermore, as controversial of a topic as this is, quality information is scarce, so Wikipedia has good reason to ensure that this information remains available. Reducing this article to a paragraph on the "pedophilia" article (if that) is a slap in the face to everyone who has done research, found sources, and worked to make this article as comprehensive as it is. We should not let this information be lost because certain elements would rather see this article destroyed than make contstructive changes to it.

I hope you realize the scope of the information that will be lost if this change is allowed to happen. You are correct in pointing out that both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles exist, but the pro-pedophile movement emerged as a splinter-movement of gay rights during the sexual revolution, thus the connection. Among many, this WAS considered an LGBT issue (and by a few it still is). This article documents a relevant and interesting series of historical events. I realize you likely find the subject of this article highly distasteful, as many do. Most are horrified to discover that such a thing as "pro-pedophile activism" exists, but the truth is, it DOES exist, so we have an interest in documenting it within Wikipedia as we would with any other subject, as distasteful as some may find it. This information is relevent to both those who share the point of view of the activists and those who wish to combat it. If this merge happens, the hard work of a lot of people is going to go down the drain.

Mike D78 07:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the concept of non-notability is not irrelevant. It's one of the important aspects to whether an article should exist. Many articles on Wikipedia are removed for non-notability, many, many more are merged. Your attacks on me are mighty stirring emotional speeches and I could easily return the favor, however it's better to merely point out that the idea proposed was to merge pro-pedophile activism AND anti-pedophile activism into Pedophilia as both articles were created by and filled with the garbage of currently banned SPA's. Now, being that I run the only actual large anti-pedophile sites on the internet, it would be in my site's best interest to have a huge article that could be very well promoted here.

If anything, a vote to keep the status quo aids the publicity of the projects I run. Fact is however, most pro- AND anti- pedophile activism (including most of my own!) is not notable enough for their own articles and both articles are jammed up with the gunk of banned SPA's. The Pedophilia article itself can easily contain the pro- and anti- movements against pedophilia without all the unnecessary bloat that has been spammed into the article over the years. XavierVE 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Xavier, my intention was not to imply that "non-notability is irrelevant," but that YOUR opinion that the information in this article is non-notable is irrelevant. I would imagine that a lot of people would find the information in this article to be highly-notable, including those who disagree with the views espoused by the activists and wish to fight them.

My comments regarding you were meant to be neither emotional nor "attacks." I'm simply pointing out that you are just as biased as the "banned SPAs" you criticize. The idea that you don't have an agenda in seeing this information removed is a farce. PJ has long been unhappy that this kind of information is available on Wikipedia, don't play dumb.

Mike D78 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent statement.

Ultimately, most non medical-related information would be removed from the pedophilia article (as it should be) and we would be left with all information on activism being lost (no doubt the goal of the supporters of this proposal)

This bears repeating. I hope that our abstaining voter reads this, and sees the importance of the information which some editors want to get rid of. There are many notable activist groups linked to this article, and to delete the unifier would be just as absurd as mixing the sociological with the biological. Samantha Pignez 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'Oppose' - My thoughts on this involve the length the "pedophilia" article will reach if merged with these other sections. As the "pedophilia" article continues to evolve, we will find the article needing to be subdivided, etc., and the material of the "Pro-pedophile activism" and "Anti-pedophile activism" will seem prime candidates for being segmented off into articles of their own. If for no other reason, this seems sufficient to keep this material autonomous. Welland R 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose both types of mergers proposed, for right now anyways. The reasoning for not merging the pro- and anti- articles into a single article dealing with "Pedophile activism" or "Pedophilia-related activism" is explained in a section above. As for the newly proposed merger with the general topic of Pedophilia, this would not be a smart move for Wikipedia, as both kinds of pedophile activism are related to yet still notably different from pedophila itself. The article on pedophilia deals with the actual phenomenon, and largely focuses on the mainstream medical definition and study of pedophilia. The pro- and anti- articles, on the other hand, focus on the efforts and arguments various activists put forth in order to promote a specific set of values, whatever that may be. These movements deserve seperate articles, just like any other kind of activism. Besides, it's pointless to argue that pedophile activism is not notable enough for Wikipedia, as this movement has been around for decades now, and has a substantial amount of legitimate exposure and litterature behind it. Whether people agree or disagree with particular viewpoints expressed by pro- and anti- pedophile activists, those ideas should be discussed (in a clear, concise, and NPOV manner) on Wikipedia, as long as they're legit and prominent enough. Finally, merging the two activism articles into the "Pedophilia" article would indeed make the resulting article too large and confusing. The focus should right now be on bringing each of the two articles in question to Wikipedia standards, and not on mergers that would create more problems for readers and editors alike. Homologeo 11:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Something else to consider: the "pro-pedophile activism" article also documents activism regarding ephebophilia, pederasty, etc., further making it a bad fit to be merged with the "pedophilia" article, besides the previously mentioned differences in the biological and sociological that clearly require separate articles.

Mike D78 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as before, and for similar reasons to Homologeo. --Coroebus 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no inherent principle that says we should combine related articles into a single one. For many, many topics, activism related to the thing is a separate article from the thing itself. Compare Abortion and Pro-life. It would be cumbersome and contentious to combine the articles, it would make information more difficult to find, and it would tend to introduce (even more of an) activist POV into the main article. Dybryd 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that it makes it easier to the reader if very closely related articles are merged so that the relevant material is in one article and the same information does not have to be duplicated in two or more places. DPeterson^talk 18:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply cut the duplicated material? Dybryd 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After five days, the votes have been cast at no consensus, with very little chance of the proposal going through. Personally, I think a couple more days will do it. 86.131.41.244 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dybryd: The point of merging the articles is to eliminate the duplication. Keeping the articles separate requires marked duplication of material to keep each article NPOV. DPeterson^talk 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, how silly. As with any other topic, duplicated sections should be replaced with link to the main article on the subtopic. Dybryd 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote seeking

User:86.131.41.244 is writing to others asking them to vote on this and thus trying improperly to affect the vote. This is likely user:Voice of Britain, and we will have to take his tactics into consideration when deciding about consensus, SqueakBox 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aiming to achieve consensus on this article. You have no right to come in here, sneering about what kind of consensus I am trying to effect. It is totally within the rules of wikipedia to ask for someone's POV on an issue. Such activity is a valid part of the voting process, but you seem intent on abusing it to discount any vote against this ludicrous proposal. Go read logic, SqueakBox 86.131.41.244 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a violation of the policy on WP:CANVAS. I think appropriate action should be taken within the scope of wikipedia policies and procedures, such as filing an Administrator incident report and such. DPeterson^talk 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is obviously one of the users who have been banned for trolling. I've blocked him as a likely sock of user:Voice of Britain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've been solicited by a stakeholder, and not someone acting in good faith, I'll be striking my comments. I can't even implicitly support that kind of behavior. --Haemo 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Further vote seeking is referenced here: http://www.boychat.org/messages/1083105.htm - The pedophile community which seeks to "own" these articles is encouraging their supporters to register new nicknames in order to try to oppose the proper merging of the three articles as it will remove their ability to "control" the propaganda they have laid down in the pro-pedophile article as they have done for so long. Please be aware of new accounts registered for this purpose. XavierVE 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up...It is very important to remain vigilant. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Xavier, your logic is flawed. I'll have to weigh in again, with one of my radical objectivity speeches.

I do not care at all who is asking who to vote what way (as long as it goes on away from wikipedia). I am concerned with the justifications and motivations given for the votes. Who is to say that the "boychat" community will not produce reasonable votes? Whilst this approach is fair and reasonable, it is utterly abominable to point towards this example and use it to reject any "against" vote made by a new user. As well as being biased, this would be a complete desertion of the good faith assumption.

As for the now blocked user, do we have any evidence that he/she was a previously banned user? Do we have any evidence that he/she was calling on an audience with partisan interests? I think not. Samantha Pignez 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do we have any evidence that he/she was calling on an audience with partisan interests? I think not" - Please don't waste my time thinking I'll respond to any comments you have to make in the future, especially after you've written something like that. Fact is, pedophile activists are soliciting pedophile SPA's to come and try to influence the article merge process. Whether you wish to know that or not is irrelevant to me. XavierVE 02:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The folks at BoyChat are welcome to edit BoyWiki without any interference from us. But they are not welcome to come here and push their fringe viewpoints in this wiki. I trust the editors here to edit this article in a neutral manner without their help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Always good to hear such responsible statements. XavierVE 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

= "We don't take kindly to your type round here". Why exactly should a person be excluded from a project simply because of their opinion? Why should we tolerate diverse opinions and assume that they can leave them at the door, but not boychat regulars? And don't generalise by using your own subjective experience, Will. I wan't to know exactly why you make this discrimination. 213.239.218.176 05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, he has no legitimate reason to make this distinction. As has been mentioned, the spirit of the "good faith" policy is that we allow people to edit regardless of their backgrounds or views under the assumption that they are here to make changes for the good of the encyclopedia rather than push a viewpoint. If their activity proves disruptive, THEN we deal with them, but we don't turn people away beforehand.

Xavier would be wise himself to not violate this "good faith" policy.

Mike D78 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction which matters is that Wikipedia allows "anyone to edit" only if they follow the policies and norms of the project. Those who can't or won't aren't welcome. In those instances there are procedures in place to block their accounts. Using new accounts to circumvent blocks is not allowed. However, this page is for discussing the article, not the editors. If folks want to pursue this then there's my talk page, WP:AN/I, WP:RFC, and other forums for general or personnel issues. So I suggest we close this thread and return to discussing the merger and other article-related topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've started the discussion here; might as well finish it here.

The bottom line is, do you KNOW that the user you just blocked was a sockpuppet of a banned user, or are you just assuming?

Mike D78 07:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I already covered that in my first statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the pro pedophile activists and I have something in common! ie we both see that keeping these 3 articles separate favours the pro pedophile activist cause. A pedophile who doesnt say I am a pedophile is clearly welcome here, one who self proclaims pedophilia is subject to blockiong. That much is clear. One who doesnt delf proclaim and attempts to edit these articles following our NPOV policy is clearly welcome here but one who tries to insert prop pedophile POV (as they threaten to in the chat forums) clearly is not welcome here. Will's action was based on the evidence and isnt controversial, SqueakBox 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you think the current arrangement advances any particular cause is irrelevant (this is my word of the day! =) ). POV can be handled in a way that doesn't effectively gut 90% of the content in an article.

What matters is that the proposed merge would create a lot of confusion, and would ultimately result in the elimination of most of the notable information related to activism. Quality information will be lost. It should be obvious that this is the goal of those who proposed this idea; indeed, they themselves have made this clear. This is simply the next attempt to remove this information after all the various attempts to outright delete this article have failed.

Additionally, whether one "self proclaims" that they are a pedophile is just as irrelevant as whether one self-proclaims what country they are from or what political party they belong to. Wikipedia is intended to accept people of all backgrounds and views, and, again, if their activity proves disruptive, you ban them for their disruptive activity, not for their self-identification. Perhaps you hold the stance you do because of users in the past who you have considered to be disruptive? It seems unfair to presume that all people who self-identify in a certain way are incapable of making constructive contributions. And if it's others who make an issue out of how another user has self-identified, then THEY are the ones who are proving disruptive.

Mike D78 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your concerns about the merge being done badly are unfounded, all these issues of where to put the pederastry stuff etc can easily be fixed during a merge, and especially with someone like you on board to keep us all on our toes. Your claims that self proclaiming as a pedophile is irrelevant is simply inaccurate as this project does indeed contain policies and rules, and this means that people of all views (when expressed here) are not welcome. Self identifying pedophiles get indefinitely blocked, SqueakBox 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He was arguing against the grubby tabloid efforts of wiki admins in blocking users simply for what they are or what they believe in. I don't think that he was arguing that the policies do not exist. Samantha Pignez 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He has edited this encyclopedia 10 tens now so I assume he has no knowledge of our policies. of course he is entitled to disagree with our policies as long as he doesnt break them. I certainly wouldnt call them grubby tabloid efforts and they aim at self proclaimed belief, pedophiles who dont self proclaim and especially those who edit dont proclaim and just edit non pedophile subjects are of course treated just like any other user because there is no way wikipedia could identify such people as pedophiles, SqueakBox 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"I think your concerns about the merge being done badly are unfounded..."

There is no way that this merge could be done except badly. The topics simply do not mesh. I appreciate that you don't mind me being here to keep you on your toes, tho =)

Thanks Samantha, yeah, I think it's a poor policy. I'm not really sure who on the Wikipedia totem pole decided this "don't ask, don't tell" stance, or how the Wikipedia totem pole even works, really. But I'm willing to drop the issue if you're willing to drop the pretense and admit that this policy is more intended to improve Wikipedia's P.R. than it is to uphold the same standards that would apply to anyone else who would self-identify in any other way.

Mike D78 07:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its not just pedophiles self identifying who get blocked, for instance professing rascists get exactly the same treatment. Improving wikipedia's PR is IMO a good thing and I'd like to see us removed as a passive corporate offender from the perverted justice site, for instance, SqueakBox 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a group of right-wing nuts started complaining that Wikipedia had been "infiltrated" by liberals spreading left-wing propaganda, would you start blocking everyone who self-identified as a Democrat in the name of improving Wikipedia's PR? (On second thought, the right-wing nuts in question would probably just go and start their own encyclopedia...)

PJ's not going to be satisfied until all information documenting pedophile activism is censored from Wikipedia, that much should be obvious. They've already succeeded in convincing administrators to adopt this ridiculous policy against users who weren't even causing disruption, but had in fact made many contributions to this project, and yet they still label this site as a "corporate offender." And apparently, now that they've gotten all the "infiltrators" blocked, Xavier thinks he can strut in here and push through a proposal that is obviously intended to eliminate the information in this article.

Lest I seem like I'm just here to bitch and moan, I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia users thus far have apparently seen the usefulness in keeping this kind of notable, historical information on Wikipedia, and have repeatedly voted to preserve this article. The hard work of many individuals has gone into improving this entry. I hope that Wikipedians continue to see the wisdom in preserving this information, in an NPOV manner, instead of kowtowing to the demands of PJ. I also hope that the administrators reconsider this stance of blocking contributing users simply for their self-identification on Wikipedia. Maintaining integrity by upholding the policies of assumption of good faith and fairness toward all users should be more important than trying to improve Wikipedia's image among a small, self-righteous group of mostly zealous lunatics.

Mike D78 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to share your views. However you are mistaken on several points. The discussions about merging/splitting these articles predates Von Erck's involvement. He has no special clout as an editor. Second, many groups have decided that Wikipedia priorities and methods are not the same as their own, and have started their own wikis. For example, the Star Trek fans have a very complete wiki at "Alpha One", or something like that. And the "Boylovers" have one at BoyWiki. These are wikis that encourage the kinds of contributions that are discouraged at Wikipedia. Everyone has the right to "fork", in other words to make a copy of the encyclopedia or parts in a different setting where it can be changed independently. There could even be a "Mike D78wiki". WP:FORK. Third, the list of rights is very short and many editors are surprised that being treated fairly is not among them. This is not a free speech forum, it is not a soapbox where everyone gets five minutes, it is not a social experiment. WP:NOT. This is an encyclopedia project. Whatever our personal goals or interests, when we're editing here we should follow the goals and norms of this project. The goal of WP is to create a reputable reference work. Those who disrupt that effort are banned by the hundreds every day. Those who bring disrepute on the project are just as problematic, and just as unwelcome. Disruption can take many forms, including drawn-out debates. Finally, let's get back to discussing this article. There's a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch‎ in progress. We can carry on with this there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Disruption can take many forms, including drawn-out debates."

I would hope that simple, civilized talk on an article's talk page would not be construed as disruptive. And this subject seems very relevant to this article to me, but if you know how to transplant this discussion to another place, I'll join you there.

"The discussions about merging/splitting these articles predates Von Erck's involvement."

I realize that; it just seems to me that this idea has been strategically reproposed after the pressured blocking of several users who had previously voted to preserve this entry. Thankfully, though, it would seem that there are also many other users who see the value in keeping this article.

And whether fair treatment of editors is a value specifically stated as a right or not, assumption of good faith clearly is. To assume that someone is incapable of contributing and preemptively block them simply for their identity is clearly a violation of this policy. A project that claims to be inclusive in allowing anyone to edit should not be promoting an atmosphere that forces people to hide their identities for fear of retribution. Nor should users who are willing to play by the rules and make constructive contributions be encouraged to scurry off and edit their own encyclopedias, especially when a topic as controversial as this is involved. If creating an extensive, accurate and reputable reference work is truly important, then the interest of accepting the valuable contributions of everyone should outweigh concerns some people have over users who "bring disrepute."

Mike D78 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We arent here to discuss the right or wrongs of blocking pedophile editors, that should take place on your talk page if anywhere, SqueakBox 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who made these inflammatory, off-topic accusations of alleged vote seeking on this talk page, and you're the one who brought up discussion about pedophile editors when you posted "one who self proclaims pedophilia is subject to blockiong. That much is clear." So perhaps you should've followed your own advice?

Don't expect to open up a can of worms like that and then criticize others for the discussion that naturally follows.

Mike D78 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims of vote stacking re this article are absolutely on topic, complaints about aour pedophile policies are completely off topic. Hope this is clear? If there are a can of wroms re this article pleaswe can you specify what they are, SqueakBox 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia was intended to be kept as open and democratic as possible, therefore this discussion is important and needs to take place, where ever that happens. I see no need to make an issue over such a minor thing as where this discussion happens, and again, if someone more experienced with Wikipedia than I knows how to move it elsewhere, I'll let them take care of that.

Regardless, I don't see how any of this is keeping anyone else from discussing the article if they want to.

Mike D78 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I here your opinion about how wikipedia was intended to be I dont agree with it, SqueakBox 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not trying to force anyone into accepting my way of thinking here; I just felt it necessary to respond to this discussion, which had been going on before I even joined in. No hard feelings? =)

Mike D78 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Samantha! Like her, I see absolutely no reason to be suspicious of new accounts that only post on one contentious topic! In order to assume good faith, we must systematically overlook obvious bias! Femaleperson Notapedo 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a reflection of your level of experience oin this project but in certain controversial topics, eg La Rouche, it doesnt work like that, SqueakBox 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Femaleperson, anyone is free to feel as paranoid about other users as they wish. The debate is over whether preemptive action against such users is permissible and in the spirit of Wikipedia's rules, and it clearly is not. And as much as others keep criticizing "SPAs," the Wikipedia policy on single-purpose accounts only states that such users should be regarded with "gentle scrutiny." In many situations, users who wish to edit only a small group of articles are beneficial, as they can utilize their specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia's content in specific areas.

Mike D78 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to delete this comment as trolling, but I'll leave the discussion for context. In fact, you will see that I started on the Queer article project, but moved over here because the former seems to be rather inactive, with a very low burden of referencing. Maybe it's just a thirst for polemic, but with some of the editors "making their mark" on this article, it seems like some degree of sanity is required. Samantha Pignez 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DSM in "Pro" claims section

As can be seen from previous edits to the article, an editor is attempting to insert the unsupported, unsourced claim that the DSM implies pedophilia in almost every child molester. This claim has been inserted in different places, removed and then reinstated without any other justification but "deleted in error". Whats more, the DSM is adequately (and accurately) covered in the criticism section, yet the section which is being targeted concerns the claims of pedophile activists. This kind of annoys me - the creeping, malignant implantation of unsourced, subjective opinions, supposedly to prove ad nauseum that "we don't agree with them, REALLY". Very poor article construction. 213.239.218.176 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the DSM material belongs. It is important to provide balance and note that there is a difference in views between mainstream professionals and Pedophiles. I think it is important to let readers know that Pedophilia is a mental illness. However, rather than merely revert back and forth...why don't we see what other editors have to say? I'll leave this alone for now until we see what others think. DPeterson^talk 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep DSM in "Pro" claims section or delete the references that 213 wants deleted?

'Keep For the reasons I've stated above. DPeterson^talk 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete from the pro claims section, as per my justification. I modified the vote, since I do not oppose the DSM's mention in criticism 213.239.218.176 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per DPeterson, SqueakBox 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per DPeterson. If random IP's are going to vote, I might as well too. XavierVE 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete this reference; it is unsourced and inaccurate. The facts simply do not prove that "nearly all child molestors" are motivated by pedophilia in the strict DSM definition of the term. The reference is also slopily written, as well; an exact figure would be much more preferable, but this sentence probably doesn't belong in the various places that one user has been attempting to insert it, anyway. Mike D78 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep per XavierVE. This IP and Mike D78 is obviously a sock puppet. These editors have been here for some time, from their contribs. Its silly of Wikipedia policies to entertain sock puppets. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, first of all, you're completely off-topic in making this accusation here (not to mention the fact that you've already accused me of this in, I believe, two other places). Secondly, I would ask you to stop making these accusations against me without any proof whatsoever. Apparently editing some of the same articles that a previous user edited is enough to get me accused of being a sockpuppet? Bull. Please, stop with these unfounded accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.

You were also out of line in deteling 213's vote based on mere speculation of his identity; I have restored it.

Mike D78 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - misinformative and out of context! Samantha Pignez 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom

The Pedophilia article contains far, far too much information that belongs on this page. I've proposed that the relevant sections be merged here. Exploding Boy 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is because this article (most of it) is duplicated in both places--a revert war is going on--merge this page into pedophilia, revert, lather, rinse, repeat. It's the same material. -Jmh123 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a request on Requested moves, but there's no good reason for duplication of material, and there's especially no good reason to stuff the main pedophilia article with activism information, whether pro- or anti-. If it becomes necessary, the relevant pages will be protected, and edit warrers will be blocked.. Exploding Boy 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Information removed from the main article can be found here

Move page

I've proposed that this page be renamed Pedophilia activism, to encompass both pro- and anti- views, as one would expect. Exploding Boy 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Agree_to_Merge.3F above you. -Jmh123 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, if there's really that much information I could see a need for two separate articles, but as it is there really isn't enough to warrant separate articles for each stance. That's why we have redirects. Exploding Boy 07:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think once the duplicate material is deleted, merging with Pedophilia will work best. DPeterson^talk 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, clearly it won't. That's the entire problem: There's so much pro-pedophilia activism stuff that placing it in the main article turns it into more or less a pro-pedophile article, makes it confusing, and reduces neutrality. The obvious solution is to combine all the activism-related information in one article, which can then be separated into two if it becomes necessary (at present there's not enough anti-pedophile information to warrant a split). Exploding Boy 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to afd the article on Saturday so I suggest waiting till after that process has finished but if we decide to keep then indeed we should have one pedophile activism article fully balanced between anti and pro activists, SqueakBox 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're going to list the Pro-pedophile activism page for deletion? This is becoming confusing; can we do one thing at a time? Exploding Boy 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should do one thing at a time, hence my flagging of my intention. I'd do it now but the page is lockled till Saturday, SqueakBox 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is your policy reason for listing the article for deletion? -- Kesh 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a reason, which is why I advise SqueakBox not to do it. Exploding Boy 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you wait till I actually file the afd but the disputre is enough reason in itself, unless of course we revert the suspected sock of banned user kirbytime and leave it as a redirect, SqueakBox 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Squeak, one user's accusations that I am a sockpuppet do not warrant disregard of my edits. Please respect my presence here just as I respect yours.

Mike D78 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are a sock of a banned user your edits should be reverted according to banning policy, and if you arent I think they should be reverted anyway. If you arent a sock of a banned user you are, of course, as welcome here as anyone, SqueakBox 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, you were the one who was acting out of line in the first place by redirecting an article with no consensus to do so. That was not a "good faith" edit; it was an edit that flew in the face of extensive discussion beforehand. Don't point the blame at me for reverting your disruptive edits.

Mike D78 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that if the dispute is locked that means do nothing, which no policy nor common sense supports. If I had done the move in the face of overwhelming opposition that would have been in bad faith but given the debate was locked my move cannot be considered bad faith, and indeed it was a good faith edit that did not fly in the face of the discussion but did signifying that those opposing the move dont have special rights or greater influence on the project than those supporting it, as your comments imply that they should have, SqueakBox 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not implying that those who opposed the move have more influence, Squeak. We were simply for maintaining the status quo; you were the one who was attempting to impose a major edit on an article, and unfortunately, to do that you need more support than a discussion that ended in "no consensus."

Mike D78 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, a dispute is not valid reason to delete an article. You may want to read the deletion policy. Exploding Boy 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when the dispute is about getting rid of the article!c SqueakBox 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Er dont make assumptions and do just wait for the afd, SqueakBox 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's all wait and then comment on the afd. Frankly deleting the article, or finding some way to trim it and include the basics in the Pedophilia article are my preferences. Having the three articles just seems too much duplication...sure merging will require some radical trimming, but that can be accomplished, assuming no socks interfere. DPeterson^talk 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"sure merging will require some radical trimming, but that can be accomplished, assuming no socks interfere."

Translation: assuming no one who questions DPeterson's edits "interferes."

Mike D78 23:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He is actually talking about people like Voice of Britain, SqueakBox 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is for discussing the proposed merging of the pro and anti articles into a single article about activism. I would encourage users who seem obsessed with the idea of deleting/merging this article into the pedophilia article to drop the issue. The idea has been discussed to death, rejected, and even carried out in defiance of typical protocol, and the result was judged by an admin to be unacceptable. So please, let's move on.

As for merging the pro and anti articles, I think that is unnecessary at this time, as the anti article was still farily new and had plenty of room for expansion. Theoretically, an anti-pedophile activism article could include the history of anti-pedophile sentiment, such as the 80s daycare satanic abuse scandals, laws that have been passed and organizations that have been formed in response to high profile events, etc. Again, the anti-pedophile activism article was created fairly recently, and it was created for a purpose, so we should give interested users time to work on it before we scrap it.

Thoughts? Mike D78 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with everything you have just written, SqueakBox 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At a min. the two article need to be merged as they are just two halfs of one topic. They then can be merged with the Pedophilia article of which they are just a subsection. DPeterson^talk 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They are clearly separate topics, which was why the anti-pedophilia activism article was created recently to begin with. The anti article is newer, and simply hasn't been expanded yet as much as it could be. Mike D78 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, would you care to discuss what exactly it is you disagree with concerning what I have written? Also, I have restored the anti-pedophilia activism page to its former version, as there was no consensus to redirect it. I would encourage users to focus on how we can improve the anti-pedophilia activism article to make it just as long as this one. Again, it was created only recently, and to delete it now would be silly. I think it's a relevant article that deserves some work. Mike D78 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This is currently listed at WP:RM, but there appears to be no poll as yet, and no prospect of consensus if one were to be taken. Feel free to set one up, but it's a waste of time IMO, especially in view of the failed proposal to merge with Anti-pedophile activism (currently a redirect, see Talk:Anti-pedophile activism#What happened to the article? and elsewhere in that talk page). Interesting discussion, and I commend the restraint of some editors! Hang in there. Andrewa 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Support merge we don't need two POV forks--Sefringle^Talk 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Per reasoning stated in numerous previous discussions, I once again oppose the proposed merger of the pro- and anti- articles. Not only are these two articles of different quality and length, but they deal with almost completely seperate movements. Unless enough sourced information is added to the anti- article to prove that it is the opposite of pro-pedophile activism, the two articles should remain seperate. If anyone is interested in reviewing the other reasons editors have listed for opposing this merge, please look through this Talk Page and its Archives. If someone knows how to provide links to the specific sections dealing with prior discussion of and voting on this particular merge, please list them here (I personally do not know how to correctly do that yet). Homologeo 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
3. I suggest we wait until after the afd as if the community decides to delete there will be no point to this debate, SqueakBox 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
4. 'Support merge' unless the vote is to delete. DPeterson^talk 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Not sure if this was intended to be a vote, but I oppose this merge, for reasons I have stated in various places. If this goes to a formal vote, I will expound upon my reasons. Mike D78 06:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

All editors: please use article talk pages for discussion of the relevant article(s) only. Take other discussion to user talk pages or email. Thank you. Exploding Boy 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why I am going to put this article up for afd

This article fails on notability grounds. While individuals such as Lindsay Ashford have shown notability on the project, and while certain groups also demonstarte notability (like NAMBLA) the concept of a Pro-pedophile activist movement does not, IMO, meet our notability guidelines (whereas the anti-pedophile activism movement actually does so much more) and what notabilty it has can easily be included in a short section in pedophile (as the movement does have enough notability to warrant mention there), SqueakBox 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and I'm positive that the conclusion will be to keep, but I don't see why you have to wait for the current protection to expire before listing it, if you feel you must. If it's a concern about being able to tag the article, you can make an edit request to an already protected page via {{editprotected}}. Exploding Boy 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Exploding Boy. The previous discussion on the merge included the comments of several users who agreed that this article was notable. What's more, the article is extensively sourced, much more so than many other articles. Proposals have been made to delete this entry before, and each time users have decided that it is best to keep it.

Why not work on making constructive edits rather than merely proposing various ways to ultimately get rid of this article?

Mike D78 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather wait as I am happier with an afd when people can edit the article. We dont have a cannabis activism article or an Earth activism article (but we do have the Earth Liberation Front etc. We do have an animal rights activism article, the Animal liberation movement but animal rights are considerably more notable than pedophile activism is so whereas you are entitled to your opinion that it will result in keep I disagree with you, EB, there and think given a strong argument that the community will choose to decide that the movement is not notable. Mike, an afd is the most constructive eidt I can think of re this article in terms of the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An AfD on this has zero chance of succeeding IMO, but it might help clear the air. Andrewa 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I think it should be done sooner rather than later. It makes no particular difference that people can't directly edit the article during an AFD, and if there's good reason to do so, they can use the template given above. Exploding Boy 00:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As important is the fact that this article, if you check the edit history, was mostly created and expanded by now banned accounts due to those accounts being SPA-pedophile. Vast majority of content in this article is non-notable and added by single-purpose users to promote their propaganda. And yes, I'm sure Mike D78 will now scurry around to give the BoyChat line in reply of why all the duplicated content in this article is important. Boring.

Neither pedophile activism NOR anti-pedophile activism is, at the end of the day, notable. I can count on ONE HAND the amount of media articles that have been done regarding pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism. The vast majority of pedophile activist organizations who had articles created (by those in the organizations themselves, heh) were deleted for non-notability. See the successful BoyChat article AfD for an example. XavierVE 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"We dont have a cannabis activism article"

Yes we do.

"or an Earth activism article"

Again, we actually do, although it's not called that.

If you're going to bring up the discussion concerning notability again, though, I'll just restate my previous argument:

If you take a look at the article for Deafness, for instance, you will find that all of the medical-related information on the condition is in the "Deafness" article, while most of the socially-relevant information is in the "Deaf culture" article. As should be obvious, the scope of information related to the medical definition of deafness and the sociology associated with the condition are vastly different, thus separate articles are necessary. The same concept can also be observed with the separate articles for "Autism" and the "Autistic rights movement," and the same would logically apply with pedophilia. Others' view of the legitimacy of the movement is irrelevant toward deciding whether a separate article on it should exist or not. The movement exists, and is well-documented, thus the article on it exists.

Many other articles may likewise seem "non-notable" to the general public but still provide quality information that is highly relevant to certain groups of people. As controversial of a topic as this is, quality information is scarce, so Wikipedia has good reason to ensure that this information remains available.

The pro-pedophile movement emerged as a splinter-movement of gay rights during the sexual revolution, thus the connection. Among many, this WAS considered an LGBT issue (and by a few it still is). This article documents a relevant and interesting series of historical events. I realize many likely find the subject of this article highly distasteful. Most are horrified to discover that such a thing as "pro-pedophile activism" exists, but the truth is, it DOES exist, so we have an interest in documenting it within Wikipedia as we would with any other subject, as distasteful as some may find it. This information is relevent to both those who share the point of view of the activists and those who wish to combat it.

Mike D78 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd to discuss Merger issues is just a big no way. I would suggest that your only option is a balanced merger. If you take it to Afd i think it could be quickly dismissed as WP:SNOW and you have wasted everyones time. Anti-Pedophilia activism of course attracts worldwide attention for the simple reason that Pedophiles are the least likely group to expound their views. Most pedophile attacks on children are sadistic crimes and very few of them are what NAMBLA says its members are engaged in. Pro-Pedophilia has a notability because it is so against the mainstream. In Wikipedia we have articles on Trotskyists clandestine groups that only number a hundred people, I think it comes into the same kind of category. Afd is not to discuss mergers. And I would advise everyone pushing the issue to avoid it IMHO ;-) Mike33 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Xavier's comments:

"due to those accounts being SPA-pedophile"

Again, if you will read Wikipedia's policy on single-purpose accounts, you will see that such accounts are intended to be handled only with "gentle scrutiny." Simply the fact that articles are edited by SPAs is not reason enough to disregard them as non-notable. I would imagine highly-technical science-related articles are also mostly edited by SPAs interested in specific topics, as well. Such articles are, likewise, likely not notable to many people in the general public but are highly-notable to certain groups of people.

"And yes, I'm sure Mike D78 will now scurry around to give the BoyChat line in reply of why all the duplicated content in this article is important"

First of all, the content in this article is not "duplicated:" for the most part, it exists only in this article and belongs only in this article. Secondly, you can continue to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "giving the BoyChat line" if you wish, but you're not going to win over most users with your paranoid conspiracy nonsense. I guess every user who has voted in favor of keeping this article in the past is a "BoyChat" member as well?

The truth is, most users, in the past and now, see that this information is notable and that this article is worthy of keeping.

Mike D78 01:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't wish to self-identify. You joined on June 26th, the day a call for vote seeking regarding this article was issued on BoyChat, this is the only article you've shown an interest in and members have already pointed out your sock-puppet status. How long are you willing to keep up the charade? XavierVE 07:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on good editors. Roman Czyborra 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Several things, Xavier:

1. No one has "pointed out" my "sock-puppet status." I am not a sockpuppet of any other user, there is no fair evidence to label me as such, and just because some random user decides to accuse me of being a sock doesn't make it so.
2. I am not a user of "BoyChat," but even if I were, as Samantha previously pointed out, that would be irrelevant. My identify outside of Wikipedia, should I choose to disclose it or not, is of no concern to you, although you seem intent on making an issue of it. Other users have no less business being here because of their identities than you do because of yours.
3. Before you criticise me for previously pointing out your bias: yes, I have my opinions regarding various topics just as you and everyone else do. The difference is, I'm not the one suggesting that people who simply have opinions different than mine should be banned from this project.

Apologies to other users, as this discussion has been drug off-topic; I simply felt the need to defend myself here.

Mike D78 09:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sources" for this article

If one would note, a few of the sources for this "article" have been removed from the internet period, notably the "debate guide" blog (And everyone knows blogs don't meet Sourcing standards here) and a few of the other weird blogs that banned SPA's put into this article. But more importantly... about 60% of this article is sourced to one source... IPCE.info. Each IPCE reference was also implanted into this article by banned SPA accounts as well. If you don't believe me, check the edit history.

Please do explain how IPCE.info is a valid source by Wikipedian standards. It's a poorly coded website whose content is propagated by one person. Even the articles IPCE hosts that they claim come from specific newsletters, there's no actual evidence that these newsletters A. Existed and B. contained the content claimed. Should this article survive the pending AfD, I would think Wikipedian editors should examine the material laid down by now-banned SPA's and especially anything sourced to IPCE... or any of the sources in general, a few of them don't even exist anymore. XavierVE 01:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources, and not even close to 60% of them link to that site. From what I understand, this site is maintained by a group of people and mostly serves as a repository for scientific studies and scholarly articles, which certainly are valid sources by Wikipedia's standards.

One would expect an article about activism to reference websites that, likewise, concern activism. But if you have a problem with the subject of this article to begin with, then of course you're going to question its sources.

Mike D78 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, this site is maintained by a group of people and mostly serves as a repository for scientific studies and scholarly articles, which certainly are valid sources by Wikipedia's standards. And there's the BoyChat line. In reality, there is no staff, it's maintained by one guy. It's certainly not by any definition a "scholarly" website. XavierVE 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know more about this website than I do. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you are attempting to apply unnecessary scrutiny toward the sources of this article in order to further undermine it. This kind of excessive scrutiny is not applied to other articles, and it seems like it is not enough for you that this article already has far more sources than many other articles of similar length do.

Links to mirrors of studies and professional articles are certainly suitible sources for articles on Wikipedia. Now, do you have some relevant issues you'd like to discuss, or do you simply wish to continue to undermine my contributions via ad hominem attacks?

Mike D78 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the anti-pedophile activism article

A previous discussion only half a month ago concerning the merging of the pro and anti pedophile activism articles resulted in no consensus, with the majority of users disaproving of the idea. Rather than putting our efforts into further debate over this proposal so soon, why not discuss how we can improve the anti-pedophile activism article so that it can become just as comprehensive as this one? I have proposed some ideas at the talk page for that article concerning how we can do just that.

It seems to me that activism regarding these topics represents two different subjects that deserve their own articles. We need criticism and controversy regarding pro-pedophile activism to be kept in this article, but anti-pedophile activism consists of more than simply criticism of pro-pedophile activism. Anti-pedophile sentiment is not generally in response to pro-pedophile activism, but is often in response to high-profile events that provoke public reaction and new laws. The anti-pedophile activism article should document the history of anti-pedophile sentiment, just as this article documents the history of its topic.

The fact is, organisations like PJ were not formed in response to NAMBLA, etc. Anti-pedophile activism has its own, generally unrelated history which should be kept seperate from this article and documented in its own entry. Mike D78 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)