Talk:Anti-pedophile activism

Anti-Pedophile Stubs

I added links to stubs for several groups mentioned in the article so readers have nice clickies to find out more about the organizations mentioned. Unfortunately, I only had time to attempt a limited rephrasing of the information presented on the group's own websites for use in the stubs. I know they are stubs and I was not able to neutralize all POV but it is late so I will not be able to flesh them out into more useful articles tonight. If people in possession of relevent information would help fill out those articles and bring them to a NPOV, I would appreciate it. I think the stubs, presented in a more neutral POV, would be useful to readers. The stubs are: Predator hunter, CorporateSexOffenders and Absolute Zero United. Thanks Veriss 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the three articles I was actively working on and listed above, were listed for speedy deletion and though I contested the deletion with a request for time to work on the articles, they were deleted regardless...without any posting here about why they were deleted even though I referenced the above post for why they were created to begin with. How do I find out who deleted a particular article and why it was deleted? What exactly are the time parameters that a person is permitted to clean up an newly created article before it is deleted by someone? Does an article need to be "airtight" before it is created and posted or is there generally some lattitude given to new articles created in good faith to allow time for completion? How airtight does an article need to be to survive a speedy deletion request? I sincerely do not understand these obstacles to contributing. Veriss 06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Too tired for now. Just a reminder for me to set them up! --Jim Burton 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what this page should be, SqueakBox 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You should let the AfD process run its course, rather than blanking this article. --Haemo 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

We already have 2 for (Will B / Squeek) and 2 against (Me / Haemo), but lets wait for AfD to close before having this discussion --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is closed, I want to add my own opinion on the merge. Personally, I'm against it, because the resulting article would be about activism related to pedophilia as a whole, which I think would be very difficult to balance. Also, both (Pro-)pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism are much more interesting, coherent topics than the combined one. Mangojuice^talk 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section appears to all be unsourced original research. -Will Beback · † · 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite secure in knowing that these are commonly stated positions. I also know of a group who are in the process of drafting an online petition that covers a lot of these points, so we should have some sources rather soon --Jim Burton 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A) We can only use reliable sources, not including forum postings and blogs. B) Complaints about Perverted Justice are not the same as complaints about the "movement". We already have a very complete article on PJ so we don't need to spend time rehashing it here at length. -Will Beback · † · 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are blog postings unreliable? --Jim Burton 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And please don't keep restoring unsourced assertion. Wait until you've found legitimate sources to add these back. -Will Beback · † · 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate material

• Those who attack pedophiles only (as opposed to child sex offenders) are targeting the wrong people, in what is either an unreasonable and inhumane outlet for their own hate or repressed pedophilia. [1]

To begin with, a comment posted on a website by an anonymous writer is not a reliable source. Secondly, only the last clause of this statement is supported by the source. Instead of writing an original-research essay and then scrambling for sources to support it, I recommend finding good sources then summarizing what they say. -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop waging a war on this article. Deleting unsourced material within a matter of hours is totally unreasonable, especially when another user is active in sourcing that material. An not all material has to be sourced either. You are holding this article up to a ludicrous burden of proof, seemingly because of your general hostility to it as a whole. --Jim Burton 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am holding the article to the same standards as any Wikipedia article. We wouldn't allow blogs and forum postings as sources for pedophile activism either. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. -Will Beback · † · 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that wikis are not considered reliable sources either. Please stop adding patently inappropriate material. -Will Beback · † · 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs

Whilst sourcing opinions from blogs is not realiable, sourcing blogs to show that they exist surely isn't. This is about the most negative, antisocial editing I have ever seen. --Jim Burton 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making uncivil remarks about your fellow editors. As for the blogs, there's no reason to simply indicate they exist. And we cannot use material on them to draw conclusions about so-called "anti-pedophile activism", as doing wo would be original research. Let's just stick to using reliable sources, if any can be found. -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would only be (what I understand to be) OR, if I wrote the entries. The only thing that I find uncivil here, is your editing and your unfounded accusations that I am making uncivil remarks about editors, as opposed to their behaviour. I am allowed to criticise uncivil editing and ludicrous burdens of proof as much as I like, thankyou very much --Jim Burton 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to complain about me please do so on my talk page or another appropriate page. As for the sourcing standards for this article, let's stick to the same standards we use in other articles. Those standards do not allow forums, wikis, blogs, and other self-published sites. If you don't like having those deleted then don't add them. I'm sure that if we used similar sources in the pedophile activism there would be complaints. Let's just be consistent. -Will Beback · † · 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't complain about you, nor Mr Squeaky (yet), not only because I have no chance, but I have nothing to 'complain' elsewhere about, thusfar. That I see an inherent lack of reason wherever I look comes with being JB. As for the sources, I agree with you on all but the wikis and the use of blogs to demonstrate their own existence (which I won't be dong again for deletions sake). Regarding 'self published' sites, I think you'll be hard pushed to source any reasonable sized, controverial article without them. Again, they're required if anything to evidence their own existence and function. --Jim Burton 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Take up policy changes elsewhere. It's not just a matter of using reliable sources, but also of correctly using them. For example:

• For example, members of the Edinburgh based Society Against Pedophiles are reported to have travelled the city streets in a blacked out van, whilst using night-vision goggles to monitor the offenders http://www.societyagainstpedophiles.org/

I looked at that page and I didn't see where it talks about a "blacked-out van" etc. Am I mistaken? -Will Beback · † · 05:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused it with another ref that got deleted, but is now reinstated. --Jim Burton 09:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be constructive

It seems that a war is being waged against this article, simply because it is unpopular with one or two people who want it deleted. Unsourced material is being held up to a huge burden of proof, and deleted virtually on sight, even though it is known full well that I'm battling an AfD. Please be constructive, and help source and improve the article, instead of ripping its guts out --Jim Burton 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverifiable material has no place in Wikipedia. I have helped source this article. We're getting close to having it 100% sourced. -Will Beback .·.·.· 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverified (note, not unverifiable) material has no place in controversial articles that are not liked in principle by the editors making such judgements... apparently --Jim Burton 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote the {unsourced} tag (that you yourself restored[2]):

• Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.

So long as we stick with simply summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view we'll be fine. -Will Beback .·.·.· 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags

• When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.

I think that some editors of this article are following a standard we don't use on Wikipedia, that of adding the reference before the punctuation and after a space. -Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the CJ link?

Corrupted justice is a large and arguably powerful campaign against PJ's brand of antipedophile activism, taking them on from a position that is itself antipedophile. External links should not all advocate one position, they should merely concern the article. External links are not removable on the simple basis of another article that we link to being hosted on that site. If so, you should have also removed the PJ link. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reformatted EL to make it more like int he pro=pedophile article, which IMO demonstrtaes that both articles should be merged into one. Obviously the PJ link should be here as they are an excellent example of anti pedophile activists, SqueakBox 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reasoning with you? You accuse me of promoting pedophilia by linking to a self-professed anti pedophile site which opposes PJ. The link clearly applies to this article, as it concerns its content. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an internal link to our PJ artilce is sufficient. We don't need to include an external link too. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree DPeterson^talk 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to remove the Merge link?

Either merge it or redo the banner so both Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism have "merge" banners with a link to the same discussion area. I'm removing the Merge, if someone wants to put it back please put it back on both boards. Dfpc 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, let's merge the two...How do we do that? DPeterson^talk 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I think this article puts too much emphasis on Anti-Childlove, without making it clear what they oppose. Anti-Childlove not only opposes child exploitation, but also social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. Abstinent Childlove opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, they work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities. On the other hand, Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.

You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How do we go about making that happen? DPeterson^talk 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Merging Pro and Anti Pedophile Activism articles

Let's try to keep the discussion of the merger to one of the two Talk Pages. That way, editors don't have to repeat themselves, and it would be easier to see all the arguments and votes on a single page. So, which Talk Page should it be - the one for Anti-pedophile activism or the one for Pro-pedophile activism? In my opinion, the discussion should be continued on the latter, because more editors seem to be participating in the general editing of that article and in the process of discussing possible improvements to both of these articles. Besides, the poll and discussion in regards to the proposed merger have gone further on that Talk Page.Homologeo 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. DPeterson^talk 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll regarding merger

1. AGREE Merge the two. DPeterson^talk 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
2. AGREE. 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? If not merged, the former at least needs to be significantly shortened. --Potato dude42 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The pro article has existed for many years, while the anti article has existed for a month and a half. It's only natural the former would be longer, and there'd certainly be no reason for making it equal in size to the anti article. --Askild 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the prev. two thoughts completely. DPeterson^talk 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Um, hi. DISAGREE. =D Mike D78 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the article?

The article that used to be under the title "Anti-pedophile activism" now appears to be missing. The page for it redirects to Pedophilia#Anti-pedophile activism - a section that does not currently exist within the main article on Pedophilia. Although there is a section on Pedophile activism in general, no text is provided there. The paragraph that used to briefly summarize pedophile activism within the Pedophilia article is now also gone. All that remains is a link to the Pro-pedophile activism page. If it has been decided that there should not be an article on anti-pedophile activism at all, then why do we still have these pointless redirects? Besides, I don't think any concensus was ever reached on whether either of the anti- or pro- articles should be deleted or merged. Why did this merger happen, and what happened to all the text that used to be in the article? If someone knows what's going on here, please fill me in. Homologeo 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox merged without consensus. A revert war ensued. Another sockpuppet was banned. User:Exploding Boy got involved. Pro-pedophile activism was restored by someone and locked by an admin. See [3], [4], [5], and [6]. -Jmh123 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When a while back I suggested that pedophile activism could not merelty conmtain the pro pedophile movement a now banned user promptly created this article that should never have been created. This article will be afd along with pro pedophile activism (which I'll do on Saturday) if it is restored, SqueakBox 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I will support that move. DPeterson^talk 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored this article to its previous version, as there was no consensus to merge and redirect. The pro activism article is currently protected; an admin can protect this one, as well, if they feel it is necessary. Mike D78 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait until pedophilia gets unlocked as we cannot have an article duplicated in 2 places and you havent removed the text etc from pedophil;ia. There is no consensus not to merge and redirect, SqueakBox 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Text related to anti-pedophile activism is no longer in the pedophilia article as of the last revision. You had no more grounds to go ahead with the redirect on this page than you did on the pro-pedophile activism article.

I am currently working on some suggestions we can discuss as to how we can improve this article, which was created less than two months ago and has recieved little attention. In the meantime, this article needs to be retained in its former version, and perhaps even locked for now, as the pro-pedophile activism article was.

Mike D78 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the article redirected. See my discussion below for some reasons. DPeterson^talk 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to urge everyone to first discuss changes and new redirects before putting anything else in motion. I am repeating this because the information from the original "Anti-pedophile activism" article is once again missing. I was in the process of fixing the redirect of the page entitled "Anti pedophile activism" (without the agreed upon hyphen), when, all of a sudden, the restored "Anti-pedophile activism" article disappeared again. Could an admin please restore this article again and protect it, at least until this dispute and edit war are over? This is getting a little frustrating.

As for the debate on whether the pro- and anti- articles should be merged into a single "Pedophilia-related activism" piece, editors need to keep in mind the recent discussion and votes that took place. The majority of participating editors were against the proposed merger, and that's why the merger did not take place. Unless a new development occurs in the discussion, no such mergers should be carried out. Pretty much the same thing could be said about the newer proposal to merge the pro- and anti- articles into the general Pedophilia article. This proposal also failed. Please do not single-handedly make such big decisions for the entire group of participating editors, especially when it is clear that this is a very controversial issue, and there are Talk Pages for open discussion. Homologeo 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There has never been a majority of established editors against the proposal, please check your facts, SqueakBox 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

^Incorrect. Mike D78 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, could you please explain to all of us why you redirected the "Anti-pedophile activism" page to the Pedophilia article yet again. There is currently nothing whatsoever within the general Pedophilia article on the subject of Anti-pedophile activism. Why are you deleting an entire article and redirecting the page to an article that says nothing about this particular topic? I am reverting your edit for the time being. This is not to say that this is the best way for the article to be on Wikipedia. My reasoning is that the information should, at the very least, be included somewhere. Since the Pedophilia article lacks this information at this moment, I'm making sure that readers and editors searching for information on Anti-pedophile activism will be able to find it on Wikipedia. Homologeo 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is a duplicate of that at pedophilia and there is no consensus not to redirect this page, and thus your edit summary claiming the material was disappearing is completely inaccurate. There is never a justification for duplicating material, SqueakBox 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had to file another complaint at the admin's noticeboard based on these redirects. Information related to this article has been removed from the pedophilia article, and, as has been stated numerous times, there was never the necessary consensus needed to redirect this article. This article needs to remain as it was, just as the pro-pedophile activism article is, for the time being. Mike D78 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting thier time. It was decided no admin actionw as needed and nothing has changed. Stop duplicating material already at Pedophilia. Are you Voice of Britain? as you appear to be with your obsession in seeing me blocked, and re your edit patterns, SqueakBox 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time redirecting with no consensus to do so? That is completely against protocol and you know it (or you should know it). Admin action was deemed necessary last time to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts, and it is looking like it might be necessary again. This information is not located at pedophilia anymore; have you checked that article within the past two days!?

Again, I am growing quite tired of you dismissing my grievances by accusing me of being a sockpuppet. For the last time, I am not a sock of any other user, and your accusations are completely off topic for this discussion page. Please, drop this grudge you seem to have against me and try to cooperate.

I am not "obsessed" with seeing you blocked, but if you continue to make disruptive, un-agreed upon edits, then your conduct should be handled in an appropriate manner.

Mike D78 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are feeling tired take a break but dont blame me. Admin a ction was not deemed necessary because of my reverts but ebcause of edit warring, edit warring started by you. Sock discussions are strictly on topic, see the history of the article (Jim Burton who started it is banned etc). I dont have to get your agreement in order to edit wikipedia in weays you dont like (which appears to be anything which harms the pro pedophile agenda), SqueakBox 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You were the one reverting without consensus, against the wishes of Jmh123, Homologeo, Exploding Boy, and others. I was simply restoring the page to its former version. You were the one out of line here.

If you feel I am a sock, you should go to an admin about it and find out rather than spouting off these accusations to try to undermine my contributions.

I never claimed you had to get my agreement in order to edit anything, but you are acting against several peoples' wishes and Wikipedia protocol in general here. And as long as you childishly accuse me of promoting the pro-pedophile agenda simply for disagreeing with you, we are going to accomplish very little. This is not the place for your perceived crusade against pedophiles. I am here to make sure that notable information regarding pedophile activism is maintained, as it should be, in an objective manner. I am not out to promote any agenda; simply the fact that information exists, and is documented, is not tantamount to promoting an agenda.

Now please, try to drop this grudge you seem to have against me. We both have better things we could be doing than engaging in some pointless, off-topic argument.

Mike D78 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No grudge, stop being a bad faith dick, SqueakBox 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop name-calling, please. Mike D78 08:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mike D78 here. Let's keep it civil. Homologeo 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

the reference is to a sort of policy statement not name-calling. The sentiment in the policy is a good one...if followed. DPeterson^talk 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this policy is relevant to this situation, especially not to Mike D78's conduct, at least not to his behavior on this page. If anything, SqueakBox should take note of the very policy he's refering to. Homologeo 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the article

Some users are suggesting that this article should be merged into the pro-pedophile activism article to create a single "pedophilia-related activism" article. I think this is a bad idea for several reasons. As mentioned, this article for anti-pedophile activism was created less than two months ago. It has had little chance for improvement since then. Also, there was a previous proposal not long ago to merge the pro and anti articles, which failed. Rather than putting our efforts into further debate over an idea that was previously rejected not long ago, it occurs to me that the better idea might be to see if we can't improve this article.

In my opinion, this article has the potential to become a useful overview of anti-pedophile sentiment in the U.S. and throughout the world. Currently, however, this article only touches upon some modern anti-pedophile organizations. Just as the pro-pedophile activism article has a history section, so should this one. A summary could be provided of several major events that have caused reactions in the form of laws being passed and organizations being formed in the effort to combat the threat of pedophiles. Although other articles describe topics such as sex offender registry laws, no article provides a comprehensive overview of anti-pedophile sentiment and the public reaction to it. With some good contributions, this article could become just as comprehensive as the pro-pedophile activism article.

Is anyone else willing to help me improve this article? Mike D78 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree for many of the reasons stated above and on the "pro" talk page. The articles are two sides of the same coin. For NPOV each must represent the other view...essentially producing duplicate articles. Better to have one. Easier for the reader to find all necessary info in one place. DPeterson^talk 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to explain why you feel that these articles are "two sides of the same coin"? I see them as separate topics; anti-pedophile activism is mostly in reponse to high-profile events (like the SRA accusations in the 80s, which caused media attention and encouraged stricter laws--most people would consider this event to have triggered increased anti-pedophile activism). Anti-pedophile activism is not simply activism in response to pro-pedophile activism. I will concede that perhaps a better title for this aritlcle would be "anti child sexual abuse movement," or something along those lines.

The pro-pedophile activism article already contains the amount of obligatory controversy and criticism that is typical for articles documenting activism. Criticism against pro-pedophile activism is clearly different from activism that is against child sexual abuse, which is what this article was intended to be about.

Mike D78 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The pro pedophile article is a POV fork that fails notability, and should be deleted with the content deleted too, the anti pedophil;e article is tiny and shoudl be merged inot pedophilia, SqueakBox 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would actually address the comments of others instead of simply pithily stating your opinions as if they were fact.

How is the pro-pedophile activism article a "POV fork," and why should an article that centers mostly around opposition to sexual abuse be merged with an article concerning pedophile activism?

Mike D78 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious claim, since the vast majority of anti-pedophile activism deals with opposing pedophile organizations, all of whom promote child sexual abuse. You are so obvious, but you're good at using Wikipedia rules to play them as fools. You are a good example of why there are still things to chastise. Thanks for providing the example. XavierVE 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. DPeterson^talk 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Xavier, the vast majority of anti-pedophile activism does not deal with opposing pedophile organizations. The little stings your own organization does on Dateline or whatever; those do not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Naming and shaming sex offenders in newspapers does not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Lobbying for stricter laws against offenders does not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Monitoring chat rooms does not involve anti-pedophile organizations. To simply leave this article to only focus on activism that is strictly agaisnt pedophile organizations would be to ignore most of the activism that most people would consider to be anti-pedophile.

Again, I don't feel I have any less right to be here than you do. But if the founder of such a venerable institution as PJ has nothing better to do than trash me on the Internet all day, whatever.

Mike D78 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Page has been protected for 2 days due to ongoing disuputes regarding this and two related articles. Exploding Boy 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO if we can get consensus to delete the pro article this anti article would be harmless, SqueakBox 01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite so DPeterson^talk 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight: both of you claim that this article is a POV fork from the pro-pedophile activism article, correct? By that logic, wouldn't this article, which you claim is closely related to the pro article, be just as "non-notable" and worthy of deletion?

I am assuming good faith as much as I logically can here, but I don't think I am out of line in pointing out this gap in logic. You claim that the pro and anti articles are "two halves of the same coin." Therefore, by your own logic, if the pro article is non-notable and in need of deletion, so is this one.

Your statement that this article is "harmless," and therefore not worthy of deleting, suggests that you are a lot more interested in getting rid of the pro article because you consider it to be "harmful," I presume, than because you consider it to be non-notable. And we don't delete articles simply because we find the subjects of them to be "harmful." Mike D78 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of off-topic chatter removed by User:Exploding Boy. Please take this as a final warning regarding the use of this article talk page. Exploding Boy 15:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, this article appears much more NPOV. But, rather than debate that, I believe it will be much more productive if the pro article are be merged since they are essentially two-side of the the same coin: Pedophile Activism. Once that merger occurs, than it is my opinion that article should probably be merged as a section of the Pedophile article, but that would be a topic to debate only after these two articles are merged. DPeterson^talk 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how they are "two sides of the same coin." Right now, although in need of expansion, this article mostly addresses shaming offenders in newspapers and "pedo baiting." What do these topics have to do with pro-pedophile groups? There is no direct relation.

As for merging all this into the pedophilia article, that was already tried and it just didn't work.

Mike D78 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro pedophile is up for afd and while that process continues I have no objections to this article and would say it is safe to unlock it, SqueakBox 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro and Anti...same issue, different sides...same coin, differenent faces. Discussions of mering into the related pedophilia article are premature at this point. I agree that the article may be unlocked at this time. DPeterson^talk 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, what do topics such as "pedo baiting" and chatroom stings have to do with pro-pedophile groups? Where is the direct connection that warrants a merge? Mike D78 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just a tiny part...pro and anti are just two parts of one whole. DPeterson^talk 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, both articles are centered on the similar topic of, oh I don't know, PEDOPHILIA? I don't see how much more obvious I can make this. --Potato dude42 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Everyone, for the last time, please keep your discussions on article talk pages to discussion about the article itself. Off-topic discussion should be taken to user talk pages or email. In addition, keep your comments civil. People will be blocked if they continue to flout these rules. Thank you. Exploding Boy 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Section on Bill O'reilly

Although Bill O'reilly may indeed be an active anti-pedophile activist, the evidence previously provided for this assertion in the article had nothing to do with his activism. I have thus deleted the short paragraph dealing with this topic, since it was wholely based on O'reilly's promotion of Jessica's Law, which deals with harsher penalties for child molesters. Since this law is neither about pedophiles specifically or pedophile activists, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If anyone can provide pertinent evidence for O'reilly's activism, they're welcome to start this section anew. Homologeo 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response why the hell did you delete that it was perfectly ok and relevent to the subject at hand. The web site showd HIS promotion of Jessica's law and he is one of the biggest anti-pedophile activists around it would be wrong to leave him out.--Eshay 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have no doubt that he is one of the most active anti-pedophile activists of today. However, in order for such a statement to be included in the article, the supporting evidence provided needs to be pertinent to the subject at hand. The fact that O'reilly supports Jessica's Law is irrelevant in defining him as an anti-pedophile activist. I already explained this above. Please ellaborate on how support of harsher penalties for child molesters makes someone an anti-pedophile activist. Unless more pertinent support is provided, the said section has no place in this article. Homologeo 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson and Eshay, please read this section from the beginning. I clearly explain why the paragraph on Bill O'reilly should not be included in the article on anti-pedophile activism. An abbreviated version of the explanation was also provided in the Edit Summary of the edit I made. Lack of supporting evidence is the main reason for the deletion of that paragraph. If you can provide more pertinent evidence of his activism, you're more than welcome to add it to the article. However, the support currently provided is not relevant to the topic of anti-pedophile activism. Homologeo 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of the section is dubious.

Given that the man is such a self-promoting media figure, I think it would be better to have the word of someone other than Bill O'Reilly himself that his involvement with Jessica's law is as anything more than a hanger-on and exploiter in his own quest for ratings.

I think we need something other than a link to his own website in this case to justify inclusion. DanB†DanD 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems, on the surface, that J's law is relevant and he is a prom media figure, and the info in verifiable. DPeterson^talk 22:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jessica's law is relevant of course, but is he relevant to Jessica's law? DanB†DanD 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? He's an advocate for it. DPeterson^talk 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So am I. Put a paragraph about me in the article. DanB†DanD 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that Jessica's Law is not directly related to anti-pedophile activism. I would like to see a response to the reasoning I provided above. Thanx in advance, Homologeo 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your response has been reasonable and your tone has been calm so i intend to keep it that way. But i think your wrong He is probably the biggest anti-pedo advocates in the world he has a right to be there which he earnt through one of the most rigirous campaigns in the media. as for the sourse i dont know where else you expect to be promoting it besides himself. but look on tehe wikipedia page bills political views. although it doesnt do it justice. --Eshay 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The relationship is that this is an anti-pedophile law. DPeterson^talk 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an anti-sex offender law; from what I understand, some acts punished under the law don't have to involve children, nor do the offenders technically have to be "pedophiles," obviously. Granted, generally many people would consider it to be an "anti-pedophile law," and public sentiment against pedophiles definitely played a role in its passage. But "anti-pedophile law" isn't the most accurate way to describe it.

The section currently comes off as an out-of-place advertisement for Bill O'Reilly. There are many people out there who are more associated with this kind of thing than Bill is; it's only one part of his shtick. And giving him complete credit for getting a law passed in several states is just ridiculous. Mike D78 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who knows more about O'reilly's anti-pedophile activism add a bit more support to the article as to why exactly he is defined as an anti-pedophile activist. I have no doubt that he is an activist, because I have watched The Factor, but his advocacy of Jessica's Law does not seem to be the best way to demonstrate this type of activism. The biggest problem with using the advocacy of this ammendment as proof of activism was outlined by Mike D78 and by me earlier in this section. This is a legislature that aims to institute harsher penalties for child sexual abuse. It does not target pedophiles or pro-pedophile activists. Neither does Jessica's Law address issues that are exclusively pedophile-related. Considering that research suggests that most individuals convicted of child sexual abuse are not actually pedophiles, it is misleading to label this law as part of anti-pedophile activism. There must be more clear-cut actions that O'reilly is taking that define him as an anti-pedophile activist.

As a side note, I have to also agree with Mike D78's observation that giving O'reilly exclusive credit for getting 41 states to incorporate Jessica's Law is quite inappropriate. Homologeo 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe you are actually splitting hairs about this issue. the fact is that people who commit sexual assaults have a predisposition to this sexual attraction. you can cite one study and i can cite another we shouldn't be trying to make one totalizing definition for pedophilia. any person who commits a sexual assault on a minor should be considered a pedophile. any way i believe that the bill oreily has been at the forefront of the Jessica's law campaign he deserves the credit on wiki.--Eshay 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Anti-pedophile Activism

Could someone explain to me why the definition provided for anti-pedophile activism in the intro includes "opposition to ... child pornography and child sexual abuse"? This seems to be misleading, since this movement is primarily concerned with opposition to pedophiles and pro-pedophile activism. It might be best to remove the terms "child pornography" and "child sexual abuse" from the definition, as not to mislead readers and editors alike. Homologeo 05:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, I was wondering why there is a number of links to anti-child pornography sites at the bottom of the article. Unless a link has something to do with the subject at hand, or provides a source for statements made within the article, it should not be listed. As of right now, there does not seem to be any use for these links on this page. Unless someone explains how they are relevant to anti-pedophile activism, besides claiming that some pedophiles somewhere might support child pornography, I will have to remove all such links from this page. Thanx in advance for any input you may provide, Homologeo 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Conviction of James Finn III

Does anyone else think that the arrest and conviction of James Finn III are over-emphasized in the article as it currently stands? There's way too much detail for such a subtopic, and the huge block quote seems unnecessary. Can't we make all this information more concise? There's got to be more to be said about this site than that it had one "featured article" that facilitated some kind of change. If indeed only a single article has had an impact on the community, than maybe this site should not be discussed on Wikipedia for lack of notability. What do other editors think? Homologeo 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Typical.

The article is about anti-pedophile activists. The account is about a almost-month old website that resulted in the arrest of one of the heavy-hitters when it comes to online pedophile activism. Of course, given your previous history of edits, I really can't say I'm shocked to see you wish to remove information that illustrates starkly the nature of the "We're pedophiles and our communities are designed to support each other" lie. That said, I'm admittedly POV so it would be nice if a neutral Wikipedian did wikify the account. XavierVE 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)