Talk:Pedophile movement

This pedophilia-related article is under topic mentorship. For any discussion with the mentors, or to report any disputes that need intervention, please see Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship.

CN/Fact Request

Can I get someone to toss a CN/Fact after the sentance: "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular." please? -- True or not, there is nothing cited, thus it deserves to be tagged. --76.213.169.164 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to abuse...

The opening sentence of this article seems to hold a strong bias supposing to know the motivations of the movement/activists. Seeing as how it's unlikely that people are literally arguing for abuse, they do not perceive it as abuse. Since there is a difference of opinion, simply describing more blatent goals without relative descriptiors would probably bring more neutrality to the article. The name of the article is also somewhat biased, in that actions classed under this may not be blatent enough to be activism, may not be done for pedophiles or by pedophiles exclusively (or primarily). Obviously it could be, so the label should remain, as should opposing references, and then all varying terms can redirect to a neutral article title. Someone should think of a neutral title like this. Possibly pro/anti could be in a single articie as in *blank*-related activism or *blank*-related controversy. Articles on activism on the internet are altogether pretty confusing seeing as how discerning what is notable is rather difficult to ascertain. Tyciol (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's totally biased. I agree that these people are abusing the children, but that kind of sentence would NEVER be put in a real encyclopedia as it's so BLATANTLY biased. Why the hell is this article still protected? 64.230.84.232 (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just stupid. 24.211.192.53 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's a need for adjectives like 'totally' for terms like bias, such things are better described by 'strong' or 'weak' seeing as how they are about relative concepts, 'totally'/'wholly' or 'partial' are terms usually applied to quantitative amounts. This would be, the relative composition of biased to unbiased contributing emotions to an opinion, the ratios of which are not really relevant. Even comparing strong or weak biases is relatively irrelevant, because it isn't the people's bias that is being measured, but rather that relative to the neutrality of a statement. I'm guessing the article is still protected due to disagreements surrounding it. I'm not really in any mood to unprotect it until consensus can be reached on the direction to take and good changes to make, however if you feel that has been reached it would make sense to contact whatever moderator closed it and request it to be unprotected. I would think they would only listen to named contributors and not people only contributing through IP proxy, however. So if you have an account, you'd best use that, or get one. Your disclaimer as to your agreement with the unsourced biased statement is interesting. The use of 'people' is far too broad, what people tend to do varies a great deal, and what they are doing can only be determined through observation. Tyciol (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is biased. I believe the opening sentence should read: "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to enter into a relationship with a child." 75.2.2.174 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While the word 'encompasses' is not incorrect, the absense of other things the term could be used to describe can give the mistaken impression that the examples given are what the thing is composed of entirely. Your description seems too specific, especially since there is no actual organization with official statements, nor any agreement amongst individuals who either claim to be or are labeled as part of such activism efforts. For example, I've never encountered anything that specifies only pedophiles should be allowed in such relationships, the statements tend to be broad such as 'all adults' or 'everyone' or something to that effect. Words like 'relationship' on the other hand, are excessively broad. Since relationship can include things like friendships of an asexual nature, such things are obviously already legal. You would have to specify literal things such as activities and acts to actually represent the underlying topics of such vague descriptors. While such efforts do seem to deal with both law and cultural response, neither the stated purpose or expected outcome is, in all cases, that end. Some expectations (stated ones at least) appear more conservative, and some motivations/intentions (stated ones at least) more altruistic. The difficulty is that statements and true intentions in any sort of effort can often be contradictory, and on issues like this with high emotional runnings, both sides tend to be paranoid of those with disserting views who would demonize each others' intentions and ignore flaws in themself or their 'own'. The siding that happens (which seems to happen with all sorts of social issues) skews progressive understanding. Tyciol (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: The very first sentence of this article is in complete violation of WP:NPOV and should be edited. The sentence reads, Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse[1] children[2][3]. The part in bold is POV and should be changed to something more neutral such as to allow pedophiles to have sex with children. What's considered criminal pedophilia here in the U.S., isn't considered so in some other countries. Granted, our society holds the view that pedophilia is sick and immoral, that personal view should not be allowed to influence editing of this article, or any other article on Wikipedia. -- ALLSTARecho 08:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about the references and the link? How should they be dealt with? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference that is a book and not really a link to where it can be freely read without me having to go buy the book or go to the library? That reference? Or the reference to WND which is a Christian POV "news" web site? -- ALLSTARecho 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't comment on the US as it isn't here for me but I am amazed that you have editprotedt templated thisn thread. Lest wait for mediation to finish or find a resolution on this page. I firmly disagree with your comments re NPOV and absolutely oppose editing the first paragraphe, which is the cause of the dispute, while the article is locked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual abuse is fine. (HAHA) Having sex with children can be described as "sexual abuse" whether on not it is legal in a jurisdiction. There is plenty on psychological evidence to demonstrate that since children cannot give informed consent to such acts, and it does them long-term psychological harm it can be and would be called abuse, even if the head of NAMBLA were elected and it was legalised. Lobojo (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Terms like 'abuse' don't tend to be very clear. For example, commonly it can mean to say 'abuse a priviledge' or 'abuse a position'. To use wrongly, or misuse, to use badly, something to that effect. Expressions like 'take advantage of' are also sometimes used synonymously, even though that phrase is not inherantly negative like the word abuse is. For example a positive statement would be 'while out on a walk I took advantage of the opportunity to smell flowers'. A problem I can see is the word 'abuse' describes an improper action, but there is often an implication that an action considered improper is synonymous with harm or damage. For example, if I were to jaywalk, I am abusing my priviledge as a citizen to be expected to remain within the law, but I won't necessarily cause an accident. The idea that 'children cannot give informed consent' is based upon the assumption that children are 'uninformed'. What is 'informed' is not strictly defined, nor directly evaluated. If one were to define the term 'child' as 'one who is uninformed' and directly measure that status based upon not having demonstrated informedness, that would be accurate.

Currently, the law takes some assumptions (presumptions? not sure which word..) of informedness based upon the amount of time that has passed since a person has exited the womb. Assumptions are fine and very utilitarian for the drafting of laws, but to use such performance-based generalizations as some sort of psychological evidence makes no sense at all. The problem with psychological case studies is that while they can most certainly come to (often very accurate) conclusions about a population, these conclusions are both impersonal (they do not take account of the sometimes drastic differences between individual capacity and deviation from the average) and dated in that they assess that generation, and do not take into account differences between degree of informedness of successive generations due to changes in cultural, spread of memes and enhancements to the education process.

Rather than things like 'informedness', I would say the more reliable case studies in psychiatry centre around the ability to make rational thought without being impeded or distracted by emotion, analyzing from a biological standpoint things like impulsiveness and recklessness. These are more chemical and measurable by biological and genetic markers (such as those which engage throughout the maturation process) compared to learning (nurture)-based things like informedness. Informedness is still a factor that is influenced by one's biological ability to learn, of course, and probably also is how the information would be processed. These subtleties are not often addressed or discussed seriously in visible discussion though, they seem to be generalized and unimportant, taking a back seat to grasping for anything that can support one's stance which was reached through either emotion or subconscious/past forgotten decisionmaking (if that's the right word). The problem with that is that it does not do these valid concerns' justice, and through not indulging doubters in explanation nor exploration of the ideas, gives them cause to not consider them seriously and simply throw out the concerns reached by professionals due to inadequate representation of them by anti-advocates.

Reiteration from authority is something that should be done in a competant matter less the wisdom gained by the authority is lost and as such ignored by people who would go on to ignorantly cause harm to children by considering themselves correct simply due to being superior to a straw man argument ignorantly thrust at them by people who do not deign to fully explore or explain the more extensive arguments against child sex given by more competant psychiatric authorities. A large problem may be that psychiatric organizations will state a stance or conclusion, and leave it up to people to find papers. People who like the conclusions of the organization may only reference their conclusions, and not the process of how they were reached, which can be unsatisfying for some who desire to understand the theoretical basis of sciences, especially very subtle and conceptual sciences like psychology. Tyciol (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr 75.16.113.54 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit this needs changing, and fast. It's a huge and blatant bias, right there in the first line! Can someone contact an admin urgently to fix this glaring mistake? 219.77.142.24 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the template. There is currently mediation ongoing about this issue. That alone is sufficient proof that there is no current consensus to change this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where? Can you please link to it? 219.77.133.102 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact the WP:MEDCOM, ryan is leading the mediation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the introduction and left some of it intact. Phew, what a mess! Some of the information seemed relevant to other related articles but wasn't directly relevant to pro-pedophile activism, and there were many grammatical errors and repeats of things already mentioned a paragraph before. I also removed that one quote at the end which I felt was irrelevant to any factual overview. I think the loud, overt bias has been largely removed from this section. It seems as though some people couldn't stand to read the introduction more than twice or something and just threw in information which didn't belong trying to make it more normal. My version needs improvement and additions still as I'm not an expert on this topic, but I think it was the best way to go for the time being as although the section is much shorter, it much more closely resembles an encyclopedia-quality article than before.

Kst447 (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well reversing it to its exact previous state was a huge improvement. Thanks for nothing, I don't know why I bother.

Kst447 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a break from following/observing these skirmishes a few months ago, and you're still warring off-wiki over the opening? 75.16.113.54 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse

The whole chapter about "Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse" is bullshit, because pro-pedophilia activism is in essence the claim that child-adult sexual relationships are not harmful in all cases. So you can list all the penalties and jail sentences those activists have had and say "we are skeptical that they do not support child abuse" but to those activists their contacts were not child abuse. That's what all this pro-pedophilia activism is about. The fact that this page even has that section is bias. It should be removed or moved to the anti-pedophile activism, because it's anti-pedophilia activism to list what judges have said and what sentences pedophiles have had. It has NOTHING to do with pro-pedophile activism. --62.194.194.24 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, we are talking about skepticism of this PPA movement, that has nothing to do with APA. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth usage

{{editprotected}} The "commonwealth usage" alternative spelling in the lead should be eliminated since the wp way is to have american or british (etc) spelling consistently throughout each article and not to use both. Abtract (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand policy, we should certainly use just one form throughout (in this case American) but that does not exclude pointing out the differences in the opning. I would oppose such an edit to remove the commonwealth bit from the opening. For example, see color, rumor and a long et al. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with SqueakBox. Edit request denied due to it being a misunderstanding. --Deskana (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for considering it. Abtract (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First lines are OK (let this be said again)

There is nothing wrong with the first lines of the article, or with the whole of it - it is factual. The individuals who think certain fragments should be deleted or changed are either not aware of what the so-called pedophile "movement" is doing, or (more probably) are pedophile supporters and actual child abusers themselves who are trying to bring about serious societal changes that they think could be beneficial for their group. They are doing this by using mind-mixing rhetorics present in many posts on this page, in which they try to present themselves as victims of social intolerance or even "liberators" of children, which is as ridiculous as it is scary. Also, there seems to be no need to change the article, making it more biased towards pedophiles' viewpoint, as the current version is a long-awaited compromise between the many previous ones. Protection serves this article - and let us hope that reason in editors and administrators will continue to prevail and there will be no more harm done to people's minds by the means of this article, which was once the case.

Technical stuff - when I posted this comment for the first time this morning, it got deleted. To the person who did it: please do not censor Wikipedia. If you have something to say - just say it and let others do the same. Take care, whoever you are. 77.253.102.172 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would have been me. And I take it as a personal attack and rather sickening that as someone who does not agree with the first paragraph, I am made out to be a pedophile supporter or a child abuser, and that I am acting in bad faith. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum, the first version was even more accusing than this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Martijn, I hope that if you re-read my post free of negative emotions, you'll see there is nothing personal or offensive. I made a point, which you have any right to disagree with, but perhaps there is no need to confront views contrary to yours in any oversensitive way.

The previous post was similar, but shorter, but if you insist it was accusing, perhaps you should undelete it and say specifically what sort of words you find unkind. Regards 77.253.96.201 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<quote>There is nothing wrong with the first lines, they state facts. Individuals who would like to see them deleted/changed either do not know what the so-called pedophile "movement" is all about or (more probable) belong to the group of pedophile supporters and actual child abusers trying to stuff Wikipedia with mind-mixing rhetorics theories in order to enforce societal changes they perceive beneficiary for themselves. We can just hope that the reason in editors and administrators will prevail and no further harm to people's mnds will be done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.110.5 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) </quote>

I am one of those individuals who would like to see the first lines changed. According to you that means I am most likely a member of the group of pedophile supporters, and actual child abusers, and I am trying to stuff wikipedia with mind-mixing rhetorics theories in order to enforce societal changes I percieve beneciviary for myself. That I find highly offensive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello once more. The discussion is becoming more and more personal, so let me just answer you to clarify certain issues. I am not nearly as interested in your sexual preferrences as I am in the contents of this article. And mind you - I have never said that you specifically are an abuser - so you have no reason to feel offended. Obviously, you advocate changes to this article(as you admit), and which happen to be most likely desired by pedophiles. This is a fact, and there is nothing offensive in facts. Perhaps revealing your motivation to do so would help solve your identification issue which you started discussing, otherwise you might continue to overreact to simple statements.

But, as I said, you shouldn't treat the above posts as any personal attack, because they are not (hope it is clear now:). If you feel you're neither a pedophile or supporter, then those words are simply not about you. Full stop.

Have a nice evening 87.205.246.26 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The content itself is currently under discussion with the mediation committee. Apart from that, I would appreciate it if you stop making assumptions about the editors who propose certain changes. Focus on content, and not on what you believe other editors think, know, or are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on content was my main intention. The first lines are OK - glad we returned to it:)

Bye! 87.205.170.24 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you strike the lines where you make assumptions about the editors. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to do that - my opinion (advocates of pedophilia do not know the facts regarding the "movement" or purposefully publish untrue information) has not changed. On the other hand, I suggest that you avoid censoring Wikipedia in the future. Use this place to talk/inform, not to manipulate. 87.205.172.78 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am another editor who wants to see these words removed from the article. I am not a pedophile although I have done therapy with them and sometimes the family. I think that this is a major article pertaining to sexology, and it contains words (at the start) that are right off considering neutrality.

You try and argue from harm, which is inappropriate for a factual encyclopedia. Karla Lindstrom 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the result of this kind of practices is harm (physical, mental or both) - it's simply a fact. 87.205.172.78 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And where do you get the idea we do not argue from harm on wikipedia. please familiarise yourself with our policies before making inaccurate statements about said policies. We remain neutral re harm, ie child sexual abuse is harmful and so we remain neutral, we do not take a stance that it is not harmful merely because we want to promopte our own ideas on wikipedia, or for any other reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the reference of anyone new to Wikipedia - the above should have been meant sarcastically, but unfortunately was not. Obviously, if a subject talks about a debate over whether adult-child sex is always harmful, it is the editor's responsibility not to promote either stance (harmful vs. not harmful). It's their job to state what both stances are (without saying either one is correct) and what the arguments behind them are (without saying those arguments are valid). This as opposed to making a POV statement and then saying it is neutral. -HolokittyNX (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Howard Christ. First, the controversy over this is such that anyone posting needs to log in and sign their posts - otherwise they MUST NOT be taken seriously. Second, the opening lines are factually and unquestionably false (and unless you have spent a great deal of time reading pedophile boards, you are not qualified to disagree). There is a huge and extremely contentious debate in the pro-pedophile movement as to whether age-of-consent laws should be changed. Let me put this more clearly - a large number of pro-peds support abolishing the age of consent. Many, many others believe that the law should NOT change, and believe that sexual contact between adults and children WOULD be abusive. Let me say that again, in simpler terms - THE PRO-PED MOVEMENT IS STRONGLY DIVIDED ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGING THE LAW. Any statement that the movement has a single, universal (or even widely held) belief on the issue of consent is false. Period. There are two factions of the movement, where that's concerned. Practically two movements.

The issue of harm is irrelevant (in other words, stop talking about whether you think it's harmful or not - Wikipedia doesn't care). First, in editing the article you are not allowed to operate on any assumption as to whether its subject (the movement) is correct in its assertions or not. Any statement in the article that something is or is not abuse is POV. The closest you can get is saying that 'this party says it's abuse' and 'this party says it's not.' Period. Second, even if you were allowed to use the POV assumption that it is abusive, the entire movement doesn't support it in the first place. -HolokittyNX (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is that anyone who doesn't infiltrate the pedophile "movement" is not entitled to disagree with opinions that you don't care to prove. Not serious. (But read the end of this post.) Now to the subject matter.

The first sentence - have you noticed the word "encompasses" there? It means "includes", and not "consists only and exclusively of", so your poin there is not valid - as well as the one of abuse - THOSE LINES DO NOT SAY THAT ALL PEDOPHILES ARE ABUSERS OR PREDATORS. You seem to have misunderstood the message.

You should also know that "child sexual abuse" is a legal term, so it would be unwise to avoid it as you want, just because you stick a POV tag to it.

Finally, your story of some heavy division within the pedo-society is much overblown. Sure, there are certain differences within it, as some guys prefer 12-year-olds, while others are inclined to 6-year-olds, some like boys and some like girls etc., but on the whole the policy of the "movement" is clear and IS about changing the law, because none of them guys wants to go to jail for what they enjoy. But again, the article does not say that the division you propose is nonexistent, so the point you're making is not relevant.

So, to finish off, is there any ACTUAL PROBLEM you have with the article?

(For your knowledge, I use various sources regarding pedophilia, including pedophile sites such as martijn etc. to stay up to date with the subject, so rest assured, I'm not as ignorant on the matter as you assume. Plus I happen to know several victims of child abuse - and I can recommend you to get to know what grown-up victims of so-called "child love" have to say if you want to obtain a fuller picture of the phenomenon.) Sirmix (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is given to the faction that wants the law changed, and no mention is made of the internal controversy over that point. In that context, 'encompasses' might as well mean 'consists solely of,' because readers will only go away with the emotional impact of 'pedophiles want the right to sexually abuse children' and nothing else. People look at this issue with their guts and not their heads. Bad idea - even if your gut was right, you still need an objective understanding of why. And the fact that 'child sexual abuse' is a legal term (much as 'crime against nature' has been in some places) means nothing. Part of the article's subject is a debate over whether that term should be applied to all adult-child sex. NPOV means not asserting that either side is correct (which includes using that term according to one side's definition of it and not the other). The debate is to be characterized here, not reenacted. However an editor feels about that term, their feelings have no place in the article. Instead, the article should say 'the majority of pro-pedophile activists suppport changing the law to allow certain forms of sexual contact between adults and minors, contacts currently outlawed in most jurisdictions as child sexual abuse or statutory rape.' I say 'certain forms' because they all know that penetration would cause injury, and there's very little questioning of that.

You claim the article doesn't accuse of pedophiles of being criminals (true). But you then turn and say that they are all criminals ('none of them wants to go to jail for what they enjoy'). Academic articles posted on Martijn/IPCE/etc. are not debates and don't cover the disagreement over changing the AOC. And if you were as knowledgeable as you pretend, you'd know that the 'boylovers' and 'girllovers' have very little interaction at all, very few sites in common and are practically separate movements. Hardly a minor quibble. Not to mention the division over abortion (quite a few pro-peds being of the belief that a real pedophile would never allow 'kids' to be harmed by abortion). Nothing new there, of course - same old arguments. Same old rancor too.

And don't bother playing the crybaby card with victims you're not able to put right in front of me with their minds wide open for me to peer into. Whatever happened to them was probably done by people who are now too old to have anything to do with the current movement (assuming they were activists or even clinical pedophiles - not statistically likely), and has nothing to do with whether the activists are saying this or saying that. Don't get vague, talking about a 'phenomenon.' There are child molesters, and there are pedophiles, and there are pro-pedophile activists (pro-contact, anti-contact, pro-choice, pro-life, devoutly Christian, Atheist, etc.). The fact that somebody is ONE of those things doesn't mean they also fit the other two categories. You wanna come across as objective, don't bring up sensationalist junk like this. And FYI - I'm a 'victim' too. -HolokittyNX (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When is the protection of this article going to be lifted? It's been protected since November. Dylan and Cole Sprouse Fan (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably once people start acting like responsible adults. Which, judging by this Talk page, will be when Hell freezes over. -- Kesh (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

hoax ref

N.B.: the reference for "...removing the legal protection parents have to prevent their children falling into the hands of pedophiles", which is http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=69831, is a hoax. There is no such person as "Atilla Killemall" (Kill-them-all, get it?), there is no such organization as "Europol's Pedophile Eradication Team", there is no such company as "PedoTrack" and there is no such device as "PedoPain". This is a good example of why we don't use just some guy's web page as a reference. Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course those are not facts, the article linked to says it straight that the story is purely fictional. Funny or not, this link should be replaced with something more proper there. Sirmix (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

scrolling references

Without regard for the internal formatting of such, the notes/references section should be removed from the scrollable box it is currently contained within. This is broken by screenreaders and printing the article, making them unusable for first-person as well as downstream users. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New version of opening paragraph

As a step towards taking this article out of protection can I suggest the following for the opening paragraph of this article?

The term pro-pedophile activism or pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) refers to organisations and groups that argue for a veriety of measures including certain changes to criminal laws and cultural response to pedophilia and youth sexuality. The obverse movement is anti-pedophile activism, which aims to protect children from those whom its participants view simply as predatory pedophiles.[4][5] There is no single set of goals agreed on by all pro-pedophile activists but examples are: social acceptance of adults' sexual attraction to children, social acceptance of sexual activity between adults and children and changes to institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age of consent laws or mental illness classifications.[citation needed] Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone with a sexual attraction to children.[7] [8]

Obviously links will be restored if this version is adopted.The Relativist (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the opening lines (an analogy)

After watching a documentary that concerned the history of sexuality the other day, I thought I'd read a little more about them on Wikipedia, and after following my curiosity through a few links, I found myself at this article. I was honestly amazed at the current condition of the intro. I first assumed that it was vandalized (since it appeared to be one of the most POV things I've ever seen on Wikipedia), but then I saw it was protected... and I decided to read a little of the stuff on the talk page to see what's going on. No other Wiki page on a controversial subject would accept this sort of wording. Let me put this in context.

Suppose the law in the U.S. was as it was in 1970 and the "Pro-choice" article on abortion started with the opening sentences: "Pro-choice activism encompasses pro-choice organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pro-choice women and doctors to murder babies. The obverse movement is pro-life activism, which aims to protect babies from murderous women and predatory abortion doctors."

Would such an intro be acceptable on Wikipedia? Of course not.

Or suppose the "Pro-life" article on abortion started with: "Pro-life activism encompasses pro-life organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pro-lifers to force women to have unwanted children. The obverse movement is pro-choice activism, which aims to protect women from extreme pro-lifers, some of whom would force women to die in pregnancy."

Would such an intro be acceptable either? No, of course not.

Read the intros to both of these articles (or any on such controversial subjects). The opening sentences are just not the place to use loaded language that presumes the falsity of the position discussed in the article. Later in the intro, there certainly needs to be acknowledgement of the disagreements and the opinions of the other side. As they currently stand, the opening sentences are opinionated and needlessly inflammatory, and I hope that whatever consensus people are working on will solve these problems.

By the way, I'm not intending on doing edits myself, and I'm not going to participate in further arguments here. I'm just a disinterested third party who happened to come upon a gross POV violation, and I thought I'd offer an argument that might begin to persuade those who think the opening is acceptable. I personally agree with current social norms that say most relationships mentioned here are bad, but given that historical and cultural norms vary on this subject and even prominent intellectuals (particularly in Europe a few decades ago) seriously considered this position, the opening sentences just shouldn't immediately put anyone who supports this movement into the category of supporting child abuse and sexual predators... which is what the current intro does. 65.96.183.164 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies. Is the article neutral? No. Is the opening neutral? Not really? The best solution would be to redirect to pedophilia but as the community has rejected that we do the best we can. The beginni9ng does not mention historical context but you might like to bring some reliable sources to verify your comments. I dispute that the current opening uses "loaded language that presumes the falsity of the position discussed in the article". Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. Saying that the aim is to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children implies (1) that everything pedophiles want to do with children is abuse (which is the majority view) and (2) that pedophiles also take that viewpoint (which is probably false). The goals should be described on the terms of the pro-pedophile movement. So for instance, we could say "...argue for legal and cultural changes to combat what they see as persecution of pedophiles" or "...argue for legal and cultural changes to legitimize sexual activity between adults and children". Mangojuice^talk 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mangojuice. There are several different options on the table at the moment in the off wiki mediation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While not agreeing with Mangojuice I would personally be happy for an editor with his track record to join the mediation if others agreed. I particularly don't agree that we should describe what one might call objective facts (eg child sexual,abuse) in the way that PPAs describe it (eg girllove and boylove). We do not, for instance, call black people "niggers" when writing articles about extreme right wing US groups. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind him joining in either. I'll bug Ryan to see what he thinks on his joining, and maybe Ryan can ask the other parties. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But before I do that, Mango, how do you feel about that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. There are too many other issues being discussed. I would like to see any content issues being discussed productively to move to a page here, though, so editing on those points can possibly proceed. Mangojuice^talk 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, "off wiki mediation"? What is this? -- Kesh (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the mediationwikis private wiki. If you want to know more, feel free to ask the WP:MEDCOM about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gotcha. I was worried it was just some group of folks on an IRC server or something. Thanks for clearing that up! :) -- Kesh (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well but it's not that simple. First of all, "sexual abuse" is a unitary term that describes adult-child sex. It's just the accepted description of that activity. We don't have avoid the use of standard terms in order to be neutral. To stand your example on its head, consider the article Genocide. It opens "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group..." We don't, in order to be neutral, have to say "Genocide is the restructuring of demographic elements in a population; it is controversial, and some critics have contended that it has negative impacts on some of the populations involved..." or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I would object in any article to using the term child sexual abuse only to refer to sex between adults and children that isn't obviously abuse. I don't disagree that that is the accepted view, it's just that it needs explaining when it's being talked about in the abstract. Second, as I mentionend above, the current wording makes the implication that not only are PPAs advocating for abuse (which is probably the majority view), but also that they are in favor of abuse, which is false because it's about the opinions of those in the movement. Just because "sexual abuse" is the accepted term doesn't mean that its use has no connotations we may want to avoid. And just because neutral terminology is a PPA technique doesn't mean that neutral terminology is biased. Mangojuice^talk 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well. It certainly is accurate, and germane, that PPAs are not advocating for what they would call or think of as abuse. Up to a point, you can respect the self-identifying terminology of the people under discussion. But only up to a point. We don't (for instance) change "Nazis advocate genocide" to "Nazis advocate demographic restructuring". That would be silly, and bending over too far to use apparently neutral terminology that in fact is tendentious. The term "sexual abuse" does, besides its purely descriptive function, have connotations - but do we really need to avoid them? Using the usual definitions of "adult" and "child", we are talking here about sex between persons 18 and older and persons 12 and under. How far do we have to bend to not leave the impression that that is inherently abusive? Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We all recognize that a phrase like "advocates legalizing and/or de-stigmatizing sexual behavior between adults and children" doesn't give the impression that such behavior is always sexual abuse, nor does it give the impression that such behavior is not always sexual abuse. It's neutral language. But what I think is being missed is that it ALSO doesn't give a 50-50 impression that maybe such behavior is abusive and maybe it's not: it just doesn't talk about that issue. Language that draws attention to whether or not such behavior is abuse and leaves us with no impression one way or the other would be inappropriate, e.g. "...advocates behavior that some see as child sexual abuse but which others see as not inherently abusive sex...", because that legitimizes the view in an incorrect comparison. But not addressing the issue is okay. I think it only seems like the sentence would be addressing the issue if we changed it because we are aware of the change. Mangojuice^talk 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See, I don't think we would / should say "Nazis advocated genocide" nor would we say "Nazis advocate demographic restructuring". We would say something along the lines of "Nazis advocated the removal of Jews from Europe through killing" or something like that. Sexual abuse isn't descriptive. An adult having sexual intercourse with a child is. And I don't know about APA or AMA clinical definitions but it might fit "abuse" in them but we should not confuse it with everyday usage of a abuse which is different. Especially in cases like this where they are advocating the legality of an action (sexual relations) but then we use a term like abuse we are not fostering neutrality. I think we should be able to settle on something like "that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to have sexual relations with children, clinically defined as sexual abuse. Would that be acceptable? gren グレン 09:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Child sexual abuse' is not a clinical term. A clinical diagnosis always involves the identification of some sort of harm, either physical or mental, and it is at least controversial that harm always results from child sexual abuse. This term is as much a moral judgement as anything else.

Another point--the analogy with the Nazis is flawed because there is no signficant body of opinion that maintains that what the Nazis did was OK (there are some who deny that the holocaust happened but that is a different matter). In contrast there have been a number of eminent persons who have expressed agreement with aspects of the PPA platform.The Relativist (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply not so, actually the opposite is true, there have been more significant Nazi supporters (David Irving being the obvious example) than pedophile supporters. In the UK most people know who Irving is whereas Rind et al is much more obscure so I would strongly contest the veracity of what you say. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gren: your wording is bad because it's cumbersome and draws attention to the abuse aspect when it isn't necessary in that sentence. And can we stop talking about Nazis? Reasoning by analogy to Nazis is basically never helpful, despite that it always seems to come up. Mangojuice^talk 15:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another random user strolling through from the family guy article (amazing how you can get lost in wikipedia) who thinks this article, after reading the first line, is undoubtedly trash. I too, assumed it was vandalised... but upon searching recent changes, gave up. Is the rest of the article worth reading? (Yes I realise this probably isn't helping, other then to put another vote in the "needs a new intro" votebox). Themania (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless some radical changes occurred recently, other than the intro, the rest of the article should be in decent shape. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You will find that the rest of the article is rather frank and dispassionate. So much so, in fact that it has chilled quite a few *looks around*. GrooV (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I actualy have the intention of cutting and slicing into the body of the article, essentialy to make it more compact, and more on topic. If anyone has objections against that on forehand, let me know, and I won't. If nobody does seem to mind, I'll start editing in the WP:BRD cycle. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I have tagged the article for notability, well its the movement's notability that concerns me. I am wondering whether the article should be afd'd again but hope to avoid that, but really the only way is to address the long term neutrality issues and the notability issue, a highly obscure group that in my opinion should be mentioned briefly in pedophilia though ideally mentioning the groups as NAMBLA which are more notable than the movement itself. So can we all try to address the issues of notability and neutrality and factual acuracy embodied int he tags now that the article is unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Squeak, you know perfectly well that pro-pedophile activism exists and is covered in reliable sources. It is probably correct to say that there isn't a single "movement," just as it isn't correct to describe pro-life as a single movement. If you want to AfD the article, go ahead but note that although the last debate was closed as "no consensus", there was actually strong consensus to keep it if you look at the numbers. Besides, as loads of people have said, just because the subject is distasteful doesn't mean we don't cover it. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that distastefulness is not a reason to not cover a topic but notability is which is why I flagged it to see if other users can address the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best approach to improving the article - it seems to follow the logic of "nominate the article enough times, hoping that at some point it will be deleted by one means or another." It has been showed more than once that this is a notable topic, so I don't think the tag is appropriate. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues is that the article is lacking. The article is totally disputed and I am far from convinced of its notability, sure its notable enough for a mention in pedophilia but an 82 kilobyte article? Why would that be. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything worth covering is worth covering properly. Is there content here that seems extraneous? Mangojuice^talk 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves. That's what makes me seriously doubt that this is anything other than a rationalisation of your (understandable, but somewhat overstated) disgust. GrooV (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request minor edit

WOW what is going on here? Why is there so much controversy with this article??? anyways just wanted to say the first sentence should say "to allow adults to sexually abuse children". The source says that pedophiles want to legalize it for all adults, not just pedophiles. Just wanted tO point that out. anyways yeah I hope that you guys resolve whatever is going on, I'm just crusing along, byeeee <3 y'all ,peace out --Goon Noot (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a relevant observation, and seems to have already happened on the article's page. I can understand the desire to be trepedacious in regards to this article due to the high risk of being labeled a single-purpose account (as this is a popular way for people to criticize opponents here) however in cases of obvious problems like this, it would probably be okay to take the initiative and simply change pedo>adult as you suggested rather than asking for someone else to do it. In general I guess this is a way of having a mini-vote and the one making the edit 'seconding' it, so I can see the desire to be democratic and not make immediate changes yourself (by asking someone else to edit) or to act based upon other's suggestions rather than something you alone believe should be changed, as a means of consensus. Such apprehension is natural on heavily contested articles like this. In general, many edits will often be made by users who are willing to risk their accounts coming under attack of bias. However, single-purpose users who make sock puppets are just the kind of person to not value their accounts, so this atmosphere is completely contrary to what is ideal for Wikipedia. Tyciol (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Irritated perfectionist

There are several individuals here (one whose name could be listed in NEON) who have decided that the best way not to address the issues of this article--but to have their own way nonetheless--is to begin altering this article and making extensive arguments on this Talk Page, rather than handling the improvement of this article in "confidential mediation".

As one of the few who have been taking this mediation seriously, I AM BECOMING MORE THAN A LITTLE IRRITATED ABOUT SEEING THE USERNAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIATION GROUP DISCUSSING THINGS HERE AND NOT AT MedComWiki.

Or is it that some of you (one in particular) only wish to handle this IN PUBLIC because it is personal attention rather than perfection of the article that you are really interested in?

Welland R (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What is MedComWiki and why should Wikipedia editors care about the contents of another wiki? Since when are editors not allowed to discuss articles publicly? What is confidential mediation? I have never heard of such. Could you please enlighten, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The MedComWiki is the private wiki that is used by the Mediation Commitee. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How are other people supposed to contribute in this environment? Changes are rebuffed thanks to discussion off-wiki that is closed and not accessible. I don't want to damage the mediation, but someone needs to summarize those discussions here and open things back up so things can proceed here. As an emergency measure to stop a damaging conflict, it's one thing, but this has been going on for months now. Mangojuice^talk 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is very good progress there, and we are close to coming to an agreement. I'll ask Ryan as our mediator to give some sort of progress report. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We had problems with people trolling the mediation we tried here on site so we went off site, I would be very happy to welcome Herostratus, Mangojuice and any other wikipedians with a track record to engage there, otherwise I am sympathetic to the points these 2 users make. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no interest in joining a closed discussion. I'd like to see what has been said, but it's time for content discussions to happen on Wikipedia where they belong. Mangojuice^talk 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've largely stayed out of the quagmire that is this article, but I must say: How is a private body, deliberating in secret, expecting the community to treat whatever agreement they bring to this article? Am I to infer from the editors Squeak named that only those in broad agreement with him are welcome to participate? An off-wiki agreement that doesn't include all interested parties isn't worth the electrons it's written with. I amplify Mangojuice's sentiments when I say that this is supposed to be a collaborative wiki where decisions happen publicly by consensus. The deliberations of a Star Chamber can't reasonably be expected to bind any editor, much less one not on the guest list. --SSBohio 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... it is a mediation after all. I'm sure that all opinions are represented, because WP:MED requires all involved parties to agree to participate. I don't know how much the mediation is accomplishing, but what it can accomplish has got to be pretty limited in this case. This is a controversial topic and editing about it is always going to be at least a bit contentious. Mangojuice^talk 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, editors can suit themselves, but, judging from the past, we all know what will happen to this article if another significant edit war breaks out. The reason for the "private" discussion on the MedComWiki is so that editors involved in several prior major disagreements can come to some kind of consensus. The hope is that this process will yield some agreement on what this article, or at least its intro, should look like. Once some differences are settled, I'm sure the editing here will become somewhat easier and definitely more open. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New version/old version

Now that the article introduction has changed (although it is not highly advisable from a mediation standpoint, it may have been required for POV policy reasons), I will provide a link to the old version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&oldid=188118715

I have done some work on improving the flow and NPOV of the opening sentences, after Barry Jameson removed the obvious violations. GrooV (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrrm. I think the old version had some things to recommend it. Removal of the reference to anti-pedophile activism (which is not actually parallel) is good, though. While "sexually abuse children", though technically accurate, is a bit of over the top, "sexual activity between adults and children" is surely not the most accurate description, either (given lack of ability to consent and so forth), I have changed this to "perform sex acts on children" which is hopefully a reasonable middle ground. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perform sexual acts on children sounds good to me. Linking to the CSA article, though, is vital. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the original--sexual activity between adults and children--is more accurate and more neutral. I don't see that it necessarily implies consent. Additionally, PPAs would also advocate acceptance of children performing sex acts on adults. The Relativist (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"sexual activity between adults and children" - this cannot be used because "between" implies mutuality, and that does not exist in this situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is exactly what is disputed by the PPAs. They think it can be mutual. Perhaps we need to say that acceptance is sought for what is commonly regarded as child sexual abuse but which the PPAs regard as valid sexual relationships between adults and children.The Relativist (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We can say that PPAs believe child sexual abuse is not always abusive or something along these lines. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"between" doesn't imply mutuality in "sexual activity between adults and children" anymore than it does in "the love between a parent and their child" or "the relationship between a student and their teacher."

Well, IMO, The Herostratus version is definitely POV (refers to something using the subjectivity of one side of the debate which it is discussing) and the Relativist/Jameson version is probably neutral. Anyway, I edited it for compromise, so hopefully none of you can argue against it. GrooV (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I don't think so. Couple points: It's entirely possible to have terminology that is worded so as to appear neutral but isn't. For instance, you could say that murder is "life cessation activity involving two or more participants". That sounds more neutral than saying (say) it's "a killing of a victim by a perpetrator", but is it really more accurate and neutral? I would say it is not neutral but basically apologistic for murder. Same with the terminology you have proposed.

Second point is, wait a second. "Sex acts performed by adults on children" is the compromise terminology. Using the current definition of child sexual abuse, it actually would be technically accurate to say "sexually abuse children" as it did before. However, as a compromise, this has been watered down. Be reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sexual activity between adults and children" is a much better wording. It's more succinct, and despite Squeak's objection above, it doesn't imply that the act is a mutual act, it is inclusive of both mutual and one-sided activity. "Performed by adults on children" is unnecessarily specific, as if we're trying to make clear the activists don't care about acts performed by children on adults. There is no POV problem in saying "sexual activity between adults and children" and I don't understand why some people here seem to believe that every time the subject is mentioned in every sentence, we must "balance" it by mentioning the other point of view. That's just going to lead to confusing, badly written prose. And Herostratus, please refrain from equating perfectly reasonable prose with being apologistic for murder, that isn't going to help the level of discourse here. Mangojuice^talk 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Herostratus that the earlier version was much more accurate, "sexually abuse children". I recommend returning to that version, or using the compromise version "Sex acts performed by adults on children". The words "with" or "between" do imply a form of mutual activity involving consent and understanding that is impossible when one is an adult and the other is a child. The fact that PPA's want to convince others that such consent is possible, does not make it so. Here is a Google Books link to a reference that illustrates this point well - check out pages 94-95:

• Critical Issues in Child Sexual Abuse: Historical, Legal, and Psychological Perpectives.

The word child includes even toddlers and very young school children. As strange as it may sound to us, there are people who impose sexual acts on very young children, and who attempt to "normalize" the idea in various ways. As Herostratus pointed out, to use terminology in the same way that PPA's would use is it, is not neutral, it's a fringe POV. We need to state the mainstream view, using mainstream terminology; as an add-on it could be shown the way in which a pro-pedohila activist might word the statement, if a source for that is available; but Wikipedia should not present the concept from (to borrow a term from fiction article MoS) an "in-universe" perspective. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One general point and one specific one.

First, what sort of an article should we expect on 'pro-pedophile activism'? I mean should it treat the movement as some sort of deviant or criminal tendency, in the way that we might write about Nazism? (Surely it wouldn't be POV to describe the Nazis as criminals.) Or should we instead treat it as being, although obviously not mainstream, a movement whose partcipants might have something valid to contribute to social debate? The answer has to be the latter. There have just been too many important and distinguished people who have advocated aspects of the PPA platform to suppose otherwise (Brongersma, Sandfort, Bernard, Tatchel, Paglia to name but a few). This point must affect terminology and so the PPA views must not be ruled out of court by the use of terms such as 'child sexual abuse' unless this is balanced by pointing out that they represent only the mainstream view.

The more specific point: as it stands the opening paragraph still talks of sex acts performed on children but as more than one of us has pointed out, PPAs are just as concerned about what children do to adults.The Relativist (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't describe Nazis as criminals; we just describe what they did and let the reader draw his own conclusions. But neither do we bend over backwards to be "fair" by (for instance) describing genocide as "demographic realignment" or whatever. However, the idea that PPAs are anything but an extreme fringe is not borne out by the facts. Take a survey of any random sector of the populace and you will see what I mean.

Again: I personally will concede that "sexually abuse children", while technically accurate, maybe sounds too inflammatory given that people might take the common rather than technical meaning of the term "abuse". Therefore I am willing to countenance compromise terminology. Can you not do the same.

Finally, your last point, which has been brought up more than once: the idea that children are longing to have sex with adults if only freed from social/legal restraints. That is just silly. Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me propose a new alternate wording. The current sentence is "Some [PPAs] also call for ... social acceptance of adults' performing sex acts on children (widely considered to be child sexual abuse by medical, social and legal definitions)." If you look at this as a whole, what we're saying is that PPAs disagree that sexual behavior between adults and children is inherently "child sexual abuse", and that they argue to change that. But we're saying it in a really burdensome way and throwing in an implication that is undesirable in describing only adult-on-child acts. How about this: "Some also argue for ... change of the widely accepted position that sex between adults and children is inherently child sexual abuse, ..." or something like that? We are making a special effort to make that widely accepted position clear while describing what PPAs advocate for, and this integrates that much better, without it sounding like we're trying to apologize for even talking about this subject. Mangojuice^talk 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a lot of our users are biased quite heavily against any idea of the intergenerational sex with children, and may interpret the policy of neutrality in different ways. I think that Herostratus is arguing for the article to "agree" with majority viewpoints in order to stay neutral. I (and the NPOV document) argue that we do not need this populist interpretation (especially on tricky sexological articles). NPOV is nonpartisan, not centrist partisan.

Also, describing "life cessation activity involving two or more participants" as a "neutral" description of murder is silly, as the activity clearly involves the intent of one person to predate and kill the other. Sex with children is fundamentally different, and as any experienced debater will know, the arguments against it apply to subjective interpretations of psychological manipulation, not particularly objective, fact based judgements of malicious intent and obvious coercion. Whilst we know that murder is coercive and one sided because it is defined as such, calling all adult-child sex "abuse" or "coercion" is a judgement, however much we may abhor it.

Jack is also arguing redundantly, as psychiatry does not have a monopoly over the sciences let alone "factual" encyclopedic knowledge. I think that Jack is pushing what is clearly a psychatry agenda here.

I am supporting the versions by Barry, Relativist and GroomingVictim. Karla Lindstrom 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? Neutrality is not about legitimising the PPA viewpoint any more than racism is about legitimising the racist viewpoint. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk about missing her point (or deliberately straw-manning it). Anyway, given that recent editors' comments show about 6:4 (non)consensus towards the group of descriptions suggested above, the least you can do is stick to a compromise version. I swear, on no other subject would we have this kind of POV problem, i.e. editors claiming to "neutralise" an articles' wording by forcing into it the emotional biases of what we all know but most certainly do not need to say, ALL THE MORE because the movement we are discussing maintains the delusion that these contacts are not onesided in some way. GrooV (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For simply stylistic reasons, I would recommend that we use the following: "sexual activity between adults and children," "sexual acts between adults and children," "sex acts between adults and children," or "adult-child sexual activity." I don't think these phrases relay anything definitive about control or consent, but they are definitely the least awkward-sounding set-ups, given the context. However, I don't see a point in getting into a dispute over such semantics, especially when they don't seem to be crucial to the content or overall look of the article. Thus, I would like to inquire of the parties currently in disagreement over this issue if there is any formation of this particular phrase, that has been expressed or can be proposed, that they think would work as a fair compromise for both sides. ~ Homologeo (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Adults' sexual activity with children", as it circles out the behaviour of the adult without unduly characterising the relationship, when a debate involving that characterisation is being discussed. I think someone has already reverted this copy to the biased one, but I doubt that will go far, consensus wise. On the other hand, it has been proven again and again that you don't need consensus to make a POV edit on these articles. Christ, you can even get them deleted! GrooV (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"With" doesn't imply consent, considering it's usually prepositional to inanimate objects. I support its use here.

Jack-A-Roe's latest version was rightly reverted. The prevailing "medical" view is that adult-child sex is always abusive, not that it's always harmful (the latter being an untenable belief). The addition of a reference to child sexual abuse in the first sentence was unnecessary: activities treated as "pro-paedophile activism" are defined as such by their relation to paedophilia, including CSA-related activism. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I like the new intro. I would use 're-examine' rather than 'reform' in the second sentence, since 'reform' has a positive connotation and 're-examine' is more neutral. Also, I would use 'sexual activitiy between adults and children.' 'Between' is quite neutral re: consent. It's also used in such contexts as 'violence between Sunnis and Shia.' Ditto for 'with' - e.g. 'Sunnis fighting with Shia.' But the current description of "adults' sexual contact with children" seems to refer to actual contacts going on right now. Generally there isn't enough information about what goes on right now (in real life) between adults and kids for the PPAs to approve or disapprove of most of it. They're usually talking about hypothetical contacts between hypothetical people. -HolokittyNX (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm in support of the edits HolokittyNX proposed above. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

again

Let's see if we can make some headway here.

The term "child sexual abuse" and the terminology "...sexually abuse children" in the article. OK, this is the technically correct terminology. You can't think of "abuse" in this case as necessarily meaning the same as the normal dictionary meaning of abuse.

For an analogy, take O.J. Simpson. Now, Simpson was found "not guilty" by his jury. That doesn't mean he didn't do it; everyone knows that he did. It just means that, in the technical legal sense, the state did not prove its case. "Not guilty" in this case doesn't mean "free of guilt" or how we would use "not guilty" in normal conversation (e.g., "I am not guilty of eating that last porkchop" or whatever). But we still say "Simpson was found not guilty" because that, technically, is the correct term for the jury's finding.

OK so far? Can I get an amen on that?

Now, when an adult (18 or older) has sex with a child (basically, someone 12 or under), the correct technical term for that is "child sexual abuse". Don't focus on the word "abuse", just on the (technically correct) total term. If one wants to, one can take the word "abuse" as meaning simply "a word that is part of the term used for when an adult has sex with a child" and not as meaning "abuse" in the normal dictionary sense.

Now, the idea was bruited about recently that "adult-child sex" should be used instead of "child sexual abuse" for the term to describe when an adult has sex with a child. But this was seen as a non-standard neologism, and we are back to using the generally-agreed-upon term, which is "child sexual abuse".

Still with me?

****HOWEVER****

Because the word "abuse" might be taken by laymen, on first glance, to mean the dictionary sense, and that this could be seen as inflammatory, I gallantly agreed that it might be OK to substitute a more neutral-sounding term as a compromise, that being the purely descriptive "perform sex acts on children".

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Nobody wanted to compromise, they just want to use their own non-standard neologism and that's that. So now we are back to square one. Nobody wants to compromise, we will go back to the original (technically correct) terminology. Hope y'all are happy. Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My take is that right now adult-child sex is called child sexual abuse. PPAs want to change this. But how could we begin to explain what PPAs want to change without mentioning that it is CSA and attitudes to CSA that PPAs want to change, hence we must give prominence to this term in order to explain the PPAs goals to our readers. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that nobody wanted to find a working compromise. There was a healthy discussion taking place. There's no reason to go back to the POV-laden terminology that you reinserted, especially when we all know this will lead to ever more controversy and bickering. Thus, I'm changing the text to your proposed phrase - "adults performing sex acts on children." This may be only a part of what PPAs argue for and is awkward as heck, but it's at least less contentious than the current wording touting PPAs wanting to sexually abuse children. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The key compromise was to accept a mention of the standard view that the activity is 'child sexual abuse' alongside the PPA's view. Now we are back with 'adults performing sex acts on children' which is just too narrow. Herostratus says that the idea that children are longing to have sex with adults if only freed from social/legal restraints is just silly--but nobody's suggesting that; he's attacking a straw man (though the idea wouldn't be so implausible if one substituted 'adolescents' for 'children'). Anyway this is beside the point. Whatever children are or are not longing for, a proper examination of PPA literature will show that PPAs are just as concerned with activities in which children themselves take a more active role. Again, what is wrong with 'adult-child sex'? It's not even really a neologism as it's a readily understandable combination of familar words.The Relativist (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To say PPAs want a socially- and legally-admissable "child sexual abuse" is paradoxical, because such a thing would obviously not be known as "child sexual abuse." And I agree with Homologeo: "Adults' performing sex acts on children" is awkward and over-exclusive while having no clear benefit over "sexual activity between adults and children." The complaints against "between" and "with" have already been addressed, without response. It's notable that these prepositions have been used to describe adult-child sex in POV tracts against "child sexual abuse." Take this congressional resolution declaring that "sexual relations between children and adults" are nothing but "abusive, destructive, exploitive, reprehensible, and punishable by law," or David Finkelhor's noted ethical condemnation of adult-child sex, What's Wrong With Sex Between Adults and Children? AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

CatherineNX's point above on "adults' sexual contact with children" applies to the CSA version as well: PPAs who advocate acceptance of adult-child sex, advocate acceptance of "hypothetical contacts between hypothetical people." They, generally speaking, do not advocate the acceptance of activity which is legally or socially defined as "child sexual abuse." AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of Herostratus's versions are POV. Herostratus uses the term "technically correct" to describe the term "abuse". Hang on. The law and medicine are not necessarily technical, neutral or correct. Neutrality can be seen in words. These words should be free of judgements such as something being abusive, or as one of the versions implies, being abusive, despite being legalised. By the way I am not, and have never been an advocate of Pro-Pedophile activism. Lambton ^T/_C 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to revert to "adults' sexual activity with children" tomorrow, given the general support shown for this change and the unwillingness of its detractors to discuss their objections. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no unwillingness to discuss, it's just that it's already been said. I explained my objections in the prior section above at time stamp 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC), and I included a reference link to illustrate my comment. Herostratus and SqueakBox have also entered comments. The version you suggest is contrary to NPOV and does not have consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think sometimes descriptions can look biased when they're really not. Most people in our society are pretty negative about "adults' sexual activity with children", so negative in fact that they feel that it must always be described in negative terms (e.g. 'child sexual abuse'). Then when someone comes along and describes it non-negatively--but not necessarily positively--as "adults' sexual activity with children" it seems to them jarring and looks almost like a term of approval. But it is not. It is a thoroughly neutral description and therefore NPOV.77.96.247.15 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Last post was by me.The Relativist (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of neutral. Neutral isn't scientifically neutral, if most people are calling it child sexual abuse, which I think we all agree they are, then that is what we should call it too, and then point out that PPAs want to change this, which they do. Indeed the fact that PPAs want to call CSA ACS defines it as a non-neutral term. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not for the first time, you are stumbling over your logic.

You raise the issue of "scientific neutrality", without defining this mysterious and unheard of protocol. The CSA description may be scientifically consensual (although this can be contested), but it is most certainly not neutral. Remember, consensual does not necessarily equal neutral, as neutrality is objective, not a fluid, subjective, populist "position" or "value system". But this is totally irrelevant anyway. Since when did science define all that we see in Wikipedia? Since when was science the wiki-religion?

The most twisted of your points comes right at the end. If it is to be taken at face value, it would indeed be true that any advocacy group could discredit and re-designate the neutrality or partiality of any phrase, by simply adopting or declining to use that phrase. Neutrality is inherent, it has not, will not and can not logically work in the way that you propose. GrooV (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacking logic? Twisted? Come back when you are feeling better and we can talk but not while you are so free with the rather silly insult which, of course, will not allow you dictate whatever point of view you are defending. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, an illogical response. You needn't sidestep my argument by claiming incivility, as my argument was fully reasoned out.

Logic (uncountable): A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.[1]

Twist (as verbs): To distort or change the truth or meaning of words when repeating. [2]

Do you have a rebuttal to either of my posts? GrooV (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what logic is, I also knoww hat twisting something is. I think you need to refute my argument and not the other way around and by focussing ont he editor nopt the discussion you are not doing a brilliant job so far. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are refuting my argument? The only argument you are making is the argument for emoticons ;) GrooV (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Newgon, etc.

CLogo and AgeTaboo were removed with misapplied justifications. External links don't need to meet the standards of WP:RS: They may be, and usually are, self-published by an unnotable figure. "Linking to a forum on the first page" also clearly doesn't violate the letter or spirit of WP:EL.

WP:RS would rule out the use of newgon.com/accounts.php as a source for the claim that some children involved in ACS later view their interactions in a positive light. However, the reliability of sourcing the fact that Newgon promotes such a claim with it is unquestionable, and that's what we're using it for (though less specifically). This use is in line with WP:RS, particularly WP:RS#Extremist sources.

And Herostratus, reasoning that a link should be removed because it's "inappropriate" is circular. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not circular, it's just not fully explained. IMO we should be linking only to official web pages of pro-pedophile activist groups. We should not be linking to pro-pedophile websites that aren't the official web pages of activist groups: there are too many of these, and WP is not a link repository. We also should be linking to pages that attempt to summarize the pro/anti pedophile debate or offer their own perspectives on it, because that's what the purpose of THIS article is, and even if we're having a hard time, we are at least all trying to make this article present the situation neutrally. Such links are superfluous. I haven't checked out the links (I'd rather not, from work) but it seems like Clogo is the only link that might be appropriate. Mangojuice^talk 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally disagree with having these links in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Mangojuice, SqueakBox, and Herostratus that those links do not belong in the article. Regarding Clogo, although it has a pro-pedohile activist pamphlet on the site, it's mostly archives of forum posts, including a section with drawings of naked children and a section or two with child pornography stories. If the pamphlet is to be referenced, it should be linked directly to the PDF file and not through their main page. (Also, they state that their website is going offline as of May 2008.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If a website contains prohibited material, Wikipedia must not link to it. On the other hand, you stated that you removed the links because they were forums; a view of the front pages of each website proved that to be untrue. Barry Jameson (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to post the direct links here. If you want to verify the prohibited material, look at their "Archives Overview" and click on "Naked Young Girl Drawings" and "female childlove". That website should not be linked from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to provide evidence or "links", nor do I wish to verify your claim. I'm asking you to provide a genuine explanation for your edits in the future, rather than make false claims; in this instance, you claimed that websites are forums when they are not. Barry Jameson (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a bit of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL please. If you won't view the websites, what makes you think they are not forums? One of them is mainly an archive of forum posts, including child pornography stories and drawings. The other one is a list of "accounts", ie, stories, submitted by readers and posted on the website, that's a type of forum. And, on the front page of that same website is a link to an active forum section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Links for vereniging MARTIJN, and NAMBLA might be appropriate though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are worth referencing, but they don't need external links because they have separate Wikipedia articles. Per WP:EL, it is advised to minimize external links, so it's preferable to wikilink to their articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true.... but on the other hand, if we're going to have any external links at all, those are the kinds of external links we should have. So either we should remove the entire external link section, or we should include those links. Mangojuice^talk 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I recommend we delete the external links section. You are welcome to do so if you agree. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to get NAMBLA and vereniging MARTIJN in the EL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the entire external links section. Barry Jameson (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They are all valid sources, if used appropriately. A source cannot be intrinsically inappropriate. Wikipedia is not censored. GrooV (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Those links don't belong. I'm not reverting at this time. If the links remain, I suggest that we file an RFC and invite wider participation from the Wikipedia community to form a consensus on this point. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your objections have consisted of a tone of moral disgust and mischaracterisations that are proven wrong by simply clicking on the links. GrooV (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome to your opinion. Some others have not been willing to click the links. Whoever does click them, can make their own determination.
• I noticed you did not reply to my suggestion of an RFC to bring in more editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

External links section removed

Following the above discussion, I have removed the entire external links section. I'm not sure what links we might want to have, but all the ones that were there are inappropriate as I have discovered now that I've had a chance to look at them. Let me go through one by one.

• Debate Guide - "Arguments and counter arguments for the sexual emancipation of minors and minor attracted adults"
• Paedophilia - The Radical Case - Book by Tom O'Carroll
• "Boylove: Semantically Correct?" - An article critical of Pro-pedophile activism

These three are basically websites with no special authority or importance that offer their own perspectives on the PPA agenda and issues. That is the purpose of THIS article, and in its ideal state this article would do better than any such page, so it is inappropriate to link to them. Furthermore, it's not appropriate to link to activist pages that merely advance the arguments here; see Pro-life for instance -- the only links there are to websites of activist organizations, an important distinction.

• Age Taboo - "The place for young guys who like younger guys"

This is not related to pedophile activism except tangentially. This is, rather, a website of a project devoted to being a place that people with certain predelictions can go for information and support. They don't seem to have any agenda beyond offering their own website.

• Clogo - A series of pro activist projects

This is possibly appropriate; it is the website of a pro-pedophile activist. However, there's nothing that leads me to believe this activist has had any impact on anything or is remotely visible to others: in other words, this may well just be an individual website with pro-pedophile views rather than an actual activist group. Furthermore, the website says it will be going down permanently in May, so I don't see much point in linking to it for just a couple of months.

• Corporate Sex Offenders - A campaign against online services that tolerate Pro-pedophile activism

This is an anti-pedophile activist website. This page isn't about anti-pedophile activism. The activism involved isn't even a reflection specifically on PPA, but rather on a separate issues.

In a subject as sensitive as this we need to be very conservative about the external links we include. None of these are clearly correct to link to. Thus I've removed them all. Mangojuice^talk 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work of checking out and summarizing those. I concur with your comments and your decision to remove the link section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Um-kay. I don't see where we neglect equivalent organisations in the EL of Child Sexual Abuse, indeed, there are quite a few. But if we want links to sites with a clear organisational/collaborative structure and non-blog or forum like structure, may I suggest the following sites that I have reviewed:

• NAMBLA (grassroots org)
• MARTIJN (grassroots org)
• Newgon.com (cyber activist org, not dissimilar to Perverted-Justice's recent ventures)
• Boylover.net (peer support org)
• PNVD (political party which supports PPA) GrooV (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support the idea of keeping O'Carroll's book, as it is a particularly good source from within the movement. GrooV (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the external links section in Child sexual abuse has recently been extensively reduced, per discussion on the talk page at Talk:Child sexual abuse#Further reading and EL and Talk:Child sexual abuse#Literature and Organization Restoration. As of this time stamp, the article has only one external link, to the DMOZ directory, plus two external link references to scientific studies. Take a look. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GroomingVictim. Mangojuice, how can you expect even an ideal version of this article to cover all of the information in The Radical Case, or on Newgon, or CLogo? We're working with size restrictions. External links are usually included because they provide a level of detail that we can't hope to match. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, any links we include here ought to be either (1) neutral information sources that go into more depth about pro-pedophile activism than we can, or (2) links to organizations we are discussing in the article. "The Radical Case" for instance, is not remotely unbiased for one thing, and for another, it is not about pro-pedophile activism but rather about pedophilia itself and how it should or shouldn't be viewed which is not the topic of this article. Mangojuice^talk 06:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that policy allows for POV, as long as it balances with that documented in-article. Points 4 and 4 in what should be linked and links to consider can actually be used as direct refutations of your logic, especially where a lack of neutrally phrased sources exists. It is therefore proper for an EL to be demonstrative. I support the section forwarded by GV. digitalemotion 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Put back again

Unless I am mistaken, I saw no consensus to remove it in the first place. If there are any more voices of dissent, maybe we should discuss removing it again.

I included the fascinating article by Eichenwald in our latest EL. digitalemotion 07:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What is happening?

Are people not editing this article, in fear that they would get banned??? And yes, of course we should have links to pedophile websites. No, Gwen! (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They're probably still having that big secret mediation thing. (See a few sections up.) Mangojuice^talk 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't been near mediation since the complaints from you and Ssbohio, ie just after the article got unlocked and people changed the disputed opening. Perhaps people have no issues with the article as it currently stands, that is the case with the great majority of articles, or perhaps we are all just exhausted, i know after the endless adult-child sex debates that I am. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the intro was at the center of the controversy, and maybe editors are now more or less happy with things as they are. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no - not much going on with the mediation lately. Besides, the recent compromise on the intro proposed and accepted within this article alleviated some of the tension faced by editors within the mediation. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope people are not shying away from editing out of fear of getting banned. That would not bode well for the project. As for links to pro-pedophile websites, they're appropriate, as long as they contain information referenced within the text or elaborate on the topics involved with this article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Editors aren't not-editing due to fear of being banned. They're not editing due to actually being banned! Well, I am not editing for "fear" of being banned. (Actually, more like fear of continued personal attacks and harassment, because I am careful not to personally attack and careful not to violate policy knowingly or grossly, so banning me would be difficult to legitimize.) Anyway, that's about all there is to that at the time. One of these days the reactionary, POV-pushing, conspiracy-theorizing, anti-anything-we-don't-like, I-can-harass-you-but-you-can't-point-out-when-I-do-it, over-hyphenation-causing -ness will subside.

We all can only hope. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:13 (UTC) 4 Mar '08

This movement should be banned

The ideologues (who use similar arguments to sex offenders, therefore showing their taxonomic similarity) should also be taken into custody and morally rehabilitated.

And we should take the first step in this process to protect public health by banning these articles in the moral and ideological interest of minors who would otherwise be abusively, sexually propagandised by these articles.

If it must remain, this article should aim to convey the hideous and uncensored horrors that child rape advocates are campaigning for. Rachel Cragg (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. We don't need to condemn the movement through words; their positions and actions are repugnant enough to do the job for us. Mangojuice^talk 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice, though we must take care not to have the articles praising the movement either. Whether the movement should be banned or not is a job for politicians not for us a s editors here. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto - we're an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group or a political entity. Neutrality is key. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I SAID that I do not want this article to be censored (if it were to exist). Part of this would be outlining that a lot of people want advocacy of crimes such as pedophilia to be outlawed and heavily punished by state structure. Rachel Cragg (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is strictly true simply because these things unquestionably already happen. You might argue that some people want the death penalty or castration for pedophiles, and that in many places people want better enforcement of the law, more done to prevent sex tourist pedophiles etc but any additions must anyway be verifiable through reliable sourcing. And of course, if you can find sources that the movement should be banned that would be worthy of inclusion. Happy editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel, this is not a page for discussing Pro-pedophile activism in general. This is a page for discussing the Wikipedia article on pro-pedophile activism. The article does discuss that the movement faces very strong opposition. Do you have any reliable sources we could use to expand that coverage? Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is pedophilia a crime?

The above sounds a lot like the Nazi (and others) paradigm of burning any book we don't like and sending people we don't like to death camps. Those statements above are scary...

"banning these articles in the moral and ideological interest"?

I have to agree with Mango and Squeak (and all NPOV in general!) in that this article is not the place where one should "aim to convey the hideous and uncensored horrors". That's the same thing those that you oppose seek to do in the other direction. We're neutral. We must stay that way.

• VigilancePrime • • • 21:08 (UTC) 1 Mar '08

You have stated that people you label as ideologues should be arrested (this is what 'taken into custody' means) and 'morally rehabilitated'. There is no article on moral rehabilitation so it may be valuable to create one if such a concept does in fact popularly exist. Considering how morality, unless you do brainwashing/trauma, is generally found voluntarilty, the way to change people's moral views would be to speak with them. It would seem to me that people would be more receptive to conversations if their freedom is not taken from them due to engaging in free speech.

I am unfamiliar with the expression taxonomic similarity, has this been commonly used or recently constructed? There is no evidence that sex offenders argue in any uniform way, or that they argue against certain things (many take responsibility for actions and admit they made a mistake that does not deserve leniancy). As such, I do not believe comparing the people you call ideologues to this legal group would be a consistant comparison, as there is nothing specific to compare it to.

Banning articles is not the best precident. We are already at the point in society where images are illegal, to have words become illegal would be another loss in media, all leading to the eventual end that this stems from: thoughtcrime. My personal reaction in response to Orwell's book was that instituting thoughtcrimes does not lead to an ideal society, and instigates an emotional reaction of fear when I see people engaging in thoughtcriminalization activism (that would be an interesting article, I should request someone make it some time). Having articles on an encyclopedia does not risk propogandizing anyone (individual or otherwise) if it maintains NPOV. So long as articles are defended against people who would obscure the truth with malice with the intent of manipulating others, as well as correcting those with false perceptions, the articles remain truthy and it is impossible for truth to be propoganda. In particular, maintaining articles on independant thinking (involving things like reading critically and not believing everything you read is the truth, no matter how trusworthy the source) would help secure readers against the few articles they might happen across which are (hopefully only temporarily) compromized by distorted inaccuracies.

The article is called pedophile activism, so advocates relevant to the discussion would be those advocating the psychological state which is pedophilia (a sexual preference for prepubescents)'. Calling it 'child rape advocates' is not accurate. While it is probable that there are advocates of rape who support this movement for insincere purposes, using statements like this risks generalizing all supporters as supporters of rape, which does not work out using logical causality. This would be as much a mistake as presuming anyone who does not condemn pedophilia must support it. There are some who view thoughts and those who have them neutrally, even in the cases where they are flawed or even if they lead to patholog, in response to not being judgmental of that person's sincerity to think accurately, as many people do not even though they are not aware of it. Furthermore, it is good to hold in mind the possibility that you are not actually hearing their opinion properly due to semantic misunderstandings, and to discuss with them further as to clarify any potential misunderstandings through use of different terms which are less ambiguous in their meanings and inferences. Tyciol (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Which is the best wording? "Some pro-pedophile activists call for social acceptance of... (1) ...sexual activity involving children and adults." or (2) ...sexual abuse of children by adults." or (3) ...adults performing sex acts on children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 06:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the three, I prefer (1). I think (3) is incomplete, as adults do encourage or force children to perform sexual acts on them--fellatio, for instance. I think "between children and adults" works just as well as (1), and sounds better to me. -Jmh123 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that "sexual activity between children and adults" would work effectively as well. However, I still prefer the first option as it is phrased above. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Best is #1. #2 seems self-contradictory and passes judgement (however rightly) and #3 is, as another wikipedian noted, incomplete. • VigilancePrime • • • 16:03 (UTC) 4 Mar '08

Isn't this the point of the closed door discussions on the Mediation Wiki? 75.0.228.157 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and I don't know if anyone knows what is going on with that and when, if ever, a decision will be reached. It's certainly been a long time, if it is even active, In the meantime, life continues. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there technically is still a mediation process in progress, it hasn't been very active lately. Besides, the tension has been eased significantly since the unprotection of this article and the restructuring of the intro. Thus, it's likely that more editors than before are now relatively content with the current situation. Howbeit, even if the mediation is to continue and is to tackle new issues, there's ample reason for users to continue discussing constructive changes on the Talk Page. Only a handful of editors are involved in the mediation, but everyone deserves an opportunity to voice his or her concerns, and to recommend how this article can be improved. This is why it's good that people are discussing their proposals for article improvement out in the open, and are seeking to gather community feedback on possible changes. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I largely echo the opinions of VigilancePrime and Jmh123. #1 is the most neutrally worded and the least awkward phrase, and thus this is what I would recommend. #2 doesn't make sense, seeing as it's doubtful that any pro-pedophile activist will say that he or she promotes "sexual abuse of children by adults." One of the main goals of the PPA movement is to reconsider what actually constitutes child sexual abuse, so its advocates definitely do not view adult-child sexual activity as CSA, and would likely not condone whatever they personally consider to be CSA. All in all, it seems very POV and quite dishonest for the article to utilize the second option. Finally, #3 is indeed incomplete, because many PPAs do argue for adult-child equality in sexual relationships, and do call for acceptance of ACS in both directions (meaning adults performing sex acts on children, and vice versa). Besides, the last option is somewhat awkwardly phrased. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. #1 is the only NPOV option. #2 implies that it is agreed upon that all sexual activity involving children must be abuse, which pro-pedophile activists probably wouldn't agree with. #3 implies that all sexual activity between adults and children are purely passive on the children's part, which isn't necessarily true. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

arb break 1

One is the best wording. It is the most neutral of the three, and it makes the most sense. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Version 1 is my choice, too. It is clear and accurate. My view is that Wikipedia users are capable of detecting "agendas" and can be trusted to evaluate conflicting opinions without paternalistic "help". The use of plain, accurate, language, even if it employs terms that some debate partisans also use, can never be wrong or forbidden just because partisans use the same of similar language. If a Wikipedia article does its job and accurately and neutrally portrays major positions in a controversy, doing so in plain, clear, English, Wikipedia readers will well-served. SocJan (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1, or "adult/child sexual relations" FrederickTG (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely 1. The others seem way too point of view. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 is the best wording. #2 is defintly a POV and i suggest that we just remove it from the choices. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 17:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

1, by miles and miles. Wiki readers can decide whether or not it's abuse by themselves. EvilStorm (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 seems best to exemplify the NPOV, with #2 being POV/judgemental, and #3 incomplete. ♠PMC♠ 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not generally active in this topic area, but the RfC tag invites participation. Option 1 seems to pass Raul's Razor best. Support on this point, at least, seems to be pretty much universal amongst participating editors. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2 is far and away the best, indeed the only honest, accurate description. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is one of the most widely vilified figures of the last century, but the article doesn't lead with "Hitler was a bad man, the worst that ever lived, and in fact everybody on Wikipedia agrees he just sucks," nor should it -- aside from the obvious neutrality issue, it doesn't need to be that blatant, because a neutral accounting of his actions makes the point loudly enough, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In fairness pedophilia doesn't open with "pedophiles are evil and hated" either. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why I'm stupid enough to get involved again but clearly (1) is the correct choice (at least of those three), (2) is hopelessly ridiculous and (3) is simply a very awkward, contorted way of getting a compromise between 1 and 2. As Luna Santin noted, readers don't need our help to understand that sexual activity between children and adults is morally reprehensible. (And for the very tiny minority that believe otherwise, it's not like they'll read (2) and suddenly realize "oh boy, what was I thinking?") Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If everyone thought of child sexual abuse as 1 then surely the PPAs would not feel the need for activism or to have a PPA movement. I think 2 is the obvious choice because it reflects what the average person thinks whereas 1 is a description of what the PPAs think CSA is, and they are being activists in order to change society from thinking 2 to thinking 1. Surely this is what we should be explaining (with sources) in the article/opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox: I know you think you're doing the right thing, but you're wrong nonetheless. Sure, I understand that you want to discard the opinion of paedophile activists on Wikipedia. Having removed myself from these draining debates, I'm not up-to-date on the latest sockpuppet accounts of these guys. But please, hear the words of, say, Luna Santin or Martijn or myself, longtime editors with a proven track-record of responsible editing (no offence intended towards anybody else who voiced their thoughts in this thread). We are not here, despite what you often seem to think, to help paedophile activists get their way. We simply believe in this fundamental part of the NPOV policy. We want cold, clean, clear facts. Obviously, the members of NAMBLA don't believe that sexual relations with children constitute abuse, in fact the whole idea that this could in any way harm children seems completely foreign to them. They are, however, an extremely fringe minority, I'm sure we can agree on that. Obviously, they prefer option (1). But you are so desperate to avoid giving them, or the handful of trolls representing them on Wikipedia, any sense of victory, that you are missing the essential point: (2) is an overkill, so much so that it's laughable to the average reader. And just so you don't go around accusing me of finding sexual abuse of children "laughable": what's laughable is that using (2) makes the article look more like a pamphlet from concerned citizens than an encyclopedia article. Not that there's anything wrong with a pamphlet from concerned citizens, but that's not what Wikipedia is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally well said, P.T. Exceptionally. • VigilancePrime • • • 04:54 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

#1 is the most neutral and accurate wording. #2 is exceptionally loaded, and #3 is woefully inadequate for describing the situation. Pascal.Tesson summed this one up quite succinctly. - Kesh (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

arb break 2

Can you define "the average person" for us? Preferably without POV, SPOV, OR, Incivility, Bias, Bad Faith, Assumptions, Ethnocentricity, Judgement, or Evaluative Statements? I'm curious what an "Average Person" is. (BTW: Egonomitrists would tell you that there's no such thing as an "average person", but that's an ergonomics thing more than a psychological thing, which is what I think you're trying to describe).

Oh yeah, and on a side point, that you're the only one who actually thinks #2 is good, let alone the best - and that you seriously want to put it in the article (assuming you're being honest, which is my good-faith assumption) - just confirms that you have very limited ability to edit these articles neutrally, a point many of us have trying to bring to your attention and help you adjust for a very, very long time.

• VigilancePrime • • • 03:05 (UTC) 28 Mar '08 :-)

Well I don't know about the only person and this thread is not finished by a long shot, I only saw it myself today. Perhaps the "average person" is bad terminology, what I mean to say is what the great majority of people think. And remember most people are very protective of their children and grandchildren and the idea that some fringe minority is trying to remove the protection the law offers to people's children is likely to enrage almost everyone. So the vast majority of peopekl think any adult child sexual contact is child sexual abuse where the adult perpetrator is a criminal who needs to be seriously punished and, in the developed world, seriously monitored for many years if not forever. Really we are being very soft on pedophiles in wikipedia which is why I am baffled at those who claim that we don't treat peds and PPAs with enormous sympathy, because we do. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vast Majority. Totally. But that is still an evaluative statement. The Vast Majority of people also see Hitler as a villian, but does his page say "Hitler was a villian"?

I agree with you about people being protective of their children. I'm protective of my brother and my mentorees. They know that I would do anything for them.

I agree with you that adult-child sex and sexual contact is likely to enrage almost anyone... but the news tells a different story. How often do you hear "Jim Brown (generic name) was arrested today for allegedly having sex with one of the girls at his day camp" and then they interview people who say things like "but he's a really good person, even if he did this, I still see him as a hero" or, after a court conviction even, "he's always been a role model to the whole community... he should be released or probation...why send this nice man to prison?" I have heard things like that and it sickens me more than anything! People are so... fickle. And clueless sometimes.

I agree with monitored. But I also don't think a 20-y/o who was convicted of having sex with a 17.5-y/o (yes, this happened) should be classified a top-priority sex offender for their whole life. Kida ridiculous. Now a 20-y/o with a 10-y/o? Absolutely! Let their monitor fall off after the heat of hell melts it...

I disagree that Wikipedia is "soft" on pedophiles. In fact, pedophiles are the only people not allowed to edit the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit"; that's a simple fact. I don't think we give anyone "enormous sympathy" (and certainly you don't!). Do we treat them fairly and as legitimate people? Yes, Should we? Absolutely. "All men are created equal", right? Remember, we do not have Thought Police. Hitler tried that... (I hate bringing that name back up... apologies...)

By the way, though the very incarnation of evil, Hitler was a masterful, brilliant leader. Most of the most notorious bad guys in history were. That's part of how they could accomplish so much and still be so evil. Kinda sad when you think about it...

• VigilancePrime • • • 03:28 (UTC) 28 Mar '08 :-)

I think #1 is the best version. #2 sounds incredibly POV (even if most of us would consider it the "right" POV) and #3 sounds awkward & possibly incorrect as Jmh123 said above. #1 sounds neutral; calling it "sexual activity" is by no means condoning it or making it seem like a positive thing. --BelovedFreak 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As above. Lambton ^T/_C 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Version of the Intro from the MedComWiki

The most recent version everyone endorsed on mediation is the following (refs are dummies).

Pro-pedophile activism or pro-paedophile activism encompasses advocacy for changes in criminal laws or cultural mores about pedophilia. It seeks to alter negative attitudes towards adults' sexual attraction towards children. Some also call for reform of child pornography legislation, social acceptance of adults' sexual activities with children, geraly considered to be child sexual abuse, or changes in age of consent laws^1,2 and the DSM mental illness classifications. Some pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target adults attracted to children.^3,4

An increasing public focus on and disapproval of pedophilia has motivated more stringent legislation and stronger criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and use of the internet to facilitate these offenses. Most people strongly oppose the movement to grant pro-pedophile activism status as a valid political or civil rights movement.^5,6 Opposition to pro-pedophile activism, known as anti-pedophile activism, has the stated goal of protecting children from predatory pedophiles.^7,8

Nobody seems to have any major issues with the current intro either, but I can't speak for everybody.

Currently we are in the process of discussing the problem of problematic users and new SPA's that are possibly sockpuppets. We seem to be close to a solution there too, and personally I expect a motion to close soon. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The wretched and tortured grammar employed in the second sentence to shoehorn "generally considered to be child sexual abuse" is absurd. This can be suitably addressed in the portions of the article (like the second paragraph) that state these things. Tomyumgoong (talk)

Err, no, we cannot fail to mention CSA in the opening, and why would we want to? Even the PPAs admit that what they want to legalize is currently called child sexual abuse so we cannot use any other term. I still fail to see why we don't adapt my version as my version says PPAs want to convert what we call child sexual abuse into something legalized and full accepted by our society. Hmm? Perhaps we need to tag this article talk as fringe, sounds as likely as green cheese being the main constituent of Mars, but that is what these folk want, and we need to express their beliefs in an encyclopedic manner, not do anything else. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can if you like. You could even incorporate some of the second paragraph into the opening. I would consider the opening the whole intro section, but no matter where you wish to include it do so grammatically. Tomyumgoong (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note further that this poorly worded bit is the only mention of opposition at all in the first paragraph, while the second paragraph of the opening deals with the matter extensively. If you actually want to mention the popular opinion that such behaviors are abusive before the second paragraph of the opening, surely it can be worded into an appropriate sentence of its own. Tomyumgoong (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would change this sentence: It seeks to alter negative attitudes towards adults' sexual attraction towards children - to this: It seeks to alter what they view as negative attitudes towards adults' sexual attraction towards children. I would say that most people do not view those attitudes as negative, only the PPAs see it as a negative viewpoint. It should be changed to reflect that. FrederickTG (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that I don't believe that to be true (I do think most people view adults' sexual attraction towards children as negative), that is what those orginisations want to do. If an organisation wants to bring all cheese from the moon to earth, we don't say that "The cheese to earth foundation seeks to bring what they view as cheese to earth" we say they want to bring the cheese home. I could imagine a second line there, with "Although research confirmed that there is in fact no cheese on the moon". The point is, we tell what the organisation wants to do. Not weather that is possible or not, or even nonsense. Apart from that even, I am sure there are some negative attitudes out there. That are the ones they want to change. They could be wrong, ofcourse, and try to change the attitude of someone who already has a neutral or positive towards adults' sexual attraction towards children, but that is not what they want to do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fred. And the cheese analogy, while it may sound good in passing, is fallacious. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:49 (UTC) 19 Mar '08

That analogy doesn't quite fit with the wording. In the sentence, we are dealing with views. In your argument, you are dealing with cheese. The sentence adds in the type of viewpoints - negative - while your argument has no such adjective. Of course everyone has views, but in this case they are being classified as negative. Someone against PPA holds certain views. PPA's would classify the views as negative, a non-PPA would classify the views as positive ones. Therefore, the PPA's are the ones who see the views as negative, and their goal is to change the views. That is why I propose we should attribute the viewpoint to PPAs and change the wording accordingly. FrederickTG (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do think we are getting somewhere here. I think you mean that people don't think that those negative attitudes are bad. I am not making any statements about that, I am just saying the attitudes are negative. Weather that should or shouldn't be changed or if that is a good or a bad thing is in my opinion not something that needs to be changed. People don't look kindly on adult-child sex. That is a negative attitude. That is the attitude PPA's want to change, good thing or not. But I'm all for seeking a consensus verstion. How about something like "It seeks to alter opinions on pedophilia", or straying a little further from the current text, but in my opinion more concise "It seeks more acceptance of pedophilia". I'll go ahead and make some changes for now, do feel free to mercilesly edit my version to a new compromise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I made it something else still (diff), slightly different wording. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

From your reply:

• People don't look kindly on adult-child sex. That is a negative attitude. That is the attitude PPA's want to change, good thing or not.

That is what I was saying. I think where the miscommunication occured is the idea that PPA's are the ones who would classify the view as negative - most people who are not PPAs would classify it as a non-negative view. So if we were going to say they are "negative views" then I was saying we needed to clarify that PPA's are the ones who see it that way. But it seems as if it has been removed, so 'tis a moot point at this time. FrederickTG (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

another perspective for the intro

• Here is a suggestion for a rewrite of the intro, based on a combination of the current article, the mediation version, and the discussion above. The last several sentences have not been modified.

Pro-pedophile activism (also spelled pro-paedophile activism) refers to a fringe † very small loosely-organized socio-political movement advocating societal acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder. [*] Pro-pedophile activists also advocate the related goals of "normalizing" the concept of sexual activities involving an adult and a child (defined as child sexual abuse in all modern industrialized countries), legalizing such activities by lowering or abolishing the age of consent laws, and reform of child pornography legislation. These goals are based on pro-pedophile activist beliefs that it is possible for an adult to engage in sexual interaction with a child without harming the child; beliefs the activists claim are supported by controversial and widely-disputed research papers such as the Rind et al Meta-analysis and the Kinsey Reports. Some but not all pro-pedophile activists self-identify as pedophiles, or as adults attracted to children in a sexual or romantic way. Pro-pedophile activists consider have described their movement as analogous to other new social movements, in particular the LGBT social movements,[*] and some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [*]

Present-day pro-pedophile activism occurs mostly through websites and internet discussion forums; in the past it appeared in periodicals such as the Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) and in a small number membership organizations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association that are mostly inactive today. Select pro-pedophile groups are involved in opposing vigilante groups that target anyone alleged to have a sexual attraction to children.

An increasing public focus on and disapproval of pedophilia has motivated more stringent legislation and stronger criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and use of the internet to facilitate these offenses. Most people strongly oppose the movement to grant pro-pedophile activism status as a valid political or civil rights movement. Opposition to pro-pedophile activism, known as anti-pedophile activism, has the stated goal of protecting children from predatory pedophiles.

[*] re: source(s) added later (see comments following)

† re-edited per discussion below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Horrible compared to the existing one... Far too long, very evaluative. Parts of it are great to incorporate into the durrent intro. Even the current intro, though, is too long. Maybe if the so-called "mediation version" wasn't off-wiki, privately/secretly crafted, by only selected/"approved" editors. Outside-looking-in, it's not helping. Maybe it is and that's just not visible. Impossible to tell. With four {{fact}} tags in the intro also - and probably a couple more needed - it just looks awful... really, it looks worse than it actually reads, though. I'll give it that the full text isn't as bad as a first/quick glance of it. Still, the current version is more workable and far less evaluative. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:55 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

FYI, as an aside, I have not been part of the meditation, I only saw the version they posted above. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact tags are there because I didn't have the sources for those handy, though I had seen the statements in the literature and they can be found again. For example, is this statement inaccurate?:

Pro-pedophile activists consider their movement to be analogous to other new social movements, in particular the LGBT social movements,

and this statement?:

and some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults.

... that is a rewording of this from the article that is unclear:

contemporary authority relations between adults and minors.

Since my fact tags have been called awful, I looked for some sources:

"The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims." - from Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights, by by Pat Califia in: Paidika, 1991 & in The Culture of Radical Sex, 1994

The above is from a reprint on a pro-pedophile activist website so before using the source, it needs to be cited properly, but it shows that what I wrote was not made up, it's in the pro-pedophile activist literature.

For this:

advocating societal acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder.

a source:

Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and paedophilia should be considered equally valuable forms of human behavior. - The Dutch Paedophile Emancipation Movement, Dr. Frits Bernard, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, volume 1 number 2 (Autumn 1987), p. 35-45

Other sources can be found. I left fact tags because I figured this text would not be used, so why do the work?

The PPA movement is small and fringe. On further reflection I suppose that's OR to state it in that way though, because there are no books or scholar articles on Google that even mention the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is OR as it is evaluative. The references are fine... I just think that having all the "citation needed" lines detract, ya know? As for the statements being true or not, I'm not knowledgable enough on the topic to know definitively whether it's true or not; I'm here mostly for bias and original research maintenance. While I tend to agree with the "is it true" angle, I'm reminded that Wikipedia (as you've pointed out to me before) is about verifiability, not truth. That's all. And totally, if the text won't stay, no point in doin the work to source it! (Though I've done that...) So, Jack, we're in agreement overall, I think... make the intro true, verifiable, and non-evaluative. THat's what I'm understanding. Thoughts? • VigilancePrime • • • 05:03 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

For this one:

Pro-pedophile activists consider their movement to be analogous to other new social movements, in particular the LGBT social movements,

here's a source:

When a core of deviant group members begin to identify with each other and reject the dominant culture's assessment of their worth, as some women did in the first and second waves of feminism, as blacks did in the 1950's and 60's, and as gays and lesbians did in the late 60's and 70's, and as some pedophiles are doing now, the claim is made that the dominant categories are incorrect and changeable social creations. ... black theorists argue that black culture and life was largely invisible to both blacks and whites in the pre-civil rights period, feminist theorists claim that male categories marginalized and delegitimatized women, homosexuals were ridiculed and dismissed in the 1950's, and pedophiles are vilified today. ... Though pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition, gay organizations distance themselves from pedophile organizations in the same way as feminist leaders sought to separate themselves from lesbians. -- The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia, Harris Mirkin[1], J.Homosex, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1999)

I've put [*] in the text above where the sources would go. The citations are preliminary and not formatted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a source for the first phrase:

Pro-pedophile activism (also spelled pro-paedophile activism) refers to a small fringe socio-political movement advocating...

... the rest of the sentence is sourced per the above, however... is there a source for the definition of PPA as a "socio-political movement"? Perhaps, but it's unclear. There is a documented "Dutch Paedophile Emancipation Movement", but that is a particular movement with a particular history, not a wider social phenomenon, so maybe it doesn't generalize. Is there a definition of PPA at all in the sources? I'm not sure there is, though there are descriptions of the activities of activists. Is there a source that the movement (if it is a movement), is small and fringe? That's a good question. The facts are that it is small and fringe, that we know, because it's got no traction, no significant presence in the political discussions of the world or even on Google. But we can't cite a negative, so it's an open question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it qualifies as a "socio-political movement"; that seems to make it out to be way more than it is. Small is fine, even unsourced (as I don't think that's contentious) but to label it "fringe" seems a little weasel-wordy (and would no matter to what the word is applied). Just to state "... is a very small, loosely-organized..." would be sufficient, and I think we can all agree that this is (ostensibly) accurate, thus references become less demanded as it wouldn't qualify as contentious.

You bring up a good point about PPA and APA even being true terms... I think that both are somewhat contrived. I don't know. Just seems kinda thin. Personally I don't think the opening right now is particularly bad, and while it could use some tweaking and modification, why make any sweeping changes to it if it's reasonably agreeable to most involved/editing wikipedians? • VigilancePrime • • • 05:35 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

Your suggestion of "... is a very small, loosely-organized..." would be OK with me. As to why I offered the rewrite... mainly because the current wording seemed unclear, doesn't note that the movement places itself with other recent social movements that have been successful and accepted by society, and doesn't address the smallness or obscurity of the activism. Overall, it seemed to me that a more socio-political focus was better, because that's what "activism" is about. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you totally there. I think, now that I read your agreement with the "suggestion", that "very small, loosely-organized" says "fringe" without saying it in that evaluative, passing-judgement manner. Same thing, better words. And yes, it is somewhat unclear... then again, so is the "movement" (if there really is a true "movement"), eh? • VigilancePrime • • • 06:26 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

OK then, I've re-edited that sentence with this change. Have a good evening. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And you. Always enjoy collaborating like this with you all. Take care, • VigilancePrime • • • 06:49 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

Fringe also notes that the movement is widely rejected. Which it is. John Nevard (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and would prefer to include the appropriate adjective "fringe". I left it out only in the interests of consensus to avoid letting one word stand in the way of an improved intro. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support your intor as currently is, Jack. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I added the updated intro. Further discussion of the updated intro continues in this section below: Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Comments on updated intro. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A Recent Edit

(The following two comments have been copied from SqueakBox's Talk Page and have been placed in the flow of this section according to their time stamps)

SqueakBox, I would like to inquire why you made your most recent edit to the intro of the "Pro-pedophile activism" article. There already is an explanation of how adult-child sex is viewed by the majority in the very first paragraph, and the words are even wikified. Furthermore, most would agree that PPAs advocate for a number of different changes in mainstream legal, medical, and social takes on pedophilia. Taking this into account, why should the issue of child sexual abuse be singled out, and put ahead of everything else? Also, even if CSA needs to be mentioned earlier in the paragraph, shouldn't at least pedophilia be listed first in the sentence, considering that's what this movement focuses on? Then, from a stylistic perspective, if your addition of CSA at the top remains, one of the wikilinks to the article discussing it needs to go, because there's only need for one wikilink per paragraph, especially in an intro. The other question I had for you is in regard to you adding an attribute of "claim" to the statement that PPAs would like to change negative societal attitudes towards pedophilia and pedophiles - is there thus an implication that the PPAs are wrong/mistaken to assess the community attitude as being hostile? Wouldn't you agree with this assessment (that most people react in a negative manner to pedophilia, pedophiles, and PPAs)? I really don't want another edit war to start, and this is why I'm not reverting your edit, but instead decided to inquire about your contribution to the article via your User Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is needed to explain what PPAs want, and what they want is to revoke the laws and social attitudes re child sexual abuse. The problem with the PPA claim is that it may not be correct. Anyway i have respionded to Jack's proposal at PPA talk. I think any committed editor should be at least trying not to edit war and I certainly am committed to that. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cute, Squeak, how you edit the article to your SPOV and then, a few hours later that day, voice support for the intro "as currently is", as if nobody will notice that you're not agreeing with everyone else, who had through consensus come to agree on the intro before you biased it, but instead agreeing with nobody as the intro is fundamentally different than the one we had been discussing.

Nice try. Transparent, though.

What PPA actually says "I want to legalize (insert whatever adjectives you want here) abuse"? To state it that way is a ridiculously prejudicial statement of unbelievable bias. Is what this or that PPA seeks to legalize abusive? Probably. Is that an evaluative statement to state it is? Absolutely. Is sex with a 17-year-old sex abuse? Let's say it fundamentally is (to support your assertion that PPAs seek to legalize sex abuse). That means that the article for Washington should clearly state that some sexual abuse is legal in that state, as the age of consent is "only" 16.

Is that ridiculous? Would that edit to the Washington page be reverted on sight? The added probably templated? Called a vandal? I'm betting yes. (I got an idea... since you believe that it would be, try making that edit to the State of Washington page, just to see what happens... since it is true, right?)

Okay, my point's made. The edit was patently nonsensically ridiculous and dripping with SPOV.

I laughed when I first saw it. It was that bad. Still kinda funny that you or anyone would make a change like that and actually believe that they are an "NPOV Warrior"!

Have fun with that, • VigilancePrime • • • 05:07 (UTC) 17 Mar '08

As I have said, "The addition of a reference to child sexual abuse in the first sentence was unnecessary: activities treated as 'pro-paedophile activism' are defined as such by their relation to paedophilia, including CSA-related activism." Reverted. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which certain editors here seem to be fond of. Stating that PPA's seek the acceptance of child sex abuse, as normal people who look at the subject tend to write, is not. It's clear. John Nevard (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did John just refer to "normal people"? Of which he is most certainly not. Nor am I. Most people don't seem to like the überconformity that "normal" implies. And that statement is in itself a phenomenally bias-ridden statement! What is normal? What YOU think? Wow. You just gave new meaning to POV. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:31 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

Oh, my bad, I'll make sure to use 'mentally healthy' next time to avoid offending people. Your therapy remarks certainly seem to indicate you value health highly, for other people anyway. John Nevard (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it SPOV means Squeak point of view. I'll tell her she is famous, albeit for the wrong reasons. Surely, AS, if activists agitate against the CSA laws we must mention child sexual abuse as early as possible. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a defining aspect of PPA, thus it should not be given in the definition. Many 'PPAs' do not advocate for changes in child sexual abuse laws. The only common thread is paedophilia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, you know perfectly well to what SPOV refers...but you did manage to get the page where it first appeared deleted, along with many other pages that demonstrated your SPOV et al. And still, nobody has stated that a PPA intends to make CSA legal. There's the assumption that such is the cause, but as my examples above note, such an evaluative statement in inappropriate for any sort of seriously (attempting to be) neutral document. Please. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:31 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

As a Brit in a poor, hot, foreign language Caribbean country I am most certainly not that normal by the standards of my peers either, and not for the first time, I am not sure what you are on about, VP. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't understand, Squeak... you never seem to understand when someone else has a valid point with wich you dislike. You're not normal, you stated. That's exactly what I was saying... there is no such thing as "normal people who look at the subject" because there is no such thing as "normal people" and to state that there is, as John did, is projecting oneself to others and (usually slightly delusionally) stating that everone that is the same as the projectionist is "normal". Now, being a Brit I expect you to be both very intelligent and very capable of English... so the whole "I have no idea what you're talking about" bit that you throw out whenever you're on the blatently losing side of a ridiculous argument is getting old. In your last post, you essentially agreed with me and against John Nevard, that "normal" is a point of view and that we here aren't even "normal". Thank you.

Or, better stated, "Thanks, • VigilancePrime • • • 01:48 (UTC) 18 Mar '08"

No, I mean I didn't understand your SPOV illusions, you should have linked it. And, no I am no match for the likes of Daniel Lièvre when it comes to science. I have a smattering of logic and am a developing encyclopedia editors, amongst other things. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) If you two are going to snipe at each other can you at least do it on your own talk pages. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can't; we mutually agreed to leave the other's talk page alone... and I at least abide by that. As for linking to SPOV, as I said, you managed to get the page deleted (go figure). As for the illusions, the facts and your actions speak for themselves. As for logic and whatnot, Squeak, don't try to pretend that you're not bright... as you've stated (usually to belittle someone else's intellect), you're a 46-y/o grown man (basically along those lines). I have no doubt that you know exactly what you're saying when you say it. And that's a good thing. See my "defense: of you on the other page (not that you need defense, but I support truth, and what you had said was true). And Hero, I appreciate your peacekeeping efforts. I've worked hard in this not to sound too demeaning, not to be insulting, and to compliment and focus on positive when I can (e.g. pointing out that Squeak is a smart enough person I believe, etc.).

Anyway, carry on. Best wishes, all, • VigilancePrime • • • 02:19 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

OK, time to move on. If you've agreed to leave each other's talk pages alone, abide by the spirit of that and don't use the talk page of this article as a substitute. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've been being nice lately. Note: we did start out talking about the article and most posts did involve the article also, at least peripherally. So, that said... • VigilancePrime • • • 00:49 (UTC) 19 Mar '08

Please Don't Go There

Just a friendly reminder that edit warring will not lead anywhere good and only serves to slow down any progress being made on this article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me... I'm just watchin' today's Wikipedia soap opera.

• VigilancePrime • • • 07:56 (UTC) 19 Mar '08

Comments on updated intro

After the updated intro was installed, some of it was removed, then restored with additional supporting footnotes.

This version contains the referenced content that has since been removed or changed: 08:20, 23 March 2008, per discussion below.

Three edits have been made after that version so far that I contest (and one that I'm not sure about). However, I'm not going to revert them myself at this time. I request discussion on these points, and if other editors agree with me that these edits should be reverted or modified, please do so. I'll sign each of these entries separately, so responses can be entered to each without interrupting one long comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• 17:08, 23 March 2008 AnotherSolipsist (+some with ref)

The above edit I'm not sure about. It has a reference, but the reference is a multi-user blog so it's questionable. While the blog administrators state they do not advocate lowering the age of consent and they do not encourage illegal activities include adults having sex with children, it is not clear if those statements represent their beliefs or are simply necessary for the blog to continue activities; especially considering in their history section the describe how pro-pedophile blogs had been removed from Blogspot.

However, because this is a blog by pro-pedophile activists that refer to themselves using the term "paedophile activism", it's an unusual resource, so maybe it's OK as a primary source. ... ?--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Further on use of blogs. If the above blog is accepted as a reference, this one may be useful also: Absolute Zero United, ""Pedophile Activism" category. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the site includes numerous non-blog aspects, including the section I cited. ANU describes itself as an organization.

The mission statement is obviously not made merely to secure continued hosting, because newgon.com[3] uses the same host and promotes radical changes to child sex laws. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• (17:19, 23 March 2008) AnotherSolipsist (rm simplification that is covered below, per my comments on talk)

The above is the diff for the edit discussed in the following comment: --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[Comment moved from where it was initially posted at #another perspective for the intro, for better continuity in this new section, since the prior section was interrupted by an off-topic discussion that has since been resolved --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)]

I've removed a sentence: "These goals are based on pro-pedophile activist beliefs that it is possible for an adult to engage in sexual interaction with a child without harming the child; beliefs the activists claim are supported by controversial and widely-disputed research papers such as the Rind et al Meta-analysis and the Kinsey Reports." Advocacy for the acceptance of paedophilia as a healthy sexual orientation is not generally based on the belief that adult-child can be nonharmful, and advocacy for the legalization of adult-child sex is based on more than that belief. It's also inaccurate to define this as a "pro-pedophile belief," because anyone who's familiar with any of the research on child sexual abuse should subscribe to it: I can only think of a few minor studies that found its participates to have been invariably harmed. The mainstream reason for condemning adult-child sex is that children cannot consent to it, so it's the belief that they can that is more relevant here. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed is supported by five references.

This is an article about activism, not the science of whether or not child sexual abuse harms a child, so whatever debate there is on that subject is off-topic. And, if that debate were to be presented it would need many references. It has been discussed extensively on related talk pages such as child sexual abuse and in the many debates about the deleteion of the multiple versions of the "adult-child sex" POV fork articles.

The non-ability of a child to consent can be seen as an additional reason, so assuming references can be found for that, it can be added to the text as a separate sentence, adding another basis for the PPA goals. However, that's not a reason to omit referenced information that conveys important perspective, so the sentence should be restored. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating we omit any information; it's already covered in detail later with reference to a more reliable source, Mary de Young. I'm just opposed to presenting an oversimplification of that information in the introduction. For one, it implies that the move to depathologize paedophilia is based on the belief that adult-child sex need not harm. This is false. The best-known academic to question paedophilia's status as a mental illness, Richard Green (some "fringe"), notes in the introduction of his Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? that "[c]onsensual same-sex adult–adult sexuality does not suggest the element of harm to one participant as in child–adult sex or an age barrier to informed consent." He goes on to develop an argument that Paul Okami describes as "so level-headed that any controversy surrounding it should be worthy of close sociological scrutiny." Most other individuals advocating the deletion of paedophilia from the DSM maintain that adult-child sex is wrong.

Secondly, as I've said, the sentence colours the fact that not all CSA victims are harmed as a "pro-paedophile belief," or as a belief that leads one to conclude adult-child sex isn't wrong. However, most CSA researchers appear to harbour moral animosity for adult-child sex, despite the necessary belief that it often causes no harm. Finkelhor notably defended the wronfulness of adult-child sex while pointing out that many of its participants are not harmed in his seminal What's Wrong With Adult-Child Sex? Nathaniel McConaghy, a noted sexologist, commented that "[c]hild–adult sexual activity should be opposed as an infringement of children's rights rather than requiring a false belief that it is invariably harmful." Igor Primoratz addresses the arguments of Tom O'Carroll and other PPAs in his 1999 book Ethics and Sex; while agreeing that adult-child is often harmless to its victim, he concludes a child's inability to consent renders it wrong. Fred Berlin pointed out that "[w]hen a person with pedophilia interacts with a child sexually, he has done wrong. He may, or may not, have caused harm."

My point is that the harmfulness of adult-child sex is accepted as non-inherent by the vast majority of people who are educated in this area, and certainly not entirely on the basis of "controversial and widely-disputed research papers," as your revision asserts. Analogical would be a statement to the effect of "Racial seperatists [minority group] base their belief that blacks should be seperated from whites [minority position] on controversial and widely-disputed studies claiming there exists an economic gap between the races [universally-accepted fact]." It's almost too generous to their credibility.

Again, the real issue, on which agreement with the legalization of adult-child sex hinges, is informed consent. Mary de Young mentions this. So does the disgraced Kurt Eichenwald, in the source you added: "The effort has a number of tenets: that pedophiles are beneficial to minors, that children are psychologically capable of consenting and that therapists manipulate the young into believing they are harmed by such encounters." But he does *not* clearly mention the belief that adult-child sex is inherently harmless. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• 17:01, 23 March 2008 EvilStorm (blank edit summary)

The above edit changed this: "(defined as child sexual abuse in all modern industrialized countries)" to this: "(usually defined as child sexual abuse in modern industrialized countries)". The word "usually" was added, and the word "all" was removed. That has been discussed previously on this page and the consensus was that it is defined as abuse is all modern states. The prior consensus version read as follows: " (widely considered to be child sexual abuse by medical, social and legal definitions)". The first and third versions are accurate, however "usually defined as" is too weak. I request further comments and that one of the better versions be restored. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• 23 March 2008 AnotherSolipsist (Talk | contribs) (rm unsourced, again. The burden is on you.)

The above edit removed the words "very small" from the description of the "loosely organized" PPA movement. We don't yet have a reference stating the movement is small, but it's self-evident, as there are only a few PPA websites, and all the PPA organizations have shrunk to almost nothing (for that we do have references that appear later in the text).

Initially, I used the term "fringe" instead of "very small loosely-organized", but I modified it as an accommodation based on the discussion at #another perspective for the intro, though I still think "fringe" is a better and accurate description.

John Nevard agreed about this in his comment at 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC): "Fringe also notes that the movement is widely rejected. Which it is."

That's a good point; I recommend this wording: "...refers to a fringe socio-political movement advocating..." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not sourced. That's a sufficient reason to remove it.

And for the record (not that it matters), it seems self-evident to me that the movement is fairly large. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The movement is minute, fairly large is pure fantasy. I also see the movement as being very fringe and we should try to include that. Otherwiose I like the work Jack has done and apart fromt he point below I agree with it all. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Source, please. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia articles the most prominent organizations, re their minimal and declining membership: Vereniging MARTIJN - In August 2000, it had 270 members (a decline from past counts).; Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (advocates for various agendas, not only PPA) - At present, the number is about 1500. Danish Pedophile Association - On July 23, 1996 the group had eighty registered members...

What other organized PPA groups are actively advocating in today's world? How many are there? Of individual PPA's, how many are there, a few thousand members of a a few dozen websites? In what do those numbers show more than a fringe movement? The count of organizations and individuals involved in PPA is miniscule as a percentage of population. "Fringe" is the perfect word to describe it.

It's so obvious that it's tiny, sources don't address it the question. If it is impossible to make that statement in line with WP:NOR and WP:V then maybe this should be brought up on those policy talk pages as an issue needing clarification, because by omitting the fact of the tiny size of the movement, the article provides inaccurate and misleading information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories is almiost a perfect description of PPA and with some hanmdy advice on how to treat this marginal fringe group who attempt to manipulate and misread science in order to promote their bizarre views. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch Society for Sexual Reform is the largest sexual reform organization in the Netherlands. It isn't fringe. VigilencePrime posted a link to your talk page describing how the German government was distributing pamphlets promoting adult-child sexual contact as healthy. Fringe? The Guide frequently publishes "pro-paedophile" articles and counts among its authors many alleged PPAs - like Richard Mohr and Bill Adriette. (The magazine was founded by Pink Triangle Press, notable for publishing The Body Politic of Men Loving Boys Loving Men fame.) Fringe? At least three academic journals were founded by "PPAs" -- Archives of Sexual Behavior, the International Journal of Greek Love, and Paidika. One explicitly pro-paed organization (B4U-ACT), founded by a paedophile, has 503c nonprofit status, and many others exist as fronts for pro-paedophile activities.[4] Tom O'Carroll's book The Radical Case is recommended to Cambridge University's postgraduate students.[5] He was also invited to speak at the International Academy of Sex Research's 2000 Symposium on Sexual Privacy, where he was received very positively,[6], and at the World Congress of Sexology in 2001 (again to a favourable audience). Fringe? The UK Communist Party supports the abolishment of age-of-consent laws. Many notable sex-positive feminists - such as Pat Califia,[7] Germaine Greer,[8] Jane Rule,[9] Heather Corinna,[10] Judith Levine,[11] or Debbie Nathan - have made "pro-paedophile claims." And there are too many academics of a PPA stance for me to even begin. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertions merely p[rove my point, not merely about this being fringe but about the way some editors try to promote fringe views as allegedly mainstream, and this is ona level with September 11 was ordered by Bush, though that is a much more popular fringe belief. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, but if I may make a suggestion: your conclusion is supposed to come after its premises and evidence. Virtually everything you post here is the equivilent to "I'm right" or "NO U," bolstered with nothing but a veiled implication that a fellow editor is paedo-sympathetic. These kind of comments aren't helpful. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox is correct, and that's why I included the information about the widely-disputed science studies used to support the fringe claims (that still needs to be restored from AnotherSolipsist's revert of material with five references).

By the way, The German government discontinued those fringe publications as soon as the story became widely known. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe" continued...

Reply to AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC):

Let's look at some of the support claimed in the comment to supposedly show this is not a fringe movement:

• Dutch Society for Sexual Reform - a fringe group - only 1500 members according to the Wikipedia article; that's 0.009% of the Dutch population
• Paidika - ceased publication in 1995
• Archives of Sexual Behavior - not a separate entity, part of International Academy of Sex Research that was also in the list. Not clear if it's a PPA organization, though the founder appears to have written papers that could be described as pro-pedophile. Their 2008 annual meeting program does not mention the words "pedophile" or sexual behavior involving adults and children.
• Communist Party of Great Britain - a fringe group - according to their website, their weekly newsletter was downloaded by 2,435 people this week, that's 0.004% of the UK population. The age of consent plank in their platform is from 1999 and not currently mentioned on their website.
• B4U-Act is not a PPA, they are a health-care organization providing "professional services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and desire such assistance". Their mission statement does not include activism. The only part of their mission that mentions the general public states "To educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children" - that's not PPA.
• The Guide Magazine - not a PPA organization, just a magazine that has published some non-negative articles about pedophilia. Nothing PPA in their "about us" page.
• Pink Triangle Press - not a PPA, nothing in their mission statement that mentions pedophiles, children, or age of consent.
• Body Politic (magazine) - ceased publication in 1987 according to the Wikipedia article.
• The German government discontinued those listed fringe publications as soon as the story became widely known (as noted above).

So, out of all those listed items, what currently active groups and writers remain as support for the idea that PPA is non-fringe, other than a few fringe groups?

• Individual authors who have written PPA-oriented books:Pat Califia, Germaine Greer, Jane Rule, Heather Corinna, Judith Levine, Debbie Nathan
• "too many academics of a PPA stance for me to even begin." - Academics are generally not considered activists. Research is to discover science, not advocate for changes in laws and attitudes. If they are advocating and not just researching, then that material would be published and if found could be considered as PPA. That would be a very short list.

All the other listed examples are either inactive, or limited to at the most a few thousand members, a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. "Fringe" is the correct word to describe PPA. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Melsheimer and Richard Kramer occupy important positions in B4U-Act. Melsheimer used to be heavily involved in LifeLine, a Free Spirits resource, and Kramer is the webmaster of Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center. As for the Guide, this 2006 comment from its former publisher, Edward Hougen, is illustrative: "Our reluctance to challenge traditional sexual attitudes as the price for acceptance into the mainstream has weakened our opposition to repression and injustice. The hysterical response to the reality of childhood and adolescent sexuality has continued unabated. But where are the voices raised in protest over the relentless sexual abuse of our youth by bombarding them with the monstrous lie that their sexuality is something dangerous, something harmful, something bad, something criminal that they must be protected from? Where are the voices raised in protest over the branding of almost anyone who practices non-traditional sexuality as a sexually dangerous person, requiring constant surveillance, if not incarceration? ... I am glad that The Guide has been bought by a not-for- profit organization that shares its mission of sexual liberation, and that most of the present staff will continue their efforts."[12] Hougen also signed this petition, along with many other notables, which decries branding "any transgressor of under-age sex rules" a sexual predator, "even when no violence or force is alleged."

The Body Politic lives on in Xtra, which has Ken Popert as its president -- one of the three men arrested for publishing Men Loving Boys Loving Men. Popert is also the president of Pink Triangle Press.

The number of academics who qualify as PPAs would definitely not be a "very short list." Certainly, it's not a list I'm interested in compiling for a dispute over a single word, but you could start with the former editorial board of Paidika.

You dismissed several groups because they're not explicitly PPA. This suggests another issue: for obvious reasons, much of the movement is underground. How can one possibly determine the actual size of the movement, then? This is problematic for your claim that the movement's size is self-evident.

Anyway, we still have policies in regards reliable sources, and you still have none. In fact, there are reliable sources that say pro-paedophile activism is currently "chic."[13] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

An article, more than ten years old, that says that "Middle America... voted the [allegedly playing on pedophiliac themes] campaign down." That's really not a particularly good reference, although it beats the hell out of the hopeless references to IPCE that are already in the article. John Nevard (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think on a pure word-choice angle, "Fringe" may be the wrong word. Technically "fringe" means some kind of extreme on the outskirts of a pre-existing and established movement. PPA would seem directly at odds with the establishment (law and clinical practice). "Fringe" does apply the specific sources (for instance academics) but not perhaps to the movement as a whole. It's unpopular, for sure, statistically speaking. We could call it "unpopular" or "small" Legitimus (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All modern industrialized countries

Since User:Jack-A-Roe requested a comment on this particular point, it may be appropriate to mention that in France (which I believe qualifies as a modern industrialized country), not all sexual contacts between an adult and a minor below the age of consent (15) are lumped together under the label of child sexual abuse. French law distinguishes between aggression sexuelle sur mineur (sexual abuse on a minor) and atteinte sexuelle sur mineur (sexual approach? on a minor), which is basically sexual contact with a consenting minor under the age of 15. Both are offenses, but the latter is a lesser crime. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. That's in regard to young adolescents, not children though. What is the attitude in France about an adult engaging in sexual activity with a child, for example a five-year old? I doubt the difference in those laws would apply in that situation. This article is about pedophile activism, and the definition of pedophilia regards children, not young teenagers. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal distinction between a 4 year old toddler and a 14 year old teenager in those texts. The attitude of the court may be different, of course, but the law itself is the same (it doesn't mention children but only "sexual minors"). Bikasuishin (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article on Atteinte sexuelle sur mineur does not match the above interpretation. The article states that the lesser crime of consensual sex with a minor under 15 years still is severe enough to bring a penalty of 5 years in prison and a fine of 75,000 Euros. The penalties are doubled when there is coercion or authority involved.

More importantly, the article states that the Court rarely allows the lesser sentence because "a child not knowing adult sexuality could not consent to the relationship ... even when appearances suggest the opposite." The article states regarding the lesser penalty, "sometimes it is used in the case of teenage victims over 12 or 13 years."

Unless there is referenced information that contradicts the French Wikipedia page, this shows that the situation in France is not different than other modern countries. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The mentioned maximum penalties are indeed correct. Of course this is way above typical sentences (1.3 years on average, usually suspended).

As for the qualification of atteinte sexuelle only being retained in the case of teenage victims, there is nothing in the penal code to that effect, and it is certainly not a hard rule. Last year, a 19 year old soldier was incriminated when it was discovered that his 11 year old girlfriend was pregnant (they had presumably been sexually active for some time). This was an atteinte sexuelle, not an aggression sexuelle.

Cases involving sexual contacts with very young children are extremely rare, though, so it is true that I've never read of a court case involving an adult admitting to sexual contacts with a 4 year old but asking for requalification as atteinte sexuelle (even if the child was consenting in the defendant's opinion, this doesn't sound like a very bright defense, anyway). Bikasuishin (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern industrialized

I removed the word industrialized as CSA is most certainly not a concept exclusive to the industrial world, modern world I am okay with as pretty much the whole world is modern. Indeed where I live is not industrialised but it is modern (malls, internet) and if the only place where child sexual abuse has any acceptance is in some very poor rural communities, and the government is certainly tryingto address the isssue. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point and I concur with your change to that sentence. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit to the opening sentence. For one, it's not supported by the reference. Bindel attributes the belief that paedophilia is a sexual orientation not to PPAs, but "experts who try to unravel the phenomenon of paedophilia." And she doesn't even mention your additions in that context.

Even if the source was appropriate, I would oppose that wording as too specific: pro-paedophile advocates don't usually promote the interpretation of paedophilia as a necessarily loving condition. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't substantiate your claim that "the ref fully backs up the statements," please revert yourself. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Many would agree with AnotherSolipsist; it's pretty universal that if you are not able to support your claim with any proof, then it would only be fair if you revert yourself. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle you are right but as we see here AS removes references he doesn't like to support his own viewpoint. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And that link was satisfactory for an encyclopedia article? Had you read it? (Oh wait, you're the one who added it, right?) It's an opinion piece and on a level with badly-written blogs. Even the parts of it that are true and/or accurate, the source itself prima facie (on the face) doesn't even come close to sounding reliable or scientific or close to neutral/nominal. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:23 (UTC) 31 Mar '08

Of course I read it, and thoroughly enjoyed it. And The Guardian is one of my dailies, surely you are not suggesting that it isn't a reliable source. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that opinion piece is not at the level of a "Reliable Source" like a news article. It was like a crazy person ranting. A lot of it was good stuff in poor phrasing, but it sounded like rantings. Sure, the news they produce may be great, but this is not a resource, it's an essay. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:27 (UTC) 31 Mar '08

For instance, the "commentisfree" page encourages "us" to re-label "pedophiles" as "child rapists" ("Let us drop this term and start to call child rapists just that."). This is a simple factual inaccuracy. That's like saying any man who has a sexual thought about a woman is a rapist. Is that true? No. The problem with opinion pieces, commentaries, and rantings is that they are often factually inaccurate and thus unreliable by their nature. And including such a factually inaccurate article as a "reference" only weakens the point that we are trying to make. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:31 (UTC) 31 Mar '08

Of course having sexual thoughts about women doesn't make for a rapist because almost all sexual intercourse between men and women is not rape whereas all intercourse between an adult and a child is by definition rape because the child is unable to consent, lacking the maturity to do so. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, per your last, the THOUGHT of sex is equal to SEX? Therefore, a person who THINKS about sex with a child (anyone under 18 y/o) has therefore raped a child? I'm trying not to misunderstand what you said, but you did say that it is rape (to THINK it) because it WOULD BE illegal to actually do it. Is that a correct interpretation of what you wrote? • VigilancePrime • • • 03:44 (UTC) 31 Mar '08 (Because I'm still trying to understand how the THOUGHT - by definition pedophilia - is equal to the ACTION - definition child rape.)

No I didn't, I said intercourse between adults is almost never rape (but occasionally is) whereas all intercourse between adults and children is rape by definition. I made no comment on fantasies, which you brought up. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad we're clear. In that case, you would agree that the charge to label all pedophiles "child rapists" is fanatical and inaccurate, and that in itself renders that link an unreliable source, as it demands exactly that. • VigilancePrime • • • 14:12 (UTC) 31 Mar '08

Err what? While I recognise that there are pedophiles who don't actually rape children the modern definition of a pedophile is one who commits sexual crimes against children. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to butt in here...have to) WHAT??? SqueakBox, do you even realize how fanatical and hyperzealous you sound saying that? Do you even know what pedophilia is? I am absolutely incredulous that you, of all people (considering you traditionally seem educated and claim to be neutral), would actually allege the above. Radical, Raving Fanatic is the term I would ordinarily use to describe someone with that clear, undeniable, hyper-POV-pushing focused agenda. Somehow, I don't even know what's going on with you... even this level of bias seems far beyond even you. How can you possibly justify such an incredible factual inaccuracy and even try to assert it as a fact? And then to do so by saying "the modern definition"? How is that neutral, let alone accurate? (You're totally not making any sense now.) • VigilancePrime • • • 01:39 (UTC) 2 Apr '08

VigilancePrime, your comments appear to be moving beyond the realm of civil discussion and into the realm of insults. I advise that you stop paying so much attention to SqueakBox and focus your comments on the article content and references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely about the content. SqueakBox (and by silence on the matter, you?) is trying to assert that A = B and this goes to the heart of this article and shows how he is wholly incapable of being unbiased in editing. Are you agreeing that pedophile = child rapist? If this is the case, it is indelibly connected to the article content. Where have I insulted Squeak in this matter? I have strongly and strenuously questioned what he's saying, and I am trying to illustrate that what he has said is easily seen as beyond the very fringes of the t-tails of neutrality. I've asked questions ("How is that neutral, let alone accurate?") to determine what he's trying to say, and the only thing I can even fathom you're referring to as insults is the phrase "You're totally not making any sense now", which is something Squeak himself has said to me many times (in only slightly different words). So, unless there's a double-standard for this (which, of course, there is on Wikipedia, but that's another debacle altogether), there's nothing out of the ordinary. I wholeheartedly want to hear Squeak try to explain his completely inaccurate (and even potentially inflammatory to some) and intentionally (appearing) misrepresentation of every referencable truth on the matter. Ever hear of the DSM-IV? What he said and what the DSM say are all but diametrically opposed. Hence, to be able to collaborate, the source and intent of Squeak's clear agenda in the matter is of paramount import to the content of the article, especially as Crusade-like he (and you and the rest of the Company) are in editing it to your perspectives (which he more than anyone else ascribes to virtually everyone in the world). This is content and neutrality -centric. • VigilancePrime • • • 03:08 (UTC) 2 Apr '08

If you don't see that a statement like " he is wholly incapable of being unbiased in editing" is discussing an editor and not content, or that "fanatical and hyperzealous" and "Radical, Raving Fanatic" appear to be insults, there is nothing I could write that would explain it to you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. This is Wikipedia, you know, a record of human knowledge, as opposed to a compendium of human prejudice like Conservapedia.

Speaking of reliable sources, here's a talk by Richard Dawkins at TED. That's someone of considerably greater notoriety than the writer of that random opinion piece from The Guardian, speaking to a considerably more refined audience. He explains that the great majority of educated people are atheists, and that belief in God or a similar transcendental entity is a sign of poor intelligence, an assertion supported by results of actual statistical studies rather than gut feeling and appeal to emotion. Should we stick that properly sourced finding to the lead section of Religion or Fundamentalist Christianity? I don't think so, but you may want to, by your logic. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording regarding "all modern conuntries" seems excessive. Do we really have a source promoting this? What definitions of "child" and "modern country" are we using? There are some where the age of consent is already rather low, certainly permitting sexual interaction between adults and entities that would be considered children under its wikipedia entry. Surely it should be mentioned that countries very commonly illegalise sexual conduct between adults and a child under some (variable) age... but the mention of age of consent laws already accomplishes this. As it stands, this phrase simply appears to be an attempt to shoehorn poorly defined (and incompletely sourced) negative commmentary into this part of the article to placate certain editors. Tomyumgoong (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Placate certain editors? Can you clarify this cryptic comment, please, Tomy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Tomyumgoong 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC): The lowest age of consent anywhere is 13, and that's only in a few countries. According to Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition: child, "at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14." See also definition under rape "carnal knowledge of a child is frequently declared to be rape by statute."

Wikipedia's child article defines a child as "a human being between birth and puberty", not older than puberty as is defined in Minor (law). Pedophilia refers to biological children, not post-puberty adolescents. There's no " attempt to shoehorn poorly defined (and incompletely sourced) negative commmentary" - the text in the article is NPOV and properly sourced. -Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please post here the section of the article you cite as supporting your view that sexual relations between adults and children are defined in all modern nations as child sexual abuse? The definition of child in that article is severely deficient btw. It was cherrypicked from a dictionary. (That's the problem you get by insisting on having references for everything you say but not having any mechanism to weight or interpret sources.) You'd much more usually see it used with the meaning "A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority", also contained in the same source. In the context of sexual relations, it's usually more narrowly defined. In most "modern" nations, having sex with a minor who has reached puberty but not the age of consent would be a crime, and would constitute child sex abuse at least so far as the law is concerned.

I think that the definition of "paedophile" is very far from "someone who commits sexual crimes against children" and that kind of talk is very unhelpful. Given that you clearly have a strong bias, SqueakBox, perhaps you'd consider stepping back from this article. Perhaps you'd consider editing other articles, about which you do not have strong feelings? Grace Note (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Grace, please check my edit contribs and you will see I do edit other areas. The only article I have really strong feelings about is Haile Selassie I of Ethioopia and I am stepping back from that article. Far from having strong feelings about pedophilia this is an area I believe in which I edit dispassionately, other than perhaps at perverted Justic where I am indeed avoiding controversial editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, SqueakBox's apparent lack of cool when it comes to this subject is quite obvious. That he recruited a SPA to come harass other editors he suspects of being pedophiles and the fact that he defacto owns any pedo-related article further reinforces this. I think that Herostratus has shown a great ability to police the articles for PPA-POV without your help, Squeak. The difference is he is much more civil about it and doesn't engage in personal attacks. Time to move on and let the others who firmly oppose pedophilia monitor them. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Recruited Pol 64. Is that your fantasy, I have no idea who she is and communicated by email to her a couple of times while she was here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh don't use me as a stick to beat Squeak with. Squeak is a valuable and useful editor. You know, I keep reading about how Squeak is uncivil and all, but what I mainly see is editors being uncivil to him. Do not tell a fellow editor to get lost, that is hurtful. Stop picking on Squeak generally. And don't use article talk pages for running down fellow editors, they are for discussing the articles in question. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article needed?

In most modern countries Paedophilic, (sorry I don't know the correct term), activity is illegal and most people aggree with the laws. Can someone tell me how anyone could justify the psychological harm done to the child just so that they get sexual stimulation. Do you think that any paedophile would actually be able to stand up in public and argue for the legalisation of this activity in person. 82.8.0.109 (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They have made such arguments in public. Hell, that's what NAMBLA exists for. -- Kesh (talk)

Well, to be technically correct, NAMBLA has never supported anything it would acknowledge to be psychological harm to children. In the eyes of the movement, such harm is not inherent to adult-child romantic or sexual relationships. That's the clincher for pro-pedophile activists. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

External Linkage

Am I alone in thinking that this article is incomplete without external linkage. Surely there are numerous legal pedophile sites that can be used as examples. There are even some in the references. Lambton ^T/_C 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not advocating that we post pro pedophile sites. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, SqueakBox, and there would be something wrong with that? In this article, if there is to be an External Links section, listing legal PPA sites would quite appropriate. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just precious. If the topic offends you, don't engage with it. Lambton ^T/_C 14:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, linking to notable PPA sites would not be appropriate, because per WP:EL those should be internal links to the WP articles about those subjects (which in turn should actually link to the official sites). If there is a useful informational resource out there about PPA, of general interest, that would be an appropriate external link. However, there weren't any, which is why the whole section got removed. Mangojuice^talk 05:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to pro-pedophile sites is appropriate in an article about pro-pedophile activism.

If this:

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

does not cover this article, we also have this:

1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.

and

4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

There is ample policy grounds upon which to pursue an EL list including recognised PP sites. Lambton ^T/_C 13:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The removing of the external links section has already been discussed and decided on this page at #Newgon, etc. and #External links section removed. Any pro-pedophile group that's notable enough for a link to be of use is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Many do, and those are linked in the see-also section. Any external links added to this article would require solid and clear consensus here on the talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no agreement after the discussion to which you refer. Doing does not = agreement.

I would like to see you provide policy grounds for your assertion that any group rightly included in an EL list is a candidate for its own article, and should therefore be removed. It seems to go against 4. above, in that anybody can be a knowledgeable source, and that sites may contain information that is relevant in more ways than simply exemplifying the site itself. Lambton ^T/_C 19:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is a style guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy. Any external links added to this article will need consensus to remain listed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I think it's ok to link to PPA sites as long as they are clearly labeled as such. (So that they won't be confused with an auxiliary information source about pro-pedophile activism). Mangojuice^talk 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be 'just' a guideline, but it's not a guideline like speed limits- it's accepted best practice on Wikipedia, and the spirit of the generally accepted standard has remained intact for nearly three years. John Nevard (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Namibia

In Namibia, a boy of seven can consent with a female. This defeats the assertion that no age of consent is below 12. Interpol is not a "dubious" source, as SqueakBox appears to be asserting. Lambton ^T/_C 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

God knows why SqueakBox sees the use of this source and supposedly the accompanying edit as "trolling". I suggest that he keeps that opinion to himself and stops removing it from the article. Lambton ^T/_C 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The age of consent in any particular country around the world is off-topic. This article is about pedophile activism. It doesn't matter to that topic what the age of consent is in Nambia or any other country. The only relevance to this topic of age of consent is that pedophile activists want to lower it or abolish those laws completely. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole section is redundant, but in its previous form, it was misleading. I will support any consensual effort to get it removed. Lambton ^T/_C 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to advertise where pedophiles can "legally" abuse underage boys. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you, for one moment stop passing judgement, and just get on with listing facts. Lambton ^T/_C 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? That seems a strange comment from one so new here, and believe me I was stating a fact in my above comment. Another fact you probably know, though, is that were a British person to be caught doing such a thing they would be prosecuted in the UK. I presume the PPA movements oppose this law as well, and it would be good to add that with a ref if we could find one. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop sidetracking with irrelevant opinions. It is your interpretive opinion that I was (unintentionally?) including the Interpol source to the effect of advertising for paedophiles. The plain and stated fact was that my edit was a correction. If we can't correct a stated "lowest" age of consent by knocking five years off it, without having some uncalled for and crude intention pinned onto it, then we might as well stop calling this an encyclopedia.

The hypothetical British person to whom you refer would only be prosecuted under a pending amendment to the applicable laws, as the present ones require dual criminality. Lambton ^T/_C 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dual criminality? What is that? And can you please stop accusing me of sidetracking the conversation when I am absolutely keeping on track, we are here to write a good article and not for any other purpose. And if you are in agreement that there is no sound reason for you to insert Namibian law into the article (as there is no PPA movement in Namibia) then we can close this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And actually you are wrong about UK pedophiles who commit crimes abroad do not get prosecuted. This BBC article says

The first conviction in a UK court for sex offences committed abroad also took place when a man who abused children in Africa was jailed.

I remember the case well and just wish I had a url for the original case. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not only jailed in the UK for offences committed in Africa but jailed indefinitely, see here. Presumably this is the kind of law that western PPAs oppose as it means pedophiles cannot go down to Namibia and abuse children as the edit in question seemed to imply they could. And of course it is not merely UK citizens who are subject to such laws. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly in "Dual Criminality" did you see the assertion that Britons are not being prosecuted for sex crimes abroad? The term is glaringly obvious: the offence has to be valid in both countries. The woman who visits Namibia to have legal, Heterosexual sex with a seven year old boy could not be prosecuted in the UK. There are amendments being proposed (and backed up by various organisations) which will eliminate the possibility.

There is no sound reason to have the law concerned in this article. When I fixed the mistake, I was assuming that consensus was against the section's removal. Lambton ^T/_C 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=205039585

Not only did you undo a sourced contribution in the same edit, but:

"in all modern countries"

is far more generalising and linguistically inept than

"in most western and western-influenced countries"

If one needs sourcing, it is certainly the former. In fact, the term "modern" could be taken to mean anything. Lambton ^T/_C 13:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the bad edit. Are you really claiming that third world countries support the aims of PPAs as your edit appears to seek to claim (based on what it replaces). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming any absolute truth. That is the whole purpose of the edit, to bring the discussion away from universalistic notions of what all "modern" countries define (if actual "countries" ever endorse definitions) the sex/abuse as, to a less absolute hypothesis of how a fluid majority of nations use certain definitions. You simply cannot use an absolute (all) alongside a subjective (modern) here, as the former implies that the latter is to be constrained primarily by the general view on one issue (sex with children). If there is a "modern" nation with no definition of CSA, it must cease its modernity because of this one issue. This is at the very least a moralistic value-judgement that would lead to the belief that a country with just-adequate "modern" credentials and a sound definition of CSA is "modern", whilst a country with adequate but not exemplary "modern" credentials and no CSA definition is not. We clearly have no way of knowing where various countries fall on these spectra, and should therefore remove the term "all" and replace the confusing term "modern" with something which is better correlated with the CSA definition, e.g. western philosophy, western medicine, judaeo-christianity etc.

As an aside, there do exist many "less developed" countries (some industrialised) that socially permit the sexuality concerned under various circumstances, for example economic reasons, wider social and tribal customs. These tend to be less influenced by western philosophy and authority structures, and can be cited from various works on homosexuality, ritual etc. Lambton ^T/_C 20:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe tribal customs can be described as modern whereas a sign of a modern government and a civilised urban society is to oppose manifestations of pedophilia in more backward parts of society, so modern is inf act a good term. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What you believe doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Bikasuishin (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not implying that it did, there are endless reliable sources that third world non western developed countries are actively working against pedophilia manifestations in their societies, as their are that tribal customs are not modern. Whereas I think Lambton would find it extremely hard to prove through reliable sources that non-western societies generally support the pro pedophile aganeda. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What? My argument is not that non-western societies support the (western) pro paedo movement. All I have stated is that some of them have institutionalised adult-adolescent or adult-child sex, especially in tribal situations. For example, in Australasia, various tribes use intergenerational homosexuality to bond and masculinise future boy warriors, and fill gaps where there is no female partner available. Whilst that is proven by anthropological literature, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that such practises are "pro paedophile", as these cultures, due to their lack of western influence have little or no concept of paedophilia or paedophile activism. This can be described as an absence of CSA as a definition. To these people it is not abuse, or more accurately, the idea of abuse is simply not entertained.

Of course some "third world" countries are attempting to purge economic "paedophila" and the sex industry. This is part of the westernising influence and structural adjustment that I have not denied. Lambton ^T/_C 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your comments are so far from any reality, and clearly unsourced, that it isn't much point discussing with you. I do not believe pedophilia is legal in Australia as you appear to be claiming, etc. if you want to add controversial ideas to the article you should source them here first. I am not here to discuss fringe views. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming that "paedophilia" (your casual term for child sex/abuse) is legal in any of the "modern" nation-states, although some have low AoCs and "anything goes" attitudes at grass roots. However, some tribal cultures that have not been interfered with, and that could hardly be defined as falling under the jurisdiction of those nation-states do openly tolerate this form of sexuality, and even encourage it in restricted ways. If you want me to throw the refs from Stephen O. Murray's standard text on Homosexuality at you, I'll be happy to oblige. If you want to accept what every anthropologist who has read the lit on this matter knows, then we don't have so much of a problem. Lambton ^T/_C 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC

Perhaps you would care to expand on your "anything goes" attitude. Do you really believe there are countries that allow pedophiles to abuse children? That turn a blind eye to sex tourists? etc. I think you are deliberately distorting the truth which is that no such thing happens in any country in the world. It is a classic fringe distorting of reality in order to push a point. As a new user I would point out that pro pedophile advocacy is not acceptable in wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please stop assuming that others are out to promote a pro-pedophile agenda on Wikipedia. Your covert accusations do not amuse anyone and may, in fact, be found to be offensive. You, of all people, should know better, especially since you're juxtaposing yourself with so-called "new users." ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At least five non-involved Wikipedians (Grace Note, Tomyumgoong, Bikasuishin, Springeragh,[14] and EvilStorm[15]) have expressed concern over the previous version. I agree that that version of the sentence is problematic, so I've amended it. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox reverted my change of "all countries" to "virtually all countries" on the grounds that "virtually modern is not ammeaningful conce[t." I think he needs to reread my edit, since it says virtually all (i.e., nearly all), not virtually modern, and then revert himself. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I be g your pardon? I reverted your edit that said virtually countries, please do not claim otherwise as it looks like a deliberate attack on my editing because you were sloppy. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I only double-checked my edit summary. Still, it would have been easy enough for you to correct my word placement rather than delete it altogether. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What you m,ean read your mind? I didn't have a clue what you were on about. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but perhaps you could have read my edit summary, which said ""legally defined as child sexual abuse in virtually all modern countries."

And is that "thanks" you always end with meant to be ironic or something? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds disingenuous, almost like a claim to victory, or having scored some point. SqueakBox. I see no possibility of reasoning with you. In short my observations are not judgements or attitudes. I have read the texts concerning the tribal cultures I mention, mainly from the starting point of homosexuality. I can quote you sources, as I guess the other editor can as well. I have accounts from trusted others that child prostitution is mainstreamed in Thailand and Cambodia among other countries. Moral abhorrence is NHNT for the purposes of our discussion. Lambton ^T/_C 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, stop insulting these sovereign nations with filthy ideas that you know full well are false, and there plenty of sex tourists rotting away in these places to prove it. Please desist going down this path, and please stop distorting facts to fit a fringe view,. This space is about improving the article, it is not about informing pedophiles of where you think they can get away with abusing children. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox is correct about those laws: "Under current Thai law, a jail term of four to 20 years and/or a fine of 200.000B to 400.000B can be imposed on anyone caught having sex with prostitutes under the age of 15 (the age of consent in Thailand). If the child is under 13, the sentence can amount to life in prison." Cummings, Joe, Thailand, Lonely Planet (2005), p47. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WE have an article on Christopher Paul Neil, currently in custody in Thailand and wanted in Cambodia as well. Lambton this is the second time you have made incorrect statements about this subject alleging a liberality that simply does not exist. Please check your facts in future as we can only deal with correct information in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He was commenting on culture, not law. Child prostitution is usually met with acquiescence in in Thailand, Cambodia, etc., despite the police's recent campaigns against it -- campaigns that were spurred by *Western* pressure. Consummated child marriages also remain commonplace in some areas. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a civil discussion without being accused of "informing" with "filthy ideas" etc? Or to offer a staunch ethnocentrist the fruits of my reading without getting shouted down as outlandish and unsourced? Lambton ^T/_C 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported statements

Anti-paedophile activists form a diverse movement representing many different groups with varied and often incompatible goals. As such, the movement, as a whole, cannot be said to have the single stated goal of "protecting children from predatory pedophiles." Xavier von Erck, perhaps the most prominent person active in countering PPA online, has specifically denied that his goal is to protect children.[16][17]

Furthermore, the statement is not supported by its sources. The first seems to be picked merely because it includes the term "predatory pedophiles," and the second is a declaration of Andrew Vacchs's personal goal of protecting children... so I've cut the sentence down to a simple truism.

"Most people strongly oppose..." was also unsupported, because a status of social unacceptability (the source's term) is not neccessary reflective of private majority opinion. It's been changed to match the reference more closely. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whoever found that source was obviously handing his intelligence over to a search engine. Lambton ^T/_C 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a savant, then, I take it. Wow I have always wanted to meet one. So how long does it take you to scan a billion pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Again, SqueakBox, there is no reasoning with you. You have very strong views on this subject, so apparently you are always right. With this in mind, I will temporarily stop reverting you, and try to reason once again.

Your version of the article asserts the following:

"Pro-pedophile activism (also spelled pro-paedophile activism) refers to a tiny, loosely-organized socio-political movement advocating legalization of child sexual abuse as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder.[1] Perpetrators are known as pedophiles".

You cannot call CSA a disorder or supposed orientation. You cannot call activists perpetrators. This is just not encyclopedic. Please think about the definitions before ever editing this article again. Lambton ^T/_C 00:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that all these activists were perpetrators, as you well know, although as we all know you like to pretend reality is other than it is, claiminmg Brits can abuse children in Thailand, Cambodia and Namibia having been one of your more fringe assertions. Is anything you say reliable, nothing so far. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, calm down. This isn't a competition, and you do not need to attack the person.

If you have abundant evidence that all of the activists are "perpetrators" (how much more subjectivism of yours will this article have to bear?), present it. And I have a surprise for you. Yes, tourists can abuse in Thailand, with almost no fear of legal action, as seen in the rare but over publicised events in which western authorities have intervened. Denying a problem doesn't stop it happening. Lambton ^T/_C 00:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you know perfectly well that Lambton is not the only editor objecting to your recent edits. The material you are trying to add to the intro has been shown to be inappropriate by community consensus in the past, and a neutral version was adopted for a reason. Please discuss controversial changes on the Talk Page first and foremost. Also, providing evidence to back up your claims would facilitate discussion. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, there are several new SPA's starting up from about the time of the last cleanout. John Nevard (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with my comment, but please feel free to deal with any SPAs you're worried about through proper Wikipedia channels. My main point is that SqueakBox's POV edits have been contested ever since he started trying to impose them onto the article's intro I don't even remember how long ago. These kinds of edits have been shown to be inappropriate before, and their quality has not changed. Until evidence is provided to back up the text proposed by SqueakBox, and until there is community consensus on adopting the said changes, there is no reason to go back to edit warring over something that has been discussed ad infinitum. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, unlike Lambton I have reliably verified everything I have stated. You may not like that Brit peds cannot abuse with impunity abroad but that wont help them with the British legal system. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell do you reduce everything to assumed personal values intentions and fantasies? What the hell is your problem with other people? This is getting tiresome and offensive, so if I disappear, you know what's happening. Lambton ^T/_C 01:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even verified your claims about UK law, Squeakbox. See my response in the section below. Bmj4 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Universalism

Edit endorsed by J-A-R and SqueakBox:

"sexual activities involving an adult and a child (legally defined as child sexual abuse in every developed country[2][3])"

Are we asserting that sex with 7 year olds (Namibia) and 12 year olds (multiple developed) does not involve children??? Lambton ^T/_C 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. According to Wikipedia's Developed country article, Nambia does not qualify.
2. Even in Nambia, while 7 year old boys are at the age of consent, the law specifically states that applies only with regards to female partners older than 12. So, that's one country in the entire world with a limited exception; even with so much interest in finding exceptions, not one editor has found any others. And in case there is a question about this: homosexuality is illegal in Nambia. If you need a source supporting that, they are readily available. Therefore the 7 years old exception applies only in one developing nation, and only to heterosexual activity, and only when the child is male. No exceptions can be found among developed nations.
3. According to the Wikipedia artcile Pedophilia is defined as "primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children". Other than Nambia, all nations age of consent is 13 or older (see the age of consent article, or Black's Law Dictionary). Therefore, the definition applies, since sexual activity with adolescents is not related to the topic of this page.
4. Every developed country is a member of the United Nations and a signatory to the Children's Convention outlawing sexual use of children by adults. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If Namibia fails to protect its children from predators than clearly it is not modern but it apears thuis is more exageration from Lambton. Lambton, please can you stop wasting our time with yoiur inaccuarate assertions such as that PPAs can do what they want (ie abuse) in Namibia, Thailand, Cambodia our elsewhere even when they are British citizens such as you and I. This is not the place for you to state your fantasies as if they were real. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your beliefs about UK law are incorrect, Squeakbox. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=820904&activetextdocid=820998 Bmj4 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what you think my fantasies are, and why they are relevant. Speak up. You've already accused me of advertising tourist destinations for paedophiles, and you're not in the same room as me, so your safety is guaranteed. Lambton ^T/_C 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching for 3 days now and all you have done is told paedophiles where to abuse children,. You clearly have no conscience but you also appear to have no sense either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztep (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Quick reminder for all editors to remain civil. We all know this is a very contentious subject and that this article often attracts controversy. So, let's all try to keep level-headed and to avoid insulting others. Please comment on specific edits, and not on the person. Likewise, please do not assume other editors' agendas, unless you have solid backing for a critique of another's conduct. If you have personal concerns about another editor, and the disagreement is not directly related to the state of this article, please discuss such matters on User Talk Pages, and not here. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well after your gross incivility humiliating me with a section header I seriously hope you will take your own advice and wonder why you choose to criticise those who atre behaving better than you. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where I have behaved uncivilly, and I will sincerely apologize to the editor insulted. Providing informative headers is not an act of incivility last I heard. In fact, it's considered courteous, because this makes sections easy to follow. What's more, I even informed you of the fact that you were mentioned on another user's Talk Page, and even provided a diff to that section. Please point out the incivility in any of this. You, on the other hand, have already managed to imply that others are promoting a PPA viewpoint a number of times in this single day. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Homologeo, you are experienced enough to know to attack the edit not the editor but you continuously and knowingly do the latter and I was forced to revert you incivil attack earlier. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please do not misrepresent my actions. Until you show me where I acted uncivilly, there will be no apology, because it would be unwarranted and undeserved. Where specifically did I attack you as an editor, instead of attacking your edits? Last I checked, what I wrote to the admin was an accurate account of your editing, and that was the grounds upon which I recommended that you be blocked. Please stop trying to portray others as the bad guys here, unless you have reason to support your allegations. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look at what this article has been locked on. Just look at it. Lambton ^T/_C 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what removing serious statements supported by reliable sources, while making blog-sourced statements less NPOV, will get you. John Nevard (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The presence of one extreme does not justify the other. There are obvious factual inaccuracies and biases in the locked version. These include the idea that CSA is viewed as a mental disorder. Lambton ^T/_C 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Will get you" where? I'm confused. Being uncivil is not justified no matter how ridiculous someone's edit might be. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes its the wrong version, and yes, Homologeo, you will not get your way by being uncivil. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where and how has Homologeo been uncivil, SqueakBox? Lambton ^T/_C 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And why are you accusing when recent comments about "fantasies" etc come from closer to home? Lambton ^T/_C 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

I'd like to request that the version of the introduction prior to SqueakBox's attempt to be bold be restored as the consensus version (based on its seemingly long acceptance, relative to the volume of edits on this controversial article). The previous version acceptably introduces the phenomenon, and the language of "tiny" "child sexual abuse" and "perpetrators" is not really necessary (although perhaps not completely wrong). Avruch ^T 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded in its entireity. Lambton ^T/_C 02:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. No one except Squeakbox is claiming that child sexual abuse is either a sexual orientation or psychological disorder -- it obviously meets the definition of neither. It's a criminal act, not a condition. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Got my support. If anyone needs evidence of consensus on the version in place before SqueakBox's edits, please look at the RfC above, at the numerous threads in the archives of this Talk Page, and at the multiple discussions elsewhere on this topic. Also, involved editors would be happy to provide you with wikilinks and diffs to the relevant threads. Lastly, please look at and judge for yourself the latest edits done by SqueakBox. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I approve also. Mangojuice^talk 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In principle I concur with a reversion, however before a change is made, we need to identify which version will be restored. Over the last few days there has been extensive activity by POV-activists of various stripes, so it's not obvious which version has consensus. I am not suggesting it should stay as it is, but I am suggesting that we identify a particular diff to return to before we request the edit; that way, we can can know it will not cause additional tension and problems.

I will come up with a suggestion shortly; if anyone else would like to suggest a version, please do so. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&oldid=205447716 as it lacks a disputed edit that we can discuss later. Lambton ^T/_C 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you. I concur with reverting to the version you listed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this reversion would simply remove the contentious edits made by SqueakBox, without altering anything else. This is the version I would support as well, at least for the duration of article protection or of discussion necessary to reach consensus on this portion of the intro. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That version is in my opinion better than the current version, support a revert to it for the time being. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done reverted to revision 205447716 Happy‑melon 10:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that none of you have read m:the wrong version, I would have expected the admins here to know better and our readers will, seeing the protection, doubtless think that the current version is the wrong one. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ztep has now been indef blocked. I suggest we unblock the article as I will certainly not be reverting back to the perpetrator version. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant stuff

Reporting on this, here, touched upon here. John Nevard (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fair commentary, although I would caution against using it to "medicalise" and "profile" typical behaviours in a "them and us" fashion. Lambton ^T/_C 13:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of "movement"

I object to the change from the word "tiny" to the word "small," and furthermore think tiny should be qualified as "extremely tiny." We are talking about 2,000 or so people. More people believe in Bigfoot or belong to the Flat Earth Society than belong to pro-pedophile organizations. The real world existence and significance of pro-pedophile activists is being vastly overstated just by claiming it is small--it's miniscule; tinier than the tiniest other fringe group I can think of.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree, I know somebody's going to pitch fit any second now. So let me try to set some guidelines (I'd rather stay out of this in a direct fashion, because I am not knowledgeable enough when it comes to raw data).

I predict one of confounding variables is going to be the ambiguity of what a pedophile is vs. what a pro-pedophile activist is. For instance, many pedophiles are ashamed and remorseful, and make no attempt at "advocacy." Another issue is whether certain academics can or cannot be considered advocates based on their opinions/data interpretations/statements/affiliations. Some academics are really out there, where as some make little statements that are up to interpretation. Just keep this in mind before anybody gets emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We report on real world debates; we don't carry them out or try to redefine them. Speculating about what constitutes an advocacy group member outside of the groups' reporting on their membership numbers be original research. We need to be clear that the membership of the advocacy groups is 'beyond extremely' small. At its height in the 80s, NAMBLA had 1,000 members for example. European membership is about the same. Pro-pedophile activism is in no way a large or significant "movement" (it really doesn't qualify as a movement at all, actually). It's an extremely tiny fringe POV with hardly any adherents; that's just factual. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We report on verifiable facts. I've argued against the assertion that the PPA movement is extremely small before with walls of text, but now I'll just say that I dispute it, and you haven't sourced it, so it doesn't belong in the article. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think in order to reinforce your simple and possibly equivocal disputing it you might care to source that the movement is more than the few hundred people whom we have extensively documented, as you well know the coverage of pro pedophile activism is, for its size, the most widely covered wikipedia subject of them all, and reading NAMBLA, MARTIJN etc it is clear that the movement has never amounted to more than a few hundred people, and we cannot have anything that is unsourced but implies that it is more than that. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But on the last count, Nambla has a membership in its thousands. And that's not counting other groups, activists without membership and the online realm that is now being described as the main cause in this article. To assert that something is "very tiny" requires sourcing. Lambton ^T/_C 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a mis-statement of NAMBLA membership information. Here's what Wikipedia's article reports:

Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries; it has essentially ceased to exist. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings and few local monthly meetings.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't membership information. On the last count, the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members. Lambton ^T/_C 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you source the 1,100 Lambton, as that is truly tiny and we could use such a source to ref tiny. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you source the numerical limit of the word "tiny" and the logical rule that one small group can be assumed indicative of its wider associations? Lambton ^T/_C 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, that's clouding the issue. You claimed "the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members". When you were asked the source of your claim, you diverted the question with other questions.

Please provide your source for FBI information about NAMBLA membership. It would be useful in this article, even if it's not generalized; and it wold also be of use in the NAMBLA article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is there a specific number associated with the word small? This could, in fact, mean "several thousands," and could sometimes be even less. Besides, tiny or extremely tiny are definitely POV descriptors, in contrast to small. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was at another debate on wikipedia where someone called a movement containing a million members/followers "small", which makes mere thousands into tiny. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a specific number as the fact that the largest group in a movement where proponents tend to be associated with multiple groups claimed to make up about 0.001% of the population at their largest. That's pretty big for a pedophile group, that's pretty big for a comparable fringe group like the National Alliance, but it's extremely tiny for the umbrella group of a movement that wants to make vast societal changes. John Nevard (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hoped that some editors here would reflect on the stylistic differences between an encyclopedia and a parental awareness group leaflet. Bikasuishin (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also reflect on the difference between an encyclopedia and a piece promoting the article (whatever the nature of the article) as preventing the latter is why we have NPOV and Fringe policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in order to be useful to a general reader, some indication of the size needs to be made clear. Reading the article as it is, one might get the very misleading impression based on the length of the article that this is a large or significant thing, or a "movement," and it most certainly is not. Perhaps an adjective such as small or extremely tiny should be replaced with specifics/what the sources say re numbers. "Approximately less than 2,000 people wordwide" is acceptable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, Petra. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In reference to what. Quoting policy pages without explaining what you are alluding to is not an argument.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need some research to show what numbers are involved. Obviously, without this research, specifying a number or any highly assertive descriptor such as "tiny" as opposed to "small" is irresponsible. Given that we don't even know what it takes to be "part of the movement", it's not really ours to judge. We would at the veryy least have to specify that pedophile website subscribers are not members (as these numbers are surely reaching toward and above 1/4 of a million). Lambton ^T/_C 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps a definition of what it means to be part of the movement, it clearly takes something more than sitting around thinking it is a good idea and telling nobody, as indeed does any type of activism. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• As stated above, the sources put the numbers at less than 2,000 worldwide. There are no reliable sources to support your fanciful web numbers. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not seen the source, I accept that 2,000 is a reasonable grassroots membership estimate at least. However, we return to the point that this is not the same as the number of people "within the movement". If we are to define websites with PP agendas as rough counts of potential participants or subscribers, there is over 50,000 on the count of one website (boylover.net) alone. Lambton ^T/_C 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And although that is no absolute measure of affiliation, you can't simply sniff at numbers like that and call the movement "tiny". That is the behaviour of someone who is expressing an anti-subject agenda. Lambton ^T/_C 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not agree with that, ie that I or others have an anti-subject agenda, indeed I very much want to see a verifiable and accurate article that presents the subject in a clear way and small for a movement even with 50,000 members worldwide is tiny by any measuring stick. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And subscribing to boynet does not make one a pro-pedophile activist. Where is the charter, the statement of purpose, the planned demonstrations, the ten point program, etc. (I'm sure if I said subscribing to boynet makes one a pedophile, let alone a pro-pedo activist, there would be a clamor of objection.) And comment on content, not contributors, Jovin. Thanks for understanding,-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, Petra is correct. Boylover.net is not a PPA website. It is a pedophile resource and support site, therefore its membership count does not offer any information about the size of the PPA movement . Here's their mission statement:

"BoyLover.net provides a safe, supportive, and legal environment where boylovers, boys, and others interested in boylove can share thoughts, opinions, feelings, and experiences. Its forums are online meeting places where questions, advice, and debate take place freely in an atmosphere of comfort and mutual respect, and where educational material and information about boylove can be shared."

... nothing there indicates any activism; it's a support group.

Even though it's not a PPA site, as a pedophile support site, information about the size of its membership may be of use to this article and perhaps to the article on pedophilia. Where did you find that count of 50,000 members? -- Please provide the reference.

Also, two editors asked previously that you supply a reference for your claim (18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)) regarding NAMBLA that "the FBI found that the organisation has 1,100 members", but so far, you've not replied. Please provide your source for FBI information about NAMBLA membership. It would be useful in this article and it would also be of use in the NAMBLA article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1100 figure is in the second paragraph at NAMBLA already.

"2000" does not appear in any reliable source I have seen. I guess it's a WP:SYN of various membership counts, in which case it would be inappropriate for the article. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic is not SYN, but if you would prefer only to use the NAMBLA number, I do not see the difference between 1,000 and 2,000 for the purposes of indicating to a general reader how extremely marginal pro-pedophile activism is.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA is not the entire pro-paedophile movement. And yes, synthesizing multiple sources to make an original conclusion ("arithmetic") is certainly SYN. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, simple arithmetic is not SYN. Ask for yourself at the village pump or the OR talkpage of you need clarity for future reference.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Editors may make straighforward mathematical calculations." :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  That policy applies when the calculation involves numbers from a single source, as the context you omitted clarifies. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it says "topic," not source. But go ahead by all means and ask your question at the Village Pump or the OR board. Meanwhile, as Jack explains below, 1,000 is probably too high and I'm happy with a single source that gives that number or lower, because there's no difference between 1k or 2k for giving a general reader a sense of the marginality of pro-pedophile activists.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

←reply to User:AnotherSolipsist 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC): Thanks for locating that reference for the information Lambton presented. Let's take a look at the contex from the article:

...an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. It is the largest organization in the umbrella group Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation").... Since 1995, public criticism and law enforcement infiltration have heavily impaired the organization. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries; it has essentially ceased to exist. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings and few local monthly meetings, and that as of the late 1990s to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.

So, ten years ago, NAMBLA had 1,100 members. Since then it's declined to a POB, a website, no magazine, and no meetings (none are mentioned on their website currently). And, in 1996, even with only 1,100 members, NAMBLA was the largest organization in the umbrella group ICPE. The most recent ICPE report shows that in late 2007 they had only 65 members.

Is there any organization that can be named that has more substantial numbers? Danish Pedophile Association - disbanded in 2004; Vereniging MARTIJN - from the article: "It was at one point, and probably still is, the second largest pedophile activist organization in the world, after NAMBLA.... In August 2000, it had 270 members (a decline from past counts)."

It gets smaller and smaller the more we look. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this too, for instance in considering the article René Guyon Society. This entity self-reported a membership of 5,000 to the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, which Gale then printed. In reality it appears it actually consisted of one person. Then we have the Dutch political party Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit which is apparently also notorious enough to have an article but which consists of three people. I would have to agree that the case for "tiny" has been pretty much proven. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. How can you prove a case for something without a set number or definition? I will say again, "tiny" refers to anything falling below an extremely strict limit. "Small" not only includes the former, but controls for anything in excess. For example, how would you define the membership of the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform? Although that organisation is not specifically pro-pedophile, it supports more PPA initiatives than many individual PPAs and their groups. If we really want to waste time on calling the movement "tiny", we will need:

1. A numerical definition of tiny.

2. A definition of belonging to that movement.

Then we can research the movement's size effectively. I could only consider using the term for a small artistic movement for example. Such a movement would contain no more than ten or so self-identifying members, would produce a much smaller article than this, and the evidence for "tiny" numbers elsewhere would therefore be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Lambton ^T/_C 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Dutch society for Sexual Reform, since it is not a pro-pedophile organization, should not be counted or misrepresented as a pro-pedophile activist organization. Whether there is a "movement" or not is highly controversial. The New York Times called it a "perceived movement." That there has been some support for some goals of pro-pedophile activists--from the Dutch government, and from a handful of people in academia, should be noted in the article, but doesn't make peripheral "supporters" pro-pedophile activists. For example, when gay rights groups did include NAMBLA, that did not make the gay rights groups into "pro-pedophile organizations," just as allowing pro-life feminists to march in international women's day doesn't make international women's day a pro-life activist holiday.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The art movement Lambton speaks of falls under miniscule, which I am not suggesting for the PPA movement which after all does, all things considered, have probably close to or more than a score of activists.

I guess it would be better if we could show, not tell, e.g. "...a movement consisting of fifteen or twenty activists worldwide..." or some such. We don't, however, have those figures. It would be great if INTERPOL or someone had hard numbers but I guess they don't.

At any rate, the words "small", "tiny", "miniscule", and so forth are impossible to define exactly. They mainly exist as a comparison to something else. What are we comparing to here? Well, to other political entities, I guess. In constrast to (let us say) the anti-landmine movement or the ant-female-genital-mutilation movement and so forth, where does PPA stand? Well if Philadelphia is a "large" city and a town of say 2800 is a "small" town, what is village of say 80 inhabitants? It is a "tiny" village. Similarly the PPA movement stands in contrast to other global movements in the relationship of "tiny". I mean, if the PPA movement is "small", how the heck small do you have to be to qualify as "tiny"? 3 members worldwide? 2? We are not talking about the fringe here. We are talking about the utter fringe of the fringe. We are talking about a "movement" so small that it can barely be said to exist at all. How much smaller can you get, really? Unless you are making the case that no movement can be "tiny", this one is.Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alice Day

The source provided for the claim that this holiday exists is a website/blog, not RS:[18] ref#68. Also, does someone know how to remove/correct this disambig?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Day There shouldn't be a redirect without an RS, and the name of this article is no longer "childlove."-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

it appears that has already been removed --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted here, saw your thrread, Peetra, looked at the article and edited to remove the unsourced otheruses template; one for the watchlist though16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-pedophile activism

"Opposition to pro-pedophile activism is known as anti-pedophile activism."--I think this statement is somewhat misleading. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "In addition to mass public opposition to pro-pedophile activism, there are also anti-pedophile activists."  ? The statement implies that the only opposition to pro-pedophiles activism is anti-pedophile activism, but anti-pedophile activists are not the only ones who oppose pro-pedophile activism, and opposing pro-pedophile activism does not make one a pro-pedophile activist. We would not say that the NIH and the APA and the FBI are "anti-pedophile activists"; they are the mainstream of law, medicine, and science.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Petra, i'd support editing to change this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this also. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only public, but legal, medical and psychological (see departments you just mentioned).Legitimus (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Lambton ^T/_C 13:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Problemmatic statement and refs

"Some but not all pro-pedophile activists self-identify as pedophiles [7][8], or as adults attracted to children in a sexual or romantic way [9]."

Ref #9 doesn't mention anything about activism. Refs #7 and #8 are to the same blog, and the two people don't state that they belong to any organization, or are activists, merely that they have opinions about "laws" and "the movement." Opinions do not an activist make. A better source or sources needs to be found in order to keep the statement above in the article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that those sources are not reliable. As you say, the first two are a blog, and regarding the third one, that goes to a website of self-published essays; and, it's not an activist website, it's a support-group site of resources and information for men who are seeking information about their feelings of attraction to boys.

I added that sentence as part of a rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the intro during a time when there was a lot of conflict about the way the intro was previously worded (I did not change the third paragraph or the last sentence of the first paragraph; and, some of the text has been changed since then). My intent was to provide accuracy while also helping to resolve some of the issues that had been repeatedly argued at the time. So I tried to write for both sides of the issue and did my best to avoid adding bias that might cause new problems.

However, I did not have a source for the statement, so when I included it, so I tagged it with {{fact}}. Later, others added the sources that are now there, and those sources do not satisfy WP:RS. I would concur with either leaving the sentence, and restoring the {{fact}} tag, to allow time for finding the sources, or, I would also consense with the removal of the sentence in full. Either way, we should not leave those unreliable sources in the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--the statement would be fine with RS refs. If the statment was there for a long time with fact tags already, someone should provide RS source(s) though.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was added around a month ago. Maybe that's long enough, since only unreliable sources were found since then. I'd suggest deleting the sentence soon and if a reliable source is found the text can be restored later. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref 9 is a scientific advocacy site that presents a certain (Anti CSA) perspective. It is not a reliable source for the text concerned.

7 & 8 are wordpress, not blogs. Wordpress is a kind of blogging software which allows for collaborative publishing of static pages, as appears to be going on with this site. It appears that this is the website of an organisation, which has a "mission statement". I would say that they are RS. Lambton ^T/_C 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The userpages are published on a blog. It says, "A Blog About Paedophilia - Facts, Studies, Editorials, Information and Law." Surely a better source can be found than userpages on a blog. It's not really different than selectively linking to Friendster profiles (Also, the use of the two userpages is a synthetic argument, and two examples of anecdotal evidence doesn't support any generalizations.). I think that this statement probably can be referenced appropriately, but these blog userpages are not RS (and don't adequately support the statement).-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very bad match between source and claim

"Present-day pro-pedophile activism occurs mostly through websites and internet discussion forums;[15]"

--the ref, #15, is to Eichwald's article in the NYT, which pretty much calls online pedophile support group activity "an echo chamber" of self-reinforcing delusions about a "perceived movement" that doesn't exist. Eichewald is not a reference which can support the claim above. He calls it a "community," not activism, and notes that " the existence of this community is significant and troubling, experts said, because it reinforces beliefs that, when acted upon, are criminal. Repeatedly in these conversations, pedophiles said the discussions had helped them accept their attractions and had even allowed them to have sex with a child without guilt. Indeed, law enforcement officials say that the refrain of justification from online conversations is frequently voiced by adults arrested for molestation, raising concern that such conversations may lower pedophiles' willingness to resist their temptation."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But how do we source the fact that most of this takes place on the internet. Maybe we don't need a source? Lambton ^T/_C 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the social networking sites are not activism. Perhaps info about social networking sites for pedophiles belongs in child sexual abuse. We have two reliable sources which make that connection--here is the second: "In addition to child pornography, the Internet facilitates child sexual abuse in the following ways: It allows networking among child abuse perpetrators. The Internet facilitates a subculture of pedophiles, who may share information and tactics and support each other’s belief systems." O’Connell, R. (2001). “Pedophiles Networking on the Internet.” In C. Arnaldo, ed., Child Abuse on the Internet: Ending the Silence. New York: Berghahn Books.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that if PPA is not using the internet, then it can't exist at all, because it doesn't exist in any other form. There used to be groups that had meetings and published magazines or newsletters, but those have all dried up, and only the internet sites are left, like the web site of NAMBLA and MARTIJN. They're tiny, and there are only a few of them, but they exist so it seems they should be mentioned. I am not suggesting that pedophile resource forums like boychat are PPAs - they're not. But the small number of people who still consider themselves activists are only operating online. I don't know how we would source this though. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps we need to distinguish between online activity which has been called both support group advocacy and pedophile networking (i.e, it is not "activism") and the web presence of pro-pedophile activist orgs which no longer really engage in activism. I looked at the NAMBLA website, and they do appear to have a letter writing project that could conceivably be construed as activism: http://www.nambla.org/prisoner.htm Or maybe we just need to clarify in the article what the NYT says: some pedophiles claim their online chatgroup activity is "activism," and a "movement," but no one else sees it that way. ? -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The last part of your comment is the best approach, since it's based on the source and it's on-topic: ... to clarify in the article what the NYT says: some pedophiles claim their online chatgroup activity is "activism," and a "movement," but no one else sees it that way. The other option of distinguishing between support groups and activism might be less useful because it strays from the topic of the article into general support groups for pedophiles; since that's not activism, it should be omitted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See bottom for restructuring proposal/where accurately quoting the NYT could fit.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

overwritten

The section on Fritz Bernard/Netherlands in the 50s is so weighed down with trivial backstory it's practically unreadable. For relevance, readability, and summary style, I would advise trimming everything from "Fritz founded the Enklave" to the sentence telling us what the Enklave was. That's all of this:

"They built upon pre-1940 member information of the surviving Dutch branch of German Magnus Hirschfeld's sexologist Wissenschaftlich-Humanitäres Komitee (WHK) (Scientific-Humanitarian Committee) provided by former WHK member Arent von Santhorst (see interview with Bernard led by ethnologist and political scientist Dr. Joachim S. Hohmann).[32] Bernard, through this Dutch WHK connection, built upon contacts he had established in 1940 for the same purpose with Dutch WHK president, donzel Dr. J. A. Schorer and sexologist Dr. Benno Premsela. Bernard apparently was aware that the German WHK along with its international organization Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, ("Institute for Sexuology"), had published articles on adult-minor sexual interactions prior to 1933.[31] However the German invasion of the Netherlands in 1940 prevented any further co-operation until the end of World War II.[31] One of the very first German occupation regulations in the Netherlands was public declaration of enforcement of German Penal Code sections 175 regarding same-sex activities and 176 regarding adult-child sex interactions in Verordnungsblatt Nr. 81 dating July 31st 1940.[33] WHK members von Santhorst and Bob Angelo (alias Niek Engelschman, later a pedophile activist) had destroyed all Dutch WHK documents to prevent Nazi investigations,[32] and member information was re-constructed after the war by von Santhorst in order to form the Enclave kring.[32]"

-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. If the information is notable enough (doubtful), there could be an article on the history of PPA, but in this article, that's way too much detail that's not relevant to the main topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there once was a separate "Pro-pedophile history" article, but it was merged into this piece. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads well to me. The subject is a foundational to the article. I see no problem at all with it. Lambton ^T/_C 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Petra on this one. We absolutely do not need a history article either, our coverage of this minute fringe group is already completely over the top14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Not only is the above section too much historical detail, but it's off-topic - not even about pro-pedophile activism, just some pre-WWII publications about adult-child sex and the general suppression of all deviant sexuality by the Nazi's. That's of no relevance to this article at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Bernard and the Enclave Kring being the movement's roots. What a misrepresentation. Lambton ^T/_C 12:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, "misrepresentation" implies a willful act of deception. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but next time, please try to be more precise so no one will get the wrong idea. You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation of the material for debate purposes, of course.

Regarding the content, I don't see anything in that paragraph about the PPA movement, I only see information about some people who publised articles about adult-child sex. If there is something about a pro-pedophile movement in the references listed, please show us the quotes to make that clear, because as it is now it's vague, confusing and does not seem to address the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The COC

The article states that "In 1980, the COC declared pedophilia to be a gay issue." Buried in the reference for this (#37) is the statement that the COC declared pedophilia to be a gay issue, with no date. I think this is extremely misleading, because as indicated below, the COC explains that the gay issue was discrimination regarding the age of consent, not that pedophilia in general is a gay issue--until 1972 in the Netherlands, the age of consent for heterosexuals was 16, but it was 21 for homosexuals. Once this disparity was corrected and the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike was 16, "the age of consent stopped being a matter of concern for the Dutch LGBT movement." It is not that the COC supported pedophilia, or "declared pedophilia to be a gay issue," but that they objected to a discriminatory law regarding the age of consent.

"Hekma's right to speak and write freely was supported by his university, but he was publicly disowned by COC and Pro Gay, both of which issued statements criticizing his views.

'Hekma is for lowering the age of consent, but that's not on our agenda,' van Dalen told this reporter. "And we resent the things he has said."

COC's statement criticizing Hekma argued: "Gay liberation focused on the discriminatory aspect of the age of consent, not on the principle of an age of consent as such. As soon as the age of consent for both straight and gay/lesbian sex was equalized [in 1972 in the Netherlands], the age of consent stopped being a matter of concern for the Dutch LGBT movement.'"

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17855971 -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that ref doesn't support the statement at all. this does though (quote:

Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end "oppression towards pedophilia." In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) "adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue... [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished... by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity."

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's not a good reference, that is Sandfort blowing smoke. Please reference an actual position paper or other document from COC itself. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends on your view of Sandfort... who is a very well renowned academic of both issues. 86.27.72.85 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hero is right; we need a statment from the COC itself. If they supported it, the reference shouldn't be hard to provide, right?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

this seems to support it, it's on the pro-pedo site martijn.org. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in dutch though. If you google for pedofilie coc 1987 you can easily find the particular petition. I don't doubt the truthfulness of it, though I do wonder if it is still supported by those parties. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We still need something from the COC, not something republished on a pro-pedophile site. Nothing even on this pro-pedo site says the COC "declared pedophilia to be a gay issue," Moreover, what is cited here is a statement affirming the age of consent at 16 years and a criminal ban.

(In 1987, no one proposed that the age of consent be lowered from 16 to 12, it was proposed that there be exceptions which were exempt from criminal prosecution. Among the reasons cited for exemptions in some cases were 1) trauma to children resulting from being involved criminal prosecutions 2) situations in which a 15 year old and a 19 year old were dating and the parents of the 15 year old did not object. It is also my understanding that at some point in Dutch history the exemption for some 12-16 year olds was passed, and that it was later overturned about a decade or so later. Finding refs for this/the dates would be helpful to the article. The way the Dutch petition of 1979 is currently presented in the article is completely inaccurate, for example--the petition was not presented to "demand" the rights of pedophiles to have sex with children, it was a bid to lower the age of consent from 16 to 12 if people under 16 but 12 and over consented (and it did not pass)--the later version which did pass contained the parents and child must approve and can bring criminal prosecution if they don't clause, with a lot of other caveats too, such as no teacher-student power imbalance situations, or giving of exensive gifts. There were many counterproposals endorsed by many people which recommended limitations on the exceptions--presenting any of these counterproposals as activism to lower the age of consent would be inaccurate, because they were responses to proposals for exceptions--designed to uphold the age of consent at 16 and limit proposed exceptions.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, Martijn itself says it is in disagreement with the COC regarding the 1987 petition, so the COC's position can hardly be said to be pro-pedophile: http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=206006

Here is more, also from Martijn, regarding the confusing state of affairs in Dutch history 1987-2002, about which there were many proposals and counterproposals, regarding exceptions to the age of consent for 12-16 year olds:

"In the Netherlands, no sexual preference is punishable by law. However, sexual contact with a child is not allowed. In 1990, parliament passed a law that criminalizes all sexual contacts with minors under sixteen. For this to be penalized, there used to be a requirement of complaint from ages 12 and up. This requirement was dropped in 2002, which leaves a strict age of consent of 16. MARTIJN advocates the replacement of the current law with a law against sexual violence, where the abuse of trust would be the main criterium."

http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=212000

-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"The persectives of pro-pedophile activists"

First of all, Harris Merkin is not a pro-pedophile activist. If he fits anywhere in this article, it would maybe be under "academic defenses of pedophilia." Second, the paper he published in a journal article in 1999 is very dramatically overemphasized out of proportion to its notability. Third, an incredibly long quote is not at all necessary in any way to summarize his argument. Fourth, I would suggest that the MASA quote rebutting it would be better placed as a general rebuttal of academic defenses of pedophilia, and that a better reference for rebuttal would be this New Yorker review of Merkin's specific article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/05/13/020513ta_talk_menand This paragraph in particular: "No reader of Mirkin's article will think that he is advocating sex with children (he has said that he is not himself a pedophile), but few readers will feel that he is committed to presenting a balanced analysis. The article falls short of advocacy, but it feels some distance from disinterestedness. For millennia, many human beings believed that the institution of chattel slavery was unexceptionable. That is hardly an argument for viewing a revival of the practice with equanimity. The campaign to abolish slavery, like the campaigns to grant women and homosexuals equality, was inspired less by a concern with what is "natural" than by the feeling that it is wrong for some people to have power over the intimate lives of other people. Surely the prohibition of pedophilia is part of the movement for civil and sexual freedom—in this case, the freedom of children from grownups who are in positions of authority over them." To summarize, Merkin's argument is that there is a comparison between pedophilia and social justice movements for women's rights and gay rights; critics think the opposite is true, that the more apt comparison is between pedophilia and slavery, and that the prohibition against pedophilia, not the advancement of pedophilia, is part of a larger movement for sexual and civil freedom.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying this line of argumentation as a defense of pedophilia makes sense. Though, I don't really see that being any different from pro-pedophile advocacy. As for block quotes, they are usually not the best way to go, so a strong summary of the argument would be preferred (as long as it is of good quality). ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Harris Mirkin should go in "other papers supporting some activist opinions," and the section titled "perspectives of pro-pedophile activists" should be retitled "strategies for promoting acceptance." If you look at it, the section is all strategies for promoting acceptance, except for Harris Mirkin, which doesn't really fit. An academic who publishes a single controversial paper is not a "pro-pedophile activist"--that could even be a BLP issue.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

• This first part should just go at the end of "Decline of the movement":

Recent developments After the International Lesbian and Gay Association was granted consultative member status within the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1994, the United States (including President Bill Clinton) publicly threatened to cancel its annual financial contributions of US$1 Million to the UN because ILGA had four pronouncedly pedophile activist member groups: NAMBLA, MARTIJN, US-based Project TRUTH, and German Verein für Sexuelle Gleichberechtigung (VSG, "Association for Sexual Equality"). As a result, the UN status of ILGA was suspended and ILGA expelled all four organizations. The German Bundesverband Homosexualität (BVH, "National Homosexuality Association") called for international protests on ILGA for expelling these groups, in spite of the fact that BVH never before had been observed as sympathizing with pedophile activism.[42][43][39]

• Instead of being called "recent developments," this section could be called "Internet Activity" or somesuch, and include everything in "Activities" as well, since it's primarily about the internet. Also, this where points raised by the NYT, and about pedophile networking and child abuse could go? Also more that is critical about Robin Sharpe and the Ganymede collective regarding the internet from ref #63:

In the coming years, pro-pedophile advocacy began to make use of the Internet: "For socially isolated pedophiles, the search for 'human companionship' was a salient concern, and Internet technology provided a virtual solution to the absence of physical convergence settings."[44] This use of the Internet as a space for advocacy and as a "convergence setting" began with the establishment in 1995 of BoyChat, a message board for "boylovers." In 1997, participants on BoyChat and other online resources formed Free Spirits, an umbrella organization with the mission of raising money and providing Internet hosting services: "Web sites such as Free Spirits can be viewed as 'convergence settings' in the sense that they provide structure and continuity in [the] face of any given individual, group or network instabilities."[45] Ipce (formerly "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation"[46]) is a leading activist site. The Montreal Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal by Free Spirits members in 1998 as a forum for pedophiles to meet in the real world.[47]

Activities

Some pro-pedophile activists attempt to create a culture of support to pedophiles who are afraid to discuss their attractions for fear of being criminalized and ostracized. To this end, some pro-pedophile organizations provide online counseling and suicide prevention services.[60] Organizations, like the Krumme 13, have been accused of encouraging pedophiles to act out their desires, thus break laws regarding child sexual abuse and the legal Age of Consent.[61] Other organizations strongly encourage others to take care in not breaking local laws.[54][62] Much online pedophile activism takes place on message boards, the most prominent ones being based in Montreal, Canada.[63] Some pedophile activists now have blogs.[64] Many of these blogs, especially those at blogger (owned by Google) have been removed for alleged Terms of Service violations.[citation needed] MARTIJN, as well as publishing a magazine called OK and providing support for pedophiles, is also involved in overt activism, distributing flyers and pamphlets at public gatherings and gay pride marches.[65] 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.[66] -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, how would "child abuse" fit into a section entitled "Internet Activity"? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The proposed restructuring is primarily to combine two sections-- "recent developments" and "activities" --into "Internet," since they are both primarily about the internet.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting information currently within "Recent developments" and "Activities" into a section entitled "Internet activity" is reasonable enough. What I'm inquiring into is the following comment by PetraSchelm up above: Instead of being called "recent developments," this section could be called "Internet Activity" or somesuch, and include everything in "Activities" as well, since it's primarily about the internet. Also, this where points raised by the NYT, and about pedophile networking and child abuse could go? I would like to know how "child abuse" would fit into a section of this sort. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's two separate matters, one noncontroversial (merging "activities" and "recent developments" into one better named section), and the second an NPOV rewrite of the internet section to include this reference: O’Connell, R. (2001). “Pedophiles Networking on the Internet.” In C. Arnaldo, ed., Child Abuse on the Internet: Ending the Silence. New York: Berghahn Books, and a better summary of the NYT article, etc. More critical information should be included in the article about internet activity whether there's a new section or not/that's definitely a separate issue that I assume will require much more discussion before consensus is reached. But, we have agreement that merging "activities" and "recent developments" into an "internet activity" section is noncontroversial and makes sense? (Also, moving the ILGA thing that starts "recent developments" into "Decline of the movement).-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of page protection

It seems that the page protection was a really good idea. The escalation of edit warring and heated discussion has abated; while productive discussion and work is continuing.

The page log indicates protection expires at 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)), in just a day or so. Previously, this page was protected for several months due to edit-warring. An extension of the protection might be beneficial so we can edit more slowly, with more consideration and consensus process, using the draft page to try out ideas and come to agreement before implementation by requesting protected edits.

I'm posting a a link to this note at the Pedophile topic mentorship page to request comments on this from the topic mentors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think continued page protection with consensus edit changes made by an admin after discussion here/requesting protected edits is an excellent idea.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with this proposal, especially as the article is now tagged as through its talk page BLP, and for good reasons. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update: thanks to the help of topic mentor Jmlk17, page protection has been extended. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While edit warring is never beneficial, do we have to presuppose that it must necessarily break out? If everyone just agrees to edit in a respectful and conscientious manner, and to discuss any controversial changes on the Talk Page before implementing them, there's really no need for further protection of the article. This is important to note, because many editors are discouraged to edit when an article is fully-protected, especially new users and anons. Fully protecting an article this way somehow seems very unwikipedian, to tell the truth. So, how about it, ladies and gentlemen - could we edit in peace, and have this page back open for hassle-free improvement? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• To avoid confusion and duplication of comments, let's centralize the discussion of page protection in one place. This talk page is already very busy with content editing, so I suggest we discuss the page protection issue at the topic mentorship page. That way, we can focus on content here, and focus on the Wikipedia process issue on the mentorship page. Homologeo's comment above is also on the topic mentorship page, so let's continue this discussion on that page.

Here's the link:

• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship#PPA page protection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Go-forward consensus process suggestion

I suggest using a new procedure for updating the article for a while. It's getting confusing with so many changes discussed on the talk page but not implemented in the article. So I've copied the full, unchanged article to this page:

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Re-draft consensus version

If anyone wants to make changes there, they can be done as usual, and we can use diffs as usual to discuss the changes.

When we have consensus on a particular section or organization scheme, we can use the {{editprotected}} template to request that the changed section be copied to the main article page.

This could be effective, but if it turns out not to be, the draft page can be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedure recommendation

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism/Re-draft consensus version

I've noticed that there are already some edits to the draft page. Here's a procedure we could try:

• Edit subpage as if it were the main page, following all of the usual policies and guidelines
• Discuss content edits on the talk page here as usual
• When ready with a particular edit or series of edits, place a note on this talk page to request comments/consensus
  • include a diff to the edit with a summary of the rationale, so we can discuss and re-edit the section if needed.
    • (For the benefit of new editors - If several edits have been made to a section that need be combined in one diff for discussion, that can be done by viewing the history of the subpage and using the compare button to create a summary diff.)
    • If there are intervening edits on other sections, diffs alone might not be able to summarize, so we might need to copy some text here, or use multiple diffs.
• Discussion of particular edits/diffs could be started in new sections here, or could be added to sections above if the relevant material has already been brought up previously; whichever is more convenient.
• When we have an agreement on this talk page about the particular edit, use the {{editprotected}} template to request the main page be updated to match the modified text.

It's an experiment... as a procedure this may help to move the article ahead with consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not be editing the new article. When/if a merge is suggested, I will judge it on its merits. Lambton ^T/_C 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

continued discussion of page protection

But that's exactly it, article protection was put into place because a single editor would not follow consensus. Outside of a now-banned editor, this user was the only one that was inserting controversial changes without seeking discussion. Thus, article improvement can easily go forward, and with consensus, as long as everyone agrees to discuss significant changes before making them. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, this kind of unhelpful comment is all too typical of you, and unquestionably part oft he problem, page protection is never done based ona single editor nor, in my experience, has a single editor ever edit warred. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Homologeo I don't know which editor you're referring to, but there were at least 3 SPA/sock accounts involved in that disruption, in addition to whatever edit warring may have been done by established editors.

Regarding your prior comment about the page protection, I've replied further at this link:

• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship#PPA page protection.

I hope you will agree to discuss the page protection in one place, because splitting the conversation between two threads is less effective and diverts attention on this page from the content issues that are currently under active discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And this would be the place to discuss it, since it's directly related to the editing of this article. Having the discussion on a seperate page is only slightly better than the previous use of the private Mediation Committee wiki to discuss issues among a select group of editors. The effect of either is to obscure the discussion and opacify the process. --SSBohio 17:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my intent. It's not at all like the private wiki, because it can be accessed with one simple click and requires no registration or permission to be involved; it's clearly visible to anyone who wants to participate. This article is under mentorship, and that's the mentorship page.

Making an issue over where we discuss this seems unnecessary, but obviously, if you or anyone else wants to discuss it here instead, they can do so. My suggestion was simply a suggestion. There is some discussion over there if you want to add to it, or you can write what you wish here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You start out by denying the likeness to the MedCommWiki situation. I disagree with your denial. It is similar in that it is a way to divide up the discussion about this article, rather than centralize it. Stating that it is "not at all like the private wiki" is not supported by the facts. Similarly, mentorship is voluntary, not mandatory, so the article's being under mentorship doesn't require that discussions about it be conducted elsewhere.

As to your allegation that I'm "making an issue," that is also unsupported by the facts. The talk page guidelines describe the article talk page as the forum for discussing the editing of the article. Article protection would, to my mind, be part and parcel of that. The divide and conquer approach with respect to articles in this topic area seems to interfere with collaboration, consensus-building, and productivity. I think that the encyclopedia would be better were it to stop. --SSBohio 19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment seems to indicate ideas about me that have nothing to do with what's going on inside my mind. I was not involved with the MedCommWiki in any way and to this day I have no idea what happened with that.

There is no divide-and-conquer approach. If you want to discuss the page protection here, go ahead and discuss it.

If you decide to do it here instead of on the topic mentorship page, then you might want to post a note there to let people know the discussion has moved. Or not, whichever you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My ideas about you are internal to me. My words are based on the position you've taken here, rather than inside your mind. Here, you said that I was "making an issue over where we discuss this," when the issue was no invention of mine, but a legitimate, existing concern. Here, you say that sequestering discussion about the protection of this page into a separate mentorship subpage is "not at all like the private wiki," denying even the possibility that they have any similarity whatsoever and denying the validity of my view out of hand. Here, you use loaded words and phrases, like "one simple click," "making an issue," "obviously," etc. Your words here are what I'm responding to, not your ideas. Having faith in you as a Wikipedia editor requires that I not worry about what your thoughts are on this subject, since your edits will be good ones. My responses here are, to the best of my ability, directly focused on what you've said. --SSBohio 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not contribute to the dozen ongoing discussions about article content which have been started since the page was protected?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the article cannot achieve meaningful progress toward neutrality as long as page protection and dispersion of the discussion are used as tools in service of one point of view. As I've long maintained, if articles on this topic are written neutrally, the reader will have no problem making out what's right & wrong. We don't have to tell people that Adolf Hitler was a really bad person; We let them draw the obvious conclusion from the evidence. A partisan article is not an encyclopedic treatment of any topic, no matter how good the intentions. --SSBohio 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But this article is not by any stretch of the imagination merely reflecting one point of view, and I for one think getting neutrality right is the only important thing. We equally don't have to tell people that Mother Theresa was good, they can work that out for themselves too. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Califia-Rice

Two of the three references supporting this statement are links about Pat Califia, now known as Patrick Califia-Rice:

"some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12]"

Califia-Rice has since repudiated his/her previous position:

"Over the years, probably his most controversial writings have concerned child sexuality. Califia-Rice has, in the past, been in favor of revoking age-of-consent laws and has supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organization rejected by most of the gay community for its stance on legalizing sex between men and boys.

Califia-Rice said he has shifted his position on both of those issues. ``I supported NAMBLA for a really long time, in part because they got so much harassment from the FBI and the cops, and I found that really scary. It's my feeling that we do have a First Amendment in this country, and even though their positions are very unpopular, simply discussing an issue should not be a criminal activity.

``I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed, and there are members of that organization who think it's OK for prepubescent children to have sexual relationships with adults, and I just cannot agree with that. I think it's developmentally inappropriate.'"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2000/10/27/WB78665.DTL&type=printable

I think maybe information about Califia-Rice's former and current opinions could be in the article somewhere, but considering the change in Califia-Rice's position it's not appropriate to use him to support the statement in the lead. Unless someone thinks the statement should be changed to "Some call for what they describe as children's rights..." Followed by "some have since completely repudiated that position."?-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting that Califa-Rice has reversed his prior position - good work digging that up. I concur that with this new info, we need to either remove the two Califa footnotes from that sentence, or, add text to indicate that he's retracted. While the retraction is interesting, I'm not sure if it's useful to this article. It may be best to simply remove the Califa footnotes there, along with related ones if they appear elsewhere. But if you'd rather keep the references and add the repudiation, I'm open to that idea too.

Regarding the text itself though, about PPA's calling for children's rights, that's an accurate statement so we should retain it. We may need to seek more references to support it, but it is one of the PPA talking points as part of their attempt to leverage other social movements in support of their cause. Even though it's based on false analogy, it is a method they've tried to use, so it's appropriate for us to report it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Does anyone have thoughts on which solution they think would be better for the article--1) removing Califia-Rice citations 2) adding text re Califia-Rice's retraction?-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Califia-Rice is also referenced in "recategorization of data," with this article: Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77 (HTML). The Culture of Radical Sex.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The revised position relates to his position on AoC and NAMBLA. He is not revoking either this:

"some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults".

OR this:

Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77.

Editors should not engage in mind-reading, however attractive it is for the prevailing opinion. Lambton ^T/_C 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me--could you clarify?-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"but considering the change in Califia-Rice's position it's not appropriate to use him to support the statement in the lead."

This does not revoke the observation in the lead, nor the fact that it was made by the author in question. It does not revoke the merit of any of his works, or the fact that they were written. Lambton ^T/_C 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would prefer to include the cites with information regarding Califia-Rice's retraction, in the lead?-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, none at all. No extra quotes are required because the quote in the header is not in any way a statement of opinion. Even if it were, a second quote would only be required if the retraction was on the same issue and the text could be read as suggesting that the cited text was the author's current position on the matter. Lambton ^T/_C 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I misinterpreted the quote on the talk page as being lifted from Califia's literature. But the point still stands. I would support removing the reference to Califia's support for removing AoC laws, unless it is described as a "some have argued for" as opposed to a "some call for". The bit regarding young people matches well with an author who appears to have recently drawn the line at prepubescence. Lambton ^T/_C 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty semantic. How is it not "the same issue"? Also, the statement in the lead is the weasel-worded "some say" --and then 2 of the 3 citations are to Califia-Rice. Clarifying Califia-Rice's current position on prepubescent children isn't just essential if he is to be used, it's a BLP issue. I don't mind if Califia-Rice is used with the retraction, but I do think it would be clumsy in the lead, and other sources should be found.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As clarified in my edit, I would have the weasel word changed, or one of the refs removed. The observation in the second Califia-related ref is not at all effectively retracted by his change in opinion. Lambton ^T/_C 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"and some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12"--this is the statement in the lead for which two refs to Califia are used. Are you saying one of the refs should go, and one should stay without retraction, or are you referring to the third Califia ref, located much further down in the article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

Based on WP:BLP, all of the references to Califa-Rice should be removed from this article. Not only has he fully retracted his earlier positions, but in the recent article the interviewer states that due to pending legal matters, there are some issues that Califa-Rice cannot discuss. We can't use the writings of a living person to support a position that person has retracted, thereby making it appear that they still support those positions. It would be way too much detail and off-topic for this article to explore Califa-Rice's statements and later retractions, with the level of precision required by the BLP policy. Even if we decided that we would do that work, with perfect sourcing to meet the BLP requirements, then, it would have to go into the section on the decline of the movement, showing how even one of the most famous prior supporters now repudiates the main goals of the activists.

The referenced sentences can be left unchanged for now, since the first is probably accurate though it will need more sources, and the second has several other supporting references, so the Califa footnote is not needed there.

Here are the references that should be removed, based on reference numbers in the version of the article at time stamp 03:46, 20 April 2008:

• from this sentence in the lead: " some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults. [6][11][12]"

11 -- ^ Anne-Marie Cusac. "Profile of a sex radical - lesbian, sadomasochist author Pat Califia", The Progressive, October 1996. "Califia's most controversial stance--her opposition to age-of-consent laws--has provoked heated debate. Her critics are dismayed by her belief that society should suspend rules that say minors do not have the capacity to consent to sex with an adult. ... Califia believes young people can be sexually active without being exploited, and she says we need to stop regarding young people as 'the property of their parents.'"

12 -- ^ Pat Califia. "'Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights". Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia 1991. “The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims.”

• from the last sentence in the section "Re-categorization of data":

98 -- Califia, Pat (1994). The Age of Consent: The Great Kiddy-Porn Panic of '77 (HTML). The Culture of Radical Sex.

I request conensus on this so we can initiate an editprotected request. If we don't have agreement on this, then we should bring it up at WP:BLP/N for clarification. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should get an edit protected removal of the Califia-Rice refs asap for BLP reasons.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anne-Marie Cusac seems redundant, editorialising around the direct cite. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be as polite as I can, Jack, thanks for wasting ten minutes of my day. There was nothing new in the policy doc that supported the removal of sources used to support positions of no relevance to those retracted by the individual we are citing.

Again, the one source dealing explicitly with the AoC (12) should be ditched, or the body text should put it into a historical context. Lambton ^T/_C 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for incivility. Again, there are two links to Califia-Rice in the lead, specifically referencing the words "children" and "consent." There is a third, further down in the article, also referencing children and consent: "Re-categorization of data": Some pedophile activists attempt to refute scientific research that finds sexual contact between adults and children as predominantly harmful by stating that there is a variety of different categories for adult-child sex interactions that are commonly not acknowledged by mainstream scientific research. They claim that studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown that some types of contact are harmless, if only the studies had carefully categorized the contacts into more narrow categories, such as "consensual" contact versus "non-consensual" contact.[33][98][99][100][101][102][103]"

Since Califia-Rice has retracted his views on children and consent, it is a BLP issue to have these references in the article without notice of retraction. I think even you agree that explanation regarding retraction would be tmi in the lead--isn't that what you say above? We have agreement on that? So that leaves the third reference, in "recatergorization of data."-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to User:Jovin Lambton 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC): "To be as polite as I can, Jack, thanks for wasting ten minutes of my day." - Lambton, I have no idea what you mean by that, so, I'll ignore it. I also don't understand why you object to removing footnotes referring to a statement by a living person who has retracted their statement. Califa-Rice has changed his position on the issue. That means that his prior statements no longer apply and cannot be used to support content in the article that Califa-Rice repudiates. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Califia retracted his position on NAMBLA and sex with prepubescent children (no AoC). Explain how this retracts anything but ref 12. Honestly, the best option would be to mention the retraction, as it appears that we can all support such a move. Lambton ^T/_C 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. Here is the direct quote from Califa-Rice:

"I don't agree with NAMBLA, because their position is that age-of- consent laws should be repealed''

That's about as clear and unambiguous as can be. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that make me incorrect? I stated that he retracted his opinion that there should be no AoC. This revised opinion relates to prepubescent children, according to him. Lambton ^T/_C 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that that's what you meant by "(no AoC)". Aside from that though, none of the statements by Califa-Rice can be used. I'm not interested in a one-to-one debate with you about it; we'll find out soon enough how this is seen by others. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All three places where Califia-Rice is used refer to children. The word child or children is used. The two refs in the lead should obviously be deleted; and so should the third. A small section about Califia-Rice could be somewhere else in the article, clarifying past and present positions.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of this info from the article via the editprotect mechanism. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SqueakBox and Petra that the Califa-Rice info should be removed. I don't think a section should be added about the changes in his views though, because it's not important to the article topic and anything written here about him would need extensive vetting under the BLP policy, while adding no value to the article since he's retracted his activism support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of this info from the article via the editprotect mechanism. Thanks, SSBohio 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ssbohio, on what basis do you oppose? Do you not find it a BLP issue that someone who has retracted and repudiated their prior position on the matter publicly is being quoted inaccurately in the article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

International Boy Love Day

I can't find a single RS that confirms this exists. While a pro-pedo blog might be a reliable source about what pedophiles think of "IBLD," whether or not it exists should have at least one RS? A single news cite saying that ten people somewhere celebrated it at least once?-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be by David Riegel, who is pretty well regarded by boylovers. I found a few articles on google, but see no problem in the self-apparent nature of these aditional celebration and protest sites:

http://www.daretospeak.net/ibld/

http://www.thecpac.com/protest/1.htm

http://www.radicalilecce.it/?q=node/576

Media refs:

"'BoyLove' Day raises concerns about pedophilia," St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri), by Carolyn Tuft, December 20, 1999; "International BoyLove Day," 550 KTRS-AM Paul Harris Talk Radio (St. Louis, Missouri) December 20, 1999 Lambton ^T/_C 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. I agree the St.Louis Post-Dispatch is defintely RS.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

P.I.E.

One of the founding members-->multiple criminal convictions. [19]-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another P.I.E. member: [20]. Tom Carroll is already in the article, so that's three--enough for a subsection under activists with criminal convictions, or inclusion in the PIE section in "Decline of ..."? (According to Frits Bernard, the group had 96 members at its height.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this reference in the bit about O'Carroll in the article--Sex abuse - Inquisition 21st century - Resisting the absolutism of our times--does not support the statement "Whilst he admits to the illegal activity itself, O'Carroll defends his actions on an ethical basis.[148]" The reference doesn't contain that quote, and it isn't RS--it's a long, poorly written sort of persecution fantasy editorial on a blog by someone else.

Here are two additonal references re O'Carroll : 1 [21] 2 [22] --the first is more informative than than the one currently in the article, and the second provides information about O'Carrol's previous arrest for taking full frontal nude shots of prepubescent children in Qatar and smuggling them into the UK. It should also be noted that he was a member of ICPE after PIE folded.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with the pro-pedophile movement itself? ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already a subsection:

• 8 Controversy and public reaction to the movement
• 8.1 Criticism of the movement
• 8.2 Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse
• 8.2.1 Child abuse cases in relation to members of NAMBLA
• 8.2.2 Criminal cases in relation to other pedophile activists

One P.I.E. member, O' Carroll, is located now in 8.2.2. Since there are three P.I.E. members with criminal convictions, P.I.E. could be 8.2.3, or additional PIE info could go in 8.2.2 with the other PIE member.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to tell the truth, I've thought for some time that the list of criminal cases included within the article is a bit iffy, in the sense that it doesn't quite belong there. Although there may be several cases that are directly related to PPA, most of these are not that relevant. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All the cases involve pro-pedophile activists; it's at the very bottom of the article, and it's some of the only critical information included.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While these individuals may have been members of certain PPA groups, what is the link to the movement at large? These individuals committed crimes, and thus were persecuted for it. Unless there is a direct link to the pro-pedophile movement, there is no reason to list these cases here. Otherwise, sex offenders would be listed in a variety of different articles, seeing as sex offenders come from a variety of paths in life and belong to great many different organizations. Thus, the several cases that include direct links to PPA groups should stay, while the other references should be removed, since they don't really belong in this article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

? All these cases "include direct links to PPA groups"--they are members of the groups/activists. They fit under "skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse."-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no one is denying that these were members of various PPA groups. However, what does membership have to do with the fact that they committed the listed sex crimes? To be more specific, while it may make sense to include Charles Jaynes case, seeing as a wrongful death suit was filed against NAMBLA, mentioning that Rev. Paul Shanley "allegedly participated in early movement workshops and advocacy" (italics added for emphasis) really doesn't add anything to the article. As stated above, if Wikipedia is to list what members of what groups committed sex crimes, there would be too much useless and red herring information in a bunch of different articles. The only cases that there may be a reason to keep in this section are the following: Charles Jaynes, Johnathan Tampico, and Ad van den Berg. The others are too minor, do not have a direct link to the movement at large, and/or do not really add anything significant to the article. For instance, Edward Brongersma is said to have had "sexual contacts with a male of around 17 years old" - it would be difficult to make a strong case for keeping this information in the article, considering that the age of consent has since been lowered to 12 in the Netherlands, and sexual attraction to or relations with a 17 year old does not fit under the definition of pedophilia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Ganymede Collective members and sexual assault against children

The Montreal Ganymede Collective, described in the article under "recent developments," includes two pedophiles arrested for sexual assault:

Ian Hodgson

"In 1990, Hodgson was convicted of gross indecency and sexual assault against boys as young as 11. Nevertheless, the 63-year-old has been an active member of the city's pedophile community, particularly as a founding member of the Ganymede Collective." (Quote is from ref that is already cited in the article: ^ Patriquin, Martin (May 28, 2007), "A paradise for pedophiles: Montreal, it seems, is the place to be if you're attracted to children")

John Melanson:

"In 2000, while he was a member of the Montreal Ganymede Collective, described as a group of 50 to 60 pedophiles based in this city, Melanson sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy from a western Montreal suburb." [23] -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

balancing re Boychat/internet

There is currently nothing critical re Boychat in the article--the "recent deveopments" section presents Boychat in a very pov-unbalanced way. I suggest inclusion of this study:

A 2004 analysis of Boychat communications found that cognitive distortion was present in 27% of posts, and concluded that participation in pro-pedophile internet forums presents a relapse risk for pedophiles in sex offender treatment. In addition, the authors stated that forum participiation may also indicate that a pedophile convicted of internet-only sex offenses has committed undetected sex offenses: "The social reinforcement of cognitive distortions may serve to compromise the therapeutic benefit of treatment. Participation in these message board exchanges might also serve to strengthen the distorted schemata of offenders, thereby making them more resistant to treatment. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that individuals who have been convicted of Internet-related, non-contact sexual offenses are likely to have committed undetected ‘hands on’ offenses as well. Clinicians who become aware of deviant Internet usage by a client should investigate the possibility that the individual has a history of hands-on offending." "Supportive distortions: an analysis of posts on a pedophile Internet message board" L. Alvin Malesky and Liam Ennis, Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling April 2004 Volume 24-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the passage is to be included, it would have to be summarized, as it it too long as is, and lengthy quotes are generally not the most effective way of relaying information. However, adding this text to the article may prove inappropriate altogether, because these are all conjectures, with no actual solid scientific or other results derived. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with psychological analysis of pedophiles, this is probably not the appropriate forum to discuss it. John Nevard (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The current section is neutral. In an already large article, unbalancing a section about one pedophile web forum is uncalled for, especially when it does not relate explicitly to the movement.

Anyway, is the Maletsky circular of unsupportedly claiming that so called pedophile arguments are distorted, counting them on a board where he knows they will be found, and producing a percentage rate, not a joke anyway? I have seen very little support for this rather distorted piece outside the domain of child savers (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_1.htm#refs) and SRA type absolutist ideologists. FarenhorstO (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)