Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

categories again

NAMBLA is shunned by the LGBT rights movement.[1] [2] Thus it is objectively correct that NAMBLA should not be included in the LGBT organizations category. I am removing it again. coelacan talk — 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the acceptance of the organisation by the LGBT rights movement dictate the categorisation of the article in Wikipedia? It is an organisation for gay men and boys, thus a gay organisation, thus an LGBT organisation, thus the article's categorisation. Natgoo 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is an organisation that advocates sex between men and underage boys. This is not homosexuality. It is paedophilia. Is underage sex about sexuality? One would surely take it more as about power and domination. Do men of NAMBLA go home to happy and healthy homosexual relationships or are they married? If the men of NAMBLA are all gay, then they are LGBT people and NAMBLA is an LGBT organisation 'by default' because of its membership, but then so is any organisation or group with a majority LGBT membership, regardless of the nature of that group. NAMBLA doesn't qualify at all. Enzedbrit 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the term "LGBT" is a self-defined term of this movement. And if the movement disowns them, then they don't belong in the category. The POV that they do belong is a minority view, and so inclusion of the category is a violation of NPOV's undue weight clause. coelacan talk — 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. They are an organization comprised of gay individuals, thus they are a LGBT organization. You are allowing your distaste for this group to color your thinking. I further find it a bit arrogant for you, Coelacan, to speak for the LGBT community as a whole. While many groups did disown themout of political expediency, not all have done so. They are an extreme minority within the LGBT community (my POV, anyway), but they are part of the LGBT community. To say otherwise is simply to wear blinders. Jeffpw 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think the category is broader than your interpreatation of it Coelacan. Category:LGBT organizations does not appear to me to be limited to Organisation endorsed by the LGBT movement. That would be something else entirely. This organisation markets itself to a gay audience and advocates man/boy love, not general adult/child love. As such it seems to me to an LGBT-related organization. Also saying a movement has disowned them is problematic given that it has no obvious collective representation. In my opinion the article should be in the category. The fact that other LGBT groups have disowned NAMBLA and disapprove of its agenda can, supported by reliable sources, be emphasised in the article to make the position clear. WjBscribe 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The historical importance and integration of this group into the greater LGBT movement, at least in its early days, is another reason to include them in that category. Haiduc 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If I'm a minority view in face of opposing consensus, that's fine, of course. I'd hope to keep the category out for a day while others weigh in, but I'm not going to fight the outcome if most others disagree. Jeff, I'm not presuming to speak for anyone as a whole. I simply provided evidential links of what I'm saying, and if it is true that "NAMBLA is LGBT" is a very small minority view, then it is true that including the category is undue weight, that's all. I'm aware that not every single LGBT organization has denounced them. But I don't think a tiny minority of support automatically means they belong in the category. coelacan talk — 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite my own personal distaste for the group I agree that NAMBLA falls under the scope of the LGBT project and should be tagged accordingly on the main page. Haiduc above makes excellent points. A nice compromise, as to not give undue weight and seeming approval, is the new LGBT footer tag. As someone else said I don't believe we should cherry-pick what falls in our scope. Were we to do that, trust me, there are several articles I would like removed as well. Just my two cents. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not regarding the project scope. I agree that the article falls within project scope. This discussion is the inclusion, on the article, of Category:LGBT organizations. Not the same issue. coelacan talk — 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Then let me say that I think the article should be included in Category:LGBT organizations. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's your opinion. I'm sure that with the opening of floodgates, decent gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people will happily outvoice advocates of NAMBLA as affiliated with our communityEnzedbrit 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Whom are you talking to? Yes, that is my opinion. That is what we are doing here? No? Trying to build a consensus as to the article's inclusion in Category:LGBT organizations. I hope the 'decent' remark was not a dig at me or anyone else here. I was referred here from the LGBT talk page and am not going to stand for personal insults.ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm talking to you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm only ratifying the obliviously obvious. The word 'decent' isn't aimed at anyone here, but am adding value to LGBT people with the term decent as one does when one speaks of groups, and would encourage them here so that they can come and make their voices heard, and I know that most will be against the inclusion of NAMBLA as a LGBT organisation. You haven't been personally insulted by me, so get over yourself. Enzedbrit 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Telling me to get over myself is rude and inappropriate. Starting a comment with 'That's your opinion.' on a talk page is redundant and tonally judgmental. Since you began that same missive addressing me, it can only be assumed the 'decent' crack was aimed at me as well, since you didn't clarify in the text. You have in fact insulted me twice now. Please refrain from further incivility. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't hide the fact that I regard anyone who'd endorse men/child sex as indecent, but I call upon 'decent LGBT' people not in the accusation that those who differ in opinion aren't decent, but as a term as is used generally, in all works of life and has been for generations, as a deference to the group to which I'm trying to appeal. Thus, it cannot only be assumed that the 'decent' "crack" was aimed at you, so yes, I hold to it that you should 'get over yourself'. You're not the only person in opposition to my opinion on here. I haven't insulted you at all, any more than you've done so to me.Enzedbrit 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Enzedbrit, you need to get hold of yourself and stop escalating this difference of opinion. To categorize people who agree with your position as "decent members' of the LGBT community automatically demonizes those who oppose you. Further, you seem to view this article as a litmus test of people's beliefs about pedophilia, and not just another wiki article that needs categorizing. If you can't discuss things without becoming exercised, perhaps you should stay away from it until you calm down. Jeffpw 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I refer you to my comment above. Also, in America it might be considered standard to tell others to 'calm down', but I regard that as patronising and insulting. I've not put myself in a position of authority to you so don't paternalise towards me. I've yet to see any argument that legitimises the inclusion of NAMBLA as an LGBT organisation, only supposition that, because it is supposedly composed of gay men, it must therefore share in the ranks of such. If an argument were to be presented that showed NAMBLA is more than the advancement of paedophilia - and I'm sorry if that offends you so much but that's all it is, plain and simply - then I'd be prepared to alter my opinion as I have on abortion and anti-smacking. And cease with the cyber-bullying, thank you very much Enzedbrit 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It certainly isn't patronising or bullying to tell an editor to calm down when their tone is becoming increasingly strident. You are attempting to insert your personal POV into this article regarding the classification of this group. Please see WP:NPOV if you are unfamiliar with the policy regarding neutrality. And I once again suggest that you recuse yourself from editing articles you have such an emotional stake in. It is often difficult to see that one has lost one's objectivity in such cases. Jeffpw 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe have expressed myself clearly both here and on your talkpage. The category is simply not what you think it is. No one here is offended by the statement (as far as I know) that NAMBLA is dedicated to the "advancement of paedophilia". But the mere fact that its agenda is objectionable to the vast majority of people does not mean it isn't a group with an agenda focused on a male/male sex issue. The group does not have to have your personal support to be included in the LGBT organization category. WjBscribe 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Aye, but if they don't have the approval of anyone but the tiniest minority, and LGBT organizations are saying "NAMBLA is not LGBT", as the links I provided do say, then that's reliable sourcing for the argument that inclusion of the category is undue weight. coelacan talk — 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the category. The only reason given here for non-inclusion is that "the majority of the LGBT community does not endorse this group". That is not however what the category means. The members of the organisation are predominantly (if not exclusively) gay men and they campaign only for a change in the law as regards male/male sex. WjBscribe 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this restoration. I don't care what that group calls itself: sex with kids is neither heterosexual or homosexual. It is rape. With all the letters. I can give you a list of physiological and psychological reasons why children are not sexually developed or capable of having a sexual relationship without being manipulated. Hell, I've treated raped kids _and_ the people who sexually abused them, who always say that the child 'enjoyed it and even thanked me for the experience'. It is not a 'male/male' relationship between consenting adults. That's why it shouldn't be included into a LGBT category. Unless we agree with Eedo Bee and change LGBT for LGBTP and start tagging all paedophile articles. Raystorm 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, Raystorm, they are a group of gay men trying to change the AOC laws. That makes them a LGBT group. I'm just trying to stay objective here. I see no point in debating the group itself, but I will defend the fact that they are a LGBT group. That's just common sense as fqar as I am concerned. Jeffpw 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but see? That's the point. They are not gay. Having sex with kids (or being attracted to them) does not make them gay, it makes them paedophiles. And it's not about merely changing the laws of consent Jeffpw -these kids later have an extremely problematic psychosexual development in a very high proportion. We tag this group, we tag other paedophilia-related articles. Raystorm 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you mention it, we probably should tag Vereniging MARTIJN and DanPedo as well. Thanks for reminding me, Raystorm. But I draw the line at only tagging groups that advocate same-sex pedophilism. No tagging straight pedo groups with LGBT banners and categories. That would be just plain wrong. Jeffpw 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw, I sincerely believe tagging this and other paedophilia-related groups exceeds the scope of the LGBT project. Sex with kids is neither gay nor straight. It's not about gender, it's about age -they would not be attracted to the same kids if they had the same age as them. Raystorm 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Raystorm, as politely as possible: you're letting your emotions get in the way of your objective reasoning. You're ascribing motives to them that they don't say themselves, and your being offended by what they stand for is blinding you to the fact that the sex they advocate is same sex, thus they are a defacto gay group. This is a no brainer. I can't believe it is even up for debate. Jeffpw 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw, as politely as possible, I do not appreciate you disregarding my arguments, which I strictly make from a professional point of view, by saying I'm getting emotional and that there should be no debate. I am not adscribing motives to this group, I describe paedophilic behaviour. I am not offended about what they stand for, I state that in sex involving kids age is the only thing that matters, not gender. This makes the same-sex issue minor, a side-issue. And the debate about their inclusion in a LGBT category exists, and trying to deny it serves no purpose in my opinion. We can have different opinions about any subject, but please don't tell me I'm getting unreasonable or 'letting my emotions get in the way of my objective reasoning' when we do not agree. I would not do you such disservice. Cheers Raystorm 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're arguing this out of good faith, but the only people who categorically lump NAMBLA in with gay groups in real life are anti-gay groups trying to slur by association.
Scientific studies of sexuality show that pedophillia and homosexuality are indeed two very different sexual attractions. Most pedophiles aren't gay. Very few gays are pedophiles, apparently less proportionally than in the general population. Most pedophilles cease to be attracted to under-age partners when those partners grow up. They simply are not the same.
This categorization is improper and needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
George, your logic is flawed. Virtually everybody debating this at the moment is self-identified LGBT. Most of us are members of the LGBT Project. While your input is appreciated, simply jumping in and reverting is not helpful. I have reverted your edit, and the suggest the category stay until consensus is achieved. Jeffpw 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm itching to revert war you, Jeff. I asked the same thing last night about letting the category stay out for the duration of the discussion, and WjB put it back. =/ coelacan talk — 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've added the {{disputeabout}} template so readers will know the inclusion in the category is disputed. I hope that helps. WjBscribe 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"they would not be attracted to the same kids if they had the same age as them." I agree and this does need to be given serious consideration. coelacan talk — 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pedophilia are distinct. NAMBLA is about pedophilia. LGBT is about homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestites. I don't see how the fact that NAMBLA espouses same-sex pedophilia instead of opposite sex pedophilia is particularly relevant to the debate as to why it should be included in the LGBT category. Since some editors appear to believe it's relevant, I will note that I'm heterosexual. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a gay group? If NAMBLA qualifies, does Exodus International?

  • As a point of order, can we define what an LGBT organization is? Is it a self-defined category? Does any group who claims the mantle of homosexuality behind its goals qualify? Would Exodus International qualify as an LGBT group, since its members are made up of people with homosexual leanings? If not, why not? --DavidShankBone 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you beat me to it. Jeff proposes that "They are an organization comprised of gay individuals, thus they are a LGBT organization", but this obviously applies to Exodus, as well as Love in Action and NARTH. Members of these groups still identify as gay, or at least some do, but they say they are no longer "practicing". There's nothing there to keep them out of Category:LGBT organizations, except that LGBT organizations disown them. coelacan talk — 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the outcome of this debate will make it pretty clear what the definition of Category:LGBT organizations is (and as such which groups belong in it). As it is, I suspect each side in this debate would characterise it quite differently. WjBscribe 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel Exodus International qualifies as a gay group?--DavidShankBone 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No. I don't think every homophobic group or group that seeks to 'cure' gay people can qualify. Those who organise it are expressly not gay (or 'no longer gay') and they seek to reduce the number of gay people. I don't see how NAMBLA's inclusion would require their inclusion. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So the composition of the group is irrelevant? Exodus is run by gay men fighting their feelings. In the 2/12 New York Times profile of Exodus, it is comprised of gay men who seek to change, or at the very least, mitigate, their feelings. But does that make them "not gay"? I hope you can agree, that these are, in fact, tortured gay individuals attempting misguided cures for feelings that are natural to them (or the struggle would not be so difficult). There is a second point you made: the goal of the group. Does it need to be a gay-supported goal? This logic needs to be worked out. --DavidShankBone 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
David, I just read that article, and unless I overlooked something it did not say that the organizers of Exodus or other ex-gay movements were ex-gay themselves. If they were, indeed, ex-gay, I suppose one might be able to make a case for inclusion in the LGBT category...but then if they were ex-gay, then they would be de facto heteros and not eligible. They would probably also oppose themselves being included--a worthy argument for or against inclusion here, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I return to what I said before. Once we have determined whether NAMBLA should be included we'll be in a better position to work out these issues. Should it be decided that NAMBLA does not belong in the category, this discussion becomes moot. WjBscribe 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your phrasing above begs a chicken/egg scenario: if we can't define what a gay group is, how can we define whether NAMBLA or Exodus falls into it? We aren't defining gay group via NAMBLA. I throw in Exodus here not as a bogeyman, but for context to the larger discussion. So I return to my orginal question: What is a gay group? We should be able to come up with notions of this that will answer both the NAMBLA and Exodus questions. I'm asking your opinion now. --DavidShankBone 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is part of the neutral point of view issue. If there is widespread agreement or unassailable logic that something belongs in a category then it should go there. On this point, it's widely disputed (every single LGBT person I know says they aren't) and the logic that it's a gay group rather than pedophillia group is disputed. The group itself is terrifically fringeist. It's perfectly reasonable to say in the article that it claims to be a gay or LGBT organization, and that others dispute that, but wrapping it up into a category with groups that find it reprehensible is much more sensitive. There's no grey area in a category.
    • We are not under any obligation to give equal treatment to every fringe group. NAMBLA is without a doubt all the way out at the tiny end of the fringe. Unbiased and neutral point of view treatment doesn't mean equal standing to mainstream LGBT organizations. If you want to create an unambiguously nonspecific alternative-sexuality category then that would apply. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading for the past three hours and would like to publicly declare my change of position. On appreciation of the fact that paedophilia is utterly distinct from sexual orientation (as Raystorm has pointed out above), I no longer agree with the LGBT category on NAMBLA. I also, on thinking about it, do not agree with the pederasty one either, as this is an LGBT subset and also not anything to do with pre-pubescent children. My criticism and AN/I about the behaviour on Enzedbrit still stand, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I an effort to open up this debate and try and reach some consensus, I have listed this matter at WP:RFC/A to solicit imput from the wider community. The debate is easily ascertainable from the above thread however, to summarise:

  1. On the one hand, it is argued that as NAMBLA has been disowned by most LGBT groups, they should not be classed as a "LGBT organization". It is argued that as paedophilia is distinct from homosexuality, the group is not an LGBT one and the prejudice by many people in linking the two should not be reinforced,
  2. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the "LGBT organisation category" is not a category for groups approved by the LGBT movement, merely listing groups with agendas/memberships that fall within one or several of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. As this organisation promotes only a change in the law between adult males and boys, its agenda and membership are predominantly gay-related. That is to say homosexual and paedophile.

Please comment. WjBscribe 01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that these issues seem to have been debated here before (see Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/Archive 3). After mediation, it was decided that Category:Gay organizations (which no longer exists) would be used. I'm not saying that this is what should happen now, but it might be worth reviewing the previous discussions. -- Avenue 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well pointed out. Unfortunately, judging from above Category:Gay organizations would no longer be an acceptable compromise (as NAMBLA is argued not to be a gay organization either). Interestingly the category was deleted because it had become empty ([3]). WjBscribe 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this request for comment is premature because the Wikipedia LGBT project has yet to work out what an LGBT group is, a definition. When it does so, it should be prepared to accept more red-headed step-children than just NAMBLA. --DavidShankBone 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I also think this debate should be suspended, with the result of the last discussion standing, and moved to the Project page to hammer out a more defined sense of what qualifies as an LGBT group. That discussion can then inform this one. --DavidShankBone 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)#
This RfC should certainly stand. The LGBT Wikiproject has no monopoly on deciding who belongs in what category or in defining the term "LGBT group". Those responding to the RfC can also contribute very validly to those discussions. Indeed I think input from outside the project is particularly helpful given the likely stalemate if a community concensus cannot be found. (As to your wider question as to what a "gay group" is, I am far too tired to answer now, but will try and answer tomorrow.) WjBscribe 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, I simply do not think the NAMBLA talk page is correct forum to do it. I think there is a more project-oriented issue, over a project-controlled category, about what belongs in that category; or, what is an LGBT organization? This relates to NAMBLA, but to other Project articles as well. It should be a project discussion, to flesh out a project category. Whatever is decided there may render this entire NAMBLA issue moot, as you say above. The community-at-large is welcome to contribute there, as well. --DavidShankBone 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:OWN, there is no such thing as a "project-controlled category". If anything a discussion at Category talk:LGBT organizations as well as here is needed. WjBscribe 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't really sound like we are disagreeing all that much. Why don't you take part in the discussion in the above space and hammer out how you would define an LGBT organization? I really don't know myself, and depending on the merits of the arguments, NAMBLA could fall under it. But I think of the broader implications. We can't define an LGBT organization one way for one group, and then say it doesn't apply to another. And, I'm plenty read on WP policy, but thanks for the link; I was speaking figuratively, not literally. --DavidShankBone 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote they should not be an LGBT organization because I have a nebulous idea that an LGBT organization is one composed of gay people, with gay-oriented goals. I don't believe the lowering of consent is a gay-oriented goal. This position can change, but I'd need to know more what consensus view is, and I haven't seen any attempts to define that, except to say that NAMBLA is or is not one. There is no criteria laid out to guide us. This is, typically, how other Projects work, to take "control" of these issues to find consensus. They aren't just bot-oriented. --DavidShankBone 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading for the past three hours and would like to publicly declare my change of position. On appreciation of the fact that paedophilia is utterly distinct from sexual orientation (as Raystorm has pointed out above), I no longer agree with the LGBT category on NAMBLA. I also, on thinking about it, do not agree with the pederasty one either, as this is an LGBT subset and also not anything to do with pre-pubescent children. My criticism and AN/I about the behaviour on Enzedbrit still stand, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in LGBT catgory. To be blunt, I wish I were surprised this is even a debate, but broad public misconceptions are hard to overcome. It's been broadly accepted in academic circles for some time that peer orientated homosexuality is distinct from same sex pedophilia.[1][2][3][4][5] On the contrary, it is widely considered that adult orientated heterosexuals are more likely to abuse children than adult orientated homosexuals.[6][7][8]

  1. ^ McConaghy, N "Pedophilia: A review of the evidence." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2)(1998):252-265.
  2. ^ Freund K, Heasman G, Racansky IG, Glancy G "Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality." Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 10.3(1984):193-200.
  3. ^ Freund, K and Kuban, M "Deficient erotic gender differentiation in pedophilia: A follow-up." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22.6(1993):619-628
  4. ^ Quinsey V "The Etiology of Anomalous Sexual Preferences in Men." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989(2003):105-117.
  5. ^ Schneider M "Educating the public about homosexuality." Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 6.1(1993):57-66.
  6. ^ Glasser, M, Kolvin, I, Campbell, D, Glasser, A, Leitch, I and Farrelly, S "Cycle of child sexual abuse: Links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator." British Journal of Psychiatry 179(2001):482-494.
  7. ^ Groth A, Birnbaum H "Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7.3(1978):175-181.
  8. ^ Jenny, C, Roesler, T and Poyer, K "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" Pediatrics, 94.1(1994):41-44.

I believe that the broad academic consensus should help clear up the matter.Vassyana 10:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Vassyana, and others. As I've written often before, this article should not be categorized as "LGBT". It concerns a movement advocating sex between adults and children, which isn't L, G, B or T. "P" isn't in that list. The article is important, NPOV, and mostly non-controversial. The controversy has come from the categorization more than anything else. Let's settle this dispute and remove the category. -Will Beback · · 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I wonder how many commenting here have actually read the article in question. To me, the article makes it clear that while individual members of NAMBLA have been shown to be pedophiles, the organization itself has never been convicted of anything, and has not gone beyond advocating for the abolition of AOC laws, and the decriminalizing of consensual man-boy relationships. The article goes on to quote prominent members of the LGBT community such as Pat Califia and Edmund White, who say NAMBLA was ostracized out of political expediency and not the moral repugnance of the gay community. The history section of the article also shows how NAMBLA played a part in the early days of the LGBT movement. The fact that NAMBLA was a member of the IGLA, and only disbarred when that group's UN status was threatened also argues for inclusion. My personal feeling is that this issue pushes people's buttons, and editors are therefore, while acting in good faith, also acting out of political correctness and emotion. Therefore, I support the inclusion of this group as LGBT organization. Jeffpw 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to add, since it has been implied elsewhere that I am a pedophile for supporting this article's inclusion in the LGBT category, that I have never edited this article, and had never even read it before the current brouhaha. I am a purely disinterested participant here. Jeffpw 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I have read the article, but I disagree with your conclusions. Past associations and stances do not make create a defensible position for inclusion into a category. I do not see the numerous Christian churches and denominations who supported slavery, opposed civil rights and/or opposed desegregation, or otherwise engaged in racist or apparently racist behavior in recent history attached to Category:History of racism in the United States or Category:White supremacist groups in the United States. Also, including NAMBLA in the cat would be against WP guidelines. ("Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.") Regardless of whether or not you feel it should be included in the category, you cannot argue against the fact that its inclusion is controversial.Vassyana 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On a seperate note, while NAMBLA may advocate for consensual man-boy relationships, the current academic consensus denies such a thing even exists. It is a broadly accepted fact in reputable journals that children cannot provide informed consent. While that is another debate unto itself, it further reinforces that NAMBLA is not a legitimate part of the current LGBT movement, at least as far as academic consensus is concerned.Vassyana 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, Vassyana. While I quite agree that NAMBLA is not a part if the current LGBT movement, it is certainly a part of the history. NAMBLA (and the ideas behind NAMBLA, namely removing AoC laws) was supported by many LGBT activists between the Stonewall riots and the early- to mid-1980s. To my mind, if those who support gay rights turn our backs on our history, we're less likely to achieve our goals.
That being said, I do agree that AoC laws are important, and thus vehemently disagree with NAMBLA. But this discussion is not about agreeing or disagreeing with NAMBLA, but with accurately understanding LGBT issues, both the issues of today and the history. Justin Eiler 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argment seems based on this notion that NAMBLA had attained wide-spread support of their non-gay-oriented goals. They in fact received nothing but widespread indifference, and many people during the tumultuous times of early gay liberation weren't even aware of the group. People weren't for them, and include them in the gay rights movement, and then turn against them simply because of larger public outcry. They were never an accepted, integrated part of the movement. The movement rejected them as it sort itself out. --DavidShankBone 13:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, David. No, I never indicated that NAMBLA had widespread support within the LGBT community, nor is my argument based on an assumption of the amount of support (or lack thereof). Like it or not, there is an association between NAMBLA and the LGBT community--a history that can be denied, but is still extant. Justin Eiler 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing in the least they were part of the historical LGBT movement, and this is well-covered in the article. However, they fail for inclusion into the category on three counts,as I detail above. One, current academic consensus draws a sharp distinction between pedophiles/pederasts and LGBT. Two, precedent with other articles and categories shows current status is used, not historical ties. Three, the guideline for categories excludes articles which are controversial for inclusion. I think it is very clear that it should not be added to the category when we have a trifecta of academic sources, WP precedent and WP guidelines opposing such a categorization. It doesn't mean history needs to be whitewashed. It just means it shouldn't be added to the category. Of course, this is my perception of it and you're welcome to take it with some grains of salt. ;o) Vassyana 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Taking your objections in order:

One, current academic consensus draws a sharp distinction between pedophiles/pederasts and LGBT.

Agreed, but irrelevant. We are not discussing if pedophilia/pederasty is actually associated with LGBT--we are discussing whether or not NAMBLA falls under the scope of "cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." Cite NAMBLA does fall within that scope.

Two, precedent with other articles and categories shows current status is used, not historical ties.

Considering the inclusion of Gymnasium (Ancient Greece), Emily Dickinson, and other articles of historic interest but no current status, I have to confess that I do not understand the distinction that you're making.

Three, the guideline for categories excludes articles which are controversial for inclusion.

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to find any "guidelines for categories." Do you have a link available?

Vassyana, I'm not trying to cause disruption, or argue just for the sake of arguing. I'm definitely not saying that NAMBLA is a "gay organization." What I am trying to do is to accurately work towards improving the LGBT project specifically, and the encyclopedia as a whole. Justin Eiler 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm assuming good faith. :o) You're being polite and reasonable. I have no reason to believe you're being disruptive or rude. On one, that is a project guideline, which is quite differant from category criteria. On two, my specific example was that none of the churches and denominations which historically endorsed slavery, racism, segregation, took similar positions or had a strong reputation for discrimination are included in the relevent racism categories. However, there are many more examples. Please browse around current organizations. On three, you may find the revelent guideline here. It states: ""Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Hope that clears up where I am coming from. Thank you for discussing this. It is appreciated. Vassyana 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(shakes head) That would be why I couldn't find the guideline--I was looking at the LGBT project guidelines. Your argument is persuasive, and I yield my previous objections. :D
I agree that (for example) articles about churches and denominations who once supported slavery do not normally have slavery categories on them--that history is mentioned, but not as a category. By the same token, the former support NAMBLA had within the LGBT community is also discussed in the article--and the discussion is done in an academic and NPOV manner. This strikes me as a workable compromise--what says the community? Justin Eiler 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make clear I am perfectly fine with the history of NAMBLA in relation to the LBGT community in the article. I was only objecting to the category inclusion. Thanks again for discussing this. Be well!Vassyana 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with community consensus, whatever it may be. I would ask, though, that if it is removed from the category, it is moved to a list, as per category suggestion. Jeffpw 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am currently searching through the lists to see what would be appropriate. Vassyana 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT-related organizations Jeffpw 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 ;o) I must have been adding it to the page (under see also) when you posted. Vassyana 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose One can easily make the arguement that it belongs- man/boy love is a homosexual act, and LGBT groups often do have a social and legal agenda- the legitimization of their lifestyle and in the case of marriage and other issues the legalization of their lifestyle. However, pedophillia in society is a serious thing and well, a very radical thing, and I think seperates them from LGBT groups. Given how taboo it is and hated pedophillia is, given that LGBT organizations have disavowed NAMBLA, I say we err on the side of caution and not list them there. Sethie 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While man/boy love is within the realm of same-sex attraction it isn't the same thing as consenual homosexual intercourse for these reasons: (1) It involves an adult male having sex with a minor male, which is a criminal act; (2) It, without a doubt, implies that a stronger male (adult) is forcing himself upon a weaker male (child), thus causing the weaker male psychological harm that will continue to impact him for the rest of his life. In short an innocent child's life is being destroyed. To equate man-boy love to the love between adult same-sex couples is grossly inaccurate. --Avazina 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As I and others have stated elsewhere, the current definitions of "same-sex" attraction and sexuality are distinct from the definitions of (same or opposite sex) pedophillic attraction and sexuality. The determining factor there is the pedophillic age-related attraction not the genders of the subjects. One can construct a parent "alternative sexuality" category inclusive of every non-mainstream sexuality - but LGBT's specific definitions and usage (including the various "queer" and BDSM extensions) don't automatically extend out to "all nonstandard alternative sexuality", which includes things like bestiality and necrophillia and so forth. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the oppositions above. Also, LGBT organizations should not be conflated with NAMBLA because the stated goals, ideals, and purposes of all the LGBT organizations (that I am aware of) and NAMBLA are in direct conflict. Vampyrecat 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this matter been settled according to RFC rules? It would appear that more people OPPOSE NAMBLA's inclusion within the sphere of LGBT than favor it. May this matter now be closed and NAMBLA's removal from LGBT proceed with all deliberate speed? --Avazina 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, the matter has been settled, and NAMBLA has been removed from the category "LGBT Organizations". It has been transferred to the list "List of LGBT-related organizations" in accordance with WP guidelines for categories and lists. That is all that needed to happen. If you think soemthing else should occur, you would need to discuss that as a separate issue, since I think virutally all editors are content with the compromise which has been reached... Jeffpw 09:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)"

Opposition comes from its inclusion within the LGBT's sphere, which, by your reply to me, you clearly state that NAMBLA is still apart of LGBT and will continue to be tagged as such, which doesn't seem to reflect the oppositions as expressed above. So this whole discuss has been pointless and we've done nothing but gone in circles. (Note: the quoted text above comes from a message to me.) --Avazina 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed dispute tag and category

"Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." (From: WP:CAT) Clearly, as evidenced by this talk page and the tag, it is a very controversial inclusion into the category. Therefore, per the guideline, I have removed the tag and the category from the article. (See above comments and discussion for further information regarding my take on the matter.) Vassyana 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that your interpretation of the guidelines translates into obliterating historical information. Many things are controversial and still documented properly in the Wikipedia. There is sufficient overlap here for reasonable people to disagree, and we should not deprive our readers of such links just because present view have diverged from past ones. Let people make up their own minds, don't make them up for them. Haiduc 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc, the decision to remove the category was discussed above and agreed upon by consensus. Using the tag indicates that NAMBLA is still an LGBT organization, which is not the case--thus the tag is not accurate. If you would like to create a "former LGBT organization" category, you are more than welcome to, but please discuss such changes on the talk page before unilaterally making them. Justin Eiler 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I was having second thought about it myself. However, since, as you imply yourself, they are no longer an LGBT organization, we should simply put them into LGBT history, since they are incontestably part of it. Haiduc 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A day later. Opposing opinions continue (as per the recent edit to the article), and a further complication has arisen. First, I assume that I am in the majority here if I posit that we are not questioning whether Nambla is associated in some way with the LGBT movement but only how to categorize it within that movement. I am not sure myself how to resolve that quandary. We could place it in the LGBT Organizations cat, but some have pointed out that it no longer such and therefore does not belong. That sounds very good until we look at the Mattachine Society article, it also no longer an LGBT organization, yet our various banners fly high over it. On the other hand we could categorize it with LGBT history, for obvious reasons. Or we could place it in both categories for good measure. Haiduc 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, on this article the issue is already settled, but if you want to raise it on Mattachine then I think you should. --DavidShankBone 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be tagged as LGBT history, as people on both sides of the catgory debated have agreed. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --DavidShankBone 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors going against consensus

Two editors, despite the recent consensus to remove the LGBT Category tag and place NAMBLA under the List, continue to put the category tag on, citing the Talk page as if consensus runs in their favor. I suggest that they stop editing in an unhelpful way and raise their issues here. --DavidShankBone 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

David, do you have multiple personality disorder? :) Just one centimeter above this last protestation of yours, you agreed with the listing of the article under LGBT history. I did exactly that and now you are harrumphing again. What gives?! Haiduc 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oi, you're right. My apologies. I'll put it back up. It was a case of sloppy editing on my part. Sorry. --DavidShankBone 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us. :) Justin Eiler 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (Who's going to go get another cup of coffee before he starts editing. :D )

The lgbt tag

How come the lgbt tag has a 'we dont endorse' thing in it?

The nazi party and hitler articles have wikiproject germany tags with no 'we dont endorse' in them.

The whole lgbt project going out of its way to distance itself from nambla makes it look like they have something to hide. I prefered the old tag, i never once thought that the lgbt community supported nambla without the new tag. Nambla is part of lgbt history like it or not its a fact and making a big fuss by creating a new tag to state the obvious looks a little suspect.

This is just my opinioun, being straight i'm looking in on this from the outside if you like and i certainly feel as if the regulare lgbt tag is a lot less suspicious we all know lgbt dont support nambla we dont need a tag to tell us that.

i welcome any opiniouns on this i may well be in the minority thinking this but its just the way i see the whole thing.

Thanks Crushanator 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Crushanator, several people, both in and out of the project, have expressed concern and anger that this article is tagged, and suggested that it appears as if we at the WikiprojectLGBT endorse NAMBLA because of the tag. I agree the explanation portion of the tag is unnecessary, but the consensus so far is that we need it or something like it. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject. Jeffpw 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem if a consensus has being held in favour of the new tag then leave it as it is. No problem.

RegardsCrushanator 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)