Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Category moving

Don't undo the category pedophilia redirect. Somebodys' bot is repeatedly doing that since no reputable news source uses the term childlove. putting one article in a category neologism is useless. Lotusduck 05:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that somebody needs to switch their bot off. James James 05:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The term childlove gets no hits on major news searches. If the press doesn't use it, then it's unlikely to be used as a category for any more wiki articles, and probably shouldn't be. What's the point of putting an article in an entirely speculative category? Lotusduck 06:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It does no harm, man. Removing it is simply imposing a POV. No problem with having both categories on articles, but Wikipedia is not supposed to sit as a judge on these people. Also, please don't repeat your POV rewrite that I reverted. Look, we say not all psychologists agree on the evidence, and yet you write "Psychologists" instead of "they" (which refers to the majority view, not all psychologists as a class). Also what the movement comes up against is the claims of the majority about evidence, not objective evidence as such. The way it is is quite NPOV, so why rewrite it to something less so?

Look, this article and others like it have attracted hysteria, I know, but let's not fall prey to it. It's not approving of a thing to write about it honestly and objectively. It's important to Wikipedia as a project that we write about what we apply the same standards to what we disapprove of that we do to what we think is okay. James James 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith, this is a difficult article to re-write. The way it is written says most psychologists run up against childlovers not the other way around, which would be more accurate. Instead of reverting my edits, you can change them or add to them if you don't think they're NPOV, because I just think the article doesn't read good enough. It is more to the point to say that the movement comes up against most psychologists and common law. Lotusduck 06:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it's imposing point of view to make categories based on wikipedia standards for defining things with sourc-able terms. Lotusduck 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith, but I am assuming that you have a point of view, as do we all. That's not to say that you are editing in anything but the most correct manner. Perhaps you might consider rewriting your edits to diminish my criticism, rather than insisting you're right and suggesting I fix them. I don't want to rewrite them because I think what we had before was perfectly okay. "Most psychologists" would be okay, but you wrote "psychologists". Even better would be for you to source the view you're writing about.
As for the category thing, I'm not complaining about making a category but rather removing one! James James 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, paroxysim, what's with adding "hence"? Does it change the meaning somehow? I think in general if you can do without a word and have the same meaning you should.Lotusduck 06:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does change the meaning. // paroxysm (n) 06:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so how does it change the meaning? Could we say "therefore" instead of hence? I don't follow. Lotusduck 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I took out the bit about scientific evidence, because I don't believe there's any scientific evidence that children cannot consent. If you can source some, or source psychologists saying that they depend on scientific evidence to make that conclusion, please do so, but you can't just say so without rebuttal. Also, you must mention Rind et al. It's a central battleground in this context. Rind challenged the received idea that CSA is always extremely harmful, and has not been answered scientifically (the political answers to Rind are not in themselves "scientific", even if they were strongly negative). If you are claiming there is a great deal of scientific evidence of harm from CSA of all types, you must at least provide some. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I'm not seeing it. James James 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Dallam. You can't use her as an example of a psychologist, on account of her not being one. Whoever put that in was really sloppy, because she is a nurse who researches for a pressure group that has as one of its stated objectives discrediting Rind. Read Rind's view on his detractors. I think the note he makes about a "moral panic" is very apt. James James 09:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article originally said that scientific evidence stated such things. I didn't write it. Also, there isn't a reference to the original rind paper doubting the objectivity of these claims. When you put the journal and page numbers into the references, tehn you can put that statement back. For the moment, it's out. Lotusduck 18:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
in either case the rind article itself is a good example of controversy but stating the contents of the article as being a good argument against the american psychiatric association is really point of view. Just because one prominent study doesn't find evidence that CSA is harmful to children doesn't mean that we can say that there is lacking evidence, especially on a paragraph just about the controversy, not about the arguments. Lotusduck 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really getting some of the points you're making. 1/ The Rind paper is not a study, it's a meta-analysis of other studies; 2/ it's not "evidence against the APA", it was commissioned and published by the APA; 3/ the APA is the professional association of psychiatrists, not to my knowledge of psychologists; 4/ I linked the mention of Rind to our article on it in keeping with our policy. If you think it should be in the references, please add it; 5/ I've rewritten the Rind piece to reflect your concerns. James James 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about the scientific basis for age of consent laws, it is about the controversy over the movement. The rind articles' controversy should be included here, inferences from the rind article to claim a lack of evidence or objectivity for laws isn't really what this section is about. If you want to add a section about the significance of the article to the movement, you are free to. Lotusduck 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the section in question is simply antipaedophile advocacy, rather than a discussion of the "movement". I thought it was worth toning down. If the article survives AfD, I'll be willing to go through the whole thing and help NPOV it. Discussions of the merits of the movement's claims are clearly not NPOV and have been included, I think, solely to set a particular tone for the article (because of its contentiousness), whereas discussion of what people have said are its merits is. I'm all for including that. Rind is only really of any bearing in this article in that a/ advocates have used his work to support their position and b/ antipaedophiles have attacked his work and he has responded. That means, I believe, the article will be having a major overhaul. I'm not willing to do it until it has passed AfD though, because it really does need a lot of work. Please work with me in doing that, and don't see it as adversarial. We're not trying to prove anything, just to represent the debate fairly. James James 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Lotusduck. I'm very much a newbie here, and you're very much a regular. That said, you and I have different views about which article should be the primary place for discussion of the Rind controversy and scientific studies on pedophilia. I made some comments that are currently near the bottom of this page, if you are interested, under the heading "Impact... The Controversy.... Other.... sections". THanks for your time. I'm glad there are dedicated people like you working on these articles. Joey Q. McCartney 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some psychologists want to declassify pedophilia as a mental illness

We need names of these psychologists for this article. I searched the APA's articles for something like this, and I didn't find it. The Rind article doesn't call for the normalizing of pedophilia in any way. If any conclusion is obvious to be drawn from the Rind article, it is that Adults' often don't suffer the negative effects of CSA from their childhood, which doesn't specifically address the immediate effects of sex with an adult on the child, while the child still is a child. Lotusduck 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Green, Richard (2002). (on Ipce) // paroxysm (n) 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the journal "Archives of Sexual Behavior"? It's hard to tell since it's an article about two different articles. Lotusduck 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. // paroxysm (n) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have started reading the article, and so far it doesn't seem like Green is promoting declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness, but maybe redefining it. Certainly a paper promoting decriminalizing pedophilia as a behaviour would be more controvertial than the Rind paper. I rather think Green is redifining pedophillic thought as not neccessarily a disease, but saying that in the current context, people that have sex with children are in sound mind is saying something else entirely, less? Lotusduck 03:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

His paper was called "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?." It did cause some controversy, though not as much as Rind, and I do not see why you think it would be "more" controversial, as Rind's analysis was regarding actual CSA, while Green is simply discussing a common sexual attraction. // paroxysm (n) 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be more controvertial if it called for an outright change in the diagnosis of pedophilia as a mental disorder, reffereing to not just the attraction, but the behavoir. If the behaviour were called not a mental disorder, that would be more controvertial. Lotusduck 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Green was proposing that all paraphilias be removed from the DSM because he did not see them as mental disorders. // paroxysm (n) 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I see the ipce summary has confused me and I will have to get on with reading the whole article. Okay, here we go. Like I did with the rind articles' significance, I think maybe the topics of this paragraph need to be broken up and fleshed out. It moves directly from greens' paper to defining pedophilia as a sexual orientation, after reading the paper I'm pretty sure that's mixing too many issues, as I think he would best define it as a paraphilia like foot fetishism (the foot fetish article says it's a paraphilia anyway), then it moves to legal norms, which I'm now especially happy that my edits in combination with jamesjames have made that sentance strictly about legal norms, because those are a different issue than psychological diagnoses, but may be mixing the issue too much even in this paragraph. An opening paragraph probably should mention both legal norms and issues of psychological diagnoses is probably a good thing, but like an opening paragraph that talks about both plant respiration and photosynthesis, it has to be very carefully worded because lay-readers confuse the two. (plant respiration is rather like animal respiration- even undergraduate students in a botany class frequently mess that one up, as I think students of rhetoric probably often trip up matters of defining things and matters of policy of things.) Oh well, I'd better get started. Lotusduck 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing first paragraph

The first paragraph is confusing. I'm not sure what is being supported or not supported. --Gbleem 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not sure, perhaps it's finally NPOV. Why does one side have to be supported over the other? --DanielCD 16:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it's not worth doing major work on it until the AfD is over. James James 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Name-change rename

In the discussion about deleting someone changed the name. Childlove is seen as a POV issue. I understand the arguement for that but I don't think "Pedophilia advocacy" is a solution. Is there a group out there that wants to support the treatment of pedophilia as a mental illness? I would guess a psychiatrist would not want a patient with pedophilia going to the childlove movement for support. Would we call the local bar an alchoholics support group? I think we should differentiate between this political/social movement and any support group that would be viewed as helpful by the psychiatrists. --Gbleem 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A paedophilia advocate would be someone who advocates for its acceptance. A paedophilia support group would not be advocating for paedophilia but, in the terms you're discussing it, for the fair treatment of paedophiles. The article does not say that the "movement" is a support group, so far as I can see.James James 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That little arbitrary name change would be reverted if I didn't feel it might be proper. There should have been more discussion about making a name change to such a large article.
I rephrased the first sentence again, and replaced the social movement link. There are almost 13,000 Google hits for Childlove, so it deserves bold typing as a secondary term. There are many different angles to this, and dozens of different positions, but the movement is generally geared towards accepting adult-child sex (which I don't agree with at all). But there are also those who don't want that, but want pedophilia as an illness to get attention it deserves get and to have the stigma removed from people who have committed no crime (not likely to happen...).
I guess what I want to say is...I see some impulsive slash and burn going on, and I'd like to see people being a little more cautious (and considerate). An error that is often made is that someone makes a personal mission to de-POV an article, but merely ends up flipping it to the opposite POV.
Another note: If it is finally made NPOV, there's a great chance there will be some material in it that irritates. An NPOV article on a subject like this is not going to be an article that makes everyone happy. --DanielCD 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "pedophilia advocacy" is not the correct title for this page, as most of this is about the promotion of adult-child relationships rather than the acceptance of attraction to children. I note we have an article on white nationalism, and by that name -- simply because that is the name of the movement, and thus the name it should be described by. Childlove movement is an inclusive and accurate name. Pedophilia advocacy is in not denotive of the range of ideas advocated by the childlove movement. // paroxysm (n) 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The promotion of adult-child relationships doesn't seem to me to be particularly remote from the promotion of the acceptance of attraction to children. The former is not going to be accepted by anyone who doesn't accept the latter. Generally, Wikipedia calls groups and "movements" what they call themselves, but surely you can see that people will vote to delete this article just because you do that? The rules don't apply to the socially unacceptable. Look at Holocaust denial. That is clearly a POV title, because Holocaust deniers don't think they are denying anything (or say they don't), but no one cares about NPOV when it comes to despised and marginalised groups. That's a battle I don't think you can win, whatever the merits of it. Bear that in mind when you consider new names for the article.James James 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But the latter is much more likely to be accepted than the former, and not everyone who advocates pedophilia also supports adult-child sex.
I agree with you on the Holocaust denial issue, though, but not that it's a battle that can't be won. There are plenty of reasonable people on Wikipedia, and with enough effort, if you really are correct about something you should be able to sway them. // paroxysm (n) 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. Have a look around. Some POVs simply are not represented fairly, partly as a consequence of the way the rules are written. When one demands that articles have "reputable" sources, it's clear that the "disreputable" are not going to get much of a look-in. James James 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::Comparing it to Holocaust denier stuff isn't an accurate analogy. "The rules don't apply to the socially unacceptable." Who the hell wrote that in stone? There simply aren't that many HD's out there. This is about biology (or psychology), not intellectual drivel. It's likely this will be changed back to Childlove movement because in the end, no one is going to be able to dictate what is and isn't "love," whatever the hell people are meaning that to be nowdays. No matter what the group, it's not going to default to a POV against. --DanielCD 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, it's a rule that's not written at all. I'm not stating my personal view, simply telling you how it is. Neither am I suggesting that the article will take an anti POV. I am going to be working to try to ensure it does not. But neither can it cheerlead for "childlove". It has to recognise all views on the subject.
And perhaps you didn't take the point about Holocaust denial. It's not what it is that's the point, but that it's a minority view that is largely considered distasteful, whatever the rights and wrongs of that consideration. The title "Holocaust denial" is undoubtedly POV. It takes a stance. But that stance is so widely held, so much part of the orthodoxy, that those who support it don't even think it is a POV. You need to recognise that antipaedophilia is equally part of the mainstream. Very, very few "mainstream" commentators will talk about "childlove" without prefacing their comments with "of course it's repulsive" or similar. You can argue -- I would argue -- that a true commitment to NPOV would demand making a stand on principle against entrenched POVs, but it's a futile battle. There simply are not enough editors who would agree. As a consequence, while elsewhere you will see it argued that a thing should be called "x" because its inhabitants, or its adherents, or its supporters call it "x", even if only they do so, if you look at the AfD debate you will see editors demanding this page is deleted solely because it is called what supporters call it! The exact same thing. James James 01:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the above comment by James James is a reply to a comment that was struck through. No one said anything about "cheerleading" for Childlove. I was advocating not going too far to the other side. All I've done is advise caution. --DanielCD 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like "child sexual abuse advocacy" might be the more correct term, though i suppose that supporters would conisder that too POV. -Will Beback 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What? // paroxysm (n) 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the correct, neutral term for adults having sex with children? It ain't "childlove". In Wikipedia we call it Child sexual abuse. -Will Beback 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
"Childlove" is not "adults having sex with children." The term child sexual abuse inherently classifies what it denotes as abusive, which is POV. No one advocating sexual relationships between adults and children believes they're advocating abuse.
At any rate, I don't know what you're on about since titling this article "child sexual abuse advocacy" is problematic as it excludes the simple advocacy of pedophilia acceptance. // paroxysm (n) 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There's no law against pedophilia, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The interest in changing laws concerns having sex, which is not pedophilia, as has been pointed out repeatedly. We could call if "child sex advocacy." -Will Beback 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of much of the stuff that I've read in no way endorses the abuse of children. But then again they redefine abuse much of the time. Like the boylove material, their claim is that the "love" is what is important. Even if it isn't, that's what the claim is, so that's what the movement technically is. There is no reason imply that anyone is endorsing abuse in the title of the article. --DanielCD 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no law against pedophilia, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The interest in changing laws concerns having sex, which is not pedophilia, as has been pointed out repeatedly. We could call it "child sex advocacy." -Will Beback 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about changing laws, it's about social attitudes towards pedophilia as well. Nearly everyone hates pedophiles, for no immediantly apparent reason. It's almost like humans need something to mindlessly hate. It's stupid to assume every pedophile in existence is going to have the exact same set of values and the exact same beliefs.
Some pedophiles also want pedophilia to be considered a legal sexual orientation, so a sexual preference for children can not be used as grounds to dismiss someone from a job or refuse to hire them.
It's not "just about sex." "Child sex advocacy" is an inadequent title. // paroxysm (n) 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is about sex. Changing legal definitions is about changing laws. There is no law against having a sexual orientation towards children, there is only a law against acting on it. Those are the laws that advocates wish to change. Show me one advocate who does not want to have sex with children, or who doesn't wish that it were legal. -Will Beback 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm backing out; I can't even follow this. --DanielCD 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am striking my comments because I think I am misunderstanding some things. Sorry for the interruptions. --DanielCD 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

We either need a title inclusive enough to cover both pedophilia and adult-child sex, or the article needs to be cleaned up to cover either pedophilia or adult-child sex. Childlove movement, the original title, denotes exactly what the movement is. I prefer this name and I don't see how it point-of-view. Alternatively, we could use a long title like Advocacy of pedophilia and adult-child sex. On the other hand, if we just covered one specific topic without the other, it would probably be best to cover child sex advocacy, because I admit: there seems to be more organization and public advocates for this than pedophilia advocacy in general. Then again, it would be kind of strange to cover adult-child sex advocacy and not the other, since most adult-child sex advocacy is paired with pedophile acceptance activism. // paroxysm (n) 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Call it "Childlove movement" and it'll be deleted. Paedophilia means both things in the common language (see top definition. This is not a medical encyclopaedia, so it's perfectly okay to use English as it is generally used. I think you're bashing away at a straw man. Let's concentrate on the more important job of writing an NPOV article. I know you want it to be called "Childlove movement". I sympathise to some extent, but it won't fly. I also understand why there's felt to be a desire to separate "paedophilia" from "adult-child sex", but compare "homosexuality". Again, the word is used for both the orientation and the acts in the common language. James James 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just dandy for a word to have more than one meaning. However, it is wrong to use a word without making it obvious which meaning is being used when the definition is particular to the issue. --Gbleem 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Both meanings are being used. That was the point. James James 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Using "marijuana legalization" as a model: "adult and child sex legalization." --Gbleem 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that not all involved advocate "adult and child sex legalisation". Far from it. It would be a gross mischaracterisation of what they do actually advocate. Some advocate that; some advocate more acceptance of paedophilia qua orientation. So the current title is far more appropriate than your suggestion, no? James James 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rind stuff

The controversy over Rind et.al -- It seems like this section is out of place. This may be important, but I think it should be lower down. The sharp change between it and the intro kind of gets confusing. --DanielCD 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could use another big heading, like impacts of psych papers. Maybe. I leave it to someone else to decide, but good idea. `Lotusduck 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I think the intro should say something like "encompasses a wide variety of views, but generally works toward..." It's hard to find any two sites that refer to this that seem to have the same goals. I didn't add it in because I want to see if it's going to bruise somebody's baloney first. --DanielCD 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's way true, I hadn't even thought of that. I guess I've been stuck on the psych papers side of this thing. I say be bold, since the movement is obviously international, we are probably portraying it as more centrist and controlled than is even possible. Lotusduck 20:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that might be something to consider. It's a "loose organization" of ...what..."groups". I think the lack of centrality might be important. I'd also say that the Internet is probably the main reason most of this exists at all, but I need to read the article again.
If a proper source can be found, there could be a graph that shows a peak in the mid-70's (?), then declines until..what? mid-90's, then rises sharply.
Just wishful thinking; thinking too scientific. I like to find hard data, but some stuff is too wish-washy. --DanielCD 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is unreasonably large, it tells you so when you edit it. So lets start cutting stuff down, eh? Lotusduck 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It probably needs to be cut to the bone and given a core outline. Then stuff can be added back in in the proper place as needed (and as referenced). --DanielCD 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I could do a good job of cutting it. Just for example, here is what I might change the first two grafs to:
There are groups that promote one or more of the following:
  • social acceptance of adults' romantic or sexual attraction to children
  • social acceptance of adults' sexual activity with children
  • changes in institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as age-of-consent laws and mental illness classifications
It's concise and accurate, and it's not POV. What do you think? I'd love to edit some other sections. 151.204.169.69 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm the anon who worked on the intro yesterday. I didn't see your proposal here -- I wasn't intentionally ignoring it. (This talk page is pretty unwieldly) I like it. It also seems very important to include a paragraph summarizing the movement's progress and context. 148.87.1.171 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

sexual orientation

Okay, paroxysm, your link was dead, and I don't know who Berlin is or to what that referrs. Lotusduck 03:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Click the "you can still view the normal site" link, and then once you do that try the URL again. (http://www.behavioral.net/Past_Issues.htm?ID=3253) // paroxysm (n) 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I was talkning about the opening paragraph, not the berlin thing. But on that, is it really significant that there hasn't been a study comparing willing and unwilling children having sex with adults? I don't think that it can be assumed that a study is better than a meta analysis, and I thought Rinds' meta analysis did exactly that. Lotusduck 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I found this today: [1]. It seems to give a little different take on the issue from other things I've read. --DanielCD 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This site: [2] has a good essay about sexual orientation and pedophilia under the SEXUAL ORIENTATION heading. It also has some interesting links in this section: [3] = Silent War = 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, whenI tried it your link was dead. Silent, the notability of this website and most of the websites it links is questionable. Also, it seems to discuss sexual orientations and pedophilia, not pedophilia being a separate sexual orientation of its own, which is what the article used to talk about. Lotusduck 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the whole address. My link works, so I don't know what the problem could be. : http://www.pedfoundation.org/about/principles.html --DanielCD 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny, When I use Interned Explorer, that link comes up dead. But when I use Mozilla Firefox, it works fine. Hmmm. If I was more computer savvy, I might be able to say why. But I don't know. --DanielCD 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I use mozilla too, but I still can't load the link. Lotusduck 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual Inaccuracy Disappointment

This is the discussion thread for the tag disputing the neutrality and factual accuracy of the Pedophile activism article.

This is more of a comment than an edit. I decided to search for the most controversial topic possible on Wikipedia and found this one, and as expected, people are asking to delete it, not for its irrelevance, its inaccuracy or its lack of neutrality, but for what it is.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's duty is to inform people. It might not be nice, it might not be clean and tidy, it might go against your values, but denying the existence of such a thing as childlove movements for any of these reasons is abominable beyond any kind of deviant sexual activity you could imagine. The holocaust, the rape of Nanking, the armenian genocide, all these are recorded, and for what purpose? So people will know. So people will be informed. Same goes for this article. I myself was surprised to learn of the existence of such movements, and I'd like to know more. Why? Not because I'm a pervert, not because I'm crazy, because I want to KNOW.

An encyclopedia is not a moral judge, it has to record regardless of anything, as long as it is true. If Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously, these kinds of things must not happen. However, the neutrality of the article is indeed debatable. Someone needs to do some serious research and rewrite this. For now, I'll add a link to the Kinsey reports article, since they're mentionned in the article.

Once proper research is effected, the article should be rewritten. And if you still want to delete that article after it has been rewritten neutrally, I hope you choke. Censorship of the truth is completely unacceptable in our age. Dali 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and endorse your comment, except maybe the choking part. I'm a bit pushed fo time but I have the full intention of working hard to NPOV this article. It's going to be very difficult though to find sources that are anything like reputable. James James 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

About the deletion issue: I certainly wouldn't worry about that. There's simply no way this article will be deleted. I shouldn't even have to mention why. Besides, if it was, either I or someone else would just restore it. --DanielCD 14:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You should worry about it. Re-created articles can be speedied, and this one likely would be. James James 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You miss my point. That would be like deleting the article on Psychoanalysis. It's an issue that so obviously calls for an article that to say it doesn't is just ridiculous. You're not going to be able to just wipe it away with a swish, because it's a valid issue and will re-arise of it's own accord, without any help from me. And besides, quite frankly, at this point, I don't care what ya'll do with it. I've had enough of it for now. --DanielCD 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)