Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive1
• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive2
• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive3

POV

I removed the following statement: "However, no evidence has surfaced to prove that NAMBLA facilitates or encourages illegal activities." as POV. I think that a reasonable person could conclude that evidence does exist to prove NAMBLA does the above, as easily as someone could conclude that they don't. What constitutes evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If one wanted to state that the organization has never been successfully sued for faciliting or encouraging illegal activities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (Assuming it's true.) -- Sperril 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, such a statement already exists in the article under criminal allegations. "Although NAMBLA itself has never been prosecuted, there have been a number of prosecutions of alleged NAMBLA members for sexual offences involving children or adolescents." -- Sperril 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How funny. The only reason the statement (and the rest of the paragraph) is in the introduction is that some people insisted that the insinuations about criminal activity be included in the introduction as well. If you want to remove the statement on the grounds that it is repeated later, that's fine. But then let's be consistent and remove the unproven speculation that NAMBLA encourages illegal activity, as it is also repeated later on in the article. I love this mode of thinking: unproven conjecture about a group is not "POV" but a factual statement providing context to that conjecture is.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. As such, I've reinstated the statement until a sufficient reacon is provided for its removal. Corax 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, some of those who have been prosecuted were proven members, not just "alleged" members, IIRC. -Will Beback

This text offers evidence that NAMBLA encourages illegal activity:

• NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them." Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." "Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed." "In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

Pending more information, I'm going to alter the disclaimer. -Will Beback 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to assume good faith when you make arguments like this, Will. (Then again, why should I assume good faith, since you sometimes do not?) Larry Frisoli is an advocate for two people suing NAMBLA, and his unsubstantiated claims that NAMBLA does various illegal things, including distributing a "rape and escape manual," is not proof that NAMBLA does indeed do these various illegal things. Until somebody can come forward with verifiable evidence that NAMBLA -- the organization -- promotes, facilitates, or engages in the breaking of the law, I am going to have to insist on keeping the disclaimer. And I'm sorry, but some attorney repeating widely held rumours is not verifiable evidence, anymore than Benny Hinn claiming to have heard the voice of god is proof that god exists. Corax 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have someone making a counterclaim that Frisoli is wring then we can include that too. But don't say there is no evidence when someone is claiming there is evidence. -Will Beback 03:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether I have somebody making a counterclaim or not is immaterial. As an administrator, you of all people should understand that Wikipedia has certain standards governing the content of its articles. The biggest rule, of course, is that you have to provide evidence and sources for your claims. Thus you need to show proof that NAMBLA encourages or facilitates the violation of the law, or you must leave the sentence in question alone.

That the attorney representing the Curleys in a multi-million-dollar civil lawsuit against NAMBLA claims to have proof is not proof in and of itself, anymore than a crazy person claiming to have heard voices in his head is proof that the voices are real. If the guy's financial incentive were not enough to raise questions about his credibility on this matter, just do a little fact-checking on your own. He claims that in 2000 NAMBLA offered the so-called "Rape and Escape" manual for purchase at its website. Yet www.archive.org's cache of the nambla site shows no such listing anywhere on the site. Making his claims more questionable is the fact that, if NAMBLA ever were shown to materially encourage or facilitate the violation of the law, the feds would have it shut down in a heartbeat. That it continues to exist, complete with public mailbox and web site, is perhaps the strongest testament to the legitimacy of the sentence which you keep censoring for your own personal reasons.

Until you offer substantive prove and not merely accusations by interested parties who claim to have proof (but for some reason do no turn them over to the authorities), there is absolutely nothing incorrect in stating that no proof has surfaced to show that NAMBLA engages in illegal activities. As such, I will consider any further modification of that statement vandalism, and I will report it as such to an administrator who is capable of acting objectively. Corax 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between proof and evidence, and even asserting there is no proof is likely POV. Evidence could be defined as something which compels the mind to accept a claim as true or likely. Certainly, some people could take the convictions of NAMBLA members as 'evidence.' I think that's kind of stupid, but anything can be taken as 'evidence,' really. You, personally, do not see anything which evidences CSA facilitation. But others might see <whatever> as evidence. The sentence is POV. 24.224.153.40 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the logic that states that illegal behavior by members of a group is proof that said group encourages that illegal behavior, then it follows Republicans who beat their children is proof that the Republican party promotes child-beating. As for your hair-splitting between the meaning of proof and evidence, it really doesn't matter which word is used. The point is that nobody has provided any objectively verifable substantiation that NAMBLA as an organization encourages or facilitates illegal behavior in a way that could stand up to legal scrutiny. Corax 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Republican Party does not advocate child beating. NAMBLA does advocate man/boy "love", which happens to be illegal in some jurisdictions. "Legal scrutiny" is not the standard for Wikipedia sourcing. When NAMBLA board members have been arrested, when they've been accused of writing a manual on how to evade capture, it is no longer appropriate to assert that there is no evidence that they promote illegality. We are not in a position to make a positive assertion of a negative fact. Our ignorance of evidence is not proof of absence of evidence. -Will Beback 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not true. NAMBLA advocates changing the laws so as to decriminalize ONLY what it believes are consensual man/boy relationships, NOT all man/boy relationships. Thus they do not "advocate" man-boy love, which would entail the group suggesting that people enter into such relationships. Only somebody with an alterior agenda would be so sloppy in his representation of the facts.

If people have accused NAMBLA of publishing an illegal manual, but have no provided a means by which their claims can be objectively verified, the appropriate way to represent such a statement in a "neutral" encyclopedia would be to state, "Such and such has claimed that NAMBLA has published illegal manuals." Similarly, if NAMBLA members have been arrested for illegal activities, and no evidence has surfaced that the organization promoted, encouraged, or otherwise abetted those activities, the appropriate entry should read, "NAMBLA members have been arrested, but no evidence has surfaced to implicate the organization as having direct involvement those cases."

I know it's tough, but I'd like for you to at least give the appearance of trying to be neutral when it comes to this article. Corax 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. Just as NORML doesn't advocate smoking pot, only legalizing it. But they tout its health benefits and harmless as reasons, so in practice they do advocate its legal use, and in all likelihood its board members use it despite the laws. Likewise for NAMBLA. I agree without your suggested wording, except for the clause that says "but no evidence has surfaced to implicate the organization as having direct involvement those cases" unless you can provide a source for it. Otherwise we are really saying, "Wikipedia editors are not aware of any evidence". Editors need not be neutral, only their edits. -Will Beback 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. NORML advocate decriminalizing marijuana for adults only because of what it espouses to be marijuana's health benefits (or at least lack of harmfulness). It does not advocate that everybody should go out and start lighting up anytime they wish without restriction. Nor does it advocate that marijuana use ought to be legal under all circumstances (e.g., smoking pot while operating heavy machinery). You might infer these things from NORML's basis for advocating decriminalization, but NORML in no way supports violation of the law.

The same principle holds true for NAMBLA's advocacy. It advocates eliminating age-of-consent laws because it believes that they sometimes wrongly criminalize harmless relationships, while the harmful relationships it criminalizes would still be criminal as a result of rape and assault laws. This position is not the same as saying that adult men and minor males ought to go out and start having sex with each other. Nor is it the same as saying that man/boy relationships are always beneficial under all conceivable conditions. These are just positions that some people perceive from the underlying basis for what NAMBLA really advocates.

Wikipedia should not bother with broadcasting people's inferrals about what a group advocates; it should only report what the group advocates. Corax 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please either provide a source for your assertion that:

• In spite of these claims, no material evidence has surfaced that implicates NAMBLA in encouraging or facilitating illegal behavior.

Or include this additional clause that adheres to the same logic:

• There is also no evidence that NAMBLA does not facilitate illegal behavior. -Will Beback 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

-Will Beback 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the claim. Regards, Corax 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Only to replace it with another unsourced claim. I've removed that new claim. Let the facts speak for themselves. -Will Beback 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy your enthusiasm for citations. I will now go through Wikipedia and hold the other articles to a similarly high standard. Regards! Corax 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC

In reponse to the RFC, NAMBLA should in no way be viewed as a legitimate LGBT organization. LGBT is understood as referring to adult attraction to other adults, not children. To classify NAMBLA as a LGBT organization would be to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and would be I believe an intentional smear tactic against LGBT adults.

MSTCrow 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment assumes bad faith of all those who disagree. It's a legitimate point. They are for homosexual pedophilia, nothing in LGBT makes a presumption of "adult". It should be listed. -- Jbamb 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here is equating anything. I think all of us agree that:

1. "Homosexuals" and "Pedophiles" are non-equal sets of people.
2. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles.
3. Most pedophiles are not homosexual.

However, an overlapping subset ("homosexual pedophiles") clearly does exist and NAMBLA is a part of this subset. The article itself states that NAMBLA proclaims itself as such, and this has been discussed at length in former sections of this talk page. The fact that other LGBT organizations (and the majority of people, for that matter) find NAMBLA offensive is rather immaterial. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:02, Jan. 1, 2006

NAMBLA claims to be a LGBT organization. Does that make it true? Does this now mean that anything that NAMBLA says is true, including the moral permissibility of child/adult sexual relations? Simply because NAMBLA calls itself an LGBT group does not make it so, and there's no reason to think that it is one.

MSTCrow 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the organisation caters solely, exclusively and explicitly to males in gay relationships is a clear reason to include the article in this category. NAMBLA doesn't have to claim it is an LGBT organisation, as demonstrated by their name (note the MAN/ BOY LOVE part) and their mission statement (note the MEN and BOYS parts) it is one. NPOV, as I interpret its use in wikipedia, dictates that an article on an organisation focussing on homosexual relationships be included in the category. If you feel that the article shouldn't be included in the category despite the fact it describes an LGBT organisation, please let us know why. What do you think the consequences will be, for the encyclopaedia and for society, if we categorise the article this way? Natgoo 15:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Child molestation is not the same as "gay relationships". -Will Beback 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not when each party is of a different sex. When each is of the same sex, however, then yes, it is a type of gay relationship. I fail to see what child molestation has to do with the inclusion of this article in the category. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you call child molestation a heterosexual activity, since most of it is between males and females? -Will Beback 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? I think it's clear he's saying he thinks homosexual activities betweens two males are homosexual. Furthermore, it is entirely POV to characterize adult-child sex as child molestion, and your previous argument is thus invalid in the context of Wikipedia. // paroxysm (n) 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But what bearing does either the legality or moral appropriateness of their activities have on the article's categorisation within the encyclopaedia? If it should be a factor, tell us why. Natgoo 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't call men raping little girls "straight sex", nor would we call men raping little boys "gay sex". -22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. But if a gay adolescent boy and a gay man decide to have sex, that clearly is homosexual. NAMBLA are not particularly concerned with "little boys". Clayboy 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why are they against having any age of consent at all?Homey 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. Misrepresenting their position really isn't constructive to the debate at hand. Natgoo 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia. -Will Beback 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: whether or not age-disparate sexual relations should be consider abusive is pure POV, even if it is the opinion of most of the "civilised" world. Sex between a male and a male is homosexual. Age is not a factor of sexual orientation, I'm sorry.

Of course you have a POV, as does everyone else here, you're just not permitted to edit Wikipedia in accord to it, and thus any argument based on your disputable, personal opinion here is unsound. // paroxysm (n) 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That is different than the argument you're making elsewhere, where you assert that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. -Will Beback 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I like to argue and I can't stand to be agreed with, so don't regard if I flip-flop opinion sometimes. At any rate, was that supposed to somehow refute me? // paroxysm (n) 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to decide the moral permissibility of anything. I don't see how the type of relationship ("Man/Boy") advocated by NAMBLA could be considered "non-LGBT" (i.e. "heterosexual"). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:35, Jan. 1, 2006

Bestiality may be non-LGBT, does that make it heterosexual? Are there only two choices? -Will Beback 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality? You couldn't find a more appropriate straw man this early in the debate? Bestiality'd be one of the big guns, surely. Natgoo 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brining up bestiality makes a valid point. If an organization advocates human males having sex with male animals, does that make it LGBT? What if it's female animals? Also, many people would consider pedophilia and bestiality morally equivalent, so it's not a straw-man argument.

MSTCrow 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is when we're discussing an organisation for humans. Your point will be valid if there is a need to discuss the categorisation of articles about organisations dedicated to bestiality. Natgoo 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality is a red herring in this debate. For the record, there are more than two choices, and zoophilia is obviously one of them. Bottom line:

1. This is an organization that advocates and exists to legalize sexual activity between men and boys.

2. Sexual activity between males (and yes, between females) is, by definition, homosexual.

3. There is no way to define a "legitimate" LGBT organization, unless "LGBT" itself is the name of some kind of federation that requires organizations to register, and NAMBLA is not a member.

4. Since "LGBT" is a genericized moniker for groups organized for the benefit of and/or composed of homosexuals (both male and female), the inclusion of an organization that advocates legalization of a specific type of homosexual activity and is purportedly composed of individuals who practice those homosexual acts, it is appropriate to refer to it as a LGBT organization.

Note: I do sympathize (as do most of those who are on my side, I am sure) with the frustration of people who are opposed to this. I am sure that people who are members of LGBT groups that work for the rights and common good of non-pedophile homosexual people are extremely uncomfortable with their inclusion. However, emotions have no place in this discussion. The fact remains that logically, NAMBLA is a LGBT organization, and it is appropriate to list them as such. Jrkarp 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with Jrkarp. Although it may be frustrating to homosexuals it should be noted that the argument goes both ways. Acts of pedophilia between men and girls or women and boys are technically heterosexual acts and should be referenced accordingly - exactly as NAMBLA is referenced to LGBT in this case. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a difficult one. However, given that this is a group quite clearly geared at homosexual persons (male-male), I think it should be included as such. The child molestation part is irrelevant. If it were the "North American Child Molestor Association", it would be different, but the fact is, it's not. Lankiveil 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

A category of one?

I was content with NAMBLA being classified in the "Gay Organizations" subcategory only so long as that category was not a clear attempt by political-minded gays to try to shove NAMBLA out of the first tier of organizations. Not only is a subcategory with one entry completely and totally worthless, but it also reflects the aforementioned motivation of which I spoke above. Corax 06:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of a category is to group things together. A subcategory containing one article is worthless; anywhere such a subcategory exists, its on member should be merged back into the parent category. Moreover, creating a category for the sole purpose of excluding something out of political ideology (not to say political correctness) is a violation of our NPOV policies. --FOo 09:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is partly my fault. I came along, found that there was a Gay Organizations category with only 3 articles in it, disagreed in general with what was going on and removed all 3 of them. Then someone reverted my edit on this article alone, putting this one back, resulting in a category of one. Although I'm not sure that a category of 3 is much better than a category of one. Having 3 "gay organizations" listed on wikipedia, one of which is NAMBLA, is hardly appropriate. Unless someone finds a way to put a few dozen in there, I'm against this whole thing. And, uh, sorry about wandering into this process at the end and messing with it, but so it goes. --Xyzzyplugh 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You know people, this is such a bloody waste of time, all this fretting over a moribund "organization" of self-destructive idiots who have managed to become everyone's boogy man (bugger man?). Guanaco had hit upon a very good idea, breaking up LGBT into its component parts, which coincidentally solved all the breast beating over here. Haiduc 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely fail to see how breaking up LGBT into its component parts would solve anything regarding this article. Anyone who would be offended by having NAMBLA listed as a LGBT organization will be equally offended by having it listed as a Gay organization. In fact, having NAMBLA being only one of a handful of Gay organizations listed is even more potentially offensive than having it be one of 50 LGBT organizations. --Xyzzyplugh 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First "offending people" is utterly irrelevant since the argument that "I was offended" is a totalitarian argument that has no place in academic discourse. Second, GLBT needs to be broken up, it is an artificial construct reflective of religious proscriptions only. Third, this goes beyond the NAMBLA argument, which it solves accidentally and very elegantly. Haiduc 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So just how do you intend to go about breaking the LGBT category up? I have been looking through it, and there are a few hundred organizations, and almost every one says they're for "lesbians, gays, bisexuals" and so on. If the organizations almost all specifically say they're for gay men, women, bisexuals, and (frequently) transexuals, then there is no way to break the category up. All you're doing is creating subcategories which will each only have a handfull of entries, compared to the hundreds in the main categories. Where does it get us, creating these subcategories which will be nearly empty?

And, by the way, I noticed that there is a subcategory of LGBT_organizations called List_of_LGBT-related_organizations, which makes no sense at all since there's no apparent difference between the organizations in these two categories. --Xyzzyplugh 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that there are more gay men's organizations with Wikipedia entries that need to be added to Category:Gay organizations. Let's find them. —Guanaco 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should do that first, before adding NAMBLA in there. We don't want NAMBLA to stand out, or more people are going to get angry and disrupt any consensus we have in here. --Rory096 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it why don't we recategorize every organization that's lesbian and gay but not transsexual in the subcategory Lesbian and Gay organizations and so on, since apparenetly any group that is not simultaneously lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual does not merit inclusion in the top category? Tomyumgoong 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is LGBT (Don't ask me)

Ask Rebecca Mae Solokar, who contributed a chapter titled "Beyond Gay Rights Litigation" to the edited volume Sexual Identities, Queer Politics (2001, Princeton University Press). She writes:

"Within the larger LGBT movement, we have witnessed the development of a number of interest groups that fit the stricter classical sense of the term in that they are organized, have readily identifiable leaders and memberships, and are specifically seeking political change either through litigation, legislation, administrative policy change, or grassroots activity. Many of the well-known interest groups have taken on broad-based policy agendas -- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), or the Log Cabin Republicans -- but there are other organizations that are more specific in their policy focus. The People With AIDs Coalition (PWAC), North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association direct their political efforts at more narrow policy arenas, but are still part and parcel of the larger movement." (Pages 260-261)

So much for the idea that only pedophiles or The New Republic readers believe this. Corax 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on other pages recently, there are two ways to look at categories: as classifying the article or the topic. The article North American Man/Boy Love Association seems to me to belong in the LGBT category because people reading it might gain further insight on the many topics in the article by browsing the category. The singular topic, "North American Man/Boy Love Association", can be classified under LGBT as you point out, but it's a debatable point. As long as people insist on viewing categories as classification of the topic, we'll continue to have these pointless debates, and we will continue to ignore the needs of our audience (a sin no encyclopedia should commit). -Harmil 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Very informative article"

This article was added, the editlog pitching it as a "very informative article". While it may have some value, I don't exactly think it's a very fair and unbiased article. Quote: On its Web site, NAMBLA says it opposes abuse and coercion of young people and does not advocate illegal activity. ... The organization links itself to the gay-rights movement, but mainstream gay organizations disavow such a parallel. Delores A. Jacobs, who heads The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of San Diego, said her organization does not "support or in any way condone the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors by adults." Eh well, neither does NAMBLA, so what's her point? Oh well, I guess any fair coverage of this organization is not easy to come by -- the question is, should a supposedly objective encyclopedic article link to such material? Clayboy 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This just confirms the fact that, if certain editors had their way, the NAMBLA article would be nothing but a long repository of people's mischaracterizations of and accusations against the group, and would have almost no substantive information (for some idea, just look back at the early incarnation of this article). As unbelievable as it sounds for a supposedly encyclopedic project, it is a constant war trying to keep this article clear of people inserting the same accusations over and over again into every part of the article -- or, when that fails, "stacking the deck" with the links instead of the article, by including only the links that repeat said accusations over and over and over again. Corax 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an article in a major newspaper. It covers the arrest of several NAMBLA members and has quotes from the FBI. I suppose those are what some editors call "mischaracterizations". Yes, I think it's an informative article. It is far more informative than the links to pedophile forums, which other editors insist on adding to related articles. -Will Beback 21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless the pedophile forum has a section witch factual content about NAMBLA, there is no reason to link it to the NAMBLA article. Similarly, articles devoted to FBI agents stating opinions that are not based on fact should not be linked to the NAMBLA article. Corax 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Saturday, the FBI arrested three NAMBLA members at Harbor Island as they waited for a boat that undercover agents told them would sail to Ensenada for a sex retreat over Valentine's Day with boys as young as 9.
• The FBI said four NAMBLA members were arrested in a Los Angeles marina where they also planned to set sail to the bogus rendezvous.
• The FBI says at least one of the men is a member of the group's national leadership, a second organized the group's national convention last year and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.

Which of these statements is an opinion not based on facts? -Will Beback 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement not based on facts is probably "undercover agents told then would sail ... for a sex retreat ... with boys as young as 9." Since clearly, these are unlikely to be the actual words of the FBI to the people taking the tour. If I sign up for a tour, and then someone mentions the existence of underage prostitution in the locale I'm visiting, does that mean I am taking a "sex tour with boys as young as 9?" Given the FBI's long history of deliberately lying about NAMBLA, I'm sure the FBI said as little concrete as possible, and hoped the circumstantial evidence of having targeted NAMBLA members in their little sting operation would create a case. Absent some quotes from the people targeted as to what they were actually told about their vacation plans, all we have is a news story about the FBI arresting a bunch of NAMBLA members, and claiming to have told them something the exact wording of which we are not privy to. Big deal. This is tabloid fodder, and until further proceedings take place, unworthy of inclusion in the article.Hermitian 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source that disputes the FBI assertion then please add it. But the blanket claim that the FBI lies about NAMBLA is not a reason to exclude newspaper reports about the FBI's comments. -Will Beback 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that these are facts, even though the FBI's mischaracterizations of NAMBLA as an organization do raise questions about other comments they are making about the alleged relationship between the arrested men and the organization. Soon I will be adding a citation-filled section to the "History" part of the article detailing the Etan Patz affair, which was a previous attempt by the FBI to harass and disrupt NAMBLA by lying about it and its members.

What I'm contesting is the addition of the article to the external links subsection. The article in question deals with facts already in the body of the article, so, if anything, the article should be listed under sources. But as I said, some people won't be happy unless the article and the accusations contained therein are reproduced over and over again.Corax 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to toss "the FBI" around when dealing with left or radical groups, because it's known that the FBI has acted to disrupt some such groups; there's evidence e.g. from the Church Committee reports. However, I think we'd need some kind of evidence specifically about the FBI trying to disrupt NAMBLA. For what it's worth, I've heard leftists (specifically ISO members) claim that NAMBLA itself was created at the instigation of J. Edgar Hoover to discredit the gay-rights movement and to frame activist (and leftist) gays as pedophiles. But conspiracy theory springs eternal; if we're going to make claims about FBI activity we'd better have solid evidence. --FOo 07:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Red links

I removed a bunch of red links from that long list of guys. If there are any important ones, replace them, but I'd rather see them linked as the articles appear (if they ever do) as it is easier on the eyes. --DanielCD 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Despicable organization

I am a little confused by the first discussion.

Perhaps I missed some finer points about the existence (or lack thereof) of hard evidence but it seems to me that NAMbLA's sole purpose is to promote a particular sexual activity that is in fact illegal.

Therefore, the organization should be treated as the criminal enterprise that it is, no different from any other pedophile ring.

Furthermore, the activity in question has been made illegal because the vast majority of us consider it despicable, crossing a line into the extreme, and thus it stands little chance of ever becoming legal -- even with changing times.

Anyone associated with the organization should be watched closely.

Omega Man 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of organizations which advocate the legalization of particular actions which are today illegal. For instance, NORML advocates the legalization of marijuana use. Various anti-tax organizations advocate the legalization of not paying taxes (that is, they advocate reducing or eliminating various taxes). Doubtless, during Prohibition, there were organizations which advocated the re-legalization of alcohol.

The fact that a person advocates the legalization of an action does not make them a criminal. There are plenty of people who advocate the legalization of marijuana who don't smoke pot themselves (myself, for instance) and likewise there are plenty of people who might advocate for the liberalization of age-based sex laws who are not a bunch of freakin' pedophiles.

Please be aware that implicitly accusing people who contribute here of being criminals or "despicable" is against the rules here. This is not an open discussion board; this talk page is here to assist in working on the article itself. --FOo 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I didn't expect anyone to morally equate efforts to legalize marijuana, with an organization of grown men wanting to rape 8-year old boys. That's what I meant by "crossing into the extreme" earlier.

I concede the point, however, that I misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I guess that renders my postings moot. Oh well, thanks for listening! Omega Man 02:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pedophile organizations

I've added the article to this category. It seems entirely accurate, and the group openly promotes "the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex" as the category decribes in its guidelines for inclusion. Harro5 04:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA is a pederasty organization, not a pedophile organization. 24.224.153.40 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the group openly promotes "the removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-child sex"? If yes (it's the only response anyway), this is a correct category. Harro5 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Harro5 has a point. Unless the group only advocated "removal of legal inhibitions towards adult-teenage male sex" would it qualify as purely a pederast organization. -Will Beback 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no NAMBLA connoisseur, but AFAIK NAMBLA promotes relationships between adult men and teenage boys, not adult men and prepubescent boys. They also believe age-of-consent laws are problematic and that no relationship should be criminalized solely because of its participants' ages. But they're still in it for the adolescents.

Likewise, ASFAR is not a pedophile organization. 24.224.153.40 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA frequently refers to sex between adults and children on their site. Can you provide a citation indicating that they only advocate in favor of sex with post-pubescent minors? -Will Beback 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wanting to remove Age-of-Consent laws is not the same as claiming that all children of any age can consent to sex. Opposition to age-of-consent laws does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia.

We've had this debate a thousand times before; we've voted on the categorization; we underwent mediation; and we arrived at a consensus. It might be understandable that some Johnny-come-lately who has no idea of the precedent regarding this matter has rehashed an argument that has already been thoroughly analyzed and debunked repeatedly. What is not understandable is why Will Beback thinks he can opportunistically get behind this issue, in effect changing sides on the inclusion of content with which he raised no objections in the past, without anybody calling him on it. Corax 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks as a replacement for collegial editing. There are many instances in which NAMLBA refers to adults having sex with children. What definition of "Pedophile organizations" doens't include organizations which advocate for legailized sex between adults and children? -Will Beback 03:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if there are "many instances" in which NAMBLA refers to adults having sex with prepubescent children (I believe you should provide proof of these many instances), I would to remind you that -- as another editor has pointed out to you above -- that pedophilia is a medical condition in which one's idealized sex partner is a prepubescent child. It's not some term you can interchange with sexual activity with children, which is more often then not a crime of opportunity perpetrated by otherwise normal heterosexual adults. So even if NAMBLA does mention "many instances" of "adults having sex with [presumably prepubescent] children," this does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia per se. Corax 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By that definition, is any organization pedophilic? If what you're saying is true, just because a group advocates for sex between adults and children they are not necessarily pedophilic. "Pedophilic" also has a common meaning, adults who want to have sex with children. NAMBLA certainly fits in that category. -Will Beback 06:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no references for your claim that there are "many instances" in which NAMBLA refers to sex between adults and prepubescent children -- the kind of sex that one might associate with pedophilia. Although you seem fixated on this idea that NAMBLA "advocates for sex between adults and children," NAMBLA does not advocate for anybody to have sex with any one else. What NAMBLA advocates it the repeal of age-of-consent laws, a change in the law that would not necessarily lead to pre-pubescent children legally engaging in sex with adults. Prepubescent children would still be protected by rape and assault laws that adjudicate one's ability to consent on a case-by-case basis rather than through the use of blanket, age-based proscription. In other words, NAMBLA's position is not the equivalent of saying that sex involving young children should not be criminalized. Its position is that criminalization of child-sex should be based on something other than the age demographic. Thus to call NAMBLA a pedophile organization on the basis that it promotes or seeks to legalize sex with prepubescent children demonstrates an utter disregard for the facts regarding what NAMBLA actually advocates.

Also a pedophile organization is presumably one that is tailored to and created for only for people who have a sexual attraction primarily toward prepubescents. NAMBLA allows anybody to join, and has an extensive platform that is shared by non-pedophiles (ephebophiles, certainly, but also people who agree with groups like ASFAR). So it would be highly misleading to claim that NAMBLA is a "pedophile organization" simply because "pedophilia" has been miscontrued in popular culture to mean anything remotely related to underage sex, and because NAMBLA advocates that underage people not be subject to age-based discrimination of their sexual expression. If that is the criterion for being labeled a pedophile group, then ASFAR is one also. Corax 15:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are defining "pedophile organization" so narrowly that no organization fits the bill. You also previously argued against categorizing this a "pederast organization." I suppose you'd be happy calling it a "children's rights organization". -Will Beback 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E.) and the Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) are clearly pedophile groups, as their names indicate. But a pedophile group NAMBLA is not. The best categorization for NAMBLA is LGBT -- since NAMBLA's main purpose is to decriminalize certain forms of gay sex regardless of whether the people engaging in said sexual acts consider themselves straight, gay, bi or none of the above. If people want to add NAMBLA to children's rights organizations also, that's fine. But I think the history of the group, the political context in which it formed, and the founders who established it all suggest that it is first and foremost a gay rights org. Corax 20:54, 21 April 2006(UTC)

So you don't think that MARTIJN and René Guyon Society are pedophile organizations too? What references do you have for it being more of an LGBT group than a pedophile group? Are many lesbians involved? When they refer to sex between adults and children they don't always include males genders. -Will Beback 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to play this little game of categorizing every group besides NAMBLA with you. As far as the references are concerned, the fact that NAMBLA has an entry in the GLBTQ encyclopedia is probably a good indicator. Also, you obviously haven't read a remark I made on this very talk page here in which I give an academic source calling NAMBLA an LGBT group. So there's an implicit and an explicit reference, both academic in nature. I am not aware of who is and is not a member of NAMBLA. Nor am I aware of the sexual orientations of members of other organizations of which I am not a member. Suffice it to say that there have been gay people in the organization, since the group was formed by gay rights activists in the 1970s -- back before gay rights became what somebody here once called an "adults-only parody of itself." And if it is a gay-oriented organization, I don't see how it can't be classified as LGBT, considering that LGBT was a label adopted to be inclusive of transgenders, not exclusive of groups who focused on gay male or gay female issues. Whatever you might say regarding NAMBLA's statements dealing with heterosexual relationships between age-differentiated partners, a cursory perusal of NAMBLA's web site proves that it is clearly focused on same-sex relationships. Now would you care to beat the dead horse any longer?Corax 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

The inclusion of this organization in with gay organizations is disputed. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same. As long as this article claims that NAMBLA is a "gay" (adult-adult) organization, this article will remain in dispute. Please to not remove the disputed tag from this article, until this issue is resolved. See: Wikipedia:vandalism - Davodd 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC) REVISED DISPUTE: This article fails to explain why NAMBLA is listed as a "gay organization" despite the fact that it has been rejected by every major gay organization. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same, because most homosexuals aren't pedophiles, and most pedophiles aren't homosexuals. But they're not mutually exclusive either, and this organization belongs to the overlap. "Gay" does not mean "adult-adult", it means "male-male" (and sometimes "female-female"), and the very name of the organization, North American Man/Boy Love association shows its area of interest is male-male relationships. So yes, it's a gay organization. Pais 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the strict definition of "homosexual" (male-male sex activity) and sexual orientation. Many forms of homosexual behaviors and paraphilias exist which are not "gay" per se. Davodd 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument is old hat by now. What's NOT "gay" about a twenty-five-year-old guy who wants to have a relationships with a sixteen-year-old guy? Claiming that males who are attracted only to other males older than the age-of-consent have a sexual orientation, while maintaining that males who are attracted to other males not quite at the arbitrarily decided age-of-consent are paraphiliacs suffering from mental illness, is itself a POV judgment (not to mention that it ironically ignores homosexuality's history of being branded a disorder until thirty years ago). A POV judgment call is certainly not the basis for deciding the categorization of groups. The only definition of "gay" that ellides the political use of "orientation" is the definition that describes behavior only. And according to this definition, NAMBLA is gay. Corax 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding my objection. The implication of the category is that NAMBLA as a part of the gay community. By calling it a "gay organization" Wikipedia is being both inaccurate and is publishing unverifiable information. What I have been able to verify through Google and in my recent LexisNexus research is that the group has been shunned by the gay community; it is banned from all the major Gay Pride parades and it cannot meet at gay community centers. That's about as "homosexual but not gay" as you can get. The inclusion of this category is wrong for this article in that it appears to be less about being academically accurate and more about pushing a political agenda. - Davodd 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Davodd, I see you have altered the categorization once, and have now thrown up a factual accuracy dispute tag at the very top of the article. Have you read the talk page and its archive (as instructed by the comment in the categorization)? If so, you would have realized that about three months ago there was an extensive debate on this very issue, complete with mediation and voting. In the end the current categorization of the article was decided upon. So I really don't see much wisdom in rehashing an old debate.

But if you do insist on rehashing the debate, at least get your facts straight. NAMBLA is a group that advocates eliminating age-of-consent laws. Documentation on the group (including its web page) suggests that the primary reason for this is an interest in legalizing consensual same-sex (that is, homosexual) relations between people on opposite sides of the age-of-consent barrier. As this barrier is as high as 18 in some locales, this hardly requires any association with "pedophilia" (which is properly defined as a predominant attraction toward prepubescent children). Cheers. Corax 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove dispute tags posted by someone else from articles until the dispute is resolved. This dispute is not resolved - even then, it should be removed by the person who posted the tag. The removal of a dispute tag in this instance is a form of vandalism. Previously this form of vandalism has resulted in people being blocked from editing Wikipedia. This dispute will remain active until a respected academic source supports your proposition. Until then, it is either an opinion in violation of the WP:NPOV policy or uncited original research, which is in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR policies. Davodd 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to dispute the categorization of the article, then the appropriate tag to use is {{disputed-section}}. The {{disputed}} tag is intended for use in articles where a number of facts strewn throughout multiple sections are being disputed. My correction of this is ''not'' vandalism. Please try to pay attention. Corax 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite an academic source that says NAMBLA = gay, please. Davodd 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, it seems you haven't done your homework as the comments in the article instructed you to do. JUst read the discussion above this one, and you'll see me reference two academic sources: "As far as the references are concerned, the fact that NAMBLA has an entry in the GLBTQ encyclopedia is probably a good indicator. Also, you obviously haven't read a remark I made on this very talk page here in which I give an academic source calling NAMBLA an LGBT group. So there's an implicit and an explicit reference, both academic in nature."

I removed the tag because the very dispute you're bringin up has already been resolved -- it was resolved three months ago. And it was resolved in favor of its present form because the only argument that people opposed to the categorization could put forward was the kneejerk mantra "homosexuality isn't pedophilia." If you had read the comments embedded into the article before editing it, you would have realized it. Are we now going to have to keep the tag up indefinitely for as long as people dislike the decision that was reached by the wikipedia community under the guidance of a wiki moderator?

As far as the typical argument against the current categorization goes: No, homosexuality isn't pedophilia. But there is such thing as a homosexual pedophile, and NAMBLA -- as mentioned above -- does not necessarily have anything to do with pedophilia. The founders of NAMBLA were far more concerned about teenage males who were being harassed by the Boston police department in the early days of the gay lib movement. So even if pedophilia and homosexuality were mutually exclusive, it would have little bearing on the classification of NAMBLA. Corax 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is not about what is and is not homosexual behavior. Not all people who engage in clinically homosexual acts are considered to be gay or members of the extended gay community (i.e. those who practice same-sex prison sexuality, a form of situational sexual behavior). In fact, NAMBLA the article (which is very well-written in parts and cited well in general) goes out of its way to show that the gay community has overwhelmingly rejected NAMBLA. But for some reason, it is listed as a "gay organization" without an explanatory reason or a citation as to why. That is the dispute. Davodd 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've given you your academic source, you're still not happy. Instead you've decided to recycle another old argument that has been addressed countless times in the past.

Your comment about not labeling situational encounters as indicative of orientation makes sense. But not all people who have sex with sixteen-year-olds are engagin in situational sexual behavior. They are guys who prefer sex with other guys. That one of the two guys happens to be younger some arbitrarily selected age does not strip either of the participants of their gay orientation.

What we're seeing here is just another iteration of the argument that the "gay community gets to decide which people to exclude and which people to include." The problem with this argument is that, in order for that community to make decisions of membership, it must itself be recognized as the legitimate "gay community." And to make such distinctions between legitimate gays and illegitimate gays is inappropriate for a "neutral" encyclopedia. Corax 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that NAMBLA members choose to have sex with pre-pubescent youths doens't make it a pedophile organization either, according to your logic. If one reference to NAMBLA as a gay organization is sufficient to call it a "gay organizatoin", then sources which call it a "pedophile organization" should receive equal respect. -Will Beback 22:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Two references suggest that NAMBLA is a gay or "LGBT" organization. I'm sure some Republicans have sex with pre-pubescent youths, but that doesn't make the GOP a pedophile organization. Nor do we call it a white organization, even though the vast majority of its members are affluent and white. Instead, we classify it according to the substance of its platform. Neither the GOP nor NAMBLA has a platform that says that eight-year-olds should be able to have sex, or makes any reference whatsoever to prepubescent sexual activity. So neither group is a "pedophile" organization. Corax 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, Wikipedia makes hair-thin distinctions between and among groups all the time. For example (in a completely unrelated area), we have separate categories and lively debate in our biographies as to who is a Scottish-American, and who is Irish American and who is Scots-Irish American. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is evolving. As it grows, categories and the way we categorize will need to adapt as our quality and accuracy improves. The appeal to tradition, that this issue is mooted because it has been "addressed" in the past is fallacious in many senses; the most important being that Wikipedia is not a democracy inasmuch as there are no "votes" among editors that settle things on a permanent basis. Additionally, unless it is a core policy of the Wikimedia project, such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, any past decision by or consensus of editors is always open to debate. Davodd 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what I said. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia makes no hair-thin distinctions between nation-states. I argued that, if wikipedia wants to classify people based on sexual practices or orientation, the only way to do so is to lay down objective criteria against which individuals and groups can be judged. "Because the people I consider to be legitimate members of the gay community say so," is not an objective criterion. If you want to start a petition that defines "gay" to mean only homosexuals over the age of 18, by all means do so. But until then, stop trying to pretend that same-sex relationships involving adolescent males have nothing to do with being gay. As far as the "appeal to tradition" is concerned, I think you may be over-extending the reach of that policy. We're not talking about a debate that transpired years in the past. This was a few months ago. The fact that you continue to recycle the very arguments that were made (and debunked) at that time shows me that you have not done even the most rudimentary of work in trying to come to terms with the various perspectives on this issue. Corax 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I read what you said. You still haven;t justified why NAMBLA is a "gay organization" when every major gay organization rejects the group aside from some anti-establishment rant, which true or not, is no more than original research as best or, more likely, unverifiable POV'. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have justified it repeatedly both here and in previous discussions. Your argument that NAMBLA isn't gay because other "gay" organizations do not like it is spurious. It presupposes that those other organizations are "gay," and thus assumes a pre-existing definition of gay. What is that definition, so we can apply it consistently in categorizing articles? Inquiring minds want to know. Corax 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<< The matter of whether NAMBLA is a gay or pedophile organization is central to the entire article, not simply its categorization. Therefore placing a {dispute} tag at the top is appropriate. -Will Beback 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only portion of the article that deals with whether NAMBLA is a gay or a pedophile group is the categorization. As such, the disputed tag belongs in that part of the article, not at the top. Accusing me of vandalism when I am simply adjusting the tag to more accurately reflect the situation is an irresponsible abuse of your authority. Corax 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an administrator button to accuse someone of vandalism. Please be careful about your accusations. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But accusations of vandalism obviously carry more authority when they are leveled by people in a position to do something about it. This is the abuse of authority to which I was referring. Regards, Corax 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've discoverd a number of sources which call NAMBLA a pro-pedophile organization, so have added that info plus a category to match. Please don't edit war. -Will Beback 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, if you want to re-add the information in the beginning calling NAMBLA "pro-pedophilia," feel free to do so. I will simply add that it is an LGBT group, with the appropriate citation (this one academic, unlike yours). I am giving you a chance to pull back. Please act wisely on this matter. Corax 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that you'll bargain, removng the "gay organization" category if we also remove the "pedophile organization" category? -Will Beback 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable. If NAMBLA is ever re-introduced into the "Pedophile Organizations" category, I will not hesitate to place back into the LGBT organizations category.Corax 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very strange bargain. In any case, please don't revert war. You have reverted this article six times today. -Will Beback 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We already had a mediation on this subject, and the subcategory "Gay Organizations" of LGBT organizations was created in that process. Users should not unilaterally revert changes made in the course of multiparty mediation. Please review the archive. Tomyumgoong 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how NAMBLA can be considered a "gay organization" since the organization has been kicked out of every major gay umbrella group worldwide. Additionally, the group's claim that it merely is lobbying for the elimination of age of consent laws instead of advocating any specific sex act, by its own admission, lends it to be less one of the Category:Gay organizations than one of the Category:Advocacy groups or Category:Lobbying groups. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we rehashing this tired old subject all over again? Are we going to have this argument repeatedly every time someone reads the article, and starts mechanically chanting the "homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia" mantra? This issue was settled a long time ago, and correctly in my opinion. NAMBLA was an essential part of the gay rights movement and is a gay organization. Today's politically convenient revisionism of gay history by gays fleeing in terror from right wing talking points is irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes. Hermitian 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are just as many, if not more, sources which call NAMBLA a "pedophile" organization as call it a "gay" organization. Please do not remove source, verifiable information. -Will Beback 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not what something is called, but what it is. If you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs, not five. Wikipedia wouldn't have enough room to hold the entire list of things various right wing cranks consider to be associated with "pedophilia." Your point is moot. Hermitian 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is not moot. We rely on sources at Wikipedia. Many sources identify it as a pedophile organization. We can also decide that for ourselves, but that isn't necessary. Not everyone who calls it a pedophile organization is a " right wing crank." -Will Beback 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because something was addressed in the past does not mean it was addressed correctly. Also, the mediated answer was a dispute involving other parties - so it doesn't apply here, except as a starting point. Davodd 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the result of that mediation and the fact that the parties involved are mostly still here, you will have to escalate to mediation to produce any result that will supplant the prior decision. Tomyumgoong 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work to come to a workable and accurate consensus. I will concede that NAMBLA would be involving advocacy of a subset sexual minority culture of homosexual activity - my issue is the categorization and de facto inclusion of the group as a part of the gay community with its categorization as a "gay organization." NAMBLA is banned from gay pride parades, gay community centers, and gay umbrella organizations. This is not merely my personal opinion; it is easily verifiable using Google - or even calling a random LGBT community center. Either the article needs a different category or the category needs a new name. Perhaps we should change Category:Pedophile organizations to Category:Pedophile and Pederast organizations to be more inclusive of NAMBLA? - Davodd 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the "gay community" bans or criticizes a gay organization for political purposes, that does not make the discriminated against organization less gay. NAMBLA was formed by gays, for the purpose of gay liberation, to fight mistreatment of gays. All its original founders and celebrity supporters were gay icons. Until the right wing decided to use NAMBLA to target the gay community, and gays decided that gay rights wouldn't happen with NAMBLA attached to their movement, NAMBLA marched in gay pride parades, and belonged to many gay unbrella organizations. Gays do not get to cherry pick those parts of gay history which they think will pacify their critics, and retroactively declare some of their former activities "non-gay." That would be like the NAACP declaring Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to not be a part of the Negro community. Hermitian 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a hard time fathoming that gay umbrella organizations do not have some magical authority to decide who or which groups are gay, and who or which groups are not gay. In other words, gay groups do not control the definition of the word "gay." The way to decide dispute is quite clear. We need a working definition of "gay" that we can apply consistently across a whole spectrum of articles, and then we should apply that definition to NAMBLA's goals and target constituency. If the definition is inclusive, NAMBLA belongs in "gay organizations." If the definition is exclusive, NAMBLA does not belong there. Corax 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The basic error of that argument is that (aside from being a red herring), is that it fails to address the possibility that the current scheme of categorization for this article could be improved. Are you suggesting that there is no need for improvement to this article? My motivation is to make Wikipedia articles better - this includes the NAMBLA article and its categorization scheme. A categorization that is basically refuted by the cited facts of an article is at conflict with itself and I suggest to a reasonable person, would seem to be an error. The article states - with multiple citations - that NAMBLA was expelled from gay organizations - but for some unexplained reason, a few editors seem adamant that the organization be categorized as a gay organization. This smells of a advocacy-type political stance against the way things are. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Davodd 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that an organization can be gay one minute and not gay the next, depending on its popularity and which way the prevailing political winds are blowing, and that encyclopedia content should be constantly varying, according to the instantaneous reading of some sort of gay-o-meter? For the purposes of documenting history, this is probably not the right definition of "gay" to employ. At a rally trying to make a persuasive argument for gay rights, it probably is. Since Wikipedia is factual knowlege, and not a rally, the gay community doesn't get to vote on the daily gayness of gay things, and that includes NAMBLA, which is a gay organization.Hermitian 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that if a Wikipedia editor is going to categorize an article, the content of the article must support the category. AND if the facts presented in the article are contrary to the category, then the proposed categorization should not be used. Davodd 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha. You think it's a "red herring" to define the word gay before we start categorizing articles as being "gay organizations"? Could it be that you are afraid of where this quite logical and fair suggestion would lead? What do you have in mind instead? Oh, that's right. We should classify organizations based on whatever suits the gay rights agenda. Sorry, but that's not encyclopedic. Corax 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use logic, then may I suggest your penchant for ad hominem attacks may not be a wise move. The dispute is simple: If an editor claims X is part of Y - but the citations of the article show well-regarded members of Y claim X is not a part of Y, then the editor's decision to categorize X as Y is suspect. This is a generic dispute - it applies equally to any WP article. See: (WP:CITE). - Davodd 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have only characterized your position, not you. Thus I have made no ad hominem attacks. The dispute is simple, but not as simple as you claim it to be. If an editor claims X is part of Y based on the information in an article, and another editor claims X is not part of Y based on the information in an article, the appropriate way to proceed is to define carefully the characteristics of Y in order to see if those characteristics match up with the characteristics of X. Yet you refuse to do this. Why? Corax 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Because as a Wikipedia editor, it is my job not to engage in original research. WP:NOR. - Davodd 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pedophile and pederast organizations, that's a good idea. I don't know why we didn't think of that before. -Will Beback 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

The comments of the attorneys in the Curley case belong in that section, and so have been moved. The intro should note that the organization is controversial, but we have a section on that subject. The current introduction primarily decribes (but does not endorse) the organization's views and mission statement. This factual basis is the appropriate content for any organization's introduction. I mostly just rearranged existing content -- it can still be edited for style and improved. Tomyumgoong 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA as a pedophile organization

Hi. This is the talk page. Two subsections above this one, you will find the dispute that is currently taking place regarding proposed changes to the categorization of this article. Any attempts to insert the changes without first building a consensus run counter not only to the instructions of this talk page, but all those of the mediator who dealt with this case. If you insist on ignoring these instructions, I will contact Guanaco to remedy the situation. Furhtermore, making the changes while blantantly lying about the presence of a dispute here is not only immature, it is clearly an attempt by you to contravene the mutual, good-faith efforts being made by the Wikipedia community. In one word, STOP. Corax 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is additional info regarding NAMLBA as a pedophile organization, including the a comment by the co-founder, and official minutes from an umbrella organization with "pedophile" in their name, calling NAMBLA their largest member. Please respect the fact that there are numerous sources which call NAMBLA a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 02:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA has also been described as a "psychotic child rapist organization" and a "youth rights organization." I'm not seeing how that makes it either. 24.224.153.40 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We've already established that there are sources calling NAMBLA a gay organization, and sources calling NAMBLA a pedophile organization. While this might be accurately represented in the article itself ("According to Source A, NAMBLA is a pedophile organization."), this is not how categorization works. The Wikipedia community ultimately decides how things are classified, not third-party sources. So we editors need to define what a pedophile organization is, what a gay organization is, then start classifying organizations accordingly. Corax 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We have just as many sources, and of similar relevance, that call NAMBLA a pedohile organization as call if a gay organization. If you want to remove the "gay organization" category while you decide what that means feel free. But please don't keep removing the "pedophile organization" category unless you can refute the sources which identify it as one. -Will Beback 03:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should we remove the "gay organizations" category, but allow the "pedophile organizations" category, if both have sources? Corax 03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed the "gay organizations" category. Flip the question around. -Will Beback 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Pedophile organization

Should NAMBLA be included in category:Pedophile organizations?

Evidence:

• Nambla has been called a pedophile organization, directly or indirectly, by these varied sources:
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• Reviewing "Boy-Love" and "NAMBLA" pdf
• [8]
• [9]

• In 1996 the umbrella group, "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation", referred to NAMBLA as its "greatest member".[10]

• In that same year, the co-founder wrote: "The Bulletin is turning into a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles." Other members insisted that the group only had a minority who were pedophiles, with the majority being pederasts. The Bulletin editor responded to Thorstad by saying "I well remember visiting Mr. Thorstad's NYC apartment in the early '70s, and viewing in his library books and magazines . . . [that] featured nude boys apparently between 6 and 16, and I can assume Mr. Thorstad has since shredded these artifacts of our culture, at which time he became a good pederast, only interested in age-appropriate teens, leaving the rest of us bad 'pedophiles' behind, in much the same way as the larger gay movement left him." [11]

• A 1999 article in the NAMBLA Bulletin included the remark, "To paraphrase Queer Nation: We're here. We're pedophiles. Get used to it."[12]

• Last year seven NAMBLA members, including a steering committee member, were arrested in a sting operation when they went on a cruise to Mexico in order to have sex with boys. They requested that the boys be as young as eight years old.[13]

So, NAMLBA was founded by a pedophile, has pedophiles as members, its magazine pandered to pedophiles, and it is widely called "pedophile" by the media. On that basis, I believe that we should include it in the category:Pedophile organizations. -Will Beback 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So long as Category:Pedophile organizations exists, NAMBLA definitely belongs in it. The name itself, with "Man/Boy Love" makes it quite clear that this organization is dedicated to pedophilia. I'm not sure what argument one could make against this, as it also being a "gay organization" does not preclude it being a pedophile organization. siafu 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, NAMBLA should be included under Pedophile Organizations, no question. It may be primarily pederastic, but certainly pedophilia is a big enough part of its makeup. I recall that on their web site, there is a page... something like "boys speak out" or whatever... most of the quotes were from teens, but there were some quotes from boys as young as eleven. This does not preclude it from being included under other categories as well. Herostratus 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this logic. If an 11 year old supports the Republican Party, does that make it a pedophile organization? There are two reasons not to have a category called "pedophile organizations" with NAMBLA in it. First, pedophilia is the condition of having prepubescent minors the primary focus of ones sexual attraction. While there is some small overlap between this and NAMBLA's focus, it really isn't the most accurate single characterization of the group. Second, in the United States, the word "pedophile," having been overused by government and law enforcement to label virtually everything negative having to do with minors and sexuality, is in the midst of a transition from a clinical value-neutral term to a slur and hate speech directed at people based on their perceived sexual attraction. We should remember that words like "nigger" were once commonly used value-neutral nouns, and acquired an extremely negative meaning by their constant use in association with derogatory remarks, and are no longer considered acceptable. Anticipating this, if we want Wikipedia content to stand the test of time, calling something "pedophile" should really only be done if we are quoting something someone else has said, and having "pedophile" categories into which things are stuck for the purpose of labeling them should not be done at all. If we want to create a category in which to stick groups like NAMBLA and Martijn, it should employ a much more accurate value neutral term like "Minor-Attracted Adult," not "pedophile." Hermitian 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, why do you say the overlap is small? The founder was a pedophile, the bulletin is or was pedophilic, and its current members are pedophiles. That is not a small overlap. Regarding your second point, when "Minor-Attracted Adult" becomes the standard term we can use it. In the meantime the standard term is "pedophile", so that is the term we should use. -Will Beback 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct scholarly use of the word "pedophile" is the DSM IV Definition, namely a person to whom sexual gratification is dependent almost exclusively upon fantasy or sexual activity with prepubescent minors. The popular use of the term, to refer to anything and everything having to do with sexual child abuse, is a pejorative one, and is the one most individuals exposed to the mainstream press embrace. Since most child sexual abuse is situational, and not committed by pedophiles, this use is a misnomer. The adjectival use of the word "pedophile", as in calling every group to the left of center on AOC laws a "pedophile organization", all authors of books on the subject "pedophile authors," and accusing everyone who doesn't parrot the CSA party line of "advocating and promoting pedophilia," is most definitely a pejorative one.

Now, if you wished to argue NAMBLA was a "pedophile organization", you might argue along two lines. One, that its membership is primarily composed of DSM IV pedophiles, or that it advocates primarily on behalf of DSM IV pedophiles. As for the first, while there may be a small percentage of clinically diagnosable pedophiles who are members of NAMBLA, most members are gay men attracted to adolescents and teenagers, as well as their supporters and friends, and the occasional nun, 11 year old kid, or die-hard socialist who thinks supporting the group makes a political statement. Supporters of NAMBLA include academics, writers, and artists like Gore Vidal and Allan Ginsberg, whom, to the best of my knowlege, have not been diagnosed as pedophiles by anyone with a medical degree. NAMBLA provides support to people who have run afoul of sex laws, advocates legislative reform, and publishes a bulletin, and while again, a small number of the people their activities benefit might be DSM IV pedophiles, most aren't, and that is not the purpose for which they exist.

So in the context of "pedophile" being the name of a DSM IV psychological diagnosis, it is proper and scholarly to refer to people who have received that diagnosis by someone with a medical degree as "pedophiles." Calling things "pedophile" because you wish to label them for the purpose of discrediting what they have to say, in order to link them in the minds of readers to child sexual abuse and criminal activity, is neither scholarly nor encyclopedic. We should legitimately suspect the motives of people who insist the word "pedophile" be used to label an organisation, a person, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or a point of view, and that no other word will do.

It's much like wanting to place a law firm in a category called "Murder Organizations", because they've defended a few murderers, even though 95% of their work is DUI and divorces. Wikipedia is not WorldNetDaily, and is not the place to employ anything other than the scholarly clinical meaning of the word "pedophile." Pedophile should be used to refer to people diagnosed by qualified medical professionals with pedophilia, not as a name you call persons or things whose sexual ethics are more liberal than your own. Hermitian 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the DSM. It is an encyclopedia for ordinary people. The ordinary, dictionary definition of "pedophile" is "An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children."[14]. That will definition will do fine. -Will Beback 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reputable dictionaries also define "child" as a human between the ages of infancy and puberty. This is in conflict with the legal definition of a child as anyone under 18, an arbitrary age picked by legislators. Being attracted to 15 year olds doesn't make one a pedophile, and answers.com is not where I go for scholarly research. Hermitian 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Most laws refers to minors, not children. I don't think "child" has a legal definition. The common definition of pedophile is an adult sexually attracted to a child or children. It doesn't matter which dictionary you use. -Will Beback 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the dictionary says that a pedophile is an adult sexually attracted to a child. Hermitian responded by saying that reputable dictionaries define a child as a prepubescent. Corax 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute about that. -Will Beback 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you make this stuff up? NAMBLA did not have a single founder. Read the article. It was established by several dozen people at the end of a meeting in Boston. If you mean "founder" to be David Thorstad, how do you know he is a pedophile? Has he told you this, or are you blindly leaping to that conclusion based on an article in the NAMBLA bulletin that said Thorstad had in his art colleciton some pictures depicting nude prepubescent boys? Corax 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA came in reaction to the bust of a sex-ring that included sex with 8-year old boys. Wanting to have sex with an 8 year old, or look at pornography of 6-year olds, is pedophilic on the face of it. In any case, there are multiple causes to call NAMBLA a "pedophile organization", not just Thorstad, who is basically called a pedophile by the editor of the Bulletin. -Will Beback 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What I note is that you have failed to address my point. NAMBLA doesn't have a "founder," much less one that can be proven to be a pedophile. The excerpt from the NAMBLA bulletin you quote doesn't mention anything about underage pornography. It mentioned that Thorstad, one of the founders of NAMBLA, had books which included photographs of "nude boys," some apparently as young as 6. The meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA was part of a series of meetings protesting what many in Boston's gay community considered to be a fabricated witchhunt by a homophobic district attorney running for re-election (See this for instance). It was not a meeting of people trying to defend sex with eight-year-olds was okay. Again, the article makes this perfectly clear. Your penchant for arguing by inventing "facts" out of whole cloth suggests that your purpose here is not to achieve a neutral, factual article. Corax 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so Thorstad is a co-founder rather than a founder. He is quoted as calling the NAMBLA Bulletin a "a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles". The editor talks about "leaving the rest of us bad 'pedophiles' behind". A later articles in that Bulletin calls NAMBLA members "pedophiles." So there are three instances of self-identificaiton of the membership as pedophiles. -Will Beback 00:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he said that the magazine was turning into a "semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles." If we take this comment at face value, as you desire to do, this means that prior to the general period when Thorstad made his comment, the magazine was not a "jerk-off mag for pedophiles." In constructing your argument, you've actually illustrated yet another of its weaknesses. Corax 02:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thorstad is describing the readers of the Bulletin, i.e. NAMBLA members, as "pedophiles". The Editor of the magzine describes himself and other members as pedophiles. A writer for the bulletin describes NAMBLA members as pedophiles. If the members call themselves pedophile, if others call it a pedophile organization, and if the members are arrested for seeking to have sex with pre-pubescent sex, then that all adds up to a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Thorstad's intention in the quote is not to call NAMBLA members pedophiles, but to suggest that the recently published NAMBLA Bulletins would appeal to pedophiles. Corax 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't think the Thorstad quote is germane, that leaves plenty of other evidence. -Will Beback 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the name of the category (i.e., if the name is pejorative), take it up on the category talkpage, or at CFD. siafu 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any interpretation of "Pedophile Organizations" sufficiently broad to include NAMBLA, would also include organzations like the Roman Catholic Church. 63.219.98.138 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to incoude the Roman Catholic Church that discussion will have to tak place on another talk page. The two organizatoins are markedly different, and I don't think your point is valid. -Will Beback 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the category. I also note that this article was in that category for most of 2005 and half of 2004. It was only removed to replace it with pederast organizations, which editors objected to. -Will Beback 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I further note that there has never been a consensus to remove the "pedophile" category from this article. -Will Beback 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's how you want to approach it, I still remember there not being a consensus to remove the article from LGBT organizations. So I suppose if we're going to put pedophile organizations back in, we should put LGBT organizations back in also. Which way do you want it? Corax 03:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The two are separate issues. -Will Beback 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The two are not separate issues. If your position is that we must include NAMBLA in pedophile organizations because it had been listed there without any consensus to remove it, then NAMBLA still belongs in LGBT organizations for the exact same reason. The only way in which the two are different is in how much you like the consequences. Corax 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All the problems with calling NAMBLA a "pedophile organization" still exist. "Pedophile" has become pejorative. It refers to a narrow age range. It refers only to people who have that narrow age range as an exclusive sexual interest. The word is used for name-calling these days more than it is used accurately. I could live with "Boylove Organizations", if you absolutely must stick it somewhere having to do with sex between adult and minor males, although I think "gay organizations" is just fine to discribe it. I think we need to avoid finely categorizing things to the point where we have categories with only a few things in them, and the public confusion between "pedophile" as a type of sexual interest, and "pedophile" as a kind of sex offender, makes the word unsuitable for categorization purposes, as it is unclear which context is being implied. Hermitian 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very few call NAMBLA a "boylove organization". However, if you'd like to add that category as well I wouldn't object. The fact that some pople regard "pedophile" as a pejorative is no reason to keep it off this article, any more than we would remove "neo-Nazi" from groups because some people think that is a pejorative term. Our categories are clear - we have separate categories for child sex abuse, child molesters, etc. No one is proposing adding this article to "child molestation organizations." There is plenty of evidence that NAMBLA members, officers, and editors consider themsleves and each other pedophiles, and that they have sexual interest in pre-pubescent boys. -Will Beback 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Google NAMBLA boylove = 555 hits

Google NAMBLA pedophile OR pedophilia =97,700 hits.

Therefore, "pedophile" is the more common usage in regard to NAMBLA. -Will Beback 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Polls are not facts, particularly Google polls. Is Jewwatch authoritative on Judaism because of its high ranking? People call things names both to identify them and to disparage them. I might easily note that a search on '"Judith Reisman" pedophile' returns more hits than '"Judith Reisman" heterosexual' although I doubt we should use that fact to try and characterize Dr. Reisman's dating behavior. No one here is denying that "pedophile" is a name a lot of people call NAMBLA. But name-calling does not a fact make. Hermitian 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not categorizing NAMBLA as a "pedophile organization" solely because of Google, or even because of Google at all. We are categorizng it that way because of numerous instances in which it has been called "pedophile" by responsible commentators, by members and founders, and because there is ample evidence that members and founders are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. -Will Beback 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean if I get a lot of hits for "George W. Bush war criminal," that we can add George W. Bush to a category called "war criminals"? Corax 04:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If there were members of the administration who referred to themselves as "war criminals", if they called each other "war criminals", if they were indicted as war criminals, and if their publications pandered to war criminals, then yes, it would be appropriate to refer to the Bush administration as "war criminals". -Will Beback 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So if John Wayne Gacy prefers to call himself a "children's entertainer," that is the terminology we must employ when categorizing him? I don't think so. Hermitian 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And are you saying we shouldn't call him a "serial murderer" because that is a pejorative term? No, we'll call him a serial killer because that is what he is commonly called, and because there is objective evidence that he killed many people. If he was also a child entertainer then we should also apply that category. -Will Beback 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And a google search shows that Bush is commonly called a war criminal. Your "objective evidence" is nothing more than subjective opinion. Corax 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we categorize NAMBLA as "pedophile" simply because of Google - I was just pointing out the "Boylove" is a rarely-used euphemism. To repeat, if there were members of the administration who referred to themselves as "war criminals", if they called each other "war criminals", if they were indicted as war criminals, and if their publications pandered to war criminals, then yes, it would be appropriate to refer to the Bush administration as "war criminals". -Will Beback 04:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a few instances of individual NAMBLA members calling each other pedophiles. That is not proof that NAMBLA considers itself a pedophile organization. NAMBLA has not been "indicted" or otherwise legally designated a pedophile organization, and your argument that the publication "panders" to pedophiles is so subjective that it doesn't bear further comment. Corax 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<NAMBLA was described in the official minutes as the "greatest" member of the International Pedophile and Child Education group. NAMBLA would not have joined such a group if they were not a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 05:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very large leap in logic, the same kind of leap that would suggest that, if NAMBLA were a "pedophile group," all its members would have to be pedophiles. Does IPCE openly state that it requires all its groups to identify as pedophile organizations? Or is possible that IPCE identifies itself as a pedophile group, and its associate groups merely identify with most of its objectives? Corax 05:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All of that is possible. If you have a soure showing that NAMBLA joined the International Pedophile Child Education group while not considering themselves pedophiles, then please share it wish us. If you have a source showing that the editor was fired for calling himself and the membership pedophiles, then please share it. If you have a source showing that the steering committee members arrested for soliciting pre-pubescent boys were denounced by the other members, then please share it. So far all of the sources provided, by me, indicate that the members call themselves pedophiles, call each other pedophiles, are called pedophiles by the media, and are arrested for acts consistent with pedophilia. Unless you can provide some sources to the contrary, please respect the sources that we do have. -Will Beback 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Will. We have no idea one way or the other why NAMBLA joined IPCE. Unless you have a source confirming the reason they joined, and that source is unequivocal in that NAMBLA joined because it considered itself a pedophile organization, NAMBLA's presence in IPCE is not evidence of anything besides its sympathy for IPCE's objectives. So I guess the appropriate question is: do YOU have references? As for your other statements, what I said above applies. Those are isolated statements by isolates members. Their opinion of the group is no more valid than yours. What matters is the group's official position. Corax 06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)