Talk:Pedophile movement

CN/Fact Request

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

In order to abuse...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse

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

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

Commonwealth usage

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

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

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

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

First lines are OK (let this be said again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hoax ref

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

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

scrolling references

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

New version of opening paragraph

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

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

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

Concerning the opening lines (an analogy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request minor edit

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

Irritated perfectionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New version/old version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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