List of programs broadcast by Nick at Nite

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

Page move proposal

Further to the discussion in the section above at #Goals and victories of the movement, I've done some research into the terminology used in the sources for this topic.

It appears that the term "pro-pedophile activism" is a neologism used almost exclusively in Wikipedia and the many websites that scrape content from here. A basic google search for the term brings in only 3,000 hits - a very small number for Google. Even the more general term "pedophile activism" only gets 6,000 Google hits, with lots of Wikipedia scrapes and blogs, but minimal significant coverage.

More importantly, on Google Scholar and Google Books, all of the following get zero hits:

• "pro-pedophile activism"
• "pro-paedophile activism"
• "paedophile activism"

and this version gets only one hit on Google Scholar, with none on Google Books:

• "pedophile activism"

On the other hand, the following terms get a total of approximately 58 hits on Google Books and Google Scholar, between the two spellings:

• "pedophile movement"
• "paedophile movement"

This is seen in the references in the article itself as well. There are a variety of sources that refer to the "pedophile movement", but as far as I can tell, none of the sources refer to "pro-pedophile activism".

Since the term "pro-pedophile activism" does not appear in any of the sources, that makes the title of the article original research, and unverifiable, therefore the page should be moved to a title that is supported by sources.

The best candidate for page title is the term found in the sources: Pedophile movement

Although the pedophile movement is not active today beyond a few websites, it's notable as a small fringe movement in recent history, and in that context is verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno. What about "pedophile advocacy"--does that get any google hits? I'm just not crazy about the word "movement" for something that involved such small numbers (and doesn't exist anymore in anything approaching that form...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check on that and found 9 hits total for these two terms on Google Scholar and Google Books:

• "pedophile advocacy"
• "paedophile advocacy"

But - those are not unique hits - 3 of them are quotes of the Dallam paper where the Rind paper is described as "pedophile advocacy" and 2 of them are quotes of a paper that debunks the Sandfort interviews as an invalid sample because the boys were chosen for the study by members a "pedophile advocacy" group. So those 5 hits collapse to 2, making the unique number 6. Then again, I haven't analyzed all 58 hits for "pedophile movement" to see how many of those overlap; with these there were fewer of them so it was easily visible. Still, even at 9 hits for the advocacy version, it's still significantly fewer.

Google Scholar/Books test is overly simplistic, but it's a way of getting a quick read on the situation. The main point is, whatever the new title is, the existing title appears to be OR, because none of the sources use that term.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Pro-pedophile advocacy. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not oppose a move I share Petra's concerns re the word movement. We need to call the article according to common usage and I think part of the problem is the movement is so fringe. I'd go for child sexual abuse advocacy but I imagine that would meet resistance from certain quarters. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that concern. I don't know the solution though. I made the proposal for two reasons. "Pedophile movement" is what's used in the available sources while "pedophile activism" is synthesis, since none of the sources use that term. Also, a "movement" can come and go; it can be something that existed in the past and now does not exist. So while I understand the concern that it might imply something larger than what it is, placing it in historical context can solve that, once the reader gets past the title of the article, in the first sentence.

"Activism" denotes real action in the world to attempt creating change in society; without documentation of the term, it's hard to place that in the historical context, so in a way, that term makes it seem more current and active than the term "movement" that can refer to historical action. Whatever small opportunities for those changes in laws and attitudes may have existed 30 years ago are now completely gone; even though some pedophile websites post goals of change in their mission statements today, there is no activism happening, they function as support and resource sites. Today it's not activism, it's more like "philosophy"; in other words, there is still discussion among some small number of people, but even the proponents of those ideas know that their goals are impossible and have given up the activism.

Based on the above, term "advocacy" would be better than "activism", since one can advocate something without engaging in activism. So if we don't find consensus for the term "movement", I'd agree to "advocacy", though I still have concerns regarding the lack of sources for any of the terms other than "movement".

Here's a suggestion that could keep the benefit of verifiability while avoiding the impression that there is any sort of active movement today: Pedophile movement of the late 20th century.

I don't know which title is best for all the reasons, but it's a problem that the current title is a neologism not in any of the references. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made the case for "Pedophile movement of the late 20th century." -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Simplicity is best. So, if a title change is necessary, "pedophile movement" would be the most appropriate new title, since it's concise, to the point, and seems to have actual corroboration among legitimate sources (according to the Google Scholar search mentioned above). ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Born

"E.O. Born" appears to be a pseudonym of Frits Bernard:

http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php/Frits_Bernard

http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/leest/5001927.shtml -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern Pedophilia Groups

The links on the groups associated with the pro-pedophilia movement all point to groups which existed long ago, or which have been disbanded. These need to be updated to reflect the many groups which are currently in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.35.98 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"difference between pedophilia and sexual activity"

This seems to me a very bad/un-informative explanation of the points I have seen ppas make (and it also has the pov problem of stating this difference as a fact, instead of asserting it as opinion and explaining why)--I think a better way of stating this would be to say something like "Richard Kramer of Mhamic asserts that there are nonoffending pedophiles, and cites Okami's research that "an unknown number of pedophiles may never molest children." Kramer also notes that "(same Okami ref re sexual aspect may be subordinate to "affection" for some pedophiles), and that Johns Hopkins professor John Money has distinguished between "affectional pedophilia" and "sadistic pedophilia"--pedophiles who use grooming and persuasion as opposed to force." The subheading could be something like "Difference between affectional and sadistic pedophilia." ? (The rebuttal is, according to ATSA, "virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, and according to the FBI, 90% of sex crimes are never reported. Also, while less harm is associated with grooming rather than force, molestations that are the result of grooming instead of force are not harmless. We can discuss if that should be included.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an appropriate solution for that awkward text, and I concur that the section needs a title change, but I'm not sure about the title you listed. The problem with that title is that it's based on one source, but I think there are other sources that divide the types differently. In some typologies, not all uses of force in child sexual abuse are described as sadistic and that word is reserved for pedophiles who specifically prefer inflicting pain/suffering as part of their pathology, rather than those who "only" use force to compel submission. I don't recall right now where that list is - maybe in the recent DOJ/FBI typology. Regarding the rebuttal, I recommend mentioning it, but only in passing since this article is about PPA and not about child abuse specifically. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right about title. What about "promoting understanding of the difference between violent and nonviolent pedophilia"? This page from Mhamic goes into that in two places:http://www.mhamic.org/intro/introduction_print.htm (This is a lot of crossover into the idea that "children can consent," which is already in the article...since Kramer has developed his own neologistic phrase "male homosexual attraction to minors," and defines it as something that it nor necessarily acted upon, maybe this should go into a little Mhamic section, with an intro to Mhamic, an explanation of that phrase/the title of the website, and include mention of Okami and Money?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That new section title suggestion says it better, though it's pretty long. It could be used for now pending further improvement. I found the FBI info I had mentioned, it's here on the Pedophilia talk page. Regarding Mhamic, it could be useful to mention them in a paragraph, but a section heading would give it undue weight, since it's just one person's website. Also, they are a primary source and not a reliable source for third-party info, so we can only use them with clear attribution that it is that one person's opinion or his way of advocating. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Promoting understanding of the difference between pedophilia and sexual activity. Some activists wish to explain the difference between pedophilia and adults' sexual activity with children.[citation needed]" -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is where this Brongersma quote from "Questioning assumptions of harm" could go, also: "Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," where he reported the result of interviews with participants in adult–child relationships wrote, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."[32]" -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's suggestion: "Title TBD"
• "Richard Kramer of Mhamic asserts that there are nonoffending pedophiles, and cites Okami's research that "an unknown number of pedophiles may never molest children." Kramer *also notes that "(same Okami ref re sexual aspect may be subordinate to "affection" for some pedophiles), and that Johns Hopkins professor John Money has separated "affectional *pedophilia" from "sadistic pedophilia"--pedophiles who use grooming and persuasion as opposed to force. Edward Brongersma, in "Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys," *reported from interviews with participants in adult–child relationships that, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element."[32] -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Kramer notes Money's statement on affectional paedophilia, though. The information could be included by mentioning that it was published in the pro-paed journal Paidika. "In an interview with the pro-paedophile journal Paidika, John Money seperated "affectional pedophilia" from "sadistic pedophilia."" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Enclave kring

The following text appears to be unverifiable, so it should not be in the article - unless sources are found to support it:

A publishing company of the same name serving these purposes was founded in 1958. According to Bernard, the Enclave kring developed into an international organization (gaining support in Western Europe, New York, Japan, and Hong Kong), and Bernard made lecture tours in some of these places. He claims that results of these efforts of the Enclave kring included more positive feedback about pedophile activism in various publications independent from the Enclave kring such as the Dutch Vriendschap ("Friendship", published since 1859), German Der Weg zu Freundschaft und Toleranz ("A way to friendship and tolerance"), Danish Amigo, and Dutch Verstandig Ouderschap ("Reasonable parenthood") by the 1960s. In 1972, Bernard's book Sex met kinderen ("Sex with children", was published by the independent Dutch sexual reform organisation NVSH). The book outlined the history of the Enclave kring and international research in adult-child sexual interaction. According to Bernard, his book "had an [public] effect throughout Europe and abroad."

All of the footnotes in that section go to a reprint of a Paidika article by Bernard, about his own organization. I did some Google searches and could not locate any information about the existence of the publishing company; the book Sex met kinderen is out of print; I found the phrase mentioned in a few other books, seemingly in Dutch, so I could not verify the context; and, I was not able to find any information about what Bernard claims was the "positive feedback about pedophile activism" or " an international organization (gaining support in Western Europe, New York, Japan, and Hong Kong)". It's possible the information can be located, but so far, there is no support for those statements other than the one primary source of Bernard about himself.

A pro-pedophile organization or activist can be used as a reliable source when they discuss their own views, but they are not a reliable source when they interpret or explain historical events that involve others, due to their involvement and agenda. So, we can use Bernard's description of the goals of his organization, but not his description of external events, such as the success of his organization. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Observations are attributed. Therefore strictly opinion. It is therefore OK. J*Lambton ^T/_C 08:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. He is not a reliable source for third party claims about himself or the significance of his "work." . (Especially self-aggrandizing ones, for which there is no other corroboration. He's not much of a reliable source at all, I don't think--he's now known to make exaggerated claims about himself via a pseudonym.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

David Joy

David Joy --Joy was convicted of possessing 1,129 indecent images involving children as young as one year old. Several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism. Joy, a member of PIE's governing committee, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to four counts of making indecent images between January 1 2000 and January 24 2006, and to seven counts of possession. He had a string of previous convictions for child sex offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, including the attempted rape of a young girl and indecent assault. [41]

I am not happy with this. Some of it is direct quotation from the source, but does not appear in quotation marks and this, besides being bad writing practice, tends to reproduce the bias of the source. The fact that 'several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism' does not necessarily mean that any of the images were sadistic, but this is the implied accusation. 'String of previous convictions' is crime reporter's cliche and unenyclopedic. I shall try and make adjustments to restore some balance.The Relativist (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just re-did it. J*Lambton ^T/_C 09:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

I see that someone restored this section. I will be happy with this, if it can be explained how the group is a manifestation of activism as opposed to a peer support group. In my knowledge, the group had no website, no public campaign and was derived from some web users who could possibly be described as activists because they once put a public site on line. J*Lambton ^T/_C 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A peer support group is activism. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious question: Why? J*Lambton ^T/_C 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's expand. In my opinion, an activist group requires a public agenda and a front of some kind. Of course, activist organisations can have a peer support function, but the MGC had none at all. It was just a semi-secret pedophile club, and we do not know exactly how it functioned. J*Lambton ^T/_C 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a very important question, as that section associates criminal offences with "activism". We might as well be calling the next "pedophile ring" an activist organisation - which would effectively smear ideologues like Gieles and Thorstad as participants in a criminal order. J*Lambton ^T/_C 18:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for your opinion but I would point out that the title of this article is not pro-pedophile activism groups and we don't just restrict ourselves to groupas with a public agenda etc buut can cover any and all aspects of pro pedophile activism covered by thrid party sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategies or Arguments?

In my opinion, strategies is a biased and inferior term. It may be taken to imply disingenuity. Therefore, beliefs or perspectives is far better in my opinion. J*Lambton ^T/_C 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategies is the verifiable term used in the Dallam reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is because Dallam is always condemnatory about pedophilia and related activism. She writes papers for a child-protection/trauma prevention organisation, and should be expected to display that bias. Again, putting bias aside, would "perspectives" not be a less inflammatory and condemnatory tone? We don't need sources for the word we use to describe PP beliefs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dallam is a reliable source; it's not Wikipedia's job to judge what she wrote, or to change its tone, simply to report it. Regarding this: "We don't need sources for the word we use to describe PP beliefs." -- no, that is incorrect. All content must be verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Never have I seen the fat that self-evident perspectives, opinions or beliefs need to be sourced as being such. If we were to do this in every article, we could end up with all kinds of POV descriptors - "strategies", "abominations". Why make the exception with pedophile activism? J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing biased or negative about the use of the term "strategy" to describe the actions of "activists." Without strategy, there can be no activism:

• Activism defined in Wikipedia: intentional action to bring about social or political change.
• Strategy defined in Wikipedia: a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

And, the use of the term as in this article is specifically verifiable. So on all counts, it's the right term to use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. You are describing opinions as strategies. A strategy may be a course of action, i.e. use of internet, leaflets, media. An opinion may be strategically informed, but we have no way of knowing this. What is your source for calling these opinions "strategies"? J*Lambton ^T/_C 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHUN: pointless argumentation of the same thing over and over in the same paragraph from disruptive editor ignored. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... and the same to you. If you would care to look at the paper, "philosopy" is applied just as many times to PP beliefs. And isn't this irrelevant anyway, considering WP:NPOV? J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Martijn's ethics

MARTIJN's statement is equally conflicted about illegality : "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." But they also state "In relationships between children and adults that are experienced as pleasant, possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem." MARTIJN proposes four guidelines for this "intimacy" [54]

It's not obvious that there is any conflict here. They say that possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem, which could be read as asserting that it would not be a problem were it not for existing laws and social mores, which is compatible with thinking that existing laws should be respected. In general, looking for contradictions in the statements of these groups is really biased and/or OR.The Relativist (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Um-hmm. I have to agree with that. What about:

"MARTIJN, for example, advises against illegal sex: "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." However, they do not believe that it necessarily has to be unethical: "In relationships between children and adults that are experienced as pleasant, possible physical intimacy should not have to be a problem." MARTIJN proposes four guidelines for this "intimacy" [54] J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Replace 'it' in the second line with 'adult-child sex'. Otherwise, fine.The Relativist (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BoyChat in this article

Why? J*Lambton ^T/_C 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they are paedophile activists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowhardforever (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence? J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that SqueakBox is willing to defend the same position. Evidence? J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be, Jovin. A somewhat suspicious statement from an alleged sockmaster of Blowhard, on the basis that you are trying to frame me in order to see me blocked. IMHO with such a statement you dig yourself a deeper hole. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to take you seriously, cracker. J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And will you please stop bringing up lame accusations on the article talk page? J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer

Calling Fritz a pioneer is the worst kind of POV. Please do not replace it. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

wikt:Pioneer. Like Hitler. Descriptive, not supportive.

I guess that this should be added on to the end of this vast list of neutral terms that you see as POV. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler clearly was a pioneer, unlike this sad loser (and sure Hitler lost in the end but was not a loser), as many evil people have not been loswers, juast that bernard was. Good comparison for studies of evil ideology though, well spotted. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I shouldn't expect too much.

Here goes: It does not matter how "evil", and to what movement a pioneer's vital input was.

It is beyond our concern whether someone's initial effect upon the movement failed in the long run, or may succeed in the future. It does not matter, and we may be wrong anyway.

Opinions, perspectives, subjectivity, etc means absolutely nothing to how we describe subjects. This is merely a point - an obvious one, as your alternative version does not assert "spawn of Satan" as a neutral description, which relieves me greatly. J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rind

There are two lines at the bottom of this section, that apply to the article's subject - PPA. I'm leaning towards a RfC on this, Boychat, MGC and any other fringe-irrelevant topics that editors seek to include - in what are surely attempts to dwell on peripheral subjects that can be used to conflate pedophile activism with criminal activity (at the bad end) and legitimate research (at the good end). J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe sources for anecdotes

I would really appreciate it if a certain editor would be kind enough to cease her edit warring and take time out to read WP:RS and WP:V - both key policies that firmly state the relevance of fringe sources in providing information about fringe beliefs.

Oh, and by the way - providing a lot of them - far from being "gratuitous", is better characterised as "fairer sampling" and "good research". And with the rate that other editors are deleting RSs, a hell of a lot are needed. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as usual--two of them are to the same Sandfort study, hence one is gratuitous. One is to ipce, is a few sentences long, and is attributed to nobody. One is to Newgon, and the "anecdotes" are attributed to nobody/could be entirely made up--a fringe blog is not a reliable source for claims about third parties. The other two I left in. And they need to be where de Young mentions anecdotes, it is redundant to create a separate section (it is bad enough that all kinds of OR is being stretched into the de Young framework).-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

None are blogs, and their mere existence on PPA sites proves that these accounts are used. I am happy for you to insert the term "or claim to" - which is needed for some of the accounts. And please refer to present behaviour - not the "as usual" bitterness that seeks to discredit another. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are self-published fringe websites, and cannot be used to verify claims about third parties. Two refs are fine to support the claim; there is no need to spam in banned user Daniel Lievre's website, etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... what exactly do you not get about this? We are not sourcing the fact that some people claim to have been in positive sex relationships with adults when they are young. We are sourcing the fact that pedophile sites use these claims - which are in some cases unverified, and in others verified as true stories (in news media, interviews with real people, studies etc). That is plainly demonstrated by the sources, none of which are spam (a moral interpretation of shit you don't like, if ever I saw one), and all of which will doubtless disappear if they are knocked down to your preferred number of two. J-Lambton ^T/_C 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Model

Everybody know what an ethical model is:

A model that concerns ethics, not a "model that is positively ethical".

I propose that we agree upon "code of ethics". J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They claim it is "ethical," there are no reliable sources which verify this or also say they are "ethical,"therefore it is the claims of a fringe source, and must be characterized as such: "they claim" or "which they believe are ethical." The KKK thinks they are ethical, too, but we would say that is the "so called" ethics claimed by a fringe about itself. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get it. "Ethical" primarily refers to something of ethics, not something that is ethically sound as in eating meat is ethical. The model is of ethics.

Forget it. Check out my new version. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Pro-pedophile ethics are like racist ethics--they are so-called ethics.-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Tom O'Carroll makes a direct connection between pedophile ethics and racist ethics, in case anyone was confused about his intelligence and high moral standards: [1] -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[…] Nowadays, children are in a remarkably analogous position to thatof the white women who used to be "protected" by lynch mobs of Ku Klux Klansmen in the American South. The dominant white male culture of the old South in the slavery era held that women, like today's children, were not sexual beings; they were pure. Thus if there was any sexual contact between them and a black man it could only mean one thing: rape. White ladies were not allowed to have sexual feelings for black men; it was literally unthinkable. Women who dared to break this iron taboo were ladies no longer, just whores. Nowadays, the locus of sexual anxiety has shifted towards children. As this anxiety has been cranked up and up in recent decades, we have been seeing increasingly repressive measures designed not to protect children themselves but to protect the myth of childhood innocence in which society has invested so heavily. Punishing children for sexual involvement with adults, however, would be too nakedly a contradiction of their victim status. It would imply they had known what they were doing, and were not innocent. In order to preserve this notional innocence of the child, it is far easier to blame the adult, the despised paedophile, whatever the facts of the case may have been.

Again. Look in the dictionary. Look at WP:NPOV as well. What we preach about pedophilia and racism doesn't matter at all in this area. They all have ethical structures, and denying them positions in the all-encompassing field of ethics can only be pure folly. J-Lambton ^T/_C 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile ethics are like KKK ethics; they are so-called ethics. No amount of fringe pov-pushing will turn them into Plato.-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are unravelling a very personal bias here. Anyway, goodbye for now. J-Lambton ^T/_C 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile ethics are like KKK ethics, they are so-called ethics, and no amount of fringe pov-pushing will change that. -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra. Are you OK? J-Lambton ^T/_C 06:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you ask? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick, Petra, assert it again! This time your opinion might magically become relevant to the article! 219.79.186.13 (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lambton. 'Bad ethics' or 'bad ethical system' is not a contradiction in terms and so to talk about something as a form of 'ethics' is not necessarily to endorse it. The Relativist (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to support new sentence

The sentence reads "The Dutch pedophile movement of the 70s was very successful in attracting sympathetic media attention." The reference is chapter 13 of A Radical Case. In that chapter, the only information I found that might support that statement is this: "A TV programme, watched by two million viewers, [note 18] feature a Protestant minister with positive views on paedophilia, plus a enlightened mother and a medical student who felt he had received enormous benefit from a relationship he had had with a man from the age of twelve. [note 19] Feedback from the public did not indicate outrage at the programme. Dr Brongersma, who was one of the principle contributors, told me that, on the contrary, reaction was favourable from the entire press (Communist to Roman Catholic) and from the general public. " Is there anything in that chapter I missed? (Because this would have to be stated differently/doesn't really support the assertion just put in the article.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So, essentially, a pro-pedophile activist reports on a media event, relying on the word of one the participants, who supports pedophilia, and is too cautious to even make the bold analysis that was added to the article? John Nevard (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As well as the TV show, there was an article in a national newspaper (same reference), which included interviews with young lovers. Such things are absolutely unheard of in the U.K. for example. Also, there is nothing wrong with O'Carroll as a source. His book was published by a reputable name. The fact that he has a strong view does not invalidate his information.The Relativist (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And in the Operation Cathedral article you will find Beeb sources discussing an interview they conducted with an indicted pedophile before he did the world a favour. In your (original) analysis, does this mean that modern Britain is accepting of pedophiles, or do we need to find a convicted pedophile to be a tertiary source on this? John Nevard (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't see the relevance of that article. Could you explain?The Relativist (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Brongersma by way of Tom O'Carroll is not a good source for an exceptional claim about third parties--we'd need the actual "sympathetic media attention" itself to cite. (Lexis-nexis turns up nothing, by the way). In order to use this cite as is, it would have to read, "Tom O'Carroll says Edward Brongermsa said such and such about a TV programme"--that's pretty trivial, so much so that it probably doesn't belong in the article. (And it doesn't translate to a general claim of "sympathetic media attention.") There's a danger here not just of exaggerating, but of putting actual false/misleading information in. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't relying on Brongersma's comment. I was relying on the fact that the coverage in the national newapaper and in the T.V. programme was sympathetic, as related by O'Carroll. This is almost unheard of. It amounts to PPAs being significantly successful in getting sympathetic media coverage (though it does not of course show that all the coverage was sympathetic). I could consider compromising and saying that they had significant success rather than saying that they were 'very' successful.The Relativist (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Carroll is not a reliable source about anything other than his own ideas and feelings. His report of Brongersma's belief there was "sympathetic media coverage" is not even a primary source first person report. Without corrobaoration by reilable third party sources, it's just gossip about something someone else told him. Media coverage of any notability at all would have been documented, sympathetic or not. If no-one has written about it other than O'Carroll, and the media reports themselves can't be found, then it's not verifiable and can't be used.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Carroll is not a reliable source about anything other than his own ideas and feelings. How come? Why he is not a reliable source about some questions of fact as well? Is it because he has a strong point of view? If so, we would be hard pressed to find any reliable sources on this subject. Almost everyone who writes about it has a point of view, either for or against.The Relativist (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing that none of this "sympathetic media coverage" can be found (believe me, I have looked high and low for any media coverage whatsover, because there are practically no sources other than Frits Bernard in the Netherlands section, which could be greatly improved by finding something/anything from other sources, for diversification). If there was any sympathetic media coverage, we could document that. If you find any media coverage at all, please put in article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't find it either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist--which is why we must address the question of whether O'Carroll's book is a reliable source and if not, why not.The Relativist (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

O'Carroll wrote one book, now out of print; a year later he was convicted of "conspiracy to corrupt public morals" in the UK - later convicted of producing child pornography. His book was a manifesto of his personal ideas of pro-pedophile activism, not a fact-checked description of events of the time; the simple fact that someone published it does not make it reliable. He's not a scientist, he's not an academic, he's not a researcher, he's an activist with an agenda. His book is a reliable source about his own description of his own ideas but not for his interpretation of how the press responded to his ideas. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A national newspaper, The Hague Post, has run a lengthy feature article in which paedophiles and their young lovers were interviewed about their relationship. [note 17] A TV programme, watched by two million viewers, [note 18] feature a Protestant minister with positive views on paedophilia, plus a enlightened mother and a medical student who felt he had received enormous benefit from a relationship he had had with a man from the age of twelve. I suggest you don't have to be a scientist, an academic or a 'researcher' to know whether these things happened. (In any case, it is obvious that some people are both activists and reasearchers.) However, I now accept that the rules of WP:Verifiability don't really allow this source to be used and that is what we have to go by until somebody can come up with a better set of rules.The Relativist (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Childlove movement redirect

Why does that term redirect here? They aren't synonymous. There's obviously going to be a lot of overlap, but I think there are cases where things can be each independantly without being the other. In fact, the term isn't even used at all in the article, plus the term 'childlove' is only used once in with a brief mention in source #72. Unless someone is going to explain what this is in this article, or give it a home elsewhere, I think the redirect should be deleted.Tyciol (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "grenzen" :
  • {{cite book|last=Bernard|first=Frits|title=Pädophilie ohne Grenzen (''"Anti-authoritarian pedophilia"'')|year=1997|publisher=Foerster Verlag|location=Frankfurt/Main, Germany|language=German|id=ISBN 3-922257-83-6|pages=40}}
  • {{cite book|last=Bernard|first=Frits|title=Pädophilie ohne Grenzen (''"Anti-authoritarian pedophilia"'')|year=1997|publisher=Foerster Verlag|location=Frankfurt/Main, Germany|language=German|id=ISBN 3-922257-83-6|pages=42}}
  • {{cite book|last=Bernard|first=Frits|title=Pädophilie ohne Grenzen (''"Anti-authoritarian pedophilia"'')|year=1997|publisher=Foerster Verlag|location=Frankfurt/Main, Germany|language=German|id=ISBN 3-922257-83-6|pages=36}}
  • {{cite book|last=Bernard|first=Frits|title=Pädophilie ohne Grenzen (''"Anti-authoritarian pedophilia"'')|year=1997|publisher=Foerster Verlag|location=Frankfurt/Main, Germany|language=German|id=ISBN 3-922257-83-6|pages=47}}
• "tolerance" :
  • {{cite journal|author=Jan Schuijer|title=Tolerance at arm's length: The Dutch experience|journal=Journal of Homosexuality|year=1990|volume=20|pages=218|}}
  • {{cite journal|author=Jan Schuijer|title=Tolerance at arm's length: The Dutch experience|journal=Journal of Homosexuality|year=1990|volume=20|pages=219}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Boychat

This is not activism, and should be removed altogether. forestPIG^(grunt) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Malesky

Jack-A-Roe - you just reverted my edit without explaining why the excess Malesky information is relevant to BoyChat. Just to clarify, if the BoyChat section is to exist at all (I personally see it as an irrelevant, non-activist chatboard), I am only for including information that is relevant to BoyChat. I will also accept your edit if you can extract quotes from Malesky showing how the distortions are relevant to political activism in this area instead of the thoughts of armchair pedophiles. forestPIG^(grunt) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article and reproduced below for your convenience -

In their 2004 study, Malesky et al stated that in general, pedophile support-forum participiation can also indicate that a pedophile convicted of internet-only sex offenses may have committed undetected sex offenses:

"The social reinforcement of cognitive distortions may serve to compromise the therapeutic benefit of treatment. Participation in these message board exchanges might also serve to strengthen the distorted schemata of offenders, thereby making them more resistant to treatment. Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that individuals who have been convicted of Internet-related, non-contact sexual offenses are likely to have committed undetected ‘hands on’ offenses as well. Clinicians who become aware of deviant Internet usage by a client should investigate the possibility that the individual has a history of hands-on offending."

I would like to see evidence of relevance to activism before this is re-inserted. forestPIG^(grunt) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here?

If I were ever to teach in a university setting, this is probably the article I would show any students who questioned why I enforce the common academic rule: "Do not cite Wikipedia. Ever." Why are there "strategies for promoting public acceptance" in this article? There are no such categories for "promoting acceptance" in the articles on "white nationalists", or any other group that the vast majority of people find despicable. (The article on white nationalism would also be a good example of the rule.)Dg7891 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this article is about activism. And promoting acceptance of pedophilia happens to be a large part of that activism. It is pretty much what Pro-pedophile activists do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as Wikipedia has an article on the White Nationalist movement, it also has this article on the pro-pedophilia movement. Wikipedia has articles about many things that people commonly wish didn't exist, like diseases and political corruption. By describing them we're not advocating for them. Just the opposite - Wikipedia policies require that we give the majority viewpoint the greatest weight. I'd hope that university-level instructors would understand the need to provide information even on unpleasant topics rather than to pretend that they don't exist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. That wasn't my point. I don't dispute that this article should exist, but it is incredibly long for the actual presence of "pro-pedophile activism" in any society that exists today. Specifically, why is there a section on "strategies for promoting public acceptance" and why was this reverted when I deleted it? Again, it is tangential to the topic as a whole, OBVIOUSLY POV, and just makes the article look terrible for anyone who actually thinks Wikipedia might be a respectable academic source. There are numerous other problems with this article, but let's start with getting rid of that particular section. Dg7891 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When did you edit the article? I don't see it in your contribution list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing anonymously before this, and registered specifically to bring this up. As with the article on White Nationalism, the state of this article bothers me deeply. Anyways, rather than a series of reverts that might get me in trouble, I wanted to ask here if there was any particular reason why a good portion of this article should not be deleted or drastically altered. Dg7891 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This section seems very strange to me as well; its like a clinical autopsy of the arguments used by such groups, instead of the presentation and criticism of those viewpoints. Imagine analogous section in say trotskysm article ("insistance the soviet union was a workers state, though a degenerate one.... "); it is clearly grossly POV. More interestingly, "history" section should at least mention the french petition from the late 70s on age of consent - that sounds like activism, right? And the related Faucault radio talk Sexual Morality and the Law is even linked in this article.. --78.1.187.100 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is 78.1 the same editor as Dg7891, or are you two different editors? As for deleting material, please don't delte source material without a good reason. So far I haven't seen any good reason for deleting anything. While I'm sorry that parts of this article bother you deeply, that's by itself is not a good reason. If the article fails to include important information then please add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)