![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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. [1] According to Bernard, [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] In 1972, Bernard's book Sex met kinderen ("Sex with children", was published by the independent Dutch sexual reform organisation NVSH). [1] 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." [1]
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)
References
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Calling Fritz a pioneer is the worst kind of POV. Please do not replace it. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[…] 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)
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)
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)
Actually, the "Childlove movement" is the same as the pro-pedophile movement. -- DodiaFae ( talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not activism, and should be removed altogether. forestPIG (grunt) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed from article and reproduced below for your convenience -
"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)
References
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)
The quotation in the medical definitions section as it is out of date, its from this [2] 2003 press release. There is currently a working group [3] [4] which has been set up by the APA to review all paraphilia (inculding pedophilia) for the new DSM-V. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This touches on something I mentioned briefly earlier. Some sections, most strikingly those on medicine, the BoyChat pedophile chat board, online chats and "Montreal Collective" have not been shown to have any general or at least predominant linkage with pro-pedophile activism, let alone notability. I can see that a large number of editors disagree with the removal of this material, so I will leave it in at least for now. Naturally, such material would be taken out of the article until someone can demonstrate that it is relevant or notable. forestPIG (grunt) 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(The Following was posted to his discussion page in response to a request for a second opinion)
Bare in mind that I am not an administrator and thus have no privileges or authority beyond those of an editor.
However given your request I reviewed your contributions and noticed the following things:
1. You made a bona fide attempt to remove what you saw as negative bias as per WP:NPOV
2. You engaged in edit wars which obstruct the healthy maintenance of the encyclopedia.
Corollary to 2: You did not justify or explain your edits on the artice's discussion page, resulting in the aforementioned disputes
3. Insofar as I could see you replaced certain references with vagueries such as "some academics state"
4. You are an anonymous user editing a very sensitive topic, people will be naturally suspicious.
Given these factors I have no choice but to feel in favor of previous editors and thier decisions in this matter.
I shall append this to the discussion page of the article and to the talk pages of the others whose input you requested.
Tennekis
(rant) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tennekis
(rant)
05:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am new to dispute resolution so if this is th wong place I apologize —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tennekis (
talk •
contribs)
05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From the approach of some editors here, one would be lead to believe that there are only two positions on this issue. The groups NVSH and Krumme13 are just two examples of organisations that hold vastly differing points of view, yet both have been described as "advocate groups". I even had to remove a number of organisations from the "opponents" section, that had given absolutely no position on the topic, and were probably just dumped there with because of the prejudices of our editors. The idiocy with which this topic is treated gives no room for nuance. 81.105.56.240 ( talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The terms are also used by individuals who are attracted to pubescent minors, due mainly to the fact that most societies criminalise contact between adults and pubescent youths with the same (or similar) laws used against prepubescent relationships. Thus the solitary use of "pedophile" is incorrect, and User:Tyciol was to correct to reword this. 81.105.56.240 ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So anyway Squeakbox, I realize that rant is a bit indiscernable, so to simplify, is there a way for that subject to indicate that pedos don't have exclusive use of the word, or is that considered to go without saying? I noticed the removal of the dash/space/-r etc. which was probably a bit overcomplicated and also common sense and didn't need to be said either I guess. Tyciol ( talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is somewhat separate as it concerns a different aspect of the sentence. "These are terms of self-identification" This statement is accurate, but why does it specify self-identification? To a reader this implies 'only' self-identification. It's not a stretch of the imagination that people use these words to describe or identify how they perceive another person as well. I figure this is pretty minor but I should ask first, is anyone opposed to taking out 'self' and just having the phrase "terms of identification"? Tyciol ( talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This Guardian article at the end of it implies that PPAs use CP to spread their beliefs, albeit the word PPA is not used. I want to bring it here for ref while I see if there is a way to enter it into the article, and to see what others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Should activism directed at the sexual rights of children be addressed here? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of those edits, but I think that they could be restructured somewhat in light of Bernard and Brongersma's positions as major historical activists for the movement. EmilianaMartín ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Pro-pedophile activism, also spelled pro-paedophile activism, refers to efforts by pedophiles to re-define pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder" I see no reason to assume that it's only pedophiles who want pedophilia to be de-stigmatized. Sure, there's not many people, but I think this has to be changed. Dex Stewart ( talk) 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
In this edit you said to 'see talk' when you fact-tagged the word 'activists'. What reference needs to be provided where you will accept that activism refers to efforts by activists? That word doesn't claim anything about them, but you can't really do activism if you're not activist in some degree. I think adding the link is a great idea though, so people can actually understand what it is. One thing that's curious is that neither the pro or anti articles show up on that page. Is that because they're not notable or unified enough to even be considered activism by the standards of other movements collectivity and stated goals? Tyciol ( talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The page move discussion has been going on for a year or more.
There are zero references supporting the title of "pro-pedophile activism". That is a neologism used only in Wikipedia. There are some google-hits for the term, but they all come from here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and by maintaining an article by that title, that's what's been happening.
The term "pedophile movement" does have a few - though only a few - sources available that use the term.
Page has been moved, per WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:V. - Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to have become very biased since I last visited. It's OK to point out out that the movement is contrary to mainstream opinion but not to repeat this, in one form or another, several times. It's almost as if the writers are 'protesting too much'. Also the word 'fringe' is judgemental. It seems wrong to treat the movement as more or less defunct when it still has a strong presence on the Internet. I would appreciate comments from other editors on this. The Relativist ( talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the content of the article refers to its title anymore. Since the only focus in the first sentence is on pedophiles who are being activists (and the focus being that they are doing activism moreso than the topic of that activism being pro-pedophile (because the stated intentions include goals beside that of self-promotion, even if this is surmised to be the true goal). Recently I restored a redirect here from pedophile activism because I thought that addressed a separate topic than this one. If this article is not going to describe non-pedophile activism which is pro-pedophile in nature, then I don't see the point of also have 'pro' on there.
Unless of course, this is to distinguish it from pedophile activism which is anti-pedophile or neutral in nature (I don't know of any). Activism like that may exist (like pedophiles who are undergoing treatment who reject rather than embrace it). In which case shouldn't there be separate articles: pedophile pro-pedophile activism and pedophile anti-pedophile activism? The thing is, titles like this could be invented for all other sorts of positions (awareness activism, etc), so I think collecting it under the simplest term which described a wider variety of topics would be easiest.
If this intro is going to maintain that this is by pedophiles (implying that there are no non-pedophiles active in any of the groups) then I think it would be prudent to remove mention of any groups who have any members not diagnosed as that.
Jack did add references (7) which I am looking over. #1 does use the term, but it seems to be paraphrased. Firstly, the title needs to be changed, NYT may have changed it, because it went from "From their own online world" to "On the web". Another thing is, while the quote in question does simply say pedophiles, the first use of 'pedophile' in this reference uses "self-proclaimed pedophiles". There is a clear difference here, one which indicates an assertion of a diagnosis, the other of people who are proclaiming to be something (whether diagnosed or not, honest or not). So on the basis of #1, I believe the phrase "self-proclaimed" would be appropriate, as to indicate that this is what people call themself, and not what they necessarily are.
I'm not sure how ref#2 supports this at all, because the word doesn't even come up. #3 says "Pedophile advocacy group", an advocacy group is not necessarily composed of the group it is advocating for. #4 is describing NAMBLA as a 'pedophile organization'. I read this to indicate that it is an organization FOR pedophiles, and that it would be primarily composed of them, but not necessarily exclusively by them (they have no visible means of excluding non-pedophiles from membership, for example). As such, I think the disclaimers such as 'primarily' are good to be present. They still reinforce the easily assumed predominance while making clear that due to being used in favour of 'exclusively' that it is not making that claim, whereas with the absence of the adverb that is the impression a reader gets, which is an assumption that may be false. That study is 20 years old, even if activism was solely composed of pedophiles back then, that is no indication that it still would be. Activists constantly leave an join activist movements, and the minds of members are rarely all known (especially due to privacy). All you can describe are individuals, the stated goals of an organization, and what the organization has done, you can't make an assertion about what members are for having been a member (especially with moles, spies, etc).
Ref #5 is more modern, which is good (like the internet actually existed when it was made). The problem is that ZDnet doesn't really list any authorities for these statements to take them as valuable references at face value. It is by an anonymous "ZDNet Editor" and actually seems to have little if any independant content. It actually sites the NYT article listed as #1 (which is a very thorough multi-page article, better as a reference, from a more known news source). This should really be removed due to being a secondary and dependant source with no evidence of originality. It's b-use already has 53/54 about the Ohio case which look to be better sources from NBC and... admittedly I haven't heard of Buzzle but at least it doesn't depend on another newspaper to tell their story for them.
I can't analyze sources #6/#7 since there are no URLs for them (these are annoying references for controversial Wikipedia articles with ongoing change, better references for things like this, especially when being used as a source for an introduction, are ones that can be verified easily by other editors. Most people do not have Journal of Homosexuality or Sexualities available in their library, so to contribute here you basically have to have access to a university psychology library or buy it yourself... Tyciol ( talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps better as an article that focuses on pedophilia and not issues only associated with it by a few orgs and for the rest, blind prejudice. The rest belongs in Age of consent reform.
The following comment was misplaced when I undid edits to this page by Tyciol in which he reformatted other people's comments, including even merging a comment by one editor into another comment by that editor at a different time stamp. His refactoring was so confusing that I could not figure out where to put this text that he added during that series of edits, so I am placing it here to make sure it is not lost. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) After reviewing the comment, it looks like it belongs in this section, if not feel free to place it wherever it was intended, as long as other's comments are not modified. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This changed "advocating for minor children's free choice to engage in sexual relationships without constraint by their parents or other adults" to "often portraying themselves as fighting for the rights of children to engage in sex with adults". Why was the word 'minor' removed? Why was 'free choice' removed? Why was 'sexual relationships' changed to 'sex with adults'? These are strange changes to me, could you explain them? Tyciol ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to unhelpful reverts, I've protected the page from editing. Please try to find consensus rather than reverting each other's work. Will Beback talk 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
According to his obituary [5], "He remained unrepentant about his sexual relationships with the young boys. He often said he thought American law was unduly prudish and argued that he had chosen boys only from cultures where man-boy sex was common and unremarkable." Does this cultural argument fit into this article? I think it may fit under "Historical anthropological references." [6] I am not aware of Gajdusek being involved in any particular pro-pedophilia organization but the fact that he was a Nobel prize winner and an important scientist may justify adding his pro-pedophilia arguments to this section of the article.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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. [1] According to Bernard, [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] In 1972, Bernard's book Sex met kinderen ("Sex with children", was published by the independent Dutch sexual reform organisation NVSH). [1] 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." [1]
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)
References
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Calling Fritz a pioneer is the worst kind of POV. Please do not replace it. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[…] 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)
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)
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)
Actually, the "Childlove movement" is the same as the pro-pedophile movement. -- DodiaFae ( talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not activism, and should be removed altogether. forestPIG (grunt) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed from article and reproduced below for your convenience -
"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)
References
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)
The quotation in the medical definitions section as it is out of date, its from this [2] 2003 press release. There is currently a working group [3] [4] which has been set up by the APA to review all paraphilia (inculding pedophilia) for the new DSM-V. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This touches on something I mentioned briefly earlier. Some sections, most strikingly those on medicine, the BoyChat pedophile chat board, online chats and "Montreal Collective" have not been shown to have any general or at least predominant linkage with pro-pedophile activism, let alone notability. I can see that a large number of editors disagree with the removal of this material, so I will leave it in at least for now. Naturally, such material would be taken out of the article until someone can demonstrate that it is relevant or notable. forestPIG (grunt) 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(The Following was posted to his discussion page in response to a request for a second opinion)
Bare in mind that I am not an administrator and thus have no privileges or authority beyond those of an editor.
However given your request I reviewed your contributions and noticed the following things:
1. You made a bona fide attempt to remove what you saw as negative bias as per WP:NPOV
2. You engaged in edit wars which obstruct the healthy maintenance of the encyclopedia.
Corollary to 2: You did not justify or explain your edits on the artice's discussion page, resulting in the aforementioned disputes
3. Insofar as I could see you replaced certain references with vagueries such as "some academics state"
4. You are an anonymous user editing a very sensitive topic, people will be naturally suspicious.
Given these factors I have no choice but to feel in favor of previous editors and thier decisions in this matter.
I shall append this to the discussion page of the article and to the talk pages of the others whose input you requested.
Tennekis
(rant) 05:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tennekis
(rant)
05:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am new to dispute resolution so if this is th wong place I apologize —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tennekis (
talk •
contribs)
05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From the approach of some editors here, one would be lead to believe that there are only two positions on this issue. The groups NVSH and Krumme13 are just two examples of organisations that hold vastly differing points of view, yet both have been described as "advocate groups". I even had to remove a number of organisations from the "opponents" section, that had given absolutely no position on the topic, and were probably just dumped there with because of the prejudices of our editors. The idiocy with which this topic is treated gives no room for nuance. 81.105.56.240 ( talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The terms are also used by individuals who are attracted to pubescent minors, due mainly to the fact that most societies criminalise contact between adults and pubescent youths with the same (or similar) laws used against prepubescent relationships. Thus the solitary use of "pedophile" is incorrect, and User:Tyciol was to correct to reword this. 81.105.56.240 ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So anyway Squeakbox, I realize that rant is a bit indiscernable, so to simplify, is there a way for that subject to indicate that pedos don't have exclusive use of the word, or is that considered to go without saying? I noticed the removal of the dash/space/-r etc. which was probably a bit overcomplicated and also common sense and didn't need to be said either I guess. Tyciol ( talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This is somewhat separate as it concerns a different aspect of the sentence. "These are terms of self-identification" This statement is accurate, but why does it specify self-identification? To a reader this implies 'only' self-identification. It's not a stretch of the imagination that people use these words to describe or identify how they perceive another person as well. I figure this is pretty minor but I should ask first, is anyone opposed to taking out 'self' and just having the phrase "terms of identification"? Tyciol ( talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This Guardian article at the end of it implies that PPAs use CP to spread their beliefs, albeit the word PPA is not used. I want to bring it here for ref while I see if there is a way to enter it into the article, and to see what others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Should activism directed at the sexual rights of children be addressed here? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of those edits, but I think that they could be restructured somewhat in light of Bernard and Brongersma's positions as major historical activists for the movement. EmilianaMartín ( talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Pro-pedophile activism, also spelled pro-paedophile activism, refers to efforts by pedophiles to re-define pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder" I see no reason to assume that it's only pedophiles who want pedophilia to be de-stigmatized. Sure, there's not many people, but I think this has to be changed. Dex Stewart ( talk) 09:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
In this edit you said to 'see talk' when you fact-tagged the word 'activists'. What reference needs to be provided where you will accept that activism refers to efforts by activists? That word doesn't claim anything about them, but you can't really do activism if you're not activist in some degree. I think adding the link is a great idea though, so people can actually understand what it is. One thing that's curious is that neither the pro or anti articles show up on that page. Is that because they're not notable or unified enough to even be considered activism by the standards of other movements collectivity and stated goals? Tyciol ( talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The page move discussion has been going on for a year or more.
There are zero references supporting the title of "pro-pedophile activism". That is a neologism used only in Wikipedia. There are some google-hits for the term, but they all come from here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and by maintaining an article by that title, that's what's been happening.
The term "pedophile movement" does have a few - though only a few - sources available that use the term.
Page has been moved, per WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:V. - Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to have become very biased since I last visited. It's OK to point out out that the movement is contrary to mainstream opinion but not to repeat this, in one form or another, several times. It's almost as if the writers are 'protesting too much'. Also the word 'fringe' is judgemental. It seems wrong to treat the movement as more or less defunct when it still has a strong presence on the Internet. I would appreciate comments from other editors on this. The Relativist ( talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the content of the article refers to its title anymore. Since the only focus in the first sentence is on pedophiles who are being activists (and the focus being that they are doing activism moreso than the topic of that activism being pro-pedophile (because the stated intentions include goals beside that of self-promotion, even if this is surmised to be the true goal). Recently I restored a redirect here from pedophile activism because I thought that addressed a separate topic than this one. If this article is not going to describe non-pedophile activism which is pro-pedophile in nature, then I don't see the point of also have 'pro' on there.
Unless of course, this is to distinguish it from pedophile activism which is anti-pedophile or neutral in nature (I don't know of any). Activism like that may exist (like pedophiles who are undergoing treatment who reject rather than embrace it). In which case shouldn't there be separate articles: pedophile pro-pedophile activism and pedophile anti-pedophile activism? The thing is, titles like this could be invented for all other sorts of positions (awareness activism, etc), so I think collecting it under the simplest term which described a wider variety of topics would be easiest.
If this intro is going to maintain that this is by pedophiles (implying that there are no non-pedophiles active in any of the groups) then I think it would be prudent to remove mention of any groups who have any members not diagnosed as that.
Jack did add references (7) which I am looking over. #1 does use the term, but it seems to be paraphrased. Firstly, the title needs to be changed, NYT may have changed it, because it went from "From their own online world" to "On the web". Another thing is, while the quote in question does simply say pedophiles, the first use of 'pedophile' in this reference uses "self-proclaimed pedophiles". There is a clear difference here, one which indicates an assertion of a diagnosis, the other of people who are proclaiming to be something (whether diagnosed or not, honest or not). So on the basis of #1, I believe the phrase "self-proclaimed" would be appropriate, as to indicate that this is what people call themself, and not what they necessarily are.
I'm not sure how ref#2 supports this at all, because the word doesn't even come up. #3 says "Pedophile advocacy group", an advocacy group is not necessarily composed of the group it is advocating for. #4 is describing NAMBLA as a 'pedophile organization'. I read this to indicate that it is an organization FOR pedophiles, and that it would be primarily composed of them, but not necessarily exclusively by them (they have no visible means of excluding non-pedophiles from membership, for example). As such, I think the disclaimers such as 'primarily' are good to be present. They still reinforce the easily assumed predominance while making clear that due to being used in favour of 'exclusively' that it is not making that claim, whereas with the absence of the adverb that is the impression a reader gets, which is an assumption that may be false. That study is 20 years old, even if activism was solely composed of pedophiles back then, that is no indication that it still would be. Activists constantly leave an join activist movements, and the minds of members are rarely all known (especially due to privacy). All you can describe are individuals, the stated goals of an organization, and what the organization has done, you can't make an assertion about what members are for having been a member (especially with moles, spies, etc).
Ref #5 is more modern, which is good (like the internet actually existed when it was made). The problem is that ZDnet doesn't really list any authorities for these statements to take them as valuable references at face value. It is by an anonymous "ZDNet Editor" and actually seems to have little if any independant content. It actually sites the NYT article listed as #1 (which is a very thorough multi-page article, better as a reference, from a more known news source). This should really be removed due to being a secondary and dependant source with no evidence of originality. It's b-use already has 53/54 about the Ohio case which look to be better sources from NBC and... admittedly I haven't heard of Buzzle but at least it doesn't depend on another newspaper to tell their story for them.
I can't analyze sources #6/#7 since there are no URLs for them (these are annoying references for controversial Wikipedia articles with ongoing change, better references for things like this, especially when being used as a source for an introduction, are ones that can be verified easily by other editors. Most people do not have Journal of Homosexuality or Sexualities available in their library, so to contribute here you basically have to have access to a university psychology library or buy it yourself... Tyciol ( talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps better as an article that focuses on pedophilia and not issues only associated with it by a few orgs and for the rest, blind prejudice. The rest belongs in Age of consent reform.
The following comment was misplaced when I undid edits to this page by Tyciol in which he reformatted other people's comments, including even merging a comment by one editor into another comment by that editor at a different time stamp. His refactoring was so confusing that I could not figure out where to put this text that he added during that series of edits, so I am placing it here to make sure it is not lost. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) After reviewing the comment, it looks like it belongs in this section, if not feel free to place it wherever it was intended, as long as other's comments are not modified. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This changed "advocating for minor children's free choice to engage in sexual relationships without constraint by their parents or other adults" to "often portraying themselves as fighting for the rights of children to engage in sex with adults". Why was the word 'minor' removed? Why was 'free choice' removed? Why was 'sexual relationships' changed to 'sex with adults'? These are strange changes to me, could you explain them? Tyciol ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to unhelpful reverts, I've protected the page from editing. Please try to find consensus rather than reverting each other's work. Will Beback talk 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
According to his obituary [5], "He remained unrepentant about his sexual relationships with the young boys. He often said he thought American law was unduly prudish and argued that he had chosen boys only from cultures where man-boy sex was common and unremarkable." Does this cultural argument fit into this article? I think it may fit under "Historical anthropological references." [6] I am not aware of Gajdusek being involved in any particular pro-pedophilia organization but the fact that he was a Nobel prize winner and an important scientist may justify adding his pro-pedophilia arguments to this section of the article.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)