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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Project Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 to February 28 2006
I still think it's useful, but to be honest I've lost my bearings a little bit. I've done out a bunch of ideas to try and fix the article, and I'm not sure exactly where to start up again. Just read the version as it is, and talk about how you think it could be changed for the better. I do think the article needs major revisions, but I've been more of a occasional editor than a man with a plan. Lotusduck 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The discussion material at Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders may have some relevance here and I would like to mention it.
I would like to be involved with the project in a supportive basis, but I don't want to sign in until I have defined for myself just what the limits of that support will be. -- DanielCD 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There was at one time a few articles on search terms for KP. I put them up for RfC and they were apparently speedied into deletion. I won't reveal the terms here (I remember two of them) but that may have relevance and might want to refer to them. LMK if this is of any possible value. -- DanielCD 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Here it is: Child pornography search terms. -- DanielCD 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Edits like these likely deserve attention: [1]. Though this was reverted (it was techinically vandalism), it does make a good point. There are some bulldogs holding the NAMBLA article and keeping it as free of pedophilia mention as possible. A lot of ppl have issues with this. I'm not sure, but there might be a problem. I don't know for sure though; is the public perception of NAMBLA as a "pedophile" organization a mistake on the part of the public, or our editors at the article? Some of them seem a bit irrational, and have even tried to remove all mention of NAMBLA from the pedophile article (which I need to check to see if it hasn't been removed again). -- DanielCD 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Herostratus. DanielCD referred me to this user page. I'm very impressed with how detailed and thorough it is. I hope to contribute to the Pedophilia-related articles and have made a couple comments in their talk pages. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to throw something on the table and see how it goes.
Concerning wording/language: where is an appropriate division between appropriate response to crimes against children and unmerited demonizing. This line is an important part of the issue. On one hand, we don't want to support or encourage, yet we also don't want to be overcritical where it's not called for. I don't want to enable, but I also don't want to demonize. As far as criminal acts go: to complicate matters, there may be yet another line to draw here. I think we can use the critical section in the advocacy article to allow some vehmenent/sharp wording to start. That's just a start. We do need some firmer language, so let's put the issue on the table. Someone cite wording that looks inappropriate/wrong/off or whatever.
In addition: Complaints about wording are rampant, but few make the effort to give details (which is highly frustrating). Are these people just making jabs to see if they can squeeze and opinion in, or is there a legitimate concern that's being ignored?
To hightlight the issue, I think there's probably wording in the above paragraph that someone will have a problem with. And keep in mind that there will be two sides to the issue, and by all means, let's be civil. -- DanielCD 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is...keep it civil, if it ever gets off the ground... -- DanielCD 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I will soon have a very preliminary rewrite--of the Pedophilia article--that I'd kind of like to share somewhere. Substantively, it would not be very different from the current article, but I think it would be less POV, a little cleaner, and a little tighter. Also, is it possible to email each other through this site? THanks. -JM. Joey Q. McCartney 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This project must either cease to exist or exist under a new name. Try to imagine that Wikipedia actually exists in a world of humans with irrational emotions. WAS 4.250 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in some editing of adult baby related articles, but have been loathe to dive into the murky waters here. If this were expanded and renamed I'd be happy to not only assist in the existing goals of this project, but to have some help on articles like Infantilism and Sissy baby. - brenneman (t) (c) 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
During the deletion debate, there was some support for a move to the less-contentious name
Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia. Thoughts?
brenneman
{T}
{L}
03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Another option is "Wikiproject pedophilia articles." Physchim62 suggested it in the last comment in he archived discussion, and I think his point is valid. Joey Q. McCartney 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Or "Wikiproject pedophilia, infantilism and sissy baby" or something along those lines. Joey Q. McCartney 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume something like "Wikiproject sex and sexuality" is an option. Joey Q. McCartney 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with Pedophila NPOV -- who can be against NPOV? -- but I'm not nuts about it. I can see (now) how "Pedophilia" raises a red flag, but I wouldn't think that "Paraphilia" would (of course, I'm notable for being wrong about stuff like that.)
I (personally) would like to move forward as fast as properly possible on this issues, so I'm gonna sorta-kind "vote" below by listing my choices my order, if others want to move ahead by doing the same, fine, otherwise ignore me and continue debate.
Herostratus's choices in order:
"Child sexual abuse" isn't an option, but I'd support "WikiProject Paraphilia." Most of our paraphilia articles could use some work. Pedophilia seems a little narrow, sexuality a little broad, but paraphilia's just right.
Also, I don't know who this "Joe Average" guy is, but from all I heard about him he sounds like a f**king idiot. I don't think he should even be affecting our choice. Ineloquent 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. The name isn't that important as it relates the project goals. It could be called something that doesn't necessary reflect the project goals with super accuracy, if there's a good reason for doing so. And there is: politics. Technically, Paraphilia maybe isn't the very best name because some of what might be covered is not really paraphilia, and (so far) other paraphilias aren't being covered (but there's not reason that can't change down the line). Herostratus 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sensing a convergence of agreement on "Paraphilia". I guess the question could be raised, are there any strong objections to that name? If not appear after a decent interval, I for one wouldn't object to someone making the move. (I'm not gonna do it because I've been too ownerish in the past.) Herostratus 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There seemed to be many voices in support of a name change. Is there enough consensus to go ahead with some new name? - Will Beback 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophiles are our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it for now. It'll be in the edit history. -- DanielCD 19:28, 17 February 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Project Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 to February 28 2006
I still think it's useful, but to be honest I've lost my bearings a little bit. I've done out a bunch of ideas to try and fix the article, and I'm not sure exactly where to start up again. Just read the version as it is, and talk about how you think it could be changed for the better. I do think the article needs major revisions, but I've been more of a occasional editor than a man with a plan. Lotusduck 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The discussion material at Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders may have some relevance here and I would like to mention it.
I would like to be involved with the project in a supportive basis, but I don't want to sign in until I have defined for myself just what the limits of that support will be. -- DanielCD 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There was at one time a few articles on search terms for KP. I put them up for RfC and they were apparently speedied into deletion. I won't reveal the terms here (I remember two of them) but that may have relevance and might want to refer to them. LMK if this is of any possible value. -- DanielCD 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Here it is: Child pornography search terms. -- DanielCD 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Edits like these likely deserve attention: [1]. Though this was reverted (it was techinically vandalism), it does make a good point. There are some bulldogs holding the NAMBLA article and keeping it as free of pedophilia mention as possible. A lot of ppl have issues with this. I'm not sure, but there might be a problem. I don't know for sure though; is the public perception of NAMBLA as a "pedophile" organization a mistake on the part of the public, or our editors at the article? Some of them seem a bit irrational, and have even tried to remove all mention of NAMBLA from the pedophile article (which I need to check to see if it hasn't been removed again). -- DanielCD 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Herostratus. DanielCD referred me to this user page. I'm very impressed with how detailed and thorough it is. I hope to contribute to the Pedophilia-related articles and have made a couple comments in their talk pages. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to throw something on the table and see how it goes.
Concerning wording/language: where is an appropriate division between appropriate response to crimes against children and unmerited demonizing. This line is an important part of the issue. On one hand, we don't want to support or encourage, yet we also don't want to be overcritical where it's not called for. I don't want to enable, but I also don't want to demonize. As far as criminal acts go: to complicate matters, there may be yet another line to draw here. I think we can use the critical section in the advocacy article to allow some vehmenent/sharp wording to start. That's just a start. We do need some firmer language, so let's put the issue on the table. Someone cite wording that looks inappropriate/wrong/off or whatever.
In addition: Complaints about wording are rampant, but few make the effort to give details (which is highly frustrating). Are these people just making jabs to see if they can squeeze and opinion in, or is there a legitimate concern that's being ignored?
To hightlight the issue, I think there's probably wording in the above paragraph that someone will have a problem with. And keep in mind that there will be two sides to the issue, and by all means, let's be civil. -- DanielCD 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is...keep it civil, if it ever gets off the ground... -- DanielCD 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I will soon have a very preliminary rewrite--of the Pedophilia article--that I'd kind of like to share somewhere. Substantively, it would not be very different from the current article, but I think it would be less POV, a little cleaner, and a little tighter. Also, is it possible to email each other through this site? THanks. -JM. Joey Q. McCartney 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This project must either cease to exist or exist under a new name. Try to imagine that Wikipedia actually exists in a world of humans with irrational emotions. WAS 4.250 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in some editing of adult baby related articles, but have been loathe to dive into the murky waters here. If this were expanded and renamed I'd be happy to not only assist in the existing goals of this project, but to have some help on articles like Infantilism and Sissy baby. - brenneman (t) (c) 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
During the deletion debate, there was some support for a move to the less-contentious name
Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia. Thoughts?
brenneman
{T}
{L}
03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Another option is "Wikiproject pedophilia articles." Physchim62 suggested it in the last comment in he archived discussion, and I think his point is valid. Joey Q. McCartney 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Or "Wikiproject pedophilia, infantilism and sissy baby" or something along those lines. Joey Q. McCartney 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume something like "Wikiproject sex and sexuality" is an option. Joey Q. McCartney 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with Pedophila NPOV -- who can be against NPOV? -- but I'm not nuts about it. I can see (now) how "Pedophilia" raises a red flag, but I wouldn't think that "Paraphilia" would (of course, I'm notable for being wrong about stuff like that.)
I (personally) would like to move forward as fast as properly possible on this issues, so I'm gonna sorta-kind "vote" below by listing my choices my order, if others want to move ahead by doing the same, fine, otherwise ignore me and continue debate.
Herostratus's choices in order:
"Child sexual abuse" isn't an option, but I'd support "WikiProject Paraphilia." Most of our paraphilia articles could use some work. Pedophilia seems a little narrow, sexuality a little broad, but paraphilia's just right.
Also, I don't know who this "Joe Average" guy is, but from all I heard about him he sounds like a f**king idiot. I don't think he should even be affecting our choice. Ineloquent 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. The name isn't that important as it relates the project goals. It could be called something that doesn't necessary reflect the project goals with super accuracy, if there's a good reason for doing so. And there is: politics. Technically, Paraphilia maybe isn't the very best name because some of what might be covered is not really paraphilia, and (so far) other paraphilias aren't being covered (but there's not reason that can't change down the line). Herostratus 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sensing a convergence of agreement on "Paraphilia". I guess the question could be raised, are there any strong objections to that name? If not appear after a decent interval, I for one wouldn't object to someone making the move. (I'm not gonna do it because I've been too ownerish in the past.) Herostratus 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There seemed to be many voices in support of a name change. Is there enough consensus to go ahead with some new name? - Will Beback 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophiles are our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it for now. It'll be in the edit history. -- DanielCD 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)