Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:42, 17 September 2007

Pedophile movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

	Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: no consensus, July 7 2007, see discussion. no consensus, 2005-12-31, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This is messed up...

See, Misplaced Pages thinks the only articles that are neutral when talking about controversial issues, are the ones written by the ones on the hated side. In this case, an article written by pedos. ForestAngel 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As already discussed, Misplaced Pages actually blocks pedophiles, pedophile sympathisers and suspected pedophiles from editing any articles. Would you call this article biased? If so, in what way is it? Samantha Pignez 07:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Forest, we dont all think that, but its an uphill struggle. Misplaced Pages blocks self identifying pedophiles it doesnt block people fopr making pro pedophilia edits, SqueakBox 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the policy about blocking pedophiles? Martijn Hoekstra 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to write to the arbcom. Drop an email to Fred or another emmber of the arbcom as this policy is not openly stated anywhere but based on a behind the scenes arbcom case, SqueakBox 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific ArbCom case I could have a look at concerning these decissions? Martijn Hoekstra 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledage there isnt such an available case, its all been done behind the scenes, for reasons that appear reasonable to me; ie I dont think self identifying as a pedophile, by which I mean someone who says "I am a pedophile" on their user page, is acceptable and as far as I know nobody has ever been blocked for what one could call pro pedophile activist edits to the main space. There is a long discussion in one of Jimbo Wales archive talk pages that could shed some light on the issue, SqueakBox 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I read some discussion on Jimbos talk page archives, which at least shed enough light on it to show it is a controversial issue, with a lot of discussion around it. I'll see if the questions I have regarding it can be cleared up through email. At any rate this is not the place for a long discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well feel free to mail me or drop a note on my talk page if you want further clarification, SqueakBox 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord could someone edit this becose this is not neutral,but pro-phedophilic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I asked for unprotection as you were writing the comment. great minds and all that....and we have the totally disputed tag because it isnt neutral. While I fear the banned users who think it is neutral will crawl back out of the woodwork if it is unprotected that is no reason not to unprotect, SqueakBox 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Right I applied for Page protection to be unlocked. it was declined with the following explanation

This article had to be protected twice last month due to edit warring. Looks like edit warring just resumed once the protection wore off last time so it seems likely that will happen again. Discussion on the talkpage seems needed so that a consensus can be reached before unprotection - perhaps avenues of dispute resolution could be explored. WjBscribe 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What will it take for us all to be inagreement? Do we need dispute resolution. Your comments are urgently required, all of you, SqueakBox 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of people including myself seem to think that the current state of the articles (barring the size of the now growing anti pedophile article, etc) is fine; fair and balanced. Others, I'm less sure about. Others including yourself and two now banned editors, unlike the majority of recent voters, seem to be constantly in disagreement with the mere existence of some of these articles. It is very hard to defend what is clearly a neutral article against people who think that it is an abomination that the issue concerned even be discussed. And I don't think that anyone is going to change their minds anytime soon. ●Farenhorst 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything productive happening between now and two weeks time that will improve the fortune of this article. I think that it should be unlocked. Samantha Pignez 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sam. Farenhorst has also been indefinitely banned now and Mike D78 hasnt been around for 2 weeks so I think an unlocking would be entirely appropriate, SqueakBox 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think my inability to spend as much time at Misplaced Pages as of late is going to enable you to carry out your typically disruptive and out-of-process edits on this topic, then think again, Squeak. Mike D78 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have applied for unprotection. Given I dont make disruptive or out-of-processe edits I am somewhat bafled by your comments but will point out that consensus never includes indefinitely blocked users, and the possibility of any new editors being socks is a real possibility given the problems this article has had and continues to have, SqueakBox 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized draft

A few editors are already aware of this, but I have been working on a draft version of this article for sometime now. I initially intended to enlist the help of a few other editors in working on this draft before I presented it to everyone else, but few others have seemed to have the time to do much with it, so I'm going to go ahead and seek everyone else's opinions.

This draft reorganizes the information in the article in a few places, the most significant change being the merging of the currently seperate claims and scientific views sections. This draft at this time is a bit longer than the current article; I added some more sources that I thought were of relevance, with the intention that others could help me make everything more concise (I have trouble doing this).

While we are discussing the future direction for this article after it is unlocked, I hope everyone will consider the substantial amount of work I have put into this draft. I believe the reorganization of information, as proposed by another editor, really improves this article, and I hope that others can help in fixing any problems some editors might have with this draft. Feel free to edit as you wish on this draft, as I have another copy saved elsewhere. Just try to make sure that all edits are constructive and keep the general ideas expressed in the article intact. Mike D78 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The draft is fine. It's just that I don't know what else can be done to improve this article without going against consensus. ●Farenhorst 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

obsession causes uselessness

Reading the original - now blocked - article and all the discussion it provoked I can only conclude that the incredible obsessiveness to this subject which started in the USA and now seems to have spread worldwide makes any kind of normal objective description impossible.

People tend to forget that through the centuries sexuality tended to be linked to the process of maturity, or better said, being of child bearing age. This is/was still true in lots of cultures that aren't linked to our western civilization. Let's remember that Marie-Antoinette was 13 years of age when she married; this was quite normal for those days and it's not a very long time ago. Nowadays in many western countries kids have their first intercourse at age 14 or 15 even though we, their parents, would have preferred it to be different.

If we were capable of separating pedophilia more clearly from hebephilia, I think many of the senseless discussions would stop. For now I would suggest an honest but simple and factual description of the points of iew of those who violently oppose the existence of this phenomenon (in as much as you can oppose something that seems inbred in some people, similar to homosexuality and a lot more diversions) and those who feel that these sexual preferences have a right to exist.

In any case the topic should be concise and objective. If you make a total mess out of it that lastst many ages, only those who are totally obsessed with this topic themselves would take the time to read it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.42.204 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GLogo.png

Image:GLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One rule for yourself

Scenario:

Editor 1 has made a number of changes to the article after unprotection.

Editor 2 reverts a couple, accepts a couple and tweaks a couple, providing detailed explanations.

Editor 1 reverts the whole lot in one go, using only a hominem argument.

Editor 2 reverts this, asking for a better justification.

Editor 1 reverts yet again, and accuses Editor 2 of edit warring (apparently another unjustified revert is just what the doctor ordered).

To me, this all stinks. I hope it does to others as well. I might provide further justifications for my editing, if I have the time. But for now, I'll let the opening paragraph speak for itself, much like Nancy Grace. 86.150.128.67 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that your explanation for why your reverted my changes? which werere good changes. And whose sockpuppet are you? I predicted some socks of banned users would return the moment the article was unlocked and it appears I am right, SqueakBox 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me with superstition? It's my edits that you disagree with, right? 86.150.128.67 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Superstition? I beg your pardon? What has superstition got to do with anything. The sockpuppet suspicion is reasonable because it is a constant pattern on this article of previously banned users returning. You are in the same location with the same ISP as 86.131.37.130 and that ISP changes their static ip addresses every few months or so, so likely they have just given you a new IP. And that IP is associated with Farenhorst and other indefinitely blocked users. And your edit patterns, trying to keep the article POV in a way that sheds pro-pedophile activists in a good light, is the same pattern.

In the opening I have tried to make it more balanced, ie describing PPA's in a way that fits common usage and how society as a whole perceieves them and the broader issues. I am unhappy to see the admittedly youthful photo of Bernard in this article because of BLP, as he is a pedophile and they can be the subject of hate attacks in the real world, and we dont out people here, it should be in his bio and isn't needed here. I feel to put the criticism right at the bottom is to put it out of the way and NPOV demands that it have a more significant place in the article, SqueakBox 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if most people hold that 'pro-pedophile activism' exists only to break down the barriers preventing child sexual abuse, stating their position as fact still violates our NPOV policy - though you're welcome to point out that it's the majority POV (provided you can find a source that meets the relevant WP:RS guideline: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources..") Please explain how and why you wish to change this article here, on the talk page, so we can discuss it. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Dyskolos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock, he was aiding Farenhorst on CSA before. It seems this article merely has to be unlocked and for anyone to come and try to striaghten out the POV issues even a bit and the socks come out of the woodwork, this is a highly predictable, highly repetitive and extremely disruptive pattern by people who are SPAs, ie they care about the articles and their POV re these articles and not at all about the project, hence the continuing and repeated use of abusive socks, SqueakBox 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet or an SPA, and I don't recall aiding Farenhorst on Child sexual abuse. This page is on my watchlist. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we get an admin to move this to the talk page of the respective authors? This is really quite disruptive. 86.150.128.67 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

British Telecom is a very popular ISP. You may have noticed that another such IP was used to revert against the NPOV policy on this article! And regardless, this is superstition, as opposed to constructive criticism. If you have a complaint about an editor, please take it elsewhere - not on the discussion page of an article.

You should not be seeking to represent lay opinion. We should not make the article reflect public consensus by way of tone, but rather its content. The content itself should be discussed objectively, i.e. none of the rubbish about sexual predation and falling into the hands of pedophiles, etc.

Frits Bernard is dead. 86.150.128.67 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Call for Discussion

Unless the goal is to get this article indef protected again, editors really need to discuss significant changes before making them. We all know how heated debates about this controversial topic can get, especially here on Misplaced Pages. Making radical edits to the intro and throughout the article is not a good way to proceed, when we all know what happened last time people kept edit warring. This is my call for everyone to openly communicate their concerns and ideas about this article. I'm sure together we can come up with a reasonable approach to editing this article. If anyone has constructive ideas, please voice them on this Talk Page first. The only way we can avoid edit warring is if we clearly present the issues and collaboratively work towards improving this article. ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I really don't want to get into an edit war myself, I feel obligated to undo unconstructive and/or POV-permeated edits. Such edits do not add to the quality of the article, and only seek to advance a single point of view. What's more, it is obvious that some of them are made with full knowledge of their bias and the reaction that they would ensue from certain other editors. This is why I have undid one such edit already, and will likely undo several others. If you believe my undoing of any particular edit is unjustified, please feel free to discuss the matter on this Talk Page. I really do think we're capable of coming to a reasonable consensus on how to proceed in editing this article. Sincerely yours, ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your edits. 86.150.128.67 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you do but we have to create a neutral article and ensure that no banned users edit here. Reverting to the editors of banned users is evidence of meat-puppetry and those who are trying to promote a pro-pedophile agenda within the article need to read NPOV and stay with it. We simply cannot have socks creagting a pro-pedophile agenda article and no established editor should be supporting that. NPOV means all viewpoints are reflected and yet the pro-pedophile agenda folk are insisting that only the pro-pedophile view is mentioned. This is a violation of NPOV. I also note that while I am bringing my reasons for editing here those who opopose myu edits do not bvring any arguments here, SqueakBox 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who edited late last night but forgot to log in but comparing the disputed versions I fully endorse Squeak's edits in this case. The article is very one-sided and while I don't really understand all this stuff about sockpuppets (ahh it means a user with 2 accounts, okay) I do think we should stay with Squeak's version. After all this is not a boy or girl chat site but an encyclopaedia and I certainly think that while the article is about so-called pro paedophilia activism that doesn't mean it has to be a pro paedophile article.Pol64 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics