Talk:Anti-pedophile activism

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Redirects

Too tired for now. Just a reminder for me to set them up! --Jim Burton 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what this page should be, SqueakBox 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should let the AfD process run its course, rather than blanking this article. --Haemo 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

We already have 2 for (Will B / Squeek) and 2 against (Me / Haemo), but lets wait for AfD to close before having this discussion --Jim Burton 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the AfD is closed, I want to add my own opinion on the merge. Personally, I'm against it, because the resulting article would be about activism related to pedophilia as a whole, which I think would be very difficult to balance. Also, both (Pro-)pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism are much more interesting, coherent topics than the combined one. Mango juice^talk 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section appears to all be unsourced original research. -Will Beback · † · 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite secure in knowing that these are commonly stated positions. I also know of a group who are in the process of drafting an online petition that covers a lot of these points, so we should have some sources rather soon --Jim Burton 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) We can only use reliable sources, not including forum postings and blogs. B) Complaints about Perverted Justice are not the same as complaints about the "movement". We already have a very complete article on PJ so we don't need to spend time rehashing it here at length. -Will Beback · † · 07:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are blog postings unreliable? --Jim Burton 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:RS. -Will Beback · † · 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't keep restoring unsourced assertion. Wait until you've found legitimate sources to add these back. -Will Beback · † · 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate material

Those who attack pedophiles only (as opposed to child sex offenders) are targeting the wrong people, in what is either an unreasonable and inhumane outlet for their own hate or repressed pedophilia. [1]

To begin with, a comment posted on a website by an anonymous writer is not a reliable source. Secondly, only the last clause of this statement is supported by the source. Instead of writing an original-research essay and then scrambling for sources to support it, I recommend finding good sources then summarizing what they say. -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop waging a war on this article. Deleting unsourced material within a matter of hours is totally unreasonable, especially when another user is active in sourcing that material. An not all material has to be sourced either. You are holding this article up to a ludicrous burden of proof, seemingly because of your general hostility to it as a whole. --Jim Burton 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am holding the article to the same standards as any Wikipedia article. We wouldn't allow blogs and forum postings as sources for pedophile activism either. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. -Will Beback · † · 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that wikis are not considered reliable sources either. Please stop adding patently inappropriate material. -Will Beback · † · 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Whilst sourcing opinions from blogs is not realiable, sourcing blogs to show that they exist surely isn't. This is about the most negative, antisocial editing I have ever seen. --Jim Burton 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making uncivil remarks about your fellow editors. As for the blogs, there's no reason to simply indicate they exist. And we cannot use material on them to draw conclusions about so-called "anti-pedophile activism", as doing wo would be original research. Let's just stick to using reliable sources, if any can be found. -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so would only be (what I understand to be) OR, if I wrote the entries. The only thing that I find uncivil here, is your editing and your unfounded accusations that I am making uncivil remarks about editors, as opposed to their behaviour. I am allowed to criticise uncivil editing and ludicrous burdens of proof as much as I like, thankyou very much --Jim Burton 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to complain about me please do so on my talk page or another appropriate page. As for the sourcing standards for this article, let's stick to the same standards we use in other articles. Those standards do not allow forums, wikis, blogs, and other self-published sites. If you don't like having those deleted then don't add them. I'm sure that if we used similar sources in the pedophile activism there would be complaints. Let's just be consistent. -Will Beback · † · 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't complain about you, nor Mr Squeaky (yet), not only because I have no chance, but I have nothing to 'complain' elsewhere about, thusfar. That I see an inherent lack of reason wherever I look comes with being JB. As for the sources, I agree with you on all but the wikis and the use of blogs to demonstrate their own existence (which I won't be dong again for deletions sake). Regarding 'self published' sites, I think you'll be hard pushed to source any reasonable sized, controverial article without them. Again, they're required if anything to evidence their own existence and function. --Jim Burton 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take up policy changes elsewhere. It's not just a matter of using reliable sources, but also of correctly using them. For example:

For example, members of the Edinburgh based Society Against Pedophiles are reported to have travelled the city streets in a blacked out van, whilst using night-vision goggles to monitor the offenders http://www.societyagainstpedophiles.org/

I looked at that page and I didn't see where it talks about a "blacked-out van" etc. Am I mistaken? -Will Beback · † · 05:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I confused it with another ref that got deleted, but is now reinstated. --Jim Burton 09:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be constructive

It seems that a war is being waged against this article, simply because it is unpopular with one or two people who want it deleted. Unsourced material is being held up to a huge burden of proof, and deleted virtually on sight, even though it is known full well that I'm battling an AfD. Please be constructive, and help source and improve the article, instead of ripping its guts out --Jim Burton 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable material has no place in Wikipedia. I have helped source this article. We're getting close to having it 100% sourced. -Will Beback .·.·.· 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified (note, not unverifiable) material has no place in controversial articles that are not liked in principle by the editors making such judgements... apparently --Jim Burton 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the {unsourced} tag (that you yourself restored[2]):

Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.

So long as we stick with simply summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view we'll be fine. -Will Beback .·.·.· 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags

When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line.

I think that some editors of this article are following a standard we don't use on Wikipedia, that of adding the reference before the punctuation and after a space. -Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the CJ link?

Corrupted justice is a large and arguably powerful campaign against PJ's brand of antipedophile activism, taking them on from a position that is itself antipedophile. External links should not all advocate one position, they should merely concern the article. External links are not removable on the simple basis of another article that we link to being hosted on that site. If so, you should have also removed the PJ link. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted EL to make it more like int he pro=pedophile article, which IMO demonstrtaes that both articles should be merged into one. Obviously the PJ link should be here as they are an excellent example of anti pedophile activists, SqueakBox 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reasoning with you? You accuse me of promoting pedophilia by linking to a self-professed anti pedophile site which opposes PJ. The link clearly applies to this article, as it concerns its content. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an internal link to our PJ artilce is sufficient. We don't need to include an external link too. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree DPeterson^talk 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to remove the Merge link?

Either merge it or redo the banner so both Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism have "merge" banners with a link to the same discussion area. I'm removing the Merge, if someone wants to put it back please put it back on both boards. Dfpc 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's merge the two...How do we do that? DPeterson^talk 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinent Childlove, Non-Abstinent Childlove, and Anti-Childlove

I think this article puts too much emphasis on Anti-Childlove, without making it clear what they oppose. Anti-Childlove not only opposes child exploitation, but also social tolerance and fantasy-oriented activities, such as lolicon. They usually express the opinion that all Childlovers pose a danger to children, regardless of their "stated" views on abstinence. Abstinent Childlove opposes child pornography and sexual relationships between adults and children. Instead, they work towards social tolerance and repealing laws against fantasy-oriented activities. On the other hand, Non-Abstinent Childlove advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults and children. These topics may be difficult to research, as different groups use different terms.

You've made the same comment twice, further evidence the pro and anti articles need merging, SqueakBox 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. How do we go about making that happen? DPeterson^talk 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Merging Pro and Anti Pedophile Activism articles

Let's try to keep the discussion of the merger to one of the two Talk Pages. That way, editors don't have to repeat themselves, and it would be easier to see all the arguments and votes on a single page. So, which Talk Page should it be - the one for Anti-pedophile activism or the one for Pro-pedophile activism? In my opinion, the discussion should be continued on the latter, because more editors seem to be participating in the general editing of that article and in the process of discussing possible improvements to both of these articles. Besides, the poll and discussion in regards to the proposed merger have gone further on that Talk Page.Homologeo 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. DPeterson^talk 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll regarding merger

AGREE Merge the two. DPeterson^talk 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGREE. Also, notice how the pro-pedophile activism article is more than 10 times as long as the anti-pedophile activism one. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? If not merged, the former at least needs to be significantly shortened. --Potato dude42 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pro article has existed for many years, while the anti article has existed for a month and a half. It's only natural the former would be longer, and there'd certainly be no reason for making it equal in size to the anti article. --Askild 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the prev. two thoughts completely. DPeterson^talk 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Um, hi. DISAGREE. =D Mike D78 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article?

The article that used to be under the title "Anti-pedophile activism" now appears to be missing. The page for it redirects to Pedophilia#Anti-pedophile activism - a section that does not currently exist within the main article on Pedophilia. Although there is a section on Pedophile activism in general, no text is provided there. The paragraph that used to briefly summarize pedophile activism within the Pedophilia article is now also gone. All that remains is a link to the Pro-pedophile activism page. If it has been decided that there should not be an article on anti-pedophile activism at all, then why do we still have these pointless redirects? Besides, I don't think any concensus was ever reached on whether either of the anti- or pro- articles should be deleted or merged. Why did this merger happen, and what happened to all the text that used to be in the article? If someone knows what's going on here, please fill me in. Homologeo 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox merged without consensus. A revert war ensued. Another sockpuppet was banned. User:Exploding Boy got involved. Pro-pedophile activism was restored by someone and locked by an admin. See [3], [4], [5], and [6]. -Jmh123 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a while back I suggested that pedophile activism could not merelty conmtain the pro pedophile movement a now banned user promptly created this article that should never have been created. This article will be afd along with pro pedophile activism (which I'll do on Saturday) if it is restored, SqueakBox 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will support that move. DPeterson^talk 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this article to its previous version, as there was no consensus to merge and redirect. The pro activism article is currently protected; an admin can protect this one, as well, if they feel it is necessary. Mike D78 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until pedophilia gets unlocked as we cannot have an article duplicated in 2 places and you havent removed the text etc from pedophil;ia. There is no consensus not to merge and redirect, SqueakBox 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text related to anti-pedophile activism is no longer in the pedophilia article as of the last revision. You had no more grounds to go ahead with the redirect on this page than you did on the pro-pedophile activism article.

I am currently working on some suggestions we can discuss as to how we can improve this article, which was created less than two months ago and has recieved little attention. In the meantime, this article needs to be retained in its former version, and perhaps even locked for now, as the pro-pedophile activism article was.

Mike D78 07:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the article redirected. See my discussion below for some reasons. DPeterson^talk 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to urge everyone to first discuss changes and new redirects before putting anything else in motion. I am repeating this because the information from the original "Anti-pedophile activism" article is once again missing. I was in the process of fixing the redirect of the page entitled "Anti pedophile activism" (without the agreed upon hyphen), when, all of a sudden, the restored "Anti-pedophile activism" article disappeared again. Could an admin please restore this article again and protect it, at least until this dispute and edit war are over? This is getting a little frustrating.

As for the debate on whether the pro- and anti- articles should be merged into a single "Pedophilia-related activism" piece, editors need to keep in mind the recent discussion and votes that took place. The majority of participating editors were against the proposed merger, and that's why the merger did not take place. Unless a new development occurs in the discussion, no such mergers should be carried out. Pretty much the same thing could be said about the newer proposal to merge the pro- and anti- articles into the general Pedophilia article. This proposal also failed. Please do not single-handedly make such big decisions for the entire group of participating editors, especially when it is clear that this is a very controversial issue, and there are Talk Pages for open discussion. Homologeo 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a majority of established editors against the proposal, please check your facts, SqueakBox 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson, could you please explain to all of us why you redirected the "Anti-pedophile activism" page to the Pedophilia article yet again. There is currently nothing whatsoever within the general Pedophilia article on the subject of Anti-pedophile activism. Why are you deleting an entire article and redirecting the page to an article that says nothing about this particular topic? I am reverting your edit for the time being. This is not to say that this is the best way for the article to be on Wikipedia. My reasoning is that the information should, at the very least, be included somewhere. Since the Pedophilia article lacks this information at this moment, I'm making sure that readers and editors searching for information on Anti-pedophile activism will be able to find it on Wikipedia. Homologeo 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a duplicate of that at pedophilia and there is no consensus not to redirect this page, and thus your edit summary claiming the material was disappearing is completely inaccurate. There is never a justification for duplicating material, SqueakBox 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have had to file another complaint at the admin's noticeboard based on these redirects. Information related to this article has been removed from the pedophilia article, and, as has been stated numerous times, there was never the necessary consensus needed to redirect this article. This article needs to remain as it was, just as the pro-pedophile activism article is, for the time being. Mike D78 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wasting thier time. It was decided no admin actionw as needed and nothing has changed. Stop duplicating material already at Pedophilia. Are you Voice of Britain? as you appear to be with your obsession in seeing me blocked, and re your edit patterns, SqueakBox 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you wasting time redirecting with no consensus to do so? That is completely against protocol and you know it (or you should know it). Admin action was deemed necessary last time to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts, and it is looking like it might be necessary again. This information is not located at pedophilia anymore; have you checked that article within the past two days!?

Again, I am growing quite tired of you dismissing my grievances by accusing me of being a sockpuppet. For the last time, I am not a sock of any other user, and your accusations are completely off topic for this discussion page. Please, drop this grudge you seem to have against me and try to cooperate.

I am not "obsessed" with seeing you blocked, but if you continue to make disruptive, un-agreed upon edits, then your conduct should be handled in an appropriate manner.

Mike D78 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are feeling tired take a break but dont blame me. Admin a ction was not deemed necessary because of my reverts but ebcause of edit warring, edit warring started by you. Sock discussions are strictly on topic, see the history of the article (Jim Burton who started it is banned etc). I dont have to get your agreement in order to edit wikipedia in weays you dont like (which appears to be anything which harms the pro pedophile agenda), SqueakBox 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one reverting without consensus, against the wishes of Jmh123, Homologeo, Exploding Boy, and others. I was simply restoring the page to its former version. You were the one out of line here.

If you feel I am a sock, you should go to an admin about it and find out rather than spouting off these accusations to try to undermine my contributions.

I never claimed you had to get my agreement in order to edit anything, but you are acting against several peoples' wishes and Wikipedia protocol in general here. And as long as you childishly accuse me of promoting the pro-pedophile agenda simply for disagreeing with you, we are going to accomplish very little. This is not the place for your perceived crusade against pedophiles. I am here to make sure that notable information regarding pedophile activism is maintained, as it should be, in an objective manner. I am not out to promote any agenda; simply the fact that information exists, and is documented, is not tantamount to promoting an agenda.

Now please, try to drop this grudge you seem to have against me. We both have better things we could be doing than engaging in some pointless, off-topic argument.

Mike D78 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No grudge, stop being a bad faith dick, SqueakBox 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix the article

Some users are suggesting that this article should be merged into the pro-pedophile activism article to create a single "pedophilia-related activism" article. I think this is a bad idea for several reasons. As mentioned, this article for anti-pedophile activism was created less than two months ago. It has had little chance for improvement since then. Also, there was a previous proposal not long ago to merge the pro and anti articles, which failed. Rather than putting our efforts into further debate over an idea that was previously rejected not long ago, it occurs to me that the better idea might be to see if we can't improve this article.

In my opinion, this article has the potential to become a useful overview of anti-pedophile sentiment in the U.S. and throughout the world. Currently, however, this article only touches upon some modern anti-pedophile organizations. Just as the pro-pedophile activism article has a history section, so should this one. A summary could be provided of several major events that have caused reactions in the form of laws being passed and organizations being formed in the effort to combat the threat of pedophiles. Although other articles describe topics such as sex offender registry laws, no article provides a comprehensive overview of anti-pedophile sentiment and the public reaction to it. With some good contributions, this article could become just as comprehensive as the pro-pedophile activism article.

Is anyone else willing to help me improve this article? Mike D78 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for many of the reasons stated above and on the "pro" talk page. The articles are two sides of the same coin. For NPOV each must represent the other view...essentially producing duplicate articles. Better to have one. Easier for the reader to find all necessary info in one place. DPeterson^talk 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain why you feel that these articles are "two sides of the same coin"? I see them as separate topics; anti-pedophile activism is mostly in reponse to high-profile events (like the SRA accusations in the 80s, which caused media attention and encouraged stricter laws--most people would consider this event to have triggered increased anti-pedophile activism). Anti-pedophile activism is not simply activism in response to pro-pedophile activism. I will concede that perhaps a better title for this aritlcle would be "anti child sexual abuse movement," or something along those lines.

The pro-pedophile activism article already contains the amount of obligatory controversy and criticism that is typical for articles documenting activism. Criticism against pro-pedophile activism is clearly different from activism that is against child sexual abuse, which is what this article was intended to be about.

Mike D78 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pro pedophile article is a POV fork that fails notability, and should be deleted with the content deleted too, the anti pedophil;e article is tiny and shoudl be merged inot pedophilia, SqueakBox 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would actually address the comments of others instead of simply pithily stating your opinions as if they were fact.

How is the pro-pedophile activism article a "POV fork," and why should an article that centers mostly around opposition to sexual abuse be merged with an article concerning pedophile activism?

Mike D78 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic digression

Well wish away! You'll get the full explanation when the article gets afd'd on Saturday, SqueakBox 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been informed by admins that that proposal has a snowball's chance of succeeding. Why not focus on something constructive? Mike D78 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins dont have psychic powers, nor a greater knowledge of wikipedia than myself ( one admin EB was expressing a personal opinion) and the afd will happen even if you dont want it to. Please try to understand the role of admions, they dont have magical powers that make them better informed etc, SqueakBox 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, you should respect the opinion of admins regardless.

I really don't care if you nominate the article for deletion or not; it seems to me that you're simply looking for some kind of childish revenge after your attempts to merge failed, but whatever. Again, I would advise you to drop your grudge and concentrate on more constructive efforts.

Mike D78 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Of course I respect Exploding Boy but there is a world of difference between respecting and agreeing and of course it is perfectly okay to repsect someone while disagreeing with them so please dont suggest othwerwise as that is a bad faith assumption. I have no grudges here or anywhere on wikipedia but I certainly think the pro ped article needs afding on WP:N grounds, SqueakBox 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said you should respect the opinion of admins, instead of hastily going through with this afd that you were advised against simply because your feelings were hurt. And Exploding Boy was not the only admin who expressed the opinion that the proposal would fail; Andrewa did, as well. Mike D78 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming bad faith, of course I respect EB's opinion I just dont agree with it. My feelings are not hurt and were they i wouldnt afd any article ion thaty basis. I am very clear whyu I am afding the pro ped article, because of notability concerns. Andrewa expressed an opinion that IMO is wrong and we shall see that soon enough. The article was started by one of the pedophiles (Zanthalon (talk · contribs) banned on the March 7 purge for activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia and they did so as a way to promote pedophilia on wikipedia. It is now time to end the influence of pro pedophile activists on wikipedia for good and their making there utterly non-notable movement into something it isnt is an abuse the power of wikipedia which the community rejects, SqueakBox 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit presuming to speak on behalf of the "community;" the community certainly has not approved of you arbitrary, out-of-process actions. And as far as assuming good faith, I'm afraid I cannot do that after you have continuously made disruptive edits and while you continue to appear so vindictive toward me.

The person who started that article is irrelevant, and the bannings you speak of remain controversial. You certainly do not have the power or authrority to "end the influence" or those you choose to perceive as enemies. And besides, numerous users in numerous past discussions have stated why they believe that article is notable, and guess what? Most of the users who believed that information was notable were not in any way "pedophile activists!" I know this is an awfully hard concept for you to comprehend, Squeak, but simply because you detest the subject of the article doesn't mean that it shouldn't be maintained as documented, encyclopedic knowledge. If that were the case, you'd have people of opposing views trying to sabotage each others' articles all the time and nothing would get accomplished. And it's clear that nothing will get accomplished here until you stop viewing this whole thing as a battle to be won and start viewing it as the collaborative effort it was meant to be.

And though you will never admit it, that is essentially what this all boils down to: you believe that censoring the pedophile activism article will in some way help you to win some silly war that you have declared against "pedophile activists." In reality, your attitude could not be further from the intended spirit of Wikipedia. You seriously need to go back and read the numerous long discussions that have been had concerning the notability of that article in the past and think long and hard before you impose yet another debate on users that will distract from the normal editing of that article.

Finally, I started this section to discuss ways we could improve the anti-pedophile activism article, and I don't appreciate you derailing this discussion into off-topic territory about your plans for a completely different article. I have broken off this discussion from the previous section; you can continue your off-topic rambling if you want, but I really wish that you would stop wasting my time.

Mike D78 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Page has been protected for 2 days due to ongoing disuputes regarding this and two related articles. Exploding Boy 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO if we can get consensus to delete the pro article this anti article would be harmless, SqueakBox 01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so DPeterson^talk 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme get this straight: both of you claim that this article is a POV fork from the pro-pedophile activism article, correct? By that logic, wouldn't this article, which you claim is closely related to the pro article, be just as "non-notable" and worthy of deletion?

I am assuming good faith as much as I logically can here, but I don't think I am out of line in pointing out this gap in logic. You claim that the pro and anti articles are "two halves of the same coin." Therefore, by your own logic, if the pro article is non-notable and in need of deletion, so is this one.

Your statement that this article is "harmless," and therefore not worthy of deleting, suggests that you are a lot more interested in getting rid of the pro article because you consider it to be "harmful," I presume, than because you consider it to be non-notable. And we don't delete articles simply because we find the subjects of them to be "harmful."

Mike D78 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is harmful but also non notable. There is a burgeoning anti pedophile movementright now (thanks to the laudable efforts of Xavier and friends amongst others) whereas the pro movement died a death way back, so yeah unnotable, absolutely. As you are not a banned user yet you have the right to afd this article etc etc. You talk about wikipedia using the we preposition which I find bizarre. Wait a few months and a few thousand edits before starting to claim we re wikipedia, you dont have the track record and my bet is if you keep following the "I think pedophiles are cool and love to troll those who want NPOV re the pedophile articles" that you will never earn the right to say we and wikipedia in the same breath. Your doing so right now is nauseas to this humble editor, SqueakBox 04:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, if you claim to be such a fan of "the laudable efforts of Xavier and friends," might I suggest that you are letting your own POV get in the way of objective editing? You don't see me going around praising "the laudable efforts of NAMBLA and friends." I am here to objectively edit, above all else, and I would whine about you not assuming good faith about me, just as you love to accuse me of that, but that stuff gets annoying and is ultimately a cop-out.

Even if you claim that a movement "died a death way back," we don't ignore encyclopedic topics simply because they happened in the past. That is ridiculous; I suppose we should also delete the article on communism then, since it is a movement that most consider to have now largely failed?

"As you are not a banned user yet"

Knock it off with the not-so-subtle intimidation; I have done nothing to warrant being banned. I'm sure you're busy making your list of things that you would like to see me banned for, but the truth is I have been no less civil in these discussions than you have.

"you have the right to afd this article etc etc"

I have no intentions of afd'ing this article; I was simply proving a point. I believe both the pro and anti articles are notable and deserve to be improved.

"You talk about wikipedia using the we preposition which I find bizarre"

Allow me to rewrite that sentence, then, replacing the word which you find "bizarre." I believe you will find the sentence to be just as true: And good Wikipedia editors who are committed to following the rules don't delete articles simply because they find the subjects of them to be "harmful."

"Wait a few months and a few thousand edits before starting to claim we re wikipedia, you dont have the track record"

Besides seeming a bit arrogant, this kind of attitude is also not in compliance with the recommended treatment of newcomers. I have done nothing to warrant this kind of hostility from you; I have remained as civil as possible and have broken no rules that I am aware of. If you can not take civil debate and constructive criticism, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Your "few thousand edits" simply do not make you necessarily more well-informed on a subject and certainly do not entitle you to think of yourself as better than newcomers.

"my bet is if you keep following the "I think pedophiles are cool and love to troll those who want NPOV re the pedophile articles" that you will never earn the right to say we and wikipedia in the same breath. Your doing so right now is nauseas to this humble editor"

I have never stated that I agree with any of the positions of the pedophile activists; I simply stated that I don't believe such editors have any less right to be here than anyone else. If you disagree, fine, but I have never stated that I have a "pro-pedophile" agenda. You should not confuse my stance of opposing anti-pedophile editors who I believe are not being fair with wholesale support or defence of pedophiles.

Finally, none of my actions here that I am aware of would be considered trolling; you should not confuse discussion and disagreement with other editors as trolling. I want NPOV regarding these articles as much as others do. As for whether or not you have displayed humility in your discussion with me or not, I will let others be the judge of that.

Mike D78 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Mr Voice, ho hum, dont feed the trolls, asi digo yo, aunque me divertió un poco diciendo que usted quiere NPIOV, que es eso que los que abusan a nińos son gente respetable? hehehe, vamos adelante y vas a tener miedo porque son criminales los pedophiles y vas a tener miedo te lo juro, SqueakBox 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wish you wouldn't reply to me if you're going to simply ignore what I say and engage in name-calling. Others can follow the discussion and see who is being the unreasonable one here, if they wish.

As for the personal attacks, unfortunately, they are still personal attacks, regardless of whichever language you choose to make them in. Mike D78 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]