User talk:Tony Sandel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia! 2 Image copyright problem with Image:Cupidbutterfly.jpg 3 Hello 4 Tony Sandel 5 Debate 6 Nickname 7 re: Pedophile vs Pederast 8 Fair use images 9 Novels 10 Your recent addition to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction 11 Article for deletion 12 Image Tagging for Image:Strong-at-the-heart.jpg 13 Edit summary 14 Fair use of book covers 15 Your contributions to the pederasty article 16 American Beauty 17 ephebophilia 18 The Culvert 19 Dream Boy Revert 20 not ad hominem

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Alf ^melmac 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cupidbutterfly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cupidbutterfly.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a bot has been talking to you! I left a welcome message on your talk page, the copyright notes are from OrphanBot, an automatic script that notifies of potential copyright issues.

In this instance if you particularly wish to keep that image you might try emailing the site and seeing if it's is already in the public domain or licenced under GFDL. If not, I would allow deletion and find a local wikipedian, it's in the louvre? so Category:Wikipedians in France might turn up someone who could take a photo and upload it. --Alf ^melmac 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I noticed a couple of articles that you have been working on, and only wanted to question your choice of terms for the relationship between the boys in the "Sorcerer's Apprentice." Why would you use the term "molest" for a love affair between two minors? Haiduc 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He should probably read the definitions of pedophilia and pederasty, before he starts his next edit-rounds.... Fulcher 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sandel

Hi Tony Sandel. I'm following your career with some interest. I can't really tell, but it seems possible that you are an editor with interests and knowledge around subjects related to pedophilia and pederasty, yet are not on either a pro-anything or anti-anything crusade. Is this true? If so, it would be rare, and welcome.

Also, do you need any help making a user page, or are you happy with not having one? Herostratus 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi you're right - how do I contact you and join PAW>

Tony

Well, you know how to contact me by clicking on my name to get to my userpage, then clicking on "discussion" at the top to get to my talk page, then either starting a new discussion by clicking on the "+" at the top, or editing (continuing) an existing discussion by going down to the title and clicking on the "edit" tag at the right. And to sign your name by tuping four tildes (~~~~ at the end of your message.

To join PAW, just click here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. Then, after reading through the materials on the page, if you decide you can get on board with that, you join just by... doing some of those things. "Members" are really just people who work on the project goals a lot. But you can add your name to the participants list by clicking on on the "participants" link in the menu near the top of the page (it's #9), then clicking the "edit" tag at the left of the section header, then adding your name to the bulleted list (by typing "*~~~~". This is entirely optional. On the project talk page you can ask any questions etc.

Obiously "joining", such as it is, doesn't require any commitment of doing any particular work (I myself spend most of my time working on unrelated stuff, usually.) But you do have to commit to being very scholarly and unbaised. The project members are trying to weed out bias in these articles, and most of the bias at this time seems to come what might be termed "pedophilia advocates" or whatever term you want to use, and we're mostly oriented toward correcting that right now. But of course we do see attempts to add non-scholarly anti-pedophile bias also, and try to correct that too. Not all members focus on the same things or have exactly the same philosophy.

Basically, I would strongly suggest that if you are going to edit articles related to pedophilia that you get a different username, if your name really is Tony Sandel. There are people out there who feel strongly about this subject, and members have been harrassed in real life. Cheers, Herostratus 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

Article talk pages are the usual place to discuss edits. There's an active discussion/debate going on at Talk:Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_fiction. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

If you click on on "my preferences" at the top of the page, whatever you enter in the Nickname field will appear as your name. So you won't have to edit your signature to add it. For example, my Nickname is "Herostratus", so my signature automatically writes [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] when I sign. Your nickname doesn't have to match your user name, although they're usually related. (N.B. This does not hide your identity (username) per the last comment above, it's just a convenience.) Herostratus 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Pedophile vs Pederast

Hi Tony. I moved your draft on this to the bottom of Section One of the talk page here as part of a general cleanup and restructuring. Don't do anything yet; I'll get back to you in a day or so, OK? Herostratus 10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Tony. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. I responded to your post on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology talk page, here is a copy:

• Dictionary definitions aside, I'm not convinced that that is this is the actual scholarly understanding of what "pederasty" means, to the extent that there is a scholarly understanding. I know the word is used in both ways (teen-only and pre-teen) in the everyday world, and in fact often includes both sexes in common usage. The actual usage is what matters, and its probably a hard word to pin down, but my inclination without looking into it in more detail is that pederasty usually refers to relations between an adult male and a teen male.
• Politics:
  • User:Haiduc is an extraordinarily erudite, energetic, cogent, and relentless editor and debater. He's an excellent editor. He's on a mission - and by that I don't mean to accuse him of any POV or bias in his edits - but he's on a mission to ensure that Wikipedia reflects what he sees as the truth of pederasty: (1) it involves men and teen boys (2) it is far more common in societies than is commonly assumed (3) it is an integral part of homosexuality, homsexual history, homosexual culture, and what being a homosexual is (4) it is generally beneficial to society and the parties involved.
  • I do not want to tangle with him (and his supporters). You do not want to tangle with him, believe me. He knows far about this issue than you or I.
  • It's not just Haiduc. The group protecting the NAMBLA article, and others, will be all over us like a cheap suit if we try to define pederasty downward.
  • And for other reasons both political and scholarly, it's greatly preferable IMO to seperate teen sex and sexuality from pre-teen sex and sexuality, provided this is scholarly of course.
• User:Haiduc provided me with the following cite, and he has many others I'm sure: "{Pederasty is] The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection" by Vern L. Bullough in [1].

Herostratus 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

The trend on Wikipedia is to reduce the use of "fair use" images, including book covers. The two concepts are that fair use only exits if we are commenting on the work of art, and that more than a single fair use image in an article is indefensible. I'm not a lawyer or an expert, so I can't comment on the correctness of this view. However it may affect lists like Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. I see you've been adding images to that article. My advice to you is to not waste time and effort adding images that are likely to be removed in the future. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels

I noticed that you have been adding quite a few novels to Category:Novels lately, and we over at Wikiproject:Novels would like to thank you for this contribution. However, We have just recently finished clearing out the novel category and putting things into subcategories, and would appreciate it if in the future you categorized the novel pages you create by year (Category:Novels by year) and country that the author lives in (Category:Novels by country). You can do this by simply omitting the novel and book by year categories and adding separate categories such as Category:2004 novels or Category:American novels. Oh and just so you know, you can sign your talkpage comments by typing four tildes (~~ ~~, but without the space.) -- Gizzakk 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks ~~Tony Sandel~~

[edit] Your recent addition to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

It's messy and in its current state, likely to be reverted. Before your addition, the article was only a list (and hence "list of..." might have been a better title) but your addition (if it stays) takes it into a new direction. I suppose (if you really want to analyse child sexual abuse in literature) you can create a new article on such a thing. Creation of a literature genre. I don't see why not. Skinnyweed 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed if you've actually read all that. Skinnyweed 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Skinnyweed is correct that the material will be removed if is based on your own research. It goes against our concepts of "No original research" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". What we can do is summarize what others have said about the topic. If there have been academic or popular reivews of the field we can report what they have said. If you like, I can move the material to a user page so you can keep it and perhaps find a different place to post (like a blog or IPCE). -Will Beback 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion

Your article, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction, has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. You should post your comments as soon as possible. -Will Beback 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Strong-at-the-heart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Strong-at-the-heart.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Skinnyweed 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of book covers

Since you seem to be interested in this sort of thing: despite the existence of "boilerplate" fair use templates (including for book covers, film posters, etc) there's actually no "blanket" cases of fair use. The difference between fair use and a free license (like GFDL, or CC-BY, or even public domain images) is that the image itself, if PD or GFDL or whatever, is always PD or GFDL wherever it is used. Fair use images are "fair" only in their individual uses, which is why each individual use requires a rationale (even with the boilerplate template present - if you read those templates they ask for a rationale to be given).

You've already been given a very good answer about fair use above. Book covers are an interesting case - it's generally agreed here that using the front cover of a book in the article about that book is likely to be fair use. But using a front cover to illustrate not the book, but, say, the person illustrated on the front cover, is unlikely to be. So it's not true that "book covers are okay for Wikipedia" (even though there is a copyright tag for them), it's more like "book covers are a particular type of copyright image, certain uses of which may be covered by fair use doctrine". Including a book cover in a list of books is a marginal case. If it looks like the use is essentially decorative rather than educational or in some way "transformative" (which is one of the keys to the relevant law) then it isn't so likely to pass muster. If you wanted to use a book cover from a particular book in an article about a certain controversial theme in books, and there some analysis to say "this book cover became notorious for the open way it addressed the theme of the book" (to avoid breaching WP:NOR, a reliable source would have to found for this statement), then that is probably an instance where fair use might apply beyond the article on the book itself. TheGrappler 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be hard to tell where "no original" research begins - though I suspect that anything that merely describes what can be clearly be seen on the cover is fine. Happy editing! (By the way - all section headings, even sub-subheadings, ought to begin with a capital letter, according to the Manual of Style, you may want to change a few instances of all-lower case headings in that otherwise rather impressive article!) TheGrappler 12:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As a rule of thumb, avoid creating galleries of unfreely licensed images, and avoid using unfree content to decorate lists. If you need to discuss a particular book cover, go ahead and republish it in the article. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information about the handling of unfreely licensed content here. Jkelly 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to the pederasty article

Hello Tony, May I ask what your logic was in adding the links to pedophilia topics in the "See also" section of the "Pederasty" article? Thanks, Haiduc 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"ps how come my name comes up red and everyone else's blue??" I dunno, are you a communist? Seriously, it just indicates that you have written nothing on your user page. I really have no objection to a link to the pedophilia department in the main pederasty article, but I think three is a bit over the top. Can we settle for one? The other pederasty articles are way too specialized for any such link, in my opinion, since they mainly deal with other places and times. Actually, the one on Pederasty in the modern world would be another candidate, but again, one link is quite enough.

And now that we are here anyway, for a long time I have been looking at your collection of articles titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in X". Imagine if I tried to publish here an article titled "Pederasty and friendship in fiction." Or "Heterosexuality and female rape in film" (and then included all the movies that had anything to do with heterosexuality). It is like that, I fear, with the articles conflating pedophilia and sexual abuse. Pedophilic sentiments seem to be quite common in the general population (20 to 30% in some studies, from what I gleaned from the article last night), but I do not think you can assert that child abuse incidence is of the same magnitude. Thus we have a situation where some pedophiles abuse children and, presumably, most do not. So why lump the two together? Let me suggest that even though it would require a great deal more discrimination and research (and possibly debate), splitting up those articles into two versions, one, say, Pedophilia in fiction and another Child sexual abuse in fiction would not only be far more useful for our readers but would also steer clear of any semblance of politicizing (which presently the articles practically proclaim). Best regards, Haiduc 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If the works are really as ambiguous as you say (and I too think that they are) then does it not stand to reason that tagging on the moniker "abuse" whether or not it is justified is misleading and an uncalled for value judgement in what puports to be an impartial article in an impartial encyclopaedia? Haiduc 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Beauty

You asked:

Hi there: I watched American Beauty a couple of years ago, but I don't remember any pedophile/child sexual abuse themes. I know one of the teenagers gets it off with one of the Mothers. Can you remind me!! best wishes

I was referring to Kevin Spacey's character, who spends the entire movie pursuing his daughter's friend (played by actress Mena Suvari), and nearly has sex with her at the end of the movie. Regards, Matthew Fadoul 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Matthew - I don't think think that's really pedophilia which is really related to much younger children - rather than the attentions of an older guy on a minor (boy or girl) who is fully sexually mature. Can I edit it out? Tony 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Tony

Hi Tony, I would prefer not. My reasons are: (1) the girl character was ~16, which is only a year or so after puberty; (2) I googled the terms <spacey "american beauty" pedophilia> and got almost a thousand hits, all descibing the behavior of Spacey's character as pedophilia; (3) she was a minor, which is considered statutory rape in the USA, and the idea of her being "forbidden fruit" seems to have something to do with her age. I also realize that the term pedophile is sometimes restricted to pre-pubescents; but, as the pedophilia wiki article states, "In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents." Matthew Fadoul 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the wiki article quoted above (along with other reasons), I'm going to keep "American Beauty" on the list. Matthew Fadoul 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ephebophilia

I am unconcerned with the negative connotations of the terms pedophilia and ephebobhilia and so on. I do not consider that encyclopedic. However under the terms of the present wikipedia article and the medical use of the term pedophilia many of the listen films do not apply in the least. Sexual interaction among adult and teens nearing the age of majority is not pedophilia, and so if they are to be in the list, the description must be more accurate. The term ephebophilia has a wiki article, and should be included for encyclopedic reasons, in this page's title. For these reasons I will revert to my changes. Further discussion, I think, should be on the talk page. Tomyumgoong 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Culvert

I understand your reasoning regarding The Culvert; however, simply being about pedophilia does not make the book inherently notable, and as far as I can tell from the article itself and a Google search, there is nothing to indicate this book has had any sort of distribution or meets any other criterion for notability. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria. Being self-published, it is highly unlikely this book appears in any library, and simply being available on Amazon is generally not considered enough, as almost anything is (also, its amazon.com Sales Rank is 1,019,124, indicating that, although it is available on amazon, it is not being purchased, at least not in any meaningful quantity). I would suggest, incidentally, that if the community does indeed vote to delete the book, you might consider removing it from pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. Books judged to be non-notable probably shouldn't be on here, even in lists, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page or the article's AfD page, where I see you've already voted. Regards, Elmer Clark 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Boy Revert

Have you read Dream Boy? If you had read it and understood it in any sense, you would have noticed every single theme I presented. I contest your reversion on the basis that it removed valuable information about the book. The information removed may not have been detailed, but it had a point and a basis in reality. Even though you have taken it upon yourself to edit the articles involving pedophilia, you should allow said articles to contain information on other themes. Dream boy has an underlying theme of pedophilia. A much larger theme is gentle eroticism between two young men.

Please review and possibly revise your reversion. If you could at least explain it better than "reverted recent edits: themes not in book" which makes no sense as the themes are very relevant to the book. who-is-me 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

naturally I have read Dream Boy. I have my copy hear. Your latest addition reads "Major themes in the book include watching as eroticism, body parts, difference in similarity and gender, and soft sex." I'm afraid I find it difficult to accept this as clear use of English. 'watching as eroticism' does not make sense; 'body parts' carries no meaning. The expression 'soft sex' is not in common usage and you have chosen to link it to kindness. Why? Perhaps you could explain what points you want to get across - I'm sure they may be valid - then we can construct a way to describe what you are trying to say. Tony 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] not ad hominem

Tony, I am sorry if I made you upset over my questioning the title of the article. My comments really were not directed at you as much as at the imbalance which I perceived. Surely there must be some way to balance things so that the presentation is more even-handed. You yourself conceded that there is material there which falls ouside the scope of the terminology. At any rate, I will not insist further. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Haiduc 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked and saw that the article is not yet oversize, but splitting it up seems like a good idea nonetheless. Let me know if I can help in any way. And I do hope you carry through your idea about setting the article up as a table - it would be a major improvement. Haiduc 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)