Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Project Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 to February 28 2006

Page was getting long... I archived most of the material and summarized the naming discussion below. Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redacted summary of comments re: project name=

This project must either cease to exist or exist under a new name. WAS 4.250 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
During the deletion debate, there was some support for a move to the less-contentious name Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia. Thoughts? User:Aaron Brenneman17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that first order of business would be finding a suitable project title. --DanielCD 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Another option is "Wikiproject pedophilia articles." Physchim62 suggested it... 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)
The name needs to be something that Jimbo can comfortably talk about on NBC, Fox News, BBC, and in the Wall Street Journal and Guardian... Wikiproject Pedophilia and WikiProject Paraphilia sound too pro. It seems to promote or condone pedophilia. Pedophilia Articles is a little better. I'd rather go the other way and call it something related to Child Sexual Abuse. Another idea is to make it something symbolic rather than literal. Like the way that the US military names wars. FloNight ^talk 06:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Worth considering. Joey Q. McCartney 06:56, 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'd suggest 'Pedophilia Watchlist' or something similar that gives the impression that, while its scope is pedophilia, its intention is to ensure that the articles are neutral and factual.. The Land 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Other possible words: "watch," "neutral," "NPOV," "NPOV watchlist," "impartial," "unbiased," "nonpartisan." Joey Q. McCartney 09:52, 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... my choices in order: 1) Articles on Pedophilia 2)Paraphilia 3) Pedophilia NPOV Herostratus 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am very opposed to Pedophilia NPOV.... I feel the Pedophilia NPOV would be misunderstood by everyone outside of WP... I kind of liked Pedophilia Watchlist. FloNight ^talk 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You may be right... I can understand how "pedophilia NPOV" or something similar might be problematic, seeming like we're guarding especially against anti-pedophiles. My concern about "watchlist" is that that sounds like the project is to keep an eye on those evil pedophiles.... we don't want the name to suggest that that's what we're doing... Joey Q. McCartney 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Child sexual abuse" isn't an option, but I'd support "WikiProject Paraphilia."Ineloquent 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia" seems useful. -Will Beback 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
...a good idea might be to do our work under the auspices of project Paraphilia or something to that effect, without saying that our work is project paraphilia. Because at least at first, if we say that our work is wikiproject paraphilia, that'll sound disingenous to everyone who learns that we're only working on pedophilia articles... Joey Q. McCartney 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sensing a convergence of agreement on "Paraphilia"... Herostratus 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of either Paraphilia or Pedophilia. Others have suggested the same. Pedophilia Watchlist or something like it seems much more appropriate. We are watching the articles to make sure that they follow WP guidelines... FloNight ^talk 19:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"Pedophilia Watchlist"... I DO see the benefits to that, yes. I dunno though... By all means articles should be watched for POV from any direction... but I think maybe "watchlist" might turn off people who are not so much interested in patrolling as in contributing good encyclopedic info to articles... that is the best defense ultimately I think. Herostratus 22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Or if we use "watchlist," another possibility is "pedophilia-articles watchlist." "Articles on Pedophilia" and the like are still viable, as far as I'm concerned. Joey Q. McCartney 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's another issue with "watchlist"... I'm a little leery of anything that will discourage any editor... And yes per J.Q.McC. "Articles on pedophilia" remains in the running. I'm starting to like the broader scope suggested by "Paraphilia" though, even though it too has problems.
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)
Pedophilia Article Watch That sounds good to me... The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. FloNight ^talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I support that. -Will Beback 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on our recent experience launching this project and the current conflicts on some project related articles, I think we need address these problems up front. This involves naming the project... FloNight ^talk 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. FloNight ^talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm not too nuts about it, but ... I guess I can live with it. Let's give it a day or two and see if anyone else weighs in, then go with it I guess.Herostratus 07:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think renaming this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia would be helpful in attracting new members... both because it broadens the scope and because it takes it away from the most controversial paraphilia. Ashibaka tock 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of a toss-up, but based on the above I think that Pedophilia Article Watch is probably good to. Great work, that is name that no one had come up with at first and that was arrived at through discussion. Good stuff. Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project name and goals

My thoughts on the name are related to the projects goals and the overarching principles that guide them. People have thrown out a lot ideas above and given their ideas about how we should proceed. I feel good about the success of the project after reading over all the comments top to bottom. We have a group of thoughtful people that are discussing it in a positive manner. If we are patient and work together, I think project will work. Even be the pride of 'pedia. : ) I see two separate issues that need to be addressed.

First, I understand that we want to be welcoming. That WP is a wiki that encourages everyone to edit. But I think we should be realistic about the negative influence that over involved user have on an article and WP. For that reason, pedophiles and child sexual abuse victims would be problematic to this project. Regrettably, POV editing, OR, and ownership issues are common among editors that are personally involved in an article’s topic.

Laying out the principles that reflect both wiki openess and the practical reality of involved editor might be helpful. I took these from recent Wikipedia:arbitration committee cases. I think they do a good job of stating the overarching principles of this project. I offer them here because they reflect the earnest and thoughtful reflection of a group of Wikipedians trying to make Wikipedia better. Like most everything else on Wikipedia, they were developed by consensus. That means that they could change if the arbritrators consensus shifts. Or if Jimbo and the Foundation establish something different. They may be interrpreted differently in different situations. Never the less, I think they are a good guide for us.

1. Editing controversial articles There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.

2. Neutral Point Of View Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view which relate to a subject.

3. Extreme points of view Provided they are reasonably courteous and conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

4. Verifiability versus original research Users are expected to use reliable published information as the source for the material they place in Wikipedia articles. Subtle overreaching and spinning of information is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

5. Assume good faith Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

6. Personal attacks and incivility Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policies may be banned from editing, either in a certain field or from all pages.

7. Involvement in the event Editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Wikipedia article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with.

8. Tendentious editing Users who engage in sustained, aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the entire site.

Based on our recent experience launching this project and the current conflicts on some project related articles, I think we need address these problems up front. This involves naming the project and adopting overarching principles and goals. Then we need to think about how to bring them into the day-to-day operation of the project. In this regard, I think we should be extremely practical. End of Part one (yes, my friends there's more.) FloNight ^talk 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, thank you FloNight! And yes all basically agreeable. Just to reiterate, I would welcome and assume good faith from every editor regardless of any declared personal involvment in the issue until and if this manifests itself in some problematic way. There are editors with involvment in the issue who have been excellent, reasonable, and helpful.

However, its true that its probably difficult for most people with great involvment in any issue to work on that issue without suffering discomfort from the tug between their Wikipedia duties and their own personal feelings. But some can do it. (And after all, if there's anyone who is practiced in supressing their feelings for higher moral reasons, it'd be a non-offending pedophile, you'd think.) Herostratus 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the project name

I think renaming this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia would be helpful in attracting new members to keep it alive and useful, both because it broadens the scope and because it takes it away from the most controversial paraphilia. Ashibaka tock 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose we name it to just 'WikiProject Pedophilia' as the 'Article Watch' bit is redundant. Skinnyweed 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I guess there was pretty much consensus for the current name, Skinnyweed, based on lot of discussion, some of which is in the archive. I think one of the issues was to avoid the possible first-glance perception by non-members that the project might in some way be promoting a bias one way or another... I guess 'Article Watch' was added to help make sure that the project is not seen as POV-pushing in any way. Herostratus 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspected it was named what it is for that reason. That's a bit unfortunate. That's letting outside (and POV) influence enter into this project. Skinnyweed 01:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe a bit unfortunate. Although that's better than getting deleted, which is what almost happened when the project was launched.

But also, I guess it's also pretty accurate of what the founders intended, in a way, I guess. The original founders weren't so much interested in the subject of pedophilia per se, and of researching and adding new articles etc., as in cleaning up, verifying, and watching existing articles. I don't know as the project name really imples POV very much. The point is to watch for introduction of POV from either "side", so to speak. There is plenty of POV available from people who are hysterically and uninformedly "anti", so to speak, although I haven't seen that turn up so much in articles lately, as from those who are "pro", so to speak. (Obviously "anti" and "pro" are gross simplifications of a very complicated subject, just using those terms for shorthand.) Herostratus 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist

There is now a watchlist link on the main article page. This is a cool thing, I did not know about this little trick. Basically there is a page called Watchlist that lists a bunch of articles (of course anyone is welcome to add/subtract to it), and clicking on the "Related changes" gives the recent changes for all those articles - like having them on your watchlist but without cluttering up your regular watchlist. Cool. The main page icon is just a shortcut for that. (Also it has a picture of an eye. I put that in because I take any excuse I can get to dork around in Photoshop. But maybe the eye looks too scary, I dunno.)Herostratus 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P.A.W.

Hey. Pedophile Article Watch makes an acronym. I'm not gonna make a userbox but here's a graphic that I'm using on my own page. Herostratus 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought of that too. Later can make an user box. Being cautious in this regard is a good idea. : ) FloNight ^talk 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed. I don't think templates are going into template space anymore anyway -- people are just gonna have to copy them from other people or whatever. I just can't resist a chance to dork around in the graphics editor...Herostratus 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow you guys are doing a great job! --DanielCD 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking Herostratus I saw this logo and thought it a bit "wrong". At first glance it looks like it may have association with Furry fandom. Then for a user to click on it and see the word "pedophilia" might lead to some hysteria. Not sure if it's a real potential problem or not. (PS I'm a visual communications professional so I tend to overthink these things - it's my job) --Monotonehell 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child sexual abuse

Is Child sexual abuse on your list to watch? --DanielCD 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See the list of articles, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Watchlist. Joey Q. McCartney 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah its on the watchlist. I saw it lighting up the board but haven't look at it, I'm looking at Child sexuality mostly right now. I'll take a look though. Herostratus 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check out the cool new tools I dug up (Tools section). Nice for any kind of watchy-type activity (any subject) as you can sort article history by editor and check recent changes for a whole category at once. Herostratus 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am working on the child sexual abuse article. What was up there was full of POV and unsourced statements. Someone has been reverting the changes after I make them. That won't stop me, but I want to bring it to your attention, because clearly the person who is doing so prefers the unverifiable, unsourced POV version.Volpe 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Volpe - please discuss your changes on talk:child sexual abuse, and please also use edit summaries. If other editors understand what you're doing then they are more likely to accept your changes. -Will Beback 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done; thank you. Volpe 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Child"

(I moved this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology for neatness and to prevent its being buried by the next archiving of this page. Herostratus 08:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] LS Studio

Could you guys add this article to your watch list? There has been some problems lately about people adding information based on false claims and/or unverified sources. The biggest issue right now is the sentence that reads: "No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas," eventhough there is no actual evidence of banana sucking. You can see some of the problems on the talk page, although, right now it looks like we've come to a good consensus on the talk page, but I still feel the article will have complications in the future. --Jelligraze 13:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check and see if it's on the list. --DanielCD 03:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone check out the link that an anon added to this article. I can't access it from where I'm at right now. I decided to remove it. --DanielCD 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article may need to be protected if future links appear. Discussion of this in detail is troll bait, so may post to Wikipedia email list instead of AN/I if problem continues. FloNight ^talk 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the link that was edited & I agree that it definitely isn't acceptable. Maybe we should put a comment at the top of the edit page that informs anyone planning on editing the article that links to LS related material is strictly prohibited. --Jelligraze 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members

I think we should make an inactive members section for people gone for more than a month. I think User:Ineloquent (Parox) is gone. Perhaps he's resurrected again, but I've no idea if this is so. --DanielCD 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. The member list should reflect actual conditions. Returning members can move their names back to the active list whenever they want to. Herostratus 21:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voor een verloren soldaat

What's the policy on movies and books related to the topic? --DanielCD 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I dunno. What policy should there be? Herostratus 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- But I didn't know we had such an active community interested in Dutch cinema. I bet if I check out the article creator's other edits I'd find a slew of interesting articles on cinema in the Netherlands. Herostratus 09:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shotacon

Could someone check out the links at the bottom of this article to the "forums" and make sure they are not something slimy? --DanielCD 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rind et al. (1998)

I removed Rind et al. (1998) because editors at talk:Rind et al. (1998) insist that it has no connection to Pedophilia. -Will Beback 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the WP:PAW. Well within our project's objectives. FloNight ^talk 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any logic to that move at all. I put it back in. --DanielCD 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on that article is off track from the true issues. A lot of straw men being burned over there. --FloNight ^talk 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So if it is listed here then can we have a link from that article to pedophilia? We can't have it both ways: either the report is related to pedophilia or it is not. -Will Beback 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, the topics here are broader than the APA def of pedophilia so it should be part of PAW. That said, I've read Rind et al. (1998) and See also link to pedophilia is appropriate anyway, if that is what you are talking about. --FloNight ^talk 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please add pedophilia to Rind et al. (1998), as well as a definition of what this project is about. Right now it says simply "pedophilia". -Will Beback 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thaks for addressing that, User:FloNight, but I'm afraid your edit didn't last. Could editors please explain the connection between Rind et al. (1998) and this project? If it has nothing to do with pedophilia then it does not belong here. If it has something to do with pedophilia then there should be a link in the article to that topic. -Will Beback 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This project seems to also covers child sexual abuse, which Rind et al. is (needless to say) relevant to. 24.224.153.40 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What does child sexual abuse have to do with pedophilia? I thought you and others were adamant that the two were unrelated. -Will Beback 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They are somewhat connected, but, anyway, I didn't name this project. WP:PAW covers both CSA and pedophilia. Okay? 24.224.153.40 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How are they connected? The intro to this project says nothing about CSA, just pedophilia. Why would it if there is no connection between pedophiles and child molestation? -Will Beback 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily fixed. 24.224.153.40 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(btw, connection, even though you're just going to turn this around on me: [many] pedophiles want to have sex with children, which in real life is child sexual abuse) 24.224.153.40 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But pedophiles don't actually have sex with children, as you've often said before. Therefore I've reverted your undiscussed change to the scope of this project. -Will Beback 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:Wikiproject child sexual abuse seems like it should be a different project. -Will Beback 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well, a couple points. Its not always really possible to get all the members of a project to agree with precision what all the goals are. Some projects have somewhat broad or vague goals to serve as an umbrella for various people to work under subsets of.

Will, you said "But pedophiles don't actually have sex with children, as you've often said before." I don't recall anyone saying that, and if they did, that's crazy. Obviously at least some pedophiles are child sex criminals.

I myself try to disabuse people of the notion that most child sex criminals are pedophiles (in the scholarly sense of the term), because that's just incorrect, and it makes it hard to have a discussion when people are using a term to mean different things.

But let's not go overboard. That fact that some pedophiles are also child sex criminals is embarassing to law-abiding pedophiles, and it's a fact that I (personally) don't want to overstress for various reasons, but you can't just wave it away either.

Also, the term "pedophile" is used idiomatically to mean "child sex criminal". That's not the scholarly definition, but it is a definition. Because of that, in any article relating to child sex abuse etc., an uninformed editor might replace (say) "child sex criminal" with "pedophile" where that's not appropriate. So those articles have to be watched. We are looking to avoid bias and unscholarly terminology from all quarters.

As far as the project intro and the Goals section... there is a whole little section "Nomenclature", and a subpage for discussion of terminology. (Actually, I think It'd be a good idea to change "Nomeclature" to "Terminology" (I'll do that now, it's purely for clarity, if any objection revert and discuss.)) Anyway, if someone wanted to add "(see Terminology section)" after the word "pedophilia" in the intro and elsewhere, I wouldn't object. Herostratus 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that sensible discussion. Since there is so little overlap between pedophilia and child sexual abuse I think it is inappropriate for the two topics to be lumped together. As I have learned from editors here, pedophilia is a strictly-defined disorder [orientation] coverered by the DSM, while child sexual abuse is a crime covered by the legal code. Apples and oranges. Let's keep this project focused on pedophilia and related paraphilias, and put the child sexual abuse in a different project, probably as a subproject of crimes. -Will Beback 10:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, you have not kept up with our most recent discussions on this topic. I have strongly (politely, I hope) objected to the exclucive use of the narrow definitions. To be WP:NPOV and avoid OR all verifiable definitions of pedophilia need to be used. Otherwise you have a definition that is different than one used by the most people. In some cases, it also gives our articles a pro-pedophilia slant. FloNight ^talk 14:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Will, here's the thing. "Pedophilia" does mean "child sexual abuse". Because that's how people use it, and the definition of any word derives from its usage. Turn on the TV, and you'll hear "Congreman Schmoe was arrested today for pedophilia". Like it or not, that is one meaning of the word. This project can try to define and educate, but Wikipedia's mission is to describe, not define or educate. So we have to deal with that. In addition... well, what I said above. Herostratus 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo, I'll start a new section below re your comments. Herostratus 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We can't be inconsistant. I don't understand why FloNight thinks it is appropriate for us to use the word "pedophilia" to describe two different things. One of them, child sexual abuse, has terms of its own. Obviously the term "child sexual abuse" is clear and understandable and should be used whenever we are describing child sexual abuse. It would be better if we had another word for "pedophilia," since the difference between action and inaction is too complicated for society to understand, but we've only got one term (except POV ones like "pedosexual" and "childlover"). Plus, "pedophilia" is defined by OED -- i.e. the God of the English language -- as "sexual love for children," and most other dictionaries similarly define it. This is not OR. We need to use one definition. 24.224.153.40 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Many words have more than one definition. I don't see why we should necessarily forbid particular definitions. Even the OED likely has a couple for "pedophilia" and "pedophile". The "American Dictionary" defines "pedophilia" as:

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

So they include the act as well as the fantasy. -Will Beback 01:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How are our readers supposed to even understand what we're talking about if we use society's braindead semantics? To be clear -- so our reader knows whether we're talking about a fantasy or a crime -- we need to choose a definition of pedophilia that makes sense and consistently use it throughout Wikipedia's articles. This is the world of editorial decision. In this world we're allowed to use our minds and weigh choices to see what would make our article more readable and openly informative. This is not original research.

And unless someone can dig up some other word that means "primary sexual interest in children," we don't have any other better word to describe it. We're stuck with "pedophilia." If we want to be clear and make our articles even mildly understandable, we have to refer to the other "meaning" with a different term -- and we have plenty for that. Child sexual abuse or child molestation. 24.224.153.40 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Will. This better meets WP:NPOV and keeps us away from OR, too. --FloNight ^talk 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

24, we're not here to right the world's wrongs, only to write the world's encyclopedia. If the terms "pedophile" and "child molester" are intertwined, or even synonyms, then so be it. It isn't our job to correct usage, only to describe what exists. -Will Beback 23:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag in general, and taggging of Rind et al in particular

[edit] Tag

Using the default Wikipedai template for tagging article talk pages results in this:

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia Article Watch. For guidelines see WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Which seemed awkward and wrong, so I made this tag:

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Using the word "pedophilia" for the first instance. Is this OK, should #1 above be used or should #2 used but with different wording, or does it matter.

[edit] Should Rind stay tagged?

Some projects tag scores of articles related to their object, but I do not that would be a good idea for this project, at all. Instead, I think we should only tag articles that someone is actively working on watching especially closely. Right now three articles are tagged, two are being worked on. But Rind, I had tagged that for POV but I've not got around to going beyond that, so unless someone else is working on it, I (as the tagger) don't object to removing the tag from the article, in fact it might be a good idea. Is that OK, or should it stay? Herostratus 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It should stay tagged. Have you seen the discussion at the article? Yesterday, DanielCD and I discussed working on the artle BEFORE this blew up last evening (US EST). Many projects mark their articles with talk headers, I don't see the big deal here. This project is over if we can't associate pedophilia and child sexual abuse. The continued denial of the general definition of pedophilia by WP users is a big problem for this project. It allows people to argue that Pedophilia is not an appropriate See also for Rind et al. (1998). Herostratus, I think we need to deal with this issues head on. I plan to use this concise, broad definition for pedophilia:

Sexual desire felt by an adult for children, or the crime of sex with a child. (From Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation.) FloNight ^talk 11:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta? NO, BWANA! TABOO!!! =) (j/k) Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No,I haven't been following it... damn I hate that article. It blew up again? Yeesh. Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the tag. I'm not sure it's needed. But I'm also saying this without having read the discussions. --DanielCD 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: Flo, ppl are following our discussions and reacting to them. A trend I've noticed. No idea what the motive could be. --DanielCD 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why it shouldn't stay tagged? It seems highly unobvious to me why you would remove the tag. JoshuaZ

No, absolutely, keep the tag, no problem, just checking. The only reason I asked if the tag should be removed is:

I myself had tagged the article.
I myself am not watching or working on the article at this time.
I didn't know if anyone else on the project was or not.
And I think that -- Unlike WikiProject Japan or whatever -- we should only tag a few articles at a time, ones that at least one project member is seriously engaged it. Because the tag (properly) links to this project, and dropping too many tags about is likely to bring in the merely curious, some of whom are not necessarily prepared to approach the subject in a scholarly and dispassionate manner. Which is life, but I (personally anyway) don't necessarily want people dropping in and getting into it about an article on a level of detail which no one on the project is engaged in enough to prepared to handle, is all. Herostratus 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, JoshuaZ and DanielCD, see my comment below at Lolicon. I think we should label all the articles related to pedophilia and child sexual abuse. We act as an central location for editors to advertise content disputes, place questions about general issues related to topic. Over time interested editors will learn to come here to keep up with articles related to these topics. FloNight ^talk

[edit] This is amusing

Jimbo's take on the Child Modeling (erotic) article...

I guess if anyone scolds us for severly redacting an aricle we can say Just be glad he isn't a project member... Herostratus

And he didn't even give a ref. I'd give him a vandalism warning for that one: deleting material without giving a reason. :). --DanielCD 13:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Paroxysm had the guts to revert his edit. Founder or not, that was just intolerable for Jimbo to do. --Jelligraze 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he probably knew he would be reverted soon enough. We humor the old codger a bit. Herostratus 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Rind et al suddenly gets hot right when I'm lookiing for something to work on that's not. --DanielCD 13:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya don't hafta do anything ya don't wanna... go ahead and work on Charmmy Kitty for awhile and relax... Herostratus 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon

Lolicon is is an example of an article that should be tagged, right? And a notice about the significant debates brought to the talk page of WP:PAW. This project is an obvious location to advertise a straw poll. Copyright violation, content dispute causing page protection, discussion about the use of imageboard external links with images of child sex acts. If we don't involve the project in these issues, what is our purpose? Am I wrong?FloNight ^talk 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to thing the goals of this project might be a little too ambitious for so few people. I don't know much about Lolicon other than it's sex cartoons or something. --DanielCD 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The project mostly needs to be a central location for editors use to find information, advertise a content dispute, leave general questions. Over time editors will learn to come here to find information related to this topic. FloNight ^talk 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I don't mean to poo-poo it or anything. I think it will have growing pains, but what doesn't. I'm always here for a third opinion guys; keep up the good work. ;) --DanielCD 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan to Afd LS Studio

I'm trying to gather consensus to delete this article. There is no verifiable reliable source for the content of the article. Evidently the current content is original research. Look through past versions and you will see that more detailed original research describing the web site has been removed. None of the newspaper articles identify LS Studio by name. I searched through FBI press announcements looking for some evidence that LS Studio was raided. I looked through the United States official statements on human rights violations for Ukraine. Again, I find general reference to the FBI's involvement in shutting down child porn web sites in Ukraine but nothing specifically naming this studio.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LS Studio I'm not satisfied with the outcome of this Afd. There was heavy input from pro-pedophilia pov editors. There was a vote from a brand new user. This Afd vote was their first and last edit. Unless someone can find verifiable reliable sources in the next 48 hours I'm going to start another Afd. The article Child pornography already includes this content so there is no need to merge. Make comments at Talk:LS Studio FloNight ^talk 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raids

http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2001/0326-00.htm

Here's a site that Wikipedia doesn't have anything on. The Blue Orchid thing. Part of the Candyman stuff? --DanielCD 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] housekeeping

I did a little housekeeping, nothing major, except that I changed the definition of "child" to the one that (I think) we had more or less agreed on a while back, this had never been done. Herostratus 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one objects to those improvement, FloNight. Are you OK with the change? I think it was discussed. It seems reasonable to all, I think. One problem is that opening of our article child is: "A child (plural: children) is a young human, or someone who has not yet reached puberty (someone who is prepubescent)." I left a note on the talk page there asking for references for that statement. Herostratus 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything is fine. I noticed Child, too. We'll give it some time after your note, and then fix it. : ) Thanks for following up on Child sexual abuse and removing the unsourced content. Did you know that Sexual child abuse redirects to Sexual Abuse? (As I accidently found out just now) Do you think we should change it? FloNight ^talk 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Herostratus 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The downside of term expansionism

From Talk:Child sexual abuse, regarding whether this statment is true: Sexual relations between adults and minors in western society remain controversial.

The problem with this is that minor means 17 and under, adult means 18 and over. Therefore some of the relationships the above sentence describes are between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds. I don't think that sexual relations between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old is a problem, and I don't think many people do. Even if one contends that its not ideal, few would say that its sick or twisted or evil.

So the statement at the top is certainly true.

Further, using the expanded definition of "child" as meaning (if not further qualified) "minor", even changing minor to child: Sexual relations between adults and children in western society remain controversial is still true.

In fact, the use of "child" to mean "person under 18" means that the following statements are all true:

Some children enjoy sex with adults.
Some children are capable of a full range of sexual responses.
Sexual relations between children and adults is quite common.
Some children are capable of falling in love romantically with adults.
Some children later willingly marry the man who initiated them into sex.

You see the problem here.

A guy in Maine was shot dead a few days ago. The killer (possibly a victim of true child sex abuse) picked him at random off the State of Maine sex offender site (Maine does not differentiate between types of offense on its website). His crime was having relations with his girfriend, two weeks shy of of her sixteenth birthday, when he was 19. I think he was in his thirties, maybe late twenties, when he was killed.

We can infer that the guy and his girlfriend were going out behind the backs of the girl's parents. That seems the most likely scenario for him to have been arrested and convicted, when they found out. According to the murdered man's mom, they guy loved the girl and had wanted to eventually marry her, wasn't just preying on her.

Now, this likely wouldn't have been a good situation. If I was that girl's dad in that situation, I would have been plenty mad. But I don't think the guy deserved to die. I don't even think he deserved to have to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender and be listed on state websites. His crime was contributing to the deliquency of a minor, maybe. It wasn't a sex crime, really.

So, yeah, if we're going to get into teen sex and mix that up into one pot with sex abuse of pre-pubescent children, it's gonna make everything harder. Herostratus 04:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to tinker with the wording. We need to acknowledge all the major meanings in all the major cultures. This is not going to be easy but we can do it. It's best for us to stick to the facts as verified by reliable sources. The reality is that adults do get arrested for sexually abusing teens. And the reality is that adults can have consensual sexual contact with teens. We need to figure out a way to make that jibe! --FloNight ^talk 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

People who engage in consensual sex with minors are characteristically charged with "statutory rape". There is a range of gradations of contact that many U.S. lawbooks recognize from "attempted solication with a computer" all the way through to plain old "rape" and beyond. But in the common language we don't have so many distinctions. Clearly "sexual offender" can refer to many sex crimes unrelated to minors. As for the matter of "controversy", I'm not sure where the controversy lies. I don't know of any nation in which the pro-child sex lobby has any significant public presence. There aren't enough voices opposing the anti child-adult sex view to call it a controversy, with some individual exceptions such as the "pedophile priest" matter. -Will Beback 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology section

I change the definition of an ephebophile and pedarast to clearly specify they are adults since a adolescents are never labeled ephebophiles in the scholarly work so far as I've seen. The rest of the terminology section should be modified as it fails to properly specify the age group(s) that a person can be pedophiles. Because of this vagueness, a 10 year old boy attracted to 10 year old girls would be a pedophile which is not how the term in generally used either scientifically or in the mass media. The definition of pedophilia should be made clearer as to who can be a pedophile. Pedophiles should be limited to adults and sometimes adolescents (when their is a significant age difference between the teen and the child such a 15 yo and a 6yo but not say a 13yo and 12yo.). --Cab88 11:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction Article

There is a discussion going on at the Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction article as to a breach of NPOV policy - on the talk page. -195.93.21.39 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up 195. I find myself agreeing with your position on this. Herostratus 06:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The NPOV tag on "Pedophilia"

User:Haham hanuka tagged Pedophilia as NPOV after I reverted this change. But then he just sort of disappeared, although I asked him to share his concerns on the talk page. It's been on my conscience--I reverted the change because the new language was strange in English and didn't actually support the point I think he was trying to make, not to shut him up or drive him away. So, with him not choosing to continue participation in the article, how do we go about correcting the NPOV and getting the flag off the page?
Thanks! DanB DanD 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, it is the responsibility of the editor placing the {NPOV} tag to describe the POV problem on the article talk page. If they don't then other editors may remove the tag without any other action. -Will Beback 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a relief! DanB DanD 01:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boylove for the axe?

A while back I cleaned up Boylove, which was extremely messy at that time. But I just noticed that "childlove" and "girllove" are just redirects to Pedophile activism. Should I make "boylove" the same, or is the chance that unsuspecting manga fans will get a shock enough reason to keep the separate page? DanB DanD 01:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's fine as it stands, in my opinion. I think that the earlier versions of this page were long and polemical, what you have is OK. Herostratus 05:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The manga term is "boys love". I don't think the term "boylove" is notable enough to have a separate article. There's nothing to say about that is substantially different from the material we already have at Pedophile activism. -Will Beback 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] medical knowledge, anyone?

Can anybody help with checking the accuracy of User:TlatoSMD's new section about brain surgeries on the pedophilia page? I've already found one basic error: he says thalamotomies and lobotomies are the same thing, which they aren't. But I don't know enough to fix it. DanB†DanD 23:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW?

Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW?

And why is it called Pedophilia Article Watch?

A paw icon doesn't really reflect in any way the ideas of the article improvement... People are going to think it's a bestiality article watch or something. :P --Rookiee Revolyob 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Child Sexuality article part of PAW? Because minority and inapropriate opinion has been included into that article in the past, trying to push a POV that is not generally accepted by scolarly sources.

And why is it called Pedophilia Article Watch? I didn't participate in the discussions that named this project page, the project's intent is to readdress the balance of innapropriate POV in articles that "pedophile activists" tend to target in order to push their minority POV.

PAW icon!, I said pretty much the same thing above. --Monotonehell 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a long tussle over the name of the project. It's in the archives and summarized at the top of this talk page. It was originally named Wikiproject:Pedophilia, which was my choice, but the consensus was that would not be a good name, one reason being that it would probably keep getting deleted by passerby. As to the icon, um, I dunno. I made it; it's a pun, I guess: PAW = picture of a paw. I only put it in the template a bit ago; other projects have icons in their templates. And I don't know what other image you could have. But if active participants don't like it, take it out. Herostratus 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but fear that it can be misinterpreted as meaning several other things. ;) --Monotonehell 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm even more confused, now. I joined Project Pedophilia under understanding that it was a project to "improve" pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument. But, if I understand Monotonehell correctly, his idea of it is that it's to ensure that there is an unequal voice regarding the issue, calling our side the "minority opinion". This to me is simply not allowable. There's two sides to an argument. For, and against, and it should not matter which side has more proponents or opponents; it should always be equally and objectively argued to ensure NPOV. --Rookiee Revolyob 09:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no room in wikipedia for partisan "our side"s or "their side"s. Please leave your opinions and beliefs at the door. What I said was that in the past there was a POV being pushed out of proportion by a minority of editors. I did not tar "all pedophiles" or "all pedophile activists" with the same brush, if that's what you're thinking. Wikipedia is based on scholarly sources. That is all work must be backed up with an authoritive source. There's a vast gulf between "improve pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument" and having an article biased heavily with one POV. Idealy there should be no POV at all, but in some areas there exists conflicting POVs which must be all documented in an encyclopedic manner. In my experiences trying to walk this fine line in age of consent I've found that some people on both sides of an argument are never happy until "their side" is the only voice. No matter how balanced an article is. It's a hard line to walk and I've been called both a Leftist and a rightist (as an insult) trying to keep the balance. So I guess I'm doing the right thing so far.

If you indeed joined "Project Pedophilia under understanding that it was a project to improve pages referring to Pedophilia to ensure the equality and stability of both sides of the argument." Then YAY! edit away. That's what I'm all for. If you look at some of my edits you see me removing the ugly accusitive language some editors use surrounding this topic and the mislableing of pedophile on topics that clearly are not; in an attempt to make it more matter of fact and encyclopedic. As well as pulling unsubstantiated rants. I've also let edits stand that I don't agree with simply because they are properly sourced and unbiased. My least favourite times on Wikipedia have been when an editor is hell bent pushing a POV and can't/won't see that they are pushing a biased POV. Check out the history of age of consent for some of those fun times. ;P --Monotonehell 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that two sides of every argument should be given equal weight. Wiki's task is to reflect academic consensus, not to be a forum for debate. Notable groups dissenting from academic consensus should be mentioned, but discussed only to the extent that their views are important in the world outside Wikipedia. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are a violation of God's law. That may be significant enough to mention, but it would be absurd if 50% of the article on blood transfusions were written from the Jehovah's Witness perspective to ensure that both sides were treated equally. That's not non-discrimination, it's promotion of an obscure point of view.

The case with pedophile activism is comparable. A culturally marginal perspective does not merit "equal time" with academic consensus - that would be a violation of the "undue weight" policy.

DanB†DanD 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's basically what I said, except Dan put it MUCH more succinctly. XD --Monotonehell 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right. The purpose of the project is to correct biased and improperly sourced material from all points of the compass, so to speak. I personally strive to correct the mistaken impression that pedophiles and child molesters have much in common generally, that pedophiles are predators, and so forth. I've worked with good editors who are pedophiles and who have contributed well to the Wikipedia, and I abhor the contretemps a few months back when pedophile editors were made to feel unwelcome just for being pedophiles. And we certainly don't want any Daily Mail-type nonsense introduced into article space, At the same time we certainly don't want Wikipedia articles used as a platform for adult-child-sex-normalization advocacy, and this has been the bigger problem in my personal experience (recognizing that many adult-child-sex-normalization advocates are not pedophiles and vice versa). And what Mono and Dan said about marginal points of view. We don't want unbalanced articles, or articles that give a mistaken impression of any aspect of the subject covered. Also, since this is such a fraught area, I think we need to be especially careful to provide proper (verifiable, neutral, respected, and when possible peer-reviewed) references for most any major statement. When we edit Wikipedia we are not gay or straight or pedophilic or whatever, we are encyclopediasts, a proud designation. Herostratus 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch_e6ba.html"