Talk:Anti-pedophile activism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anti-pedophile stubs

I added links to stubs for several groups mentioned in the article so readers have nice clickies to find out more about the organizations mentioned. Unfortunately, I only had time to attempt a limited rephrasing of the information presented on the group's own websites for use in the stubs. I know they are stubs and I was not able to neutralize all POV but it is late so I will not be able to flesh them out into more useful articles tonight. If people in possession of relevent information would help fill out those articles and bring them to a NPOV, I would appreciate it. I think the stubs, presented in a more neutral POV, would be useful to readers. The stubs are: Predator hunter, CorporateSexOffenders and Absolute Zero United. Thanks Veriss 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the three articles I was actively working on and listed above, were listed for speedy deletion and though I contested the deletion with a request for time to work on the articles, they were deleted regardless...without any posting here about why they were deleted even though I referenced the above post for why they were created to begin with. How do I find out who deleted a particular article and why it was deleted? What exactly are the time parameters that a person is permitted to clean up an newly created article before it is deleted by someone? Does an article need to be "airtight" before it is created and posted or is there generally some lattitude given to new articles created in good faith to allow time for completion? How airtight does an article need to be to survive a speedy deletion request? I sincerely do not understand these obstacles to contributing. Veriss 06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

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

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

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

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

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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Poll regarding merger

1. AGREE Merge the two. DPeterson^talk 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
2. 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

^Incorrect. Mike D78 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Stop name-calling, please. Mike D78 08:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mike D78 here. Let's keep it civil. Homologeo 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

the reference is to a sort of policy statement not name-calling. The sentiment in the policy is a good one...if followed. DPeterson^talk 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this policy is relevant to this situation, especially not to Mike D78's conduct, at least not to his behavior on this page. If anything, SqueakBox should take note of the very policy he's refering to. Homologeo 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hilarious claim, since the vast majority of anti-pedophile activism deals with opposing pedophile organizations, all of whom promote child sexual abuse. You are so obvious, but you're good at using Wikipedia rules to play them as fools. You are a good example of why there are still things to chastise. Thanks for providing the example. XavierVE 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. DPeterson^talk 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Xavier, the vast majority of anti-pedophile activism does not deal with opposing pedophile organizations. The little stings your own organization does on Dateline or whatever; those do not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Naming and shaming sex offenders in newspapers does not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Lobbying for stricter laws against offenders does not involve opposing pedophile organizations. Monitoring chat rooms does not involve anti-pedophile organizations. To simply leave this article to only focus on activism that is strictly agaisnt pedophile organizations would be to ignore most of the activism that most people would consider to be anti-pedophile.

Again, I don't feel I have any less right to be here than you do. But if the founder of such a venerable institution as PJ has nothing better to do than trash me on the Internet all day, whatever.

Mike D78 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

psst, in case you haven't noticed, Xavier and his group is REALLY good at trashing people who disagree with him and his profiteering off his vigilantism. And IMHO this appears to just be all about PJ and Bill O' anyway, why not merge it there? If that's all there is to anti-pedophile activism, then the world has bigger issues. And merging the pro and con articles would just cause MASSIVE edit warring at this point, Squeak and his PJ handlers would try and POV it their way, trolls will come out of the woodwork to POV to the pedos... and the people who try and actually make the article NPOV is just get drowned out. But then again, that's what the zealots want. So Xavier, what about the wikipedia rule on editing articles related to yourself or your organization? pfft. 75.16.108.53 11:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

A lot of off-topic chatter removed by User:Exploding Boy. Please take this as a final warning regarding the use of this article talk page. Exploding Boy 15:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, this article appears much more NPOV. But, rather than debate that, I believe it will be much more productive if the pro article are be merged since they are essentially two-side of the the same coin: Pedophile Activism. Once that merger occurs, than it is my opinion that article should probably be merged as a section of the Pedophile article, but that would be a topic to debate only after these two articles are merged. DPeterson^talk 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how they are "two sides of the same coin." Right now, although in need of expansion, this article mostly addresses shaming offenders in newspapers and "pedo baiting." What do these topics have to do with pro-pedophile groups? There is no direct relation.

As for merging all this into the pedophilia article, that was already tried and it just didn't work.

Mike D78 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro pedophile is up for afd and while that process continues I have no objections to this article and would say it is safe to unlock it, SqueakBox 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro and Anti...same issue, different sides...same coin, differenent faces. Discussions of mering into the related pedophilia article are premature at this point. I agree that the article may be unlocked at this time. DPeterson^talk 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, what do topics such as "pedo baiting" and chatroom stings have to do with pro-pedophile groups? Where is the direct connection that warrants a merge? Mike D78 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just a tiny part...pro and anti are just two parts of one whole. DPeterson^talk 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, both articles are centered on the similar topic of, oh I don't know, PEDOPHILIA? I don't see how much more obvious I can make this. --Potato dude42 01:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Everyone, for the last time, please keep your discussions on article talk pages to discussion about the article itself. Off-topic discussion should be taken to user talk pages or email. In addition, keep your comments civil. People will be blocked if they continue to flout these rules. Thank you. Exploding Boy 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Section on Bill O'Reilly

Although Bill O'reilly may indeed be an active anti-pedophile activist, the evidence previously provided for this assertion in the article had nothing to do with his activism. I have thus deleted the short paragraph dealing with this topic, since it was wholely based on O'reilly's promotion of Jessica's Law, which deals with harsher penalties for child molesters. Since this law is neither about pedophiles specifically or pedophile activists, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If anyone can provide pertinent evidence for O'reilly's activism, they're welcome to start this section anew. Homologeo 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response why the hell did you delete that it was perfectly ok and relevent to the subject at hand. The web site showd HIS promotion of Jessica's law and he is one of the biggest anti-pedophile activists around it would be wrong to leave him out.--Eshay 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have no doubt that he is one of the most active anti-pedophile activists of today. However, in order for such a statement to be included in the article, the supporting evidence provided needs to be pertinent to the subject at hand. The fact that O'reilly supports Jessica's Law is irrelevant in defining him as an anti-pedophile activist. I already explained this above. Please ellaborate on how support of harsher penalties for child molesters makes someone an anti-pedophile activist. Unless more pertinent support is provided, the said section has no place in this article. Homologeo 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson and Eshay, please read this section from the beginning. I clearly explain why the paragraph on Bill O'reilly should not be included in the article on anti-pedophile activism. An abbreviated version of the explanation was also provided in the Edit Summary of the edit I made. Lack of supporting evidence is the main reason for the deletion of that paragraph. If you can provide more pertinent evidence of his activism, you're more than welcome to add it to the article. However, the support currently provided is not relevant to the topic of anti-pedophile activism. Homologeo 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of the section is dubious. Given that the man is such a self-promoting media figure, I think it would be better to have the word of someone other than Bill O'Reilly himself that his involvement with Jessica's law is as anything more than a hanger-on and exploiter in his own quest for ratings. I think we need something other than a link to his own website in this case to justify inclusion. DanB†DanD 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems, on the surface, that J's law is relevant and he is a prom media figure, and the info in verifiable. DPeterson^talk 22:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jessica's law is relevant of course, but is he relevant to Jessica's law? DanB†DanD 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? He's an advocate for it. DPeterson^talk 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So am I. Put a paragraph about me in the article. DanB†DanD 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that Jessica's Law is not directly related to anti-pedophile activism. I would like to see a response to the reasoning I provided above. Thanx in advance, Homologeo 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your response has been reasonable and your tone has been calm so i intend to keep it that way. But i think your wrong He is probably the biggest anti-pedo advocates in the world he has a right to be there which he earnt through one of the most rigirous campaigns in the media. as for the sourse i dont know where else you expect to be promoting it besides himself. but look on tehe wikipedia page bills political views. although it doesnt do it justice. --Eshay 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The relationship is that this is an anti-pedophile law. DPeterson^talk 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an anti-sex offender law; from what I understand, some acts punished under the law don't have to involve children, nor do the offenders technically have to be "pedophiles," obviously. Granted, generally many people would consider it to be an "anti-pedophile law," and public sentiment against pedophiles definitely played a role in its passage. But "anti-pedophile law" isn't the most accurate way to describe it.

The section currently comes off as an out-of-place advertisement for Bill O'Reilly. There are many people out there who are more associated with this kind of thing than Bill is; it's only one part of his shtick. And giving him complete credit for getting a law passed in several states is just ridiculous. Mike D78 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who knows more about O'reilly's anti-pedophile activism add a bit more support to the article as to why exactly he is defined as an anti-pedophile activist. I have no doubt that he is an activist, because I have watched The Factor, but his advocacy of Jessica's Law does not seem to be the best way to demonstrate this type of activism. The biggest problem with using the advocacy of this ammendment as proof of activism was outlined by Mike D78 and by me earlier in this section. This is a legislature that aims to institute harsher penalties for child sexual abuse. It does not target pedophiles or pro-pedophile activists. Neither does Jessica's Law address issues that are exclusively pedophile-related. Considering that research suggests that most individuals convicted of child sexual abuse are not actually pedophiles, it is misleading to label this law as part of anti-pedophile activism. There must be more clear-cut actions that O'reilly is taking that define him as an anti-pedophile activist.

As a side note, I have to also agree with Mike D78's observation that giving O'reilly exclusive credit for getting 41 states to incorporate Jessica's Law is quite inappropriate. Homologeo 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe you are actually splitting hairs about this issue. the fact is that people who commit sexual assaults have a predisposition to this sexual attraction. you can cite one study and i can cite another we shouldn't be trying to make one totalizing definition for pedophilia. any person who commits a sexual assault on a minor should be considered a pedophile. any way i believe that the bill oreily has been at the forefront of the Jessica's law campaign he deserves the credit on wiki.--Eshay 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of 'anti-pedophile activism'

Could someone explain to me why the definition provided for anti-pedophile activism in the intro includes "opposition to ... child pornography and child sexual abuse"? This seems to be misleading, since this movement is primarily concerned with opposition to pedophiles and pro-pedophile activism. It might be best to remove the terms "child pornography" and "child sexual abuse" from the definition, as not to mislead readers and editors alike. Homologeo 05:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, I was wondering why there is a number of links to anti-child pornography sites at the bottom of the article. Unless a link has something to do with the subject at hand, or provides a source for statements made within the article, it should not be listed. As of right now, there does not seem to be any use for these links on this page. Unless someone explains how they are relevant to anti-pedophile activism, besides claiming that some pedophiles somewhere might support child pornography, I will have to remove all such links from this page. Thanx in advance for any input you may provide, Homologeo 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti activists dont oppose the illness pedophilia but its manifestations, that is child pornogrpahy and child sexual abuse, so it is entirely appropriate and not even slightly misleading, SqueakBox 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Focus on conviction of James Finn III

Does anyone else think that the arrest and conviction of James Finn III are over-emphasized in the article as it currently stands? There's way too much detail for such a subtopic, and the huge block quote seems unnecessary. Can't we make all this information more concise? There's got to be more to be said about this site than that it had one "featured article" that facilitated some kind of change. If indeed only a single article has had an impact on the community, than maybe this site should not be discussed on Wikipedia for lack of notability. What do other editors think? Homologeo 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Typical. The article is about anti-pedophile activists. The account is about a almost-month old website that resulted in the arrest of one of the heavy-hitters when it comes to online pedophile activism. Of course, given your previous history of edits, I really can't say I'm shocked to see you wish to remove information that illustrates starkly the nature of the "We're pedophiles and our communities are designed to support each other" lie. That said, I'm admittedly POV so it would be nice if a neutral Wikipedian did wikify the account. XavierVE 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me, just the sort of material we do want here, SqueakBox 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to touch this until some other Wikipedian brought it up, but it seems Xavier is prepared to unleash his vitriol on any user who even questions him, implying that they are part of this vast pedophile conspiracy he always speaks of. Typical.

The information is certainly too detailed. I don't believe this article was intended as a place for PJ to write a few paragraphs to gloat about each "catch" they make. And someone definitely needs to make sure all the info checks out. For one, the implication that some guy allegedly getting caught with porn means that an entire community is engaged in that kind of activity is certainly dubious.

I'll let someone else decide what to do with the section, but it definitley needs to be downsized. I think that's obvious to pretty much everyone. Mike D78 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Er I think you are in the wrong article, we need to trim the pro article and expand this one so at the very least they are the same length and thus I dont agree with youur suggested deletions, SqueakBox 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And as far as conspiracies go we know there is a conspiracy to promote pedophilia through wikipedia, and indeed the results are the current state of the ped articles, so one can hardly blame him for feeling vitriolic because this isnt how it should be. Its not a vast conspiracy but it is one and remarkably effective so far, SqueakBox 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be expanded, and I have suggested several times ways that that can be done. But we need to make sure that the material being added is quality information. "The website... has already notched one win"? That's not encyclopedic language. And I'll agree with Homologeo that the long block quote is unnecessary, as well. We don't need to have three paragraphs of information appended to this article everytime some group makes another bust.

My only intention with the "conspiracy" comment was to point out that Xavier's snide allegations toward Homologeo were completely out of line. He has not shown any kind of antagonism toward Xavier, nor does his "previous history of edits" suggest any inappropriate behavior. Xavier needs to lighten up and realize that, occasionally, people who question his edits aren't out to promote some hidden agenda but have genuine concerns about the quality of articles. As I said, I initially didn't touch this, because I've shown in the past that I'm not a fan of Xavier's and I really didn't want to get into this discussion. But I think the fact that another editor has pointed out the same things that I have shows that there's some legitimacy to these concerns. Mike D78 00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'll join you in that. Lets trash the blockquote. 86.131.37.130 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've downsized the quote to the bits that count. The article should evolve, and I suggest that future upsizing could justifiably lead to the removal of even more jimf3 information. 86.131.37.130 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to PJ element

You and your supporters are free to edit these articles as much as you like. However, it would very much help your and Wikipedia's ends, if you were to cease:

• Cramming the article full of value laden, unencyclopedic language and disproportionate coverage of current events.
• Using Wikis as references (against the rules).
• Linking to websites that contain unverifiable and potentially dangerous research on individuals (against the rules).
• Promoting obvious misinformation by reverting referenced material that confirms Jim Finn as having no position as WM at BoyChat for example.
• Accusing people who go against this harsh and unreasonable style of being pedophiles, vandals or even both.

Your co-operation is very much appreciated. 86.131.37.130 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to random idiot pedophile: I already called for an actual Wikipedian to feel free to wikify the entry I put in. However, for your boychat ass to remove the link to the Wiki (which isn't being used as a source, but instead links to it where it is referenced in the article) but then claim that Boychat, a message board forum, is a source that meets Wikipedia standards is hilariously silly. Also, the OR claim regarding the "three counts" is again, ridiculous. The Detroit News article says he had X number of child pornography pictures and X number of child pornography videos. The Detroit News publication meets proper sourcing on Wikipedia.

Your co-operation, random IP, is very much appreciated. XavierVE 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being a pedophile simply for reverting some poor edits. That is very uncivil of you.

Regardless of motive, you cannot link to wikis. They simply cannot be in the references, full stop. It is against the rules of Wikipedia. Please link to the CSO homepage.

The reason I have linked Boychat, is because Boychat is an authority on Boychat. You may also like to note that linking to pages that describe the administration of a forum, as opposed to being built on such software is completely fair use.

Finn has been charged on three counts of CP, which = 3 Images or videos. Whatever the FreeP article says, we cannot stoop to calling even the charge-related media "Child Pornography", until a conviction has gone through. For the moment, they are images of children, and will remain so, until that changes.

And my status as a "random" IP is irrelevant. Please discuss content. 86.131.37.130 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take heed of these suggestions, Xavier. You seem intelligent enough, if a little partisan. Samantha Pignez 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to where in our guidelines and policies it says that "you cannot link to wikis." If you think that our reliable sources policy prohibits it, you're wrong; it indicates that wikis are unreliable sources, but nothing in there prohibits simply linking to them. Powers ^T 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well iot would be good to sign into an account, and specific examples of policy violation would be helpful, generalising is not and I will not edit Xavier's work without specific exampleas of where particular edits violate specific policies. Who are you referring to by Xavier's supporters here? SqueakBox 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are simply too many pedophiles who are talented at circumventing Wikipedia's "good faith" processes to edit these articles with any sort of information. At the end of the day, it's anti-pedophiles getting into reversion wars with pedophiles, hardly constructive. Linking BoyChat because "it's an authority on BoyChat" is a wonderful concept! If that were really the spirit in which Wikipedia created content, every article would simply be people... talking about themselves. The worst part about editing here is having to kill enough braincells to pretend that an editor like this is anything other than what he is.

There are not enough legitimate Wikipedia editors to turn the tide when it comes to these articles. Good luck to those who continue to attempt it, I shall go back to lobbing grenades from the outside :) XavierVE 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no winning with you, Xavier; anyone who professes a less rabid viewpoint than yours in regards to editing these articles gets accused of "circumventing Wikipedia's good faith processes," whatever their conduct or self-identification.

Anyway, see ya; don't let the door hit you on the way out. Mike D78 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Keeping all links in one section is fine, given the small number of external links. DPeterson^talk 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you keep removing the link to Corrupted Justice with no reason given. I'm going to restore it and add a brief description that notes that it professes an anti-vigilante point of view. I thought a categorization of the links was helpful, but if you're going to try to remove the CJ link again, you at least need to offer some explanation. In the interest of balance, I see no reason why one opposition link shouldn't be kept, considering the article has a criticism section. Mike D78 02:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

As one of those who voted against the merger of the "Pro-Pedophile Activism" and the "Anti-Pedophile Activism" articles, I felt that I should attempt to bastion this article with as much concrete evidence as possible. Over the last two days, I have searched through dozens of academic databases for articles on the topic, and what I found was rather meager. Perhaps understandably, the materials relating to "Pro-Pedophile Activism" are plentiful (hence the amount of documentation in that article); but, those relating to "Anti-Pedophile Activism" are extremely scarce. The materials I have included or linked to are about all there is. Fortunately, most of these materials are available in their entireties online, and can be gleaned for other items as the other editors of this article see fit. I have done my little, and will leave the rest to others (I have other articles I would prefer to engage; and, at the moment, I am feeling "guilty as hell" for not making a single adjustment of the article on Mary Renault, about whom I have done much of my academic work :-( So, signing of ... Welland R 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DPeterson, I restored the transcript material for the moment (though feel free to remove it again, if you disagree with my rationale about inclusion). Unlike most of the other materials I have added to this article, the transcript of this particular program is not fully available online (the reader of this article would have to go to a library or such to acquire it). Having read dozens of Bill O'Reilly trancripts relating to pedophilia, this is the only one that, I feel, provides a rationale and an illustration sufficient for keeping the subsection of the article "Bill O'Reilly and the Jessica's Law campaign", since this subsection drew criticism on the discussion page for not seeming to be integrated with the rest of the article. The above constitutes my logic behind inclusion. However, since you have been editing this article longer than I, feel free to make a "judgment call" here. I will not revert it back again :-) Welland R 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is with the edited quote you provide. It is better to provide the link and let the reader reach his/her own conclusion. Let's leave it as is for now and see what other editors think.

In addition, it comes close to being Original Research DPeterson^talk 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The last claim I find hard to grasp, since the transcript was published by Bill O'Reilly and is available in various databases (It is not like I watched the program while making a transcription). Further, how is quoting from a transcript any different from quoting from a periodical or other published work? Perhaps you would prefer a quotation from another transcript: if that is the case, then someone else will have to select it, because I am not about to spend any more time reading such. Welland R 09:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, allow me to quote from the page on Original Research that you directed me to: "Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews". The quoted passage from O'Reilley's interview is clearly one of the examples of primary sources that are sought for in Wikipedia -- "transcripts of ... interviews". Welland R 09:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Include or not the quote from the transcript?

See discussion above and put your thoughts hereDPeterson^talk 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrupted Justice link

The link to Corrupted Justice clearly belongs in the "external links" section, as it is a prominant site related to the subjects of this article from which much of the "criticism" section is derived from. It also needs to have some kind of a description indicating the site's point of view. I felt that a brief quote from the site's mission statement was adequate for this purpose, as this is what we do for the "absolute zeroes" site. Regardless, I don't appreciate squeakbox's distortion of my contribution as a "ridiculous trolling comment." Including a direct quote from a source is not "trolling," but describing CJ as "pro-pedophile activists" probably is. That statement is blatantly false, POV, and libellous.

Anyway, we can discuss what kind of description is needed to differentiate this link from the others, but anything that tries to describe CJ as promoting a "pro-pedophile" point of view simply for opposing vigilantism clearly isn't gonna fly. Mike D78 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if we leave the site without a description that is fine, calling them vigilantes isnt fine so if we leave out the pro pedophile and the vigilantism, well that is called compromise. Yes? But I oppose any description in the EL section, indeed we would be best removing descriptions to any sites as it is unlikely you and I will agree on what is appropriate, SqueakBox 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it is appropriate to include a descriptive quote from the website itself, if an editor's comment fails to go with consensus. CJ is obviously set apart from most of the other links in terms of character and magnitude. Lets have a look at what they have to say about it:

"We are not "pedophile enablers" or "pro-pedophile". We at Corrupted-Justice.com do not condone pedophilia or any inappropriate contact between adults and children. We believe persons involved in those activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We believe in using law enforcement to handle the prosecution of these things. Perverted-Justice is not law enforcement"

P.S. this was already there before the debate took place on this website. | f | a | r | e | n | h | o | r | s | t | 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So lets be NPOV and not criticise either PJ or corrupted jsutice. The description of PJ as vigilantes is pure POV, SqueakBox 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

vig·i·lan·te /ˌvɪdʒəˈlænti/ – noun - 2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

Sounds appropriate to me, especially considering the description was indicated to be a quote from the site rather than original wording. I realize you feel the word "vigilante" carries certain POV connotations, though. Regardless, as Farenhorst notes, we need some kind of description differentiating the link to CJ from the other links. Mike D78 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you not seen to catch a predator? Its online too. PJ are deeply involved with the Police but even if true it doesnt fit our NPOV policies as vigilante has negative connotations, indeed its just an attack on PJ, and its fine for folk to do that but not on wikipedia articles as we are bound by NPOV policies, SqueakBox 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that WP does not endorse material sourced as direct quotes from websites. POV would only apply if the quotes were modified or drafted without quotations. The purpose, as with any EL on this website is descrptive. It totally baffles me that you see anything else in it. Maybe your self-proclaimed support of PJ is clouding your judgement. | f | a | r | e | n | h | o | r | s | t | 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well all I want is that we dont commet about either site. iI am willing, thanks to you guys persuasion, that we keep the corrupted justice link and we can let our readers go figure, these descriptions just cause problems. I suport PJ outing people who choose to try to have sex with what they know to be minors but that doesnt cloud my hjudgement here any more than my support for the full legalisation of cannabis clouds my judgement in the cannabis articles. I think we all bring our prejudices here not just me but I am looking for an NPOV solution that keeps us all sweet and describing PJ as vigilantes given who they are and their relationship with law enforcement in the US. SqueakBox 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping NPOV is important. The word "vigilante" has a really bad association and I think we just provide the link and let the read draw his/her own conclusion. DPeterson^talk 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I still think a brief description is helpful, considering CJ's goals and perspectives are different from those of the rest of the links. How about "opposes the tactics of Perverted Justice" as a description? Mike D78 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. And for corrupted justice? SqueakBox 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That was the suggested description for corrupted justice: "opposes the tactics of Perverted Justice." I don't think most of the rest of the links really need descriptions, as they express similar viewpoints to each other and their titles are either self-explanatory or they are more well-known (with the exception of the anti-puellula site, which has a more specific focus). Perverted Justice is pretty well known, so a description is probably unnecessary, and it gets extensive mention throughout the article, anyway. I think CJ, as the only "opposition" link among the others, needs a brief description pointing out its nature. Mike D78 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Size and scope of article?

This article seems to be very small compared to the Pro-pedophile activism page. I would think that their are a lot more anti-pedophile groups than pro-pedophile groups. I have also noticed that the whole article seems to be about US activism. I think this page could use more articles on anti-pedophile groups in other countries, particularly Europe where many of the pro-pedophile groups seem to operate. Jmm6f488 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, in the section "Recent additions": "Perhaps understandably, the materials relating to 'Pro-Pedophile Activism' are plentiful (hence the amount of documentation in that article); but, those relating to 'Anti-Pedophile Activism' are extremely scarce. The materials I have included or linked to are about all there is." Welland R 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been discussed before but attempts to remedy it by trimming down the size oft he pro pedophile activism article or merging it with this article or deleting the pro pedophile articles (as an NPOV fork according to me the nominator) have all failed. Really this article should be 10 times longer than the pro pedophile article because it is a much more notale subject. Most people only know pro pedophile activism exists as an ideology thanks to anti pedophile activists, such as Ron Tebo who was explaining Jack McClellan's pro-pedophile beliefs on Lartry King Live earlier this week (certainly bits of it should eb repeated over the w/end), SqueakBox 22:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Info on the arrest of Remsen Benedict

Could someone please add some other reference(s) to the paragraph that talks about Benedict's arrest? The reference currently provided mentions nothing of this individual's supposed pro-pedophile activism, and does not contribute his arrest to the work of the Wikisposure Project. Unless more references are provided, I will remove this paragraph from the article within a few days. On another note, I would like to inquire why such information, even if properly cited, is being included in this article at all. Is the article going to incorporate every single arrest the Wikisposure Project helps to bring about? ~ Homologeo 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot per usual, but I'll oblige: MariniJ, CBS5 It's SO HARD to google, right? Anyways, I totally don't see why arrests of pedophile activists stemming from the activities of an anti-pedophile activism website would be covered in this article. It makes completely no sense that an article regarding anti-pedophile activism would cover the activities of anti-pedophile activists. No, all that information should be removed and more should be added to the criticism section! Yay! XavierVE 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and before anyone beats me to it... "Wah wah, don't be mean!" XavierVE 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were leaving... :-/ Mike D78 09:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you know what you're doing is inappropriate.... =) Anyway, it's important to note that this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Not every anti-pedophile activity that occurs needs to be added to the article; it should provide a broad overview, not comprehensive detail. Powers ^T 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've take tne source which does mention Wikisposure, and written that it has had some success. There's no need to list every arest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LtPowers and Will Beback said pretty much all that needs to be said in response to your comment, XavierVE. Thank you for providing appropriate sources. Just so you know, it's not other editors' responsibility to google for sources for information that shouldn't be in an article in the first place. ~ Homologeo 07:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the arrest of Remsen Benedict is notable, but I agree that maybe it does not belong on this page. I say move it to the perveted justice page. Jmm6f488 09:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

A recent edit summary:

who removed the {{totally disputed}} template without consensus. Someone who criticises me for being bold well just dont without expliecit permission of those of us who totally dispute tghis article

NPOV tags are not added and removed on the basis of mind reading. When there is no ongoing discussion that indicates a lack of consensus, they can be rightly removed, along with the category. ●Farenhorst 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'wikisposure' mention

A while ago I made an edit which User:Homologeo tagged for -fact- verifiability and rightly so, I shouldn't expect people to just take edits like that without a source. As such, I would like to know how to go about properly sourcing this. Essentially, couldn't entries on the web site itself be used as sources for what the content of the website includes? So I'll post what I originaly made here, and then wait before adding it to the article, until I have backed each of the points. If anyone familiar with the profiles on that site has anything to add (like rewording suggestions) please feel free to do so. Here is a link to Xavier removing what I added with some unfounded namecalling and I'll quote it here:

It creates profiles on people who are or who have refused to condemn pedophiles as insane, whenever possible linking their online aliases with their legal names, photographs, phone numbers and street addresses. They also list any locations where people may be found, and mention all known family members. This is done of people who Perverted-Justice have no reason to believe are committing crimes, and creates a threat to these persons' and their families' personal safety by publishing their locations in association with labelling them with the widely hated label 'pedophile'.

Alright, so obviously there are problems and controversial editing like this requires discussion beforehand. Firstly, it does create articles on pedophiles, that's a given. It also creates articles on people who are not pedophiles, like 'Tyciol', calling them a pedophile who is simply denying it according to their unfounded suspicions. The problem here is that such denial happened far in advance to a wikisposure article appearing. It also keeps profiles on people who they acknowledge are not pedophiles, but who were co-moderators of LiveJournal communities discussing issues related to pedophilia. PissiMissi is an example of this. Still available in the history of that article is personal information along with links to nude photos of her. It's all rather crass for someone who was never a pedophile nor involved in pedophila advocacy.

Now, I can most easily assure you (and if need be, link to profiles if demanded) that they do list the legal names, potographs, phone numbers and street addresses (much less cities, countries) of the people they are stalking. They list work locations, and mention all known details about family members too. They do have a history, if you look up the data on C-J, of contacting no just the person, but also family members and neighbours. They encourage people to do this on their forums. It isn't a leap to say that releasing people's personal information collected together on a profile for ease-of-access endangers that person's safety. As they condone statements of violence towards pedophiles in general on their forums, despite the disclaimer on their wikisposure, by extension they have a permissive attitude about violence against anyone they term a 'pedophile' in one of the profiles they create.

Many people have questioned the label of 'vigilante'. That label is not negative, Batman is a vigilante. What they do with 'to catch a predator' and their chatting pretending to be minors, that is indeed vigilantism. The thing is, CSO is NOT vigilantism. If vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands (rather than letting law enforcement officers take care of and enforce it) then what law does CSO take into its own hands? What it is is... I guess you could call it 'information' like they do, but it really does seem like stalking. Not only this, but also misrepresentation, because unlike Wikipedia it is not an open wiki for unbiased sources to edit. It is edited by a select group. They do not update the article to be factual even when supplied with information contradicting its contents. Tyciol 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to describe the people targeted by PJ a bit more clearly than just "people who have refused to condemn pedophiles as insane." In reality, they target those they believe to be anti-anti-pedophiles, namely people who have done anything they think is contrary to their agenda. This includes not only self-identified pedophiles, but also critics of anti-pedophile vigilantes, critics of excessive sentences for minor sex crimes, critics of putting minors on sex offender registries, critics of absolute age of consent laws, and pretty much anyone advocating anything they think might make the world a less miserable place for the people they call pedophiles, regardless of whether those persons are pedophiles themselves.

I think you can state that they disclose all the personal information they can dig up about such persons, and it is documented that they employ techniques such as telephone harrassment of the persons family members, employers, and neighbors, and also distribute leaflets in the person's neighborhood calling the person a "pedophile activist."

This is a bit of branching out from their original stated goal of luring adults to meet fake children in chatrooms, and this "mission creep" is certainly worthy of being included in the article. Hermitian 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement in the discussion, and yeah, I guess it does summarize it better, but I was personally unaware of examples of what you've described. Unfortunately things like this can't be included in the article without sufficient evidence of it. It would require many examples (including screenshots of the articles in question and their having been up and not corrected for al ong period of time) of leaps of logic which are inaccurate, that kind of think. I've also made a mention of this on the Talk:Perverted-Justice page. I am unsure which article better deserves a wikisposure-sposure so to speak. Undoubtedly something on the scale of a wiki would be required to address each of the many grievances and to allow a concerted effort at critiquing and reviewing the information for accuracy. I've asked Corrupted-Justice about help with that but they are unwilling to help out, saying that it would just be internet squabbling and demean their organization. So it seems like something better suited to someone not afraid to get their mitts or reputations dirty in the pursuit of truth. Tyciol 06:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Entrapment

Perverted Justice could find themselves in legal trouble because what they are doing is encouraging people with pedophilic desires who would not otherwise act on them to do so. Under the law, this is called entrapment and is illegal. Psyadam 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true and even if it were what relevance does it have here. See WP:NOR, SqueakBox 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about some references? [7][8][9] But then again, this focus's only on PJ, not the bigger pictures, and hey look at reference 29, the criticism is already there. FAIL. 75.16.108.217 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned user

I have removed all comments by Mike D78 who was the sock of an already banned suer, SqueakBox 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, this is not funny anymore - you cannot go around removing people's comments without agreement from the other involved editors. Even though Mike D78 is now banned, there is validity in numerous observations and comments made by him. Unless you're going to be selective and only remove disruptive commentary, please don't take such unilateral action. Seriously, I thought you would know better by now. ~ Homologeo 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike is the reincarnation of a banned suer. Me know better, well yes, I wish you would read policy as restoring the comments of a banned sock is unacceptable, SqueakBox 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise users not to restore these comments as meatpuppeting is a banneable offence, and clearly contrary to the wikipedia spirit. We have no need to discuss the removal of cheating sock comments, SqueakBox 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please direct me to the policy that states that ALL commentary, whether disruptive or not, by a banned user has to be removed, and that undoing an edit that constitutes unilateral removal of non-disruptive commentary is a "bannable offense." Thanks, ~ Homologeo 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, even if you were justified in your actions, why would you remove only parts of someone's commentary, especially the ones with the signatures, and not the whole thing? As the text reads right now, you can no longer tell who's saying what in instances where Mike D78 was involved. In fact, it now looks like you were talking to and arguing with yourself on a number of occasions. This kind of removal of commentary cannot be deemed as helpful to the project. ~ Homologeo 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments of banned users who have no right to edit here and who diss everyone else with their cheating ways. Zero tolerance towards these users is the only solution, any casual reader would get a distorted view of how the debate here really is because someone or more than one person have decided to cheat by using socks when already banned. Restoring the comments of known socks of banned suers is called meatpuppetry and can result in the person facilitating the banned users to be blocked and if this serious disruption continues (ie reverting the comments of banned users) the meatpuppets will be reported. Do not attempt to blame me for any rhetorical issues involved in this as the fault is clearly with the puppet master(s) of Mike D78 and Farenhorst, SqueakBox 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)