Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

categories again

NAMBLA is shunned by the LGBT rights movement.[1] [2] Thus it is objectively correct that NAMBLA should not be included in the LGBT organizations category. I am removing it again. — coelacan talk — 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the acceptance of the organisation by the LGBT rights movement dictate the categorisation of the article in Wikipedia? It is an organisation for gay men and boys, thus a gay organisation, thus an LGBT organisation, thus the article's categorisation. Natgoo 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is an organisation that advocates sex between men and underage boys. This is not homosexuality. It is paedophilia. Is underage sex about sexuality? One would surely take it more as about power and domination. Do men of NAMBLA go home to happy and healthy homosexual relationships or are they married? If the men of NAMBLA are all gay, then they are LGBT people and NAMBLA is an LGBT organisation 'by default' because of its membership, but then so is any organisation or group with a majority LGBT membership, regardless of the nature of that group. NAMBLA doesn't qualify at all. Enzedbrit 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the term "LGBT" is a self-defined term of this movement. And if the movement disowns them, then they don't belong in the category. The POV that they do belong is a minority view, and so inclusion of the category is a violation of NPOV's undue weight clause. — coelacan talk — 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. They are an organization comprised of gay individuals, thus they are a LGBT organization. You are allowing your distaste for this group to color your thinking. I further find it a bit arrogant for you, Coelacan, to speak for the LGBT community as a whole. While many groups did disown themout of political expediency, not all have done so. They are an extreme minority within the LGBT community (my POV, anyway), but they are part of the LGBT community. To say otherwise is simply to wear blinders. Jeffpw 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the category is broader than your interpreatation of it Coelacan. Category:LGBT organizations does not appear to me to be limited to Organisation endorsed by the LGBT movement. That would be something else entirely. This organisation markets itself to a gay audience and advocates man/boy love, not general adult/child love. As such it seems to me to an LGBT-related organization. Also saying a movement has disowned them is problematic given that it has no obvious collective representation. In my opinion the article should be in the category. The fact that other LGBT groups have disowned NAMBLA and disapprove of its agenda can, supported by reliable sources, be emphasised in the article to make the position clear. WjBscribe 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The historical importance and integration of this group into the greater LGBT movement, at least in its early days, is another reason to include them in that category. Haiduc 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If I'm a minority view in face of opposing consensus, that's fine, of course. I'd hope to keep the category out for a day while others weigh in, but I'm not going to fight the outcome if most others disagree. Jeff, I'm not presuming to speak for anyone as a whole. I simply provided evidential links of what I'm saying, and if it is true that "NAMBLA is LGBT" is a very small minority view, then it is true that including the category is undue weight, that's all. I'm aware that not every single LGBT organization has denounced them. But I don't think a tiny minority of support automatically means they belong in the category. — coelacan talk — 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite my own personal distaste for the group I agree that NAMBLA falls under the scope of the LGBT project and should be tagged accordingly on the main page. Haiduc above makes excellent points. A nice compromise, as to not give undue weight and seeming approval, is the new LGBT footer tag. As someone else said I don't believe we should cherry-pick what falls in our scope. Were we to do that, trust me, there are several articles I would like removed as well. Just my two cents. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not regarding the project scope. I agree that the article falls within project scope. This discussion is the inclusion, on the article, of Category:LGBT organizations. Not the same issue. — coelacan talk — 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Then let me say that I think the article should be included in Category:LGBT organizations. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's your opinion. I'm sure that with the opening of floodgates, decent gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people will happily outvoice advocates of NAMBLA as affiliated with our communityEnzedbrit 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whom are you talking to? Yes, that is my opinion. That is what we are doing here? No? Trying to build a consensus as to the article's inclusion in Category:LGBT organizations. I hope the 'decent' remark was not a dig at me or anyone else here. I was referred here from the LGBT talk page and am not going to stand for personal insults.ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm talking to you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm only ratifying the obliviously obvious. The word 'decent' isn't aimed at anyone here, but am adding value to LGBT people with the term decent as one does when one speaks of groups, and would encourage them here so that they can come and make their voices heard, and I know that most will be against the inclusion of NAMBLA as a LGBT organisation. You haven't been personally insulted by me, so get over yourself. Enzedbrit 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Telling me to get over myself is rude and inappropriate. Starting a comment with 'That's your opinion.' on a talk page is redundant and tonally judgmental. Since you began that same missive addressing me, it can only be assumed the 'decent' crack was aimed at me as well, since you didn't clarify in the text. You have in fact insulted me twice now. Please refrain from further incivility. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't hide the fact that I regard anyone who'd endorse men/child sex as indecent, but I call upon 'decent LGBT' people not in the accusation that those who differ in opinion aren't decent, but as a term as is used generally, in all works of life and has been for generations, as a deference to the group to which I'm trying to appeal. Thus, it cannot only be assumed that the 'decent' "crack" was aimed at you, so yes, I hold to it that you should 'get over yourself'. You're not the only person in opposition to my opinion on here. I haven't insulted you at all, any more than you've done so to me.Enzedbrit 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, you need to get hold of yourself and stop escalating this difference of opinion. To categorize people who agree with your position as "decent members' of the LGBT community automatically demonizes those who oppose you. Further, you seem to view this article as a litmus test of people's beliefs about pedophilia, and not just another wiki article that needs categorizing. If you can't discuss things without becoming exercised, perhaps you should stay away from it until you calm down. Jeffpw 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I refer you to my comment above. Also, in America it might be considered standard to tell others to 'calm down', but I regard that as patronising and insulting. I've not put myself in a position of authority to you so don't paternalise towards me. I've yet to see any argument that legitimises the inclusion of NAMBLA as an LGBT organisation, only supposition that, because it is supposedly composed of gay men, it must therefore share in the ranks of such. If an argument were to be presented that showed NAMBLA is more than the advancement of paedophilia - and I'm sorry if that offends you so much but that's all it is, plain and simply - then I'd be prepared to alter my opinion as I have on abortion and anti-smacking. And cease with the cyber-bullying, thank you very much Enzedbrit 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It certainly isn't patronising or bullying to tell an editor to calm down when their tone is becoming increasingly strident. You are attempting to insert your personal POV into this article regarding the classification of this group. Please see WP:NPOV if you are unfamiliar with the policy regarding neutrality. And I once again suggest that you recuse yourself from editing articles you have such an emotional stake in. It is often difficult to see that one has lost one's objectivity in such cases. Jeffpw 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe have expressed myself clearly both here and on your talkpage. The category is simply not what you think it is. No one here is offended by the statement (as far as I know) that NAMBLA is dedicated to the "advancement of paedophilia". But the mere fact that its agenda is objectionable to the vast majority of people does not mean it isn't a group with an agenda focused on a male/male sex issue. The group does not have to have your personal support to be included in the LGBT organization category. WjBscribe 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Aye, but if they don't have the approval of anyone but the tiniest minority, and LGBT organizations are saying "NAMBLA is not LGBT", as the links I provided do say, then that's reliable sourcing for the argument that inclusion of the category is undue weight. — coelacan talk — 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the category. The only reason given here for non-inclusion is that "the majority of the LGBT community does not endorse this group". That is not however what the category means. The members of the organisation are predominantly (if not exclusively) gay men and they campaign only for a change in the law as regards male/male sex. WjBscribe 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this restoration. I don't care what that group calls itself: sex with kids is neither heterosexual or homosexual. It is rape. With all the letters. I can give you a list of physiological and psychological reasons why children are not sexually developed or capable of having a sexual relationship without being manipulated. Hell, I've treated raped kids _and_ the people who sexually abused them, who always say that the child 'enjoyed it and even thanked me for the experience'. It is not a 'male/male' relationship between consenting adults. That's why it shouldn't be included into a LGBT category. Unless we agree with Eedo Bee and change LGBT for LGBTP and start tagging all paedophile articles. Raystorm 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, Raystorm, they are a group of gay men trying to change the AOC laws. That makes them a LGBT group. I'm just trying to stay objective here. I see no point in debating the group itself, but I will defend the fact that they are a LGBT group. That's just common sense as fqar as I am concerned. Jeffpw 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but see? That's the point. They are not gay. Having sex with kids (or being attracted to them) does not make them gay, it makes them paedophiles. And it's not about merely changing the laws of consent Jeffpw -these kids later have an extremely problematic psychosexual development in a very high proportion. We tag this group, we tag other paedophilia-related articles. Raystorm 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you mention it, we probably should tag Vereniging MARTIJN and DanPedo as well. Thanks for reminding me, Raystorm. But I draw the line at only tagging groups that advocate same-sex pedophilism. No tagging straight pedo groups with LGBT banners and categories. That would be just plain wrong. Jeffpw 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, I sincerely believe tagging this and other paedophilia-related groups exceeds the scope of the LGBT project. Sex with kids is neither gay nor straight. It's not about gender, it's about age -they would not be attracted to the same kids if they had the same age as them. Raystorm 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Raystorm, as politely as possible: you're letting your emotions get in the way of your objective reasoning. You're ascribing motives to them that they don't say themselves, and your being offended by what they stand for is blinding you to the fact that the sex they advocate is same sex, thus they are a defacto gay group. This is a no brainer. I can't believe it is even up for debate. Jeffpw 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw, as politely as possible, I do not appreciate you disregarding my arguments, which I strictly make from a professional point of view, by saying I'm getting emotional and that there should be no debate. I am not adscribing motives to this group, I describe paedophilic behaviour. I am not offended about what they stand for, I state that in sex involving kids age is the only thing that matters, not gender. This makes the same-sex issue minor, a side-issue. And the debate about their inclusion in a LGBT category exists, and trying to deny it serves no purpose in my opinion. We can have different opinions about any subject, but please don't tell me I'm getting unreasonable or 'letting my emotions get in the way of my objective reasoning' when we do not agree. I would not do you such disservice. Cheers Raystorm 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're arguing this out of good faith, but the only people who categorically lump NAMBLA in with gay groups in real life are anti-gay groups trying to slur by association.

Scientific studies of sexuality show that pedophillia and homosexuality are indeed two very different sexual attractions. Most pedophiles aren't gay. Very few gays are pedophiles, apparently less proportionally than in the general population. Most pedophilles cease to be attracted to under-age partners when those partners grow up. They simply are not the same.

This categorization is improper and needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

George, your logic is flawed. Virtually everybody debating this at the moment is self-identified LGBT. Most of us are members of the LGBT Project. While your input is appreciated, simply jumping in and reverting is not helpful. I have reverted your edit, and the suggest the category stay until consensus is achieved. Jeffpw 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm itching to revert war you, Jeff. I asked the same thing last night about letting the category stay out for the duration of the discussion, and WjB put it back. =/ — coelacan talk — 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've added the {{disputeabout}} template so readers will know the inclusion in the category is disputed. I hope that helps. WjBscribe 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"they would not be attracted to the same kids if they had the same age as them." I agree and this does need to be given serious consideration. — coelacan talk — 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and pedophilia are distinct. NAMBLA is about pedophilia. LGBT is about homosexuality, bisexuality, and transvestites. I don't see how the fact that NAMBLA espouses same-sex pedophilia instead of opposite sex pedophilia is particularly relevant to the debate as to why it should be included in the LGBT category. Since some editors appear to believe it's relevant, I will note that I'm heterosexual. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a gay group? If NAMBLA qualifies, does Exodus International?

• As a point of order, can we define what an LGBT organization is? Is it a self-defined category? Does any group who claims the mantle of homosexuality behind its goals qualify? Would Exodus International qualify as an LGBT group, since its members are made up of people with homosexual leanings? If not, why not? --DavidShankBone 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. Jeff proposes that "They are an organization comprised of gay individuals, thus they are a LGBT organization", but this obviously applies to Exodus, as well as Love in Action and NARTH. Members of these groups still identify as gay, or at least some do, but they say they are no longer "practicing". There's nothing there to keep them out of Category:LGBT organizations, except that LGBT organizations disown them. — coelacan talk — 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the outcome of this debate will make it pretty clear what the definition of Category:LGBT organizations is (and as such which groups belong in it). As it is, I suspect each side in this debate would characterise it quite differently. WjBscribe 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel Exodus International qualifies as a gay group?--DavidShankBone 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't think every homophobic group or group that seeks to 'cure' gay people can qualify. Those who organise it are expressly not gay (or 'no longer gay') and they seek to reduce the number of gay people. I don't see how NAMBLA's inclusion would require their inclusion. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So the composition of the group is irrelevant? Exodus is run by gay men fighting their feelings. In the 2/12 New York Times profile of Exodus, it is comprised of gay men who seek to change, or at the very least, mitigate, their feelings. But does that make them "not gay"? I hope you can agree, that these are, in fact, tortured gay individuals attempting misguided cures for feelings that are natural to them (or the struggle would not be so difficult). There is a second point you made: the goal of the group. Does it need to be a gay-supported goal? This logic needs to be worked out. --DavidShankBone 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

David, I just read that article, and unless I overlooked something it did not say that the organizers of Exodus or other ex-gay movements were ex-gay themselves. If they were, indeed, ex-gay, I suppose one might be able to make a case for inclusion in the LGBT category...but then if they were ex-gay, then they would be de facto heteros and not eligible. They would probably also oppose themselves being included--a worthy argument for or against inclusion here, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I return to what I said before. Once we have determined whether NAMBLA should be included we'll be in a better position to work out these issues. Should it be decided that NAMBLA does not belong in the category, this discussion becomes moot. WjBscribe 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your phrasing above begs a chicken/egg scenario: if we can't define what a gay group is, how can we define whether NAMBLA or Exodus falls into it? We aren't defining gay group via NAMBLA. I throw in Exodus here not as a bogeyman, but for context to the larger discussion. So I return to my orginal question: What is a gay group? We should be able to come up with notions of this that will answer both the NAMBLA and Exodus questions. I'm asking your opinion now. --DavidShankBone 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • This is part of the neutral point of view issue. If there is widespread agreement or unassailable logic that something belongs in a category then it should go there. On this point, it's widely disputed (every single LGBT person I know says they aren't) and the logic that it's a gay group rather than pedophillia group is disputed. The group itself is terrifically fringeist. It's perfectly reasonable to say in the article that it claims to be a gay or LGBT organization, and that others dispute that, but wrapping it up into a category with groups that find it reprehensible is much more sensitive. There's no grey area in a category.
  • We are not under any obligation to give equal treatment to every fringe group. NAMBLA is without a doubt all the way out at the tiny end of the fringe. Unbiased and neutral point of view treatment doesn't mean equal standing to mainstream LGBT organizations. If you want to create an unambiguously nonspecific alternative-sexuality category then that would apply. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading Perverted-justice.com for the past three hours and would like to publicly declare my change of position. On appreciation of the fact that paedophilia is utterly distinct from sexual orientation (as Raystorm has pointed out above), I no longer agree with the LGBT category on NAMBLA. I also, on thinking about it, do not agree with the pederasty one either, as this is an LGBT subset and also not anything to do with pre-pubescent children. My criticism and AN/I about the behaviour on Enzedbrit still stand, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I an effort to open up this debate and try and reach some consensus, I have listed this matter at WP:RFC/A to solicit imput from the wider community. The debate is easily ascertainable from the above thread however, to summarise:

1. On the one hand, it is argued that as NAMBLA has been disowned by most LGBT groups, they should not be classed as a "LGBT organization". It is argued that as paedophilia is distinct from homosexuality, the group is not an LGBT one and the prejudice by many people in linking the two should not be reinforced,
2. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the "LGBT organisation category" is not a category for groups approved by the LGBT movement, merely listing groups with agendas/memberships that fall within one or several of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. As this organisation promotes only a change in the law between adult males and boys, its agenda and membership are predominantly gay-related. That is to say homosexual and paedophile.

Please comment. WjBscribe 01:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that these issues seem to have been debated here before (see Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/Archive 3). After mediation, it was decided that Category:Gay organizations (which no longer exists) would be used. I'm not saying that this is what should happen now, but it might be worth reviewing the previous discussions. -- Avenue 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well pointed out. Unfortunately, judging from above Category:Gay organizations would no longer be an acceptable compromise (as NAMBLA is argued not to be a gay organization either). Interestingly the category was deleted because it had become empty ([3]). WjBscribe 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this request for comment is premature because the Wikipedia LGBT project has yet to work out what an LGBT group is, a definition. When it does so, it should be prepared to accept more red-headed step-children than just NAMBLA. --DavidShankBone 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think this debate should be suspended, with the result of the last discussion standing, and moved to the Project page to hammer out a more defined sense of what qualifies as an LGBT group. That discussion can then inform this one. --DavidShankBone 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)#

This RfC should certainly stand. The LGBT Wikiproject has no monopoly on deciding who belongs in what category or in defining the term "LGBT group". Those responding to the RfC can also contribute very validly to those discussions. Indeed I think input from outside the project is particularly helpful given the likely stalemate if a community concensus cannot be found. (As to your wider question as to what a "gay group" is, I am far too tired to answer now, but will try and answer tomorrow.) WjBscribe 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, I simply do not think the NAMBLA talk page is correct forum to do it. I think there is a more project-oriented issue, over a project-controlled category, about what belongs in that category; or, what is an LGBT organization? This relates to NAMBLA, but to other Project articles as well. It should be a project discussion, to flesh out a project category. Whatever is decided there may render this entire NAMBLA issue moot, as you say above. The community-at-large is welcome to contribute there, as well. --DavidShankBone 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, there is no such thing as a "project-controlled category". If anything a discussion at Category talk:LGBT organizations as well as here is needed. WjBscribe 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound like we are disagreeing all that much. Why don't you take part in the discussion in the above space and hammer out how you would define an LGBT organization? I really don't know myself, and depending on the merits of the arguments, NAMBLA could fall under it. But I think of the broader implications. We can't define an LGBT organization one way for one group, and then say it doesn't apply to another. And, I'm plenty read on WP policy, but thanks for the link; I was speaking figuratively, not literally. --DavidShankBone 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I vote they should not be an LGBT organization because I have a nebulous idea that an LGBT organization is one composed of gay people, with gay-oriented goals. I don't believe the lowering of consent is a gay-oriented goal. This position can change, but I'd need to know more what consensus view is, and I haven't seen any attempts to define that, except to say that NAMBLA is or is not one. There is no criteria laid out to guide us. This is, typically, how other Projects work, to take "control" of these issues to find consensus. They aren't just bot-oriented. --DavidShankBone 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading Perverted-justice.com for the past three hours and would like to publicly declare my change of position. On appreciation of the fact that paedophilia is utterly distinct from sexual orientation (as Raystorm has pointed out above), I no longer agree with the LGBT category on NAMBLA. I also, on thinking about it, do not agree with the pederasty one either, as this is an LGBT subset and also not anything to do with pre-pubescent children. My criticism and AN/I about the behaviour on Enzedbrit still stand, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in LGBT catgory. To be blunt, I wish I were surprised this is even a debate, but broad public misconceptions are hard to overcome. It's been broadly accepted in academic circles for some time that peer orientated homosexuality is distinct from same sex pedophilia. On the contrary, it is widely considered that adult orientated heterosexuals are more likely to abuse children than adult orientated homosexuals.

I believe that the broad academic consensus should help clear up the matter.Vassyana 10:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Vassyana, and others. As I've written often before, this article should not be categorized as "LGBT". It concerns a movement advocating sex between adults and children, which isn't L, G, B or T. "P" isn't in that list. The article is important, NPOV, and mostly non-controversial. The controversy has come from the categorization more than anything else. Let's settle this dispute and remove the category. -Will Beback · † · 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wonder how many commenting here have actually read the article in question. To me, the article makes it clear that while individual members of NAMBLA have been shown to be pedophiles, the organization itself has never been convicted of anything, and has not gone beyond advocating for the abolition of AOC laws, and the decriminalizing of consensual man-boy relationships. The article goes on to quote prominent members of the LGBT community such as Pat Califia and Edmund White, who say NAMBLA was ostracized out of political expediency and not the moral repugnance of the gay community. The history section of the article also shows how NAMBLA played a part in the early days of the LGBT movement. The fact that NAMBLA was a member of the IGLA, and only disbarred when that group's UN status was threatened also argues for inclusion. My personal feeling is that this issue pushes people's buttons, and editors are therefore, while acting in good faith, also acting out of political correctness and emotion. Therefore, I support the inclusion of this group as LGBT organization. Jeffpw 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add, since it has been implied elsewhere that I am a pedophile for supporting this article's inclusion in the LGBT category, that I have never edited this article, and had never even read it before the current brouhaha. I am a purely disinterested participant here. Jeffpw 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have read the article, but I disagree with your conclusions. Past associations and stances do not make create a defensible position for inclusion into a category. I do not see the numerous Christian churches and denominations who supported slavery, opposed civil rights and/or opposed desegregation, or otherwise engaged in racist or apparently racist behavior in recent history attached to Category:History of racism in the United States or Category:White supremacist groups in the United States. Also, including NAMBLA in the cat would be against WP guidelines. ("Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.") Regardless of whether or not you feel it should be included in the category, you cannot argue against the fact that its inclusion is controversial.Vassyana 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate note, while NAMBLA may advocate for consensual man-boy relationships, the current academic consensus denies such a thing even exists. It is a broadly accepted fact in reputable journals that children cannot provide informed consent. While that is another debate unto itself, it further reinforces that NAMBLA is not a legitimate part of the current LGBT movement, at least as far as academic consensus is concerned.Vassyana 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Vassyana. While I quite agree that NAMBLA is not a part if the current LGBT movement, it is certainly a part of the history. NAMBLA (and the ideas behind NAMBLA, namely removing AoC laws) was supported by many LGBT activists between the Stonewall riots and the early- to mid-1980s. To my mind, if those who support gay rights turn our backs on our history, we're less likely to achieve our goals.

That being said, I do agree that AoC laws are important, and thus vehemently disagree with NAMBLA. But this discussion is not about agreeing or disagreeing with NAMBLA, but with accurately understanding LGBT issues, both the issues of today and the history. Justin Eiler 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argment seems based on this notion that NAMBLA had attained wide-spread support of their non-gay-oriented goals. They in fact received nothing but widespread indifference, and many people during the tumultuous times of early gay liberation weren't even aware of the group. People weren't for them, and include them in the gay rights movement, and then turn against them simply because of larger public outcry. They were never an accepted, integrated part of the movement. The movement rejected them as it sort itself out. --DavidShankBone 13:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, David. No, I never indicated that NAMBLA had widespread support within the LGBT community, nor is my argument based on an assumption of the amount of support (or lack thereof). Like it or not, there is an association between NAMBLA and the LGBT community--a history that can be denied, but is still extant. Justin Eiler 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing in the least they were part of the historical LGBT movement, and this is well-covered in the article. However, they fail for inclusion into the category on three counts,as I detail above. One, current academic consensus draws a sharp distinction between pedophiles/pederasts and LGBT. Two, precedent with other articles and categories shows current status is used, not historical ties. Three, the guideline for categories excludes articles which are controversial for inclusion. I think it is very clear that it should not be added to the category when we have a trifecta of academic sources, WP precedent and WP guidelines opposing such a categorization. It doesn't mean history needs to be whitewashed. It just means it shouldn't be added to the category. Of course, this is my perception of it and you're welcome to take it with some grains of salt. ;o) Vassyana 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Taking your objections in order:

One, current academic consensus draws a sharp distinction between pedophiles/pederasts and LGBT.

Agreed, but irrelevant. We are not discussing if pedophilia/pederasty is actually associated with LGBT--we are discussing whether or not NAMBLA falls under the scope of "cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." Cite NAMBLA does fall within that scope.

Two, precedent with other articles and categories shows current status is used, not historical ties.

Considering the inclusion of Gymnasium (Ancient Greece), Emily Dickinson, and other articles of historic interest but no current status, I have to confess that I do not understand the distinction that you're making.

Three, the guideline for categories excludes articles which are controversial for inclusion.

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to find any "guidelines for categories." Do you have a link available?

Vassyana, I'm not trying to cause disruption, or argue just for the sake of arguing. I'm definitely not saying that NAMBLA is a "gay organization." What I am trying to do is to accurately work towards improving the LGBT project specifically, and the encyclopedia as a whole. Justin Eiler 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm assuming good faith. :o) You're being polite and reasonable. I have no reason to believe you're being disruptive or rude. On one, that is a project guideline, which is quite differant from category criteria. On two, my specific example was that none of the churches and denominations which historically endorsed slavery, racism, segregation, took similar positions or had a strong reputation for discrimination are included in the relevent racism categories. However, there are many more examples. Please browse around current organizations. On three, you may find the revelent guideline here. It states: ""Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Hope that clears up where I am coming from. Thank you for discussing this. It is appreciated. Vassyana 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(shakes head) That would be why I couldn't find the guideline--I was looking at the LGBT project guidelines. Your argument is persuasive, and I yield my previous objections. :D

I agree that (for example) articles about churches and denominations who once supported slavery do not normally have slavery categories on them--that history is mentioned, but not as a category. By the same token, the former support NAMBLA had within the LGBT community is also discussed in the article--and the discussion is done in an academic and NPOV manner. This strikes me as a workable compromise--what says the community? Justin Eiler 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make clear I am perfectly fine with the history of NAMBLA in relation to the LBGT community in the article. I was only objecting to the category inclusion. Thanks again for discussing this. Be well!Vassyana 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with community consensus, whatever it may be. I would ask, though, that if it is removed from the category, it is moved to a list, as per category suggestion. Jeffpw 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently searching through the lists to see what would be appropriate. Vassyana 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT-related organizations Jeffpw 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

;o) I must have been adding it to the page (under see also) when you posted. Vassyana 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose One can easily make the arguement that it belongs- man/boy love is a homosexual act, and LGBT groups often do have a social and legal agenda- the legitimization of their lifestyle and in the case of marriage and other issues the legalization of their lifestyle. However, pedophillia in society is a serious thing and well, a very radical thing, and I think seperates them from LGBT groups. Given how taboo it is and hated pedophillia is, given that LGBT organizations have disavowed NAMBLA, I say we err on the side of caution and not list them there. Sethie 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While man/boy love is within the realm of same-sex attraction it isn't the same thing as consenual homosexual intercourse for these reasons: (1) It involves an adult male having sex with a minor male, which is a criminal act; (2) It, without a doubt, implies that a stronger male (adult) is forcing himself upon a weaker male (child), thus causing the weaker male psychological harm that will continue to impact him for the rest of his life. In short an innocent child's life is being destroyed. To equate man-boy love to the love between adult same-sex couples is grossly inaccurate. --Avazina 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As I and others have stated elsewhere, the current definitions of "same-sex" attraction and sexuality are distinct from the definitions of (same or opposite sex) pedophillic attraction and sexuality. The determining factor there is the pedophillic age-related attraction not the genders of the subjects. One can construct a parent "alternative sexuality" category inclusive of every non-mainstream sexuality - but LGBT's specific definitions and usage (including the various "queer" and BDSM extensions) don't automatically extend out to "all nonstandard alternative sexuality", which includes things like bestiality and necrophillia and so forth. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the oppositions above. Also, LGBT organizations should not be conflated with NAMBLA because the stated goals, ideals, and purposes of all the LGBT organizations (that I am aware of) and NAMBLA are in direct conflict. Vampyrecat 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this matter been settled according to RFC rules? It would appear that more people OPPOSE NAMBLA's inclusion within the sphere of LGBT than favor it. May this matter now be closed and NAMBLA's removal from LGBT proceed with all deliberate speed? --Avazina 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, the matter has been settled, and NAMBLA has been removed from the category "LGBT Organizations". It has been transferred to the list "List of LGBT-related organizations" in accordance with WP guidelines for categories and lists. That is all that needed to happen. If you think soemthing else should occur, you would need to discuss that as a separate issue, since I think virutally all editors are content with the compromise which has been reached... Jeffpw 09:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)"

Opposition comes from its inclusion within the LGBT's sphere, which, by your reply to me, you clearly state that NAMBLA is still apart of LGBT and will continue to be tagged as such, which doesn't seem to reflect the oppositions as expressed above. So this whole discuss has been pointless and we've done nothing but gone in circles. (Note: the quoted text above comes from a message to me.) --Avazina 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed dispute tag and category

"Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." (From: WP:CAT) Clearly, as evidenced by this talk page and the tag, it is a very controversial inclusion into the category. Therefore, per the guideline, I have removed the tag and the category from the article. (See above comments and discussion for further information regarding my take on the matter.) Vassyana 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that your interpretation of the guidelines translates into obliterating historical information. Many things are controversial and still documented properly in the Wikipedia. There is sufficient overlap here for reasonable people to disagree, and we should not deprive our readers of such links just because present view have diverged from past ones. Let people make up their own minds, don't make them up for them. Haiduc 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, the decision to remove the category was discussed above and agreed upon by consensus. Using the tag indicates that NAMBLA is still an LGBT organization, which is not the case--thus the tag is not accurate. If you would like to create a "former LGBT organization" category, you are more than welcome to, but please discuss such changes on the talk page before unilaterally making them. Justin Eiler 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I was having second thought about it myself. However, since, as you imply yourself, they are no longer an LGBT organization, we should simply put them into LGBT history, since they are incontestably part of it. Haiduc 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A day later. Opposing opinions continue (as per the recent edit to the article), and a further complication has arisen. First, I assume that I am in the majority here if I posit that we are not questioning whether Nambla is associated in some way with the LGBT movement but only how to categorize it within that movement. I am not sure myself how to resolve that quandary. We could place it in the LGBT Organizations cat, but some have pointed out that it no longer such and therefore does not belong. That sounds very good until we look at the Mattachine Society article, it also no longer an LGBT organization, yet our various banners fly high over it. On the other hand we could categorize it with LGBT history, for obvious reasons. Or we could place it in both categories for good measure. Haiduc 14:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, on this article the issue is already settled, but if you want to raise it on Mattachine then I think you should. --DavidShankBone 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be tagged as LGBT history, as people on both sides of the catgory debated have agreed. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --DavidShankBone 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors going against consensus

Two editors, despite the recent consensus to remove the LGBT Category tag and place NAMBLA under the List, continue to put the category tag on, citing the Talk page as if consensus runs in their favor. I suggest that they stop editing in an unhelpful way and raise their issues here. --DavidShankBone 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

David, do you have multiple personality disorder? :) Just one centimeter above this last protestation of yours, you agreed with the listing of the article under LGBT history. I did exactly that and now you are harrumphing again. What gives?! Haiduc 18:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oi, you're right. My apologies. I'll put it back up. It was a case of sloppy editing on my part. Sorry. --DavidShankBone 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. :) Justin Eiler 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (Who's going to go get another cup of coffee before he starts editing. :D )

The lgbt tag

How come the lgbt tag has a 'we dont endorse' thing in it?

The nazi party and hitler articles have wikiproject germany tags with no 'we dont endorse' in them.

The whole lgbt project going out of its way to distance itself from nambla makes it look like they have something to hide. I prefered the old tag, i never once thought that the lgbt community supported nambla without the new tag. Nambla is part of lgbt history like it or not its a fact and making a big fuss by creating a new tag to state the obvious looks a little suspect.

This is just my opinioun, being straight i'm looking in on this from the outside if you like and i certainly feel as if the regulare lgbt tag is a lot less suspicious we all know lgbt dont support nambla we dont need a tag to tell us that.

i welcome any opiniouns on this i may well be in the minority thinking this but its just the way i see the whole thing.

Thanks Crushanator 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Crushanator, several people, both in and out of the project, have expressed concern and anger that this article is tagged, and suggested that it appears as if we at the WikiprojectLGBT endorse NAMBLA because of the tag. I agree the explanation portion of the tag is unnecessary, but the consensus so far is that we need it or something like it. Thanks for sharing your opinion on the subject. Jeffpw 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem if a consensus has being held in favour of the new tag then leave it as it is. No problem.

RegardsCrushanator 12:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the group is inaccurate...

NAMBLA was co founded by Moe Lester along with David Thorsant. The two partners in the historical man boy love relationship which caused a great great uproar among popular media in the late 70's. It is unfair to dis-include Moe Lester for all the work he has done for this great organization. He worked in the organization of the protests in San Francisco during the historic LGBT meetups on the with the golden gate gays. please correct this immediately. First sentence in History, quote, 'Events such as Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA.[5]' the group was formed at least several years before, tho I cannot provide any verifiable info except my own report...

I was the younger partner of a M/B relationship from '69 to '74. I remember that it was during the first 2 years that he told me of the existence of the group NAMBLA which 'supported' our type of friendship. (I dont believe he ever joined it, but he knew of it, and told me of it, when I was 13 or 14... ) I never saw a magazine, a newsletter, or anything else... I saw plenty of porn... [ pardon me, but I saw 'hard porn', for the day... never any films, but I saw mags in B/W of nothing but 'beaver shots', I saw others with nothing but pics of young boys 'showing their stuff'... I saw mags with explicit pics of men and women... it pales in comparison to what is easily (and privately) available on the net today... ]

I cannot provide any externally verifiable info, only my own report, which I certify is true...

probably not able, based on that, to edit the page, but I wanted to tell you... my guess would be that the group must have been founded before '68... tho the 'Stonewall' riot was Jun '69, and might have been the catalyst...

regards...

p.s. I have found, more than a couple times in recent weeks, that the phrase 'sex by eight, or it is too late' is wrongly attributed to NAMBLA... that phrase was used by a group that advocated heterosexual sex with children, members of the group appeared on Phil Donahue's show in the 80's, and a quick search will turn up the relevant info... all I am saying is, condemn NAMBLA for their own crimes, not for those of another...

Wont fool me twice (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You present the requisite caveats yourself, so I'm not going to repeat them. I do find your information about NAMBLA possibly having a history that stretches prior to 1968 credible (affording yourself good faith and not suspecting you of having any motives to present wrongful information). We will obviously have to leave the matter at that, but anyone who would be privy to missing documentation about the early, and in this article undocumented, history of the organization, are encouraged to assist in elucidating also this part of NAMBLA's past. __meco (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT???????

The article isn't about 'people who exploit children for sex' -- or at least that's a highly tendentious interpretation.The Relativist (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkout the archives it's been discussed several many times with strong arguments on both sides but comes down on the keep side. It could be discussed again but check the archives first as you may find someone has already answered your issues...—Ash (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Check your favorite dictionary sometime. If pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to children, then homosexual pedophilia certainly exists. What you probably intend to say is that pedophiles shouldn't be associated with mainstream gays. 174.126.77.173 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality" Sure it does. Doesn't the Catholic Church, among others, have this problem with homosexual pedephile priests? Many of their victims claim that they are homosexual today because of the homosexual pedophile priests.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is indeed part of LGBT history. Many LGBT activists were tied into this cause and supportive in the beginning and some even persisted towards the end. Your bias is clearly showing if you somehow want to cover this up as part of LGBT history. How would you feel if Christians tried to detag the Spanish Inquisition as part of the series on Christianity and Catholicism? My guess is you would probably not be a fan. All ideologies must acknowledge dark times in their history where their leadership went astray. Nobody is to be given immunity. 98.114.89.231 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The association is called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Adult/Child Love Association or the North American Man/Girl-Woman/Boy Love Association, so I guess that makes it very LGBT. And it does say "love" in the name of the association, so technically speaking it is not about exploitation (it's not the North American Man/Boy Sexual Abuse Association).187.112.248.21 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about an organization defending relationships between consenting individuals of the same gender. Though the LGBT Community rejects them, (as they pretty much threw anyone who isn't "mainstream" enough for them under the bus) the organization belongs categorically under the LGBT communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.197.21 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor English

Please spell check this document. Paedophile is spelt incorrectly all the way throughout as if the author was a five year old who mouthed out his consonants to learn how to spell.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.147 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

How is pedophile spelled incorrectly all the way through? The spelling variation pedophile is the English version. Note that our Wikipedia article about pedophiles is titled Pedophilia, not by the British version...Paedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wondering about links to NAMBLA and the blacklist, and about the "Operations" section

I tried, absentmindedly and foolishly, to turn a (to me) strange-looking pseudo-link to NAMBLA's "Welcome" page into a real link, and ran into the fact that it's blacklisted. Good thing too, and I shouldn't try to gnome before coffee. But what I'd like to know is: a) if the link is blacklisted, should the corresponding www address be offered in unlinked form, either? (Currently footnote 9.) And the quote from it in the article? And b) what about the live link to NAMBLA's website under "External links"? Are only their individual subpages blacklisted?

I also think most of the section "Operations" should be removed. (I've already removed the promotional description of the booklets, and the misplaced listing of William Andriette.) The link [4], used as a citation for no less than three of the publications listed, is 404 not found. The item "Arrel's Pages, a project through which literature concerning 'man-boy love' was sold" is altogether unsourced, and Google can't find it. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC).

NPOV tag

There is no criticism whatsoever of the organization, I cant believe due to lack of sources being available. Also the article relies much too heavily on NAMBLA sources. There is no editorial dispute, merely a realization that the article is simply not neutral in accord with our WP:NPOV policies. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Serious revision needed

Articles like these are prime reasons why real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations from their students and peers. NPOV does not mean "both points of view." It means a neutral point of view, and does not mean that all positions on a subject have to be given equal weight. I realize that the Internet is one of the few places where unabashed pedophiles can express their views (which they do have) without suffering damage to their reputation (or selves) in their real lives. But statistically they are an extreme minority and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for child molesters. The information here is incongruous with other articles dealing with child molesters and therefore serious revision of this article is very necessary. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would specify the views/information you are referring to. Crimsone (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that NAMBLA organising is political activism, and not necessarily molestation of children. You are specifying your own belief, and that is far from neutral. forestPIG^(grunt) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the link between pedophiles and child sexual abuse as the first is a psychiatric disorder and the latter child sexual abuse a legal issue. Although I do agree with your statements that pedophiles are a minority and Wikipedia ought to have a neutral point of view. But as with any organization, the organization's views should be listed on this page.

User:Aparthia^(grunt) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations because Wikipedia is tertiary (generally speaking). A good wikipedia article would contain references that could be used as a source, but it would not itself be a source. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's completely incorrect. The references themselves are often in question. I have spent no end of time looking up the references given and in so many cases they simply do not support their referring passage. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the good and bad of this forum, but professors don't allow its usage because the content can so casually be changed by anyone even by the student to back up anything. This removes the true accountability. Interestingly the teachers I know do like wikipedia....just not for their students.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is a third degree reference, or "tertiary" as Eric put it. Lack of Citation is a problem, however generalizing it to all of the entries is an emotional out-lash to an otherwise useful resource. I would have to say that suggesting Wikipedia as a whole has no or few useful citations is proliferating a level of ignorance based on one's frustrations frustrations, Tgm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.197.21 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with the need for revision. The "History" section is one of the most biased pieces of garbage I have read on Wikipedia. It reads like a NAMBLA press release.74.134.160.246 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

More Information about members

Can you please write more about the active members of this group? Thanks. Keep up the good work NAMBLA! John K. (Miami) --207.207.17.198 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The good work? Are you seriously approving of these homosexualist paedos?

Wikipedia is not a site for jokes

Surely this article should be removed, because I just have troubles believing this group exists outside of an Onion article. 182.239.217.79 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that is wikipedia informing your ignorance which is just what we are here for, so a success story!. No tor back in the day when NAMBLA were at their peak♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality should not be the topic here

Homosexuality is not anything to do with this group nor are any gender orientation equality movements. This article is swaying towards merging the two topics into one which is inappropriate. This is an organization that supports sexual relationships between young males and adult men -- Not a topic about homosexuality or it's history. It's a bit like having an article about a group which promotes murder then writing about ethnicity and the African American rights movements. It's inappropriate, off topic and cannot be verified by sources. I think the article needs a re-write to assess the WP:NPOV and root out WP:WEASEL issues. At the end of the day the article is about the organization and is not about gender orientation. The group doesn't even advocate anything that has any relevance to gender orientation. I would like help from anyone who is willing to offer thanks. olowe2011 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for talking to me on my talk page and notifying the WP:LGBT editors of this article. I agree that this article is very slanted and could do with some thorough copyediting; I appreciate the effort and help that you've given this article. I disagree that homosexuality is irrelevant to NAMBLA – this group is somewhat notorious (especially in the US) for using LGBT rights causes for their own promotion in the past, and I think that this needs to be addressed in the article. However, it is definitely not the primary topic.

Regarding these edits, I think it's right to remove the {{expert subject|1=LGBT}} tag, as well as Category:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (NAMBLA may be brought up by LGBT rights opponents, but I don't see how the NAMBLA article is directly related to that category. Most reliable, non-fringe sources focus on the paedophilic aspect, as does the organisation itself) and Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States (NAMBLA is certainly not a civil rights organisation). I personally wouldn't have removed Category:LGBT history in the United States as it is a US organisation which has historically allied itself with the LGBT community (whether the LGBT community wanted to be allied to NAMBLA is a different issue altogether), and because of LGBT-related controversies, such as ILGA's UN consultative status. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zumoarirodoka: That was better said than I could possibly have said it. Thanks for your insight and links. I would be inclined to agree that from the sources it does appear the group had involvement with certain sets of gender orientation equality groups in the United States, however I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the fact that they are a significant part in the history of Gay rights therefore I personally wouldn't say it's appropriate to categorize the group under a section designated to help people looking for significant and notable factors on the topic of homosexual rights. This said I do agree with you that sources indicate some involvement with the LGBT community therefore it should be included in the article. It's just making sure we don't overlap two completely separate topics and give readers the impression that Homosexuality or the progression of rights for the LGBT community somehow hinged or developed because of NAMBLA, even in part as this isn't referenced or accredited by any source. Once again, you seem like a great person thanks for being a welcoming editor! :) olowe2011 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for editing.

I agree. NAMBLA should not be given more weight in LGBT topics than is due just because it's controversial; I personally would say that is is equal or more notable to various organizations listed at Category:LGBT history in the United States, but I'm not from the US so I may be wrong on that account.

I think a big issue for this article is that very few reliable sources discuss NAMBLA in any great detail; this leaves us to rely heavily on primary sources (i.e. from NAMBLA themselves), which are obviously incredibly biased in their favour. That, and articles like this tend to attract POV-pushing editors. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pedophiles

Hmm. I've been reading up on the history of NAMBLA and it seems pretty clear that while they remain morally questionable throughout their history, they are not, strictly speaking, advocates for pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia (popularly called pedarasty, which historically was more accepted than it is now in the history of western homosexuality.) I don't want to stray into the political battles that I'm guessing on this page and similar pages quite often, but i'm just not sure that this "pedophilia" is or ever was an accurate characterization. I realize that the word "pedophilia" has been used in the media since the 1990s to talk about adults who are sexually attracted to post-pubescent youth; but that is a cultural bias. It is not the clinical, scientific or academic definition of the term - something that is even recognized on Wikipedia's page on pedophilia. Food for thought on a hot-button topic... 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is the fact that these ppl are considered by many to be pedophiles not mentioned in the opening paragraph? Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It should really be. Disguising a truth doesn't make it less true. 88.17.179.212 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also in the first paragraph there's a typo: NAMBLA is spelled NAMLBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.158.93 (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) NAMBLA are a joke, right? 86.168.139.165 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, like Hitler's regime was. Marksmore111 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all Gregory Russ (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How's everyone Gregory Russ (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical Bias

There are two areas of significant bias in this page. Both of them have to do with the history of attitudes towards pederasty in the West.

First off, since the 1990s, "pedophilia has become term used in the mass media in a way that encompasses hebophilia and ephebophilia - or "pederasty". It is a distinction that the psychiatric profession does not make when discussing these three paraphilias. The various (troubling and disturbing) writings by NAMBLA leaders show that they were always advocating for pederasty. In the 1970s, there was a bizarre moment in the west where groups of intellectuals and activists were questioning age of consent laws in general and there was a general pattern towards considering legal toleration for pederasty. (There are articles on some of those groups and essays on wikipedia.) This included, surprisingly, prominent French theorists Foucault and Derrida and numerous political philosophers. Some organizations were around then which also seemed pedophilic in nature; but it is disputable whether NAMBLA was one of them. From their writings, they do not seem to have been.

Secondly, in the mid-twentieth century there was some interest within some quarters of the gay culture to point out moments in Western history when homosexuality was not repressed. Ancient Greek pederasty was an obvious example. NAMBLA was an extension of this, which took it a couple extra steps further. But there are moments in the current NAMBLA article which overemphasize political - as opposed to cultural historical - links between the very early gay rights movement and pro-pederasty attitudes. These reflect the biases of the religious right's interest in connecting homosexuality to pedophilia. There is no historical reason to think that in the early years, NAMBLA would have been pro-pedophilia; however, there is great evidence to show that they were pro-pederasty. As late as 1996, the head of NAMBLA wrote an article stating quite explicitly the pederastic focus of the group. One can question whether or not they were also tolerant or accepting of child molesters within the group; but the arguments were always focused on ephebophilia/pederasty. A non-biased account would make all this much more clear. 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3: Many reliable sources – a great deal mentioned in this article – clearly link NAMBLA to pro-pedophile activism, and a group for pedophiles. Even the term "boylover" on WP currently redirects to Pedophilia, as it stands. Whether you do or not view NAMBLA as pedophilic is your own view; Wikipedia does not allow for original research and fringe viewpoints must not be given a false balance with the mainstream views. (For example, David Thorstad's views on pederasty and homosexuality would be considered fringe). Obviously, subject matters such as NAMBLA can be contentious issues and as such, it's often difficult to make articles like this neutral.

That being said, I think that it would help if this article went more into the broader historical context of NAMBLA, in terms of pro-pedophile or pro-pederast activism in the United States, and their relationship with the broader LGBT community. From what I can tell, most sources focus on the political aspect of NAMBLA, especially its aim to abolish the age of consent altogether. The controversial aspect of NAMBLA means that we have to be very careful when adding information to the article, and it also means that there are very few unbiased reporting a of the organisation, which makes it difficult to be neutral on these topics. If you have any information, provided it is reliably sourced and explicitly mentions NAMBLA, I'd appreciate your input. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that NAMBLA is *now* a pedophilic and pederastic organization. The question is really if it was always that way. As an academic who deals with queer history/theory, it is pretty clear to me that this was not the case. I don't particularly relish the idea of tracking down sources in my personal library on pederasty (ick!), but i'll come back to this page when I bump into them in the course of doing my other work. Or perhaps someone more enthusiastic about this subject wants to jump in? 104.11.2.142 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

But the other issue concerning the use of the term "pedo" to include "pederasty" is pretty important. There isn't a sound social scientific argument for using the term in that manner, even though popular culture and the legal profession do so. That is not a fringe viewpoint. It is how the subject is understood in the DSM and clinical psych profession. 104.11.2.142 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there have been any historical changes to the organization's goals etc., then this should definitely be included in the article. I'm not too familiar with the organization's history, but there's obviously a lot this article isn't telling us and I would appreciate any help you could give, especially if you have reliable academic sources on the matter.

And yes, pederasty and pedophilia are distinctly different issues (albeit somewhat blurred under NAMBLA), and both are different to child sexual abuse (although there's no denying there's some overlap between these three categories). However, I don't think we need to go into too much detail on that with regards to this article; Wikipedia does mention the differences on their respective articles, and we can link to them if needs be. Of course, there are always going to be those who are ignorant. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in common discourse; the WP:Neutral policy is quite clear how matters on this should be handled. Per its WP:Valid section, we do not give a positive review of NAMBLA for every negative review of NAMBLA. The vast majority of material on NAMBLA is negative, so WP:Due weight is at play there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how you would reduce a call for greater historical context to a undue weight, Flyer22. Your language seems to imply that I am calling for a "positive review of NAMBLA" which, frankly, is a rather disgusting thing to insinuate. I think we can safely set your intervention, here, aside as irrelevant. Zumoarirodoka, I have done an initial look for sources. I should have predicted this, but while there IS material about calls for age of consent reform in the 1970s and pederastic homoerotica in the 1950s and earlier, there is scant little on the origins of NAMBLA itself. Are those wider debates in the 1970s and cultural history of an interest in "Greek pederasty" in the 20th Century relevant to the origins of NAMBLA? Certainly. Do they belong on this page? Not sure...

Classic historian's problem: reviled organizations tend not to be well-researched - and admittedly, I wouldn't even set one of my graduate students onto this project. Perhaps someone else who has seen archival sources will jump in when they come across this discussion. 2602:306:80B0:28E0:6094:74E1:9645:6893 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "reduce a call for greater historical context to a undue weight." I didn't "imply that [you are] calling for a 'positive review of NAMBLA'." I was referring to Zumoarirodoka stating "[t]he controversial aspect of NAMBLA means that we have to be very careful when adding information to the article, and it also means that there are very few unbiased reporting a of the organisation, which makes it difficult to be neutral on these topics." in his "10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)" post, and anyone thinking similarly. As you can see, there is both an "Opposition to NAMBLA" section and a "Support for NAMBLA" section in the article, and Zumoarirodoka recently added to that support section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding. On that subject, I'm unsure that the Dan Savage quote actually is "support." His view is more nuanced than that - it is commentary on the attacks on NAMBLA. Quoted out of context, as it was in that article, it could be miscontrued as support, but what he is really saying is "Not everything they have said is without any merit. Underage people are indeed sexual beings and our culture seeks to deny that." That doesn't actually support the organization wholesale. 72.181.71.16 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed (I was also thinking about the appropriateness of including that under "support"). Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've hidden the text from that section. I still think that it should be mentioned on the article, although claiming that it is "support" for NAMBLA may be a bit of a stretch. (Oh, and with regards to what I said before, that wasn't really what I was meaning when I was talking about neutrality). – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is an interesting comment by Dan Savage. What about a "commentary on NAMBLA" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.71.16 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-hidden the text, days after Baffle gab1978 made it public again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It serves no purpose to have hidden text in an article. If for whatever reason the text should not be visible in the article, then it should be removed altogether, not hidden. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's common to hide text that is disputed or under discussion because it's disputed. A WP:Hidden note should preferably be added to go along with such text, noting why the text is hidden and pointing to the dispute if it's discussed on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not a member of NAMBLA

Wikipedia Editors,

In this article, it says that Todd Nickerson is a NAMBLA member. Well, I am Todd Nickerson and I am not, nor have I ever been, a NAMBLA member. Seriously, read the article that was used to reference this. It does not say I was a NAMBLA member--it says I sympathized with them. Sympathizing with a group's platform does not make you a member, especially when that sympathy is as short-lived as mine was. Please correct this immediately.

Thank you, Todd Nickerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.163.93 (talk • contribs)

• Todd Nickerson, Virtuous Pedophiles member who wrote "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster" for Salon.com was formerly a member of NAMBLA, although he opposed sexual contact between adults and children.

Pjefts (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Already  Done by user above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pjefts, regarding this, we have no way of knowing that you are Todd Nickerson. And either way, going by that Salon source and the Vice source, Todd Nickerson has received a lot attention for sympathizing with NAMBLA. Why shouldn't we keep his name in the "Associated individuals" section when he is, in fact, associated with NAMBLA? It doesn't take much to reword a sentence. I think it was a WP:Conflict of interest violation for you to make that edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused here. Are you saying that I'm Todd Nickerson and that I have a COI. I removed the material to the Talk page mostly because I've seen editors place living people as members or "associated" when clearly they were not e.g. Michael Jackson. Pjefts (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Pjefts, that an IP added the comment wasn't clear. I've now tagged the IP's comment above. I should have checked the edit history like I usually do. I will go ahead and re-add Nickerson, but reword the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reworded, but I need to look more into Nickerson to see if we should keep him listed. Pinging Legitimus, Herostratus and KateWishing in case they have any opinion on this or what else to do with the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd delete the reference per WP:BLP. He's unlike the other people mentioned in the section in two ways: he's not an actual member, and he's not notable enough to be bluelinked. And it's not really critical to the article to list individuals. On top of that someone has objected, who might be the person. Or might not, and we can point him to WP:OTRS, but we can save all that hassle by just deleting the person's entry. WP:BLP tells us to err on the side of caution here. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to including any individuals who fail WP:NOTEBIO, i.e. are not notable enough to have their own article. This is a policy in several other articles of people who do bad things, such as Military imposters. Furthermore, I note the other individuals in the list are very unapologetic in their advocacy of abusing children, while Nickerson is opposed according to the sources, meaning that including him does a disservice.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points, Herostratus and Legitimus. I thought similarly after re-adding the content, which is the main reason I pinged you. I wanted second opinions. Per those opinions, I've re-removed the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

___

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from "2 December 1978" to {start date and age|1978|12|2} to correspond to the North American Man/Boy Love Association's foundation?

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

This organization is promoting pedophilia which is, according to the rule of law a crime

How these guys continue since 38 years to promote pedophilia without to be arrested and judged? if the rule of law is not respected so go ahead to the rule of jungle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madovsky (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page is not a forum per WP:WWIN I suggest going to specific user's(maybe the main and current editors of this page) talk page and talk it out. Talk page is for discussing changing and maintenance of the article itself FusionLord (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

I'm not very active on this wiki, but I really need to ask what is the significance of this organization which is in my opinion illegal? Anti-pedophile activism is on the contrary an ethical and a worthy social movement that deserves wider attention. Pe-ga-sos (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

Add association of Thomas K. Hubbard to the Associated Individuals section. The North American Man/Boy Love Association published a pamphlet by Hubbard, "Greek Love Reconsidered".

See here: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32865321?q&versionId=40160583

and here: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-11-03.html

This inclusion was on the page formerly, but has been removed Indeclinable (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Operations

The Operations section was based on court filings. These are not a reliable source. Court findings of fact may be, in some cases, but here we had the filings, which state the plaintiffs' case and can be complete nonsense, and a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss will look at procedural issues such as personal jurisdiction, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a motion to dismiss must succeed based on the assumption that all facts as pled are true. You can't challenge the facts in a motion to dismiss, that is a matter for the court to decide in its capacity as the judge of fact. So none of the sources of this section are based on anything other than the first-party allegations of a set of plaintiffs. Even if the allegations are true (spoiler: I think they are) we cannot use this as sourcing. Guy (help!) 14:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Request edit re Thomas Hubbard as a "NAMBLA associate"

I am Prof. Thomas Hubbard of the University of Texas, Austin, and am very much a living person, which means Wikipedia needs to take great care before including inflammatory statements about me as an associate of this very controversial and demonized organization. The editor "Crossroads" added this section about me on August 30 of this year, and it came to my attention only recently, as it is now being cited (as their sole documentation) in protests by a right-wing student group demanding that I should be removed from my tenured professorship.

• "Crossroads" lists as his/her documentation a non-peer reviewed blog response by Prof. Davidson to someone else's negative review of his book The Greeks and Greek Love in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Crossroads omits to mention my response to Davidson, which is also visible on the same webpage: </ref>http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/11/20091103.html</ref>. My response makes it very clear that the 2000 book was published by a separate entity and then distributed to some NAMBLA members, but was not published "on NAMBLA's behalf." My response also makes it clear that neither I nor the essays in the book endorse NAMBLA's idiosyncratic approach to legal reform, and my editing of the book was in no way influenced by NAMBLA; this can be verified by anyone who actually reads the book, which is still available through Amazon (see </ref>https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Love-Reconsidered-Thomas-Hubbard/dp/0961549726/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408305279&sr=1-1&keywords=Greek+Love+Reconsidered</ref> for the blurb and table of contents, which no serious person could misconstrue as endorsing violation of present-day laws). I do, however, believe that NAMBLA members and the general public deserve to have historically accurate information about ancient Greece, rather than a misleading or romanticized view. I have also made clear my personal disagreement with NAMBLA's approach in the question period after a paper I delivered at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Philological Association, the oldest and foremost association of North American classical scholars: this portion of the session is video-archived at </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV5BzhxQnHs</ref>. In addition, I have further evidence that is not published, but eventually may be, consisting of accusations Davidson made to an e-mail list of classicists and which I immediately refuted. Davidson claimed to be boycotting a conference on ancient sexuality because of my presence; not a single scholar joined him, but many on the list came to my defense and urged me to attend the conference, which I did. Davidson by himself is not a credible source of any information about me; if he is cited at all, he should be listed as a biased source because of my own highly negative review of his book, which is available at Classical Journal Online 2009.11.03.
• None of this makes me a NAMBLA "associate" any more than my publishing an article in an East German scholarly journal in the 1980s (when all publications were the property of the East German government) makes me a communist or supporter of the Stasi police state. In contrast, the four other people named as NAMBLA associates in the article were either public spokesmen for the organization (Thorstad, Andriette) or prominent celebrities who made statements in support of its inclusion in the broader gay movement (Harry Hay, Allen Ginsberg).
• Please delete Crossroads' August 30 addition to the article, or if you let it remain, add all the information I have provided that documents the true nature of the book in question and my personal disagreements with NAMBLA's approach to the age-of-consent issue. If this does not happen immediately, my attorney will demand that the Wikipedia Foundation release the name and address of Crossroads and he/she will be sued for substantial damages. This is not an idle threat, as I have substantial assets with which to hire excellent legal representation in the US, UK, or anywhere else. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be misused as an uncontrolled medium for malicious defamation or McCarthyite guilt-by-association.

2605:6000:1018:E058:245E:3372:904E:393 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Thomas K. Hubbard
James R. Dougherty, Jr. Centennial Professor of Classics
University of Texas, Austin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1018:e058:245e:3372:904e:393 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 28-NOV-2019

  Unable to implement  

• Please email your edit request to the following email address: info-en-qwikimedia.org

Regards,  Spintendo  20:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

See [5] -Crossroads- (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. To the IP editor: As this has been taken care of by Crossroads, there should be no need to contact OTRS. Regards,  Spintendo  21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CrossroadsWhy has the edit re Thomas K. Hubbard and his association with Nambla been removed? Please can this be reinstated unless there is a good reason for this edit. This was a fully cited and credible reference. Bullying interventions from individuals should not mean that neutral and reliable information is removed from Wikipedia Indeclinable (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please can we have a {{request edit}} to clear this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indeclinable (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 November 2019 Indeclinable (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Everyone, do see WP:No legal threats. Crossroads absolutely should not fear getting sued. I'm tempted to report this at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22 Reborn. Please can you report it at WP:ANI, and please can you look at the original reversion that followed the threat of legal action? Indeclinable (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeclinable, not unless you can provide reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly list Hubbard as an associate of NAMBLA. Letters in press arguing a case are absolutely not sufficient for this, even if there were no element of synthesis in drawing the conclusion from the letters. They are primary and necessarily not peer-reviewed. NAMBLA has a long history of distorting the facts around pederasty to validate their idiosyncratic agenda, it is unsurprising that any classical scholar who documents pederasty as at risk of being claimed by them as a supporter. Guy (help!) 12:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads, that was the correct action IMO, not because fo any legal threat but because of the reasonable arguments put forward above. Nobody has the power to prevent groups like this from co-opting their work, and that does appear to be at least a plausible explanation here. Guy (help!) 12:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I was weary about the legal threat issues (and an edit summery of its removal did say it was due to this), but it is true that anyone can nick your work and use it. The legal threat clouded what was a reasonable request.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, true - and in some cases we react to legal threats by digging in, which is not ideal. We can't use {{better}} for this. Guy (help!) 14:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting developments and context of this BLP request

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/16/academic-freedom-free-speech-ut-austin/ Zezen (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(In)famous members list needs to be restored

They were censored here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association/Archive_7

by a checkusered puppet:

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by community consensus. 

I readded the NAMBLA Rabbi (it is how he is known as per some RSes).

-> do look up there the rest and restore

I have not time to dig thru archives, ANIs and possible (NAMBLA?) meatpuppetry.

Zezen (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I... uh, do see a point in putting the reliably-backed ones back in the "associated individuals" section per the guy in Archive 7. Between an indef-blocked Nazi and an indef-blocked paid gay porn socker this is some really hot potato. --Artoria2e5 🌉 09:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

The "Founder" field needs to be revised. David Thorstad was not the sole founder of NAMBLA; it did not have a sole founder. NAMBLA was founded out of a 1978 convening of several gay activists in Boston and New York who wanted to respond to a large-scale police sting on a party house in Revere, Massachusetts. Tom Reeves and David Thorstad were two high-profile founders who should definitely be included as "Co-founders," but Thorstad should not be listed as the sole founder.

I am an archivist at the University of Minnesota who is processing David Thorstad's collection. Billu014 (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

DO you have an RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Affiliated sources

Gay Histories and Cultures is an encyclopedia with entries by various contributors. The author of the entry on NAMBLA is Daniel C. Tsang. Tsang was present at the founding of NAMBLA; David France characterises him as a founding member.[6] He edited The Age Taboo, which "laid out the philosophical foundation behind NAMBLA". (The Tech 1989) As of 1989 he was affiliated with the Southern California chapter.[7] He was a panelist at the NAMBLA convention in 1986[8] and featured speaker in 1991.[9]

John Mitzel, the author of The Boston Sex Scandal, was at one time a NAMBLA spokesman.[10] Two other affiliated sources are Hubert Kennedy and David Thorstad.[11] Cheers, gnu57 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I don't have time right now to take a close look at the article, but having this laid out is helpful and I support any improvements. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References