Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive 1

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

useful

I still think it's useful, but to be honest I've lost my bearings a little bit. I've done out a bunch of ideas to try and fix the article, and I'm not sure exactly where to start up again. Just read the version as it is, and talk about how you think it could be changed for the better. I do think the article needs major revisions, but I've been more of a occasional editor than a man with a plan. Lotusduck 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion material at Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders may have some relevance here and I would like to mention it.

I would like to be involved with the project in a supportive basis, but I don't want to sign in until I have defined for myself just what the limits of that support will be. --DanielCD 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I already have a few comments/suggestions:

As for goals, I think definite working definitions should be something to strive for. Definitions of pedophilia should likely include medical definitions, any legal definitions, popular culture defiitions, slang definitions, etc. All these things need to be teased out so they won't constantly be hashed out in lengthy discussions.

Also, reference evaluation should be important. Perhaps a central evaluation of the Rind et al. study and a consensus on its meaning and what contrary opinions to include.

I am starting to feel as if this project is actually the system in action, as in the system of Wikipedia working. It really makes me feel more confident and breaks through some of the cloudy feeling I have had regarding Wikipedia over the last few weeks. --DanielCD 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Related deletions

There was at one time a few articles on search terms for KP. I put them up for RfC and they were apparently speedied into deletion. I won't reveal the terms here (I remember two of them) but that may have relevance and might want to refer to them. LMK if this is of any possible value. --DanielCD 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: Child pornography search terms. --DanielCD 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: this is now redirected to Child pornography. --DanielCD 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias

Edits like these likely deserve attention: [1]. Though this was reverted (it was techinically vandalism), it does make a good point. There are some bulldogs holding the NAMBLA article and keeping it as free of pedophilia mention as possible. A lot of ppl have issues with this. I'm not sure, but there might be a problem. I don't know for sure though; is the public perception of NAMBLA as a "pedophile" organization a mistake on the part of the public, or our editors at the article? Some of them seem a bit irrational, and have even tried to remove all mention of NAMBLA from the pedophile article (which I need to check to see if it hasn't been removed again). --DanielCD 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that NAMBLA is mainly a pedarastic organization. I don't know much about them, but a quick look at the TOC of "Boys Speak Out" off their main page shows entries by a lot of 16-year-olds... but also a few 13- and 12-year-olds, and one 11-year-old. According to the Amer. Psych. Assoc. 13 and under counts as "pedo", but it seems odd to me that 1) the APA would use an arbitrary age cutoff instead of Tanner stagees, and 2) that they would use such a high age cutoff, considering that some 13-year-olds look and think quite a bit different from (say) 9-year-olds. To be researched, but I guess by the APA definition it would be a pederast/pedophile organization, so never mind... Herostratus 06:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that may be so. I'm not very familiar with it and the slight attempts I've made to edit there have proved ill-fated as it involves reading a copious amount of material that I'm not at all interested in. There is a "pederast" argument, but I haven't taken the time to follow it.

My main point here is the public perception has a meaning that needs to be addressed better than it is. Pedophilia applies whether they like it or not, because underage or no age-of-consent encompasses ages used in the medical definitions of Pedophilia. But personally I don't want to deal with the NAMBLA material. --DanielCD 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the information on the ages of the people you stated...I wouldn't believe anything I read in that regard. I wouldn't even dream of referring to any such material unless it was published in a scientific journal. --DanielCD 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Herostratus. DanielCD referred me to this user page. I'm very impressed with how detailed and thorough it is. I hope to contribute to the Pedophilia-related articles and have made a couple comments in their talk pages. Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks. Joey Q. McCartney 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still on the drawing board, as you can see, but at least I have good hopes for it. --DanielCD 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening discussion: Testing the water

I'd like to throw something on the table and see how it goes.

Concerning wording/language: where is an appropriate division between appropriate response to crimes against children and unmerited demonizing. This line is an important part of the issue. On one hand, we don't want to support or encourage, yet we also don't want to be overcritical where it's not called for. I don't want to enable, but I also don't want to demonize. As far as criminal acts go: to complicate matters, there may be yet another line to draw here. I think we can use the critical section in the advocacy article to allow some vehmenent/sharp wording to start. That's just a start. We do need some firmer language, so let's put the issue on the table. Someone cite wording that looks inappropriate/wrong/off or whatever.

In addition: Complaints about wording are rampant, but few make the effort to give details (which is highly frustrating). Are these people just making jabs to see if they can squeeze and opinion in, or is there a legitimate concern that's being ignored?

To hightlight the issue, I think there's probably wording in the above paragraph that someone will have a problem with. And keep in mind that there will be two sides to the issue, and by all means, let's be civil. --DanielCD 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is...keep it civil, if it ever gets off the ground... --DanielCD 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I made a comment over at the P. talk with some examples. Also feel free to check my talk page for that rewrite, which may have been just for fun but oh well :). Have a good day. JM Joey Q. McCartney 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia article

Hello. I will soon have a very preliminary rewrite--of the Pedophilia article--that I'd kind of like to share somewhere. Substantively, it would not be very different from the current article, but I think it would be less POV, a little cleaner, and a little tighter. Also, is it possible to email each other through this site? THanks. -JM. Joey Q. McCartney 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Just go to the userpage and look for the "E-mail this user" in the list on the left hand side. --DanielCD 19:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -JM Joey Q. McCartney 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, what DanielCD said, although I personally prefer to keep all discussion in public space. If you want to create a subpage (say, WikiProject Pedophilia/Pedophilia (draft or something, do that... remember to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia#Subpages. Herostratus 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean that e-mail isn't OK, especially in this case considering that its such a fraught subject. However, perhaps a publicly-listed email list would be OK? Herostratus 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a valid email address on here anyway. But I don't mind just posting like this. THanks. Joey Q. McCartney 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Potpourri

This project must either cease to exist or exist under a new name. Try to imagine that Wikipedia actually exists in a world of humans with irrational emotions. WAS 4.250 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes sir General Sir!! I'll just get right on that! --DanielCD 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible rename

I've been involved in some editing of adult baby related articles, but have been loathe to dive into the murky waters here. If this were expanded and renamed I'd be happy to not only assist in the existing goals of this project, but to have some help on articles like Infantilism and Sissy baby. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

During the deletion debate, there was some support for a move to the less-contentious name Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia. Thoughts?
brenneman^{T}{L} 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that first order of business would be finding a suitable project title. --DanielCD 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Another option is "Wikiproject pedophilia articles." Physchim62 suggested it in the last comment in he archived discussion, and I think his point is valid. Joey Q. McCartney 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Or "Wikiproject pedophilia, infantilism and sissy baby" or something along those lines. Joey Q. McCartney 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The name needs to be something that Jimbo can comfortably talk about on NBC, Fox News, BBC, and in the Wall Street Journal and Guardian. So that eliminates anything with Sissy baby in the title. : ) To me Wikiproject Pedophilia and WikiProject Paraphilia sound too pro. It seems to promote or condone pedophilia. Pedophilia Articles is a little better. I'd rather go the other way and call it something related to Child Sexual Abuse. Another idea is to make it something symbolic rather than literal. Like the way that the US military names wars. We need to make the project and title as broad as possible to best benefit WP. That includes all related medical, legal, religious, lifestyle, historical, and pop cultural, and other topic that fits. These are all interrelated. Much too burdensome to parse out rigid criteria for inclusion in project. From reading the project goals it seems you all came to the same conclusion. FloNight ^talk 06:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Worth considering. Joey Q. McCartney 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume something like "Wikiproject sex and sexuality" is an option. Joey Q. McCartney 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How broad a project does it intend to be? I suppose the first focus of a sexuality wikiproject could be paraphilias, particularly pedophilia. However, it wouls include a helluva lot else. I'd suggest 'Pedophilia Watchlist' or something similar that gives the impression that, while its scope is pedophilia, its intention is to ensure that the articles are neutral and factual. While that's obvious to us, Joe Average might assuem that Wikproject:Pedophilia ws about 'helping' pedophiles... The Land 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Other possible words: "watch," "neutral," "NPOV," "NPOV watchlist," "impartial," "unbiased," "nonpartisan." (Roget's II Thesaurus). Joey Q. McCartney 09:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what I was throwing on the table basically amounts to working under the auspices of the existing "Wikiproject Sexology and Sexuality". I've re-read that part of the archived discussion just now. I'm not very familiar yet with the parent/child, project/subproject, active/inactive nuances, so if it's not really an option, or if it was ruled out in the previous discussion (it's kind of hard to tell from reading it), just ignore my suggestion. No problem. Joey Q. McCartney 10:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with Pedophila NPOV -- who can be against NPOV? -- but I'm not nuts about it. I can see (now) how "Pedophilia" raises a red flag, but I wouldn't think that "Paraphilia" would (of course, I'm notable for being wrong about stuff like that.)

I (personally) would like to move forward as fast as properly possible on this issues, so I'm gonna sorta-kind "vote" below by listing my choices my order, if others want to move ahead by doing the same, fine, otherwise ignore me and continue debate.

Herostratus's choices in order:

1. Articles on Pedophilia
2. Paraphilia
3. Pedophilia NPOV
4. keeping Pedophilia (not too keen on that per Joe Average comment, I guess).
5. Not too keen on anything else. Herostratus 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very opposed to Pedophilia NPOV. In my opinion, it goes against Jimbo's statements on the email list and other places. And maybe the press release. Wikipedia is opposed to pedophilia/pedophiles. It is illegal. We need to make that very clear to the outside world. People who openly embrace the lifestyle will be written about in a honest and polite way that clearly states their opinion. But it is a very minority position, and strongly opposed by by all major government, religious, medical, and social institutions. WP articles need to reflect this strong critisism. I feel the Pedophilia NPOV would be misunderstood by everyone outside of WP. (maybe some in WP : ) I think we should use something entirely different or pair the word Pedophilia with a safe word. I kind of liked Pedophilia Watchlist. We could take it as a temporary name. See how it works for a few weeks while we are getting our act together. FloNight ^talk 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the email list or press release. You may be right. Whether you are or not, I can understand how "pedophilia NPOV" or something similar might be problematic, seeming like we're guarding especially against anti-pedophiles.

My concern about "watchlist" is that that sounds like the project is to keep an eye on those evil pedophiles. Since we would never claim that that's what we're doing (if it were, we wouldn't allow pedophiles on the project), we don't want the name to suggest that that's what we're doing. Otherwise, Jim will get called on the discrepancy. On the other hand, if Jim says that Wikipedia is anti-pedophilia, then I guess we shouldn't allow pedophiles on the project <--just being rhetorical. Maybe "Articles on pedophilia". Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow. Joey Q. McCartney 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse" isn't an option, but I'd support "WikiProject Paraphilia." Most of our paraphilia articles could use some work. Pedophilia seems a little narrow, sexuality a little broad, but paraphilia's just right.

Also, I don't know who this "Joe Average" guy is, but from all I heard about him he sounds like a f**king idiot. I don't think he should even be affecting our choice. Ineloquent 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's a good buddy of Joe Six Pack. Tread carefully... --DanielCD 22:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Paraphilia" seems useful. -Will Beback 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

YEs. Again, i'm not sure how it all works, but a good idea might be to do our work under the auspices of project Paraphilia or something to that effect, without saying that our work is project paraphilia. Because at least at first, if we say that our work is wikiproject paraphilia, that'll sound disingenous to everyone who learns that we're only working on pedophilia articles. ok, got to go. See u later. Joey Q. McCartney 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

this point isn't really about naming, it's about the relationship between a name and the project goals. Joey Q. McCartney 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

this concern can be alleviated with careful writing of the goals. Joey Q. McCartney 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The name isn't that important as it relates the project goals. It could be called something that doesn't necessary reflect the project goals with super accuracy, if there's a good reason for doing so. And there is: politics. Technically, Paraphilia maybe isn't the very best name because some of what might be covered is not really paraphilia, and (so far) other paraphilias aren't being covered (but there's not reason that can't change down the line). Herostratus 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sensing a convergence of agreement on "Paraphilia". I guess the question could be raised, are there any strong objections to that name? If not appear after a decent interval, I for one wouldn't object to someone making the move. (I'm not gonna do it because I've been too ownerish in the past.) Herostratus 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above I disagree with the use of either Paraphilia or Pedophilia. Others have suggested the same. Pedophilia Watchlist or something like it seems much more appropriate. We are watching the articles to make sure that they follow WP guidelines and policy. We know from past experience that these articles are the target of pov-pusher, vandals, and trolls. Outside organizations may focus on these articles also. We can't ignore this fact. What is the problem with acknowledging these facts in the projects name? Could we slow the process down for a day or so? I need put my thoughts together in a more lucid manner. I’m juggling a couple of other thing today. Thanks for bearing with me. FloNight ^talk 19:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, FloNight! Sorry, I didn't mean to be pushy, at all. Sure, no hurry. Hmmmm well "Pedophilia Watchlist"... I DO see the benefits to that, yes. I dunno though... For instance, Joey Q Mc. is involved with the project, I gather he's mainly interested in researching and writing about topics of interest, not so much in overwatch. ... that may be true of other users who join... By all means articles should be watched for POV from any direction, and indeed that's a prime interest for me... but I think maybe "watchlist" might turn off people who are not so much interested in patrolling as in contributing good encyclopedic info to articles... that is the best defense ultimately I think. Herostratus 22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. By the way, we'll see what my level of involvement is, just because I've been neglecting my real life, lol. But my involvement definitely doesn't depend on the title, although I can't speak for others. Also, copyediting, writing and watching out for POV all appeal to me. I may not have much time to do research, although I know that's probably the most important and difficult part. Joey Q. McCartney 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Or if we use "watchlist," another possibility is "pedophilia-articles watchlist." I just don't want it to be something that causes the outside world to assume that pedophiles somehow aren't allowed to participate in the project. I think adding "articles" helps, but it's hard to tell. Joey Q. McCartney 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Articles on Pedophilia" and the like are still viable, as far as I'm concerned. Joey Q. McCartney 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's another issue with "watchlist". People who are pedophiles in the classic paraphilia sense are likely to have a lot of interest in and knowledge of research on that subject, for instance if they are in treatment and are an active participant in their treatment plan they are liable to be up on current trends in definition and treatment. Such editors may may have POV but that can be thrashed out, and such editors are very welcome to participate, IMO. People who are pedophiles in the girllover/boylover sense (I'm still not clear, myself, on the overlap) are also likely to have lots of hard-to-get information on that area; they too amay have POV but that can also be thrashed out, and they are very welcome to participate, IMO. Even former child-abuse criminals are welcome to participate if they have paid there debt to society, IMO. IMO the only editors who might be discouraged are recalcitrant child sexual abusers editing from prison, and then only because other editors might find working with them difficult. The only editors to be discouraged are those who are unable/unwilling to operate within the bounds of Wikipedia policies and guidlines re article content and editor expectations.

So I'm a little leery of anything that will discourage any editor. After all, there is always the chance that the project will attract an occasional "WTF? KILL THEM ALL!" type of editor and we will need every good editor we can get to engage and educate those editors.

And yes per J.Q.McC. "Articles on pedophilia" remains in the running. I'm starting to like the broader scope suggested by "Paraphilia" though, even though it too has problems.

Oh and FloNight, don't worry about your ability to maintain any level of participation. Whether frequent or rare, your well-thought-out comments are always welcome. Herostratus 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Herostratus. I appreciate the way you've welcomed me to this project. : ) I'm going to start new section for the rest of my comment. FloNight ^talk 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There seemed to be many voices in support of a name change. Is there enough consensus to go ahead with some new name? -Will Beback 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia Article Watch

Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophiles are our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight ^talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Welllll.... OK. I'm not too nuts about it, but yeah a couple of others have mentioned it as OK. I guess I can live with it. Let's give it a day or two and see if anyone else weighs in, then go with it I guess.Herostratus 07:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia Article Watch Several people have suggested Pedophilia Article Watch as a project name. That sounds good to me. I like the watch part. It takes away the idea the project is pro-pedophilia. The word article shows that we are watching articles not pedophiles. Since pedophilia is our main interest, maybe we should stick with it. FloNight ^talk 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I support that. -Will Beback 02:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I'm going to remove it for now. It'll be in the edit history. --DanielCD 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Right, I was going to suggest that but never got around it it. I think it should stay off at least for now. Any objections? Herostratus 07:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

this n' that

• I moved "nomenclature" to its own position on the main project page to make it more visible. More detailed discussion is still available on the /Nomenclature subpage.
• I have tagged two articles and intend to work on them in coming weeks; assistance will of course be be welcome. The articles are Rind et al. (1998) and Child sexuality. The former needs to be researched to verify if it indeed has only been criticized mainly by conservative politicians and members of a questionable organization as the article implies, the latter needs verification of statements such as "Empirical knowledge about child sexual behaviour is not gathered by direct interviews of children... because the topic is taboo" and perhaps inclusion of other studies for balance, if such studies exist. Both of these will require visits to a major library and some time.
• Hmmm the "project participants" section is weird... it lists four people who don't seem to be very active right now, and doesn't list participants who have been more active recently.
• Lack of agreed-on project name is not so good because references have to made to the project in article tagging and at the parent project.

Herostratus 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)