| Revision as of 19:11, 5 January 2008 edit75.2.2.174 (talk) →In order to abuse...← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:16, 9 January 2008 edit undoJmm6f488 (talk | contribs)5,724 edits bitch ass faggot mother fucker bitchesNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| :Well I can't comment on the US as it isn't here for me but I am amazed that you have editprotedt templated thisn thread. Lest wait for mediation to finish or find a resolution on this page. I firmly disagree with your comments re NPOV and absolutely oppose editing the first paragraphe, which is the cause of the dispute, while the article is locked. Thanks, ] 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | :Well I can't comment on the US as it isn't here for me but I am amazed that you have editprotedt templated thisn thread. Lest wait for mediation to finish or find a resolution on this page. I firmly disagree with your comments re NPOV and absolutely oppose editing the first paragraphe, which is the cause of the dispute, while the article is locked. Thanks, ] 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sexual abuse is fine. (HAHA) Having sex with children can be described as "sexual abuse" whether on not it is legal in a jurisdiction. There is plenty on psychological evidence to demonstrate that since children cannot give informed consent to such acts, and it does them long-term psychological harm it can be and would be called abuse, even if the head of NAMBLA were elected and it was legalised. ] (]) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | :::Sexual abuse is fine. (HAHA) Having sex with children can be described as "sexual abuse" whether on not it is legal in a jurisdiction. There is plenty on psychological evidence to demonstrate that since children cannot give informed consent to such acts, and it does them long-term psychological harm it can be and would be called abuse, even if the head of NAMBLA were elected and it was legalised. ] (]) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| This page is full of faggot shit, and no homosexuals are not faggots diaper snippers are. Some of these people need a good stomping and a table leg shoved up there ass. These perverts think children like to be raped. Well let them fell the pain of a 16 inch dildo shoved up there ass. After there rectum is sowed up then maybe these fagots will learn, probably not, they need another stomping!!! A lynching too!!! | |||
Revision as of 13:16, 9 January 2008
 | Pedophile movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) | |||
| ||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophile movement redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
CN/Fact Request
Can I get someone to toss a CN/Fact after the sentance: "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular." please? -- True or not, there is nothing cited, thus it deserves to be tagged. --76.213.169.164 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In order to abuse...
The opening sentence of this article seems to hold a strong bias supposing to know the motivations of the movement/activists. Seeing as how it's unlikely that people are literally arguing for abuse, they do not perceive it as abuse. Since there is a difference of opinion, simply describing more blatent goals without relative descriptiors would probably bring more neutrality to the article. The name of the article is also somewhat biased, in that actions classed under this may not be blatent enough to be activism, may not be done for pedophiles or by pedophiles exclusively (or primarily). Obviously it could be, so the label should remain, as should opposing references, and then all varying terms can redirect to a neutral article title. Someone should think of a neutral title like this. Possibly pro/anti could be in a single articie as in *blank*-related activism or *blank*-related controversy. Articles on activism on the internet are altogether pretty confusing seeing as how discerning what is notable is rather difficult to ascertain. Tyciol (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's totally biased. I agree that these people are abusing the children, but that kind of sentence would NEVER be put in a real encyclopedia as it's so BLATANTLY biased. Why the hell is this article still protected?64.230.84.232 (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it is Biased. I believe the opening sentence should read:
Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to enter into a relationship with a child.
75.2.2.174 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse
The whole chapter about "Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse" is bullshit, because pro-pedophilia activism is in essence the claim that child-adult sexual relationships are not harmful in all cases. So you can list all the penalties and jail sentences those activists have had and say "we are skeptical that they do not support child abuse" but to those activists their contacts were not child abuse. That's what all this pro-pedophilia activism is about. The fact that this page even has that section is bias. It should be removed or moved to the anti-pedophile activism, because it's anti-pedophilia activism to list what judges have said and what sentences pedophiles have had. It has NOTHING to do with pro-pedophile activism. --62.194.194.24 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, we are talking about sceptism of this PPA movement, that has nothing to do with APA. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV
The very first sentence of this article is in complete violation of WP:NPOV and should be edited. The sentence reads, Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to sexually abuse children. The part in bold is POV and should be changed to something more neutral such as to allow pedophiles to have sex with children. What's considered criminal pedophilia here in the U.S., isn't considered so in some other countries. Granted, our society holds the view that pedophilia is sick and immoral, that personal view should not be allowed to influence editing of this article, or any other article on Misplaced Pages. -- ALLSTARecho 08:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- And what about the references and the link? How should they be dealt with? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reference that is a book and not really a link to where it can be freely read without me having to go buy the book or go to the library? That reference? Or the reference to WND which is a Christian POV "news" web site? -- ALLSTARecho 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I can't comment on the US as it isn't here for me but I am amazed that you have editprotedt templated thisn thread. Lest wait for mediation to finish or find a resolution on this page. I firmly disagree with your comments re NPOV and absolutely oppose editing the first paragraphe, which is the cause of the dispute, while the article is locked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sexual abuse is fine. (HAHA) Having sex with children can be described as "sexual abuse" whether on not it is legal in a jurisdiction. There is plenty on psychological evidence to demonstrate that since children cannot give informed consent to such acts, and it does them long-term psychological harm it can be and would be called abuse, even if the head of NAMBLA were elected and it was legalised. Lobojo (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is full of faggot shit, and no homosexuals are not faggots diaper snippers are. Some of these people need a good stomping and a table leg shoved up there ass. These perverts think children like to be raped. Well let them fell the pain of a 16 inch dildo shoved up there ass. After there rectum is sowed up then maybe these fagots will learn, probably not, they need another stomping!!! A lynching too!!!
Categories: