Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 8 February 2006

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia

At best, this is in bad taste. Considering the recent wheel war on the subject, it can be considered WP:POINT, especially since today just so happened to be the day that it "went live". User:Zoe| 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bad timing after the incident on WP:AN. Not real point to project anyways. File:HIM logo.jpg SWD316 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not POINT. Has clearly been in the making for some time. No different from any other Wikiproject. Someone writes some nonsense about how Misplaced Pages has been taken over by paedophiles and so we queue up to display our intolerance? That's marvellous. Pointless to vote and I'm not going to bother signing in to do so. Just disgusted. -- Grace Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.77.40 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Whether or not POINT, the timing is quite unfortunate. Mainly though, I think it's much too narrow an area for any realistic Wikiproject to focus on. A Wikiproject on sexuality in general is much more appropriate, if one does not already exist. Deco 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote to No vote, because I don't really get this whole Wikiproject deal anyway. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant with the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. See also the WikiProject Child safety. --cesarb 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, Herostratus convinced me with his highly detailed answer. While I still think this will end up being abandoned like its previous incarnation, keep for now. --cesarb 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as cesarB, there are other projects to cover this ground. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I am going to guess that WikiProject Sexology and sexuality doesn't want to work on pedophilia or isn't paying attention to it. Do we delete Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Toronto because it falls under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ontario? It also was clearly not a WP:POINT as the page was in the making long before the recent spat of pedophilia debates. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  I personally think this is well within the scope of Sexology and Sexuality. Have the founders of the Pedophilia project even proposed anything there? Toronto is also a much wider topic than pedophilia; it's a huge city and home to many of our contributors. Deco 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. — Dan | talk 04:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How can this be a project? --MONGO 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The stated aims of the project are encyclopedic. If it's not active, mark it with {{historic}} and put a pointer to the broader project. There's also the real possibility that the extra attention turn this into an active project. The fact that it was used to make a point does not make it's existance WP:POINT. - brenneman 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Why create this? Just to cause everyone further heartache? For God's sake, must we rip the community apart over this crap? Guettarda 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and tell the Sexuality project to pay more attention to these articles I guess. --Ryan Delaney 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic goals. Does not appear to be trolling or bad faith, just spectacularly bad timing in taking the project live. --Carnildo 07:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per cesarb. violet/riga (t) 08:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 10:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Spectacularly bad timing but not otherwise objectionable. If the focus is too narrow—and I don't see why that should be, we have active projects on quite narrow topics—and this becomes inactive then we can delete it or merge it into a broader project. But there's no need to strangle it in the cradle. The project documents look sensible and useful and ensuring high quality in this group of articles is a very worthy goal. - Haukur 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now hold on a minute here. This is the initiator of the project speaking. Are you certain that you realize what you are voting on here? Have you read the project documents?

• First of all, several of you mentioned the timing. You know, we have been working on this for some time, and to be honest as researcher/writer I can't be bothered with the antics of administrators. They're always up to some nonsense. My understanding is that it had something to do with userspace; my concern is with article space. (N.B.: due to a brain freeze on my part, I stupidly copied the contents of the project pages into the existing redirect page in public space, thus voiding the history. I just wasn't thinking. The actual history may be seen at (what is now a redirect page) at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia.)
• This project was initiated because there are some (IMO) problems with some of the articles relating to pedophila, in particular a lot of POV and polarization, including in some place a bias toward what some might term a "pro-pedophile" point of view (not to say that that's the only problem).
• And some of these articles come up high on Google. So it's important to make the articles as accurate as possible.
• Even if you, the nominator and individual delete voters above, are OK with the current state of all the pedophilia-related articles -- which you should not be, given WP:NPOV and WP:NOT a soapbox -- I would ask you to please consider possible negative publicity to the 'pedia as a whole. There has been some. You may shug that off but are you certain that the Foundation will.
• I'm just... I guess what I'm hearing is No, there can't be any kind of neutral or scholarly approach to this subject. Not only that -- there can't be a project, so there can't be any organized approach to articles on this subject at all.

I'm sure you've all read the project goals, but just to refresh you:

• • Current goals
    • Achieve, to the extent possible, a scholarly, generally agreed-upon, scientifically accurate, culturally accurate, and clear terminology to be used in pedophilia/childlove-related articles.
  • Longer-range goals
    • After, that, maybe: achieve a quality, maintainable, accurate, scholarly state for the article Pedophile activism, if this has not already been done.
    • After, that, maybe: achieve a quality, maintainable, accurate, scholarly state for the other Pedophilia-related articles, if needful, to be selected later.

If this project is deleted -- and it looks like it will be -- I would ask each of you to please take the time to enlighten me, either here or on my talk page, exactly what about these goals you find objectionable? Is it particular terms -- "scientific"? "scholarly"? "accurate"? "maintainable"? Is it the reference to the Pedophile activism article, unhappiness with which, after its recent AfD survival, spurred me to initiate the project? If its that, perhaps some compromise could be reached where that article is not included? Is the consensus that that article is OK and shouldn't be messed with, or what? (It been recently both tagged and protected, which is often a sign of trouble, I think. It is also very long and IMHO gives too much space to back-and-forth about Rind et al. (1998) and related material that doesn't belong in the article.)

If I may address each of the objections individually:

• Nominator, SlimVirign -- Bad taste is not a deletion criteria. (If it was, this article would not have survived AfD.)
• Nominator, SWD316, Deco, Carnildo (who did vote keep) -- "Bad timing"... What, has pedophila been especially in the news lately? Has pedophilia recently been elected Vice-President of Estonia? Has pedophila recently discovered a new subatomic particle? Has pedophilia been photographed with Jennifer Anniston? Oh... you mean bad timing in la-la land. Well believe it or not, not all research and writing activity on Misplaced Pages revolves around who said what to whom on what IRC channel about what wheel war. The project was reaching completion and ready to go public, and in fact I was moved to go public from a remark by one editor to the effect of "someone told me about this project and I would like to help", which told me that it was time to go public.
  • All I meant was that opening the project at this time set it up for emotional overreaction and unreasonable attack by people involved in the recent wheel war. I did not vote to delete it for this reason. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deco I don't understand your comment. Obviously (it goes without saying) you read the article before voting, where it clearly states that the parent of the project is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, which is tagged as inactive. Could you explain your comment more clearly to me, please?
  • On reflection, I don't really know enough about Wikiprojects to have a good concept of how narrow or wide a scope they are intended to cover. I didn't know Wikiprojects could even have "parent projects". I've changed to No Vote because I'm obviously clueless here. Deco 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• cesarb, Drini, violet/riga -- as above, plus... I did read the documents on Wikiprojects, it's not clear to me that a project of this scope is disallowed; as you surely saw in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia#Internal links of possible use section, there are quite a few articles related to pedophilia -- there is a Category:Pedophilia as well as many categories with related articles such as Category:Pedophile organizations, Category:Child sexual abuse, categories for child pornography, sexuality and age, and others. So pedophilia alone covers quite a few articles. Are you saying that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality cannot or should not have subprojects? Also, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Child safety was deleted in July 2005. Also, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is inactive
• Dan -- your entire comment is "Delete". Could you please expand?
• User:MONGO -- your comment is "How can this be a project"? I find myself somewhat at a loss to respond your comment. I'm not always so smart at understanding stuff, could you aid me by perhaps asking a more specific question?
• Ryan Delaney -- The last three edits to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality Were August 13 2005, November 14 2005 (placement of the "inactive" tag), and February 5 2005, when a new person joined, making seven (not counting two who haven't edited since fall 2005). The last talk page entry is August 6 2005. So I'm not sure, given the thousands or articles under their purview, how effective a message to mobilize to this subsection of their area might be. (Notwithstanding the inactivity at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, I acknowledge a serious error in not working through them at least in addition to, the ad-hoc group that collected around individual articles. What can I say? I screwed up.)
• Guettarda -- I don't know what to say beyond reiterating the project goals.

OK, I'm done. Vote away, and fear no darkness! Herostratus 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

*Keep per above. Herostratus 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (Changed vote, see below. Herostratus)

• The particular event was that last Sunday, a user got banned for identifying himself as a pedophile. This resulted in a great deal of uproar over whether or not pedophiles are allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, with disparaging remarks made over a hypothetical "WikiProject Pedophilia". --Carnildo 09:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I did not know this. That is bad luck then I guess. Perhaps I should go back to working on my articles on breath mints... A user was banned? Wow. Herostratus

  You can see a quick summary of the dispute at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Summary of dispute, written by the Clerks; if you want more detail, look at the rest of that RfAr (since you had, as many commented, awful timing, I'd recommend you read at least that and the proposed decisions). --cesarb 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what to say; I wasn't aware this had gone public. It should have been debated/voted on before that. This is just getting too hot for me; I'm backing out of this, and am ceasing all my work on the related material. All related materials are being removed from my watchlist. I refuse to offer any more or my assistance or expertise regarding this material. Endless bickering is not what I am here for. I'm not offering a vote either. --DanielCD 12:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops. Jeez, I'm really, really sorry (DanielCD has been a yeoman editor at trying to keep some of the pedophila-related articles from being either complete pro-pedophiliia propaganda or ranting anti-pedophile screeds, or being vandalized). Geez, since a half-doxen or so people were editing or getting involved, I thought moving it was not a big deal... once again, showing my lack of wiki-smarts or just smarts in general. Boy am I ashamed of messing up and embarassing DanielCD like that. Like DanielCD I too will be taking these articles off my watchlist and washing my hands of the whole thing. So... go ahead, delete it. Leave it the people who are interested in the subject, the POV pushers. We might want to put this decision into policy: (Misplaced Pages:Articles relating to pedophilia may only be 1) edited by pedophiles or 2) blanked by self-righteous idiots, in an endless war of the deluded against the ignorant, where the light of knowledge shines not. You know what? This is the last thing I want to be doing anyway. You think I like this? My interest is Napoleonic history for chrissakes. I thought, you know, scholarly project, encyclopedia, problem area, study up, help out with the hard stuff. Guess not... I have lots of other stuff on my to-do list where I don't have to get abused by... by my fellow esteemed colleagues. You delete voters can all give yourselves either the NAMBLA Barnstar or the Campaign For Righeous Indignation Barnstar, whichever suits you. Herostratus 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep terrible, terrible timing appears to be a bad mistake. Please hold-off on the userbox untill current conflict blows over, ok? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete request by project initiator/creating editor (changed vote) on the grounds that at this point no sane person is going to touch this material anyway. Herostratus 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)