Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Images on this article

File:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg

picture?

Zanthalon just tried deleting one of the images because it is "only part of the pamphlet"; I reverted the image for reasons Cecropia and myself agreed on (we need to let the public reading this article see what the pedophiles are advocating). I also deleted two lines he added which come off as disgusting pro-pedophilia propaganda. Samboy 06:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not object to the image. I just think that the thumbnail should show the entire pamphlet cover rather than just that portion. It looks chopped up. --Zanthalon 06:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why have these images been restored to this article? I for one do not support their being there. - Mark 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that my revert of the anon was not intended to support their inclusion; rather, given the edit which followed it I thought it was best to. I'll stay out of this article from now on, though. :) -- Hadal 12:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's stop playing petty censor here. Wikipedia contains many images people find distasteful. It is manipulative and intellectually dishonest to leave these out and leave the content of the article in. Those removing the pictures are only making a case for this thing going up on VfD. The irony is that I suspect quite a few people would defend this whitewash of an article but not defend pictures taken from the movement's own literature which illustrates in the mildest way way the article's proponent's advocate. BTW, these are by no means the most provocative "legal" images they publish. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by your actions Cecropia. Does this mean you want this article to be deleted? Did you include the two images because you want the article to be deleted? pir 14:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, pir, I am not trying to get the article deleted. I believe it covers an important and timely subject. I'm trying to move it to balance and NPOV. The posting of the pictures gives dimension and context to what the proponents say they're interested in. My comment about VfD relates to the point that if the mild pictures, taken from the movement's public literature, are that horrifying to the people insisting on the deleting them, then it begs the question that the article itself should be deleted. I don't want that to happen, but neither do I want the article to be stripped of honest pro and con description of what we're talking about. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I completely support what you say (except re. these images to the article - see below). And apologies if anyone took my comment as implying that you were acting in bad faith, I just found it confusing.pir 16:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just having come into this discussion and not meaning to cause a hawok, you are talking about the image i've put to the right here? If so, whats offensive about it? Its a young boy kind of thing you see at the pool every day. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

File:Clogo pedo cover.jpg

I believe this is depraved and propagandisticpir

I was mainly objecting to the picture on the left. I feel that it is propagandistic and favours paedophile views on relationships of adults with children (see also my comments above). While I support this article which does indeed state and explain these views held by the "childlover" movement, I think the inclusion of these images is extremely problematic. In accord with the NPOV policy we state these views in the form "Childlovers believe the following etc", and then we can also state opposing views. This is not possible with images, especially propagandistic images, you just can't put it as "childlovers view the world as in this" and then add an image making the opposite point - if you include the image the article becomes propagandistic itself. As for the other image, I think it's not as bad, but it too is problematic, because of the text "OK Magazine". It suggests that it is "OK" for adults to be sexually attracted to boys. The style of the magazine front page is also reminiscent of mainstream magazines that would depict adults in poses emphasising their beauty and attractiveness, except that here it is a child, suggesting that it is "OK" to treat children in a way that is usually reserved for adult models. I don't feel qualified to take decisions on what is good taste and what is not, I am concerned about the article being NPOV rather than propagandistic. There is a very fine line between describing the "childlover" movement and being perceived to endorse their views. IMO, many readers that come to this article will perceive it as endorsing the childlover movement POV if it includes these images. - pir 16:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I took a closer look of the bigger version of the picture at left. I see a bit of a small leg underneath the doll, so apparently this is a picture of a child holding a doll with most detail except the doll obscured. Actually it is an excellent allegory of what pedophilia is about without showing an actual child, more appropriate than I realized at first. IMHO I don't see how these pictures could in any way be seen as an endorsement of the movement. -- Cecropia | Talk 00:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also: images are great for articles, they help to illustrate the concept in a powerful way - but not all article benefit. There's a really good reason why murder or snuff porn don't have them. The same seems true for articles regarding paedophilia. pir 17:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither of the articles you cite advocate or form an apologia for the title behavior. The instant article talks about spiritual values and other affectional issues and gives the impression that sex is secondary or tertiary or perhaps even unnecessary for the pedophile's fulfillment. It also fudges the line between pre- and post-pubescent sex, which are a world apart. Showing photos of actual literature of organizations cited reveals focus and intent. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the images yet again; this is very quickly becoming an edit war. I don't think we should have these images here, any more than we should have pornographic images in the entry for Pornography. And, yes, if this article was voted for deletion, I would vote to have this article deleted and any relevent objective information moved to the pedophilia article; the article is, plain simply, a pro-pedophilia propaganda pamphlet, and sounds like the denials of a criminal who does not think their criminal inclinations are evil. -- Samboy 18:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those images are importantr to the understanding of the article, because they should wht "childlovers" mean when they talk about "Childlove." Wikipedia is full of offenseive images. Stop being a petty censor. The images are not pornographic. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, link to some of these "offensive images" in Wikipedia. I don't see any. Furthermore, pir, Mark, and Danny are opposed to the images. This is three people who didn't like the images enough to remove them in a single week. I see that Cecropia and Timwi are the two users who have reverted these sickening images; the only other person who appears to support their inclusion is Ævar. As I point out on my user discussion page, pedophilia is a horrible abuse of children that emotionally damages them for their entire life. This is an edit war, and needs to be arbitrated at this point. Samboy 19:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was not all touching on that, i just claimed that the picture wasnt offensive to me, just a tad stupid perhaps. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:18, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Just having come into this discussion and not meaning to cause a hawok, you are talking about the image i've put to the right here? If so, whats offensive about it? Its a young boy kind of thing you see at the pool every day. - how is me asking specifically what is offensive about it supporting it? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:21, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Images some find offensive that people insist on keeping? OK, just a few: Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, Vulva, Penis, Erotic spanking. And how about some offensive articles: Felching and Fuck. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As another point, on the "Abu Ghraib" article, I attempted to simply reduce the number of images there as gratuitous, and was reverted and shouted down at every point. I hope this doesn't offend you, but while checking "Recent changes" awhile ago I deleted several redirects by a one-shot (12 minutes on Wikipedia) vandal, but since they were sexual in content, I was not only reverted, but brought up on charges on VfC before cooler heads prevailed and dropped the matter. Among the redirects I tried to delete were cunt slobbering. I was two years in the Army during Vietnam, I thought I heard every possible obscenity in several languages, but that was new to me, but you can (still) find it on Wikipedia! -- Cecropia | Talk 20:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; I have kept the images in my last edit, but have moved the image of the doll down (so the user has to scroll down to see the images) and have added a warning at the top. The warning probably has some POV, but how can one not have POV in an article like this? This is how the images in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse are handled. Samboy 20:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good solution; I agree. A comment on NPOV. The requirement is not that subjects be NPOV. Obviously that is not always possible. But we can write about the subject in NPOV. It's supposed to be the voice of a neutral observer saying what is, not what he thinks about what is. The "what is" may be POV, but it can be described in an NPOV way. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many of the arguments pro adult-child-sex are not actually the opinion of pedophiles. Example: David Finkelhor pointed out that many arguments against adult-child-sex are not really sound or firmed. That is why he stated the informed consent argument. I suggest that we concentrate our efforts on pedophilia and use this article for pedophiles opinions mainly. Just because a study is used by pedophiles to support their views, the study itself is not the POV of them.--Moonlight shadow 07:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Since this is an article about a movement in favor of pedophiles, anything that pedophiles use to bolster their arguments is appropriate for inclusion. What is it that Finkelhor says is not "found or firmed" regarding opposition to adult-child sex? As to the use "informed consent," this is a legal term which is entirely out-of-place in this discussion. "Informed consent" is supposed to tell the subject all of the possible consequences that the thing he/she is about to embark on might entail. This is a nullity in terms of this subject because (1) a child cannot give informed consent, and (2) how will this "informed consent" be structured and delivered? I think I'll tell my children that if an adult in a raincoat ever approaches them with a lawyer at his side, run! (no smiley, it's not really funny) -- Cecropia | Talk 08:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Alice Liddell is a such an appropriate reference for this article, not because of Mr. Dodgson, because this is more and more resembling Looking Glass Land. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that we put the cart before the horse. The "informed consent" is also a moral argument against adult-child-sex (or even child sexual play). I am not a friend of this article at all, because the distinction of arguments on whether they are good or bad for pedophiles is not the way the scientific discussion on the topic works. This article might be a better idea after the topic has been covered by pedophilia or child sexual abuse. --Moonlight shadow 19:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both these images should be deleted. Look at the guy in the picture, he has a moral right not to be associated with child abuse, and we have a moral obligation not to post such images of him, he is too young to give consent to use of his image. User:Duncharris who is going to get a new bloody keyboard becuase he can only write |||| when he wants to sign his bloody name!

Agreed, they not celebrities or notable, and thus there is no justification for inclusion of the images, and even if they were, they would not belong in THIS article. Remove them. —siroχo 01:00, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Use of term

I don't think the Wikipedia should adopt the term childlover to describe "members of this movement". Better to say childlove advocate, if it's necessary to mention people at all.

Still better to avoid using the term as much as possible and describe the positions of the movement or of particular, named advocates of those positions.

For example, Jeffrey P. Braun says that sex makes children come alive or Mary Baker, professor of sexology at Brandeis, asserts that pedophiles have gotten a "bad rap" and wishes that "prudes" would just lighten up a bit.

Let's neither condemn the "childlove" movement nor accept its aims uncritically. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Childlove advocate" is more POV than "Childlove movement." "Childlove movement" is one of the things the movement is called. "Childlove advocate" literally means a person who advocates childove, validating that childlove is an appropriate term and begging the question of what childlove is. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No let condem this now and call it what it is SIN it is preverted if we start down the road by saying well maybe they hava valid point you know what will happen we will be have kids sold legally into prosititution and we will have people arguing in the courts to marriage their child bride or groom. Folks don't white wash this for the sake of POV somethings all rational people can see through and this one of them.

Uncle Ed has a point; there are so many unattributed "points of view" in this article that it almost reads like something posted on the Internet. "It is widely believed..." By whom? "Many people think..." How many? "They argue that..." Who argues it? I can imagine a newspaper report written in this style: "Someone in the government said that it is generally believed we ought to do that thing to those people." It comes off like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Nobody needs to say, "Well, maybe they have a valid point." What needs to be said is simply, "This is the point they make" (hopefully with "they" being adequately attributed). If it is true that "all rational people" can see through it, then there's no reason to sacrifice neutrality; after all, all rational people are already going to see right through it. So there's nothing to gain by foresaking NPOV, and plenty to lose (unless you don't consider integrity a very big deal).

Doesn't anybody actually research anymore? Or are we going to continue writing this article off the top of our heads, and keep changing the name every time we paint ourselves in to a rhetorical corner? Marlais

In certain instances you don't have to cite every counterpoint when the truth is well understood. If you say that most cultures say parents have the right to bring up their children, you don't need citations or quotes of doctors saying so, as though this were a novel proposition. If you say that cats kill mice you don't need a statistical analysis of the cat-mouse mortality ratio or a discussion of whether the mice are really dead or only faking it. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think if we were dealing with a well-understood truth, this talk page wouldn't keep stretching endlessly into polemic. If I say that most cultures say that parents have the right to bring up their children, I doubt I'll be called upon to defend that statement, especially if I'm preaching to the choir. But if someone challenges me, and I want to present myself as any kind of authority on the issue, then I should be prepared to find citations and quotes... valid research. This article is getting plenty of challenges from all sides; so, while you may be right that in certain instances it is not necessary to cite every counterpoint, this is not one of those instances.

And this is issue-neutral. My observation was general, that is to say, there's no solid research presented on either side of the issue... the childlovers' or their critics'. Marlais 16:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Properly educated"

"Properly educated" is inherently POV, since nowhere is it defined what "properly educated" means. It is one of the most loaded phrases in the whole article. By using it without challenge it suggests that the problem is not that there is a risk that children could be damaged by pedophiles but that the problem is that children have not been properly prepared for the experience, putting the onus on parents, the education system and society in general. "Proper" can be defined as "marked by suitability or rightness or appropriateness." What is improper in telling children that others, and especially adults, are not allowed to touch you in any way that makes you uncomfortable. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I consider the statement nonsense in the first place. Informed consent with a child is not possible. However it is controversial if it is necessary and why simple consent is not enough. --Moonlight shadow 07:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Objectives of Movement

Two of the stated objectives of the childlove movement, raising awareness of child sexuality and support for youth rights have been removed. The argument has been that these are only 'euphemisms'. This may be the case, but they still are objectives of the movement and should be mentioned. If the wording of the objectives needs to be changed, so be it. But deleting them altogether is not accurate. --Zanthalon 06:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to these items being restored, if they can be examined critically. Support by pedophiles for "youth rights" is rather like a hunter's demanding the right of deer to "be unfettered" and "run free" by not being forced to remain in a no-hunting preserve. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I don't make controversial edits without putting an entry here. And, yes, I make my POV very clear, in both the comments for the edit and in my entries here. Samboy 09:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

recent edits

samboy just left me a note to tell me I should explain... well if it aint obvious - sorry if i'm a bit terse... it just cause more wife is about to summon me for some domestic duties :-) ... IMHO:

1. pedophilia is, at best, a sickness or a crime. it may be both
2. child love is euphemism for an abhorent, repugnant behaviour that is, as far as I know, illegal in every country in the world.
3. most of the links should only appear on the pedophile page since childlove is merely a euphemism
4. the child love page should really only address the history of the euphemism. The rest can be dealt with on pedophilia.

I'll talk more, domestic situation permitting. best wishes to all. (I'll need to a bit of research on some of my more sweeping claims ;-) Erich 11:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMHO (What makes your opinion better than mine?)

1. heterosexuality is, at best, a sickness or a crime. It may be both.
2. adult love is a euphamism for an abhorrent, repugnant behaviour that is, as far as I know, illegal before marriage in some countries.
3. most of the links should only appear on the heterophile page since adult love is merely a euphamism
4. the adult love page should really only address the history of the euphamism. The rest can be dealt with on heterophilia.

I say that pedophilia is a perfect expression of love that some people cannot understand because they have little brains. Goodbye. Madeline 08:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Erich's opinion is backed up by law, medical opinion and culture as virtually universally understood. Your just as good opinion is backed up by the selfish desire of pedophiles to define love and then impose their definition on the object of that love in defiance of society and the child's parents and determine for that child what his/her "best interest" is to satisfy their deviant sexual desires. This is the first time I've said this on Wikipedia, Madeline, but when you say "goodbye," I hope you are sincere. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your four statements are an excellent expression of your views on this issue. Unfortunately, this article is about the childlove movement, not the Erich movement. If you'd like, I can create a link to an Erich Movement page where you can espouse your views until we run out of bandwidth, but this article should focus on its topic. It is not a critique of childlove (although a well-written critique can certainly be included, and would probably be a good idea). It is a description of the childlove movement, and as such, the writers' opinions are irrelevant. Marlais 16:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

oooh... just found this [1] courtesy of the American Medical Association. excelent current medical synopsis! Erich 12:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is my favourite bit (from the conclusion):

"Clinicians should never forget that an individual who acts on pedophilic urges with a child has committed a crime but also has a psychiatric disorder."

couldn't have said it better myself! Erich 12:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

this is also worth a read, from the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect: "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Sexual Abuse of Children: Subject Review" [2]

Looks great! This is just the kind of solid evidence we need to refute the kind of BS the pedophiles advocacte. Samboy 13:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You forget, however, that pedophilia, by definition, does not imply any action at all. The key clause in your citation, "an individual who acts on pedophilic urges" makes the difference. Since the childlove movement does not advocate breaking the law, your suggestion that it is a 'crime' or a 'repugnant behavior' does not hold water. --Zanthalon 13:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But a major problem of what the movement puts out, not much covered here, is equivocation. They point out early and often that a pedophile does not necessarily act on his urges, but nowhere is it straightforwardly said that a "childlover" is pledged not to act on those urges. To the contrary, the Childlove movement does not simply ask for tolerance for non-active pedophiles as people, it advocates for them to be able to act on those urges. Some of their "goals" mentioned outside the realm of legal advocacy try to validate the behaviour without asking the obvious next question. For example, "openness toward parents" which Clogo (IIRC) defines as "letting parents know what you are up to with their child" (and v.v.); how do they propose to effect that? "Hi, I'm going to take Bobby away for a few hours. We're going to the park, feed the pigeons, pick some flowers and, if the mood strikes us, engage in some oral sex and erotic message. Are you OK with that? If you're not, my group of childlovers is trying to eliminate age of consent legislation so, in the future, it won't matter whether it's OK with you or not." -- Cecropia | Talk 16:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"...but nowhere is it straightforwardly said that a "childlover" is pledged not to act on those urges..."

Actually, this is not true. Here are three examples where 'acting on' the attraction is explicitly discouraged:

• On Disobedience with Children - The Human Face of Pedophilia
• Imperfect Times Call for Imperfect Actions - The BaGL Bulletin
• Ethics - Tom O'Carroll, IPCE

--Zanthalon 16:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, I said pledged, not discouraged. And let's look at some of the "discouragement." From "On Disobedience with Children..."

The fact is, neither sexual experimentation, nor erotic engagements with a partner of their choice, is harmful for children. However, in the current climate of the western world, led by the puritanical right wing of the U.S.A., sacrificing children on the alter of "decency" (their word, not mine) in the name of protecting them, is standard operating procedure. People would literally rather see their children in pain than in the throes of orgasm.

Whoa! We're "discouraging" child molestation (excuse me, childlove) by telling the potential practitioners that it's not their fault they can't diddle other people's kids, it's the "puritanical right wing of the U.S.A."

Everytime a child is discovered engaging in sexual activity, the oppressor puts a figurative gun to her head. If it was with another child, then she is "naughty" and can't be trusted. If it is with someone older, then he is evil, and she is a victim. We cannot use children as shields and cannon fodder, even if it is to regain their right to be fully human. The consequences for them (and us) are just too severe.

Ah, so the children's parents and society are the oppressor. The last two sentences show an "ethics" that highlights the "movement's" aim.

The second article, less egregiously, says in effect, "we childlovers know what we're doing and that it's good for children" but the nasty society makes the beauty ugly, so we have to watch our steps.

The third article is rather long and very interesting and reasoned but too long for me to analyze and encapsulate. I would certainly encourage everyone here to read it fully. But I'm impressed by two excerpts used to illustrate this lecture. First:

In his own paper, Frans [a participant who presented a paper] went so far as to say he believes that conditions are now so bad in society that it has become impossible to have a relationship in conformity with all these principles. As a result, he personally has decided he should not have sexual contacts with a child. Well, that is a decision for him and he is surely to be commended on his strength of character in his Stoical, or some might even say positively saintly, acceptance of reality. It is principled behaviour in the most literal sense.

But is it the last word on the subject? I hope we will all behave in a principled, ethical fashion, but does that mean that unlike other people the only correct life for a paedophile is that of a saint? That prescription would have been too hard for many of the saints themselves, including the great St Augustine, who famously asked God on the question of celibacy to make him good, but not just yet.

Well, "that's his decision." Not much of a general discouragement, and then the speaker goes on to compare pedophiles to saints, and notes that even saints fall... Then:

The classic illustration of [a major clash of moral sentiments] is to imagine seven sailors in a lifeboat. They have enough water on board but they are starving. They have six strong oarsmen who calculate they can reach land before they die but only if they can keep their strength up by eating. The seventh sailor is a little cabin boy who isn't strong enough to row but would be very good to eat. The six rowers can eat him, and survive, or all seven will certainly die unless there is a very unlikely rescue. Now these happen to be very brutal, nasty sailors who would not be troubled by a bad conscience over eating the boy. If they reach land they will be very happy about it. Should they eat the boy? To do so would bring the maximum amount of happiness to the group, thus satisfying the declared social aim of utilitarianism. But many people would find this idea revolting and quickly conclude it would be better for all seven to die than to have six happy survivors. Such people would be human rights advocates who would wish to set out rules, or principles, defining minimum rights, such as the right to life, which it is simply wrong to set aside even in extreme circumstances. Those same people, however, might agree that war is sometimes justifiable even though entirely innocent parties are likely to lose their lives. These matters are not simple.

I would call that an unfortunate simile. Let's see now, there are these six unhappy pedophiles with an important need and a (cute and tasty but otherwhile useless) boy who also might not be happy. The six pedophiles are certain of a method that all six pedophiles, at least, could be happy and, as to the boy...erm... -- Cecropia | Talk 19:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you reporting or critiquing? I mean, I'm fairly impressed by your analysis; you make some excellent points, the kind of stuff an editorial columnist would be very good at. But it seems slightly off-topic. After all, our job here is simply to report on what the "childlove movement" (if such a thing even exists) believes, how they justify their beliefs, and, to round it off, criticism of their beliefs. But our job isn't to prove them wrong (or right). If readers find the critics' arguments more compelling, excellent. If not, maybe the critics need to develop stronger arguments. And vice versa. But our job here is simply to report those arguments, not actually make them.

Wikipedia isn't the place to advocate against childlove, I don't care how distasteful the arguments are. There are places where one could do that, and I would enthusiastically recommend that the more passionate of us go check those places out. They can use the energy. But we should stick to facts here... properly documented and attributed, and reported in a neutral fashion. Marlais 02:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, in the above, I am critiquing, but this is Article Talk, and therefore appropriate. I disagree, at least when dealing with a controversial subject, that you can just "report," at least in the Wikipedia context. In Wikipedia you have no managing editor, so there are only the various writer-editors to attempt to produce NPOV. It's been acknowledged that in a contentious article true NPOV is often not possible, so you try for balance instead, which may only be a second best compromise.

As to this article, any recitation of the "movement's" goals and positions is intensely POV because those goals are so far out of the mainstream. It is as simple as this: "childlovers" want to have open and legal access to other people's children for sexual gratification. Frankly, this expectation is either Quixotic or psychotic. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I think you're giving up too easily. I see no reason why this article can't be reported with neutrality, other than a blatant refusal on the part of the writers (which isn't an excuse; it's a surrender). Why don't we give it a try? Let's organize this article into logical sections, give it a sensible progression, and make a gentlemen's agreement: if the "truth" really is so obvious, we'll write neutrally and have faith that it will come out on its own, and won't need us compromising our own integrity to push it.

I'm anal retentive, so I can certainly do the fact checking. For example: "'Childlovers' want to have open and legal access to other people's children for sexual gratification." Okay, we have three factual points to verify here. (a) "Childlovers want to have..." According to whom? Which childlovers have expressed this view? Do they have names? Organizations? Can we quote some actual words they've used? (b) "...open and legal access to other people's children..." Is this what they are seeking? Where is this documented? Does this apply to all childlovers or are there others with different agenda? (c) "...for their sexual gratification." Is this the primary stated goal for seeking children? Do the childlovers themselves phrase it that way? If so, who? Are their childlovers who see it differently? If so, who? Might there be other goals? If so, what?

All of those questions have verifiable answers. Many times, those answers go along with what your common-sense gut feeling tells you they should be. Sometimes they don't. But in any event, those answers are findable, documentable, and it is certainly possible to report them with neutrality.

Unless, of course, you just refuse to. 201.135.118.251 08:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is very interesting, and I'd like to see it expanded yet more. However, the discussions above are some of the worst examples of agenda-pushing I have seen around here. I have no opinion on childlove and whether it is legitimate or not. That said, as a Wikipedian, I'd recommend that one of two things happen:

1. The article is NPOVd a little more and remains more or less in its present form.
2. The article is deleted entirely, and possibly redirected to paedophilia.

If "childlove" really is just a euphemism for certian behavior that is currently outlawed by most major world governments, then delete this and make it a redirect. If this is not the case, it deserves an article explaining the ideology (with criticisms). But what is being advocated by some users above seems to me to be a heavy-handed, closed-minded dismissal of ideas. No offense intended to anyone, but let's concentrate on neutrality (which may be embodied in deletion or formal criticism, but not wholesale whitewashing either way. I do realize this is a touchy subject for many, however. Comments? Jeeves 01:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you, at any rate. What I've found disturbing is that I have called for research, facts, attribution and citation a number of times, and I seem to get as a stack response, "There's no need to cite evidence! There's no need to use facts! Everybody knows that this is evil and so why bother with NPOV?" It's rather... unsettling, coming from an "encyclopedia."

I've wanted to revamp the whole thing a few times, but I don't feel enthusiastic about putting that level of work into something that will get reverted by the passionate. In my opinion, there is no place for passion in an encyclopedia. Unless, of course, you are passionate about the information itself... That's defensible.

Everyone here needs to read wikipedia:avoid weasel words and bring this article into compliance. Marlais 02:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everyone here should take a look at Marlais' and Madeline's contribution lists and see by their very first edits how much importance should be attached to what they write. Get-back-world-respect 17:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)