Talk:History of pro-pedophile activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Clean-up 2 NVD 3 1979 petition support list 4 French version of this article 5 Merge 6 NPOV 7 Deletion of Wrongly Titled Page

[edit] Clean-up

The most immediate thing needed is a proper introduction. Next would be sections and proper style of citations. -TlatoSMD 17:08, 8 May 2006 (CEST)

Yes. Skinnyweed 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize this article is not complete yet, there's still material I have to implement in the second (1970s) and third (late-1970s-onwards) section, as well as amending a guide to the most common acronyms in this context that sources and literature are bursting with. -TlatoSMD 06:16, 12 May 2006 (CEST)

[edit] NVD

In response to JayW:

Dutch NVD (their site and their platform seem to be wiped completely off the internet by now) intended to simply abolish a legal necessity to sue in order to persecute. The media called that "lowering the AoC down to 12" while sex with 12 year-olds is legal already in the Netherlands since November 6th 1990 as according to section 245, paragraph 2, and section 247, paragraph 2 of the Dutch penal code, persecution of sexual activities with a child aged 12-16 does NOT take place EXCEPT in the case of a civil law suit. Hence, the Dutch cheat a bit by publicly saying their AoC would be 16. Germany has a pretty similar legal situation according to their penal code's section 182 requiring either a civil law suit as well OR "public interest" in order to persecute sexual activities with a minor aged 14-16, while the more strict section 176 deals with anything below the age of 14, and the Germans are more honest than the Dutch by admitting that it makes their legal AoC 14 (sect. 176) instead of 16 (sect. 182). If you say NVD intended to "abolish the legal AoC" it appears as if they aimed for an AoC of 0, and that's clearly wrong, they simply intended to abolish a last resort to legally persecute sexual activities with a person aged 12-16, that is the requirement to sue before any persecution can take place. -TlatoSMD 20:16, 18 Jun 2006 (CEST)

[edit] 1979 petition support list

This article was used as a reference in an ongoing discussion. A conservative poster has denied conservative/religious groups could possibly sign the petition, and has thus deleted the list entries which displeased him. He shows no evidence of having read the article quoted along with the list. I think this page should be protected in order to avoid POV-pushing. Amorim Parga 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French version of this article

Hey !

Some months ago, I translated this page in French, what lead to violent discussions, and the decision of clearing it from the French Wikipédia until it would be neutral. Now, there is a new History of pedophile activism, using as sources almost 60 different essays and articles, mainly from mainstream media, historian or psychologist — that is non-paedophiles. I think it could be useful to use some elements of the French article in the English one, which is quite incomplete, quite anglo-centered (?), and quite unneutral. Glotz 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This short article on a marginally notable subject should be merged inot the larger Pedophile activism, SqueakBox 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no spontaneous merges. as you can see, the discussion is being hosted on the talkpage of the other article. --Jim Burton 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article needs to incorporate anti pedophile activist history in order to be NPOV, SqueakBox 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What? The article is specifically here to document the history of the pro - pedophile movement, not any one particular culture war. A decent article about a POV treats that POV as the subject matter, e.g. Gay liberation. Whilst specific historical events do not require separate accounts of either side's POV or activities, e.g. Battle of Sedan or Stonewall riots, historical movements do. Jim♥Burton 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In this article the opposition and criticism should be incorporated within the flow of the text, rather than being segregated at the end. It's important to reflect the contemporaneous criticism that the "movement" was receiving, and the legal and cultural landscape in which it occurred. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this point, and it's worth noting that the current article fulfils such requirements (to some extent, as far as I've read). What I oppose is the idea that the article should consider 'anti pedophile activism' as an equal concern, as part of the subject matter Jim♥Burton 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Last positive progress although not required does not contain any POV, it simply indicates that progresses in the movement are contributing to a heightening of profile. I think that if someone sees this as POV, it may in fact reveal more about the person reading the sentence. Jim♥Burton 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Wrongly Titled Page

Could someone explain to me why the page entitled "History of pro edophile activism" still exists? The title is clearly misspelled, and any discussion from that page could easily be transferred to the discussion page of the correctly spelled page. If there's no real reason why the incorrectly titled page still exists, could someone please delete it. What's extra funny is that it still redirects to "History of pro pedophile activism," as if someone would actually search in Wikipedia for the incorrect title. I would also appreciate if someone could explain to me how the deletion process works, for I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia.

Thanx in advance, Homologeo 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see about deleting the misspelled redirect. For general info see WP:deletion. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)