Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia
Wikipaedophilia is the home from home for pro-paedophile activists (PPA's). "The reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us." [1].
- "The Wikipedia accounts 'DPeterson' and 'RalphLender' have been banned for a period of one year. These accounts, both operated by Arthur Becker-Weidman, an attachment therapist notorious for pushing his unsupported views on a range of subjects including paedophilia and child sexual abuse. His other sockpuppets (MarkWood, JonesRD, SamDavidson, and JohnsonRon) have been blocked indefinitely." [2]
See Dpeterson
Wikipedia page on Wikisposure.
July 2008 ANI discussion of an administrator who deleted the appalling article Historical_pederastic_couples.
"Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)"
- The need to attack other editors at the same time. [3], [4]
- Pro-pederasty collaboration (canvassing?) [5]
- upset about not getting the requisite pro pederasty editor support? [6]
- rather one-sided view of libel (pro pederast side) [7]
- Very upset [8]
- Denial of significant views [9]
Just a cursory look at the literature shows a significant view that Shively is a NAMBLA advocate man/boy love advocate heckled at cornell Gay Community News. Boston: May 12, 1984. Vol. 11, Iss. 42; pg. 2
“NAMBLA also co-sponsored Shively's visit”
They must be conservative, and the yuk brigade, therefore unworthy? [10] [11] looking for blood [12]
The Jules Verne Article
This article was subject to an extraordinary number of deletes reversions during June and July 2008. The disagreement was over a passage that claimed Verne had a pederastic relationship.
- 26 June 2008 (rv. That's a load of bollocks.) [13]
- 26 June 2008 [AnotherSolipsist] (It's sourced. Your opinion doesn't matter.) [14]
- 26 June 2008 (Undid revision by AnotherSolipsist (talk)Sources not verifiable per WP:VUE. [15]
- 26 June 2008 (edit) (undo)AnotherSolipsist (Talk | contribs) (WP:VUE nowhere supports deleting this kind of information.)[16]
- Removed 26 June (This section is a load of bollocks, Original Research, anachronical interpretation and out-of-context citations) [17]
- 27 June removes category 'Victorian Pederasty' - ('finishing the job') [18]
- 18 July 2008 (restoring missing section, with original French quotations) [19]
- 18 July (rv. - this is not a "missing" section; there is no consensus to include it, per the extensive talk page discussion)[20]
- 23 July 2008 (Restore discussion of his pederasty / homosexuality) [21]
- 23 July 2008 (rvv. - again, no apparent consensus, editor has not made any attempt to discuss) [22]
Note some of the editors' names are in red. These were eventually banned from the project (one of them because he tried to form a relationship with a 12-year old boy who was editing Wikipedia.
Block of Phdarts and Peter Damian
Phdarts edits
User Phdarts contributed to Wikipedia from 19 May 2008 to 29 June 2008, making 380 edits in all. His work, mostly on the Pederasty article was of consistently high standard: well written, well-sourced, and his comments on talk pages are both amusing and pertinent. For example:
- 20 May 2008: In the news media the term tends to be incorrectly used as a synonym for pedophilia, even though the latter designates the sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent boys or girls. This confusion may arise from the fact that a single organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), was the most prominent public advocate for both groups, blurring the practical distinction between pederast and pro-pedophile activism in the public mind, whatever their theoretical differences. [23]
- 24 May 2008: Sure, Haiduc mentioned that there was an article on modern pederasty without linking to it. I did find it rather odd that modern pederasty would be different from pederasty. A merge is necessary, otherwise the majority view will simply not get proper representation. [24]
- 24 May 2008: NAMBLA is a current issue. A pederasty article should not focus so much on times when slaves could not complain about pederasty, or when pedophiles could marry their 7 year old niece. [25]
- 27 May 2008: Pederasty is often associated with child pornography; "The production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" (Crosson-Tower 2007). Some researchers say that the Internet contacts increase paedophilia. For example psychology professor Miguel Angel states that “not all paedophiles become pederasts, but "when someone carries a desire inside, he will tend to try to make it reality", [26], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [27]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [28]. [29]
- 11 June 2008: Please read the related literature. It refers specifically to pederasty. Pederasty is the title of the sections that the information comes from. By restricting pederasty to a rose-tinted anachronistic variety the article will be extremely narrow. Suppressing information will lead to a highly biased article, in this case, in favour of the notion of pederasty as a legitimate activity. There are more than pro-pederasty views to include here. Pederasty is obviously related to child pornography. Pederasts do not only break the law when they abuse children, they also break the law by creating and collecting child pornography. Thats a fact that requires inclusion in this pederasty article. [30]
- 11 June 2008: Scholars on the subject of pederasty include those who write about child abuse and extreme sexual deviance. They are publishers of literature on this matter, and are part of the scholarly literature in general. Can you explain to me why they tend to be deleted so freely on this article? [31]
Wikiquette alert - (Phdarts complains)
In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [32]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [33]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Attack
"What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before).
"The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory.
"I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)) [34]
Phdarts is blocked
05:41, 29 June 2008 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Phdarts (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Reincarnation of banned user.) [35]
Peter Damian (Hinnibilis) is blocked
The effect is to support the efforts of paedophiles, isn't it? PHD is an exceptionally good editor and has a strong scientific knowledge of the subject. Why was he banned in the first place? Why this secrecy? Hinnibilis (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
17:38, 29 June 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs) blocked "Peter Damian (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Harassment of another editor)
But under what strange assumption have I been 'harassing' another user? I accused FT2 of 'in effect' enabling pro-paedophile editors by blocking me and about the only other person prepared to put an end to nonsense claims like 'Jules Verne was a paedophile'. Yes, true. Another set of organisations I am contacting is the many Jules Verne societies. Oops but is that a 'legal threat'? Let's see. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) [36]
this refers (FT2 archive page).
