Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipaedophilia
Wikipedia is a special place for the many pro-paedophile activists (PPA's) who organize together to create Wikipedia accounts and abuse Wikipedia's policy of inclusiveness and tolerance to promote their point of view. A poster on the Annabelleigh message board (dedicated to adults who want to have sex with very young girls) neatly summed up the project for Wikipedia subversion - "The most important function wikipedia serves is via the pedophilia articles themselves. It is important that they remain fair and unbiased. It is important that they continue to have external links to the support and activist community. The user pages are much less important. It is of the utmost importance that pedophiles newly daring to google "pedophile" or "pedophilia," or look them up directly in wikipedia, in an effort to understand themselves better, are able to get unbiased information and are presented with links to a support forum like GC and/or sites like Lindsay's human face of pedophilia. Many of these men and women are in dire need of support".
Another comment on the Boychat message board says "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].
Often, pedophiles make public calls for other pedophiles to help them swing the balance against those who try to undercut their campaign to subvert Wikipedia. The vast majority of these messages are on Boychat. The posters there reassure each other that it is all right to be a pedophile, and that they should embrace their feelings. It is possible that this sense of camaraderie encourages them to act upon their desires, rather than seek help.
Pedophile editors are a difficult group to deal with. It is understandably hard to find unbiased editors who will go near the subject. The pedophiles, by contrast, are tenacious and incredibly persistent. They naturally identify with one another as a 'persecuted' minority, they have a deep underlying need to justify to, or perhaps to hide from themselves what they are. While they cannot openly advocate the practice - and indeed would never admit to themselves what it really is, they specialise in edits that tend to 'normalise' the practice, or that disguise or deny the fact it is abusive.
For more detailed information on how Wikipedia is being used as a platform for PPA views, see the excellent Wikipedia page at Wikisposure.
Pedospeak
Pedospeak is a terminology affected by pedophiles when referring to their lifestyle. Its purpose is to obscure the negative effects of their actions, and achieving legitimacy amongst the general public. While some pedospeak words are simply abbreviations of terms commonly used by anyone discussing pedophilia, many of the phrases betray a clear attempt to twist the existing terminology in their favor. By changing the language typically used to denote the sexual abuse of children, they hope to portray this abuse in a more benign light. See Pederasty.
See the excellent article at Wikisposure here.
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.) [2]
- 26 June 2008 [AnotherSolipsist] (It's sourced. Your opinion doesn't matter.) [3]
- 26 June 2008 (Undid revision by AnotherSolipsist (talk)Sources not verifiable per WP:VUE. [4]
- 26 June 2008 (edit) (undo)AnotherSolipsist (Talk | contribs) (WP:VUE nowhere supports deleting this kind of information.)[5]
- Removed 26 June (This section is a load of bollocks, Original Research, anachronical interpretation and out-of-context citations) [6]
- 27 June removes category 'Victorian Pederasty' - ('finishing the job') [7]
- 18 July 2008 (restoring missing section, with original French quotations) [8]
- 18 July (rv. - this is not a "missing" section; there is no consensus to include it, per the extensive talk page discussion)[9]
- 23 July 2008 (Restore discussion of his pederasty / homosexuality) [10]
- 23 July 2008 (rvv. - again, no apparent consensus, editor has not made any attempt to discuss) [11]
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.
The History of Homosexuality
One particularly tenacious group of editors are followers of the Left Coast academic William Percy. Percy has an intriguing thesis: that the history of homosexuality is the history of pederasty. According to him, the historical record of homosexuality is a history of older men taking young boys (between the age of 12 and 17, according to the definition he gives) as lovers. Thus Homosexual history has been misrepresented. Paedophilia is central to the real history of homosexuality - and by implication to its true nature; modern 'gay rights' theory has marginalised it.
It is a view enthusiastically adopted by the American paedophile rights assocation NAMBLA. In an essay on their website, David Thorstad argues that "Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization - and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture - ancient Greece and the Renaissance [...] in the late nineteenth century, pederasty was an integral part of the new gay movement", and uses this argument to justify his cry for "the liberation and empowerment of young people", and "the liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general", and to justify his complaint that the gay liberation movement has "increasingly sought to marginalize even demonize cross-generational love".
A corollary is that the modern liberal rights view of homosexuality (i.e. as essentially consensual, governed by same ethical considerations as heterosexual relations) is a historical aberration. The advocates of this view point argue for a 'Golden Age' of pederasty before the growth of the Judaic religions in Europe. The paradigm was Greek culture, in which older men took young boys in the role of benevolent guardian and mentor. Paedophiliac relations accepted in all societies and cultures. The 'fall' occurred with the advent of Judaic morals (and particular Christian Catholic morality), from which our modern liberal view is derived.
This is an intriguing idea, and has all sorts of implications that it is best not to follow up here. I suspect it is not true if Percy's ability as a medieval historian is anything to judge by (his account of medieval philosophy is skewed and idiosyncratic, verging on travesty). In any case, this strange view should have no place in a project that was not designed for 'original research', and whose policies certainly prohibit it.
Yet there are many advocates of this view editing Wikipedia, and you will find it stated or implied in many places. I could give a hundred examples of this from the 'diffs' or edit-differences that are freely available to any member of the public who visits the Wikipedia website.
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. [12]
- 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. [13]
- 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. [14]
- 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", [15], and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing [16]. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors) [17]. [18]
- 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. [19]
- 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? [20]
The Attack
Wikiquette alert - (Phdarts complains)
On 24 June, Phdarts complained about the behaviour of some of the PPA editors:
- In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [21]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) [22]
In return, it seems that the PPAs sought administrative action
- 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)) [23]
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.) [24]
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) [25]
this refers (FT2 archive page).
Greek Love
- Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
- Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty
- Eromenos
- Erastes
- Historical_pederastic_couples
- Cretan_pederasty
- Greek_love
- Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
- Spartan_pederasty
- Theban_pederasty
DPeterson
- "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." [26]
See Dpeterson
Historical Pederastic couples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples&oldid=227420613 old version of talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_pederastic_couples&oldid=221438778
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. [27], [28]
- Pro-pederasty collaboration (canvassing?) [29]
- upset about not getting the requisite pro pederasty editor support? [30]
- rather one-sided view of libel (pro pederast side) [31]
- Very upset [32]
- Denial of significant views [33]
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? [34] [35] looking for blood [36]
Haiduc strange comments September 30 2008
On adding a section to the List of Historical Pederastic Couples, Nandesuka looks at what the sources say, which all say that Montgomery had strong, non-sexual relationships with boys [40]. Haiduc replies with "what does sex have to do with it?"[41], which implies that any man who has a close, non-sexual relationship with an under-aged boy is probably really a pederast. Another editors says that if that's all there is to it, then the list is probably meaningless[42]. Haiduc replies by saying that it is irrelevant what editors think pederasty is, which implies that his position is the objective one[43]. Squeakbox turns the mirror back towards Haiduc...[44]. Haiduc says that he wasn't including himself in his statement and that his position is the "scientific" one [45]. Another editor brings up "child-grooming"[46]....and this comment is removed by an admin[47]. The same sort of process is currently happening at "Theban Pederasty". I don't see how this can be allowed to continue, one way or the other....
VigilancePrime
The damning part of the Wikisposure article is where a connection is drawn between Daniel Lievre who clearly is a very nasty piece of work, and editors on-wiki. This email e.g.
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:27 AM From: lievre@hushmail.com Subject: Fwd: My perma-ban on Wikipedia Fwd to 9 Wikipedia contacts.
-- Forwarded message from Tlato SMD <tlatosmd@googlemail.com> -- After coming back from a few days of wiki-break to cool off and forgive some people, I find that my modest step back has been thanked by perma-banning me. With you as my only accessible Wikipedia contact right now, it would be great if VigilancePrime, Homologeo, and Bikasuishin could be notified that I've left another comment on my talkpage now that I've come back.
It would also be great if users SSBohio, HolokittyNX, Allstarecho, PeaceNT, and maybe others could be notified of my current unwarranted, humiliating situation. TlatoSMD
- Daniel Lièvre (lievre@hushmail.com) Webmaster, Newgon.com.
Clearly directing the named editors to fight against the blocking of the Barry Jameson account [48]
And here for the record is the correct link to the Jameson block on ANI [49]
