|
[[Image:020926-O-9999G-015.jpg|thumb|Pilots of the 332nd Fighter Group, "Tuskegee Airmen," the elite, all-African American 332nd Fighter Group at Ramitelli, Italy., from left to right, Lt. Dempsey W. Morgan, Lt. Carroll S. Woods, Lt. Robert H. Nelron, Jr., Capt. Andrew D. Turner and Lt. Clarence P. Lester.]]
<small>Earlier material in [[/Archive 3]], [[/Archive 2]] and [[/Archive 1]]</small>
The '''Tuskegee Airmen''' ([[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA pronunciation]]: {{IPA|[təˈski.gi]}}<ref>See [http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/Tuskegee Pronunciation of Tuskegee].</ref>) was the popular name of a group of [[African American]] pilots who flew with distinction during [[World War II]] as the [[332nd Fighter Group]] of the [[United States Army Air Forces|US Army Air Corps]].
This article was proposed for deletion and failed to reach a consensus. The deletion discussion is now archived here at [[/Deletion_debate_archive]]. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|Talk]] 23:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== Weasel words Origins==
[[Image:P-51C bomber escort.jpg|thumb|right|Aircraft of the 332d Fighter Group; the "redtails" of the Tuskegee Airmen. The nearest aircraft depicted is that of Lt. Lee Archer, the only ace among the Tuskegee Airmen.]]
Prior to the Tuskegee Airmen, no US military [[aviator|pilots]] had been African American. However, a series of legislative moves by the [[United States Congress]] in 1941 forced the Army Air Corps to form an all-black combat unit, much to the War Department's chagrin. In an effort to eliminate the unit before it could begin, the War Department set up a system to accept only those with a level of flight experience or higher education that they expected would be hard to fill. This policy backfired when the Air Corps received numerous applications from men who qualified even under these restrictions.
The US Army Air Corps had established the [[Psychological Research Unit 1]] at [[Maxwell Army Air Field]], [[Alabama]], and other units around the country for aviation cadet training, which included the identification, selection, education, and training of pilots, [[flight officer|navigator]]s and [[bombardier (rank)|bombardier]]s. Psychologists employed in these research studies and training programs used some of the first [[standardized tests]] to quantify [[IQ]], [[dexterity]], and [[leadership]] qualities in order to select and train the right personnel for the right role (bombardier, pilot, navigator). The Air Corps determined that the same existing programs would be used for all units, including all-black units. At Tuskegee, this effort would continue with the selection and training of the Tuskegee Airmen.
Leaving aside the fact that this is a controversial subject, I'm concerned about the [[weasel word]]s that are in this piece. We need clarification:
==Training==
* "Many in the movement actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to properly consent to sex" - who exactly?
On [[19 March]] [[1941]], the 99th Pursuit Squadron (Pursuit being the pre-World War II descriptive for "Fighter") was activated at [[Chanute Field]] in [[Rantoul, Illinois]].<ref> Francis 1988, p. 15. Note: It was a lawsuit or the threat of a law suit from a rejected candidate that caused the USAAC to accept black applicants.</ref> Over 250 enlisted men were trained at Chanute in aircraft ground support trades. This small number of enlisted men was to become the core of other black squadrons forming at Tuskegee and Maxwell fields in Alabama– the famed Tuskegee Airmen.
* "Many opponents of the childlove movement believe the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all adult-child sexual contact to be abuse." - who exactly?
[[Image:040315-F-9999G-024.jpg|thumb|left|Major James A. Ellison returns the salute of Mac Ross of Dayton, Ohio, as he passes down the line during review of the first class of Tuskegee cadets; flight line at US Army Air Corps basic and advanced flying school, Tuskegee, Alabama, 1941 with Vultee BT-13 trainers in the background.]]
* In the section [[Childlove movement#Terminology advocacy|Terminology advocacy]] it says:
In June 1941, the Tuskegee program officially began with formation of the [[99th Fighter Squadron]] at the [[Tuskegee Institute]], a highly regarded university founded by [[Booker T. Washington]] in [[Tuskegee, Alabama]].<ref> Thole 2002, p. 48. Note: The Coffey School of Aeronautics in Chicago was also considered.</ref> The unit consisted of an entire service arm, including ground crew, and not just pilots. After basic training at [[Moton Field]], they were moved to the nearby [[Tuskegee Army Air Field]] about 16 km (ten miles) to the west for conversion training onto operational types. The Airmen were placed under the command of Capt. [[Benjamin O. Davis Jr.]], one of the few African American [[United States Military Academy|West Point]] graduates. His father [[Benjamin O. Davis, Sr.]] was the first black general in the US Army.
:*"Pedophiles in the childlove movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the term "childlover" (as well as the terms "boylover" or "girllover") to replace the term "pedophile" due to its pejorative connotations. The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet." - source of this information? How do we know this?
:*"These pedophiles often reject the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" arguing..." - source of this information?!
:*"They argue that..." Who again? Source?
:*"They claim to support only "consensual" and "non-coercive" relationships with minors" Who? Source?
:*"Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence" - source of information (in this case a study or report would do as I realise that outing a reformed pedophile would not be a good thing)
:*"Many ephebophiles object to the term "childlover" since they are attracted only to adolescents, whom they consider to be physically and emotionally adults rather than children" Source?
*"Most people who identify with the childlove movement believe that the movement should attempt to..." isn't this a very broad generalisation? How can one editor speak for the whole organisation? Where is the source of this information? Should this sentence be modified?
*"Those who advocate the legalization of intimate contacts with children claim..." - please provide a source.
:*"They stress that they are interested in..." who are ''they''?
:*"They claim that children are fully capable of expressing their desire" - who? We need to clarify who "they" are
:*"The argument follows" - whose argument?
:*"they assert that children can understand" - defined they
:*"They also fail to take into account the well-documented psychological damage that sexually intimate relationships have on children." - (disclaimer: I added this.) - who are "they"?
During its training, the 99th Fighter Squadron was commanded by white and Puerto Rican officers, beginning with Capt. George "Spanky" Roberts. By 1942, however, it was Col. Frederick Kimble who oversaw operations at the Tuskegee airfield. Kimble proved to be highly unpopular with his subordinates, whom he treated with disdain and disrespect. Later that year, the Air Corps replaced Kimble with Maj. Noel Parrish. Parrish, counter to the prevalent racism of the day, was fair and open-minded, and petitioned Washington to allow the Tuskegee Airmen to serve in combat.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
We need clarification here now that the Wikipedia majority has decided not to remove this page.
In response, a hearing was convened before the [[House Armed Services Committee]] to determine whether the Tuskegee Airmen "experiment" should be allowed to continue. The committee accused the Airmen of being incompetent — based on the fact that they had not seen any combat in the entire time the "experiment" had been underway. To bolster the recommendation to scrap the project, a member of the committee commissioned and then submitted into evidence a "scientific" report by the [[University of Texas]] which purported to prove that Negroes were of low intelligence and incapable of handling complex situations (such as air combat). The majority of the Committee, however, decided in the Airmen's favor, and the 99th Pursuit Squadron soon joined two new squadrons out of Tuskegee to form the all-black [[332nd Fighter Group]].
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 11:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==Combat==
:I think you mean "that the Wikipedia majority has not decided to remove this page". Deciding not to do something is not the same as not deciding to do it. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 13:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:99th Fighter Squadron patch.jpg|thumb|right|Patch of the 99th Fighter Squadron]]
The 99th was ready for combat duty during some of the Allies' earliest actions in the [[North African campaign]], and was transported to [[Casablanca]], [[Morocco]], on the ''[[USS Mariposa]]''. From there, they travelled by train to [[Oujda]] near [[Fes]], and made their way to [[Tunis]] to operate against the [[Luftwaffe]]. The flyers and ground crew were largely isolated by racial segregation practices, and left with little guidance from battle-experienced pilots. Operating directly under the [[Twelfth Air Force]] and the XII Air Support Command, the 99th FS and the Tuskegee Airmen were bounced around between three groups, the 33rd FG, 324th FG, and 79th FG. The 99th's first combat mission was to attack the small but strategic volcanic island of [[Pantelleria]] in the [[Mediterranean Sea]] between [[Sicily]] and [[Tunisia]], in preparation for the [[Allied invasion of Sicily]] in [[July]] [[1943]]. The 99th moved to Sicily while attached to the [[33rd Fighter Group]],<ref name="duc"/> whose commander, Col. [[William Momyer|William W. Momyer]], fully involved the squadron, and the 99th received a [[Distinguished Unit Citation]] for its performance in Sicily.
[[Image:020903-o-9999b-098.jpg|thumb|left|Tuskegee Airmen in front of a <br />[[Curtiss P-40|P-40]].]]
The Tuskegee Airmen were initially equipped with [[Curtiss P-40|P-40 Warhawk]]s, later with [[P-47 Thunderbolt]]s, and finally with the airplane that they would become most identified with, the [[P-51 Mustang]].
On [[27 January]] and [[28 January]] [[1944]], German [[Fw 190]] fighter-bombers raided [[Anzio Campaign|Anzio]], where the Allies had conducted amphibious landings on [[January 22]]. Attached to the 79th Fighter Group, eleven of the 99th Fighter Squadron's pilots shot down enemy fighters, including Capt. Charles B. Hall, who shot down two, bringing his aerial victory total to three. The eight fighter squadrons defending Anzio together shot down a total of 32 German aircraft, and the 99th had the highest score among them with 13.<ref name="kills">Haulman, Dr. Daniel L. ''Aerial Victory Credits of the Tuskegee Airmen''. AFHRA Maxwell AFB. [http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070207-059.pdf] Access date: [[16 February]] [[2007]].</ref>
::Actually, what I meant was the majority of people who voted on VfD voted to keep this page. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The squadron won its second [[Distinguished Unit Citation]] on [[12 May]]-[[14 May]] [[1944]], while attached to the 324th Fighter Group, attacking German positions on Monastery Hill ([[Battle of Monte Cassino|Monte Cassino]]), attacking infantry massing on the hill for a counterattack, and bombing a nearby strong point to force the surrender of the German garrison to [[Moroccan]] [[Goumier]]s.
:::According to the tally at the top of the deletion debate, only 21 out of 47 people voted to keep the article. How is that a majority? - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 05:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:100th Fighter Squadron patch.jpg|thumb|right|Patch of the 100th Fighter Squadron]]
By this point, more graduates were ready for combat, and the all-black [[332nd Fighter Group]] had been sent overseas with three fighter squadrons: the [[100th Flying Training Squadron|100th]], [[301st Fighter Squadron|301st]] and [[302nd Fighter Squadron|302nd]]. Under the command of Col. [[Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.|Benjamin O. Davis]], the squadrons were moved to mainland [[Italy]], where the 99th FS, assigned to the group on [[1 May]], joining them on [[6 June]]. The Airmen of the 332nd Fighter Group escorted bombing raids into [[Austria]], [[Hungary]], [[Poland]] and [[Germany]].
Flying escort for heavy bombers, the 332nd racked up an impressive combat record, often entering combat against greater numbers of superior German aircraft and coming out victorious. Reportedly, the Luftwaffe awarded the Airmen the nickname, "Schwarze Vogelmenschen," or "Black Birdmen." The Allies called the Airmen "Redtails" or "Redtail Angels," because of the distinctive crimson paint on the vertical stabilizers of the unit's aircraft. Although bomber groups would request Redtail escort when possible, few bomber crew members knew at the time that the Redtails were black.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
::::And yet, this article is still here. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 07:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:tuskegee airmen.jpg|thumb|left|Tuskegee Airmen gathered at a US base after a mission in the Mediterranean theater.]]
While it had long been said that the Redtails were the only fighter group who never lost a bomber to enemy fighters,<ref>[http://www.pingry.k12.nj.us/about/articles/2002-nov-11-tuskegee.html Lt. Col. Thomas E. Highsmith, Jr.; speech at The Pingry School, 8 November 2002]</ref> suggestions to the contrary, combined with Air Force records and eyewitness accounts indicating that at least 25 bombers were lost to enemy fire, resulted in the Air Force conducting a reassessment of the history of this famed unit in the fall of 2006.
The claim that the no bomber escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen had ever been lost to enemy fire first appeared on [[24 March]] [[1945]]. The claim came from an article, published in the [[Chicago Defender]], under the headline "332nd Flies Its 200th Mission Without Loss." Ironically, this article was published on the very day that, according to the [[28 March]] [[2007]] Air Force report, some bombers under 332nd Fighter Group escort protection were shot down.<ref> ''Report: Tuskegee Airmen lost 25 bombers''. The Associated Press, [[1 April]] [[2007]]. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-01-tuskegee-airmen_N.htm] Access date: [[1 April]] [[2007]].</ref><ref>[http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2006/12/11/539246.html Comcast.net news; Access date: [[11 December]] [[2006]] (Article ID:539246)]</ref><ref>''Ex-Pilot Confirms Bomber Loss, Flier Shot down in 1944 was Escorted by Tuskegee Airmen''. Washington Post, [[17 December]] [[2006]], p. A18.</ref><ref>AP Story [[29 March]] [[2007]]</ref> The subsequent report, based on after-mission reports filed by both the bomber units and Tuskegee fighter groups as well as missing air crew records and witness testimony, was released in March 2007 and documented 25 bombers shot down by enemy [[fighter aircraft]] while being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen.<ref>Report: ''Tuskegee Airmen lost 25 bombers''. The Associated Press, [[2 April]] [[2007]]
:::::The article is still here because there was not a majority of votes in favour of deletion. It is votes for ''deletion'', not votes to keep the article. A lack of majority in favour of deletion in this case does not translate to a majority in favour of keeping the article. Less than half of the voters wanted the article kept here. But, at the same time, less than half wanted the content deleted completely. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 03:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=17731] Access date: [[10 April]] [[2007]].</ref>
::::::I do not understand why an article should be censored/deleted just because a majority does not agree with its idea. Then since many are against communism should we remove the articles about communism from Wikipedia? I believe that a correct information is ONLY given when we do not let someone censor something just because he/she does not agree with it. (btw, is there a way to insert articles here without having to edit everything?)--[[User:Lucat|Lucat]] 01:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A [[B-25]] bomb group, the [[477th Bombardment Group (Medium)]], was forming in the US but completed its training too late to see action. The 99th Fighter Squadron after its return to the United States became part of the 477th, redesignated the 477th Composite Group.
:I agree with many of your points. The information in the article is mostly one or a few editors' generalizations based on their impressions, and the source material they've chosen to use. But I can answer a few questions: "The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet". As for the term "boylove", we can know this by examining the history of [http://www.boychat.org Boychat]. If this is not the place where the term was invented, it was certainly where it was popularized, and where the first open community of boylovers formed (and where the logo was designed, etc). As for the term "childlove", I don't think I have heard it before coming to this article. I think it may have been invented by Wikipedians in need of a generic title. "Many of them have chosen a life of sexual abstinence". This was my sentence (and it was later removed), based on empirical data on myself, the boylovers I know personally and the impression I get from the community at large. I acknowledge that it is no scientific fact, but with so little research going on, it's hard to find any. "These pedophiles often reject the words ...". Not my words, but I know for a fact that it's true in the community (I myself can seldom bring me to even utter the word around people), and it's the very reason the term "boylove" was invented in the first place. The rest of your objections are mostly "who are 'they'?" (for the most, I can say "certainly not I"). I'm not sure what you're after here. Names? [[User:Clayboy|Clayboy]] 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the end of the war, the Tuskegee Airmen were credited with 109 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down,<ref name="kills"/> a patrol boat run aground by machine-gun fire, and destruction of numerous fuel dumps, trucks and trains. The squadrons of the 332nd FG flew more than 15,000 sorties on 1,500 missions. The unit received recognition through official channels and was awarded a [[Presidential Unit Citation (US)|Distinguished Unit Citation]] for a mission flown [[24 March]] [[1945]], escorting B-17s to bomb the [[Daimler-Benz]] tank factory at [[Berlin, Germany]], an action in which its pilots destroyed three [[Me-262]] jets in aerial combat. The 99th Fighter Squadron in addition received two DUCs, the second after its assignment to the 332nd FG.<ref name="duc"> ''Air Force Historical Study 82''. AFHRA Maxwell AFB. [http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/916794.pdf] Access date: [[16 February]] [[2007]].</ref> The Tuskegee Airmen were awarded several [[Silver Star Medal|Silver Stars]], 150 [[Distinguished Flying Cross (USA)|Distinguished Flying Cross]]es, 14 [[Bronze Star Medal|Bronze Stars]] and 744 [[Air Medal]]s.
:No, not names. Only sources to studies so we can verify the facts in this article. That's why I emphasised the "They" bit. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In all, 992 pilots were trained in Tuskegee from 1940 to 1946; about 445 deployed overseas, and 150 Airmen lost their lives in training or combat.<ref>http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1356</ref>
==Postwar==
== Almost totally bulls**t paragarph ==
[[Image:tuskegee airman poster.jpg|thumb|Color poster of a Tuskegee Airman]]
Far from failing as originally expected, a combination of pre-war experience and the personal drive of those accepted for training had resulted in some of the best pilots in the US Army Air Corps. Nevertheless, the Tuskegee Airmen continued to have to fight [[racism]]. Their combat record did much to quiet those directly involved with the group (notably bomber crews who often requested them for escort), but other units were less than interested and continued to harass the Airmen.
All of these events appear to have simply stiffened the Airmen's resolve to fight for their own rights in the US. After the war, the Tuskegee Airmen once again found themselves isolated. In [[1949]] the 332nd entered the yearly gunnery competition and won. After segregation in the military was ended in [[1948]] by President [[Harry S. Truman]] with [[Executive Order 9981]], the Tuskegee Airmen now found themselves in high demand throughout the newly formed [[United States Air Force]].
"Western society in general completely rejects all forms of pedophilia because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with. Despite this societal rejection, many pedophiles claim to understand this power imbalance, and have proposed an ethical framework that could allow acceptance of their desire for sexual interaction with children."
Many of the surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen annually participate in the Tuskegee Airmen Convention, which is hosted by [[Tuskegee Airmen, Inc]].
How many unproven assertions can we put in a single paragraph?
#''Western society in general''. Begging the quesion--this implies eastern cultures are not opposed. AFAIK, even socities such as Cambodia where children are the subject of sex tourism don't approve of it, whether or not they actively suppress it. Cultures that tolerate or encourage some sex play among children (as observed, among others, by Margaret Mead) do not allow that interaction between children and adults.
#''because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between them and the adults they are involved with''. Straw man--the power imbalance is only one aspect of social rejection of pedophilia. Others include emotional damage to children, the rights of parents, society's interest in the physical health of children, the immaturity of children to understand the consequences of forming sexual relations, and the incompetence of children to consent.
#''an ethical framework''. Self-referential nonsense. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|Talk]] 05:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In 2005, four Tuskegee Airmen (Lt. Col. Lee Archer, Lt. Col. Robert Ashby, MSgt. James Sheppard, and TechSgt. George Watson) flew to Balad, Iraq, to speak to active duty airmen serving in the current incarnation of the 332nd, reactivated as first the 332d Air Expeditionary Group in 1998 and made part of the [[332d Air Expeditionary Wing]]. "This group represents the linkage between the 'greatest generation' of airmen and the 'latest generation' of airmen," said Lt. Gen. Walter E. Buchanan III, commander of the [[Ninth Air Force]] and US Central Command Air Forces, in an e-mail to the Associated Press.
* Whoever you are (you didn't sign this) I've no problem with someone removing it - I modified it before to make the best of a very bad job. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 05:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Legacy and honors==
* P.S. Those are good edits, though I'm sure they'll be altered by someone who claims it's POV. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 09:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Tuskegee Airmen + US Congressional Gold Medals, 2007March29.jpg|thumb|President George W. Bush presented the Congressional Gold Medal to about 300 Tuskegee Airmen on 29 March 2007 at the US Capitol.]]
On [[29 March]] [[2007]], about 350 Tuskegee Airmen and their widows were collectively awarded the [[Congressional Gold Medal]]<ref name=THOMAS>Library of Congress. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110J3sEbQ:: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on [[29 March]] [[2007]], for a ceremony to award a Congressional... (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)], [[7 March]] [[2007]]. </ref> at a ceremony in the [[United States Capitol rotunda|US Capitol rotunda]].<ref>Price, Deb. ''Nation to honor Tuskegee Airmen''. The Detroit News, [[29 March]] [[2007]]. [http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/NATION/703290308] Access date: [[29 March]] [[2007]].</ref><ref> ''Tuskegee Airmen Gold Medal Bill Signed Into Law''. Office of Congressman Charles B. Rangel. [http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementTuskegeeBillSigned04112006.html] Access date: [[26 October]] [[2006]].</ref><ref>
Evans, Ben. ''Tuskegee Airmen awarded Congressional Gold Medal''. Associated Press, [[30 March]] [[2007]].
[http://thetandd.com/articles/2007/03/30/news/doc460c7d58cd40f058827045.txt]
Access date: [[30 April]] [[2007]].</ref> The medal will go on display at the [[Smithsonian Institution]]; individual honorees will receive bronze replicas.<ref>AP Story [[29 March]] [[2007]]</ref>
The airfield where the airmen trained is now the [[Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site]].<ref>Official NPS website: [http://www.nps.gov/tuai/ Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site]</ref>
:I somehow disagree that "Western society in general" implies that Eastern cultures are not opposed. It can be as well understood as a reservation from the author of the article. I myself would affirm that Western society in general disapproves of sexual contacts between adults and children; but I don't consider myself enough of an expert on the mores of the rest of the world to affirm anything about them. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 11:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In 2006, California Congressman [[Adam Schiff]], and Missouri Congressman [[William Lacy Clay, Jr.]], have led the initiative to create a commemorative postage stamp to honor the Tuskegee Airmen.<ref>[http://schiff.house.gov/HoR/CA29/Newsroom/Press+Releases/2006/Schiff+Votes+to+Honor+Tuskegee+Airmen.htmSchiff Votes to Honor Tuskegee Airmen]</ref>
== Western Societies vs. World's Cultures ==
== Film, media and other facts==
[[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] changed the sentence stating that "western societies" reject idea of pedophilia to say that "world's cultures" reject it. My fist impulse was to restore that phrase to its original status, but maybe i'm just wrong. Can someone please provide examples of non-european contries actively rejecting adult-child sexual relationship before western conquests have began. And please don't confuse lack of active welcoming of such relationships for rejection of it. [[User:Beta m|Beta m]] 09:53, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
* In 1945, the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps produced ''[[Wings for This Man]]'', a "propaganda" short about the unit narrated by [[Ronald Reagan]].
:Considering that most world societies are not now accepting of adult-prepubsecent child sexual relationships, I think we would need to demonstrate the ''positive'' that these relationships ''were'' accepted before western influence. Even if pre-modern societies are found that accepted such relationships, this does not negate the fact that ''current'' societies almost universally reject it.
* In 1996, [[HBO]] produced and aired ''[[The Tuskegee Airmen]]'', starring [[Laurence Fishburne]].
* The Tuskegee Airmen are represented in the 1997 [[G.I. Joe]] action figure series.<ref>[http://www.mastercollector.com/neat/gijoe/hasbro/1997joes.html 1997 G.I. Joe Classic Collection]</ref>
* Television host [[Fred Rogers]]' foster brother was an instructor for the Tuskegee Airmen and taught Rogers how to fly.<ref>Garfield, Eugene. ''Mister Rogers on the Roots of Nurturing and the Untapped Role of Men in Professional Childcare''. Current Comments, [[25 September]] [[1989]]. [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p270y1989.pdf#search=%22%22mr.%20rogers%22%20tuskegee%22]
Access date: [[24 September]] [[2006]].</ref>
* In the book ''Wild Blue'', by [[Stephen Ambrose]], the Tuskegee Airmen were mentioned, and honoured.
* The 2004 documentary film ''Silver Wings and Civil Rights: The Fight to Fly'', was the first film to feature the "Freeman Field Mutiny," the struggle of 101 African-American officers arrested for entering a white officer's club. [http://www.fight2fly.com/]
* May 17, 2005, [[George Lucas]] is planning a film about the Tuskegee Airmen called ''Red Tails''. Lucas says, "They were the only escort fighters during the war that never lost a bomber so they were, like, the best."<ref>[http://www.filmfocus.co.uk/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=335 Exclusive: Lucas looks to the future]</ref>
[[Image:Col Benjamin Oliver Davis, Jr.jpg|thumb|right|Col. [[Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.]], commander of the Tuskegee Airmen 332nd Fighter Group, in front of his [[P-47 Thunderbolt]] in Sicily.]]
:Looking at this from another perspective, it is too common to use "western societies reject...", "western socities assert..." and such phrases as implicit indications that the issue being discussed is warped by western cultural prejudice. Frankly, the western cultural background of many scholars who claim to speak for other cultures sometimes causes them to come to incorrect conclusions. One that comes to mind is the concept that pre-modern cultures of Pacific islanders are "natural" in their views of sexuality and unfettered by Western "hang-ups." But this is not necessarily so. Some cultures where women ordinarily bare their breasts (a common indicator to some of sexual openness) have a prohibition on revealing any part of their lower bodies in public, sometimes including their ankles. IIRC, one of the cultures where Margaret Meade noted sex play among children concurrently had a stronger cult of virginity than most western cultures. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|Talk]] 16:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==References==
::What you are saying is almost like what many religious groups claim. "We don't need to prove that god exists," they say, "You try to prove that he doesn't". Well it's absolutely impossible to prove the negative. I can't prove that i'm a cammel. I can say that i don't have a hump, but you will just reply that i can be a crippled cammel. I can say that my DNA is that of a human, and you will say that cammels might have evolved into tricking DNA tests. Therefore, it would be futile for me to argue that at least some societies do not reject adult-child sex. I can't actually even give an example. I'm just asking for sources about this world-wide belief that you have asserted.
{{reflist}}
::And i didn't see any relevance of the baring breasts example... although i agree with you, i don't see the point. [[User:Beta m|Beta m]] 10:52, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
==Sources==
:::I'm from India (not a western culture) and I can definitively say that sexual relationships between young kids and adults in modern day India are both societally frowned upon and totally illegal. There was the case in Mumbai a few months (years?) ago where a British couple took sexually suggestive pictures of young boys (8-12 yrs old) living in an orphanage that they ran. The pictures leaked out and caused a major uproar in the country. Whether India's current frowning upon paedophilia is imported from European colonialism or has been with us for centuries I don't know though. I have heard though (don't ask me for proof) that in the Tibetian monasteries of old, the older monks used to sodomoze the younger trainee monks routinely. Again, whether this was officially "approved" or just ignored for the sake of practical matters like it is in Cambodia today I don't know. In either case this is a possible avenue of research to pursue if you can find appropriate source material. [[User:Qwertyca|Qwertyca]] 23:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
* Bucholtz, Chris and Laurier, Jim. ''332nd Fighter Group - Tuskegee Airmen''. London: Osprey Publishing, 2007. ISBN 1-84603-044-7.
* Cotter, Jarrod. "Red Tail Project." ''Flypast, No, 248, March 2002''.
* Francis, Charles F. ''The Tuskegee Airmen: The Men who Changed a Nation''. Boston: Branden Publishing Company, 1988. ISBN 0-8283-1908-1.
* Hill, Ezra M. Sr. ''The Black Red Tail Angels: A Story of the Tuskegee Airmen''. Columbus, Ohio: SMF Haven of Hope. 2006.
* Leuthner, Stuart and Jensen, Olivier. ''High Honor: Recollections by Men and Women of World War II Aviation''. Washington, DC: [[Smithsonian Institution Press]], 1989. ISBN 0-87474-650-7.
* McKissack, Patricia C. and Fredrick L. ''Red Tail Angels: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II''. New York: Walker Books for Young Readers, 1996. ISBN 0-80278-292-2.
* Ross, Robert A. ''Lonely Eagles: The Story of America's Black Air Force in World War II''. Los Angeles: Tuskegee Airmen Inc., Los Angeles Chapter, 1980. ISBN 0-917612-00-0.
* Sandler, Stanley. ''Segregated Skies: All-Black Combat Squadrons of WWII.'' Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. ISBN 1-56098-154-7.
* Thole, Lou. "Segregated Skies." ''Flypast, No, 248, March 2002''.
==External links==
==Calling it like it is==
{{Commons|Tuskegee Airmen}}
* [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802782922 "Red-Tail Angels": The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II]
* [http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/international/tuskegee_010814.html Tuskegee reunion: A whopping tale of coincidence]
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/ The Tuskegee Airmen (1995)]
* [http://www.shoppbs.org/sm-pbs-the-tuskegee-airmen--pi-1402874.html The Tuskegee Airmen] [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] [[Documentary film]]hello
* [http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/reference/articles/tuskegee_airmen.html Reference Room: African American World, Articles, Tuskegee Airmen PBS [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]]
At somepoint we need to make sure that pure weasel words and fluff does not disguise the exact nature of what is going on here. Here is an example: 'Ashford also stresses that childlove is "an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them."'
* [http://www.aeromuseum.org/Exhibits/travel.html 99th Pursuit Squadron at Chanute Field]
* [http://www.blackaviation.com/blackhistory.html Articles about the Tuskegee Airmen] from the [[Chicago Defender]] newspaper, 1944, at Black Aviation Enterprises
* [http://tuskegeeairmen.org/ Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. - Official Web Site]
* [http://www.redtail.org/ The Red Tail Project]
* [http://www.army.mil/africanamericans/ African Americans in the U.S. Army]
* [http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=070329&cat=news&st=newsd8o61bb00&src=ap AP Story March 28, 2007]
* [http://www.aaregistry.com/ National Museum of the United States Air Force: Eugene Jacques Bullard]
* [http://www.bahai.us/node/195 Honored Tuskegee Airmen include two Baha’is] Airmen Dempsey W. Morgan, far left in the header picture, and Myron Wilson are members of the [[Bahá'í faith]].
==See also==
Is Ashford implying that if I have an emotional or spiritual attachment to children I am a 'childlover'. I think that would include most parents, kindergarten teachers, in fact most people. Either Ashford is talking crap here, or the quote is crap. Or, I'm afraid more likely, someone here is simply waging a slow but deliberate campaign to persuade people that something is other than it is. I suggest that throughout these articles we take a terminological stand - we refer to members of the 'childlove movement' as "people who want to have sex with children". It's clear, its accurate, it's factual, its non-emotive, it's inclusive of those who desire it but don't practice. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
* [[United States Colored Troops]]
* [[Buffalo Soldiers]]
* [[U.S. 2d Cavalry Division]]
* [[Freeman Field Mutiny]]
* [[U.S. 366th Infantry Regiment]]
* [[U.S. 761st Tank Battalion|761<sup>st</sup> Tank Battalion (aka Black panthers)]]
* [[Golden Thirteen]]
* [[The Port Chicago 50]]
* [[Bessie Coleman]]
* [[List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients]]
* [[Alfonza W. Davis]]
[[Category:African-American history]]
:It seems to me that you want to impose your belief. It seems to me that you want to censor a piece of information just because you do not agree with it. I do '''not''' agree with what you said, i believe that you are generalizing and want to persecute a group of persons who, beside liking children (if this is a fault), never did anything wrong in their life. I do not know why you want this, maybe it is because of your religious beliefs, maybe it is because you came in contact with someone in your past who tried, against your will, to have sex with you... this doesn't mattert to me... what i see here is someone who wants a perfectly fine article raped to show your disrespect and personal hate for this group of people. --[[User:Lucat|Lucat]] 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Black history in the United States military]]
[[Category:History of Alabama]]
:You're on the right track, in that Ashford and others are using an old rhetorical ploy, layering an argument with additional issues to dilute the main issue. It would be shorter and more accurate to simply say "pedophiles" than "people who want to have sex with children." If we need a longer phrase ""people who want sexual access to children" would be more appropriate, since people can argue endlessly over the meaning of "have sex." -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|Talk]] 17:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Groups of World War II]]
[[Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients]]
::Oh, great, that will be totally npov. Why not afterwards go and substitue every time the word [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] come up with something like "people who want to use ass for sex". And than [[communist]] for "red flag waving totalitarians". There are words like "boylover" and "girllover" whether you like it or not, abviously it would be stupid to make two separate articles for them, so somebody made one and called it Childlove movement... if you disagree with what it stands for, find the sources and make a huge Arguments against section, where you will say that the better would be to use long phrases or misrepresentations than actual words... [[User:Beta m|Beta m]] 11:02, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
[[Category:United States Army officers]]
[[Category:Tuskegee University]]
: It is not clear, it is not factual, it is emotive. But most of all, it is your agenda. As a boylover, I do specifically not want to have sex with children, because I love them and therefore want to protect and befriend them rather than harm them. I may desire intimacy since my attraction to them is also sexual, but I want sex with them about as much as the average heterosexual man wants to rape a woman. [[User:Clayboy|Clayboy]] 00:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Military units and formations of the United States in World War II]]
[[Category:People from Tuskegee, Alabama]]
:I dont really see anything wrong with that particular quote it's saying what an advocate of the movement claims it is, not ''what'' it is. I dont think it is our job to state that someone is ''talking crap'', (even though he is) let the reader decide that. --[[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Arnfjörð]] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason|action=edit§ion=new}} Bjarmason] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/| ]] 15:41, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
For the benefit of non paedophiles, I'd like to try to explain my view on this point. I admit my initial attraction to a boy is sexual in nature. I think most human attractions are initially sexual in nature. Because I am sexually attracted to a boy does not mean I am going to do my utmost to actually involve him in some sort of sexual activity. As with any "normal" adult heterosexual relationship, the relationsip between myself and the boy develop through stages, and often as with other relationships, the boy I am interested in will reject my advances in the early stages. If he responds positively, the relationship will ultimately develop into something very akin to the traditional (but now rarely practised) godfather/godson relationship where I take on a positive nuturing and educating role, not a sexual lover role. I have yet to meet a prepubescent boy who was genuinely interested in having a sexual relationship. There is often physical, but not sexual intimacy in these relationships. Unfortunately, so many fathers today seem incapable of being physically intimate with their sons, and most boys do need that. If they don't get it from Dad, they will seek it elsewhere, and in the process, leave themselves vulnerable to those who would do them harm. Even if there were no age of consent laws, I can't imagine myself, and most boylovers I know, attempting to engage a prepubescent boy in a sexual relationship as that would devalue the nurturing aspect of the relationship.
== Proposition to remove NPOV notice ==
I say that we need to split this page into two sections when it deals with the arguments for and against... If you read [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid|Manual of Style, Words to Avoid]] you will see that the word "However" is mentioned there when it's used in the way that it is on this page. (I specifically refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Objectives of the Movement" section, but there are other times when this "However" is just better hidden within the text. Impression is being created that quotes ran on as paraphrases, and therefore an oppinion of the editor is being presented as one of the original author. For now i will not change anything, not to start up another revert war. {{User:Beta_m/sig}}
:Sounds like an OK idea. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 15:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Recent edits have implemented this, but it is still far from ready for removing the tag. See recent edits of selectively quoting sources in very pov way. [[User:216.131.220.133|216.131.220.133]] 17:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Danish Pedophile Association==
The Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) has not been re-formed. A group of its former members have only decided to make its website available. According to its website:
:''"We would have liked to have had sufficient resources to re-establish a counselling for pedophiles, but realizing the state of things, we find this impossible for the time being. For this reason the purpose so far is solely the continuation of a website in order to give the public access to more varied views in the debate on pedophilia. No meetings, no members, no statutes, only this informative website on the Internet as a unique source of scientific information regarding pedophilia and related topics. Any remaining references to the DPA on this website are to be considered "historical material" regarding the now abolished association. What will happen later has not been decided yet. The former association's P.O. Box has been closed. The group behind this new website calls itself the 'DPA Group 04'."''
--[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 03:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Image Order==
[[User:Paranoid|Paranoid]] made the following edit summary "Due to the way Wikipedia formats floating images, the order should apparently be reversed". Actually this is ot totally correct. The way images are formatted is determined by the skin applied t o the page. If a user is using ''Classic'', ''Nostalgia'' or ''Cologne Blue'', the images appear one way since the floats are not cleared. Users using ''MonoBook'' will see the images vertically, since each float appears below the preceeding one. Since the default skin for Wikipedia is ''MonoBook'', I have changed the order back to the way it was before. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 16:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Weasel Words, Part II==
:"This view does not take into consideration the research that shows that in the early stages of a child's development they are unable to make informed and clear decisions. Many pyschologists view teaching young children about sex as being damaging to children, and it is only later in life that they are mature enough to handle these concepts."
'''What''' research? '''Which''' psychologists?
:"Objections to the ethical framework are that a child is not mature enough to be able to have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship and can be very easily coerced into maintaining this relationship with a pedophile. In most Western countries, the consent of parents and ongoing communication with them is not a consideration when prosecuting child abusers. Also, many child psychologists would not agree that a child's relationship with a pedophile is in harmony with that child's normal development."
As far as I know, nobody has ever publicly spoken out against this ethical framework. We need substantiation of these 'objections to the ethical framework'. Otherwise, this paragraph looks like nothing more than an attempt by Wikipedia to distance itself from a socially unacceptable viewpoint.
And once again, '''which''' child psychologists? --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]][[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 16:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Confusion ==
== Confusion.. MORE RESEARCH ==
I think it is important to discuss research into the issue. If you are narrow minded then please don't read this.
1) All organisations groups tend to share some common goals, however it is up to the indivuals within those groups to follow them openly and not devisivly. Any research into these groups because of the nature of our society (i.e. we only get to here about child molesters/child porn consumers who are not good with computers/those involved in the childlove movements which may or may not be child molesters or child porn consumers.)
2) The child love movement DEFINETELY has men and women that are interested in people below the Age of consent, it also has people to whom sexual abstinence of this kind is the only option because they suffer from conflicts when trying to judge their sexuality/deviance relative to the wider world. But it may contain people who don't believe in its ethos.
3) They seek justification for their beliefs with like minded individuals, this is clear to me in general and i also think it is HEALTHY, these people are humans not demons - however this is an opinion perhaps they are demons and I am being decieved, this point is here to illustrate an imporant point, the infinite experimental regress, common in philosophy we have to accept some tenants as truth in order to build further truth. Therefore if we accept the child love movement at its word then fine they are not DEMONS and we can progress, however most people find it easier to accept that they are DEMONS or just sick or something.
4) They seek a community, it is in my OPINION that this community concept is essential in the reduction in CHILD ABUSE cases, governments and organisations are obviously concerned that these groups are engaged in underground illegal activities and hence take measures to restrict them. However people to need a community, scientifically this has been proved (see below)
5) Scientific studies - It has been proven scientifically that when people of 'deviant' sexual behaviours, especially of a violent nature including pedophilia have been involved in a community the chances of their reoffending is decreased. (In canada pedophiles who have been released after offences have been integrated into society as opposed to being named and shamed, the positive results of such a treatment are astounding, 70 per cent decrease in re - offending, compared with the British Penal services reduction of 10 percent. (PS the full story outlining this is extermenly lengthy i suggest furter research if you are interested.)------ http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1353673,00.html ---- (May not be valid in a years time!!!)
Besides the above, open scientific debate on the subject is usually recieved with scorn, mainly because anyone who 'shows' anything positive about childhood sexual experiences is labelled as a pedophile. There is a logical inconsistency with this as I will procede to show.
First of all, in a society where this issue is so hated, you have to have a tremendous amount of courage to take the subject on, therefore of the people who do take the subect on there will be a large percentage with a vested interest in popularising the notion that sex with children is right. However this does not make it true that all that do the research are pedophiles, it just highlights how emotive this issue is. In fact before Homosexuality was 'decriminalised' in the UK, scientists that researched it came under the same critisism, now that it has been legal for at least a whole generation open and frank discussions of the subject even in non-scientific establishments without fear of judgement and recrimination.
This badly worded 'essay' should clarify what I think, I don't advocate sex with minors because it has not been shown to be free from harming them! Then again nor as any form of sexual activity, Throughout my research of all things weird and complicated and difficult to moralise, this one is by far the hardest, as a scientist I HOPE that censorship does not get in the way of science and has a human being I hope that freedom of speech and a lack of censorship doesn't lead to the suffering of children due to abuse. It is clear that these are the two competing forces at work... MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!
OKAY, this is very opinionated, for that i applogise, I did not draft it so there may also be logical holes in my reasoning - please email me on this. Just to clarify so I dont recieve abusive emails, i AM NOT CONDONING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN OR ADOLESCENTS! nor should any scientist though we often as individuals do, even though we represent a group.
== Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg ==
Note: This image, [[:Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg]], has survived the [[ifd]] process. However, it is currently tagged as fair use, which explicitly does not apply to images that are not used in articles on Wikipedia. Consensus needs to be reached as to whether the image will be used in the article or not. If the consensus is that the image ''will not'' be used, it should be relisted on ifd. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup> 16:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
== NAMBLA Allegations and the Childlove Movement ==
I am fully in favour of including information about allegations that convicted sex offenders have been either members of NAMBLA or otherwise associated with that organisation, but to use these allegations -- and much of the 'evidence' recently placed here is nothing more than that -- to indict the entire Childlove Movement is tantamount to calling all Americans evil because of the alleged actions of Charles Graner and some other prison guards in Iraq. Moreover, there is already an entire article in Wikipedia devoted to discussion of the now largely-insignificant [[NAMBLA]]. Therefore, I do not think that that discussion belongs here, other than a reference or link to the NAMBLA article (which, incidentally, already exists). They rightfully belong in the NAMBLA article itself.
I fully support Samboy's call for NPOV and a fair presentation of both sides of the issue. But whilst I responded to the call to provide documentation and evidence for the views and objectives of the Childlove Movement, those opposed to the movement have failed to provide more than weasel words and moral outrage in the guise of objective 'proof' of society's opposition to it. Therefore, we have an article heavy on scientific and academic quotes backing up the claims of the Childlove Movement, with unsupported claims by 'many researchers' and 'most of society' condemning these views tacked on like afterthoughts.
The only way we will get real NPOV is when those who wish to express opposition to this movement are able to provide tangible quotes or studies that either clearly refute the claims of the movemement or are able to name the 'many researchers' to whom they are referring. Pointing to accusations and allegations against a single organisation is certainly not the correct way to go about it. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
disagree completely. these are clear examples that the advocacy movement is sadly drawn to acts of child abuse and worse. And whats the go with deleting the JAMA article? I hope your conselling is going well - truly. best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 02:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: The JAMA article is not mentioned ANYWHERE in this article. Therefore, there is no need to reference to it in the references section.
: As for clear examples, they are not. They are allegations and accusations. Did the Curley's win their case against NAMBLA? Has it been proven definitively that Curley's killers were NAMBLA members? Has a clear link (possession of literature does not define a clear link) been made between NAMBLA and any of these people? If there has, then show proof, but do not cite newspaper articles that simply talk about accusations and allegations.
: And once again, there is a whole article, [[NAMBLA]] that discusses the situation with that organization. All of the 'proofs' provided here deal ONLY with NAMBLA. You cannot use flimsy evidence against a single organization to 'prove' the actions or intent of the whole movement.--[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 03:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, Shanley pre-dated NAMBLA, was present at the founding of the wider movement. Separately, let's remember that this section is trying to capture the public reaction to the movement. The shock of these cases are undeniably a big part of the public perception of the movement. The response that the public's reaction is unfair is reflected in the article.
::On the Curley lawsuit, as far as I can tell, the court never ruled (and never will) on whether the killers were members. NAMBLA was dismissed from the suit under the legal technicality that it is not organized as a corporation. See [http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf]. I have not found any court ruling that denies the factual allegations made in the suit. So, to your point above, the Curley's never "lost" this point of fact.
::Thanks. [[User:216.131.220.140|216.131.220.140]] 00:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== This is a fight for freedom, not to molest children, but simply to exist. ==
The article discusses the "Childlove Movement" as if it were a single, cohesive organization with well-defined goals. An implication is made that childlovers are chiefly concerned with repealing age of consent laws to facilitate engaging in sexual activity with children. While this may be true for some childlovers, it is not a defining characteristic of the childlove movement, as no consensus has been reached among childlovers on this issue. To imply that all childlovers are lobbying to molest children and posess child pornography is akin to saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all gay people have AIDS.
It is precicely this type of biggotry and prejudice that '''is''' the focus of the childlove movement. Namely, to demand that childlovers be treated as fairly, as individuals, with the same rights and freedoms afforded to every human being. Period. Childlovers wish to be judged for their actions, not their sexual orientation. To be judged by what we do, not by what we are. As it stands, the public's perception is that most, if not all, pedophiles molest children, posess child pornography, and need to be imprisoned indefinitely simply for what they are. Pedophiles are society's last scapegoat... the only group of people that is still politically correct to hate. The only pedophiles that the world sees are those who molest children, which gives the false impression that most pedophiles are monsters. In fact, the vast majority of pedophiles do not molest children (not something I can prove, or would include in a wiki article, but something I know to be true). But you will never see these pedophiles on TV, because only those who break the law are exposed. It may be difficult for most people to understand why so many people who have done nothing wrong must remain in hiding, but the death threats I have received for speaking out as I am here today, despite never hurting a single child, speaks volumes.
The childlove movement boils down to this: We are your neighbours, your friends, your doctors, your policemen, your husbans, your sons, etc... and while not all childlovers are good people, many of us are, and deserve to be treated as such. That so many people would like nothing more than to imprison, kill, torture, or do worse, to an entire group of people based on the actions of a few is reason enough for the childlove movement to exist.
'''This is a fight for freedom, not to molest children, but simply to exist.''' As such, I think the article needs to be changed. In particular, the introduction requires a complete re-write. The rest of the article should remain, but a section needs to be added that adresses what I have discussed above. I would be happy to write the changes myself, but would need to be very sure that it is accurate, truthful, and unbiassed (unlike what I have written for this discussion, which is more personal and emotional in nature). So I encourage all of you for comments and feedback before I make any changes to the article.
Peace.
:You say this, but the fact is that no-one argues with your right to exist; if you stop molesting children no-one will have a problem. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have '''never''' molested a child, posessed child pornography, or committed any crime, apart from jaywalking. And don't you '''dare''' say that no one argues with my right to exist, I have the death threats to prove it. You are correct when you say that no one should have a problem with my sexual orientation if I do not act on it, but that is simply untrue.
:You talk about "those pedophiles that do not molest children", but the truth is that pedophiles want to do exactly that; they want to have sex with children, otherwise they wouldn't be pedophiles. No amout of dressing this up as a 'fight for freedom' will change that fact. You could start a campaign to legalize any vicious, horrible cruel act and call it a 'fight for freedom', but that doesn't change the facts. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::This is just like saying that everyone who wants to have sex with a girl will have sex with that girl no matter what she thinks about it. The fact that you want to have sex with someone/something doesn't mean that you will actually do it especially if you know that this will damage in some way the person itself. The image that the media gave of pedophiles is, imo, distorted. When you think about a pedophile you think about a horrible being who wants to kill, have sex with, and torture children. This is certainly true for ''some'' pedophiles but generalizing is usually a very bad idea. The gay persons, just one hundred of years ago (and still today in some States/Countries), were thought as horrible beings who had sex with each other against God and the Nature. Because of this distorted image of "being gay" many of them have suffered from persecutions lasted for hundreds of years. I believe this is exactly what is happening today with pedophiles. I do not have any pedophile friend (not that i know of) but (if he was a trusted friend of mine) I am sure that I could give him my children anytime. I am sure that there are pedophiles out there who wouldn't waste 1 second before hurting a kid, but i am also sure the great majority can perfectly choose between right and wrong and control themselves. So yes, i agree with the original poster that this '''is''' a fight for freedom. You can or can not agree with what they believe in or what they are, but certainly they have the right to express themselves, the right of free speech, the right of letting others know about them, the right to exist... especially when they cannot do it on traditional media like today. As I said, you can agree with them or not, but this doesn't give you the right to decide that they are all criminals and censor the informations about them. [P.S.: Sorry for my bad english, this is not my mother language] --[[User:Lucat|Lucat]] 01:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am a pedophile, yet I have no desire to harm or molest a child. How do you explain that? You can't, because you have made a generalization about an entire group based on the actions of a few. The childlove movement hopes to counteract such biggotry and ignorance. And obviously you did not read what I wrote, because I specifically stated that the childlove movement is not defined by trying to legalize anything... perhaps you are confusing it with NAMBLA or something.
== Let's clarify what wikipedia is about: the movement cannot win (or lose) a battle here ==
Wikipedia will reflect the consensus in the world as a whole. We are a scoreboard for where the current debate is. Our policies -- like [[NPOV]] and [[no original research]] -- mean that we are fair scorekeepers, but no more. So if you are winning the medical debate, that will be reflected here. If you are winning the public perception debate that will be reflected here too. But if the movement is losing these debates in the wider world -- which by its own admission it is -- you cannot improve your position with a wikipedia article, rather the current state of the debate will be reflected here as well.
Dreams of a wikipedia article that is more beautiful or clean than the debate elsewhere are misplaced. That's not what the wiki is for. Thanks. -- [[User:216.131.222.69|216.131.222.69]] 17:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Rind, et al.==
Somebody made a statement in this article that Rind, et al. is the most widely cited study by the Childlove Movement. Where is the proof for this? The answer is that there isn't any, since the statement is false. Rind, et al. is not even mentioned in this article! Rind, et al. may be cited by the ''establishment'' as an example of bad research, but nothing more than that.
Going into a refutation of this report here is unnecessary, since there is a complete article, [[Rind_et_al.]], devoted to discussion of this controversial report. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 17:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
===If the movement's case is presented in detail, so should the case against===
:I am very confused by your comment. Rind (1998) is quoted in the article. In fact, it is the only study that is 1) published in a peer-reviewed journal; 2) a quantitative study of actual outcomes that would shed light on the movement's claim of no harm. As such it is very important piece of the article. Currently the Rind (1998) wiki article does not deal with the merits in detail.
::If the Rind Wikipedia article does not sufficiently deal with this, then that is the article that needs to be enrichened with this information.
::The Rind study may be peer-reviewed, but it still does not deal with childlove. It is a study of [[child sexual abuse]], something that the Childlove Movement is opposed to. The outcomes that it studies outcomes of illegal activity, and the study does not adequately address the issue of whether the sexual encounters were consensual or not. It does not provide any reasonable data, therefore, about the possible outcomes of adult-child intimacy in an atmosphere where those contacts were legal. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 21:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::'''Currently the Childlove article contains great detail and specific quotes in favor of the movement's case. If that is the case, the arguments against should be treated in the same level of detail.'''
:::I absolutely agree. But referring to a largely discredited organization (NAMBLA) that is denounced by many others within the Childlove Movement does not 'make the case' against the movement. Furthermore, going into detail about a single scientific study that is not a major part of Childlove Momement apologetics is not effective either. If there is a preponderance of objective proof against the philosophy of childlove, then bring it out. Do not incessantly trundle out the same report, that is not even a cornerstone of that philosophy. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:As an aside, don't you usually try to be more [[npov]] than this edit? Missing the Rind cite in the current article. Claiming that the Rind points are covered elsewhere when they are not. Keep an eye out for the details.
::There is an '''entire article''' devoted to discussion of Rind, et al. See [[Rind_et_al.]]. What I am saying is that any further discussion of this report belongs there, not here, since, like I have already said many times, this report is not a key basis of the arguments of the Childlove Movement. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 21:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks --[[User:216.131.222.69|216.131.222.69]] 19:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:You're welcome. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 21:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zanthalon, what's going on? Now you have deleted the reference to Fagan 2002, claiming it is not cited by the artcile, when a quick text search shows you that it is. . . [[User:216.131.222.69|216.131.222.69]] 20:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:The "Fagan Reference" was belatedly added there yesterday by Erich, who is intent on it being referenced. It was not there before yesterday. Sorry for the oversight. I have now actually added material directly from the Fagan article, so there is no problem with referencing it anymore.
:Rind, et al. is merely ''referred'' to, it is not cited ("They cite the widely criticized 1998 meta-analysis Rind et al. and other works to support their claim." is not a citation). The point is that there are many more articles and books used more commonly by the Childlove Movement to explain their claims. Many of those articles and books are already cited in this article.
:Rind is not a main part of Childlove Movement apologetics because it is a study of child sexual abuse, not pedophilia. Whatever people may think, leading experts (including your buddy Fagan) agree that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not synonymous. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 20:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==Article Length==
Going off on tangents about NAMBLA and Rind, et al. is bloating this article, leaving little space for true refutation of the Childlove Movement.
Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that when articles reach this size, they should be compacted, with detail going into different articles. We already have existing articles on [[NAMBLA]] and [[Rind_et_al.]] to deal with the pros and cons of these issues. Let's put the discussion there. '''I am not advocating ''not presenting'' the content. I am merely proposing placing it where it logically belongs.'''
If all you can muster to refute the claims of the Childlove movement is a lot of circumstancial evidence against NAMBLA (eg, the Curley's '''lost''' their lawsuit against NAMBLA) and criticism of a research report that is not even important to the movement, then your arguments are pretty weak. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]] [[Image:Zanthalon.jpg|35px]], 21:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon]], I am not surprised that, as a member of the movement (you are [[Lindsay Ashford]], are you not? [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=zanthalon&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off]-->[http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/view/4248] -->[http://www.alicemail.net/zanthalon/]) you find the opposing view weak. Please don't let you point of view cloud your responsibility as an editor. The medical community and the public think that, in order to prove that adult-child sex is harmless, we should rely on peer-reviewed research of actual outcomes. Hence the importance of Rind.
As for article length:
Obviously we need to do something about length. I think the pro-movement side has more opportunities to cut without losing any content. As it is, the movement’s views don’t really come through very clearly. There are several redundant passages. There are several quotes that add bulk but little more. Division between the ‘objectives,’ ‘views’, and ‘ethics’ sections is inconsistent and a bit wandering. My thoughts:
Move very short objectives (not much more than the bullets) section to top.
Put views, ethics, and most of objectives section into views section with following outline:
Views of the movement
:Claim that not all adult-child sexual contact is abuse
::Claim that not all adult-child sexual contact is harmful
::Claim that children can consent to sex
::Claim that children are innately sexual
:::''The citations on both sides are so weak that I would consider dropping this until fixed''
::Claim that adult-child sexual contact involves intercourse under ethics
::Claim that 'childlove' relationships are not usually primarily sexual
::Claim that pedophilia should not be classified as a mental illness
:Advocacy of change in sex education classes
:Ethics
::''cut this section back to a summary rather than the confusing blow-by-blow
Public reaction and response to the movement
Origins
Activities
Logos
::::There needs to be a section addressing what I have written above (''This is a fight for Freedom...''). I think perhaps the section "''attempting to change public perceptions of pedophilia and pedophiles;''" would be an appropriate section to do this. Currently, the article focuses almost entirely on only a faction of the child love movement that wish to eliminate age of consent laws and posess child pornography. The article as it is written implies that all pedophiles/childlovers are actively campaigning to be allowed to molest children. This is sweeping generalization, and is not indicitive of the movement as a whole. The push for tolerance and acceptance of pedophiles who do not molest children is not even mentioned. Currently, we live in a society that condems pedophiles regardless of whether or not they commit a crime (this is not widely know, but if you lived a day in the shoes of a pedophile, you would understand this). This is a dangerous social climate, as it means that pedophiles have "nothing to lose", which encourages criminal activity. The reality is that childlovers exist, and simply rounding them all up and throwing away the key is not a solution, since there are a great number of pedophiles who are not guilty of any crime. Getting that message out is one of the founding principles of the childlove movement, yet it is not mentioned.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:There seems to be a slight confusion both here and in the article. Let me ask some questions to try and clear it up. When the above anon talks about 'pedophiles who do not molest children' do we mean 'those who are attracted to children, but recognise the wrongness of their attraction'? Or do we mean "those who want to have sex with children, but make it legal so that it is no longer called 'molesting'"? [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::The "wrongness" of an action is very subjective. For instance, here in Italy the minimum [http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm age of consent] is 14. This means that I (adult) can have sex with a 14 years old if, of course, he wants it too. As you see this changes from country to country. Does this mean that adolescents in USA are "dumber" than the adolescents in Italy and cannot decide by themselves what is best for them? The truth is that in the past a 12 years old kid (or even younger) could even get married or become leader of a nation, did this kill or hurt the kid? Were all our anchestors horrible pedophiles who wanted to kill or injure their own children? The minimum age limit cannot be decided by a law (which is driven only by personal beliefs) as it is today, it should be decided subjectively since it changes from person to person. Please keep in mind that when i say this in no way i say that molesting children is right, forcing someone into something is ''wrong'', no matter what the age is. You believe that a kid/adolescent is unable to decide on his own about his relations with other people, but this is supported by nothing beside your own beliefs. A pedophile, for ''definition'' is someone who ''loves'' kids, tell me, if you ''love'' someone would you do something to hurt him/her? Then why are you assuming that a pedophile wants this? Just because they say so in TV? Just because some ''criminals'' who exploit children (usually for money) are called improperly pedophiles? --[[User:Lucat|Lucat]] 13:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Indeed, in the past, eight-year-olds were an acceptable source of factory labor. And you could buy and sell slaves to work on farms. I am not sure that bringing up past laws helps your case. Similarly, the death penalty differs from nation to nation, but wikipedia articles about the death penalty should describe the strongly held views on each side. [[User:216.131.222.186|216.131.222.186]] 20:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::What i am saying is very simple and has nothing to do with the past. If someone ''does'' hurt someone else then it is ''right'' that whoever willfully hurt this person pays for it. But if this doesn't happen then ''why'' is it wrong? Just because someone's religion says so? Just because some kids '''are''' hurt (physically or psichologically) by an action it does ''not'' mean that this is true in every case. Besides, the same act of having sex with an adult ''can'' hurt this adult (rapes, etc.), does this mean that having sex is in general a bad thing? I do not see how anyone would want to actually have sex with a child, but if this doesn't hurt the child then ''why'' is this considered wrong? Just because it might? Everytime that you bring your kids somewhere with your car they do risk their life, should we forbid to anyone to bring the kids around with cars just because they ''might'' get hurt? From what i can see from the forums that this same article mentions, most of them are perfectly normal persons who just simply like to share their time with children instead than adults, they do feel physically attracted to them, but, from what i can see, they do ''not'' want to hurt the kids in any way. They simply want to be accepted by the society and not be seen as criminals just because they like kids. As i said somewhere else, if you like a woman/man and do want to have sex with her/him, would you do it even if you knew that by doing so you would hurt her/him? The same works for them. I am sure that ''some'' of them do hurt kids on purpose, they are criminals, but because of these criminals then everyone of them must pay and be a monster in the eyes of the society? And another question, do you believe that removing or raping this article to show what they are ''not'' will make them all disappear? Do you believe that by going on with this ''persecution'' will make anyone change what he/she is or feels? How long before they decide to simply behave like the society sees them? How long before they say: "well, we are already criminals anyways, it doesn't matter if we behave well or not..."? --[[User:Lucat|Lucat]] 18:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would also cut back the quotes from Lindsay Ashford, Spieker & Stuetal, Joan Nelson, and Tom O’Carroll. We can eliminate the quote from Bearman and Brueckner, since it does not deal with age-of-consent or age-of-sex-education in any way. Making an analogy between their findings and the current topic may be an interesting thought to some, but it is clearly not some kind of accepted view – this is essay/original research creeping in.
--[[User:216.131.220.133|216.131.220.133]] 16:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Quotes and length ==
I am disturbed to find some of the sources include very strong views about the movement, but these are ignored. The Moran quote, which I just fixed, is a classic case of pov quoting out of context. I am going to keep adding npov content to these as I find them. But for length reasons, it may be better to simply delete some of these so-called references altogether. --[[User:216.131.220.133|216.131.220.133]] 16:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:You have clearly shown yourself to be incapable of NPOV edits. You have haphazardly removed entire paragraphs because they did not suit your own personal viewpoints without any justification whatsoever. In particular, you can not speak on behalf of the entire medical community. And pointing out that there are no pro-pedophilia studies in today's political climate is like pointing out that there is no pro-slave studies in the south during slavery. There is no way an objective study concerning pedophilia could be performed in the United States today. You are proof of that.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 18:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::There have been many objective studies, which are (now) cited in the article. The data in the studies contradict your view, but they are objective. If you don't think they are objective, please read them and explain why. I will repeat the most comprehensive review cite next to the paragraph you removed to make it clearer.
::Wikipedia editors speak for the entire medical community ''all the time''. As an encyclopedia, that's the whole point: summarizing the current state of our knowledge. '''If you think that the medical community has accepted an actual study of non-negative psychological outcomes of <nowiki>'childlove'</nowiki>, please cite it.'''
::I have deleted very little. (Although I have condensed some.) The only paragraph I deleted was an off-topic paragraph about a study that focused on virginity pledges, which just added bulk muddied the discussion since the analogy was not fully explained. I explained the edit clearly on the talk page and when making it. I don't believe this was haphazard. I was looking for an edit that deleted bulk without losing any substantive coverage. I am still satisfied with the change.
::Lastly, I will try not to be deeply offended by your analogy to the actual [slavery|enslavement] of African-Americans. I will point out that 1) There were many studies showing the problems of slavery, written by both Southerners and Northerners, and 2) I can not go onto eBay, buy two pedophiles, whip them, breed them, then sell their children on eBay.
:::Obviously the two situations are different, but the level of oppression, hatred, anger, ignorance, wrongfull imprionment, and violence is similar. There are also similarities to the ''underground railroad'', as thousands of American pedophiles flee to less oppressive countries.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 00:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::"Level of oppression"? I still maintain that, until I can legally buy you, tie you to a post and whip you, and sell your children for a profit, you are experiencing a lower "level of oppression" than did American slaves. [[User:216.131.220.140|216.131.220.140]] 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Clearly you have deep feelings about this topic. Perhaps you should take a moment to ask yourself if you will ever be happy with the way wikipedia will portray the movement. As described above, the wiki page will be no prettier than the general consensus in society. If you really feel that the entire medical community is as biased as the worst slaveowners were, then I think you are not going to like this page. Perhaps there's a better forum for your passion that beating your head against this brick wall. Thanks. [[User:216.131.222.95|216.131.222.95]] 19:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::I do not believe the entire medical community is biased. Your assertion that the entire medical community has reached a consensus on this issue however is entirely laughable, as there are many psychologists who do not buy into commonly held beliefs regarding pedophilia. As I said before, you cannot speak on behalf of the entire medical community when the medical community itself remains divided on the specifics of this issue.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 00:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Summarizing the scientific literature on harm of adult-child sexual contact ==
The following statements deal only with the allegation ''that adult-child sexual contact causes harm in a very high percentage of cases''. They do not have anything to do the classification of pedophilia, whether all pedophiles act on their desires, etc.
I have highlighted the disputed terms in bold.
:Current medical literature '''consistently''' documents a high incidence of profound and grievous psychological harm caused by sexual contact. . . To date, '''the medical community''' remains unconvinced of the movement’s claims that adult-child sexual contact is not harmful in a high percentage of cases; no peer-reviewed study of actual psychological outcomes supporting the movement's view has withstood scientific scrutiny.
200. has changed 1) "consistently documents" to "often documents"; and 2) "the medical community" to "some in the medical community".
Justifying these edits first requires us to be able to cite a "peer-reviewed study of actual psychological outcomes supporting the movement's view" that "adult-child sexual contact is not harmful in a high percentage of cases." And that "that has withstood scientific scrutiny."
:You are incorrect. "The medical community" is more than simply a compilation of peer reviewed studies. "The medical community" consists of millions of doctors around the world. And since I know for a fact that many of those doctors do not agree with accepted "peer reviewed findings", you cannot accurately say that the ''entire'' medical community remains unconvinced. It is misleading, and inaccurate.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 16:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:In order to prove that the ''entire'' medical community holds a certain viewpoint, you need to poll every last member of the medical community. But in order to disprove that statement, you need only find a single member of the medical community who disagrees. It's elementary boolean algebra. My edit was simply to correct an indisputable syntax error. I will make the correction again, but will try to use langauge that appears sufficiently anti-pedophile, since that aparently has more to do with whether edits survive than its truthfulness.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 16:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, the original term was not "the entire" community, which would fall into the logic you describe. Rather it was a generalization commonly used for the general consensus of the vast majority of the community. I'm fine with 'greater' if it will keep the peace. [[User:Chrisvls|Chris vLS]] 18:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::I respect your argument. You are the first person to point out that the original quote was not "the entire", and the first person to make a valid case that "the community" does not always refer to "the entire community". I still think that a qualifier like "the greater medical community" or "the majority of the medical community" brings an important technical clarity to a heated debate such as this one. Feel free to change it to "the vast majority of the medical community", but I think "the greater medical community" sounds more encyclopedic.--[[User:24.200.34.178|24.200.34.178]] 20:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And even if a single study could be produced, and evidence of its acceptance found, it would be one study against literally hundreds.
Certainly one compromise would be to say “virtually the entire medical community” but even that overstates the movement’s progress. It would be like saying “virtually the entire physics community doesn’t believe in cold fusion.” Until there is a citation that has stood up to community scrutiny, I think its fair to treat the hypothesis as unproven and the community as unconvinced. If someone can document a significant segment of the medical community that believes that ''there is data showing that adult-child sexual contact is not harmful is the vast majority of cases'', then lets change it to "the greater medical community". Without such evidence, let's revert. (As a compromise, I just deleted 'often' and left it as plain 'documents' not 'consistently documents').
Last but not least, 200. has changed "The movement has '''few''' disputed scientific papers to cite" to "The movement has '''several''' disputed scientific papers to cite." I think that this blurs the original point of "few" that the number of papers on one side is a one or two orders of magnitude more than on the other. I think we should re-visit this later.
[[User:216.131.220.140|216.131.220.140]] 19:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::But virtually the entire medical community does not accept peer-reviewed junk science put out by the sex abuse agenda. Many important researchers -- some who are the leaders of the field like John Money -- take less strident views on intergenerational sexual contact. They understand that as with all sexual relationships, sometimes it causes harm and sometimes it does not -- except with intergenerational relationships, the social stigma and condemnation attached to the "deviant" sexual acts are by far the leading source of trauma.
::Rind, et. al. is a very important piece of research for a number of reasons. First, it uses quantiative analysis to avoid the interjection of morality-loaden language into the research, which is a serious problem with qualitative research on this hot-button issue. Second, it utilizes "meta-analysis," meaning that it synthesizes the data of a sizable number of quantitative studies. This methodology lends incredible insight by pulling data from a wide variety of samples from different times, locations, and researches. Third, its focus on college samples, while not <I>representative</I> of the general population, is far more representative than clinical or legal samples (which involve the worst cases) and disproves the claim that intergenerational sex causes <B>pervasive</B> harm by showing that most college students report little or no harm at all (and even that some consider their experiences positive).
::Even if you choose to ignore RBT's research, or to insert criticisms of it without including RBT's responses to those criticisms, your understanding of Wikipedia needs significant modification. NPOV does not mean that the content of the article reflects the sentiments of the majority of the population. Since different cultures in the world have different opinions on youth sexuality, such a criterion for neutrality is not only non-sensical, it is also impossible. What neutrality really means is balance, and that each side of argument in a controversial article has a voice. Whether one side enjoys the support of 98% of the population or 48% is irrelevant; the argument still has a right to inclusion.
::(Unsigned by [[User:Corax]]
:::On my understanding of NPOV: Please, let’s [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]]. I think you misrepresent my interest in measuring the ‘vast majority’ issue. I am not interested in suppressing the view of a tiny minority. (If I were, I would have VfD’d this page, not spent hours of my time gathering the citations for this page.) I am interested in describing how many neutral experts agree with the scientific claims of the movement. This is a NPOV aim. In fact, as stated in [[no original research]] that this is the npov way of handling disputed topics such as this one. In the words of [[no original research|No Original Research]]: "state the known and popular ideas and identify general 'consensus', making clear which is which".
:::On the college sample issue: Your own discussion shows the problem with Rind. You say that clinical samples under-represent healthy outcomes. Similarly, the critics of Rind say that college samples under-represent unhealthy outcomes. Neither is representative. Many secondary sources, however, quote the Rind percentages without qualification. (Also, your claim that all clinical samples are worst-case is an overgeneralization. Some ‘clinical’ samples are called clinical simply because a GP’s office is used as the sampling site, even though the prospective participants are just in for a physical, common cold, etc. These can actually under-represent the worse-off end of the population, as they exclude patients totally out of the normal pattern of medical care. See for example King Coxell Mezey 2002 [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/2/153]). Also, I have found many published, peer-reviewed articles by several different scientists taking Rind apart. Are there any that defend Rind, epsecially by people other than Rind?
:::On meta-analysis: [[Meta-analysis]] can lend [[statistical power]], but by its very ‘synthetic’ nature, it is also extremely susceptible to [[selection bias|methodological influence]]. Indeed, Dallam’s categorization of the flaws of Rind is a good introduction to some of the most common problems. (Except, of course, for Dallam’s evidence that Rind actually miscoded data, and that all these miscodings favored the direction of the Rind hypothesis. That’s just totally out of bounds –- and has nothing to do with meta-analysis.)
:::Thanks -- [[User:216.131.220.140|216.131.220.140]] 20:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::I do not believe the editing has heated up at all. And if my participation on Wikipedia ever became intense, I'm certain this article would not be the cause. The idea of a ”childlove movement" is an illusion concocted by people with an agenda. The "movement" is nothing more than a disparate collection of individuals loosely linked by the fact that they have a sexual attraction to legally designated "minors." Even the attraction itself is different from person to person: some are attracted to young teenagers, others to four-year-olds; some are gay, some straight. Much of the content of this article is more appropriate for other articles, like Rind and NAMBLA and pederasty, rather than an article of its own. The only material that does not fit in those others articles is so vague (because of the aforementioned differences within the "movement") that it is worthless. So please do not mistake my objection to the content of your critiques on Rind with an abiding interest in this article.
::::The issue of adult-child sex is so taboo in Western society, particularly America, that good research on the topic is rare. As you correctly state, the vast majority of studies have produced results that indicate the harmfulness of age-discrepant sex. However, as my second grade teacher taught our class, quantity is no substitute for quality. A single study that uses proper sampling techniques is far more valuable than a collection of two hundred studies that inappropriately use legal or medical sampling. When research on a hot-button issue challenges conventional views by refusing to presuppose "assumed properties" of a controversial phenomenon, a vocal opposition usually arises to suppress it. Reactions to RBT's research give an all-too-real demonstration of this tendency. The moment the report was released, denunciations came in swift succession, not surprisingly from the very same people who rely on the concept of CSA to earn a living, but also from social conservatives who believed the study was symbolic of the moral relativism of secular humanist, science-based values plaguing modern society. Rind and his research team ignored the latter group's unscientific disagreements, but fortunately for science, they responded point-by-point to methodological criticisms. Judging from your one-sided treatment of Rind's research, you have not read their responses.
::::One thing that I find particularly disturbing is that you seem not to understand the main purpose of the study. It was laid out clearly in the very beginning as being to test the scientific validity of the clinical concept of "child sexual abuse." In order to do this, they compared the findings of a number of quantitative studies against the four commonly accepted characteristics of child sexual abuse: that it causes (1)harm that is (2)pervasive, (3)usually intense, and (4)equivalent for both sexes. If these four principles are true, one should be able to take a sample of <I>any</I> subset of the population and come away with confirmatory data. The alleged <I>pervasiveness</I> of harm caused by CSA means that one should be able to survey a group of blacks, whites, poor people, rich people, females, and males and end up with data that indicates that intergenerational sexual relationships were viewed as harmful by the vast majority of the respondents. Rind, et al. did just that, by analyzing the quantitative data produced by a host of experiments, and concluded that at least two of these principles are incorrect. First, perceived negativity of age-discrepant sex is not pervasive in the college subset of the general population, contrary to what the current understanding of CSA implies; second, males and females had noticeably different reactions to their earlier sexual experiences with older individuals, contradictory to the equivalency principle.
::::At no point did the authors intend to pass a moral judgment on adult-child sex, adult-teenager sex, homosexuality, or any other practice. At no point did the authors assert that pedophilia is always harmless, nor did they advocate legal reform. Rather, they did what all good scientists do. They collected data, analyzed that data objectively, and then formed inductive conclusions based strictly on the data.
::::One of the issues with which they dealt is the concern that you raised about how drawing a sample from college students leaves out the worst and most representative cases of CSA. Their response, which is available in its entirety [http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rind/rtbval_content.htm here], mentioned what I already explained above about "pervasiveness." In addition, they reiterate the problems of confirmation bias. Dr. Rind notes that many of the same sexual practices we now consider perfectly normal and healthy like masturbation were once dubbed disorders by mental health professionals who relied on research involving clinical and legal samples to form their opinions. Past researchers, like modern researchers, had a predisposition to blame their subjects' problems on any personal behavior that deviated from the culturally accepted norm.
::::The truth is that the use of clinical or legal samples for studying CSA is unscientific. It invites confirmation bias by studying only people who have psychological problems, and presupposes a harmful nature to adult-youth sex (that one must go to a hospital to study it because it invariably causes intense damage and numerous psychological problems). In reality, only the age-discrepant sexual relationships that have caused enough harm to come to the attention of medical or legal professionals are included in traditional CSA studies. And that sampling of harmful cases is exaggerated by people who have been beaten, starved, and abandoned by their parents, but have all of their psychological problems attributed to youthful sexual activity with adults, even if the youth invited and enjoyed the contact as an escape from the parental abuse. Focusing on only the absolute worst outcomes of adult-child sexual contact, which is what legal and clinical samples do, paints a misleading picture of the general population. The fact that hundreds of studies have used clinical samples does mean that using clinical samples is scientifically valid.
::::Rind also notes that college samples would be far more representative of the population than medical or legal samples because, first, half of the United States has had some college education. Second, he demonstrates a strong statistical similarity between national and college samples in terms of severity, prevalence, and correlates. And lastly, he beats his critics at their own game by entirely setting aside college samples and using a samples of junior high and high school students to arrive at the very same conclusions.
::::Also in the article is an effective response to each of Dallam's criticisms on methodology, in case you ever have a passing interest in reading a point of view that disagrees with your own. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 03:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== [[Rind et al. (1998)]] vs. [[Childlove movement]] ==
From a strictly structural point of view, could you please try to consolidate the information on the Rind study in a single article? Currently it's split across two. I suggest focusing on the arguments for / against the study in [[Rind et al. (1998)]]. I also note that the current presentation gives a lot of space to their critics, but none to any rebuttals - have they written any?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 02:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
== About the "Medical community reaction" - NPOV ==
The section "Medical community reaction to the movement’s scientific claims" begins by saying:
: Current medical literature documents a high incidence of profound and grievous psychological harm caused by sexual contact with children.
As far as I'm aware (I'm not overly involved, but I've read about them), their argument to this is that the "incidents" that the "medical literature documents" are by necessity only those sexual relationships that are found out about; they believe that the "profound and grievous psychological harm" is never caused by the sexual contact itself, but society's shocked reaction to it. Society will separate the two, which supposedly the child may perceive as the forceful removal of a friend they trust. Often the child is also said to be involved in police interrogations and perhaps court trials against the perpetrator, where they are forced to tell the truth even though they know it will cause grief to (and their prolonged separation from) the person they have come to trust.[[User:65.75.139.150|65.75.139.150]] 00:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:A good point, but the debate is a bit wider. The studies -- on both sides -- include surveys of 'undsicovered' relationships and whether these relationships are associated with subsequent harm. [[User:216.131.222.186|216.131.222.186]] 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== meaning of the "CLogo" ==
Under 'Ethics proposed by the movement' there is mention of "subsequent discussions" of guidelines which have produced four "new" guidelines which have now been adopted by MARTIJN and form the basis of the ethos of the ''Human Face of Pedophilia''. This is all true. However, under 'Symbols', the "CLogo" is presented as a logo that is being used by child lovers to represent their aspirations. This is incorrect. The CLogo is being used by child lovers to show their solidarity with these four "new" guidelines! The "new" guidelines were also first mentioned in the CLogo's Pedophilia brochure. The brochure which is mentioned on the Childlove movement Wiki-page.
== The Spanish version of this article has been erased ==
I am pasting here the same post where I am "ratting out" what happened:
Sorry my friends, I failed.
Finally, after a somewhat slow and bizarre battle, the war is over: the Spanish version of the Childlove Movement was destroyed and erased from the Spanish version of the Wikipedia.
Since the beginning things started to get a little nasty. The crusade against it was moral, not intellectual or academic.
Many times they insisted that the article and the subject itself were not encyclopaedic, even though it is still considered as that in the English version of the Wikipedia.
Other times, they said that there was not such thing as a movement of childlove: it did not matter how many probes and documents I showed.
One answer was great: “I do not even want to read those documents or go to that forum (Boychat) since they are disgusting”. Pretty encyclopaedic, eh?
Other one said that, and this episode was memorable, that there is not such thing as meta-analysis. “That is a trendy word for something that is just an analysis”. The amazing thing was not the ignorance of the twit, but that nobody else complained. They were red blinded, so everything was accepted for the destruction of the article.
Actually, the only two guys who showed a more centred opinion ''were made to change their minds by the rest''.
So it was finally erased because the abovementioned crowd voted against it.
I was the only one in the fight to save the article. Nobody else joined me there, maybe because most of our members do not read or write fluently in Spanish, but it would not make a difference. The herd of illiterates were already into a moral crusade, covered up with a façade of encyclopaedism, so they would not be deterred by arguments, logic or science.
Nevertheless, it was an interesting experience. It proved (to me and to some friends) the sterility and futility of the project known as the Spanish version of the Wikipedia. The Spanish version of the Wikipedia is not the Greek Academia but The Lord of the Flies. '''It looks more like an exercise on propaganda rather than an encyclopaedic work, framing some knowledge as acceptable while condemning other to obscurity.''' Of course, to defend their decision, they have come with emotional garbage mixed with big words, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide their prejudices with fake academese.
The Spanish version of the Wikipedia… a place for people with plenty of free time and plenty of prejudices.
Santi
:Obviously, the Spanish wikipedists could tell otherwise. Santi's insults ("herd of illiterates", "emotional garbage", comparing Wikipedia with "The Lord of the Flies"...) don't make his tale more accurate --and his behaviour wasn't better at the Spanish version. His total lack of respect for the people and rules of Wikipedia say more about his failure in spamming the Spanish Wikipedia than his rants.
| 