The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia coined by Lindsay Ashford. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon). The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This nom is in bad faith Comment There has been over a year's worth of work done to keep this article NPOV. The points you argue have already been gone through in the previous AfD and you haven't brought up anything new. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may disagree with the nomination but the accusation of "bad faith" is hot air. As for the previous nomination, I was unaware of it as there is no note about it at the top of the Talk:Childlove movement page as is required (why is the old page not in the AFD archives?). Homey 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is. I retract that it's in bad faith, since you didn't see it, but seriously-- what would you do with this article, merge it into pedophilia? You might as well merge... well I won't stir up anything by drawing comparisons, but they are both very long articles and a merge would shorten both considerably. Ashibaka tock 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No there isn't. Look at Talk:Star Trek and pedophilia to see what the required tag looks like. It's clearly not at the top of Talk:Childlove movement. Homey 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That thingy is a template to make it easier to see old AfD discussions, but back in the old days we didn't use templates for any old thing. Also AfD used to be called VfD. Ashibaka tock 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah ok, I was looking for the template - I see there is a notation made as an ordinary post. Homey 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it itself was deleted. I've restored it. Uncle G 20:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, now that that's settled, I'm going to vote keep. The biggest problem with the article is the name, which I agree is a distasteful euphemism, but it's used by many pedophiles to refer to themselves, and it was already decided that the name should stay. Any other perceived problems can be cleaned up. Ashibaka tock 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was already decided that the name should stay". Decisions can be revisited and reversed. That we "already" decided it doesn't strike me as sufficient grounds to keep the name if not the article. Homey 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to revisit the page's name on the talk page... but you're taking this to AfD instead, right? Generally the only reason to exclude something from Wikipedia is lack of verifiability or notability, so let's get cracking on those. Ashibaka tock 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Movement is real. If anything is POV, NPOV it. Clayboy 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete title, merge contents with Pedophilia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would shorten both articles considerably, why not keep them separate? Ashibaka tock 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We shouldn't have a new article every time someone comes up with a new euphemism. This is a duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon. // paroxysm (n) 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Added comment' I'd like to suggest that the salvagable parts of the article be moved to the "Advocacy of pedophilia" section of pedophilia. I'm wary of simply renaming the article Advocacy of pedophilia as, unless we include an equal amount of information against pedophilia advocacy the article will be unbalanced and POV while including said information will likely end up in a duplication of pedophilia. Homey 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "childlove movement" is not simply advocacy of pedophilia. The title childlove movement is inclusive and accurate, as that is what they refer to themselves as. // paroxysm (n) 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. What a ridiculous proposition. "Childlove" was not coined by Ashford, it is derivative of boylove and girllove, more specific terms designating a type of pedophilic or ephebophilic attraction. Even if you don't want to believe it, or the thought of pedophilia makes you squirm, that is not relevant here, so I would ask anyone to consider the notability of this subject carefully before kneejerking with delete. To say that this was "largely written by Ashford" is false in itself; it's been edited extensively to keep POV out since its last kneejerk nomination, which, as is apparent, resulted in a keep. Merging this with pedophilia is not a good idea, as the childlove movement is not at all completely composed of pedophiles, but also ephebophiles, and as jd420 tells me at least, normophilic people as well. The "childlove movement" article is already long enough. Moving on... if you're the type of person who judges notability by a quick tap into Google, please note that "childlove" is a rarely used term. "Boylove" and "girllove" are used much more often, so as to segregate the sexual attractions. "Girllove" gets 18,700 hits, if we exclude all pages containing the keywords "wikipedia" and "encyclopedia." "Boylove," seemingly more popular, receives 332,000 hits. These are only pages Google has spidered. There are thousands of websites dedicated to this crusade, several organizations (everyone's heard of NAMBLA or MARTIJN at least). The movement is notable: it has thousands of members, usually well-masked behind a shield of anonymity. Activism happens, whether the public likes it or not; ranging from promoting what they see as the correct use of the word "pedophile," to advocating the abolishment of age of consent laws. To say that "childlove" is a euphemism is POV itself. It is a term invented by the movement to describe themselves (in fact, it's basically just using the root Greek meaning of "pedophilia"). We have articles on organizations within the movement itself. I find it almost obscene that someone would propose deleting this article and not NAMBLA. The FBI has even acknowledged the existence of a large movement working to "legalize child molestion" in a newspeice on Ashford I seen recently. // paroxysm (n) 21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, by definition, the term ephebophile (attraction to post-pubescent youth) excludes those we commonly refer to as "children" (ie pre-pubescents) so I don't accept your claim that "childlove" is not a synonym for pedophilia and that therefore "childlove movement" is not a euphemism for "pedophilia advocacy" as we don't generally refer to teenagers as "children". The primary definition of child is a prepubescent human hence ephebophiles are not attracted to children and the term "childlove" does not accurately describe their feelings or behaviour. I don't deny that there are those who wish to legalise pedophilia. My problem is in using a POV term to describe that movement. Homey 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - there's far too much good content here to simply trash all of it because of a few paragraphs or sections people don't like. I don't think this article is particularly POV, it outlines arguments the movement makes, it doesn't make those arguments FOR them. -Drdisque 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork for it's violation of NPOV core policy. --Rob 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. //paroxysm (n) 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand you're saying that "boylove"/"girllove" is a useless excercise in euphemisms. Assuming that to be so, I think the fact that pedophiles campaign for political issues is a notable thing which deserves an article, and Pedophilia is very long-- the whole thing won't fit. The "childlove movement" (especially NAMBLA) has a long history tangled up with the gay rights movement etc. There needs to be a general article to describe this, so take this one, NPOV it, and move it to your favourite title. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on euphemisms and "what a group calls itself". Holocaust deniers prefer the euphemism "Holocaust revisionist" or "historical revisionist". Wikipedia, as a rule, uses the term "Holocaust denial" rather than the euphemism. Similiarly, white supremacists prefer the term "white nationalists" but we use the former term rather than the euphemism. If we simply have a default where we use whatever euphemism a group prefers to use for itself that would open a whole POV can of worms. Homey 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per the reasons given above 80.177.152.156 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: anonymous votes do not count. Log in to your user if you want to be counted. Clayboy 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above Strong Keep vote was by me, JCUK. I hereby reiterate it, and attach my name to it. Jcuk 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus H. Christ. That's all I have to say. That's my vote. Jesus H. Christ. Herostratus 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus H. Christ I second that vote. --DanielCD 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Largely written by me? Rubbish. I have not edited on this article for almost a year. And no, I did not coin the word 'childlove'. It was around long before I became an activist. Zanthalon , 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether we agree with the movement's views or not, this is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it - and as such, it is the correct title. And the article itself is definitely encyclopaedic, although some sections may be construed as POV and may need a bit of work. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it " Really? I've never heard of non-pedophiles refer to this movement as "childlove". Please provide some mainstream citations. Homey 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's normal to break out subarticles. I'd have no problem with a move to paedophilia advocacy if the antis really insisted, but adding it back into pedophilia serves no purpose except to allow outspoken conservatives to direct our editorial policy. James James 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on excellent arguments above. I'm not convinced the nom has really thought this through. -- JJay 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ZERO Lexis/Nexis hits, which means ZERO media coverage employing the term "childlove". NONE of the references use the word "childlove" in the title. This seems to be a POV fork. At the very least a title change is in order. Gamaliel 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero hits on all common news sources? Then it obviously should be a sub topic on pedophilia. The article in it's entirity is based on the idea that same childlove movement that isn't covered in that sense by the news. prove it to me otherwise. Lotusduck 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would support it as a subtopic, then vote to rename and rewrite rather than just to delete the information. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there isn't any press coverage under the movements prefered name, then it doesn't need it's own article. Lotusduck 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for? // paroxysm (n) 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• the kind of notability/verifiability of at least the name childlove is per wikipedia standards: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So if newspapers have articles but no third party publisher calls the movement what the movement calls itself, then we don't have some verifiable source calling it that, then wikipedia can't call it the childlove movement either, because we can't verify how widespread the term is, or it should be left to publishers of original thought to determine the occurance of the term "childlove" not original research on wikipedia. Lotusduck 07:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've moved the page to pedophilia advocacy. Would those who voted to delete on the basis that the term does not exist be willing to reconsider? I think there is clearly a reasonably sized group of people that does advocate for social acceptance of pedophilia, and covering them, and detractors of them, would be legitimate in my view. Lotusduck, you've been fairly outspoken here, and I accept your view that it is pretty much only those within this movement who call it the "childlove movement", but will you accept my counterargument that whatever it's called, the advocacy does exist and is a legitimate subject for the encyclopaedia. The argument whether it should be broken out from pedophilia is quite separate, but would merging such a long article back into its parent be a really good idea? James James 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a term in wide currency. - SimonP 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but merge some of the important content into pedophilia (movement exists, apprently, but it's not notable enough for it's own article.--Sean|Black 08:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rob, Gamaliel and SimonP. Like Sean above, I think whatever useful content there is within the article should be merged into pædophilia. --cj | talk 09:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The Childlove nee Pedophlia movement is a culturally and socially significant phenomenon. I would not merge the article, Pedophilia and the actual pedophilia movement, as pedophlia has a long history, most of which does not include the modern pedophlia movement. The two subjects are related, but not the same, and should be kept separate, but link to one another. MSTCrow 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, move or delete - The title is unacceptably euphemistic. No comment on the content, but the title can't stay. Kosebamse 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've moved article to pedophilia advocacy. Does that work better for you? James James 09:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, dispicable yes, but it's what they are commonly referred to. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also per paroxysm's reasoning who cited external sources. It is also in line with the naming of NAMBLA it's the NAtional Men Boy Love Association. If pedophilia advocacy was at all used (and not a neologism) it would've been named NAMBPA (National Men Boy Pedophile Association). It is covered by outside sources, but gauging notability by google or Lexis Nexis hits makes no sense, when you know there's a lot of censorship going on about the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sorry for the repeated comments, but I've done some Google searches:
  • "Childlove" gets 12900 Google hits [1]
  • "childlove movement" gets 390 Google hits [2]
  • "paedophile advocacy" gets 20 Google hits [3]
  • "paedophilia advocacy" gets 145 google hits [4]
  • "pedophilia advocacy" gets 316 hits [5]

I think that makes it clear the suggested rename is the POV neologism here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • "pedophile" isn't a neologism. It's a well established term. "advocacy" is also a well established term and joining them in a phrase is simply done for descriptive purposes. the word "childlove" however does not exist in any credible dictionary. Homey 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the search "childlove movement" on Google.com of the 146 uniques, the top hit is Wikipedia, the wiki mirrors domininate the other results (this article itself, plus all the others they've worked the term in). There is little non-wiki serious usage of the term in the results, with much of it being the usual "scraper sights" (e.g. search for anything and you get something on their sight). This actually proves that Wikipedia itself is the biggest promoter of the term. Now, sadly, others will likely follow. This shows the movement had great success with Wikipedia, as we forget how influential we are. Other people doing similiar "Google tests" will now make similiar judgements, to accept this term. Also, I would note, in your first search "Childlove" by itself, obviously has meaningings unrelated to the perverted one being discussed here. Even combined with other words, I expect there are people who use the term in the more literal non-perverted sense it's been used in the old article name (e.g. as in "childlove" means "child love" not sexual abuse of innocent children by people who are mad that I called it abuse). Finally, in all Google tests, keep in mind shorter simpler words, that are easier to spell, always get bigger results, and that doesn't tell you which is the proper term. --Rob 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a patron of the online boylove community for almost ten years now, I had never heard the term "childlove" until Wikipedia renamed its "boylove" article into "Childlove movement" (if I remember correctly). I remember it as a conjured-up term to merge articles on "boylove" and "girllove". I have since noticed "childlove" being used quite often, when wanting to denote the collective boy- and girllove communities (and I've also noted many in the boylove community shunning the term "childlove"). So either I was ignorant of the term before the Wikipedia rename, or Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly to the usage of the term. Clayboy 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or move to something like Advocacy of pedophilia. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the original name, it's the name of it. See Mgm's comments. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I did some more googling. This time with all different spellings, paedo pedo etc. Pedophilia advocacy is used in the media more than childlove. So still keep but with the new name. Garion96 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If neither is used, what does the news media call it? Just because pedophilia advocacy isn't a good term doesn't mean childlove movement is an established part of human knowledge. Paroxysm- in the news articles you read what do they call it? Lotusduck 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a term in wide use, hence neoligism. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Point of view fork. Cyberevil 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, neutral, true, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For those interested in media coverage of this movement, try http://kctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=73283. Check the videos. Here's the description of one story: "Pedophilia as a political movement? It sounds not just far-fetched but perverse. However, a KCTV5 News Investigation has uncovered such a movement and it’s captured the attention of Kansas ’ top law enforcement official." And a quote from the November 22 "investigation," by Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General: "There is an effort, a sophisticated effort ... that is funded by [pedophiles] who forword such arguments." // paroxysm (n) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And does KCTV ever refer to the movement as the "childlove movement"?Homey 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am strongly swayed by the Lexis/Nexis result and the fact that no reliable authoritative sources seem to use the term 'childlove movement'. I think that, therefore, talking in detail about the childlove movement breaks Wikipedia's commitment to No Original Research. If there were media coverage or academic discussion on this topic then I'd be saying Keep all the way (and be much less fussed about the name). Yes, it means we miss out on the description of this phenomenon. No, this discussion wouldn't be happening the same way if the topic were Fluffy Bunny Rabbits. However, some reputable source needs to cover this ground before we can. The Land 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think more voters should be involved editors of this topic like paroxy and land. While the article is largely written in a similar voice to encyclopedic articles, the lions share of the article is original research. We would lose basically nothing sourced accurately by deleting this article and starting a fresh pedophilia advocacy section in the pedophilia article. I think so, and anyone who thinks this article just needs a little work should consider working on the article before being sure they want a keep. Lotusduck 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-original research If we remove the parts of the article that constitute original research (more than half the article as far as I can tell) sections 2.1 and 2.2 in particular, the remainder should be short enough to fit into pedophilia. I think there remains a strong argument to merge. Homey 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork, with string suspicions of original research. --Pjacobi 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that it needs some NPOVing, but I'm not sure exactly what it's thought it's forking? Articles are often broken out of their parent subjects, but they're not considered to be forks. This is not an article about paedophilia itself but about advocacy for it. James James 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination appears to be an attempt to silence highly unpopular political or social views by refusing to allow them to be described on Wikipedia. No matter how nasty a view may seem to us, we are not in the business of refusing to cover it because we don't like it. --FOo 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make that allegation if you can demonstrate that somebody voted to keep an opposing POV fork, while voting to delete this POV fork. However, that's not the case. Also, you fail to address the serious lack of *reliable* verifiable information to back up this article. Also, we actually do try to "silence" any POV soap-box pusher on *any* side. If somebody wishes to push an agenda, they're free to do so elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. You're partly right though. Their views are highly unpopular, and argueable "suppressed". Hence, they're rarely published. However, Wikipedia does not champion the rights of the unpublished. In fact, we're quite hostile to the unpublished. We don't (or shouldn't) write anything about anyone unless it's been published by reliable sources elsewhere. Is that fair? No. But that's the price of verifiability. --Rob 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten and Merge with pedophilia per User:Thivierr. Seems like a POV fork to me. Jessamyn 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A real movement. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Many of us can agree that this article is filled with nonverifiable information. This article could be uniquely about the activism, but information is continually being added that subtly or not describes pedophilia from an unpublished viewpoint. If this article is not deleted it can be weeded down to its' verifiable components. If the verifiable and scholarly parts of this article don't amount to more than a stub, then Pedophilia Advocacy can be redirected to Pedophilia and the content moved there. People who vote either way should help edit this article, although of course delete voters may have more ideas of what to edit. Lotusduck 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It clearly would amount to more than a stub. There is advocacy, and it's perfectly sourceable. I agree that it should be uniquely about activism, and responses to that activism, and should it survive this AfD, I'm going to work on making it only about that. As I noted on the talkpage, I hope you'll join me in doing so. James James 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a real subject, and a real movement so should have it's article, provided content can be verified. if nessacary, remove the unverified sections, but keep the article. Silent War 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but fix I'm not sure I like either title but there has to be something about this group of people. I really think the pedophilia article needs to stick to medically defined pedophilia. Please don't merge. --Gbleem 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that there probably nees to be separate articles for those who want to support people who have medically defined pedophilia and those who advocate sex with children. --Gbleem 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The dividing of the articles should be along subject lines, not along lines of POV. "Pedophilia" should be about the medical and scientific ends, with perhaps a mention of any alternate POVs. Childlove...I think "Ped. Advocacy" or something along those lines might work. But I'm not so convinced "Childlove" is so POV as people seem to make it out, or even want it to be. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think separate articles is a little much, although this article mixes those two issues and several others together rather badly. But I'm unaware of any sources that specifically call for helping people who have medically defined pedophilia in the strictest sense. There are articles proposing possible revisions to how to treat pedophiles in psychology, which is hardly the issue of pedophilia advocacy. I think what you're describing is "Debate over pedophilia treatment" and really there isn't that much of that in the article. Personally, I haven't got the strength. If it is created, I will do my best to read over the peer reviewed journal references and make things as informative as they can be, but it would be better if an article like that was started by someone with the professional expertise to begin with. I mean, it's acceptable to make an article from reliable sources without having the professional expertise, but it's exhausting too. Part of the reason people only read a fourth of most of these journal articles and then make up their own conclusions is because the things are so long. Lotusduck 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mixing of issues and definitions is exactly why I don't want it merged with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a condition identified by a process that is standardized by a group people with fancy degrees while the childlove movement as described is more of a political/social movement.--Gbleem 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)

• Keep, no valid reason to delete has been set forth. --Angr (t·c) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep encyclopedic topic.  Grue  15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It never ceases to amaze me how people want to delete articles simply because the content it distasteful. I had a similar debate at the Erik Beckjord article deletion; the man is an obnoxious ass, but that's no reason to delete the article. Perhaps it can use a bit of renaming/defining. To try and delete this as if it is not an issue in its own right...that is simply crass and POV to the point of absurdity. Even if it is deleted, it will just reappear, as the subject carries a great deal of importance to some people, no matter what their intentions are. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childlove movement was nominated for deletion on 2004-08-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus" with a default result of "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03.

• Here are some organizations. I think only NAMBLA still exists. --Gbleem 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Paedophile Information Exchange
• JORis
• Danish Pedophile Association
• North American Man/Boy Love Association

There is also MARTIJN. I believe the women/girl organization you're referring to is Butterfly Kisses. // paroxysm (n) 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but I might add that this article should be the focus of every decent Wikipedian to crush the POV of sick child molesting bastards. DTC 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, you should get right on this article eh? I think that this article is about as non-point of veiw as if the Ex-Gay article was composed completely of information found through Ex-gay organizations. That article isn't, and that article is fine. I think a lot of people are confusing neutral point of view with being positive. Lotusduck 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. To be considered a "child molesting bastard" you usually have to, you know, molest children. Not just advocate its legalization. Maybe you should read the article.

I would also encourage you to stay away from the article if you're going to let your emotions cloud up your neutrality. All POVs need to be presented, but without endorsement. // paroxysm (n) 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that means you, not being a decent Wikipedian as far as I can see, should probably avoid the article altogether, per your own advice. --DanielCD 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you replying to..? // paroxysm (n) 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was talking to Mr. "I'm gonna get my fucking way or else" DTC up there. --DanielCD 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.