![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Edit Needed
- 3 Serious revision needed
- 4 In the popular media
- 5 LGBT???????
- 6 Pedophiles
- 7 Correction of citation
- 8 reqphoto
- 9 Time for an overhaul
- 10 Goals and positions
- 11 Skewed discussion of Curley v. NAMBLA
- 12 MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ
- 13 Controversial tag violated
- 14 EDIT NEEDED
- 15 Cat clean
- 16 Rewording
- 17 Earliest opposition by LGBT group to NAMBLA
- 18 Deletion of section by Active Banana and Lionelt
- 19 A minor edit I want to make but don't seem to have the authority to do...
- 20 Allen Ginsberg (biography guidelines)
- 21 blacklist
- 22 Footnote [21]
- 23 David Cross - Associated Persons
- 24 History of the group is inaccurate...
- 25 Poor English
- 26 Wondering about links to NAMBLA and the blacklist, and about the "Operations" section
- 27 NPOV tag
- 28 More Information about members
- 29 Wikipedia is not a site for jokes
- 30 Homosexuality should not be the topic here
- 31 Historical Bias
Untitled
The section on NAMBLA's relationship with the LGBT movement needs quite a bit of improving. This section gives too much weight to politics as being part of the reason for all LGBT organisations condemning NAMBLA. LGBT people saw that NAMBLA had positions which, if implemented in law, would lead to the abuse of children. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.145.156 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please sign all posts. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit Needed
I think it's importnt for the article to note that Allen Ginsberg's defence was based on free speech grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.118.30 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Serious revision needed
Articles like these are prime reasons why real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations from their students and peers. NPOV does not mean "both points of view." It means a neutral point of view, and does not mean that all positions on a subject have to be given equal weight. I realize that the Internet is one of the few places where unabashed pedophiles can express their views (which they do have) without suffering damage to their reputation (or selves) in their real lives. But statistically they are an extreme minority and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for child molesters. The information here is incongruous with other articles dealing with child molesters and therefore serious revision of this article is very necessary. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you would specify the views/information you are referring to. Crimsone (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with your argument is that NAMBLA organising is political activism, and not necessarily molestation of children. You are specifying your own belief, and that is far from neutral. forestPIG(grunt) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the link between pedophiles and child sexual abuse as the first is a psychiatric disorder and the latter child sexual abuse a legal issue. Although I do agree with your statements that pedophiles are a minority and Wikipedia ought to have a neutral point of view. But as with any organization, the organization's views should be listed on this page.
- User:Aparthia(grunt) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Real professors and academics do not allow Wikipedia citations because Wikipedia is tertiary (generally speaking). A good wikipedia article would contain references that could be used as a source, but it would not itself be a source. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's completely incorrect. The references themselves are often in question. I have spent no end of time looking up the references given and in so many cases they simply do not support their referring passage. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the good and bad of this forum, but professors don't allow its usage because the content can so casually be changed by anyone even by the student to back up anything. This removes the true accountability. Interestingly the teachers I know do like wikipedia....just not for their students.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is a third degree reference, or "tertiary" as Eric put it. Lack of Citation is a problem, however generalizing it to all of the entries is an emotional out-lash to an otherwise useful resource. I would have to say that suggesting Wikipedia as a whole has no or few useful citations is proliferating a level of ignorance based on one's frustrations frustrations, Tgm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.197.21 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's completely incorrect. The references themselves are often in question. I have spent no end of time looking up the references given and in so many cases they simply do not support their referring passage. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the good and bad of this forum, but professors don't allow its usage because the content can so casually be changed by anyone even by the student to back up anything. This removes the true accountability. Interestingly the teachers I know do like wikipedia....just not for their students.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with the need for revision. The "History" section is one of the most biased pieces of garbage I have read on Wikipedia. It reads like a NAMBLA press release.74.134.160.246 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
In the popular media
Could be added: There's a song by The Wonder Stuff on their 1993 album Construction for the Modern Idiot which lyrics explicitely are adressed to the MBLA: "I wish them all dead". --78.52.142.220 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I second this suggestion, this song really should be added to the NAMBLA page, the lyrics booklet clearly states that the song is about the (NA)MBLA.
-- Hego99 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
LGBT???????
- The article isn't about 'people who exploit children for sex' -- or at least that's a highly tendentious interpretation.The Relativist (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Check your favorite dictionary sometime. If pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to children, then homosexual pedophilia certainly exists. What you probably intend to say is that pedophiles shouldn't be associated with mainstream gays. 174.126.77.173 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality" Sure it does. Doesn't the Catholic Church, among others, have this problem with homosexual pedephile priests? Many of their victims claim that they are homosexual today because of the homosexual pedophile priests.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- This article is indeed part of LGBT history. Many LGBT activists were tied into this cause and supportive in the beginning and some even persisted towards the end. Your bias is clearly showing if you somehow want to cover this up as part of LGBT history. How would you feel if Christians tried to detag the Spanish Inquisition as part of the series on Christianity and Catholicism? My guess is you would probably not be a fan. All ideologies must acknowledge dark times in their history where their leadership went astray. Nobody is to be given immunity. 98.114.89.231 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The association is called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Adult/Child Love Association or the North American Man/Girl-Woman/Boy Love Association, so I guess that makes it very LGBT. And it does say "love" in the name of the association, so technically speaking it is not about exploitation (it's not the North American Man/Boy Sexual Abuse Association).187.112.248.21 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is about an organization defending relationships between consenting individuals of the same gender. Though the LGBT Community rejects them, (as they pretty much threw anyone who isn't "mainstream" enough for them under the bus) the organization belongs categorically under the LGBT communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.197.21 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Pedophiles
Hmm. I've been reading up on the history of NAMBLA and it seems pretty clear that while they remain morally questionable throughout their history, they are not, strictly speaking, advocates for pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia (popularly called pedarasty, which historically was more accepted than it is now in the history of western homosexuality.) I don't want to stray into the political battles that I'm guessing on this page and similar pages quite often, but i'm just not sure that this "pedophilia" is or ever was an accurate characterization. I realize that the word "pedophilia" has been used in the media since the 1990s to talk about adults who are sexually attracted to post-pubescent youth; but that is a cultural bias. It is not the clinical, scientific or academic definition of the term - something that is even recognized on Wikipedia's page on pedophilia. Food for thought on a hot-button topic... 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is the fact that these ppl are considered by many to be pedophiles not mentioned in the opening paragraph? Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It should really be. Disguising a truth doesn't make it less true. 88.17.179.212 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also in the first paragraph there's a typo: NAMBLA is spelled NAMLBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.158.93 (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) NAMBLA are a joke, right? 86.168.139.165 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, like Hitler's regime was. Marksmore111 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello all Gregory Russ (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
How's everyone Gregory Russ (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Correction of citation
{{editsemiprotected}} The sixth citation that is from the "Journal of Homosexuality" only lists the name of the journal and the page numbers but no further information. The complete info is Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 20, Issue 1 & 2 February 1990 , pages 251 - 274.
This should be edited to reflect the full citation information. Below is the link to a verification of this information. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a904834876~frm=abslink
reqphoto
Time for an overhaul
The article is in poor shape. Content is in the wrong sections, and there's redundancy throughout. I propose an overhaul, the first step being tweak the outline to encompass all sourced content, and then move items to their appropriate section, then delete redundancies. Looking at FA and GA articles for orgs, this outline should work well:
- Goals and positions
- Operations
- History
- Relations with LGBT organizations
- ILGA controversy
- Curley v NAMBLA
- Criticism and response
- Notable members and supporters
- In popular media
- Film
- Television
- Other
Founding, 1990s, Today would be absorbed into History. LGBT condemnations would go in Relations. Criticism would obviously go in Criticism per policy. There is an article for Curley now so that section needs a {{Main}} I know this is a group for, well, pedophiles, but if we're going to have the article we should make it... decent (if you'll pardon the term). Opinions? Lionel (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- That looks like a workable plan. I'm all for it. Btw. I downgraded the article in its present state to C-class. After the proposed changes have been implemented, we'll yank it to 'B' and perhaps even attempt a GA nomination. Don't you think that could be achieved? __meco (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input and the re-assessment! And I'm not surprised about the 'C'. GA? What a hoot! It's certainly doable. Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have noticed that some material has been taken out of the article in the last day. Unreferenced material can and in some cases certainly also should be excised. However, if valuable information is being removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, it would certainly be a good idea to try and look for the references as well. __meco (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding Wolfsie & Oprah, don't know it it's valuable. "Notable members" is definitely valuable but due to BLP needs citations. "In pop culture" is an interesting read, but will inclusion get us to a B rating, and then GA? This might make an interesting entry since it's not trivial, i.e. the entire episode is devoted to NAMBLA. Lionel (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have noticed that some material has been taken out of the article in the last day. Unreferenced material can and in some cases certainly also should be excised. However, if valuable information is being removed on the grounds that it is unreferenced, it would certainly be a good idea to try and look for the references as well. __meco (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input and the re-assessment! And I'm not surprised about the 'C'. GA? What a hoot! It's certainly doable. Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Communications with sock of user:benjiboi |
---|
== Spirit of Stonewall pic ==
The pic is being repeatedly removed. NAMBLA attended the march per Bronski as cited. Harry Hay was an outspoken supporter of NAMBLA (no cite really necessary). The pic is the march and Harry Hay. Do we want a pic in the article or not? Lionel (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Hay was not a "huge, notable supporter" he protested their exclusion from the LA Pride parade as well as another person but you deleted this information. Hay supported them for various reasons but mainly because he felt that sexual minorities had been excluded too long to turn around and do that to anyone else. Cat clean (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
A relevant image would be of the group itself marching, not someone famous you're attempting to link to them. The Stonewall March was just as relevant to the hundreds of groups and thousands of people in it, which is not so much. Their participation in the march doesn't seem to be much more significant than their marching in any other gay parade. I support you finding an image of them actually marching or doing anything else. Show them doing something not other famous people who you want to link to them. Cat clean (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC) |
Goals and positions
Historically this section has addressed NAMBLA's goals, initiatives, and the reasoning or logic behind them. Admittedly the "logic" is disturbing to most people. However, it really is the starting point at which to understand this org. Several months ago nambla.org was blacklisted. Then refs to this section were removed due to NAMBLAs website is "not reliable" e.g. nambla.org/welcome.htm. Now the section is essentially empty. (I just recreated it.) nambla.org/welcome.htm should be a source for their goals per WP:SPS an org can reliably talk about itself. If there are no objections, content sourced to nambla.org will be restored to this section. Lionel (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's role to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind any organization other than to report WP:DUE material from a suitable analysis presented in reliable secondary sources – we should not perform original research to explain the position of some group. While it is not possible to meaningfully comment on your proposal without seeing an example, this article should not mirror the website of an organization. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I find edits by SqueakBox[1] and Jack-A-Roe[2] disconcerting and ominous for the future collaboration environment on this article. If the normal Wikipedia editing practices are to be discarded for this article in exchange for extraordinary and draconian requirements we are indeed in for an unpleasant experience. I take the reasoning of Johnuniq above as an indication of such a trend in addition to the removal of the following paragraph by the aforementioned two editors:
- The group stands for the position that [[age of consent]] laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and children, particularly boys.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws."{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} This policy was still in NAMBLA's "official position papers" in 1996.
- __meco (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- As I said above, we should report WP:DUE material; that means there is no need to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind the organization other than what is currently in the article (if there is such a need, please explain it). An encyclopedic article on this topic needs to describe the facts and leave it at that, without any unsourced analysis of the goals/reasoning/logic. Many organizations have websites with hundreds of pages of details: we do not emulate those details unless secondary sources have shown such details to be warranted for mention. Re the quote in your last comment, I do not see what that would add to the article. Further, I would not want to hold an informal group like this accountable for some resolution from 1980, even it was in some papers in 1996. To do so, merely because the information is or was on their website, looks like cherry picking with no purpose to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point about the 1980 resolution is well taken, but that doesn't mean the entire section should be edited into oblivion.
- I think we can all agree that content in Goals should be reliably sourced and exclude any WP:OR. Question: is nambla.org a reliable source about itself? Lionel (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to use their self-published website for that. There has been enough written about Nambla in the news and in books that reliable secondary sources can be found to document their goals. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, we should report WP:DUE material; that means there is no need to explain the goals/reasoning/logic behind the organization other than what is currently in the article (if there is such a need, please explain it). An encyclopedic article on this topic needs to describe the facts and leave it at that, without any unsourced analysis of the goals/reasoning/logic. Many organizations have websites with hundreds of pages of details: we do not emulate those details unless secondary sources have shown such details to be warranted for mention. Re the quote in your last comment, I do not see what that would add to the article. Further, I would not want to hold an informal group like this accountable for some resolution from 1980, even it was in some papers in 1996. To do so, merely because the information is or was on their website, looks like cherry picking with no purpose to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
There seem to be 2 notable positions that nambla expouses which seem to recur throughout the references:
- Age of consent laws require reform
- NAMBLA is a gay org
I propose addressing only these 2 positions in the section by providing a brief sourced statement of nambla's position (taking into account (1) fringe theory and (2) wording so as not to promote their positions) and then a brief sourced rebuttal. Comments? Lionel (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Skewed discussion of Curley v. NAMBLA
I find that the extensive discussion of the two Curley v. NAMBLA lawsuits, the first of which was dismissed by the court and the second dropped by the plaintiffs, presenting the allegations and arguments of the accusors in lengthy detail, to be quite inappropriate, even infringing on BLP. Comments anyone? __meco (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! I was just thinking that myself. Until a verdict is rendered, it's really just hearsay on the plaintiff's part. The other problem with the section is that it doesn't address it's significance: the lawsuit generated intense negative publicity for NAMBLA and intensified the pressure to go underground. How could that not be included in the section? IMO we should trim the legal details and focus on the impact instead.
- As a side note, what do you think about similar treatment at Curley v. NAMBLA, and then adding content about the victim and moving it to Murder of Jeffrey Curley with the lawsuit as a section? Lionel (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure that murder case could be detailed in a separate article. As the legal cases centering on NAMBLA fizzled out I think it would be more appropriate to have those discussed in the murder case article, i.e. my opinion is that the current Curley v. NAMBLA article should redirect to that. You have probably noticed like me that the content of the Curley v. NAMBLA article is almost a copy of the text covering that matter in this (the NAMBLA) article. __meco (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ
North American Man/Boy Love Association has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/FAQ. You are free to edit the content of North American Man/Boy Love Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
- In case interested editors did not notice the transcluded MfD warning above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Controversial tag violated
An editor has made substantial changes without discussion nor consensus. I reverted. There are several active discussions on this talk page relating to article organization, Stonewall picture, goals, Curley. I recommend that the editor in question, and all editors desiring to improve the nambla article, join us. Lionel (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
My edit, which can be seen here[3] was clearing up substantial changes that you had made like "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA" which does not match the source. I replaced that with "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups." This is sourced and accurate and not misleading in any way. Similar to plopping the name of Samuel R. Delany completely out of context, - I added "In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society." This makes it clear that Delany, a living person, supports a group "like" NAMBLA and it explains why a similar group should be allowed free expression of their ideas. That is different than a misleading statement they support the group on a page that misrepresents the group as being only about pedophilia. Until I cleaned up the Curley v. NAMBLA article I didn't know that pedophiliacs in the group were a minority and that there was internal struggle with that issue. All the recent discussions on this page are either by you or about your actions. I invite anyone else to look at the version that Lionelt simply reverted on principal and see if it isn't better quality and sourced better. Cat clean (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor
I've re-added the parts about the group being for both pedophiles and pedarists and the context for including Samuel R. Delany, who is a living person, to make it clear in what ways he was supportive of the efforts of a group "like" NAMBLA. Cat clean (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor
- Ah, the summarization in the lede is accurate and defamation would be an unreasonable stretch in this case. The Delany item has been in the lede for quite some time, there is no consensus to make this substantial change, and your lengthy edit represents half of the lede which is discouraged. However, in the spirit of collaboration, I'd like to open a discussion regarding where the Delaney edit should go. How about Criticism and response? (Deleny edit moved here temporarily.) BTW 4 editors including myself have posted to the talk page in the last couple weeks.
- NAMBLA has been defended on free speech basis by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg.[1] In 2004 professor and author Samuel R. Delany, in extended interviews about his novel Hogg stated he supported a group like NAMBLA because "abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing". He expounded that "for thousands of years, relations we assume are abusive by definition (child marriages, slavery, child labor, etc.) were the social and legal norm, institutional and ubiquitous [..] behavior that we [today] find wholly unacceptable—flogging slaves, wife beating, and child beating (in the family, in the school, and at the factory)—was recommended by experts and clergymen as the most efficient and least disruptive way to maintain [social] order. All of these institutions changed, nevertheless, only when they were no longer economically feasible or beneficial to the greater society.[2]
- Lionel (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The positions of these "supporters" are incredibly nuanced and most certainly need, particularly in the case of living people, to be fully and accurately "summarized". If you dont want that much detail in the lead, then take out the names. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Samuel Delany in the now twice deleted "notable members and supporters" section. He stated his support for a group "like" NAMBLA. The use of his quote in the beginning was ideal but singling him out as a supporter is not accurate. Cat clean (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)sock of banned editor
Communications with sock of user:benjiboi | |||
---|---|---|---|
== Effort to replace current LGBT section ==
I put all the LGBT content together in order of events and went back to the original sources to ensure we accurately reflected them, I also included a very brief overview of early LGBT movement formation. This would replace the LGBT and ILGA controversy sections. A version of this was deleted on the basis that my changes were too substantial without talkpage consensus. I feel this version is closer to being unbias and adequately explaining these connections. Cat clean (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's still better and more accurate than what we have. Cat clean (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The section presented here is more accurate and better sourced. It shows how utterly dismal the rest of the section are, that's why I put in the effort to see what the sources state. The summary at the top omits many keys points about the group and the whole article tries to reinforce they were only about raping pre-pubescent boys. I believe a source you found actually spells out that nambla has never been tied to any crimes and in fact is shown to be more of a solution than a problem in that actual pedophile who join a group are much less of a problem than pedophiles who operate with no social oversight. This confirms the Delany quote. Insisting that every change you deem major must be approved by you will hamper improvements. I'm adding better reliable sources and removing bad sources and bias editorializing. Cat clean (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually good articles include background and context and try to explain how a group like this formed, initially was accepted then completely ostracized. Including this content will show how poor the rest of the sections are and hopefully will inspire those to be improved as well. You seem to be stating this content's biggest fault is that it's too long. That is a rather odd reason that we should leave the poorly sourced content that is not presented neutrally. The current article is a mess, this is a step in the right direction. Cat clean (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed outline of rewrite: |
EDIT NEEDED
It says in the article that the child absue group wants all child absuers freed expect in cases where vicitms were coerced. All cases of child abuse qualify as coercion due to the victims not being able to judge the situation. Pedophilia is immoral because it causes terrible life-destroynig harm. Whether coercion, using this group's definition, is involved does not change that fact as the scientific evidence clearly showsLink to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Paedophilia. Therefore the sentence should be changed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The language of the article promotes this group. Can that problem be solved as soon as possible.--86.44.252.83 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Be more specific about what is wrong and how you would like it changed. __meco (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- Would you please stop spamming this request to all articles loosely related to child sexual abuse? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Sorry, that last was to the anon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
-
-
Cat clean
FYI the disruptive user from a few months ago is really a sock of the indefinitely banned user Benjiboi.Lionel (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Rewording
I don't see how "the power imbalance between adults and children makes any sexual relationship exploitative" does not apply equally to any heterosexual relationships - or to any relationships whatsoever. I'm not implying that children can give consent to sexual content - my point is that the argument against consensual sex with children (the sentence I quoted) is a bad argument since it is too general and far from being exclusive to adult-child sexual contact.R. Piskorski (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Earliest opposition by LGBT group to NAMBLA
- Marcus, Eric (1992). Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights. HarperCollins. ISBN 0060167084.
The Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth in New York City which later became the Hetrick-Martin Institute was most likely the first LGBT group to oppose NAMBLA. Pjefts (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, the NAMBLA organization began by a small group of men living in Marin City, California facing San Francisco in 1977 and they claim to gather for their civil rights to pursue "consental" Pedophile relationships. The LGBT community rejected their ideas of legitimizing unconsental child sex offenses and child abductions, because anyone with a brain realized this is wrong as simple as that. The LGBT(A) movements includes "A"llies such as polyamory, BDSM, bondage, foot fetish and pregnancy fetishism communities. They are not illegal (of course polygamy, insect, necrophilia and bestiality are against the law in the US and every state of the union), these alternative lifestyles involve mutually agreeing/participant couples and lovers into the same fetish/desire, and they do not force sexual harrassing acts onto others uninvolved with the suspect. It is perfectly clear NAMBLA should be an organization about controlling psycho-pathological sexual urges on young children, and how to receive mental evaluation to help them overcome pedophiliac behaviors. It's good to see the contrasting moral relativity of Gay men sought adults not teenagers or children (anyone under adult age) and it's crystal clear on social acceptance and tolerance is never based on how pre-pubescent children wrongly lured to and are victimized. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of section by Active Banana and Lionelt
I provided a citation to the deleted section and while I would agree more sources are needed I don't think that the section should be deleted without some discussion. I am reverting it to the origin again. Let's talk this over, please. Pjefts (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a controversial article, so everything you add needs solid sourcing. Unsourced content will be removed. Now: even though Hetrick has a source, is it relevant that was "possibly" the first org to object to nambla? As of now, I'd have to say no. Lionel (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did not add this content...I did add the citation to Marcus's book. Let's take out the "possibly" if you like since there's little doubt that it was the first organization to oppose NAMBLA. This content was added within the last month or so..what's the rush to remove it? As to the relevancy, it's important to understand the long-standing objections of the LGBT community to NAMBLA and (although I have problems with the way it's currently written) that many have tried to conflate NAMBLA with the stuggle for LGBT civil rights. Pjefts (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- a) Process: Content was boldly entered then , then reverted (twice), consensus needs to be reached before re-re-insertion
- b) Content 1) we cannot assume that it is the first. 2) Hetrick Martin is not the emperor of gay people. cannot stretch that source to support the remainder of the claims in the paragraph. Active Banana (bananaphone 02:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did not add this content...I did add the citation to Marcus's book. Let's take out the "possibly" if you like since there's little doubt that it was the first organization to oppose NAMBLA. This content was added within the last month or so..what's the rush to remove it? As to the relevancy, it's important to understand the long-standing objections of the LGBT community to NAMBLA and (although I have problems with the way it's currently written) that many have tried to conflate NAMBLA with the stuggle for LGBT civil rights. Pjefts (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
A minor edit I want to make but don't seem to have the authority to do...
In the History section, affiliation is misspelled. Will someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekthegreat (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Allen Ginsberg (biography guidelines)
The article does not make it clear that Allen Ginsberg only joined the group out of principal, because it was a discussion group and not a dating group. It was in other words a matter of free speech to Ginsberg. Ginsberg is dead, but probably the article should make this distinction out per some general policy. The distinction is made elsewhere within Wikipedia and could be adapted. Ginsberg is mentioned in passing no less than 3 times on the page. Seems gratuitous. --99.197.224.57 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think his joining of the organisation on free speech grounds should be noted so as to not give an inaccurate impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.145.156 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Are there any reliable sources we can use for this?Millertime246 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
blacklist
i don't know why, but when i copied and pasted the info-box to my sand-box, i got a message saying it was spam cause it linked to a site on wp's blacklist. just thought id mention it. Jake1993811 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That means it's been placed on either the local or global blacklist after it was entered into the infobox, There are logs that can be checked to see the process leading to the listing. (WP:BLACKLIST). According to the log the reason for its listing is "Per request on IRC, malicious site being spammed", so apparently the url has been posted inappropriately in other places than in this article. __meco (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Footnote [21]
Footnote [21] makes allusion to Media reports in 2006. But the link goes to Boston newspaper article "May 2001". Contradictory. Since 10 years nothing new from NAMbLA ? Teodôra 217.81.149.24 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
David Cross - Associated Persons
Per the March 2012 Playboy Magazine interview with David Cross, Cross states that he is a dues-paying member of NAMBLA. Cross played Allen Ginsberg in the movie "I'm Not There".
Quote from the article: "But Ginsberg and I also both happen to be dues-paying members of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That's where the similarity between us started. I tried to do my homework on him. I studied his videos and familiarized myself with his poems. But really, my performance was almost entirely based on the man/boy-loving part of him. I even picked up a copy of the NAMBLA newsletter from the magazine store over on St. Mark's Place." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.207.135 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cross is well know for his sarcasm, I seriously doubt it's serious. We would need something more substantial as this could be a serious WP:BLP issue. Noformation Talk 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
History of the group is inaccurate...
First sentence in History, quote, 'Events such as Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA.[5]' the group was formed at least several years before, tho I cannot provide any verifiable info except my own report...
I was the younger partner of a M/B relationship from '69 to '74. I remember that it was during the first 2 years that he told me of the existence of the group NAMBLA which 'supported' our type of friendship. (I dont believe he ever joined it, but he knew of it, and told me of it, when I was 13 or 14... ) I never saw a magazine, a newsletter, or anything else... I saw plenty of porn... [ pardon me, but I saw 'hard porn', for the day... never any films, but I saw mags in B/W of nothing but 'beaver shots', I saw others with nothing but pics of young boys 'showing their stuff'... I saw mags with explicit pics of men and women... it pales in comparison to what is easily (and privately) available on the net today... ]
I cannot provide any externally verifiable info, only my own report, which I certify is true...
probably not able, based on that, to edit the page, but I wanted to tell you... my guess would be that the group must have been founded before '68... tho the 'Stonewall' riot was Jun '69, and might have been the catalyst...
regards...
p.s. I have found, more than a couple times in recent weeks, that the phrase 'sex by eight, or it is too late' is wrongly attributed to NAMBLA... that phrase was used by a group that advocated heterosexual sex with children, members of the group appeared on Phil Donahue's show in the 80's, and a quick search will turn up the relevant info... all I am saying is, condemn NAMBLA for their own crimes, not for those of another...
Wont fool me twice (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You present the requisite caveats yourself, so I'm not going to repeat them. I do find your information about NAMBLA possibly having a history that stretches prior to 1968 credible (affording yourself good faith and not suspecting you of having any motives to present wrongful information). We will obviously have to leave the matter at that, but anyone who would be privy to missing documentation about the early, and in this article undocumented, history of the organization, are encouraged to assist in elucidating also this part of NAMBLA's past. __meco (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Poor English
Please spell check this document. Paedophile is spelt incorrectly all the way throughout as if the author was a five year old who mouthed out his consonants to learn how to spell.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.147 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- How is pedophile spelled incorrectly all the way through? The spelling variation pedophile is the English version. Note that our Wikipedia article about pedophiles is titled Pedophilia, not by the British version...Paedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Wondering about links to NAMBLA and the blacklist, and about the "Operations" section
I tried, absentmindedly and foolishly, to turn a (to me) strange-looking pseudo-link to NAMBLA's "Welcome" page into a real link, and ran into the fact that it's blacklisted. Good thing too, and I shouldn't try to gnome before coffee. But what I'd like to know is: a) if the link is blacklisted, should the corresponding www address be offered in unlinked form, either? (Currently footnote 9.) And the quote from it in the article? And b) what about the live link to NAMBLA's website under "External links"? Are only their individual subpages blacklisted?
I also think most of the section "Operations" should be removed. (I've already removed the promotional description of the booklets, and the misplaced listing of William Andriette.) The link [5], used as a citation for no less than three of the publications listed, is 404 not found. The item "Arrel's Pages, a project through which literature concerning 'man-boy love' was sold" is altogether unsourced, and Google can't find it. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC).
NPOV tag
There is no criticism whatsoever of the organization, I cant believe due to lack of sources being available. Also the article relies much too heavily on NAMBLA sources. There is no editorial dispute, merely a realization that the article is simply not neutral in accord with our WP:NPOV policies. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
More Information about members
Can you please write more about the active members of this group? Thanks. Keep up the good work NAMBLA! John K. (Miami) --207.207.17.198 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The good work? Are you seriously approving of these homosexualist paedos?
Wikipedia is not a site for jokes
Surely this article should be removed, because I just have troubles believing this group exists outside of an Onion article. 182.239.217.79 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is wikipedia informing your ignorance which is just what we are here for, so a success story!. No tor back in the day when NAMBLA were at their peak♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Homosexuality should not be the topic here
Homosexuality is not anything to do with this group nor are any gender orientation equality movements. This article is swaying towards merging the two topics into one which is inappropriate. This is an organization that supports sexual relationships between young males and adult men -- Not a topic about homosexuality or it's history. It's a bit like having an article about a group which promotes murder then writing about ethnicity and the African American rights movements. It's inappropriate, off topic and cannot be verified by sources. I think the article needs a re-write to assess the WP:NPOV and root out WP:WEASEL issues. At the end of the day the article is about the organization and is not about gender orientation. The group doesn't even advocate anything that has any relevance to gender orientation. I would like help from anyone who is willing to offer thanks. olowe2011 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks for talking to me on my talk page and notifying the WP:LGBT editors of this article. I agree that this article is very slanted and could do with some thorough copyediting; I appreciate the effort and help that you've given this article. I disagree that homosexuality is irrelevant to NAMBLA – this group is somewhat notorious (especially in the US) for using LGBT rights causes for their own promotion in the past, and I think that this needs to be addressed in the article. However, it is definitely not the primary topic.
- Regarding these edits, I think it's right to remove the {{expert subject|1=LGBT}} tag, as well as Category:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (NAMBLA may be brought up by LGBT rights opponents, but I don't see how the NAMBLA article is directly related to that category. Most reliable, non-fringe sources focus on the paedophilic aspect, as does the organisation itself) and Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States (NAMBLA is certainly not a civil rights organisation). I personally wouldn't have removed Category:LGBT history in the United States as it is a US organisation which has historically allied itself with the LGBT community (whether the LGBT community wanted to be allied to NAMBLA is a different issue altogether), and because of LGBT-related controversies, such as ILGA's UN consultative status. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Zumoarirodoka: That was better said than I could possibly have said it. Thanks for your insight and links. I would be inclined to agree that from the sources it does appear the group had involvement with certain sets of gender orientation equality groups in the United States, however I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the fact that they are a significant part in the history of Gay rights therefore I personally wouldn't say it's appropriate to categorize the group under a section designated to help people looking for significant and notable factors on the topic of homosexual rights. This said I do agree with you that sources indicate some involvement with the LGBT community therefore it should be included in the article. It's just making sure we don't overlap two completely separate topics and give readers the impression that Homosexuality or the progression of rights for the LGBT community somehow hinged or developed because of NAMBLA, even in part as this isn't referenced or accredited by any source. Once again, you seem like a great person thanks for being a welcoming editor! :) olowe2011 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, and thank you for editing.
- I agree. NAMBLA should not be given more weight in LGBT topics than is due just because it's controversial; I personally would say that is is equal or more notable to various organizations listed at Category:LGBT history in the United States, but I'm not from the US so I may be wrong on that account.
- I think a big issue for this article is that very few reliable sources discuss NAMBLA in any great detail; this leaves us to rely heavily on primary sources (i.e. from NAMBLA themselves), which are obviously incredibly biased in their favour. That, and articles like this tend to attract POV-pushing editors. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Zumoarirodoka: That was better said than I could possibly have said it. Thanks for your insight and links. I would be inclined to agree that from the sources it does appear the group had involvement with certain sets of gender orientation equality groups in the United States, however I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the fact that they are a significant part in the history of Gay rights therefore I personally wouldn't say it's appropriate to categorize the group under a section designated to help people looking for significant and notable factors on the topic of homosexual rights. This said I do agree with you that sources indicate some involvement with the LGBT community therefore it should be included in the article. It's just making sure we don't overlap two completely separate topics and give readers the impression that Homosexuality or the progression of rights for the LGBT community somehow hinged or developed because of NAMBLA, even in part as this isn't referenced or accredited by any source. Once again, you seem like a great person thanks for being a welcoming editor! :) olowe2011 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Historical Bias
There are two areas of significant bias in this page. Both of them have to do with the history of attitudes towards pederasty in the West.
First off, since the 1990s, "pedophilia has become term used in the mass media in a way that encompasses hebophilia and ephebophilia - or "pederasty". It is a distinction that the psychiatric profession does not make when discussing these three paraphilias. The various (troubling and disturbing) writings by NAMBLA leaders show that they were always advocating for pederasty. In the 1970s, there was a bizarre moment in the west where groups of intellectuals and activists were questioning age of consent laws in general and there was a general pattern towards considering legal toleration for pederasty. (There are articles on some of those groups and essays on wikipedia.) This included, surprisingly, prominent French theorists Foucault and Derrida and numerous political philosophers. Some organizations were around then which also seemed pedophilic in nature; but it is disputable whether NAMBLA was one of them. From their writings, they do not seem to have been.
Secondly, in the mid-twentieth century there was some interest within some quarters of the gay culture to point out moments in Western history when homosexuality was not repressed. Ancient Greek pederasty was an obvious example. NAMBLA was an extension of this, which took it a couple extra steps further. But there are moments in the current NAMBLA article which overemphasize political - as opposed to cultural historical - links between the very early gay rights movement and pro-pederasty attitudes. These reflect the biases of the religious right's interest in connecting homosexuality to pedophilia. There is no historical reason to think that in the early years, NAMBLA would have been pro-pedophilia; however, there is great evidence to show that they were pro-pederasty. As late as 1996, the head of NAMBLA wrote an article stating quite explicitly the pederastic focus of the group. One can question whether or not they were also tolerant or accepting of child molesters within the group; but the arguments were always focused on ephebophilia/pederasty. A non-biased account would make all this much more clear. 2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- @2602:306:80B0:28E0:C920:F748:CDC7:7A3: Many reliable sources – a great deal mentioned in this article – clearly link NAMBLA to pro-pedophile activism, and a group for pedophiles. Even the term "boylover" on WP currently redirects to Pedophilia, as it stands. Whether you do or not view NAMBLA as pedophilic is your own view; Wikipedia does not allow for original research and fringe viewpoints must not be given a false balance with the mainstream views. (For example, David Thorstad's views on pederasty and homosexuality would be considered fringe). Obviously, subject matters such as NAMBLA can be contentious issues and as such, it's often difficult to make articles like this neutral.
- That being said, I think that it would help if this article went more into the broader historical context of NAMBLA, in terms of pro-pedophile or pro-pederast activism in the United States, and their relationship with the broader LGBT community. From what I can tell, most sources focus on the political aspect of NAMBLA, especially its aim to abolish the age of consent altogether. The controversial aspect of NAMBLA means that we have to be very careful when adding information to the article, and it also means that there are very few unbiased reporting a of the organisation, which makes it difficult to be neutral on these topics. If you have any information, provided it is reliably sourced and explicitly mentions NAMBLA, I'd appreciate your input. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no doubt in my mind that NAMBLA is *now* a pedophilic and pederastic organization. The question is really if it was always that way. As an academic who deals with queer history/theory, it is pretty clear to me that this was not the case. I don't particularly relish the idea of tracking down sources in my personal library on pederasty (ick!), but i'll come back to this page when I bump into them in the course of doing my other work. Or perhaps someone more enthusiastic about this subject wants to jump in? 104.11.2.142 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
But the other issue concerning the use of the term "pedo" to include "pederasty" is pretty important. There isn't a sound social scientific argument for using the term in that manner, even though popular culture and the legal profession do so. That is not a fringe viewpoint. It is how the subject is understood in the DSM and clinical psych profession. 104.11.2.142 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If there have been any historical changes to the organization's goals etc., then this should definitely be included in the article. I'm not too familiar with the organization's history, but there's obviously a lot this article isn't telling us and I would appreciate any help you could give, especially if you have reliable academic sources on the matter.
- And yes, pederasty and pedophilia are distinctly different issues (albeit somewhat blurred under NAMBLA), and both are different to child sexual abuse (although there's no denying there's some overlap between these three categories). However, I don't think we need to go into too much detail on that with regards to this article; Wikipedia does mention the differences on their respective articles, and we can link to them if needs be. Of course, there are always going to be those who are ignorant. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in common discourse; the WP:Neutral policy is quite clear how matters on this should be handled. Per its WP:Valid section, we do not give a positive review of NAMBLA for every negative review of NAMBLA. The vast majority of material on NAMBLA is negative, so WP:Due weight is at play there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how you would reduce a call for greater historical context to a undue weight, Flyer22. Your language seems to imply that I am calling for a "positive review of NAMBLA" which, frankly, is a rather disgusting thing to insinuate. I think we can safely set your intervention, here, aside as irrelevant. Zumoarirodoka, I have done an initial look for sources. I should have predicted this, but while there IS material about calls for age of consent reform in the 1970s and pederastic homoerotica in the 1950s and earlier, there is scant little on the origins of NAMBLA itself. Are those wider debates in the 1970s and cultural history of an interest in "Greek pederasty" in the 20th Century relevant to the origins of NAMBLA? Certainly. Do they belong on this page? Not sure...
Classic historian's problem: reviled organizations tend not to be well-researched - and admittedly, I wouldn't even set one of my graduate students onto this project. Perhaps someone else who has seen archival sources will jump in when they come across this discussion. 2602:306:80B0:28E0:6094:74E1:9645:6893 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't "reduce a call for greater historical context to a undue weight." I didn't "imply that [you are] calling for a 'positive review of NAMBLA'." I was referring to Zumoarirodoka stating "[t]he controversial aspect of NAMBLA means that we have to be very careful when adding information to the article, and it also means that there are very few unbiased reporting a of the organisation, which makes it difficult to be neutral on these topics." in his "10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)" post, and anyone thinking similarly. As you can see, there is both an "Opposition to NAMBLA" section and a "Support for NAMBLA" section in the article, and Zumoarirodoka recently added to that support section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding. On that subject, I'm unsure that the Dan Savage quote actually is "support." His view is more nuanced than that - it is commentary on the attacks on NAMBLA. Quoted out of context, as it was in that article, it could be miscontrued as support, but what he is really saying is "Not everything they have said is without any merit. Underage people are indeed sexual beings and our culture seeks to deny that." That doesn't actually support the organization wholesale. 72.181.71.16 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed (I was also thinking about the appropriateness of including that under "support"). Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I've hidden the text from that section. I still think that it should be mentioned on the article, although claiming that it is "support" for NAMBLA may be a bit of a stretch. (Oh, and with regards to what I said before, that wasn't really what I was meaning when I was talking about neutrality). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've re-hidden the text, days after Baffle gab1978 made it public again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- It serves no purpose to have hidden text in an article. If for whatever reason the text should not be visible in the article, then it should be removed altogether, not hidden. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've re-hidden the text, days after Baffle gab1978 made it public again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's common to hide text that is disputed or under discussion because it's disputed. A WP:Hidden note should preferably be added to go along with such text, noting why the text is hidden and pointing to the dispute if it's discussed on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).