Interesting stance, while I understand your Point of view, think about this. In the beginning of the pyromania article, it doesn’t state that acting on pyro impulses is illegal. It doesn’t state that acting on necrophiliac impulses is illegal in the beginning of the necrophilia article. See what I’m saying? I also understand that the age of consent varies, so it is possible that in some places acting of pedophilic urges is not illegal, making your statement inaccurate.

Yet still, they are hesitant to mention acting on pedophilic impulses is illegal. Instead, they write this:

” The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents or youths below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography related offences.”

Local age of consent? How mild. As if it’s ok to be romantically attracted to an 11 year old in Utah but not in California? Not accurate and misleading.

Child sexual abuse? Pedophilia is attraction of a romantic nature to children. Child sexual abuse is an adult having a sexual relationship with a child. If the pedophile brings flowers and candy and sweet talks a child or brings ropes and belts, it is still against the law.

Laws are clear, children are off limits. Why is it so difficult for Wikipedia to state clearly “acting on pedophilic impulses is illegal” in the very first paragraphs so that children and teens reading this definition are made aware of this in simplest terms? This is why the definition is there I assume, to educate. Wouldn’t it be responsible to educate children and teens on this truth?

I am grateful for the in depth analysis though. Step in the right direction. Still support the blocking of Wikipedia from family/school settings until standards improve. The fact that it took this much to get the definition even to mention possible “attraction below local age of consent” and be longer than 2 paragraphs is still cause for alarm.

Perverted Justice have their work cut out for them. I can see why they are gaining support from law enforcement.

- Acting on pedophilia impulses is illegal in the US. That is not mentioned at all in their definition, that certainly caused me concern. Since suffering from, and acting on, are relevant details to the definition, the absence of defining this causes me concern a child reading this will get the impression it’s ok, and not against the law. Dangerous to their well being in my view.

-When one looks up other definitions such as “murder” Wikipedia clearly defines it in its’ first sentence as an illegal act.

This threatens my view of impartiality and neutrality. Pedophles do not have legally protected status to engage in their illness in the United States. Acting on their condition should be noted as illegal until it is otherwise. That would be responsible, and truthful conditions. That Wikipedia has responded as it has casts serious doubt as to their continued legitamacy, and shows a downward turn in my view of them.

I already know several schools who have blocked access to them completely, and other schools are following suit due to this lapse in judgement, and others. We have known for years Wikipedia would inevitably lose it’s ability to remain a safe place for families/schools to visit. Surprising how fast that has occurred.

People who think pedophiles should have a voice should be shot along with them.

http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/wiki/BLueRibbon

It is always interesting to see how pedophiles will come to articles like this and try to spread misinformation in order to sway the opinions of regular folks.

Probably not, but a Republican or another supporter would.

Would George W. Bush be allowed to edit his own article? He’s not NPOV right?

Same thing I’m saying.

“Edit wars” on Wiki mostly spring from people with a dog in the fight, editing the article. Agreed? They shouldn’t be allowed to do so, such articles should be locked.

Just sayin’

So, the reasonableness of their organization’s claims and tactics is immediately suspect to me.

OTOH, I am not a fan of pedophiles. I don’t *think* any of my friends are, but I don’t know. I do know from interacting with these folks that the moment they *think* someone *is* a pedophile, they want that person to essentially be removed from all aspects of society.

This is NOT an illegal ‘activity’ it is technically a sexual disorder. There’s nothing illegal about that, therefor why impede their rights of free speech?

Advocating child-rape is of course another matter all-together, and by all means should be censored, but that’s not the issue…

Xavier has personally admitted that protecting children is not his goal - http://xavier-pj.blogspot.com/

I did indeed say that I edit Wikipedia because it’s an important platform, but my edits were genuine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BLueRibbon . I do reject the label of “child rape advocate,” however, as I agree with the criminalisation of adult-child sex.

I was banned from Wikipedia for allegedly violating the user page policies. Apparently, posting my bio listed here, as well as links to my blogs (political text) were a violation.

Midnight,

You are wrong about paedophilia being an activity and you’re also incorrect when you suggest that paedophiles are being allowed a voice at Wikipedia; they are covertly banned. I’d like to hear why you support legitimate paedophile editors being banned from editing?

The statement “Neither anti-pedophile “fanatics” as you call them nor pro pedophiles have NPOV on related articles. Therefore neither should be editing that particular article” can be applied to nearly all of Wikipedia’s most contentious and edit-war-prone articles, including their articles on Scientology, George W. Bush, the Armenian Genocide, Microsoft, Wal-mart, Hilary Clinton, and many others. But I ask you, how can you tell when a person is either an “anti-pedophile fanatic” (a term that I stand by when describing Perverted Justice) or a pedophile, until after that person has spent time editing the articles in question?

Pedophilia is an ILLEGAL activity in most of the world… and your other examples you put with it, aren’t. So, what’s your particular agenda?

People CAN hide behind anonymous IP addresses, and not register with Wiki, but this is all solved if Wiki locks the article. So Modemac, your entire argument is shot down that quickly.

Wiki staff needs to simply lock it up, and re-write the entire thing from a completly NPOV, encyclopedia-style, and leave it locked up.

It’s too bad Wiki seems to believe pedophiles and pedophile activists should have any voice whatsoever, though.