List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, ... Haiduc has competition Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Elsewhere we discuss the work of Haiduc.

From another piece of his handiwork ... List of films depicting pederasty it appears Haiduc has competition from one Tony Sandel, author of List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. One of the many contortions the authors perform to re-title the topic included JzG. Tony is also behind the very encyclopediac List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors.

Sandel is the author of many of "List of ... " to do with sex abuse of children, pedophilia; songs, movies, books etc. The Wikipedia is an instant encyclopediac guidebook to anyone interested in the perversion.

Again, watch for all the topic renaming going on. Haiduc pops up as do a few other known suspects.

Its weird ... even 5 years after my first involvement with the Pee-dia, I have no idea all of this was going on and that its form was exactly the same as all the old agendas grinding away day in day out. How much time and energy has been wasted on this crap?

As far back as 2005, Mistress Selina Kyle pulled Haiduc up for being in the "Childlove movement" pointing out that sex with "boys as young as 12 which is obviously blatant pedophilia" and points out Haiduc's removal of Pedophilia from the Pederastry topic as being "irrelevant".

Nor did I ever know about Childlove movement, Pedophilia advocacy or Pro-pedophile activism being euphemistically renamed and moved to "Age of consent reform". Check history for renames.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[the fieryangel]

As far back as 2005, Mistress Selina Kyle pulled Haiduc up for being in the "Childlove movement" pointing out that sex with "boys as young as 12 which is obviously blatant pedophilia" and points out Haiduc's removal of Pedophilia from the Pederastry topic as being "irrelevant".

Nor did I ever know about Childlove movement, Pedophilia advocacy or Pro-pedophile activism being euphemistically renamed and moved to "Age of consent reform". Check history for renames.

Have a look at this thread, which documents the people defending Haiduc in the last round of discussions concerning these types of articles. Note who was defending Haiduc's position. Note also that these people are not participating in the current deletion discussions. Rather interesting, huh?

If my memory serves me correctly, around the time that Valleywag was publishing articles about Erik Moeller and his essays on children's sexuality, there was purge of pro-pedophilia editors. A line was drawn, which Haiduc successfully was able to exploit. By forcing these people to change their terminology and their approach to this type of POV-insertion, the ARBCOM merely forced them underground. It will take quite a long time to get this material out of all of the biographical articles about secondary figures in history and other related issues.

[Doc glasgow]

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors]]

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

So what is Will Beback doing in there protecting them?

And in response to comments about the Wikipedia's legal counsel Mike Godwin making legal threats against anyone outing pedophiles on the Wikipedia ... or what ever it was (please confirm) ...

Mike Godwin - Undo Influence (mnemonic) Mon 9 Aug 99 20:34

Before Ariel was born, my approach to free speech and liberty issues was driven primarily by principle and the way I had reasoned through my own positions. After she was born, however, I started thinking "Christ, I've got to bust my butt now to save free speech for my daughter!"

When most people ask me about my attitudes as a parent, however, they're asking about one of two things:

1) what I think about the prospect that my child will see sexually explicit content on the Net, or
2) what I think about all the child pornographers and pedophiles that supposedly are prowling around on the Net.

With regard to (1), I have to say that, after some reflection, I'm not concerned with what my daughter will accidentally encounter on the Net.

With regard to (2), I have to say that I think the Net is safer than the
street.

...

But then I explained that I don't think "innocence" and "never having seen sexual imagery" amount to the same thing.

...

Ariel is six now. She's entering the first grade tomorrow.

"Safer than the street"? Well, perhaps ... but then as a child walks down the street it is not assailed with graphical sexual images.

[the fieryangel]

Looking at one of the companion articles to this mess: List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (T-H-L-K-D), I see on this very long list the following :

"Christine Sixteen", by KISS
Don't Stand So Close to Me", by The Police
"Maggie May", by Rod Stewart
The Man with the Child in His Eyes" by Kate Bush

and most interestingly of all :

"Sweet Little Sixteen" by Chuck Berry

(and I thought that I had a dirty mind...)

Granted, there are indeed songs on this list which are about the subject, but what are these other songs which have nothing to do with paedophilia or sexual abuse doing on this list?

One of the reasons that Pro-pedophilia activists use these sorts of lists (such as the "list of historical pederast couples") is so that they can point to these things as say "See, it's perfectly normal. Even Chuck Barry and Sting wrote songs about it!".

This is going to be impossible to clean up. I hope it all gets nuked soon!

[the fieryangel]

This is going to be impossible to clean up. I hope it all gets nuked soon!

The "Wikipedia Review" effect strikes again.

That's a good start. However, how difficult is it to figure out that an organization which needs to attract children as participants needs to police extremely closely any subjects which deal with children and sex? It seemed to me that this was pretty self-evident...

[wikieyeay]

It's rather odd to call yourself 'Tony Sandel' and then leave this on your user page:

'I have tried over the past three years to improve the resources available on Wikipedia both on the positive relations that men can have with boys and also the negative ones .'

'When my book on the subject is eventually published, then perhaps we will have an authoritative third party source '

given that he is named after a book which is cited positively by the 'IPCE' as

'attempt[ing] to paint paedophiles as non-dangerous people' to 'assis the process of public education.'
and to 'make human a topic generally considered to be the work of the devil.'

IPCE, btw, is essentially a NAMBLA-type organisation seeking 'emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults'

the book itself, apparently about a 13-year-old who leads on an older man, is most often bought with - 'Boys in Shorts: English School Boy Short Stories'

and goes for $800+ on amazon.com, and £1250+ on amazon.co.uk.

The book of course has a loving wikipedia entry.

[Alison]

Looking at one of the companion articles to this mess: List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (T-H-L-K-D), I see on this very long list the following :

"Christine Sixteen", by KISS
Don't Stand So Close to Me", by The Police
"Maggie May", by Rod Stewart
The Man with the Child in His Eyes" by Kate Bush

and most interestingly of all :

"Sweet Little Sixteen" by Chuck Berry

(and I thought that I had a dirty mind...)

Granted, there are indeed songs on this list which are about the subject, but what are these other songs which have nothing to do with paedophilia or sexual abuse doing on this list?

One of the reasons that Pro-pedophilia activists use these sorts of lists (such as the "list of historical pederast couples") is so that they can point to these things as say "See, it's perfectly normal. Even Chuck Barry and Sting wrote songs about it!".

This is going to be impossible to clean up. I hope it all gets nuked soon!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

Might as well go for the tripple crown.

[Doc glasgow]

Lindsay Ashford (activist)

I'm also wondering why wikipedia still has an article on this.

I realise being a disgusting apologist for pedophiles isn't a deletion criteria, but surely being a totally unnotable disgusting apologist for pedophiles should be?

[Alison]

It's rather odd to call yourself 'Tony Sandel' and then leave this on your user page:

'I have tried over the past three years to improve the resources available on Wikipedia both on the positive relations that men can have with boys and also the negative ones .'

'When my book on the subject is eventually published, then perhaps we will have an authoritative third party source '

given that he is named after a book which is cited positively by the 'IPCE' as

'attempt[ing] to paint paedophiles as non-dangerous people' to 'assis the process of public education.'
and to 'make human a topic generally considered to be the work of the devil.'

IPCE, btw, is essentially a NAMBLA-type organisation seeking 'emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults'

the book itself, apparently about a 13-year-old who leads on an older man, is most often bought with - 'Boys in Shorts: English School Boy Short Stories'

and goes for $800+ on amazon.com, and £1250+ on amazon.co.uk.

The book of course has a loving wikipedia entry.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Blocked indef

[EricBarbour]

Lindsay Ashford (activist)

Well, the Ashford bio was originally created by Zanthalon (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Whose talkpage was blanked and protected by Fred Bauder, for (and I quote):

21:09, 7 March 2007 Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Zanthalon: Pevent recreation of user talk page damaging to Wikipedia's reputation [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[The Joy]

Lindsay Ashford (activist)

I'm also wondering why wikipedia still has an article on this.

I realise being a disgusting apologist for pedophiles isn't a deletion criteria, but surely being a totally unnotable disgusting apologist for pedophiles should be?

The article's creator, Zanthalon (T-C-L-K-R-D) apparently was banned in 2007 for "activities damaging to Wikipedia's reputation." That should have sent alarm bells for this article and others written by him. It was also edited heavily by Jim Burton (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tyciol (T-C-L-K-R-D) , both banned for pro-pedophile activities on Wikipedia.

Lindsay Ashford (activist)

Well, the Ashford bio was originally created by Zanthalon (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
Whose talkpage was blanked and protected by Fred Bauder, for (and I quote):

21:09, 7 March 2007 Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Zanthalon: Pevent recreation of user talk page damaging to Wikipedia's reputation [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ah, beat me to it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Isn't it funny, how WR threads keep talking about all the pedophilia-related activitiy
on WP, because there's been so damn much of it.

And yet, when Alison AFDed that song article, out of the shit-pot bounced
Eastmain and Colonel Warden, to object.....and how did Tony Sandel manage to
avoid the banhammer for FOUR YEARS?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I think it is interesting to question even the titles of these pages, given they were made by a pro-pedophile activist ... sorry pro-pederast.

List of ... 'portraying' paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

Some of the material is over very anti- but it appears that it still appeals to these individuals. The Wikipedia providing source lists of exciting fantasy material for them ... materials that might take weeks or months to have found before or entice borderline individuals in deeper.

Alison, I admit yours and others efforts are admirable but are they ameliorating the effect of all this kind of stuff and weaken a more potentially more serious review of what they are doing and the nature of the Wikipedia?

[Alison]

Some of the material is over very anti- but it appears that it still appeals to these individuals. The Wikipedia providing source lists of exciting fantasy material for them ... materials that might take weeks or months to have found before or entice borderline individuals in deeper.

I think it's a case of "so long as it's in the public eye, it's all good", y'know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Alison, I admit yours and others efforts are admirable but are they ameliorating the effect of all this kind of stuff and weaken a more potentially more serious review of what they are doing and the nature of the Wikipedia?

I'm in a quandary over all that. Let a pro-pedo have free-rein and post whatever they like - accelerate the demise of WP, etc, etc? Or ban him post-haste and delete all his shit? I dunno. My immediate reaction is to get it gone and get them gone, for the good of all - including the various young teenagers over there (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I guess I feel the best thing is let people like me deal with the cleanup, whilst documenting it as yet another case of pro-pedos on the wiki. Add it to the casebook ...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I'm in a quandary over all that. Let a pro-pedo have free-rein and post whatever they like - accelerate the demise of WP, etc, etc? Or ban him post-haste and delete all his shit? I dunno. My immediate reaction is to get it gone and get them gone, for the good of all - including the various young teenagers over there (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I feel for you in that quandary. I also do not see why you, as an unpaid and 'demoted' volunteer should have to puddle in the filthy gutters of the Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia.

I guess the onus is on the rest of us to at least documented the onanistes, and the good work that came from here.

Is there any convenient piece of forum plugin, software or website to archive all this stuff as it is questioned or removed?

I think if the committed realised how much good work came from here their 'attack site' discredit would be weakened.

... and, of course, do we really believe haiduc is gone ... or has he just gone underground to re-incarnate as someone else?

Without verified identification for all editors, there is no way of telling. Or at least making life tougher for the corrupters.

[the fieryangel]

I'm in a quandary over all that. Let a pro-pedo have free-rein and post whatever they like - accelerate the demise of WP, etc, etc? Or ban him post-haste and delete all his shit? I dunno. My immediate reaction is to get it gone and get them gone, for the good of all - including the various young teenagers over there (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I feel for you in that quandary. I also do not see why you, as an unpaid and 'demoted' volunteer should have to puddle in the filthy gutters of the Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia.

It must be said that things have gotten quite a bit better than they were just a few months ago. For example, have a gander at this AfD from 2007 for an article called "Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film"...yes, this was on WP...and the result was almost "No Consensus". Some gems from that discussion :

Keep and edit until its acceptable. The tone does suggest a hidden agenda, frankly--the reader does think, well, why is this particular example here? I don't think its OR, but a rhetorical strategy to show how many types of such friendships are acceptable, with the implication unstated. However, it is true that many types of such relationships are in fact acceptable in western societies, (and additional ones elsewhere) and like many other relationships of all sorts there is often or perhaps always some psychosexual component. So there is something to write about. An honest discussion--in the article--of possible use by different agendas might clear the air. I hold to the principle that there is nothing about which an objective article is impossible. DGG (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I was about to type delete, but I actually read the article. It's not just listcruft or an essay, but as of now it is very well sourced and written, useful for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it needs re-naming. I don't questions motives or agendas. Bearian 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is well sourced, and is a nice counterpoint to the plethora of Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in *** articles which presently festoon Wikipedia. If they aren't deletion fodder, then neither is this. It contains quite a bit of well-sourced information, and I'd be reluctant to destroy this much of anyone's hard work, no matter what the topic. Hermitian 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine your POV fork argument vanishes if we put "Mentoring" or some similar term in the title, as such relationships are by definition positive, and the term is well defined and inclusive, and it can no longer be argued that only a subset of some larger topic is being selectively presented. I'd be surprised if no one we can use as a source has ever looked at the subject, and in any case, the arguments you are advancing never seem to get applied to the neverending series of "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in <Some Obscure Topic>" articles which are certainly a canonical example of WP:SYN, listcruft, and original research. The article is well-written, well-sourced, and a quite comprehensive and well thought out treatment of its subject matter, and I think the bar for deletion needs to be at the "high" setting because of this. Hermitian 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

...Further the assertion that the article is "intended to prove positive the unerring importance of "intimate relationships" between men and boys" may or may not be true – I find no reason to try and guess Tony Sandel's motivation since we are judging the article on it's own merits, not based on the intents of its creator. __meco 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This was probably the direct result of the great "pedo" purge of 2007....and now we're seeing the aftermath of the great "pederasty" purge of 2010...Does this mean that they're going to stop and do something else now?

Don't bet on it. They're just going to call it something else (mentoring, perhaps?) and try to insert the material other ways. Any articles which deal with children, children's issues and sexuality need to be watched quite closely, since the next step will be masking this material even further.

Good to job to Alison and to Doc on AfDing and banning these individuals...

[the fieryangel]

While we're on the subject, until quite recently the Wikipedia article for Boy (T-H-L-K-D)was a disaster, featuring a nude artwork section and a BDSM role-play section, both of which were removed on January 25, 2010 by an anonymous IP (thanks to whoever did that!). The article still features two photos of boys in various states of undress...which is perhaps two too many? I won't comment on the boyscout picture...The text is a rather mixed bag :

ship's boy is a minor in naval training; boy seaman refers to specific, low-paid apprentice ranks, notably in the Royal Navy; until the middle of the twentieth century, they were the only Navy staff subject (like their civilian age-peers, at home and in school) to physical punishment, usually spanking, traditionally administered on the bare bottom (as in English public schools; the adults were lashed on the backside above the waist), either formally (ordered in court martial, publicly executed on deck) or, more often but less severely, summary; the same was true of a midshipman, also a minor, but indicated with "-man" rather than "-boy", possibly reflecting their higher status as future naval officers. Sometimes in ex-servicemen's parades, an old man is described as "ship's boy" to say that he served so classed in the Navy as a boy.

...Some artists displayed a clear predeliction for scenes with boys, in certain cases (especially if frequently depicting revealing poses) believed to have to do with a homo-erotic taste, as is believed of the highly respected Old Master Caravaggio, or Henry Scott Tuke who kept producing such works even though the market circa 1900 was rather unappreciative...

Compare this to the Boy article on "Simple Wikipedia" which is clearly written by people with a much more "healthy" view of this subject. And the photos are much more encyclopedic. Maybe somebody needs to transwiki this onto English and start over?

At the very least, the "Boy" article on simple doesn't have the weird vibes that the one on EN does...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

While we're on the subject, until quite recently the Wikipedia article for Boy (T-H-L-K-D)was a disaster, featuring a nude artwork section and a BDSM role-play section, both of which were removed on January 25, 2010 by an anonymous IP (thanks to whoever did that!). The article still features two photos of boys in various states of undress...

Isn't that 3 pictures with 6 kids in a state of undress.

The big kid in the uniform, center, is arbcom Rleve's.