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:

[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...