Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Articles _ List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors
Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy
Elsewhere we discuss the work of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28434&pid=219758&st=0&#entry219758.
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haiduc/Archives_2006#Pedophilia.2F.22Pederasty.22 pointing out that sex with "boys as young as 12 which is obviously blatant pedophilia" and points out Haiduc's removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=prev&oldid=32472622 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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
As far back as 2005, Mistress Selina Kyle pulled Haiduc up for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haiduc/Archives_2006#Pedophilia.2F.22Pederasty.22 pointing out that sex with "boys as young as 12 which is obviously blatant pedophilia" and points out Haiduc's removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=prev&oldid=32472622 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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20536&hl=Haiduc, 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.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors
Posted by: 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) ...
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.
Posted by: 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!
Posted by: the fieryangel
This is going to be impossible to clean up. I hope it all gets nuked soon!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors&diff=next&oldid=342465909
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...
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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)
Posted by: Doc glasgow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_works_for_the_theatre_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors
Might as well go for the tripple crown.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Ashford_%28activist%29
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?
Posted by: 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.
Blocked indef
Posted by: EricBarbour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Ashford_%28activist%29
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):
Posted by: The Joy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Ashford_%28activist%29
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Ashford_%28activist%29
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):
Ah, beat me to it!
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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?
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
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 ...
Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy
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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Positive_friendships_between_men_and_boys_in_literature_and_film 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. 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...
Posted by: 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 ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=next&oldid=339959802and a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=prev&oldid=339959802, 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 :
...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 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy 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...
Posted by: 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 ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=next&oldid=339959802and a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=prev&oldid=339959802, 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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
Off of the talk page of "list of books portraying etc...", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors#Sandelizing_Bookshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors#Sandelizing_Books
* Dialogues of Plato, the : an aging Greek philosopher waxes lyrical over his infatuation with boys.
* Koran, the : In a desert far away, Aisha, a pre-pubescent girl, is married off to a bearded Prophet.
* Bible, the : Joseph, a Jewish bachelor, is betrothed to Mary, a virgin girl, thought to be as young as 12. No sooner is the betrothal announced than the underage child becomes mysteriously pregnant.
* Kama Sutra, the : Offers explicit advice on grooming techniques to Hindu paedophiles.
* Cinderella : a juvenile servant girl is pursued by a wealthy aristocrat who calls himself "Charming".
* Kings and Queens: A History of British Monarchy : an in-depth exposé of the paedophilic fixations of English royals - for instance, a 34-year-old widower known as King John goes through a "marriage ceremony" with a 12-year-old French girl named Isabella of Angouleme.
* Metamorphoses, by Ovid : Ganymede, a male minor, is kidnapped by a fully-grown god called Zeus, and made to be his "cup-bearer", a well-known euphemism for sexual slave.
* Arabian Nights : An innocent young girl, in fear for her life, is coerced by a sadistic old man (and compulsive widower) into regaling him with erotic bedtime smut.
* Official History of the Olympic Games : documents how countless boys, often as young as 12, have been forced to appear naked in sporting events, to the excited cheers of male watchers who don't have any trousers on.
Maybe that article should be kept, but probably needs quite a bit of checking...
Posted by: the fieryangel
This last bit was so over the top that it deserved a new thread....
Posted by: wikieyeay
While we're on the subject, until quite recently the Wikipedia article for Boy (T-H-L-K-D)was a disaster, featuring ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=next&oldid=339959802and a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=prev&oldid=339959802, 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?
Quite possibly.
Basically what happens is that perverts insert content and people are scared to remove it.
The BDSM stuff went in in 2006
here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=43892702&oldid=43292196
by a user who also graced the peedia with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pointing_stick&diff=60500438&oldid=60445517
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruler&diff=23157828&oldid=22270209
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broom&diff=40165690&oldid=39389240
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hairbrush&diff=23158644&oldid=22268526
The latter edit was reverted several times, including by a self-desribed 12-year-old peedian who left a message on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastifex#Hairbrush:
"Hello! I once again removed the paragraph on child spanking and erotic spanking that was put in the hairbrush article. The paragraph has nothing to do with brushing hair and seem quite ridiculous in the article and was longer than the brushing article itself! If you would like to add a short sentence about spanking then please do so, but the entire, detailed text belongs in the "Spanking" article. Thank you!"
Prompting the further follow-up "Here's what this is really about: When I'm sitting at the computer with my 9 year old daughter and she asks a perfectly innocent question like "Daddy, what's the red mouse button on my ThinkPad called?" or "Why are some rulers in inches and some in centimeters?", shouldn't we be able to look it up on Wikipedia without throwing obscene material in her face?" by another user
who then added
"Fastifex, I was crying last night after I saw what you've been doing to the Hairbrush article. Me, a grown man. Crying.
You know why? Sweet Loulou. She's 12, Fastifex. 12.
Like my daughter, she probably likes to brush her hair. With a hairbrush. You know, those things that are made for brushing hair? She probably started contributing to the hairbrush article because of that interest.
Do you think when she was younger she imagined, "When I am 12, I'm going to be defending an encyclopedia article on hairbrushes against sado-erotic spam." I guess they grow up fast these days.
And AnnH. She is being so nice, trying to reason with you, asking why you continue to add this material to the hairbrush article, asking you if it would be OK to please tone it down a bit.
I beg you, sir. Search your heart. Somewhere in there, isn't there a place where you can see that what you are doing is wrong?"
he got worse, perverting 'yard stick', 'wooden spoon', 'sneaker', 'slipper', 'willow', 'belt', 'barrel', 'rope' and many more.
sample text:
"The term 'bull's eye' was used when [the whip] hit the tender areas between the buttocks. Naughty boys were ordered to bend over on the spot, presenting their posterior to be lashed with it for such minor offences as taking too long to get in or out of the bath tub, boys who would then still wet and stark naked."
He was also responsible for adding this naked boy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amor_Victorious.jpg
the naked Indian boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=62928602&oldid=62770088
the boy scouts, and others
Sandel added this naked boy fwiw: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy&diff=84332270&oldid=84102452
Fastifex eventually left, I daresay other evidence of his perversion lingers on.
Edit: he may not have left, looks like he is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arcarius - they share an interest in pictures of naked near-naked boys, fetishism, and Roman Catholicism, Arcarius has added back half-naked boys to the boy article on numerous occasions when it appeared as if they were gone.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
Well, let's test Wikipedia's determination to keep the bio of a non-notable kiddie-fiddling apologist just to show how liberal they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lindsay_Ashford_%28activist%29
Posted by: EricBarbour
Edit: he may not have left, looks like he is now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arcarius - they share an interest in pictures of naked near-naked boys, fetishism, and Roman Catholicism, Arcarius has added back half-naked boys to the boy article on numerous occasions when it appeared as if they were gone.
Congrats, you've found another one. And only a tiny taste of the weirdness he's stuck
into an unknown variety of articles.......Fastifex's talkpage is a wonderland of crazy.
Also, I looked at his logs--they are shredded in a way I've never seen before.
I can guarantee you that he will be back, or already is back, as Arcarius or under many
other logins. He can't stop. In fact, I found the following in Arcarius' early log:
# 14:51, 2 February 2006 (hist | diff) Svalbard ‎ (rv (shocking falsification))
# 14:49, 2 February 2006 (hist | diff) History of Svalbard ‎ (rv as DisambigBot)
# 12:32, 31 January 2006 (hist | diff) Svalbard ‎ (rv as Fastifex)
# 12:32, 31 January 2006 (hist | diff) Template:Africa topic ‎ (rv as Fastifex)