Talk:Pro-pedo activists who have "become turncoats"

User4, can you write an introductory sentence or paragraph to the article explaining what you mean by "turncoated"? That's not even a word, by the way. Thanks, Lysander (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a word? What dictionary do you use? Mine (the Oxford English Dictionary v4.0.0.3 Portable) gives the following examples:

c 1645 Howell Lett. (1650) III. xxi. 33 Translations are but as *turn-coated things at best, specially among languages that have advantages one of the other.

1624 Bp. R. Montagu Immed. Addr. A j b, To take notice of his dealing,‥in his *turne-coating from side to side. 1965 National Observer (U.S.) 11 Jan. 2 He told Mr. Watson he didn't ‘think much of turncoating’ when Mr. Watson announced for the House in 1962.

1841 Hampden in Some Mem. (1871) 132 Apologising for his *turn-coaterie, saying, that those who now brought in the new Government would as soon turn them out if they came forward with the proposal of a fixed duty.

1889 W. Roberts in N. & Q. 7th Ser. VII. 41/1 The most barefaced and flagrant *turncoatism.

1892 Pall Mall G. 4 July 3/1 Whichever way I've voted, One or the other's sure to swear that I've *turn-coated.

(Careful when you argue semantics with someone who edits dictionaries and encyclopedia for fun... User4 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Broadening the scope

What about politicians and organizations that were pro-pedo and then turned? E.g. Jürgen Trittin and ILGA. Lysander (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Did a little on the ILGA. No time for anything else. Why don't you add the Jürgen Trittin stuff? User4 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cuz it's outside the scope of the article, since he wasn't an activist. I'm wondering how the article title might be changed to make the scope broad enough to include him, though. I guess we could change "activists" to "people". Lysander (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you rename the article?

I strongly disagree with your renaming of the article which I created. User4 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We can have two articles if it's that big of a deal. Pro-pedo activists who have "become turncoats" and Pro-pedo people, other than activists, who have "become turncoats". Lysander (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I said,

"I strongly disagree with your renaming of the article which I created."

I think you should discuss it with the "owner" of the article (the creator) first before making a major change like that. I understand that that is Wikipedia's policy on the matter, as well. User4 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What about wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? Lysander (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia's policy is that for newly created articles, or articles which have been mainly worked on by one person, that -- out of respect -- any contemplated major edits by another editor should be discussed first with whomever was the creator/main contributor to the article. Yes, over time -- and a number of edits -- then the "right" to an article passes into a kind of "public domain". But until that happens others should not make major changes to a page without consulting with the originator of the page first. You have never seen that stated on talk pages on Wikipedia? User4 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I've never seen that. Anyway, if you don't like a page move, you can always move it back. Lysander (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm surprised you haven't seen that. I have. Oh, and about moving pages -- now I get it. First, you move it. Then I move it back. Then you move it again, then I move it back again, then you move it again. Then I... Hmm... sounds like great fun! User4 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Just make sure that you don't get caught with the page title at the one I chose when the music (I recommend George Thorogood as the soundtrack) stops, or you lose. A good tactic might be to wait until the moment right before the end of the game, and then move the page, so that you might catch me unawares, or at any rate I might have to scramble to try to move it back in time.

Maybe we can turn this into a drinking game. The loser of the first round has to drink one bourbon; the loser of the second round has to drink one scotch; and the loser of the third round has to drink one beer. Lysander (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we are bitching at each other

I am sure you guys are both adults and can work this issue out on your own with out the interference of Big Daddy Etenne.

However, my bitch of the week is: That both you guys need to spend less time adding new stuff and more time finishing ( and categorizing) the stuff you have already added! Just sayin :) --Etenne (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't help it, we're mavericks. "Mavericks make messes by their very nature–the good messes institutions need. Institutions become too organized for their own good, and thus have a hard time accepting the disruption that change agents bring" Lysander (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know.... you know what they say about excuses and butt-holes... that everybody has one.--Etenne (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is the #1 complaint I get about BoyWiki is not that people can't find what they are looking for but that the information that they do find is too incomplete.--Etenne (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As my time is limited, could you give a list of articles that people complain about not having complete information? Maybe those should be given a higher priority. User4 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what they say about complaints and buttholes. :) I complain too, but at least I also edit the wiki. What do these other complainants do? In their early stages, it's common for wikis to have coverage that's broad and shallow. Wikipedia was the same way. It was ridiculous how many stubs it used to have, and on what topics, but it eventually filled out, for the most part. Think of the wiki as being like an awkward teenager who just hit his growth spurt and is looking kinda lanky. Lysander (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have seen you do very little (if anything at all) to dispel the current myths about pedophiles -- instead, I have seen you posting many articles that tend to reinforce the myths -- your "legal" articles have much to do with the prosecutions of "monster pedophiles," but little to do with the "thinking errors" that lie behind these (erroneous) prosecutions.

Perhaps your goal actually is to try to reinforce the negative myths about BoyLove, but I do not see that as being of any benefit to BW. Instead, I see most of what you have been doing here at BW as being highly counter-productive to the goal of BW -- that goal being to expose the falsity of the various mythologies created around BoyLove by providing factual, accurate information about BoyLove and BoyLovers. Which is not what you have been doing here. User4 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the academic literature is not exactly replete with BL-friendly (or I guess I should say BL-sympathetic) articles. If it were, I'm sure I'd stumble across more of such articles in my research, and that content would end up being cited in my articles more frequently.

Part of my goal is to create articles and accumulate research that will also be usable on other wikis, e.g. Wikipedia. BoyWiki can be a refuge for Wikipedians-in-exile, but it can also be a staging ground for articles that are being prepared for creation on Wikipedia. A truly neutral article will seem to Wikipedians to be biased in favor of BL, and will seem to BoyWikians to be biased against BL. The academic literature is usually biased against BL, so any raw quotations or paraphrases of that content will tend to still have that bias. It can serve as a stimulus for refutation, though, if people are willing to put the work in to write those refutations. A complaint about bias is the first step in that process; hopefully those complaints will be accompanied by citations to reliable sources, so that they will be actionable. We can't just make a bald assertion "this is hogwash". Lysander (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

WHAT? I have hundreds of academic articles which I have discovered through my research which are to some extent or another "BL-sympathetic". Which says to me that you either are not a competent researcher or are biased towards "NON-BL-sympathetic" research.

When I have attempted, in the past, to provide you with links to these articles, you seemed to lack any interest whatsoever in pursuing those links, but instead asked me for "names" so you could do your own research.

And what have you come up with through your own research? We see that it is replete with "NON-BL-sympathetic" articles from (so-called) "child-abuse professionals" who repeat the common myths! What possible use is that to BoyWiki?

If you, as you have stated, wish to publish "controversial" (from a BoyLover point of view) materials here, simply so that others might then "refute" their premises -- either here on BoyWiki, or (eventually - who knows when?) on some other fora, then you are doing BoyWiki a great disservice!

We don't need that kind of crap here! User4 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Documenting an anti-BL view can be the first step in creating a good article; it's just that the work eventually needs to be completed by documenting the pro-BL view as well.

BoyWiki:Content_guidelines#Encyclopedia_guidelines states, "Articles which serve as encyclopedic references should be objective, factual in content, and balanced in tone. . . . There are many topics which are controversial and topics where the boylove community shares no common agreement. In its role as an online boylove encyclopedia, BoyWiki strives to acknowledge differing viewpoints fairly and without necessarily advocating any particular one. Space can be granted to explore many different facets of topics."

That's the ideal, but we won't always get there immediately (kinda like how some of the articles you create don't immediately have a lead paragraph that conforms to style guidelines, and someone else has to do it for you). Lysander (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"In a Perfect World..."

Nice, how you side-stepped almost all of my criticism, and went off into another topic. A careless reader (which most people are, by the way) would not notice that you had done so, and would see the (off-topic, for the most part) response on your part as being "reasonable".

I (but probably few, if any, others) have noticed that you do that. Clever of you!

And then you finish with a snide remark "(kinda like how some of the articles you create don't immediately have a lead paragraph that conforms to style guidelines, and someone else has to do it for you)" Would you mind showing me "all those articles" of mine that someone else has written a lead paragraph to? You can't, can you? AND YOU WILL IGNORE THIS QUESTION AND PRETEND THAT I DID NOT ASK IT, WHICH LEAVES IN PEOPLE'S MINDS THE (FALSE) "FACT" THAT I DON'T WRITE LEAD-INS, AND OTHERS HAVE TO DO IT FOR ME - WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE AT ALL!

I'll tell you something - an article with real "meat" (like many that I write) but that lacks a "pretty intro" lead is worth much more than all those articles written by (here comes MY snide remark) someone who misleads others by propagating the "myths" about BoyLovers, but does do it with a "correctly formatted" lead to their article.

Do you have any idea of the hundreds and hundreds (possibly thousands) of people who have been led to download and read the dozens of important books about BoyLove and BoyLovers that I have taken months to convert into nicely formatted .PDF files, for easy downloading? Maybe I have not put "correct lead-in sections" to the introductions I have made regarding the availability of certain texts, but I got them to download (and almost certainly read) the books!

Can you make such a claim?

My way is almost certain to have changed many many minds.

Can you make such a claim?

So fuck off with your (unproven) "theory" that by repeating on BoyWiki the crap others say about BoyLovers elsewhere on the Internet that you are somehow "making the world a better place" (as I, on the other hand, have almost certainly already done!)

Shall I create articles such as, "BoyLovers are cannibals," or "BoyLovers murder the boys they fuck" and back those assertions up with lots of citations to pseudo-scientific studies and blog postings, and then leave it to you to refute the claims in my articles? How would that be of benefit to BoyWiki? Huh? HOW?

So, you put it on me to refute the crap you post, knowing full well that it only takes seconds for someone to claim, "2 + 2 = 5" but it would take someone else hours to refute that false statement -- if one were to include all the necessary citations and "proofs".

Take a look at the article User4/Draft/THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING THE AGE OF CONSENT LAWS‎. That one, well-reasoned article dispels dozens of falsehoods that others claim to be true. "Ah," you say, "but there are no citations!" Well, fuck your citations. Citations don't change minds, appealing to the heart (emotions) changes minds!

THAT is what we need more of. We should use a proactive approach, not a defensive approach, which is what you are championing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... you have the "right" to post crap on BoyWiki, as long as it is correctly documented.

Well, so do I. So I'd better be off now - I've got to get an early start on the "Boy Cannibals/Boy Murderers" articles I have to write -- with lots and lots of perfectly correct citations' that "prove" my case. Then you can refute the (fully documented) claims in my article. Yeah, sure... User4 (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OH LYSANDER - HERE IS THE FIRST ARTICLE FOR YOU TO "REFUTE" https://www.boywiki.org/en/Pedophiles_often_murder_their_victims So, hop to it, boy! Let's see you chop that article to pieces! BE BOLD! User4 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My usual approach on any wiki I edit is to look for the gaps in coverage and fill them in. Typically that means taking a contrarian position, as a devil's advocate, or documenting criticism of the views espoused by the wiki's community. That tends to lead to eventually getting kicked off of wikis, but there needs to be someone playing that role, or else it becomes an echo chamber, without anyone pointing out the flaws in people's arguments or challenging people to work hard to refute the opposition and hone their argumentation abilities.

You won't get very good at chess if you don't have anyone willing to play the other side, will you? The guy playing the opposing pieces is not necessarily your enemy. He could be trying to help you become better.

By the way, ChildPorn.info sought to be a repository of all info and opinions on CP, and since it has no community (I was the only editor), I was able to be truly neutral, since there was no established community view to be a contrarian against. Plus there is more sympathy in the academic community for legalizing CP or at least reforming CP laws and questioning the assumptions they're based on, that there is for making radical changes in the age of consent. Anyway, some of those articles, I've been bringing over to BoyWiki.

All this talk of cannibalism is making me hungry. Anyway, you don't have to always use citations to prove your points, but they help. You can use logic to refute an illogical/fallacious argument, without needing to do any research. But it's all the better if you can point out that respected academics have made the same point that you made. Then if a reader wants to make the same point elsewhere, they can quote that author rather than User4 or BoyWiki. Lysander (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My, my. Now, aren't WE the "rational" one. Nice game you play -- first you bait someone until they (naturally) become angry. THEN you come back at them with some nice, reasonable words about your "really good motives" and your "fine intentions".

Let's take a look at you, in your "rational" manner:

• You post crap here, when you could post it on a wiki that you have total control over (the ChildPorn wiki). Then why would you want to post that crap here, instead of there?

• You know fuck-all about personal security. The last post I saw of yours on ChildWiki was -- to say the least -- "a bit risqué" (about a conversation you had with your wife about any female child-to-come in your family. It totally fucking blew my mind! [not what you said -- that was fine -- but the fact that you would endanger your personal security by saying what you did - incredible!]). So, why haven't the cops busted down your door yet?* You have given plenty of personal information about yourself -- sufficient to be DOXd -- and yet, you are still (apparently) walking around as a free man. Isn't that just a little bit strange? (You just gave your age here in a post yesterday. How fucking dumb!!!)

• NOTE: I am NOT accusing you of any criminal act, nor suggesting that you have violated any law. I am suggesting that your behavior should have aroused suspicions (within the minds of sick people) and were reason enough for you to be investigated -- whether or not any criminal activity had taken place. Many BoyLovers (totally innocent of any criminal activity) have been investigated by unscrupulous police officers due to activities which existed only within the imaginations of the police.

• You are suggesting that software changes that could involve security risks for visitors and users be made at BoyWiki (now, don't go and play "innocent" with me here -- you know damned well that you yourself made posts about installing software that may involve security risks! And, yeah, I saw elsewhere where you said, "What software?" Screw you and your "innocence" act.)

• You know fuck-all about marketing -- I'm going to do a post elsewhere and pillory you on that point. Watch this space!

• Oh, and talking about "cannibalism of babies" makes you hungry, does it? Hmm... Maybe my new article wasn't so far from the truth when it comes to "certain" ChildLovers, was it?

• You are not man enough to admit your error in accusing me of using a non-existent word (a small point, I admit).

• You have not retracted your (erroneous) snide remark about my omitting lead-ins on my articles. (Another small point, but you know what they say about "The straw that broke the camel's back", don't you?)

• You never responded to my comment that I have offered you many links to good, pro-pedo academic materials, but you have refused to follow up on any of them. I'll ask again (for the third time) -- Why are you not interested in following up on such materials?

• Hmm... Strange things are going one here, buddy. Very strange.

• That's not all. But it's enough for now. User4 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"I'll ask again (for the third time) -- Why are you not interested in following up on such materials?" Oh, did I not make clear that it was because of laziness? Lysander (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you say to me, "I want to do my own research, so just give me some names." -- which I did. And then you come back with, "Oh, did I not make clear that it was because of laziness?" when it is obvious that you have invested a lot of time and energy doing (your kind of "research") to find articles that are anti-pedo.

So it's like this, is it: "Catch me in one lie, and I'll just tell you another one!"

I see. And about all the other questions I have posed? Silence, huh? User4 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)