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)