Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Talk page archives

Child sex tourism

Hi I would like to request some help to make the Child sex tourism page NPOV, please check out the pages talk page, thank you. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

No problem. I've made some improvements and added some references. As a new editor, you've chosen to begin in a particularly difficult content area. I recommend that you read through the main Wikipedia policy pages: Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research to get oriented on how they work.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, they're complex processes, and it's good to get practise on less controversial articles. Stuff like that one in particulr are mine fields. Plus, if you start out there, you might be labelled a single-purpose editor or something. Wikipedians are obligated to be multipurposeful. Tyciol (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review requested for Adult-child sex

A Deletion Review has been opened on this deleted page. I'd like to point out that I am proposing merely to fill the empty space in the least controversial way possible. meco (talk) -Undated

You could probably just redirect this to 'age of consent' or something. 'Adult' and 'child' are words with legal definitions, and the concept is addressed well in explaining the ages of legality and purposes behind ongoing legal changes in countries. I don't think this needs an article for itself, at least going by that terminology. Using different words maybe you could better explain what you think needs an article? Tyciol (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed short term for "person under the age of consent"

"A person under the age of consent (there is no shorter term)..." how about "PUTAC"? you could pronounce it "poo-tack". --Atlantima (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Project inactive

This project appears to be inactive and has been tagged as such. Talk page has been archived. A project subpage was deleted with only one comment from a project member.

It may be that this project is not needed at this time. It can be re-activated any time, if the need arises. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so long as the archives are maintained. A lot of projects remain somewhat reactionary, lying dormant until a major issue arises that requires its use. Tyciol (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The activism trio

Consider activities resumed. Anti-pedophile activism, pedophile activism & pro-pedophile activism. These three have problems. There are clear biases in the opening statement of the latter, and which I noticed myself and other complaints confirming this. Similarly, the middle was just redirected to the latter when it was previously a disambig page. The latter two are being used interchangable, when clearly the constructions of the term indicate different things. Activism BY pedophiles and activism FOR pedophiles are clearly different ideas here. Anyone with a grasp of logic can understand that pedophiles can be active for things besides themself, and that people besides pedophiles can engage in activism for them. This applies to any group and any form of activism. I have posted notification to Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship so we can work cooperatively with them to resolve this. I am hoping more experienced moderators will come through here. Tyciol (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall perspective

What is the overall perspective of this Wikiproject? I hope none of you are pedophiles, I know there are pedophiles here and there, but I would not like it if there was an approved pro-pedophile brigade on a Wiki-project. Apart from this, I would like it if you could track down which mainstream politicians (in Europe and America) are the most pro-pedophile. Also, I believe that there are links between Pedophiles, Abortionists and Secret societies; this is why the CIA and the Euro-Masons are alleged to be supporters of Pederasty. ADM (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where in the world would you get the idea that the CIA and the "Euro-Masons" are supporters of Pederasty? Who is alledging this other than yourself? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it isn't made up; there are several pedophile affairs in Belgium and France which have alleged Masonic links, such as the Marc Dutroux affair, and the affairs brought up by magistrate Eric de Montgolfier. I also found this interesting article about pro-pedophile judges who were alleged to be Freemasons. [1] The CIA was also said to have powerful ties to drug trafficking, child trafficking and secret societies. [2] ADM (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
There will be (and are) pedophiles here, and like it or not, their input is as valid and necessary as everyone else's. What is important is not the views or inclinations of any of the posters, but whether or not everyone is participating in Wikipedia according to its communally agreed-upon standards and policies. That is something that everyone is equally capable or incapable of. Everyone has a bias.
The perspective of this WikiProject, then, is that articles relating to pedophilia carry with them an arguably high difficulty in maintaining NPOV and other Wikistandards, and thus a separate project is necessary to enable the higher degree of collaboration necessary to attain this. Hope this helps, Fractalchez (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not, as far as I am aware, the intent of this project to be a 'pro-pedophile brigade'. Furthermore, no, this article is not for 'tracking down' politicians, nor for supporting or adding to conspiracy theories. It is for monitoring various articles where stuff like this is brought up. If you have concerns about these various organizations then please take them up on their appropriate pages or wikiProjects. Now, if you find that this kind of talk is being brought up about many politicians you can consider proposing a Task Force, which would be a subrgroup of this project intended for the purpose of monitoring political articles. That said, you may have to ask some of the inactive members for advice, since this has been dormant a couple months. Tyciol (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual/Bisexual pedophiles vs. Heterosexual pedophiles

I think that there also needs to be discussion somewhere on the distinction that is sometimes made between Homosexual/Bisexual pedophiles and Heterosexual pedophiles. For instance, during the US pedophile priest crisis, it was discovered that the vast majority of pedophile priests were of the homosexual category, and that relatively few were not homosexual, since they typically went after boys. Therefore, the official reaction from the defense group Catholic League was to say that it was not so much a pedophile problem, but was instead a gay problem. I am not going to comment on this, but this seems to show the inherent tensions among the gay culture and the clerical culture on the problem of pederasty. ADM (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant to at least reflect upon these perceptions if they were frequently present in the media. I would have to see actual statistics to corroborate this though. Homosexual acts do not necessarily implicate a homosexual person (it may be a bisexual, or a sadist, who just picks because they believe they can shame the boys more). It may also be an aspect of priesthood specifically, such as how it is considered a sin. Tyciol (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to mark this project historical

This project has no active members and is engaged in no ongoing improvement of any articles.

A review of the talk page shows that other than a few good-faith questions now and then, almost the entire content of the historical discussions consists of arguments with editors who have since been banned for disruption, or discussions about the disruption caused by those editors.

In the past, there may have been a use for this page, and there may have been some editors maintaining the project in a constructive way, but things have changed and the project is no longer being used in those ways.

Regarding the various information sections on the project page, they are not usable because they are not maintained. There is no active consensus regarding the terminology - all of that would need to be sourced on the individual topic pages anyway. The various links and resources are questionable and not up-to-date. They should be deleted unless they are maintained.

Also, now there is a formal administrative process page at Pedophilia Topic Mentorship, so discussions about disruptive editing concerns that may have been posted here in the past now have a better place to be posted. By maintaining this page in addition to that one, discussions are likely to be cross-posted, as happened recently, and that makes the discussions more difficult to focus.

The very few good-faith questions that are occasionally posted here can easily be handled on the talk pages of the relevant articles.

Unless some Wikipedians decide to get involved and build this project up into a constructive collegial project, it should be marked historical and comments regarding disruptive editing directed to WP:PedMen. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was that long ago that there was quite a lot of heated discussion on this page. Also, I've never seen before that tagging of a WikiProject as inactive has been accompanied by an effort to produce an enforcable decision not to use the project but instead relegate interested users to an already set up and ready-to-go alternative "project" covering the same turf. Looks a bit like faction wars to me, and a bit cunning too. __meco (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Meco, people may be busy to constantly organize things, but this is a good way to find a history of editing that sets examples and stuff. Everyone is inactive for some period of time, perhaps Jack could point to the length of time something or someone needs to be inactive for prior to being dubbed that as a status? All projects maintain some historical status after all. Tyciol (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of File:Lolicon Sample.png

An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣? Talk to Nihonjoe 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, that image is totally fine, I'm much more concerned with the snapshot of the covers of various manga since some of those are (when you zoom in) rather depicting. Tyciol (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack McClellan

I noticed this article was deleted, I asked about it and provided a reference which I think establishes notability. Reviewing this might make an interesting project. Tyciol (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Effect of porn on child sex crimes

Does anyone have information refuting or contrary to the quote at Talk:Pornography#Apparently awesome for Japanese a decade ago? I find it astonishing but the source seems solidly reliable. I don't need to tell people here about the differences between the content of Japanese porn in the late 1990s and elsewhere without such results but with sharp increases in kids' access to porn via the internet in the same era. Given the possible explanations centered around distraction of consumers who might otherwise be offenders and raised awareness of the subject of such depictions, I would really like to have wikiproject participants help out with a reality check, please. 208.54.5.61 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Wikipedia supports pedophiles

There's a strange blog entry here that claims that the #2 at Wikimedia Foundation is an active supporter of pedophiles. This is a fairly serious accusation against the Foundation. Personally, I would like it if Wikipedia had less entries on weird subjects like child sex abuse. Because after a while, it almost feels like Wikipedia is turning into a pedophile encyclopedia, one that is free just for them so they can hang around here and brag about their abuse. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ADM (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Pedophiles who reveal themselves as such are routinely banned as a threat to the project's existence. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are completely unreliable sources and your post seems to only perpetuate negative stereotypes. You also imply "I would like it if Wikipedia had less entries on weird subjects like child sex abuse" while simultaneously adding dozens of entries on this very topic across the encyclopedia. It would seem you are one of the strongest proponents of discussing all manner of pedophilia interest. Care to explain this apparent contradiction? -- Banjeboi 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I guess I just find these claims to be outrageous, but still worthy of frank discussion. I am kind of afraid of pedophiles, and I find it increasingly difficult to write about them in a clearly negative way. I have a feeling that's it's becoming harder and harder to oppose the influence of pedophiles on Wikipedia, so I felt like I had to bring it up somehow. ADM (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be bloody kidding me. Wikipedia is not supposed to have a bias on *any* article; that is not negotiable. We are supposed to present everything *neutrally*, not for- or against-, regardless of topic. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the articles themselves, but about claims that the Foundation is somehow controlled by supporters of pedophilia. I didn't make those claims, other people did. ADM (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies; I read your comment above as wanting to introduce a bias. As to the blogosphere, fuck them. This isn't the first defamatory thing someone has said about the WMF; it sure as hell will not be the last. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
actually you seem to be perpetuating the fallacy that Wikipedia and or the foundation in any way is encouraging anything but encyclopedic treatment of these subjects and in some way is a haven for pedophiles. We write encyclopedia articles not build soapboxes for or against anything. If a reliable source supports your POV it can be considered for an appropriate article, until then please refrain from the general and seemingly inflamatory off-topic discussion. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a need for this project?

Is this project really needed? Isn't this topic covered pretty well by wp:SEX and wp:PORN? Please contact me on my talk page for a reply. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't quite understood what happened to this WikiProject. I think it used to be very active, and there certainly has been a lot of heated controversy related to the articles that are within the scope of this project. I think there is still some activity at Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship which started as a subpage of this project (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Pedophile topic mentorship). It's been my impression that a number of purported childlove advocates have been run off Wikipedia and banned from editing, and this project or perhaps more accurately a portion of its members may have been instrumental in those procedings. __meco (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this project does still serve a purpose. It helps coordinate editing of pedophilia-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested helping revive this project. It's a little discouraging that the project page does not list any active participants. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly very welcome to contribute to project-related articles, simply by doing so individually. The project itself would need to be revived only if there were a need to coordinate and to disseminate information to a group, I guess. Anyway, the project should be revivified if and only if there is a person/people, dedicated to the original intent of the project, willing to attend to the project pages, as this subject tends to accumulate trollery if unattended. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

moved from main page, re topic mentorship

The following comment was removed from the main page. It belongs on a talk page:

It is not my impression that Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship is inactive, on the contrary, it seems to have superseded the current WikiProject in a way so that the articles which it surveils aren't tagged with this project's signature. __meco (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(My response is, this may have been my error, and if so, sorry, and anyone who wants to can restore the topic mentorship to its correct place. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Pedophilia

Shouldn't something be written with regards to Wikipedia:Pedophilia? __meco (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just noticed this page by typing in the old short cut, wp:pedo. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That page is still under discussion. It seems someone got tired of all the secrecy and hush-hush regarding blocking of editors who self-identify as pedophiles. Apparently ArbCom has devised such a policy in half secrecy and now some of the ArbCom members want to have this more out in the open. That again has now led to the basic rationale for this policy and its practice to come under scrutiny. This again has met the same obstacles of secrecy and withholding of case information. This withholding is done with the rationale that these blocked editors' identity need protecting from a hostile community. To me it all seems utterly Kafkaesque, and I'm trying to get a grip on the matter. __meco (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lolicon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as your project banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

LINKVIO

We seem to have a problem with links to copyright violations in articles about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. If you work on these articles, please see Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Copyright_violations_by_other_websites for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this wiki project active? - no posts for four months

Hi, I added the project template to a talkpage of a recently dead person that seems to have admitted sexual assaults on young boys - Talk:Kit_Cunningham - is it within the scope of the template Talk:Kit_Cunningham - on the project page it seems to assert the project members set the scope? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not active. There's no harm in adding the template to the page you described, probably no real benefit either though. The project is marked as "semi-active" but could be marked as "inactive" I guess. The need for the project diminished when ArbCom decided to take a more active and hard-line role a few years ago. I watch the project page just to make sure that it's never hijacked for nefarious ends. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, there's a page which could interest you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults: another debate about the page. Delete or not? Negativecharge (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why this thread was never archived?--~TPW 13:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This thread here? I think this page is only hand-archived, which is fine I guess. Herostratus (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's archived by Miszabot, which is why I found it peculiar. Perhaps these new posts will get its notice.  ;)--~TPW 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rind et al. controversy

This article describes the controversy surrounding a scientific paper which appeared to legitimize or minimize the issue of child sexual abuse. That controversy has carried over to Wikipedia and the article has been a stomping ground for PPA's in the past. I'm not sure how active this project is, but I'd encourage anyone seeing this to watchlist the article and to review recent edits. (I find scientific studies tedious to decipher, so I'm not much help.)   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh Jeez, Rind again huh? I'll take a look at it, although I'm pretty much retired from this subject (I do watch this page though). I'm also not qualified to vet the paper, but I have some familiarity with the paper. I wish I could say it's a piece of junk since its conclusions are (in part) pretty unsavory, but it's not. But it's only a meta-study and there are valid criticisms of it, which I'll have to look up. I'll look into it. Herostratus (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for following through.   Will Beback  talk  07:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Activity Level of Project

Hello. I was wondering how active this project is and, presuming that more activity goes on than the "inactive" status implies, if there might be any way that I can help with reviewing and keeping up-to-date the articles under this project's scope. I'm only just now starting into editing on Wikipedia, and I understand that this is an especially difficult topic to achieve objectivity and accurate recording in, but I am willing to help in any way I can. Benjiboy5187 (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Some new articles

Paedo Alert News and a couple of others by the same editor. Sources are off-line and hard for me to check for WP:N etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Albert Fish's GAR

Albert Fish, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 02:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

The article about Nefarious: Merchant of Souls, a film that deals with child prostitution, has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition to article watch

In case anybody with experience is actually checking this talk-page periodically -- I wanted to suggest that if appropriate, the article pederasty be added to the watch. It references boys as young as 11 years old, and most of the article is overly positive, complete with (at one point) the pedo red flag claim that society's condemnation of pederastic sodomy was the only cause of harm. —xyzzymage 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not My Life

The article about the documentary film Not My Life, which deals with child sex tourism, has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oxford sex gang listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Oxford sex gang to be moved to Oxford child sex abuse case (2013). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Catholic Church sexual abuse cases to be moved to Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Catholic Church sexual abuse cases to be moved to Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors to be moved to Legality of drawn pornography depicting minors. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in Australia listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in Australia to be moved to Legality of child pornography in Australia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in the United States listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in the United States to be moved to Legality of child pornography in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in Japan listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in Japan to be moved to Legality of child pornography in Japan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography in the Philippines listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography in the Philippines to be moved to Legality of child pornography in the Philippines. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in Canada listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in Canada to be moved to Legality of child pornography in Canada. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in the United Kingdom listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in the United Kingdom to be moved to Legality of child pornography in the United Kingdom. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in the Netherlands listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in the Netherlands to be moved to Legality of child pornography in the Netherlands. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Child pornography laws in Portugal listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Child pornography laws in Portugal to be moved to Legality of child pornography in Portugal. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Original research noticeboard inquiry about Texas's age of consent

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on how "age of consent" should be defined?

See Talk:Age_of_consent#Defining_what_.22age_of_consent.22_means.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal to be moved to Larry Nassar sex abuse scandal. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Family International listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Family International to be moved to The Family International. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Abuse by members of Roman Catholic orders listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Abuse by members of Roman Catholic orders to be moved to Abuse by members of Catholic orders. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John Francis Reuel Tolkien

Please have your say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Francis Reuel Tolkien Rathfelder (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandals in Catholic orders listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sexual abuse scandals in Catholic orders to be moved to Sexual abuse scandals in Catholic orders and societies. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Simulated child pornography in the United States listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Simulated child pornography in the United States to be moved to Simulated and drawn child pornography in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations to be moved to Pedophile advocacy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations to be moved to List of pedophile advocacy organizations. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors to be moved to Legal status of virtual child pornography. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

GAR

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I also mentioned the child abuse allegations against Jackson so I thought you might be interested.Quaffel (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAR

I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Suicide of Louis Conradt listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Suicide of Louis Conradt to be moved to suicide of Bill Conradt. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Age disparity in sexual relationships listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Age disparity in sexual relationships to be moved to Age disparity in heterosexual relationships. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors to be moved to Legal status of fictional child pornography. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch/Archive_5&oldid=1216385234"