I looked William Percy's website where there is a copy of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (published in 1990 by Garland Inc., abruptly withdrawn in 1995 for what the editors call 'political correctness' reasons). The encyclopedia includes an article on Pederasty (by Warren Johansson, Gay Academic Union, New York City ) and on Pedophilia (by Joseph Geraci, Amsterdam ), plus an essay on Pederasty by David Thorstad (founder of NAMBLA - the essay is also on the NAMBLA website here).

These essays all provide a background to the activist campaign in Wikipedia to get pederasty recognised as the normative form of homosexuality, the history which forms the core of the history of homosexuality (Haiduc). Thorstad defines pederasty as "love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age", and argues that it means "liberation and empowerment of young people", and "the liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general"



The article on pederasty says that it is a relationship between the ages of 12 and 17.



According to the article, the pederast cherishes the aristocratic ideal of being the lover and mentor of a promising youth, but instead he remains obliged to live in a furtive, clandestine, semi-criminal subculture, hiding his attachments with chance partners from the prying eyes of the neighbours and the police, who engage in questionable tactics to entrap the pederast for consensual behaviour under the artificially high "age of consent."





The article on pedophilia says



I was pleased to see there is also an article on Peter Damian who campaigned in the 11th century against corruption in the Roman Catholic church, and who wrote the book Liber Gomorrhianus, addressed to Pope Leo IX, in which he denounced "clerical sodomites".

Paul Barlow has gone to FT2's talk page to complain about user Nocturnal Sleeper, complaining he is a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown.



I need to check out NS's edits since I last worked with him, but my experience so far has been good. If FT2 blocks him there will be an UNHOLY row. Watch this space.

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=236164288

suggests he is a worthy editor (I don't care if he is a sockpuppet). His reference to the 'Oxford theory' is to an idea beloved by the crank community that Shakespeare was really the pederastic Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. I wrote a paper on this once, some years ago. If FT2 attempts a block here, as I said, nuclear warfare commences instantly.



'Enough evidence in the edits' would be, I suppose, that user NS has opposed the pro-pedophile activists who last time complained to him about Phdarts.

How? NS makes frequent references to Shakespeare and Byron and his whole style and area of expertise (e.g. the 'Oxford theory' which is v obscure) suggests a humanities background. Phdarts by contrast seems to have a psychology degree. No matter, he is interfering with the important work of the pro-paedo editors and must be banned. Get those hard blocks out onto the range, FT2.

[edit] This one is funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235964188

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235963571

HeadleyDown has a lot more articles in common with FT2 than Nocturnalsleeper or Phdarts. In fact the only articles that both NS and Phdarts have in common is Pederasty. They both edit in other areas from each other and don't overlap much at all. In fact, I only get a few hits comparing them both with my UK-ophile controls Gerard and Sceptre. I gather they're probably older. Phdarts seems interested in ethics , and Nocturnalsleeper in opioids.

Milton what is this miraculous machine you are using can I have one.

Yes, FT2 has already recognised that NS cannot be a Headley Sock but in any case (see his talk page) is going to block him for 'content' reasons. 'Content' being, opposing pro-pedophile activism.

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py

You have to enter the names EXACTLY as they appear after user: in WP. That includes caps and spaces: Phdarts, Nocturnalsleeper. Thus, HeadleyDown works, but not Headley Down or Headleydown. Whenever you get nothing, that's a sign you probably entered something wrong. Add another name with a lot of edits everywhere like Everyking or Antandrus or (in this case for UK editors, David Gerard or Sceptre) to make sure you're picking up the user you're looking at.

Thankyou Milton!

I'm all for the removal of political correctness and whitewashing so that the balanced truth is being told in Wikipedia (fat chance), so that it is neutral and doesn't read like a scare story or something that would appease the views of a concerned parent. I'm quite content to hear alternative views to what the mainstream media pushes as acceptable.

Having said that, I have no respect for gay pedophiles whatsoever, and the fact that it took place in history doesn't justify it in the slightest... slavery took place in history too and anyone trying to justify that is looked upon as crazy. As a heterosexual male attracted to adult women, part of me just thinks "what the fuck is wrong with you?" with people who try to speak up for pederasty. When I overcome my own biases though, gay pedophiles are not evil. They're mentally ill... or are they? Homosexuality alone used to be classed as a mental illness in the Western world, and to what extent is the idea of mental illness just a social construct used to promote things that fit in with stable norms in a society?

Certainly though, I would say that gay pedophilia, or pedophilia of any kind for that matter, is not compatible with a stable society. Their sexual orientation is completely unacceptable because victims of pedophilia are often mentally scarred. That is never justifiable. I do not imagine that any child would want to consent either. When I was about 11 years old I had a man try to touch me in a toilet block when I was on holiday in Belgium. You know what I did? I shouted "FUCK YOU" at the top of my voice, and got really really angry, and I think I scared him off, although I've always had a tendency to do things like that because I either have Asperger's syndrome or something closely related. It's a hazy memory though.

Basically, TL;DR, those pedos shouldn't be inserting their views, unless in act of trolling, to generate laughs, because seeing Wikipedia admins get worked up amuses me, I'll be honest. I must admit that reading about HeadleyDown... that editor or group of editors seems to have an immense ability to, for real want of a better word, pwn the articles being worked on.

Well the view that this particular group is pushing in Wikipedia is actually very interesting and intriguing. It is that the history of homosexuality is one and the same with the history of pederasty and that, by implication, there is a much closer connection between homosexuality and pedophilia than anyone would care to admit. If you think for long about this you will find yourself in places you should not be going.

However, while it is interesting, I don't think it is true. And in any case, it is so obviously original research that it should be utterly erased from Wikipedia.

On Headley, if you go through the edits of PhDarts, they are very amusing, managing to provoke the ire of paedos and admins alike. Recommended.

Pederasty should redirect to Paedophilia, with a SUBSECTION on when it was historically considered acceptable. The Pederasty article is used as a platform to differentiate sex with underage boys from paedophilia. "Girl love/rs" is the term paedophiles that prefer female children use for themselves, and it redirects properly. Pederasty does not...

I'm not sure there was any time or culture when it was considered acceptable. Most of the literature from classical Greek civilisation comes from the aristocratic class, who had different values and mores than other classes. There is some evidence (from the plays of Aristophanes, poking fun at the manners and values of the toffs) that ordinary Greeks thought much the same as we do.

Whatever, all this is speculation piled upon speculation, and it has no place in Wikipedia.

I swore that "pederasty" was pursuing those under 15, and that those from 15-18 had a different term.

All of these terms are a kind of neologism originating with the paedophile liberation movement. The term 'pederast' was popularised by the paedophile apologist Warren Johansson. Paedophiles hate the term 'paedophile' because it has pejorative connotations, whereas 'pederast' sounds rather antique and quaint, a bit naughty, and is generally associated with aristocratic toffs prancing around Europe in the Romantic Era, so is OK. Similarly for 'Greek Love'.
The term you may be thinking of is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia, another word with an invented meaning.

See this excellent article

http://www.wikisposure.com/Pedospeak

I think logic is operating in reverse, if you look at the above and the first post.

First, they want to express the "love". Well, the "phile" is all about the love, where a "pederest" has no definitional connotation.

But yeah, There is another descriptive for those who pursue those above 15, and I can't remember the term. It came out during the Mark Foley case, because its actually "more" socially acceptable (hence the "age of consent" laws). Byron fell into that category when he became too old to not justify intimacy with teens. However, Byron's relationships became far more pornographic in the imagination of the 20th century, so you can't tell exactly what he was.

What was the first post? Anyway, 'paedophile' strictly does mean someone afflicted with a sexual desire for young children, without necessarily acting upon or fulfilling the desire. 'Pederast' has no strict meaning, except, as I say, as a paedospeak term. They hate the term 'paedophile' because of its hate-speech connotation, so they invented the word 'pederast' (or rather, assigned a modern meaning to an old word).

This is the crux of the matter. I believe this is why Wales is so happy to work hand in hand with an NLP-bestiality promoter. Zoophilia is doublemeaning enough to allow all web-whacky furries into the nest. As soon as someone allows the article to be called bestiality, though, then all change.

Its written all over Wales' face. Sure, sex with a mickey mouse mask really turns me on!

Pederasty has a meaning that is fancy enough to inflate the anarchy meme he is working on. Schoolgirl/boy uniforms, upskirt bomis fantasies, nubile greek boy olympic cheerleaders are all fine in WPland.

Bludgeoningly obvious pedophilia (self-admitted pedophiles getting banned from WP) is a more clear cut issue. Easy to handle!

So regardless of how many homosexuals abhor pederasts and avoid the label, Wales will continue to allow its promotion.

If WP ever get around to identifying characteristics of pedophilic editing, then all the pro pederasty editors will be banned straight away.

Solution: Allow majority views primarily, even if it temporarily excludes (not downgrades) minority. Vote on any minority views getting in. Fringe should be excluded.

Currently, fringe faux academic are fine by Wales, even if they advocate extreme dismissal of duty of care.

Thats because Wales has the most obtuse view identification method known to man. (act on what people say they are, rather than what they do on WP)

Doc

The first post is the quote from "the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality".

I don't really know if any of these words have a strict meaning, as they are taboo related words, and people rarely use them enough to secure a definition. Could be the problem?




Alternate solution - allow only publications from university presses to be used as sources on the issue. As far as I know, there are none (or extremely few) that would produce a work that would be deemed biased in favor of pedawhatever you really want to end it with.

Haiduc says that they're all out to get him and it's a plot organized off WP...

Well, he can't blame Peter Damian any more, can he?

In the meantime, he's putting pretty much everything that was taken out back in...and without sources or RS....

It's just a lost battle. There's no way of fixing this.