This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.
I count 18 "delete" votes, 6 "keep as is" votes, 3 "keep but move" or "merge" votes and 3 votes too ambiguous to call. Most of the delete votes very clearly objected to the early content. The article was extensively rewritten on 12 May. Voters after the rewrite remained split with (my count) 3 "deletes" to 2 "keeps". Only one person appeared to return to change his/her vote. (I'm not sure whether this was because they reviewed the revised article and were unswayed by the changes or whether this is a result of the recent decision to chop up the VfD page, making it more cumbersome to review previous discussions.)
I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" (which defaults to keep for now). If, after a reasonable period of time (and potentially a name change), this article still has not fully resolved the issues discussed below, it may become appropriate to renominate this article for deletion.
POV article that tries to link disgusting child abuse with homosexuality, which is a real sexual orientation. I'm sick of homophobes trying to connect the gay community to these criminals. So please DELETE this. Stancel 22:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, it's POV. But it could be made NPOV. Certainly pedophilia and homosexuality have been linked both by homophobes and pedophiles often enough so that it's a reasonable topic of research. I'd like to read an article on this topic that wasn't POV. In the meantime, I've tossed up the pov template.TreyHarris 23:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Good point on the name. Rename to "Pedophilia and sexual orientation". TreyHarris 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This consists entirely of material deleted from homosexuality and morality, which is also up for VfD. Except for the attribution of one "controversial study" to authors, it's full of dramatic statements that are entirely unreferenced. This is not salvageable. Samaritan 23:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Metaphysically, morality is much more susceptible to POV-only speech than pedophilia is. You can point to "pedophilia", out there in the real world, and talk about it in NPOV terms (even though, I'll admit, it's hard to do so and it's very easy to switch into POV language). It's much harder to point to "morality" in the real world and talk about it in the same way. (Pragmatically, it's probably easier to talk about "morality" without getting tempers flaring, but that's not my point—my point is that pedophilia can be discussed in an NPOV way.) TreyHarris 23:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the material currently in the article isn't salvageable. I can't speak to a possible total rewrite. Samaritan 23:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I added delete to your vote so you didn't have to add it later on, if that's okay with you. I'll remove it it's not. Stancel 00:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, conditionally: Delete unless this vote transmorgifies into a vote about a complete rewrite, then I would reconsider. Per TreyHarris and BD2412, I think there's room for an article carefully addressing the myths, but this rejected material from another article isn't the start. Samaritan 01:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Horrible attempt to tie homosexuality to pedophilia. -CunningLinguist 23:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Known bad science mixed with a false account of history. Perhaps there should be an article debunking such myths, but start with a clean slate. -- BDAbramsonthimk 00:04, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Keep pending re-write - While, doubtlessly, this article would become as controversial/argued over/vandalized as much as the NAMBLA article (ick *shudder*), there is a fair handful of information that could be put here... though ensuring it is NPOV would take significant effort on the behalf of several individuals. If nothing more, it could look at (as already included) the history of pedophilia advocates trying to piggyback upon LGBT organizations back during the fledgling stages of the gay pride/rights movement, as well as address more current events, such as Texas' most recent legislation preventing GLBT Americans from adopting children - even to the point of allowing the state to investigate foster parent hopefuls to make sure they aren't hiding their sexual orientation - due to the legislator's reliance upon the trumped up "research" of Dr. Cameron. This page is useful.. just not as it is now. Arcuras 02:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A lot of people who haven't paid much attention to the subject wonder if there is a link between pedophilia & homosexuality, and Wikipedia should provide an article to straighten them out (so to speak). Censoring the topic from Wikipedia just means that people will get their questions answered elsewhere. Sure, Wikipedia handles controversial topics poorly, but refusing to address controversial topics isn't the way to go. --Kevin Myers 03:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hopeless POV fork, inclue a section on pedophilia and its relationship to homosexuality in the homosexuality or pedophilia article if you really think the subject should be addressed.--nixie 03:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 04:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
No vote. I disagree with the nominators attitude of equating pedophilia with child abuse; take a look at pedophilia. In particular, "pedophilia can be diagnosed solely in the presence of fantasies or sexual urges on the subject's part — it need not involve sexual acts with children". It also discusses the media's misuse of the term. This article isn't terrible, and in fact it doesn't even appear to directly connect homosexuality to pedophilia (it only claims that certain activists act on behalf of both groups). However, unless verifiable references are given I'm not giving a keep. Deco 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless NPOVed, ideally with references. -Sean Curtin 05:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: there has been historically a strong tendency to validate pederasty as the only acceptable version of homosexuality. It is also just a political maneuver, albeit a common and useful one, to say, "people exclusively attracted to the same sex who are also primarily attracted to underage people aren't gay". The gay rights movement was also allied for a time with groups like NAMBLA. Finally, there is a strong tendency in modern society to connect homosexuality to pedophilia. These are all valid topics for an article with the title Pedophilia and homosexuality. The article as it stands reads to me not so much like an anti-gay POV as an anti-linking-pedophilia-with-homosexuality-in-any-way POV. It needs to be rewritten, but a useful article could have this title. -Seth Mahoney 08:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete What can I say: there are no pages for Woman and pedophillia, no page for heterosexuality and pedophillia. Most of this content is repeated elsewhere so a delete is appropriate here. Any topics discussed on this page are more appropriately and neutrally discussed elsewhere. --Axon 09:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Note: Women and pedophilia aren't seen as connected in our society, and neither are heterosexuality and pedophilia. Men and pedophilia might be a valid article title, because there is a perceived connection. Look, the purpose of an article with a title like Pedophilia and homosexuality doesn't have to be to reinforce that connection (though it would be POV to insist the two never intersect). It can just as well be used to dispel the myth of a necessary connection while at the same time noting that, like heterosexual relationships, throughout much of history the kind of gay relationships people were most likely to see were intergenerational. -Seth Mahoney 19:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I dispute that "Women and pedophilia aren't seen as connected in our society, and neither are heterosexuality and pedophilia": there are many incidents reported in the popular press of women pedophiles. Similarly, there are many incidents of "heterosexual" pedophillia. I agree in principal that the subject can be discussed neutrally with the above but I don't think this page title is the place to have such an article. Too many editors in Wikipedia use article titles as POV and make dubious connections between things explicit. The defence is always that it's just a title! A policy of neutrality should not only apply to article content, but also to article title's. --Axon 10:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between knowing that something happens and believing that there is a connection between two things. Of course people know that straight people molest children. I don't think, though, that most people, on the news or not, believe that women molest children. Regardless, if you want to find out, go out and ask 50 people to rate in order who they would feel most comfortable leaving their child alone with: a straight woman they don't know, a straight man they don't know, a lesbian they don't know, or a gay man they don't know. Gay men will come out on the bottom, straight women on the top. Whether or not they're willing to admit it, a lot of people believe at some level that gay men are after children in one way or another. -Seth Mahoney 05:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Your argument from common consent is fallacious here - no-one disputes that some people link pedophillia with homosexuality (although I dispute your hypothetical example - evidence?). The point is irrelevant in a discussion on how to present such discussion neutrally without making explicit a controversial link and creating a non-neutral title for an article. This also does not negate my point that there have been high-profile cases of alleged straight-female pedophiles and yet this does not warrent a page on women and pedophillia, for example. --Axon 11:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The topic is clearly of note, moreso than any other "foosexuality and pedophilia" (Google searches can easily confirm this). The article as it currently stands is not that bad, and has some useful information. I'm sure in time it will be even better. Yes it will be difficult to keep it NPOV, but that's no reason to delete it. LizardWizard 09:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
You're exactly right, IMO. As Seth Mahoney said, "A useful article could have this title." The connection (if any) between pedophilia and homosexuality has been famously and heatedly debated in society; it's a natural (if contentious) topic for an article. I would urge people who vote to delete to consider two other points: 1) just because an article is POV is not a valid reason to delete it -- the preferred approach is to fix it (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy); and 2) if you google "pedophilia" and "homosexuality" you get about 85,000 hits. I don't think most of these hits get you to NPOV articles -- Wikipedia could provide one of the few. I would think that in particular those people interested in gay-related issues would want an accurate article widely available, rather than abandon the issue to polemicists on the Internet. --Kevin Myers 09:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup/expand. This is an encyclopedic topic weather or not you agree with it. People need stop being so uptight about pedophilia. Klonimus 22:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Aside: This points to an interesting issue. The topic of "Pedophilia and homosexuality" is an extremely well known one. If this article is deleted (or watered down via renaming and the like in order to palliate the actual issue), it automatically goes to the top of the list of "Well-known topics that are taboo on Wikipedia." That's pretty fascinating, considering that Wikipedia covers (in theory) pretty much everything of significance; those interested in Wikipedia as a sociological/cultural phenomenon will want to take note. Are there are other well-known topics that are taboo as the subject of an article? Drop me a note on my talk page if you know of any. --Kevin Myers 00:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Astounding revelation. Not. Heterosexuality and pedophilia have not been historically linked in public opinion. Society does not have a NPOV. In covering what exists in the real, biased world we may seem biased if all you look at is parallelism of article titles, but we're not. If you insist we can make a Pedophilia and heterosexuality article that says "there are no interesting intersections between pedophilia and heterosexuality." LizardWizard 04:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
You're both very amusing. And you're both missing the point, which is that there's no need for a "paedophilia and homosexuality" or a "paedophilia and heterosexuality" article. The relevant information (if there is indeed any, which I highly doubt) can go in the pedophilia article. Exploding Boy 19:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but saying something doesn't make it true. The fact is that, whether or not they're true, there are popular links between pedophilia and especially gay male homosexuality. Discussion of these links, where they come from (there is some great literature on the topic), and so on, is important, and worthwhile. I, of course, think this article should stay, but if it is deleted, any relevant points should be moved to Homosexuality, not just Pedophilia, since the focus of the beliefs is on what gay people do, not what all pedophiles do. -Seth Mahoney 19:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)'
There is no "link" Stancel 18:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone arguing to keep actually believes that homosexuals are much more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. However, a large percentage of the general populace does hold that belief, and it must be addressed (corrected). The situation is comparable to the Holocaust denial article: we don't believe that the holocaust didn't happen, but we still report on the wacky beliefs of those who do. LizardWizard 20:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV. An NPOV article could be written from scratch at another title, but there's nothing worth saving here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 02:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. Jonathunder 13:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep; I had initialy voted for deletion, but am revising that vote. There are too few articles on this topic as is. Please expand this article. An article about this topic should exist. Also, I feel that many of the people voting for deletion are letting their POV get the better of them. This article does not need to link pedophilia and homosexuality in a negative way.
Merge Pedophilia. It's true that pedophilia-advocates tried to piggyback on the 'wave of tolerance' of that time. While not flattering, it's true. This information is relevant only to people looking up pedophilia. Ec5618 15:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
That's not true at all. It is relevant for people looking for a continuous gay history, for people looking for information on the early gay liberation movement, and for people looking for information on the fact that (and perhaps some good explanations as to why) people tend to connect pedophilia and homosexuality. There are plenty of reasons someone might want to look up this article from the homosexuality end. -Seth Mahoney 19:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep but Strong Rewrite. I think a good article could exist under this heading. The current article isn't it, to be sure. Whig 08:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Howabout just Delete and redirect to, say, NAMBLA. Whig 08:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Because the article shouldn't be, or shouldn't just be, about NAMBLA. -Seth Mahoney 13:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - If this were rewritten it would be a stub because all it would say is "It used to be believed that there might be a link between pedophilia and homosexuality, but psychological study has determined that there is not; that they are patently unrelated and that it is harmful to the reputation of homosexuals to be associated with pedophiles." Pacian 08:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
If you read the actual article, it already contains more. Pedophiles should not have a reputation on Wikipedia; NPOV applies to articles about them as well.-- Ec5618 08:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'll just cut and paste from a previous comment that covers this complaint as well: There is a huge difference between knowing that something happens and believing that there is a connection between two things. Of course people know that straight people molest children. I don't think, though, that most people, on the news or not, believe that women molest children. Regardless, if you want to find out, go out and ask 50 people to rate in order who they would feel most comfortable leaving their child alone with: a straight woman they don't know, a straight man they don't know, a lesbian they don't know, or a gay man they don't know. Gay men will come out on the bottom, straight women on the top. Whether or not they're willing to admit it, a lot of people believe at some level that gay men are after children in one way or another. -Seth Mahoney 03:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Leanne 03:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please explain how this is original research? It came out of the blue when Jonathunder claimed it, and now two others have concurred, though none offer any explanation. I mean, yes, the article only cites a few references, but that's better than most and surely isn't enough of a flaw to warrant deletion? LizardWizard 03:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
It isn't. On Wikipedia, "original research", though sometimes a useful distinction to make, is often used to mean "I don't like what the article is about." -Seth Mahoney 03:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
There are far too many statements that are put forth as fact (without reference) that are completely *FALSE* based on what (at least I) consider to be the definitive opinion - that of mental health professionals. It was unanimously declared by mental health professionals that homosexuality is not a disorder and that homosexuals can live normal, healthy lives; this has never been asserted about practicing pedophiles. Thus the comment "Of course, homosexuality was once considered (and is still considered by some) to be a psychological affliction" would seem to me to be original research in that it states the complete opposite of what is believed by the world of mental health professionals. I don't care if those "some" that still believe it are millions of people worldwide; millions of people also believe that other people should be property based on skin color. This article is littered with non-factual comments and that is just so; my (or anyone's) opinion on the content is not relevant. So, in this vein, it has also been asserted that there is *NO* association between pedophilia and homosexuality by these same mental health professionals. Not *SOME*, not *MAYBE,* but *NONE.* To use analogy, saying there is a connection because SOME pedophiles are also homosexuals is like saying that because *SOME* heterosexuals practice S&M, there is a connection between S&M and heterosexuality. And this is quickly dissolving into a rant, so if you haven't gotten the point by now, you never will... Pacian 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps the problem here is that we're viewing the article in different ways. I see it as a sociology article, chronicalling why homosexuality and pedophilia have been historically linked despite the complete lack of scientific correlation. You seem concerned that it is a psychology/biology article that will condemn homosexuality as related to pedophilia. I would ask that you consider the article as sociology - not having it would be comparable to having no article explaining that "millions of people also believe that other people should be property based on skin color" (which is clearly of note). LizardWizard 08:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't state that some mental health professionals believe homosexuality is a disease. It states that some people do, which is undoubtedly true. And the simple fact that some people believe there is a link, proves there is a link. *MUCH* -- Ec5618 11:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Erm, are you saying (I'm sure you're not, but I feel I should check) that the fact that some people believe there is a link proves that the link they believe is there is actually there, or that the link that is proven to exist is something along the lines of "some people think homosexuality and pedophilia are connected"? -Seth Mahoney 17:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think that's right on target with what he/she is saying though. Just because some people think there is a link between pedephilia and homosexuality doesn't make it so. I don't know how I can stress this point more clearly than I did above. It is a false conclusion based on non-logic! Look at it analogously: All scissors are used for cutting. Some scissors are used to cut bananas. Therefore all scissors are used to cut bananas. Does that make sense? No! You're jumping to a conclusion that has not been proven. Just because SOME pedophiles happen to ALSO BE HOMOSEXUALS does not link the two. If that was the case we would have an article called "Pedophilia and Blonde Hair" or "Pedophilia and Left-Handed-People", using the exact same kind of logic. Why not have an article called "Pedophilia and Molestation Survivors?"...since it far more likely that a pedophile was abused themself than it is that they are a genuine homosexual person. Pacian 21:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm so with what you're saying, but I don't think that an article called Pedophilia and homosexuality has to posit that there is an actual connection. A discussion of the fact that people think there is a necessary connection, that at certain periods in the past pederasty, at least, has been thought to be the only acceptable form of homosexuality, and so on, would make for a perfectly acceptable article. -Seth Mahoney 21:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I meant the latter. Please listen. There is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Read the article. There are historical links, there are percieved links as well. And all of these deserve to be reported. Before the childlove movement stood on its own, pedophilia advocates were part of the gay rights movement. Deal with it. -- Ec5618 21:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above outburst indicates precisely why this article should be deleted: it will only ever attract individuals who have a point to prove and use Wikipedia to do so. These subjects can be discussed more neutrally on other pages --Axon 22:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Erm, Ec5618 said nothing that isn't true. There are historical and perceived links, and pedophilia advocates were part of the gay rights movement. These true statements are part of a body of information that should be included in Wikipedia in the spirit of NPOV. To ignore them would be to present a POV slant. -Seth Mahoney 22:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Erm, no-one is suggesting that anyone ignore anything, but stating the above is "true" ignores the controversy of the statements made and the complexity. For example, the link you suggest is between pedophillia advocacy and gay rights, not homosexuality and pedophillia! My point is that I think anyone who side-steps the debate with a "deal with it" is not someone very committed to NPOV, and this article can only attract more such individuals. --Axon 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Deal with it, as in, deal with the fact that such links exist. Some comments posted above have suggested that no such link exists. Notably, the person who first suggested this page for deletion, who said 'I'm sick of homophobes trying to connect the gay community to these criminals.' That statement is neither NPOV nor honest, as there are undeniable connections. And I don't appreciate being called 'such an individual'. -- Ec5618 22:46, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
You may not be suggesting that anyone ignore anything, but you actually are ignoring something in your above comment. You say that one of the links I pointed out is between gay rights movements and pedophilia, not homosexuality and pedophilia. I don't think you have a very strong case for making that distinction, but fine. Granted. There are still two more links which you don't address - that, in fact, you ignore. It seems that an article with this title (or at least the debate about its deletion) attracts people who aren't interested in NPOV on both sides. That's not a very good reason for deletion, though. Creation science, theodicy, and postmodernism all have the same problem, but no one is suggesting that they be deleted. -Seth Mahoney 01:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pedophilia as part of a pair of sections, one dealing with the use of girl children and another with the use of boy children. I am reluctant to use the terms homo- and heterosexuality in this context since the practices predate by far the adoption of these concepts. The fact is that the practices predate the modern concept of pedophilia itself (though the term is encountered in antiquity). As a matter of fact, we should think about making some distinction between pedophilia as a psychological dysfunction, with its constellation of social and sexual disabilities, and pedophilia as a cultural practice engaged in by healthy members of societies with other standards than our own (see  on the Talmudic view of the betrothal of three-year-old girl children, and Gilbert Herdt on the Melanesian boy-insemination rites, for example.
Treat the slur on homosexuals there with one sentence and a link to the Anti-gay slogans article. Haiduc 11:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yeah. I'd still rather keep, but if a merge is gonna happen I'd rather see it merged to Anti-gay slogans. -Seth Mahoney 17:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Slogan? What slogan are we talking about? --Kevin Myers 18:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Its usually not put quite like this, but "gay men are pedophiles" or "gay men are a danger to children" or "gay people recruit young people into the homosexual lifestyle". -Seth Mahoney 18:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of those are actually slogans, per se, which is of course my point. ;-) The article in question is not about any slogan; putting it into a article about slogans is tantamount to sweeping it under the rug. --Kevin Myers 07:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
After some consideration, Keep. Has been rewriten, and while it still needs a lot of work and NPOVing, the subject is important enough to warrant and article. After all, we also have Homosexuality and transgender, also initially mostly because many people confuse the two, although it has grown in the meantime beyond that. P+H needs information about Ephebophilia added, though, among other things. -- AlexR 17:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what's the verdict?
A lot of people have voted for deletion. To reach consensus, I'd like to try to summarize the points made so far:
The article is inherently POV, as its name is POV. At the least, the name should be changed. Proposed names: 1) 'Pedophilia and sexuality'
The article itself is inherently POV, as no link exists between homosexuality as a sexual orientation and pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' or mental affliction. Deletion is the only remedy. The content of this article should be moved to other articles.
Though the article may be biased now, it could be edited to be NPOV. Criticism of the article should be put tp use, to remove bias.
This content should be merged with anti-gay slogan; as the percieved link is often used as a slur.
The article shouldn't be removed, regardless of bias. Wikipedia needs an article like this, and removing it would be biased and would suggest a taboo.
I may have missed a few points.
In my opinion, the article should remain. I would not object to a rename, provided the new name was fitting. This page should then become a redirect; peopl will try to find this page, and be directed to a NPOV name.
-- Ec5618 12:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)\
The consensus is deleteStancel 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you figure? Please define consensus as you see it. Also, your comments so far have suggested to me that you feel slighted by this article. Please explain how, and why that should ever be grounds for deletion. -- Ec5618 15:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
There have been alot of votes for deletion, about 15 or 16. There have been only 4 or 5 votes for keep, and the rest are merge/rename. I think that means we have reached a consensus for deletion. Stancel 16:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
This process is not about voting, it is about discussion to reach concensus. Please define 'consensus' as you see it. Also, your comments so far have suggested to me that you feel slighted by this article. Please explain how, and why that should ever be grounds for deletion. -- Ec5618 17:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.