This mention penalising those who self-identity as paedophiles, and I don't follow why. Not to sound like a paedophile or a paedophile defender, but isn't that blatant sexuality/disability based discrimination? It seems irrelevant and unrelated; Wikipedia articles should be neutral, so assuming they are written as such, why do personal matters like that play a factor? Paedophilia (an attraction) and child sexualisation (an action) aren't always two sides of the same coin, just like homosexuality and sodomy. Wouldn't chastising them violate the "personal attack" part of the guidelines anyhow?
Please explain. Argentum Kurodil (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Because we used to not have this policy and it was a disaster. Pedophile editors kept tampering with articles to try and spread propaganda in the direct service of their appetites, and repeatedly violated policy or use policy as a bludgeon by invoking the letter rather than the spirit. It should be noted that generally only the predatory/delusional type of pedophile tends to be the type that self-identifies or tampers with articles; the type with insight into their impulses won't do either.Legitimus (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- As stated above, it is a WP:NOTFREESPEECH issue. At one stage there was a lot of time wasting by editors who tried to edit articles and hijack talk pages to fit their agenda.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Right, that kind of makes sense. But surely that would be covered under "promoting adult/child relationships", an issue which is independent of paedophilia (in some cases anyway); some paedophiles actually disagree with that doctrine - the famous example is Todd Nickerson. And if it's a vandalising edit, even in talk pages, then naturally it should be removed due to it being biased and/or irrelevant. Those folk should be dealt with on the grounds of vandalism, no? Argentum Kurodil (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- You might not be reading the mood of the discussion or the implications of Wikipedia:Child protection. This is not the right website to chat about whether this policy or its origins make sense. Discussions at Wikipedia must focus on improving the encyclopedia. Replying further would not be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- A policy talk page is "not the place to talk about [the policy]"?? That's totally and completely absurd. It almost seems like you're implying that discussion/criticism of the policy is in itself a violation of the policy -- which legitimises the concerns that the OP and many others have had. Creating a platform for witch hunts/McCartheism on wiki. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that discussing whether the policy makes sense counts as focusing on improving the encyclopedia—an encyclopedia with policies that don't make sense is necessarily flawed. And the last sentence of your reply comes across like you're trying to shut down a legitimate discussion. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.