Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

Political POV Warning

As the warning tag on this talk page states, the subject of this article is highly controversial, and furthermore highly politicized. Much of the content on this page is written from a non-neutral point of view involving significant editorial bias. The page frequently uses loaded language which lends itself to being read from a non-neutral perspective. Below is a sample of cases of ways this is done in the article as of this post. A political POV warning has been added to the main article for reasons of which the following are examples. Please see Template:Political_POV for information on what this warning means and what must be changed before this label may be removed from this article. Be advised that the following is neither defense of nor opposition to the organization.

1. The article lacks an impartial tone.
   1a. The article frequently uses language which is discrediting, doubtful, or otherwise impartial; while describing other positions with legitimating or validating language.
   The introductory paragraph, for instance, states that, "[The organization] campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve what it considers coercion." As detailed in Wikipedia:CLAIM (and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Words to watch), phrasing such as this can imply a lack of credibility and cast doubt on the position referenced. Additionally, as the subject of this article is highly controversial, reckless wording such as this is even more biasing than it would be typically. Furthermore, there is also frequent bias in the opposite direction. As Wikipedia:CLAIM states, "to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said."
   While the example from the opening paragraph cited above is by far the most egregious violation on this page, other examples of these problems of impartial tone include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following excerpts:
   - "Suffolk County district attorney Garrett H. Byrne found the men had used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house." (Positive bias)
   - "The 'Boston-Boise Committee', a gay rights organization, was formed in response to these events (which they termed the 'Boston witch-hunt'), allegedly in order to promote solidarity amongst gay men, saying in an official leaflet that [...]" (Negative bias)
   - "Mike Echols, the author of I Know My First Name Is Steven, infiltrated NAMBLA and recorded his observations in his book, [...]". (Positive bias; compare this with a later description, for instance, stating "Jaynes wrote in his diary" - neutral phrasing which merely implies that someone wrote something.)
   - "Citing cases [...], Larry Frisoli, the attorney representing the Curleys, said [...]". (Positive bias; many arguments utilize citation; mentioning this of some but not other arguments gives unequal credibility to those where this is mentioned.)
   - "Claiming to have joined the organization 'in defense of free speech', Ginsberg said [...]". (Negative bias)
   - "In April 2013, the hacktivist group Anonymous prevented NAMBLA's website from being accessed as part of an operation dubbed 'Operation Alice Day'". (Positive bias; compare, for instance, to the following neutrally-toned wording: "The 'Boston-Boise Committee', a gay rights organization, was formed in response to these events (which they termed the 'Boston witch-hunt')".)
   
   1b. The article uses scare-quotes. (See Scare quotes)
   As the referenced page states, quotation marks may be be used to "indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression 'so-called'; they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes". This use of quotation marks is called scare-quoting. Especially when shorter quotations are being used in the middle of an unquoted sentence, special care must be given to ensure they will not be interpreted by readers as scare-quotes.
   Examples of scare-quoting in this article include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following excerpts:
   - "Allen Ginsberg, poet and father of the Beat Generation, was an affiliated member of NAMBLA. Claiming to have joined the organization 'in defense of free speech'"
   - "John Reinstein, director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said although NAMBLA 'may extol conduct which is currently illegal', there was nothing on its website that 'advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape'."
   - "following a controversial TEDx (unvetted by the TED organization) presentation referring to pedophilia as an 'unchangeable sexual orientation'"
   
   1c. The article frequently describes relationships between two people, one younger and one older, from a perspective focused narrowly on the adult partner.
   All relationships involve two people. Prevalent negative narratives about relationships between people of different ages focus narrowly on the adult partner, however, as does the content of this article. For instance, It writes of "laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors"; Not "Minor sexual involvement with adults" (which would instead be framed in the opposite way), nor "Sexual interactions between adults and minors" (which has a neutral tone).
   
   Consider, for example, that one would not describe a heterosexual relationship as characterized solely by the attraction to women, narrowly focusing on the male in the relationship. This would be misogynistic at best, and in any case biased. This is what this article does with respect to the older partner in any given relationship, thereby erasing the experience of the younger partner.
   
   Furthermore, the article often superfluously describes individuals, as well as the organization itself, as "pro-pedophilia," "pro-pedophile," and adjacent terms. Although highly negative and loaded (as will be detailed with reference to the relevant policy pages further on in this post), the term "pedophilia," by definition, refers to the feelings of attraction of an older teen or adult to a child. It does not refer to the attraction of a younger individual to an older individual, nor to the attraction between people of different ages. Like the above, it's use in this page contributes to a narrow focus on older partners. Although examples of this should be obvious, the superflousness of the following excerpt will be explained.
   - "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws [...]" Here, directly before explaining that the organization is opposed to criminalization, it is stated that the organization is "a pedophilia [...] advocacy organization". This wording is superfluous because no meaning would be lost If it were removed. If this line read, "[...] is an advocacy organization in the united states. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws [...]", bias would be avoided, and no meaning would be lost, as the following sentence is already about what the organization advocates for.
   
   1d. Use of loaded language (see Loaded language as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels)
   The referenced page states that, "Loaded language [...] is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning." As mentioned above, the word "pedophilia" itself is a very loaded term. Use of this label pervades the page. If this word must be used, it should be done so carefully in a way which avoids the loaded meanings of the word beyond it's literal meaning.
   
   There are other instances of loaded language as well. The following is one example: "Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold US$119 million in UN contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that no UN agency grants any official status to organizations that condoned pedophilia." As https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condone states, "condone" means to apologize for something bad. In this case, language such as "defend," "support," etc, would be less biased.
   
   
2. Misrepresentation of Viewpoints
   The introductory section, for instance, misrepresents the range of laws which the organization opposes. While the organization is opposed to the criminalization of relationships of people of different ages per se - including, for example, the criminalization of relationships between younger and older boys - the impression is created that the organization supports only adult men targeted by law enforcement. In fact, they support boys who are targeted for the same reasons. This impression conveniently plays into popular narratives which give the impression that all relationships between people of different ages can be conveniently fit into the idea that one participant is an adult, the other a young child, and that the relationship can be characterized by the aforementioned focus on the adult. With regard to this, the opening paragraph reads, "It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts [...]". In addition to fixing the issues of tone in this sentence, the descriptive meaning of the sentence should reflect the beliefs of the organization, as should the rest of the article.
   
   
3. Misleading Historical Information
   At times the article gives the impression that the organization was always rejected by the movement for general homosexual liberation, even though other parts of the article as well as some referenced scholarship correctly contradict this idea. For instance, the following excerpt speaks of "gay rights groups" (i.e., all) when it should refer to, at worst, "some gay rights groups," or at best, the specific set of groups. "In the following years, gay rights groups tried to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming 'NAMBLA walks with me' as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles."
   
   Additionally, the page gives the impression that the organization was founded by a single individual. This is not true, as it seems one scholar on this talk page has also explained. It was founded by a sizeable small group of young adult and teen male homosexual activists during the early years of the movement for homosexual liberation, as one of the sources used in this article (Haggerty, George (2000). Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia) also details.
   
   

There are other issues of neutrality present in this article, such as the disproportionate representation of quotations from law enforcers and mass media - but I will leave it at this for now. After these are addressed, opening another discussion for further issues of neutrality should be considered.

Once more, please remember to review Template:Political POV to understand what this warning means and the conditions which must be met prior to it's removal; it's removal is not a light matter and should not be done surreptitiously. Furthermore, please be aware that the examples listed are not definitive lists of all biases in the page, but should be treated rather as concrete expressions of underlying bias which pervades the article. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The most important thing to remember is that, above all, WP:NPOV is defined with reference to WP:Reliable sources. If sources consistently and overwhelmingly describe a group a certain way, then so do we - if we did not, then we would be violating NPOV via WP:WHITEWASH. And reliable sources consistently agree that NAMBLA exists to legitimize the sexual abuse of boys by adult men. Anything they claim about also advocating for older and younger boys that are close in age or whatever is a smokescreen. Likewise, we describe it as something an adult man does to a child because that's exactly what it is. It is not equivalent to adult relationships, and speaking of misogyny, comparing it to a relationship between an adult man and an adult woman is way off. Bottom line - it's all about the reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Broadly speaking, I think you misunderstand that neutrality, on Wikipedia, means fairly representing the viewpoints that get published in reliable sources. We do not give "equal validity" between the viewpoints of NAMBLA and of those published in reliable sources; see WP:FALSEBALANCE. To respond to some of your points:

• 1a: Things like "claim" or "what it considers" can cast doubt on the truth of the statement asserted, but that would be appropriate in this instance given the treatment of the group in RS. For instance, your edit changed "that did not involve what it considers coercion" to "that did not involve coercion"; we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that the sexual abuse of children does not involve coercion (even if you personally believe that to be true), for very obvious reasons. Same goes for such language in the opposite direction.
• 1b: These are regular quotes, not scare quotes.
• 1c: A sexual relationship between an adult and a child is not a relationship between two equals, it is one in which the adult is abusing the child. It is not coincidental nor non-neutral that the article text does not treat them as equals.
• 1d: "Pedophilia" is certainly not such a loaded term that it is forbidden for use on Wikipedia, and it is indeed a term used by reliable sources when discussing the group.
• 2: "People of different ages" is a WP:EUPHEMISM which whitewashes NAMBLA and its goals. They advocate for sexual relationships between people above the age of consent and below the age of consent. There is already no impediment to, for instance, a 40 year old sleeping with a 30 year old or something.
• 3: I don't know enough about the history to comment on it, but perhaps "multiple gay rights groups" would suffice for the first thing you mentioned.

Endwise (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as it's completely spurious and EB's last edit which added youth rights to the infobox despite there being no clear connection and no coverage of it in the article itself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, @Epistemologicalbiker can you please point to exactly which page in the book source you used supports the statement you added here? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote in reply to your accusatory comment on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NAMBLA): Here is a quote from the source, which for your information was already used as a source for other claims in the article.

"NAMBLA did not focus its attention on sexual rights alone. It advocated a comprehensive program to liberate and empower youth, opposing circumcision, corporal punishment, and any coercion of youth. Its Web site (www.nambla.org) has proclaimed its support for greater economic, political, and social opportunities for young people and its denunciation of the 'rampant ageism that segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.'" Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is what they say - which is irrelevant in the face of reliable sources that state otherwise. It also doesn't say youth rights anywhere in relation to them in that entire book. It's a stretch of extraordinary magnitude to claim they are a "youth rights" advocacy group. They are a pedophilia advocacy group. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"a comprehensive program to liberate and empower youth" - which is part of the description of the organization given by the RS referenced, not by NAMBLA of themselves - is practically the definition of youth rights/youth liberation. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's them quoting NAMBLAs mission statement. You're conflating their desire to remove age of consent laws (which is exactly what that means) with actual youth rights advocacy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"NAMBLA did not focus its attention on sexual rights alone. It advocated a comprehensive program to liberate and empower youth, opposing circumcision, corporal punishment, and any coercion of youth" is not a quote from the organization's mission statement. I am not conflating anything. An organization can advocate for multiple things at once, as this one did. I could find further RS to further back this up as I am aware of much literature on queer history (and my familiarity with this book which was already used here is why I knew of it's section on this organization in the first place). Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, unless you can back it up with sources that widely report them as a "youth rights advocacy group", this discussion is pointless. The single source you're using is directly from their own website and mission statement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That source includes both it's own description of the organization as well as a description of what the organization itself says -- as a good description of an organization should do. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (From the NPOV noticeboard, and I've never heard of this subject.) In Claiming to have joined the organization "in defense of free speech",[26] Ginsberg said:, "claim" is not appropriate; it should be "stating" and recast a bit. Also, the sentence constitutes improper synthesis: the first quote is from a book I can't access, but the second one is sourced to a student newspaper which says it's a quote from the NAMBLA website. So they shouldn't be put together like that. I agree with a few of the points in 1a; there's no use in saying "infiltrated and recorded his observations" when some shorter would suffice.

Otherwise, agreed with Endwise. The use of pedophilia seems fairly accurate throughout the article—where is it being used imprecisely? I don't feel strongly about "condone", because it's describing it from the perspective of Bill Clinton, etc., not Wikipedia. Ovinus (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• The above POV-pushing editor has been blocked and globally locked. One change that has not been undone was the removal of the entry *"[[Cartman Joins NAMBLA]]", an episode of ''[[South Park]]'' satirizing the organization from the See also section... perhaps this might be re-added, if it was thought appropriate / relevant? 172.195.96.244 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in and helped with this situation. Glad to see the disruption ended. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Antifa and Pedophilia

I think that NAMBLA's association with anti-fascist causes such as the infamous "no pedo bashing, no mike cernovich" banner from (I think) 2017 should be noted on given the continuity between pedophilia apologia and homosexual ideology and theory (see the literal founder of this group), both of which are not so coincidentally popular amongst anti-fascists. 173.79.49.66 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to provide A source for this famous incident? Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to imply only fascists are opposed to pedophilia. I’m not sure there are enough fascists here to obtain a consensus, but how about it, fascists? Do you feel that if you are opposed to pedophilia then you must be a fascist? Roricka (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Please change method = [[Age of consent reform|Removing age of consent laws]] in the infobox to purpose = [[Age of consent reform|Removing age of consent laws]]. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The Infobox doesn't allows purpose and focus to be used together. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing age of consent laws is NAMBLA's primary goal, not a means to achieving it, and it is clearly inaccurate and misleading to list it as the organization's "method". Can we just remove it from the infobox instead? 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems fair, it is their aim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I would say that their primary goal is to have sex with boys, and their method of facilitating that is to remove age of consent laws. So my !vote is no change.

I see. At least one editor agreed with me, and I find your objection unconvincing, but I will not pursue this further because I would rather spend my time doing something else. 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In the section "Opposition", swap the order of the 2000 teacher firing and the 2013 anonymous hack

Since the 2000 teacher firing happened before the 2013 anonymous hack, it should be listed first. Thus, swap the order of the 2000 teacher firing and the 2013 anonymous hack in the section "Opposition" 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)