Talk:Virtuous Pedophiles
Latest comment: 11 days ago by WP Ludicer in topic Lacks neutrality
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Virtuous Pedophiles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is where you discuss changes
edit@Dsprc:
Hello,
Your recent additions were challenged. Please try to discuss them here and get consensus Underwoods Witch (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Underwoods Witch: WP:CHILDPROTECT is a user conduct policy, not content policy. There has to be a legitimate reasoning for challenging material. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, there is no rational basis for removal of:
- A couple of additional references to reliable sources (with no corresponding changes to article content).
- Integrating this article and others with addition of §See also.
- What is the specific content objection here? -- dsprc [talk] 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree this is appropriate. I'm usually all for wp isn't censored, but child abuse friendly organizations are a line the community has drawn together Underwoods Witch (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which links specifically are you drawing issue with? The official website link? - Skipple ☎ 04:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a link to a child harm advocacy group. I see you have readded it, and now you own it. Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)- Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to, as I haven't added any external link back in. I will ask again, which link specifically is there issue with? - Skipple ☎ 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
At a minimum, you should probably add a warning that your link does lead to a child rape advocacy forum which is monitored by the FBI. Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hyperbolic sock noise aside: I don't object to exclusion of {{official}} in EL (I object to gaming the system) – there's no requirement articles include them anyway. Current status quo leaving it off is fine. -- dsprc [talk] 06:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which links specifically are you drawing issue with? The official website link? - Skipple ☎ 04:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree this is appropriate. I'm usually all for wp isn't censored, but child abuse friendly organizations are a line the community has drawn together Underwoods Witch (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Lacks neutrality
editThis article is immensely favorable to an organization of admitted, self-professed would-be child rapists. Without, at a minimum, a criticism section, the article fails to meet NPOV standards. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You have raised no specific objections, and a "criticism" section is never the go-to for resolving perceived issues of bias. The reception section already includes criticisms and concerns attributed to notable sources. I'm removing the tag. WP Ludicer (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
virped.org construction + anonymousity
editI think we should add a statement that there are two parts of virped.org First part is the public one, and there is also a forum which has hidden URL and is available only after u contact moderators via email support@ bla bla bla where u get URL and registration instructions.
Also I think it's worth to say that forum members are strongly advised to remain as anonymous as possible. 37.248.218.73 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)