Talk:Earl Bradley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the worst pedophile in American history is a significant example of subtle bias[edit]

Being a pedophile is not illegal. Pedophilia is an orientation. If a man went and raped 2,000 women would would not call him "the worst heterosexual ever" we would call him the worst rapist ever. This is an example of weasel wording to add bias to an article. Checking the souces none of them even use that exact language. CNN questions if he might be the worst pedophile ever but does not make the statement in a non-question form. I am changing the describtion to what he actually did that was wrong (sexually abuse children) to make this article more balanced and less editorialized. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boilingorangejuice, from what I see, the references state "Worst pedophile" or "America's worst pedophile"; you changing the text to "worst child sexual abuser" needs to be supported by the sources. Also see MOS:QUOTE. Given what you added, you should really remove the quotation marks. And, personally, I wouldn't call pedophilia a sexual orientation; it's been compared to sexual orientation, but it is far from being documented simply as a sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you were reverted by NebY. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we should delete that line completely as it adds little value to the article and adds significant political bias. I will leave that action to another editor as my edit has been reverted. Flyer22 I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pedophilia by any definition is a sexual orientation. It is the sexual preference for pre-puberty individuals. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand what I mean about pedophilia not being a sexual orientation, then I suggest you read Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Development and Sexual Orientation and Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4#Pedophilia. Like I stated in that first linked discussion, "Stating that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, at least regarding the usual/authoritative way that sexual orientation is defined (which is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult), is WP:FRINGE. Some people (including a few researchers) use 'sexual orientation' loosely, but it is not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation." Furthermore, we make it clear in the Sexual orientation article that the terms sexual orientation and sexual preference do not always mean the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "what I mean about pedophilia not being a sexual orientation" In this Harvard health publication it explicitly states "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change." So even top scholars refer to pedophilia as a valid sexual orientation. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/pessimism-about-pedophilia. I agree that "not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation" but even minority opinions need to be represented and this is way more than a minority opinion if it is the language that Havard uses to refer to pedophilia.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making the same arguments as the IP in Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4#Pedophilia will get you nowhere. You are wrong, per what I've stated above. And your POV-pushing in this area will most certainly result in you being WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 please attack my argument and not me as a person. You have responded to my argument with a personal attack on me. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boilingorangejuice, do cease with your silly accusations against me here and at Talk:Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse#Extreme bias. You take everything as some kind of attack when it comes to facts about pedophilia, child sexual abuse and/or child pornography. Facts you do not like. Making it clear that pedophilia is hardly accepted as a sexual orientation among scientists and that your POV-pushing will not be tolerated here (per the WP:Child protection policy) is not a WP:Personal attack violation. We both know why you are so focused on me, given my involvement with WP:Child protection matters. And we both know that you already knew who I was before you showed up at this site as Boilingorangejuice; calling me "Flyer22" instead of "Flyer22 Reborn" also speaks to that familiarity. Above, I already addressed the problem with your edit to the article, and it's been elaborated on by NebY below, as you now know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flyer22, I have been editing wikipedia for over ten years and like many people I have encountered situations where everyone does not agree on a position. I am sure that we can continue to argue civilly in the future. I like how you well reference your arguments! In the end we both want the same thing, a high quality Wikipedia articles that everyone can enjoy. God blessBoilingorangejuice (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted that edit. Boilingorangejuice then came to my talk page to query that revert, which surprised me. To recap, Boilingorangejuice had changed a quote "the worst pedophile in American history" to "the worst child sex abuser in American history" with the edit comment "Removed weasel words that attempted to re-frame a legal orientation as a crime. Reworded with what was the intent of the original wording." Changing a quotation is of course a direct breach of MOS:QUOTE and this is a peculiarly egregious change which radically transforms the meaning and effect of the quotation. On Wikipedia, accidental misinformation is not vandalism but this, telling the reader that one thing was said or written when something significantly different was, was done purposefully. Indeed, Boilingorangejuice claimed to be expressing "the intent of the original wording" as if somehow able to read minds and to discern that "worst pedophile" was a slip of the tongue, an accidental failure to make a distinction which Boilingorangejuice is insisting on. Boilingorangejuice also tried to justify this as changing "weasel words"; "worst pedophile" is a strong and forthright statement, not weasel words at all. The most weaselly parts of this are Boilingorangejuice's description of pedophilia as a "legal orientation", as if there was some law that had legitimised pedophilia, and contorted logic of arguing that we must not call someone "the worst pedophile" because that implies that pedophilia is a crime. Boilingorangjuice's attempts to "re-frame" reactions to Earl Bradley are a serious breach of WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explaination that I requested. I now understand the motivations behind the revert. I agree with you on your position about my method being incorrect but the qoute still needs removed because it is politically charged and violates wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Next time please comment with the revert so I can better understand. :) Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commented my revert "that's how he was described"[1] which I thought was clear, so I was surprised at your request on my talk page. I see now that it was couched in the same terms you used above: "I am interested in your motivations behind the reversion", "I now understand the motivations behind the revert." So that I can better understand your edits and posts, please can you disclose the account name(s) under which you "have been editing wikipedia for over ten years".[2] NebY (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just recently made a username on wikipedia. Before that I would just make edits from my phone or whatever private or public computer I had access from. My edits would be from hundreds of different IPs. However I now plan to use this screenname for all my edits. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for us to get returning editors stating that they are experienced Wikipedians because they edited as an IP first, even though it's actually the case that they edited under one or more registered accounts before their latest registered account. And it's highly unlikely that a person would edit Wikipedia for over ten years and know it well enough to be aware of the WP:Original research policy (or similar) without ever having had a registered Wikipedia account until recently. But that is all I am going to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Earl Bradley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Earl Bradley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph probably needs splitting[edit]

Could anyone please tell me where to split it?--Thylacine24 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_Bradley&oldid=1196289719"