The index page refers to English Wikipedia for information about the subject of the wiki. It has this about Brongersma: "He was primarily known as a defender of the rights of paedophiles and an advocate of more lax legislation on public morality."
The article is largely unsourced, and the statement "primarily known" is a judgment, an opinion. It's a sign of editorial bias. To the person writing that lede, Brongersma was of interest, very likely, because of that idea, not because of his other accomplishments. However, was he a defender of "the rights of pedophiles"? Was he a pedophile? Not by the definition of pedophile. Brongersma was originally convicted of having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old "boy," at the time, in the Netherlands, the age of consent for homosexual relations was 21, higher than for heterosexual relations. The age of consent for both was lowered to 16 by subsequent legislation. Pedophilia generally means a sexual preference for prepubescent children.
The word "pedophile" is inflammatory, conjuring up images of a sexual predator, and young children. It's a complex issue, and difficult to address.
I am by no means expert on Brongersma, and have only looked to the extent that I have because of this listing (and I looked much earlier this year, and added that Wikipedia reference.) I don't wish to see WikiIndex get embroiled in disputes over "pedophilia." The topic makes people crazy.
The issues raised by Brongersma, though, are boundary issues. What is the "age of consent"? In many societies, chronological age does not matter, puberty matters. Around the world, according to Wikipedia, the age of consent varies from 14 to 18 in most jurisdictions. Brongersma, then, can easily be seen (and apparently saw himself) as an advocate of lowering the age of consent, which can then be seen as advocacy for the rights of young adults. This is not, however, "pedophilia," generally restricted to a sexual preference for age 11 or younger. Brongersma may also be seen as an advocate for the rights of homosexuals, since, had the person in question with his conviction been female, he would not have violated the law.
There is another issue that requires general consensus: should wikis that are not generally open for editing be listed by WikiIndex? If an individual uses wiki software, does this make the web site a "wiki"? I see no registration link for Brongersma. All edits that I saw, in a quick review, were by "Admin." However, any web site on the related topics is likely to be under heavy attack. We saw that WikiIndex was under attack because of Leucosticte's participation here, and the attack on this page was almost certainly due to the tracking of Leucosticte, seen on RationalWiki, by some, and in some other places, as an advocate for "raping kids." See .
On the one hand, Leucosticte has been trolling for this response. On the other, WikiIndex has a mission. I suggest we follow the mission. I linked to the Wikipedia article because it is relatively neutral. I avoided adding clarification because I do not want to create a debate here over the definition of pedophilia. RationalWiki was nearly torn apart by that debate, stimulated by Leucosticte, between many who wanted to stand for free speech, and others who could not tolerate the presence of a "child rapist," even though Leucosticte has never been charged with any child-sexual offense, is clearly not a pedophile (from extensive writing about his own sexuality), but described fantasies, fantasies that, from objective research in the field, are not uncommon. (Which does not establish norms. It might be common to fantasize murdering your boss, it would not make it right!) --Abd (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't forget what Louis Brandeis wrote, "Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it." If you say "This law is wrong, because the behavior it proscribes is harmless and ethically acceptable" then it could make people think, "Why shouldn't I violate it, then, if I think I can find a way to get away with it?" Denouncing a law tends to make that law less popular, and there's often less stigma attached to breaking an unpopular law. Where there's less stigma for lawbreaking, there may be more lawbreaking. Leucosticte (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bankrupt arguments. Brandeis would be correct. His argument is worth reading. However, Brandies's opinion, which was brilliant, applied here, would clearly allow advocacy of legalization. So? Leudosticte is here presenting arguments that he personally rejects. It's debate. The argument presented is not about the topic here, which is on keeping or deleting this index listing. It does not establish a violation of the proposed policy. At all. --Abd (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
revert warring on deletion tag
Leucosticte, who created the index page, requested deletion as "Author request." He was not the sole author of the page, though he created it. I removed the tag, and discussed the wiki above. Leucosticte has again tagged the wiki for deletion, this time with (delete|Violation of Project:Prohibited content). That is a draft policy. Leucosticte attempted to edit it with what was not a policy but an argument for a possible policy: "advocating legalization of activities that most of the public deems immoral could offend some readers and harm WikiIndex's reputation.". I removed that. It has no support, so far. Note that advocating legalization is not the same -- at all -- as advocating illegal activity. Many people advocate legalization of marijuana, for example, but do not advocate smoking marijuana, whether it is legal or illegal.
I have again removed the tag. Most wikis allow any user to remove a speedy deletion tag. The whole point of speedy deletion is to avoid unnecessary discussion for uncontroversial deletions. Speedy deletion is, here, being abused. (Some wikis require an admin remove the tags. That's not the practice on developed, community-based wikis.)
His replacement of the deletion tag ignored the comments above. He is attempting to bypass discussion to force deletion, which then serves other purposes, such as claiming "censorship," or, alternatively, to force discussion of the topic, which he knows from experience can be highly disruptive, and "highly disruptive" is his goal.
However, Brongersma does not violate the proposed policy. It can look at way to someone who just looks at superficialities, such as how Wikipedia describes Brongersma. Brongersma was not a pedophile, except in popular definitions that depend on overgeneralization. (i.e., pedophiles are attracted to "children," and in some places a 17-year-old is a "child," therefore, the knee-jerk thinking is, someone who had sex with a 17-year-old is a "pedophile." Which is about equivalent to "evil inhuman monster who should be killed immediately." It's actually preposterous. What Brongersma did was violate a law aimed only at homosexuals, had the "victim" been female, no violation.
Leucosticte also nominated for deletion a page for a homosexual activist, an academic, whose wiki is the only known host for the "shredded" Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. Amazon William A. Percy. Quite a story, in fact.
Possibly as a result of the Brongersma case, the age of consent in the Netherlands was made the same for homosexual and heterosexual activities. It was or became, then, 16 years of age. Many jurisdictions have lower ages of consent. Advocating lowering the age of consent is not advocating illegal behavior. That's obvious!
The relevant draft policy, which might be accepted, it does seem to enjoy a level of consensus, prohibits:
- "Sites which advocate behaviors that are illegal. Legality changes from district to district. A site like Wikilivres hosts material which is copyrighted in some jurisdictions but not others. Exercise caution when providing links to wikis which advocate illegal activity. We want to provide a comprehensive view of the world of wikis but not provide a repository of sites for finding drug smuggling mules or child pornography.
The page clarifies:
- It harms the credibility of our site and makes using it a potentially dangerous activity for users if we don't have minimal criteria for prohibited content. All of the examples given above are for actual wikis which exist solely or substantially to provide content that is dangerous and harmful.
Key: solely or substantially. No content has been referenced or even alleged which is "dangerous and harmful." There is "child pornography" hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Nobody would claim that such was the substantial or sole purpose of Commons. (But people do object!) Brongersma was not a pedophile, and did not -- to my knowledge -- advocate legalizing true adult-child sexual relations. And if he did, that would be historical; after all, he's deceased, and a site documenting his life and work is not advocacy. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is it a revert war if you cite a different deletion reason the second time around? I dunno, maybe it's a gray area. Wikimedia Commons does not host child pornography; there are no images there of children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously. Leucosticte (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's tendentious editing if you already know the edit is opposed, which you did. Whether it's a "revert war" or not is another issue. I use the term to mean repeatedly asserting the same or similar content. Time is also involved. The only change in the second assertion was a reason that was false on the face, and you know it. You are advocating reasons that you know might be advocated by those you seek to expose or humiliate. The real disruptive violation is WP:POINT, not WP:3RR (which does cover reversions lower than four, four is a "bright line.")
- As to "child pornography," Leucosticte is playing with varying definitions. In common usage, the word has varying meanings. There is coverage of this on Wikipedia. When he created his Nathania page, trolling for outrage, Nathan presented images in categories 1-3. Sometimes these can be used as supporting evidence in a prosecution for a violation of law, but, in themselves, they are not illegal. The Commons images do not present "children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously." As I recall, the children are clothed. The adults are exposed. I'd interpret them -- these are drawings from long ago -- as Category 8 or 9, "Assault," or "Gross Assault."
- Brongersma does not even get close to any of this, as far as I've seen.
- When considering offensiveness, the legal definition of child pornography can be irrelevant. Legally, there is the Miller test. By that test, the Commons images are legal. As Leucosticte knows, the issues are far more complex than most realize. There is a second issue besides the Miller test, which is realism. The drawings are clearly not photographs or produced in imitation of photographs. They are "realistic," but are clearly drawings, they are not "photorealistic."
- And all this is irrelevant to Brongersma. Leucosticte knows better, much better. Hence he is trolling. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Miller test doesn't apply to child pornography. See New York v. Ferber#The Court's decision. There are other types of child pornography besides the kind I mentioned; more broadly it involves "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" which can involve "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person". Leucosticte (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)