Talk:Vereniging Martijn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vereniging Martijn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Why?

why is this article on Wikipedia while some other organizations are not?

In the Dutch section, a discussion has started about this highly controversial item, because the association in fact advocates pedophilia. The article here is condensed from the Dutch, and the slant is towards a positive aproach in opening a discussion on the acceptability of pedophilia, thereby accepting that the outcome might be that p. should be accepted. P. is a taboo for the protection of children. Even Dutch organisations of homosexuals have objected to Martijn, their magazine and pedophilia. Apart from being a worried parent of two young sons, I think an encyclopedia is not the place for that discussion.

webnpATyahoo.com

Isee that the Dutch article is much longer. Over here, I don't see any 3rd-party sources for the article, and I can't find much about them in a quick Google search. The two options for this article are to find more sources, and make it more NPOV in the process, or to delete the article due to non-notability. Are there any good English-language articles on this topic? -Will Beback 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan didn't help much. The Dutch article doesn't help either. I'll go with your last suggestion. - 83.81.228.218 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the organisation outside The Netherlands can of course be disputed, but the POV-claim has no basis at all. This article does not advocate anything and in fact states that MARTIJN is highly controversial in The Netherlands. Please don't confuse controversy with non-neutrality. Xyboi 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the group "advocates the acceptance of pedophilia ...". However, pedophilia is not illegal in the Netherlands, it's sex with children that is. I think the article should read "... Dutch association that advocates the legalization of sexual relationships between adults and children." But then, I think this article shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. X10 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that advocates the acceptance of pedophilia and legalization of sexual relationships between adults and children.

I think they are seeking social acceptance as well as legalization. I'm not sure if this group would meet our WP:ORG standards, but if you think it wouldn't then go ahead and AfD it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Dutch article

The Dutch article can be read as propaganda for pedophilia, mostly. It mentions "four guidelines for responsible sex with children". Experts in the field know that such guidelines are use to comfort pedophiliacs, to relieve their conscience. What they do is exactly opposite to what is suggested here, where it's suggested pedophiliacs should talk about their feelings to "normal people" to adjust their belief systems and make them feel that sex with kids is not ok. The guidelines do exactly the opposite. These guidelines are publised on nl.wiki.x.io without much criticism. I have been criticizing this for the last year. This resulted in me being blocked from wikipedia for some time. Somehow, there's a group of people who turn back my changes within seconds, and who maintain the general tendency of the article as a pedophilia advertisement. Theres a similar problem with the article on pedophilia in the Dutch wikipedia. I think that in order to keep wikipedia proper and objective, pedophilia propaganda should not be present.

X10 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activism

Can someone please remove the line on anti pedophilia activism by a group called "stop Martijn", organized by a group called "Nieuw Rechts"? This latter group is a neo nazi group that uses anti-pedophilia activism in order to find themselves in respectable company, for once. I suspect that the reason for mentioning this group, rather than mentioning the numerous other action groups and opponents, is to make opponents of child abusers look like fascists. X10 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the line. If there needs to be criticism in the article that's fine, but it should not be fake criticism that neo nazis have used for their own cause. X10 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. To claim criticism is only from other extreme minority groups is untrue and deceitful, it promotes pro-pedophilia activism, SqueakBox 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Listing a fringe group as the only opposition gives undue weight to the view that only fringe groups oppose this organization. Better to leave it out. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate. X10 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legalize

SqueakBox, you made a change from "acceptance" to "legalization of pedophilia and etc." Pedophilia is legal in the Netherlands, and it should be, I guess, if it means "being a pedophile". Unfortunately, these people don't have much of a choice. What's illegal is having sexual relationships with children. I think the best text would be to say "... that advocates the legalization of sexual relationships between adults and children". Shorter, easier, more correct.

I'm not sure this group should have an entry in Wikipedia in the first place, because they're tiny and nobody knows them really, but I'll leave that up to you. X10 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I changed it back to (roughly, I think) how it was. Your suggestion is good too; I'm not familiar with what exactly Martijn advocates or not. --Askild 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They advocate that sex with minors should be legal. Most of the members have a history of active pedophilia, some are convicted child abusers. They are similar to NAMBLA, i.e. pro child abuse activists. X10 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Hi,

The article has two POV tags and no explanation of this on the talk page - which must be present. I propose to remove the POV tag within a week unless the required explanation is added in the mean time. Regards, 77.251.89.152 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Vereniging MARTIJN please

Vereniging MARTIJN is their official name as can be seen on their website: http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=203000 (English section). S_peakF_ree (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wny? If it's an acronym, then maybe. If it's just an idiosyncratic typography, we shouldn't rename it necessarily. An important data point would be how most of the sources render the name. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Martijn → Vereniging MARTIJN –

Vereniging MARTIJN is their official name as can be seen on their website www.martijn.org. S_peakF_ree (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary word styling.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If it is not an acronym, then we don't use stylistic all-caps. Both WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM are clear-cut on this. --DAJF (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not an acronym. Standard usage then becomes capitalize first letter, rest lower case.Pär Larsson (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not an an acronym, just an ideosyncratic stylization on their part. Just as we don't have articles named Macy*s and Waldorf=Astoria etc. our style guides don't support adhering to organizations' typography preferences. A case could be made for the move if most sources use MARTIJN. Labattblueboy hasn't made this case. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-pedophile activism

This category is listed because the article has a section about the committee Stop MARTIJN (which previously was a separate article). S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ad van den Berg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ad van den Berg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vereniging Martijn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]