I am not close to this debate; I've only followed the discussion on the mailing list. So I don't want anyone to take what I'm saying here to be a decree or anything like that.
But I very much agree with the responsible and balanced tone put forward here by Dr. Langdon:
alteripse@verizon.net wrote:
I am supporting someone's excellent idea that we maintain a single article on this topic. Within that article we can provide the detached observation that "some groups advocate recognizing different forms of pedophilic behavior, or argue that some forms do warrant the social opprobrium... etc etc" so that the fringe point of view is represented within an article that clearly presents the overwhelming consensus of western society. Allow no other detached articles where uncriticized "milder" or "harmless" forms can be advocated. Think of it as a social smallpox containment unit.
I don't know if "single article" is the right solution, but there is no question that the way he advocates presenting the topic is very good NPOV writing. The reader deserves to be informed that "some groups advocate..." because that's solid encyclopedic information. But the structure of articles must not give rise to a perception that we condone pedophilia.
An additional subtle point that could be misconstrued is that we also must not _condemn_ pedophilia. We are an encyclopedia, not a body of polemics. We report, the reader decides. We can (and must) report on the consensus of medical scientists, etc. I trust that we can do this in a way that allows the reader to draw the right conclusion effortlessly.
--Jimbo