james- Sure, but he also had suppporters. Michael Becker wrote: "Why don't you ask the author for their source instead of acting stupid and emotional and making assumptions?" .. "Nostrum's most recent edits have been NPOV. They are statement of facts. All you and Efghi did was remove information that had links to back it up (on any other article those links would not be needed!)." Mkmconn wrote: "It may also have been written by a web-savvy child, trying to make sense of things; in which case, milder instruction might be effective." Voiceofreason wrote: "Am heartened by Nostrum's attempt at NPOV and cooperation, which should be commended." This was all before 172 protected the page. Several people were quite obviously willing to work with Nostrum. Indeed, but the word referred to "abuses", not to people. It is certainly possible, albeit ambiguous, to refer to pederastic abuses as homosexual in nature. Furthermore, he corrected this rather quickly instead of reverting to it in a real edit war. That is an interpretation based on a single headline. Pedophilia is defined by the DSM a "over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)." Pedophiles fantasize exclusively about children, they justify their "love" of children by saying that the children want to be with them, and believe that what they do is best for the kids. Relationships between pedophiles and children often last several years. Pedophiles typically see themselves as "saviors" and educators of children. Pedo-websites include: http://www.nambla1.de http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/ http://www.fpc.net/sites/jay_h/ http://www.fpc.net/sites/rvsh/ http://philia.ws/dd/ And of course the huge pedo/pederasm website directory boylinks.net. If you check out websites like boylinks.net, you will find an obsession with prepubescent boys, linking to TV movies, gay youth websites, erotic fiction (not as problematic as real child pornography), etc. They post long manifestos and diatribes and cite what they believe to be scientific studies in support of their point of view that boys want to have sex with them. The primary researchers of the pedophile movement, such as Brongersma or Bernard, all cite statistics of a ca. 90/10 percent split between "boylovers" and "girllovers", usually gathered by interviewing people who identified themselves as pedophiles. What you are referring to are not pedophiles, but *sexual abusers*. Not every pedophile is a sexual abuser, and not every sexual abuser is a pedophile. Your above definition is the mass media definition of pedohpile as published by the tabloids, but it has nothing to do with reality. It is correct that sexual abuse happens predominantly in families by parents or relatives (usually not the parents, because the biological incest taboo prevents this). Pedophiles are, however, defined by their recurrent and long-lasting sexual preference for children, much as homosexuals are characterized by their preference for other men, and heterosexuals by their preference for women. First, we don't even know how many of these priests were actual pedophiles, and how many used sexual abuse of children as compensation for lack of a relationship with an adult man or woman (pedophiles don't *want* that type of relationship -- they only want to be with children, and can often not be sexually aroused in any other setting). Second, many of the most high profile cases involved exclusively boys and not girls, e.g.: Abused altar boys sue Church for millions The Catholic Church in the United States has been ordered to pay $120 million in damages to 10 former altar boys, and the parents of another, who were sexually assaulted by a priest. Father Rudolph Kos abused boys over an eleven year period. When they complained, the church covered it up. Kos allegedly abused the boys on hundreds of occasions at three different churches in Dallas. .. 17 more allege abuse by Geoghan, file suit Boston Globe/October 4, 2002 By Michael Rezendes Sixteen men and a teenage boy filed new lawsuits yesterday against convicted pedophile John J. Geoghan and a roster of church officials who supervised the former priest, signaling that the Boston Archdiocese may be defending sexual abuse claims against Geoghan for years to come. ... With yesterday's civil filings, the 67-year-old Geoghan has been accused of sexually molesting children, mostly boys, at each of the six parishes where he was formally assigned during his 36 years as an active priest. Those parishes are located in Saugus, Concord, Hingham, and Weston, and in the Boston neighborhoods of Forest Hills and Dorchester. Priest says he, too, molested boys By Sacha Pfeiffer and Steve Kurkjian, Globe Staff, 1/26/2002 ... And last night, the Rev. Ronald H. Paquin acknowledged to a Globe reporter that he had molested boys in both communities until 1989. In the soft- spoken voice of a man broken by events, he said he himself was raped by a Catholic priest when he was growing up in Salem. ... Lawsuit accuses transferred priest of molestation He was convicted of sexual misconduct in By Associated Press: Robert Jablon LOS ANGELES -- A Milwaukee priest convicted of sexual misconduct with a boy in 1973 was shipped to Orange County, where he molested an 8-year-old, according to a lawsuit disclosed Tuesday. ... Widera was relieved of his duties in 1985 amid allegations that he had sexually abused boys, Schinderle said. Priest to go on trial in sex-abuse case Clark was convicted in 1988 of molesting 2 boys in Bullitt By ANDREW WOLFSON A Bullitt Circuit Court jury will be asked in a trial scheduled to begin tomorrow to consider whether the Rev. Daniel C. Clark, a Roman Catholic priest who was convicted in 1988 of sexually abusing two boys, molested two boys between 1998 and May 2002. --- And so on, and so forth. Of course there were priests who abused girls, but I would be surprised if the statistics did not show a clear preference for boys, which would very much be supported by everything we know about pedophiles. Of course he is. Looking at cause and effect is, however, often more useful than trying to find someone to blame. Unlike you, I changed dates in accordance with our existing MoS recommendations, and did not try to interpret a vote on the matter in a "way that suited me." In fact, the only reason that I did not set up a replacement vote for the ill conceived original one (which, however, very much supported my case as it stood) is that Tim Starling came up with a working dynamic date converter, which is currently runing on test.wikipedia.org. Regards, Erik