Talk:Anti-pedophile activism

Tag
Is it really of any value to put "Anti-Pornography Movement" in the see also for this article? I can't see any relation between a movement which fights against unlawful, felonious activity and a movement which fights against something that has been determined by courts to be legal under most circumstances. Furthermore, I believe that tagging "Anti-Pornography Movement" with Anti-pedophile activism is meant as a subtle hit against the movement described in this article. 71.194.27.178 (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think further about that point. A lot of anti-pedophile activism warns against related pornography and there have been plenty of cases. In either case, it would need careful editing. Jelly Roal (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with new editor Jelly Roal about care being needed. I also agree that tagging one to the other is a hit. Yes, there is pedophilic pornography out there, but is the "anti-pornography movement" out to stop illegal porn ("only") or all porn, and thus focusing on legal stuff? It seems the latter has the wealth of face validity. They may be worthy of See Also listings, as they are both tied to sexuality and objectionable sexuality, but to say that one equates to the other is ridiculous. One can easily be anti-pedophilia and pro- (or neutral... "who-cares-ish") pornography.  •  VigilancePrime   •   •   •  '' 19 07:32 Feb '08
 * It would be more relevant to talk about the various priorities of anti-porn activist groups. It seems likely that they will focus their efforts on dealing with pornography involving children, animals, according to the duty of care issue. I recall the Calvin Klein incident in NY where certain adverts were considered pornography and involved underage models.  That seems to be a related issue. I'll take a look at the research on proquest. Jelly Roal (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pornography and the advertisements don't even overlap in their scope of relevance. Pornography is a pretty well-defined term and the ads, though they may have been objectionable, were clearly not pornography. By the same token, pedophilia is well-defined, and just because someone is a child molester does not mean they are de facto a pedophile (despite popular colloquialisms). In this article, though, I don't think any sort of anti-pornography warrants a mention except for work to end pedophilic pornography. That makes sense, as it is within the scope of this article, eh? A thought.  •  VigilancePrime   •   •   •  '' 19 07:32 Feb '08
 * Or we could simply stick to quoting the facts. If antiporn activists have objected to ads on the basis that they promote or glamorise pedophilia, then it can be added to the article Jelly Roal (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a relevant thing to make a comparison with. Both 'movements' (I'm not sure if you could call either a unified movement considering differences in goals and disconnected affiliations) are involved in voicing their opinions on sexual morality, of opposition against people with different sexual morals than their own, and who want to censor the people who they disagree with. Furthermore, as explained in the pornography special on Penn and Teller's bullshit, anti-pornography talks often reference pedophilia in their advocation against certain kinds of pornography, such as the issue regarding hair removal of actresses making them appear more neotenic and whether this might propogate the disorder. My guess is it's fair to guess a larger proportion of anti-pornography activists are anti-pedophile than anti-pedophile activists who are anti-pornography. This isn't surprising considering pornography is currently seen as a more acceptable thing and pedophilia seen as a less acceptable thing by most people. They do seem to be different issues considering one is a form of media and one's a mental diagnosis so I can understand why you see the link as tenuous, but it probably should stay up. Tyciol (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the problem is that pedosexuality is only seen as a 'less acceptable thing' by so many people because they are brainwashed (with threats of physical injury unless they adhere to those other people's moral beliefs) from very young. In fact, I would say that the SAME THING was done with homosexuality, and that there needs to be some discussion in the article about that. Lerianis (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Death threat or excuse for censorship?
A user has removed a link to a static page on boychat.org (which verifies the board's webmaster history), because he feels that the forum element of the same site contains a death threat against himself:
 * redacted

Hmmmm. The fruits that scrutiny bears. GrooV (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a necessary detail. This article is about anti-pediphile activism, not about the websamters of Boychat and their tenures. Repeating personal attacks isn't helpful either. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be some relevant material on the newsgroup. I'll have a look. There are wikipedia related chats there also. Kind of interesting! Jelly Roal (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab page
"rv - there is nothing but a dab page at that wikilink" The disambiguation page had an explanation I added referring to activism and pedophilia separately. That's all it needed. Tyciol (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinction
Okay, if anti-pedophile activism includes activism against pedophiles, then rather than including activism against pedophile activism (or activism against pro-pedophile activism) shouldn't they be called anti-pedophile activism activism and anti pro-pedophile activism activism respectively? Activism against activism needs 2 activisms to indicate that they are against an activism rather than a topic. That is like being a counter-activism activism I think, I am not sure the term for that but it would need to be distinguished since it is different. These would more specifically indicate what a group or person is. Including these two under the title indicates that they are against pedophiles. You can be against pro-pedophile activism and against the idea of activism by pedophiles without actually being against pedophiles individually, so they are different concepts. Tyciol (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile bias
I think this article has a bit of a pro-pedophile bias, since it portrays anti-pedophile activists as radical vigilantes, while they would probably view themselves as protectors of children and defenders of family values. ADM (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What you say is likely true, for a variety of reasons. Powers T 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that with that thinking, ANYONE could say that they are 'protecting family values' even if they are beating children, killing children, etc. There has to be some line drawn between people being able to force THEIR sexual morality on others, and I would have to say that we have done over that line a long time ago.Lerianis (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

-



The Pedophile Activism article doesn't exist anymore, it just takes you to Age of Consent Reform, it's one small section thats ALOT smaller than the original, but they still have the ANTI-Pedophile Activism article. How can you have Anti-Pedophile Activism WITHOUT Pedophile Activism? Seems odd to me. It's just information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.90.191 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Future of this Article
In the state that the article is now, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose anymore within the encyclopedia. It's mostly about Perverted-Justice, and that organization has its own page. Besides, there's no longer any article pertaining to what used to be called "pro-pedophile activism" on Wikipedia, yet there are still references to it here. This article needs to either be rewritten or merged into other relevant articles. What do others think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - this page should be redirected to Perverted Justice and any sufficiently sourced information merged into that article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave this page as a separate page as it is. Being falsely accused of pedophilia is a serious matter and can wreck a man's life. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether that is or is not the case, the repercussions of accusations are not the subject matter of this article. Furthermore, critiques and controversies related to Perverted-Justice activities and the conduct of other such organizations belong on their respective pages. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of what can be salvaged, the only pertinent information unique to this article seems to be within the section on Local Activism. Everything else is either about Perverted Justice and its affiliates or critiques thereof. Although there is mention of some other groups, they don't meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially that "anonymous group." Not sure if info regarding Predator Hunter should remain, and, if so, where. These are my 2 cents. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the plan is to abolish this article (and I think it should be) then the information which needs to be saved in the Local Activism section could be moved into False allegation of child sexual abuse everything else is about Perverted-Justice and I agree it should be on that page, if its not already. ThinkingTwice  ''contribs 00:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The local activism section does not need to be retained. It's just a few anecdotes about isolated incidents.  With no reliable sources discussing it as a unified concept, it's a synthesis to tie those events together here. Whether or not this article is merged, that section should be deleted as original research.
 * It seems like soon it will be time to complete the merge unless there is further discussion to the contrary. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not activism
The term activism is defined in the Wikipedia article as "intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument." That does not apply to the content of this article. There is no controversial debate and no "intentional action" to bring about change. This article describes vigilante actions targeting individuals that the vigilantes believe to be breaking the laws against child sexual abuse. Most of the article is about Perverted-Justice, with a bit about a couple less notable examples listed, but there is no information about activism at all. The topic does not have coherent notable coverage in reliable sources other than news stories of various isolated incidents. I don't think there is enough to hold it together as an encyclopedia article. I suggest a redirect to Moral panics or Perverted Justice. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) [Comment re-edited. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)]
 * I somewhat disagree. The topic of pedophilia is controversial, as we know, and there is "intentional action" to bring about change with the actions mentioned in this article. Targeting pedophiles through either condemnation or vigilante actions is activism. I am not seeing how Perverted-Justice belongs in this article, though (I agree there); they mostly go after people targeting pubescents. But this article should definitely not be redirected to Moral panics, as if any action against pedophiles is a "moral panic."


 * I will see what I can do with this article. There has to be some reliable sources out there on this topic, either at Google Books or within online news articles. I might also have to go through some of my journals or visit the library. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, good luck with the project. I've done a lot of searches and have not found usable sources for this topic.   Everything I found was about mob violence or vigilante actions, it didn't support the idea of activism.  If you can find sources, the article can be improved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that Perverted-Justice refers to some hebephilic or ephebophilic men as pedophiles, some mention of Perverted-Justice should probably stay in this article, right? Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It should also stay because, considering they target people going after 10 to 15-year-olds, they are likely catching actual pedophiles as well. Thus, I tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After some time of seeing what I can for this article, all the while having a very busy schedule, I say to go ahead and redirect it for now. It seems somewhat off to me that it be redirected to Moral panic, since I do not view anti-pedophile activism as something that is always a "moral panic," but if there is currently no article more suitable for it to be redirected to, that article will have to do.


 * I need more time to research this topic and gather good sources for it. This article needs to be built from scratch. And, unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to rebuild it. I would rather this topic not be deleted from the Pedophilia article, though. There is surely some way that section can be salvaged in the meantime. Flyer22 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone reference this please?
"While the stated goal of the site is to expose criminal activity, many of those profiled are listed solely due to contact with suspected pedophiles, or membership in groups which advocate for changes in sex-offender law or the age of consent."

--62.60.98.133 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with your statement. The fact is that the anti-pedosexual (which that would be a better term for pedophiles since homosexuality was once called homophilia and if you really wanted to, you could say that since some people have 'guilt' with heterosexual actions, that it is heterophilia) movement and anti-pedosexual activism thing is not about protecting children, it is about keeping the 'morality' of a very few on the rest of society. Lerianis (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Willman?
An editor inserted this material:
 * Bradley Willman was a cooperating child porn suspect and not just a concerned citizen according to the U.S. District attorney's office. News & Commentary - http://lnx-bsp.net/news/2007/01/13/ (2007-1-13).

I removed it because the source doesn't seem to address the assertion made in the edit. It (the source) also appears to be the work of s... well, at least a hothead, if not out-and-out lunatic. So that would cast doubt on its reliability. So at least for now I don't this material should be included. If it is accurate, we need a better source I think. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania
At the moment, there is going a big anti-pedophile movement related with the controversy of lt:Drąsius Kedys ant "Pedophile clan". That should be included here. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is to be Kept, per AfD Discussion. What's Next?

 * 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) 05:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Anti-pedophile activism → — This article has been in bad shape for a while. Now that it has survived an AfD discussion, it's time to remove all the information that does not belong here, update the sourcing, and encourage new legitimate contributions to the text. I've edited the Perverted-Justice section tonight, and will possibly work on the other parts of the article later (time permitting). Please feel free to participate in the improvement of the text. As for my part, I openly admit I do not see, at this point, how this article can be salvaged, and consider the topic not notable enough for inclusion within the project. This being said, I will help with "cleaning house," copyediting and formatting. If others know more about the subject matter and can provide good citations, they are encouraged to voice their suggestions on the discussion page and to edit the article itself. Relistsed.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a bit, and removed encyclopaedic content. Things which need to be done:


 * A lead section needs to be written, which actually defines what "Anti-paedophile activism" is.


 * The quote is too long... can the information within in be integrated into the article ?


 * Expansion is needed in all sections - coverage shouldn't be too hard to find through Google. I removed most of the "Criticism" section simply because it wasn't encyclopaedic, but feel free to use the material previously cited (you can find through history)

Also, should we move the article to Anti-paedophile activism ? The article's text uses that spelling consistently.Claritas § 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no to the move, since the spelling "paedophile" is the British version. The text can be corrected to the American spelling.


 * As for everything else, I will see what more I can do as well. I suppose I will start trying to work on a lead. Flyer22 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The American spelling isn't any better or worse. It's also considered wrong to change the type of English used unless there is a good reason to do so - in this case moving to Anti-paedophile activism would be more appropriate. Claritas § 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why have this article have the British spelling, when all its related articles (including the main article, Pedophilia) go by the American spelling? My point is consistency. For the "paedophile" spelling, do the sources all use the British spelling...or did an editor simply do that? That is my point. But either way, I see no wrong in changing the spelling throughout the article for consistency, as long as we are not changing direct quotes. This is not considered wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources probably use "pedophile", because they are mostly US. I don't really care either way - it's just less time-consuming to move it. Claritas § 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- There is no reason to use the British spelling. Pedophile is more phonetic, and the article Pedophilia, as well as most of Wikipedia, use pedophile. So it would be more work to change all spellings to paedophile. Not only that, but if the sources do more often use "pedophile", then that is even more reason it should be spelled that way. --WikiDonn (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the spelling within the article has been changed to the American version, I'm quite happy to keep it where it is now. Claritas § 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.

Example of hunting (english subtitles)
http://vk.com/video173717254_165886613?list=72fd7b61013c140e59 https://vimeo.com/72485024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.130.160 (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Letzgo Hunting
WP:NOTNEWS, notability, unlikely to become a full article, currently best to be a redirect and listed in parent topic article Widefox ; talk 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is not notable by far. Zezen (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight in quote
I propose removing the lengthy quotes, which give undue weight to one of the organizations:

Between 1997 and 2001, Brad Willman was known as Omni-Potent, an Internet vigilante who would track pedophiles by spending 16-plus ...

Zezen (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-pedophile activism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227214335/http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/13073.pdf to http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/13073.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Paediatrician's house tagging (graffiti)
I removed the claim a paediatrician was persecuted due to mistaken identity here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-pedophile_activism&diff=761046502&oldid=759895327]. This was reverted for me giving 'no reason'. Yet as I explained in my edit summary when I first removed the content, a much later follow up calls into question the narrative of mistaken identity [//www.pressgazette.co.uk/a-tale-told-too-much-the-paediatrician-vigilantes/] so I've reverted this reversion. I won't revert again if my edits are reverted yet again, although hopefully without a misleading edit summary this time.

But the fact remains, there is a major problem with what we were saying. Based on an interview with one of the key police officers involved in the investigation the author of Press Gazette article suggest it was probably simply local youngsters. While they did write the word 'paedo' on the person's home, whether they genuinely were confusing her with a paedophile or were simply playing some dumb game is unclear since they were never identified and "'Stupid kids in Gwent do something stupid.'".

In any case, while the attack was understandably distressing for the victim, probably part of the reason she looked into moving to somewhere "more upmarket" it seems a bit weird to call it persecution. This seems to imply something more than a single incident of paedo being written on a home while the person is out.

From what I can tell, while a lot of sources keep repeating nonsense claims over this incident, no source has actually looked into the details and contested the Press Gazette article.

So at a minimum, I don't think we should mention this anecdote without a clearly description of what we know i.e. the only thing that happened was paedo being written on the person's home, with the motives unknown as the perpetrators were never caught although it's suspect they may have been youths. But IMO it would be simply best to just leave this out, it seems too minor an incident with the details unclear for it to be included. The fact that other sources keep repeating it is not a reason for us to do so when we actually look into the source.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Too incidental and newsy. Zezen (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

History section Stub
I started with https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/sex-and-societies-for-moral-reform-16881800/312B5630201F3FD86029E226B563FC52

Let us add anti PIE, anti NAMBLA etc, as per title. Zezen (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

EDP445
Does anyone else think that there should a page created called EDP445? And have it be redirect to this page? Since this is the only Wikipedia page that appears to mention him. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Girls ke sath college ki
Habik🥰 Sarka Xxsx 2409:4088:AEBB:7C4:0:0:A449:4E02 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)