Talk:Anti-pedophile activism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Death threat or excuse for censorship?

message: "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)
thread_title: Dab page

message: 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)
thread_title: Distinction

message: 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)
replies: text: What you say is likely true, for a variety of reasons.  Powers T 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  
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)
thread_title: Pro-pedophile bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can someone reference this please? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bradley Willman? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lithuania 

message: 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)
thread_title: Example of hunting (english subtitles)

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

text: Merged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Letzgo Hunting]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undue weight in quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the claim a paediatrician was persecuted due to mistaken identity here . 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  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)
thread_title:  Paediatrician's house tagging (graffiti) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section Stub 

message: 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)
thread_title:  EDP445 

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