Talk:To Catch a Predator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

who keeps deleting

http://www.chatmag.com/news/052807-datelinenbc-producer-sues-for-wrongful-termination.html Why is it when I try to include information on this is it quickly deleted? Trying to cover up facts, Xavier? The whole complaint has some great points in it, and I for one, am very curious to see how it comes out.

And now, I posted a link about the 24 cases in Murphy, TX being thrown out because PJ screwed up, and THAT TO WAS DELETED. Xavier, you and your PJ'rs need to stop deleting this. The truth about your organization is coming out. And now it's back up, but in case it's deleted again: http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/jun/01/murphysi-catch-predatori-cases-canned-collin-count/

Does anyone really think it is appropriate to refer to human beings, no matter how sinful, as "predators"? It is this kind of perverted justice that plagues ours and secular Europe's society. No wonder we have higher suicide rates than war torn countries. America without Love is like Nazi Germany.

Yes, in fact I do think it's appropriate to refer to guys who troll for kids online as predators. That's a pretty lame reductio ad hitlerum, by the way. Oh, and check it out, I'm going to sign my edit! Afalbrig (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrupted Justice link

How is the link to Corrupted Justice (added twice now) relevant to To Catch a Predator? Powers ^T 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the show would not exist without the perveretd justice vigilantes.

Yo, yo yo!! Why do peeps keep changin' our edits??

The fact that aforementioned edits consist of nonsense might have something to do with it. theProject 00:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Evening I edited the flagler beach entry to reflect that At least 2 of the cases have not gone to trial, or entered pleas... I have followed this closely in my local media, and have sat in on some of the court appearances. The article leave the reader with the erronious impression that all those arrested have plead guilty to the charges. Why was my addendum deleted? I can provide anyone who cares with the case numbers for these two, and the address of the clerk of court website. another error is that the "deputy sheriff" that defendant was in fact a police officer, maybe not a big deal elsewhere, but in florida the difference is huge. one is a civil employee of a municipality, and the other is a constitutional officer of the state.

so, In closing, who deleted my edit, and why.

FixerofBrokenThings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerofbrokenthings (talk • contribs) 11:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Criticism section

I have nothing against a criticism section being included, but it has to be sourced and referenced. I removed the section that was there because it was neither. Here it is, for posterity:

== Criticism ==

<!-- please de-weasel word this paragraph -->
The news story has garnered much criticism. Some question the methods of the Perverted
Justice team and even suggest that entrapment is involved. Hansen himself has not been
free of criticism. Many blogs have written about his very harsh attitude being very
prevalent on the show. During the interviews, he will sometimes speak mockingly and
condescending towards potential predators. As these people are innocent until proven
guilty, his manner of tone is not reflective of that.

It sounds like it was written by someone who was caught in one of the stings and had his feelings hurt by Hansen, moreso than an objective encyclopedia entry. We can do better. Powers ^T 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't just flat out remove criticism (especially if I've been working on an article quite a bit) because I believe criticism can almost always be integrated into an article. In this particular case, I've read several blogs (I think, one of them semi-notable) that have criticized the idea of the show, and I think coverage of that sort of criticism would be warranted on this article. However, I don't have much objection to what Powers just removed. theProject 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, sourced and referenced = OK. Not referenced = Not OK. And if blogs are the only source of criticism, I'd question whether it's necessary to have such a section at all. Blogs can criticize anything. You could find a blog to criticize world peace if you wanted to. Powers ^T 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't misinterpret me as disagreeing you. I agree with you for the large part, although some fairly prominent thinkers do express themselves using blogs often. theProject 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you watched this show? In the episode I was subjected to, they had a nice little "you're a bad person" segment to the ephebophile in question. They don't treat this like a disorder, they treat it like the spawn of satan. And to Powers' comment -- blogs can criticize world peace and if they're in sufficient numbers, we must represent that. It is unfairly slanted to not have an criticism section at all in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hayfordoleary (talk • contribs) .

As per the law, the people that Chris Hansen interviews have already broken the law by the simple fact of their sexual conversations with someone who they believed to be a minor. Innocent till proven guity shouldn't apply since they are not being arrested for what they might do, but for what they have already done. Coradon 04:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient numbers? Sure. But you'd have to have an awful lot of blogs criticizing world peace, as well as significant evidence that it wasn't all a put-on. And through all this, no one has YET pointed to even ONE blog that criticizes TCAP. Powers ^T 02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The media can say the same thing. If it's a paper, especially in the editorial section, they can almost always print anything they want, providing that they are able to substantiate on it significantly. So what about bloggers with reputations? Couldn't they garner the same respect as the writer of an editorial from a respected paper? Or if the blogger is a journalist? I know quite a few have them now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.244.121 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I am going to note that the statement 'It sounds like it was written by someone who was caught in one of the stings and had his feelings hurt by Hansen, moreso than an objective encyclopedia entry.' is in fact insulating that the person that added that criticism is a child molester. As if someone who adds criticism of PeeJ is obviously a child molestor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.230.50 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

He didn't insinuate anything. All he said was it sounded like that. As for the criticism section, I sourced it in. theProject 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, it does sound like he is insinuating that it was written by someone caught in the sting If i were to say

" sounds like pj has lost is funding from nbc" 

I would be making the reader think that PJ has lost its funding from nbc. In my research this seems to be a common theme for PJ, attack the critic, and ignore the question. Any questioning of the group seems to lead to an accusation of being Pro-Pedophile Some of us simply think that Law enforcement should be left to law enforcement professionals. Punishment should come through the legal system, not through attacks in the public square. And for the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a victim of Perverted Justice.

Fixerofbrokenthings (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)FixerOfBrokenThingsFixerofbrokenthings (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a critique. Speaking as a journalist, this makes good TV if you like torture, but horrid journalism on an ethical basis, terrible public policy and even worse mental health policy. While this is a purely subjective response, and speaking as one who has the utmost respect for child sex laws, I get very creeped out by the whole approach.

On one level the whole thing is propaganda for the notion that there are predators and kidnappers "out there everywhere" when we really need to be keeping an eye on babysitters, friends of the family, the stepfather and so on. For its dramatic tension, the program thrives on the a close up view of the pain of the subjects. They are lured into violating their own constitutional rights. The television interview is extracting inadmissible confessions that, given the program's collusion with law enforcement, are extremely problematic both legally and as a public message.

The program gets its supposed moral traction from the fact that its position is legally right and extremely trendy, but this obscures some serious issues that deserve an honest assessment by those with a background in media ethics and constitutional law specialists. From the getgo, the moment the person walks into the house they are in custody; and from that moment they have their Miranda rights. The fact that the reporter did not identify himself as such is also a big problem. Dioxinfreak (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording / 1

This article states "One argument is that the entire operation is not truly interested in upholding justice, only in ratings." (The arguement of course is note referenced/cited) I admit most of the motivation is ratings but the wording makes the assumption that there is not any desire to put these "predators" behind bars and stop them from harming children. Delete this sentence? (This section where people are defending the "predators", seems to be written as a blog instead of an encyclopedia article.)--DrRisk13 00:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "opinion" statement on videotaping as it is not only original research, but flawed original research in that it claims locations are picked based on what "counties" allow such videotaping. Such laws are issued on a state level in the vast majority of the country. The other area of criticism, that of entrapment, is again, merely unsourced uninformed opinion. It seems contrary to Wikipedia standards to allow that section to remain. Regardless, added a note that no claim of entrapment against a case involving the show has ever been successful in a court of law. XavierVE 06:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced in some criticism about ratings and other issues. Hopefully this meets citation requirements. theProject 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

where would it be appropriate to add the information concerning the illegal recording of telephone calls? in several of the Flagler county cases, the judge ruled that Perverted Justice contributors Illegaly recorded telephone calls, a third degree felony in florida. The telephone calls were deemed in-admissable.

I have the hardcopy for 4 of the cases, how would i source the edit to avoid deletion? I Understand that several of the Attorneys are pushing for felony warrants on state Interception charges for PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerofbrokenthings (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixerofbrokenthings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerofbrokenthings (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wording / 2

I think it is important for this article to accurately describe the methods that the Perverted Justice team uses to capture predators. It should be noted that the team does activly engage in sexually converstion with the predators. Actively engaging in sexually charged conversation (even if you are pretending to be 13) constitutes cyber sex. So the article should read as such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.230.50 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 December 2006

"Engaging in cyber sex" typically implies that they themselves are being sincere in such a chat, when the fact that they're pretending to be teenagers pretty much nullifies any idea of sincerity. How is "the chats turn sexually graphic" not sufficient? theProject 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing whether or not that they are not sincere... unless you get into their minds. That is why Cyber sex is an act, not an intention. Much like masturbation is an act whether or not ejaculation is a goal. "the chats turn sexually graphic" does not describe the fact that the team of perverted encourage, engage, and partipate in the sexual advances. This is a pivital piece of the methodolgy used by perverted justice in capturing its predators. It is what seperates it from investigations done by the police. To ignore this fact, would be to miss the entire point of Perverted Justice, and thus the Dateline NBC investigations.

My point is that "engage in cyber sex" is not the right kind of tone for an encyclopedia entry. You're welcome to suggest another version which does not have such tonal implications. theProject 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'tone' envolved with an accurate description of the methodology that they perform. If you do not like the methodology that they use, then I suggest that you contact them and ask them to change their methodology. But censorship is not a valid option.

"Baiting" or "trolling" (both of which have been used to describe P-J on Wikipedia) are more accurate, as "engaging in cyber sex", as I said before, suggests an aspect of the whole encounter that is not necessarily true, or does not capture an important aspect of the encounter, depending on which way it is looked at. theProject 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this is up to you as you have taken this into your hands. The wording is up to you. I am going to stop arguing about it. I would like to state that I feel that the current wording is a cop out, and does not describe the true nature of the tactics that PJ uses. It is my personal belief (from reading other comments on this discussion page that the editors of this article are biased towards PeeJ and believe that the ‘ends justify the means’. And in doing so are presenting an incomplete picture of the investigations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.230.50 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Certainly it's your right to do so. I'll only point out that I was the editor who sourced in criticism of the show, and that there is already considerable criticism of P-J's methods on their own article. Again, you're welcome to suggest an alternate non-"cop out" wording at any time, so long as it doesn't contain nuances that introduce inaccuracies as I've already discussed above. Thanks. theProject 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PeeJ's methods are no different from that of any law enforcement agency; that's why they're fully admissible in court. They even train law enforcement agencies in their methods. It's difficult to see, given those facts, how anything "seperates [sic] it from investigations done by the police." Also, here's a quotation from the Cybersex article: "Cybersex, computer sex or net sex is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more persons connected remotely via a computer network send one another sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience. It is a form of role-playing in which the participants pretend they are having actual sexual relations, by describing their actions and responding to their chat partners in a mostly written form designed to stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies." PeeJ's methods in no way meet this description. The chat is sexually explicit, but PeeJ contributors actively avoid engaging in simulated sex via the chat. On rare occasions they will briefly play along with the mark if they think they'll lose him otherwise, but the interaction is brief and perfunctory at best, and it's obviously not intended to "stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies." Believe me, if they wanted to engage in cybersex, they could -- the marks are often more than willing to do so. But if you read some chatlogs, you'll usually find an offer to do so is met with a "No way d00d, I don't cyber" from the contributor. Powers ^T 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well they actually log everything they say so that you can read it for yourself. I actually read through some of it, and i couldnt believe it. I suggest going to perverted-justice.com. You will that they talk to the men about how much they like sex, and how they would want the older man to do that to them. Im sorry, if you dont believe that is cyber-sex... you might already be a child molestor. As far as whether or not they are 'gettting off' on this... i have no clue. Believe it or not when I was 12, 13, and 14 i went into to chatrooms and never had an adult talk to me in that way, and i certainlly wouldnt have responded in the way perverted justice does. Its textbook cyber-sex, and its digusting.

There's a textbook on cybersex? There's one I won't be picking up at the used bookstore. 66.67.98.207 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly" underage profiles?

I don't think that statement is quite accurate, most of the Perverted Justice profiles that are shown either don't state the age or state and obviously incorrect age (such as 99). Perhaps this should be corrected? Wikifried 12:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll need a credible source for that one, vast majority of our profiles have an age indicator somewhere on the profile. It also matters if you're stating that all TCAP predators come from Yahoo... not all do, many come from AIM, some from Myspace, some from Craigslist, some from teenspot, gay.com... there's a variety of sources that have produced predators that were later featured on Dateline. XavierVE 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, some of those go beyond the line. Last time I checked, you had to be 18 to register for gay.com, and craiglist is an adult site. You guys are crossing too many boundries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.43.171.61 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You have to be of proper age to buy alcohol and cigarettes from convenience stores, yet the state still sends in decoys pretending to be underage to see what happens. XavierVE 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The state. 193.92.150.66 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to disagree with the "alcohol and cigarettes" analogy, because while a person has to be 18 to register with gay.com, a person does NOT have to be 18 to walk into a convenience store. So it's reasonable to assume that a correspondent on gay.com is over 18, but it's not reasonable to assume a person in a convenience store is. 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No shop owner has ever shot himself to death after being exposed on national television as someone who sells cigarettes to kids. Your minds are perverted by the idea that there is no universal evil and that certain people are pure evil...you go about as if Satan walks among us everywhere, well he does, inside of you as well as the "predators". Something about bad fruits and good fruits.

Law & Order

There was one of them "ripped from the headlines" Law & Order episozdes based on this and it should be mentioned, yes? --164.107.92.120 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism based on portrayal of males

I don't know if this has been addressed in the past, or if there are many articles criticizing this, but it would be nice to see a section on how the show does not show female online predators. Casey14 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If you've watched the series substantially, you've probably seen Hansen say that they simply aren't around: female predators, as the show suggests, work more with children they know, rather than strangers over the Internet. theProject 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also - The official "To Catch A Predator" website addresses this very issue. There is a section entitled "Where Are All Of The Female Predators?" -- and the answer, as explained above, is that there essentially are none on line that have responded to the Dateline sting operations. (Joe S.)

Then again, 93% of all sexual assault against juveniles, as reported to law enforcement, is committed either by a family member, or someone already acquainted with the victim, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Only 7% are committed by strangers. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

Also there almost no female sexual predators period, 99.99% of all sex criminals are males. --76.214.105.106 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that there is no research backing this up, and that figure (if it does exist) would rely solely on prosecuted sexual predators. It might very well be that there is some institutional bias where female sex predators are not as heavily prosecuted or caught as often, et. al. To simply claim a 99.99% statistic with no source is just a little absurd. 68.58.118.26 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Justice Department statistics show only 6% of perpetrators of all sexual abuse incidents reported against juveniles are committed by female offenders. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

Sentences

The article needs to say what sentence these people are given. I believe most of them plead guilty to something - what's the typical sentence? The average? Tempshill 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from what I recall, most of them plead not guilty, and the very first cases (the ones that made it to court, anyway) are only now starting to wind their way down the court system. Perhaps, in a few years, if the conviction rate for these stings is high, there will be more in the way of guilty pleas, but that's not happening now. theProject 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We've actually had quite a few convictions and sentencings handed down for TCAP stings. Almost all of the Ohio predators have now plead guilty and many have been sentenced, for instance. Fifteen of the eighteen caught there are already sentenced and the terms of their sentencings can be found in our archives. If you use the following link: http://www.perverted-justice.com/?groupmedia=byDate - and click on a location, you can see which predators have been convicted (and sentenced, as we don't post until sentencing) from the TCAP series. You're right in that there are a LOT of cases left out there (getting 250+ arrests in a year will make that the case) but there have been quite a few resolutions that have already rolled in.

As for the typical sentence, there is no typical sentence. Different areas have different standards, laws and judges. For example, all the predators convicted out of our Riverside sting have had pretty substantial jail time. However, in Long Beach, they're all getting probation. It's the same state, yet two dramatically different results. Reason being is that judges in California have discretionary sentencing and can impose less than the full amount if they wish. The judges in the Riverside cases are throwing down jail terms... the lone judge of the Long Beach cases is not. Hence there will never be a "typical" sentence handed down, too much variance between the states. XavierVE 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Minors" instead of "children"

The article refers to the people being contacted as "children", I would suggest "minors" is a more appropriate legal term since minor is the term you should use when someone is legally considered a child as opposed to the connonations with the biological term, etc.

AgentScully

Ages played range from eleven to fifteen with the vast majority being 12-14. Are you suggesting an eleven or twelve year old is not a child? XavierVE 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A child is one that has not reached puberty yet and most 12-14 year olds have.

AgentScully

So you would, in fact, be saying that a twelve year old is not a child. Natch, Padre. XavierVE 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Agent Scully is simply trying to make the distinction between one who is child biologically (a "child") versus one who is a child legally (a "minor") ... and, in the context of this article, that is an important distinction. Yes, Scully? (JosephASpadaro 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, that's all I was doing.

AgentScully

Popular culture references

Can someone add a reference to the parody of this show that was on MTV's "Human Giant", episode 2 called "Catching a predator".? Opticalnoise 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should also mention South Park season 11 episode "Le Petit Tourette" which spoofs Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator. In one scene, dozens of potential child molesters flock to a location, enter the building (which happens to be a Dateline studio filming another segment), spot Chris Hansen and immediately shoot themselves. greenodonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.16.247 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The wife of the Texas DA who shot himself in connection to this show has filed a lawsuit against NBC and this show. The lawyer was just featured on the 7/17/07 O'Reilly Factor. Anyone want to add it in under the criticism section? 67.186.34.123 08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a threatened lawsuit (not filed) and there's already a ton about Conradt Jr. in the article. XavierVE 09:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually , It is a Filed, and settled lawsuit.... NBC payed an undisclosed amount, and PJ removed references to the Texas sting from its website. <ref. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5238922&page=2

Singling out David Kaye

There is no reason Rabbi David Kaye should be singled out in this article. Many individuals of prominence (more so than Kaye) were arrested in this operation, so it doesn't make sense why this article singled out this man ONLY. If you're going to publish David Kaye's situation, then you should publish all prominent situations. Or not publish at all. There is no reason "To Catch a Predator" should be associated with only a Jewish leader. That's like writing an article on pedophilia, and only citing the example of a Jewish pedophile, or a Muslim pedophile.

I--a Jew--added the Kaye segment. It has nothing to do with racism or religious prejudice. It has to do with the fact that Kaye, thus far, is not only the only "guest" to attempt to attack the host of the show, but the FBI actually stepped in and took over the case.68.13.245.53 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC):

While you may be right that is has nothing to do with race or prejudice, I stand by the assertion that there is NO reason Rabbi David Kaye should be singled out in this article. First, we do not know for certain if his incident was the only incident of "violence," as you assert. Second, according to your argument, we should single anyone out who's scenario is unique in some way. So should we then single out the only trauma surgeon because he was the only trauma surgeon? Should we also make a sub-section for the man who got naked in the show, because after all, he was the only person who got naked? Yet you don't write a sub-section about that; why not? Because you're not being viewpoint neutral. Your logic does not stand, as you clearly show a point of view by subjectively stating that Kaye's unique actions were more notable than other unique actions within the show. Finally - and this is my weakest argument of the three - if you had read the anti-semitism page on Wikipedia, you would notice that Jews have historically been singled out in numerous societies for criticism, whether justified or not. According to my first two arguments, your criticism of Kaye is not justified enough to single him out or make him more unique than other notable situations. Therefore I have to question what motive you have given the historical context I cite; that's why I brought up the Jewish issue. Whether you realize it or not, anti-Semitism is alive, especially on the internet. So don't act like singling out a Rabbi is not a big deal. I'd let it slide if Kaye was somehow an extraordinarily notable preditor or criminal - or if his actions were both more notable and unusual than other actions. But that's just not the case. I assure, if you place that sub-section back in, I will create a sub-section for EVERY unique and notable scenario I deem relevent to the show. Monitorer 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)::

Your logic is ridiculous. A county police sting was taken over by the FBI, and you want to compare that to the occupations of other "guests?" If you have ever watched the program then you will know that every "guest" is shown leaving the house or, in one instance, after a medical emergency, being removed. Kaye IS unique in that he attacked/attemped to attack the crew. It is plain as day on film, Kaye grabbing a camera lens--not putting his hand over it to block his face, but grabbing the lens and trying to yank the camera away--and then charging Chris Hansen. No other "guest" on the show has attempted to attack the host and had to be wrestled down by the crew of the show. How is that not noteworthy?68.13.245.53 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your facts and reasoning (you didn't even refute my point). First, I've seen most episodes of To Catch a Predator, including the one with David Kaye. David Kay did not "wrestle" anyone. He was not wrestled down, neither can you substantiate your claim that he tried to "attack" the cameraman or Chris Hansen. It seemed apparent to me that he was trying to obstruct and manhandle the camera, and then manhandle Chris Hansen. But once someone put their arm in front of him, and told him to cease his actions, he stopped and did not struggle - I think your use of the word "attack" is sensationalist. You'll notice none of the charges against Kaye are assault charges. Secondly, who are you to be the judge of what is the most noteworthy incident? In my mind, the man who walked into the kitchen nude was the most noteworthy incident. You say my logic is rediculous, but you don't refute why your example is more noteworthy than my example. So let me provide why I think my example is more noteworthy: If you go on YouTube, you'll see that the Naked Man clip has almost the most views of all the To Catch a Predator clips, while you can't even find a clip of David Kay! That tells me internet viewers - on YouTube at least - find the Naked Man clip to be more noteworthy than the David Kaye clip. So how do you intend to show your clip is more noteworthy than mine? So far you're argument is 'it's more noteworthy because I say it is.' I'm sorry, but David Kaye's gotta go. Unless you're willing to let me include the Naked Man sub-section. Monitorer 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Underage looking" decoys

What concerns me when I've watched the program, is that the accused pedophiles don't lose interest when they see the decoy. I know the decoys are supposed to look underage, but some of them don't look underage at all to me - certainly not thirteen-year-olds anyway. Is there strong evidence that all of the accused actually believe their correspondents are underage, and don't just think it's some kind of sex mind-game where they dress up and pretend? More pointedly, is there evidence that anyone over 18 truly looks under 18 to all observers? If this is true I'd like to see some purely medical research done - do these people grow more slowly, age more slowly, live longer? We should be studying their genes instead of just using them as decoys! 204.186.14.163 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:31, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Kids grow up fast these days. A 165 year old and an 18 year old can look pretty similar in developmentNotthegoatseguy 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And if they actually are overage, how can they be charged with soliciting sex from a minor, if they werent actually soliciting sex from a minor? Grsz11 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all semantics. But, I believe that they are charged with attempting to solicit sex from a minor ... and not actually soliciting sex from a minor. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Which is, of course, a patently false charge. What minor did they solicit? There is no minor. There's a nineteen-year-old. So what if they *thought* they were soliciting a minor? You can be convicted of thought crime now? What if your friend tricked you into thinking you were robbing a bank, but it was all a setup and you weren't really robbing a bank--could you be convicted of attempted bank robbery just because *you* thought you were robbing a bank? These guys are sick punks that need to be dealt with, obviously, but must we destory justice in this country in order to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A patently false charge? From which law school did you graduate? And in which state did you pass the Bar Exam? Clearly, you miss the point. And judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and legislators all over the country (if not the world) disagree with your thinking. As my prior post stated -- no, they did not, in fact, actually solicit a minor. They did, however, attempt to solicit a minor. And -- yes -- their thoughts can and do rise to the level of a crime -- if they think they are soliciting a minor ... and, furthermore, they take steps toward achieving that illegal end (for example, driving to the decoy's house, buying the decoy gifts, etc.). If you thought that a gun was loaded -- but it really was not loaded -- and you aim it at my head and pull the trigger ... you don't think you can get charged with attempted murder? You can't get charged with actual murder -- but you certainly can get charged with attempted murder. Yes -- based on your thoughts. You thought the gun was loaded ... you thought that a shot from that gun in my head would kill me ... and, furthermore, you took steps toward that illegal end (that is, firing, aiming, shooting, etc.). Spend your time defending a more defensible -- and less absurd -- position. And, while you are at it, sue the law school that gave you such an inferior legal education and sue the Bar Examiners who allowed you admission to the State Bar based on such an inferior (yet cavalier) "understanding" of the law. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

All that's cute, but nobody said I had a law degree. And I don't need one to understand that where no crime is commited, no charges can be filed. How about taking your ad hominem attacks elsewhere? Your example of the gun doesn't fit--apples and oranges. Fact: There is no underage girl. Fact: No underage girl was solicited. Like I said, these guys are scum and need to be put away, but surely there is a better way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, an idiot. Hard to believe that you are a Marine. You're giving the USMC a bad name here. Yet again, there is a crime committed ... and it is not actual solicitation, but it is attempted solicitation. Shall I repeat that for the, uhhhhh, 10th time? If indeed there is no crime committed (as you suggested), how on earth is it that these people are getting arrested and going to jail? I guess, under your theory ... the police, the prosecutor, the judge, and the defense lawyer are all in cahoots ... conspiring and throwing people in jail for committing no crimes. Wow, and the American Bar Association and the ACLU and the US Supreme Court has done nothing about this at all? I'd think they'd be outraged, no? Or -- just a theory -- perhaps they are right (a crime is indeed committed) ... and you are wrong? I dunno, it's just a theory. And, without a law degree, you know a little more about the law than the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer, the American Bar Association, the ACLU, and the US Supreme Court? Wow, not bad. That's pretty impressive. You gotta share your gifts and enlighten all these folk. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

How is the above personal attack in any way justified? Also, where does this person mention that they are a Marine? How do you know that they are a Marine, if they did not mention it? Maybe I'm missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.179.140 (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Since all 24 cases has now been dropped i guess there really were no crimes committed?? Maybe, just maybe, the Marine guy was not so wrong after all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.52.23 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop distorting the facts. Most of the cases were dropped not all of them. By the way 78.108.52.23 is wrong and Joseph A. Spadaro is right. Dumaka (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says one case was later successfully prosecuted, but the citation for it is a link to Perverted-Justice.com, and that link leads to a page that contains absolutely no information to support the statement it supposedly substantiates. I can find no verification for this claim. This statement should be substantiated with a link to relevant information, or it will be removed.

Contradiction in "Entrapment claims" section

The first paragraph states:

former Dateline anchor Stone Phillips concedes that "... in many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex."

The final paragraph says:

Volunteers never initiate contact with the person; all communication begins with the offender. Later, contributors never instigate lewd conversations or talks of sexual meetings.

This is a clear contradiction. I don't particularly know which one to remove, as both appear to be cited. Anyone else care to deal with this? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The decoy doesn't initiate conversation with the suspect, but once conversation is established - they bring up the subject of sex. So its not a conversation but possibly quite confusing. Quite chilling stuff really, I hadn't caught this show before now. 125.239.36.97 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Virgins

Is this really that notable? Isn't it pretty much implied that these people are losers anyway. Notthegoatseguy 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Implied" ... that's an understatement, if I ever heard one ... (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Kentucky Bust

The number cited on the wikipedia entry does not match the number cited in the Kentucky newspaper article that it cites. I could not find an article verifying the number listed on the page, but I also could not affirm that the number on the page was wrong, so I left it as is for now. Can anyone verify the number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelbishop (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The number in the article agrees with the cited source, as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia article states that 29 men were arrested over the course of the one year. The cited source (newspaper article) states the same number, 29. The number 29 appears further down in the newspaper article, in the seventh paragraph. The very first paragraph of the newspaper article discusses a smaller number of men arrested (7). I believe that the number 7 refers only to the Bowling Green arrests ... while the number 29 refers to the entire year-long sting operation that included Bowling Green as well as the other two locations (Louisville and Northern Kentucky). That is my interpretation of things. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

So the first sentence, which reads: "On October 22, 2007, the Warren County District Attorney's Office announced that 29 men were arrested in an internet child sex sting conducted by local police in conjunction with Perverted Justice and Dateline NBC." is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.179.140 (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Law Enforcement Technology Magazine" :
  • [http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=35694 "Internet Watchdogs"] ''Officer.com''
  • [http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=35694 "Internet Watchdogs"] ''[[Officer.com]]''

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing epithet

Generally the show is about catching people with alleged intent to solicit consensual sex with somebody who claims to be a teenager in chat rooms. That's illegal but doesn't justify calling them all "predators". The predator epithet:

1. Presumes guilt

2. Conflates the crime with other, much more serious crimes.

3. Via (1) and (2), violates the policy on Biographies of Living Persons

4. Via (2), pushes a minority POV (The age of consent is 13-16 in most of the world) 76.85.197.39 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

We need to remove the criticism heading and instead reorganize the info. Let's not have "criticism" sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of precedent for criticism sections. Is there an official Wikipedia policy that deprecates that?76.85.197.39 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comedy

Is this show a comedy or real life? The reaction of these guys that get caught red-headed is just completely and utterly priceless. Dumaka (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

request

{{editsemiprotected}} I'd like to see this added to Criticism :

To Catch a Predator was satireised in the 2009 film To Catch A Predator (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1391873/) written and directed by Pete Robertson (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3306490/) The film is critical of the methods used by MSNBC and compares the MSNBC To Catch a Predator to reality television.Foggydewproductions (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia is not a venue to promote your company's films. Unless reliable sources have discussed this satire it is not appropriate to add external links to it. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

needs info on the right

i'd like to see a small info box on the right, you know, like most tv show have showing when it started and when it ended etc. anyone agree? 77.248.72.121 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a TV show, though; it's a recurring segment on a TV show. Powers ^T 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced parts

There is a good deal in this article that deals with living people and is both unsourced and negative. This material has to be removed, so if anyone can add the inline citations, or point me to a transcript of the episodes that would be most helpful. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you could give some examples, that'd be great. Powers ^T 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire Investigation section is unsourced. Kevin (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David Kaye?

" Among the men caught were David Kaye..."

I checked his Wikipedia page, nothing on this. Atomforyou (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedos

Looking at the article, one could almost assume it was written by pedophiles, regarding the fact that there is almost only negative criticism and no couter-balance to the latter. Mattaidepikiw (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

16-17

Have the decoys ever pretended to be 16 or 17 or is it always 12-15. I know 16 and 17 are legal in a few states but in most states its 18 so does the show ever have decoys pretend to be 17 or 16?--99.178.226.84 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, on this show, the age stops at 15. I feel this is because 16 and 17 is legal in more than just a few US states and other countries (and showing men to be predators for going after clearly post-pubescent individuals is problematic), and because Perverted-Justice stops at age 15. As you may know, the investigations are conducted with the help of on-line watchdog group Perverted-Justice. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent

The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children aged 13 to 15. They didn't ask for impersonations of children "below the age of consent." There is no source to back up this claim that the show asked Perverted-Justice to impersonate children "below the age of consent," so I'll remove it when the page is unlocked. Using the term "age of consent" is not correct regarding American laws against sex with children under 18. None of the statutes use the language "age of consent." That is a pedophile's term. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Malke, we already went over this at Talk:Chris Hansen#"Age of consent." Using "age of consent" is not incorrect because it is accurately describing what these men are targeting -- underage people. "Age of consent" is just another name for "underage." It is not "a pedophile's term," and it's absurd to say that it is. If it were, the Age of consent and Ages of consent in North America articles would likely go by a different name. But then again, the reason they do not is because "age of consent" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the age laws that are enforced for sexual activity. Just as "statutory rape" is rarely used by the statutes (as that article notes), but is the common name for all such offenses. We are not going to start abandoning "age of consent" simply because you don't like it, any more than we are going to start abandoning the term "statutory rape." There are plenty of reliable sources showing that To Catch a Predator is associated with "age of consent." Some of these Google searches and these Google Books searches, for example. Further, as I stated before, Chris Hansen often says "underage teens" or "young teens" when confronting a sexual predator during the episodes. And Perverted-Justice"...investigates, identifies, and publicizes the conduct of adults who solicit online sexual conversations with adults posing as children or underage teenagers." They stress "underage" and "minors" as well, such as with their "What is the goal of Perverted-Justice.com?" faq question, where they say, "Simply stated, we want to poison the well of these rooms and places by covering enough of them that even if you're looking for underage females, an extra bit of paranoia will cross your mind."

So... Once this article is unlocked, I will be using those first two Google Books sources, one of which is written by Hansen (seen in that link), to attribute to the "age of consent" portion.

On a side note, this source, which also mentions "underage," shows that decoys pretending to be 12-year-olds were also included, just as I thought. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the NBC show To Catch a Predator did not specifically state they wanted children "under the age of consent." They asked for impersonations of children between the ages of 13 to 15. There is no citation that says the show contracted for "under the age of consent" children. Therefore it can be deleted. The article is about the show, it's not about the reviews of the shows. Also, "underage" is not the same as saying "age of consent." You can't morph "underage" into "age of consent." That's just WP:OR. "Age of consent" is the term pedophiles use. Also in your reference above and here [1] Chris Hansen specifically said, "to play a 12 or 13 year old," and the Perverted-Justice actress played a 13 year old as the transcript shows. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that To Catch a Predator did not specifically state they wanted the focus to be on people under the age of consent? And in any case, that is not an issue. It's not an issue because it is a fact that the show "is devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be below the age of consent (ages 12–15) over the Internet for sexual liaisons.", as can be backed up by the various reliable sources I showcased above. Including a source by Chris Hansen. Nowhere did I say anything about "reviews of the show," and most of the sources displayed above are not about that either. So all your protesting doesn't hold any weight. I also did not say " 'underage' is the same as saying 'age of consent.' " I said, " 'Age of consent' is just another name for 'underage.' " The sources showcased above are clear that "underage" is being used in the context of "people who are too young to consent to sex." That is not WP:OR. I will be sourcing the "age of consent" line, and you will not have any valid reason for removing it. Even if I use the word "underage" instead, the Age of consent article will still be pipelinked, just as it is pipelinked for "underage" in the lead of the Perverted-Justice article. It is pipelinked because it specifies what we are talking about. In this case, "underage" is not simply about people who are under the age of majority. It's about people too young to consent to sex.

If you want to take this to WP:RfC or some other form of dispute resolution, I doubt you will succeed in keeping me from maintaining "age of consent" or adding "underage" with the Age of consent pipelink. But you can try. Oh, and cut it out with the " 'age of consent' is a word pedophiles use" talk. Because, as can be demonstrated by various reliable sources, it is not just a term pedophiles use.

As for this source, it shows that decoys also pretended to be age 12. "12 or 13" clearly shows that either was used on the show. Hansen specifically says, "The PJ members are pretending to be 12- and 13-year-olds who are interested in sex and whose parents are away." And, really, all you have to do is Google to see either age range was included on the show. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article I cite specifically says they contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate 13 to 15 year-olds. You can't morph that into "under the age of consent." I don't know why you want to use that specific language, but it's not accurate, there is no source for it, and therefore it's OR. As far as "underage" goes, the common meaning of that in the United States is someone who is under 18. Also, your "sources" do not specify "under the age of consent." That's what you're saying. There's no citation for that. And the citation does not say "underage." You just want to use the term so you can pipelink to "age of consent" articles. Instead of doing that, you can put the age of consent articles at the bottom of the article under "see also," if you like. I've no objection to that. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And I proved your article wrong on the age range. It gives the age range 13-15, when the age range is actually 12-15. And your source saying "contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate 13 to 15 year-olds" does not mean that Perverted-Justice wasn't specifically contacted to "impersonate people under the age of consent." In fact, the sources show that is exactly what To Catch a Predator is -- setting up men who believe these people are under the age of consent. There is nothing inaccurate about that at all. The age factor is brought up often in the chats between the predators and decoys anyway, where the predators often mention that the decoys are not legal. I don't understand how you can rationalize saying "under the age of consent" in reference to "underage teenagers" is "morphing" and WP:OR when it is clear from the sources and from watching the show that "underage" is in reference to "age of consent." Underage, which redirects to Minor (law), covers three main things: age of majority, drinking age, and age of consent. Therefore, we are supposed to specify what we mean by "underage." And in this case, the show means "people who are too young to consent to sex." Saying that "under the age of consent" does not mean "underage" in this case is as silly as saying "statutory rape" does not mean "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", and that we cannot substitute the word "statutory rape" in place of them. We are perfectly allowed to use synonyms on Wikipedia. And "under the age of consent" and "underage" are synonyms. "Underage," however, happens to cover a wider range, which is why we are supposed to clarify. And, yes, the citation does say "underage." It's a long citation. Read it. The Google sources I showcased above also say "underage." Lastly, but most importantly in what I'm trying to get across, this isn't about age of majority. If it were, 16 to 17-year-olds would be included as well. Perverted-Justice stops the age range at 15, because there are barely any U.S. states that have an age of consent that is 15. 16 and 17 are legal in more than just a few US states and other countries, and showing men to be predators for going after clearly post-pubescent individuals is problematic.

I generally have nothing more to say to you about this topic, however, and will open a WP:RfC below for others to weigh in.

I don't agree with an RFC. This is more appropriately listed on the Admins OR noticeboard. I'll post it there now. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted on the Administrators OR noticeboard here: [2]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be an agreement for a WP:RfC. This is a dispute resolution process, seeing as this is a dispute. And it is more suited here than at the board you are speaking of. But I will take the same arguments there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The admins noticeboard on original research is the appropriate place for this. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. And a pretty odd one, in my opinion. Just seems to me that you are afraid of hearing outside editors' opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should "age of consent" be used in the lead?

One view is that "The show contracted with Perverted-Justice to impersonate children aged 13 to 15. They didn't ask for impersonations of children 'below the age of consent.' " and that it is therefore WP:OR to use the term "below the age of consent." Not only because the term is not correct to use regarding American laws against sex with children under 18...since "none of the statutes use the language," but also because "it is a pedophile's term." The argument also claims that "under the age of consent" cannot be sourced with/used in place of "underage," and that there is no citation that says the show contracted for "under the age of consent" children. "Under the age of consent" is not the same as saying "underage," so you can't morph "underage" into "under age of consent" because that would be WP:OR.

The other view is that the age range is actually 12-15 (12 is backed up by a reliable source), and there is no proof that Perverted-Justice was not specifically contacted to impersonate people below the age of consent. In fact, the sources show that "below the age of consent" (the underage factor) is exactly why they were contacted. "Age of consent" is not "a pedophile term." It is a general term used to describe all minimum ages at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is often used interchangeably with "underage" (as various reliable sources can attest to). Both terms are used in reference to the show To Catch a Predator when referring to minors' being unable to consent to sex. Underage, which redirects to Minor (law), covers three main things: age of majority, drinking age, and age of consent. Therefore, we are supposed to specify what is meant by "underage" when we use it.

Outside opinions are very much needed to resolve this. A relatively short argument and sources are above this section on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. We're allowed to use language that doesn't appear verbatim in sources. P-J always uses personae that are under the age of consent, and I believe 15 is under the age of consent in every jurisdiction in which TCAP operated. Powers ^T 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Malke removed the RfC tag, even before you replied LtPowers, which was completely inappropriate. As I stated above, there doesn't need to be an agreement to start an RfC. But this matter has been settled here. So whatever. I'll open up another one if I have to. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming person who's case owas thrown out

I noticed "However, after six days of testimony, a Judge threw out the case against <named individual> and criticized the tactics used by Dateline’s partner, Perverted Justice for engaging in entrapment. [10]"

I don't really see a need to name him if the case was thrown out and this is the only mention of his name in our article and he's apparently not notable. IMHO in a case like this of an relatively unknown person, naming them even if we mentioned the case was thrown out does more harm then good. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the acquital was very recent, which may explain why the name was added when most of the rest just mentioned numbers Nil Einne (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to mention him by name either. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Annotation

An editor has criticized me for annotating the statement on the age range (12-15) with a note pointing out that the age of consent in many USA states is 17 or 18, not 16. He says that I am disrupting consensus by adding this annotation. A few months ago I made the statement that the minors were "15 and younger" which that editor and others rightly criticized for giving a false impression that the age of consent in the USA is 16 in every state, which it is not. Is there anything wrong with adding an annotation pointing out that not all states have an age of consent of 16? He also is accusing me of edit warring over this because of something unrelated that I did where I changed underage with a pipelink to age of consent to minors instead, that was wrong, but this is not the same thing at all, this is only clarifying that the age of consent in the USA is not 16. The age range could give a misleading generalization and the editor himself criticized me when I originally wrote this range under consent except with the more vague "15 and younger" and said "this edit gives a false impression that the age of consent in the United States always begins at 16" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=448712815. The overall point is if the age range ends at 15 and the article doesn't clarify this a misleading generalization is created. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am female. Second, there was only one editor criticizing RJR3333 for giving a "false impression" that the age of consent is 16 in every state. And that editor was wrong, as seen in the #Age of consent discussion (and its subsection) above. For those interested in why I criticized RJR3333's "annotation," see this link. Not only was RJR3333 changing consensus wording to a sloppily-placed note in the lead -- which, yes, is related to that consensus discussion -- the editor's change implied that the age of consent in the US is mostly 17-18,[3] which would be a false assumption. Oddly enough, RJR3333 has begun making the same arguments as the editor he was arguing against months ago. It's as though he sees that editor as beyond reproach or something. But the bottomline is...16 is the age of consent in many US states. Though, yes, there is sometimes a "close in age" factor. The lead of the Ages of consent in North America article says, "The age of consent in Canada is 16 and all US states set their limits between 16 and 18." In its US State laws section, it says, "Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16." With sources. So I don't know why RJR3333 was asserting that the age of consent either was not 16 or was mostly 17-18, the exact opposite of his arguments months ago. Only after I called RJR3333 out on the fact that the age of consent is 16 in many US states...did RJR3333 alter his wording and add it as a note in the lead.[4] As I stated in my edit summary while tweaking it: "Some, not many. 16 is the majority, as I already point[ed] out. And the point is...the discussion was also about an agreement to this specific wording. As long as you keep your note as a hidden note, I'm fine with it."[5]

I see no misleading information by leaving the line as "generally 12-15." That is the exact age range for the decoys used by the show. Yes, the show stopped at 15 because 16 is the age of consent in so many US states (other countries as well), and a sexual attraction to a 16-year-old or older is generally not considered pathological. Saying "generally 12-15" is not saying that "16 is perfectly legal" any more than saying "generally 12-14" would be. It is simply saying that this is the age range for underage youth used by the show. Anyone wondering what the age of consent is in the US can click on the link "age of consent" which is currently pipelinked as "underage." This was the consensus agreement made in the extensive discussion about this. And I'm sure that if people generally read the line the way RJR3333 has begun to read it, there would have been a lot of IP editors trying to clarify that text by now. It was "12-15" for a long time without any uproar or assertions that it's saying "16 is the age of consent everywhere in the US." I didn't accuse RJR3333 of edit warring. I said that if RJR3333 did edit war, I would report it. This was two months ago, after I had just taken this matter to the wider community to get their input on it. They agreed with me that "age of consent" and "12-15" are fine to use. Personally, I don't like that "age of consent" is pipelinked as "underage," but I haven't messed with it out of respect for the compromise that was reached in the consensus discussion. I was only asserting that RJR3333 should also respect that consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: What if we change it to "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth generally aged 12-15"? That doesn't truly take away from the consensus wording, and it leaves out any room for misinterpretation that we are saying "that the age of consent is 16 in the whole US." I would exclude "generally," but there is that one case where they had a decoy pose as 11 years old. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the age stops at 15 it does create that misinterpretation unless a statement is made that some states have a higher age limit. I don't see the difference between saying "15 and younger" and "12-15" both stop at 15. And most of the editors didn't approve of my "15 and younger" statement, not just Malke. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also my link to your statement shows that you did criticize my edit for giving that false impression. And I asked off2riorob and other editors what they thought and they also agreed with Malke that my edit was biased and gave a false impression. Incidentally I made a negative comment on my talkpage about Malke recently so I don't know where my "seeing that editor as beyond reproach" came from. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal does not give that implication whatsoever. How? It is quite clear that Perverted Justice impersonated underage youth in the set age ranges of people "aged 12-15." The word "aged" being the key word. Although I don't see the current wording as an issue, the reason it is different and can give the implication you fear is because it first says "It is devoted to impersonating underage youth" and then amends that with "(generally ages 12-15)," which, to you and apparently Malke, can be taken to mean that we are saying underage youth are generally below 16. How do you not see the difference in that and my proposal? Saying "aged 12-15" is no different than saying "Underage kids aged 12-15 were caught drinking alcoholic beverages on campus." That does not imply that "underage" can only be under 16. It is simply stating the age range of the kids that were found on campus drinking alcoholic beverages. Just like we are only stating the age range of the decoys carried out by Perverted Justice. Therefore, there is no need to say that some states have a higher age limit; that has nothing to do with To Catch a Predator, and is WP:EDITORIALIZING with its "It should be noted" addition. I can agree to keep that in the reference format you put it in, but not as readily viewable text in the lead.

As for your previous wording of "15 and younger," it is not specific. It leads people to think that decoys pretending to be any age below 15 was a part of the show. Which isn't true. It was generally 12-15. For one episode, 11-15; and for most of the show, 13-15. I didn't see most editors disapproving of your "15 and younger." I only saw Malke. What I mainly disagree with regarding it is, as said, it is not specific. And I'm not sure why you are commenting on the "I criticized you" thing again, when I just stated at the Chris Hansen talk page: Saying "impersonated teenagers below the age of consent (15 and younger)" was a little different in its implication than the former or current wording to me at the time, but I do see how all three can be read the same way.... ...If you noticed, I also defended that past wording by you, saying: RJR3333's edit was only misleading depending on how you looked at it. I look at it as simply saying that these "youths" (15 or younger) were all believed to be under the age of consent. Not that the age of consent is 16 all over the United States. I got the "[you seemingly view Malke] as beyond reproach or something" feeling because you have often justified your edits because of "what Malke said," and as recently as November 8.[6] Disregarding the fact that this was already settled!

Anyway, I've made my proposal. A proposal that will not go against the consensus achieved two months ago. If you cannot see how it is better than the current wording -- by specifically saying that these underage decoys were generally aged 12-15 -- then I don't know what else to tell you. I've already stated that I'm not open to your note being anything other than a reference. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, and I made this point in the consensus discussion, using either version of 12-15 does not imply to me that "16 can't be under the age of consent" any more than it implies that "people below 12 are not underage and can consent." Really, starting at 12 doesn't imply that "underage" and "under the age of consent" doesn't extend to those below 12, so why would stopping at 15 imply that it doesn't extend to those past 15? But oh well. I've made my points enough there. The show's age range is 12-15, and that's that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually one episode went as low as 9, and anyway the difference 16 is larger than 15, 11 is under, so above could be legal, whereas below can't be, how can you not see that difference? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If one episode went as low as 9, I'd like to see a reliable source for that. And as for the rest, I don't understand you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Incest?

Somebody added something about "permutations to incest" (I don't know what a permutation is) to the article twice. I've taken it down as vandalism, I don't see what the show has to do with that topic. --RJR3333 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you are just now replying a month later...again, I'll reply and state that what you removed here is not vandalism. I don't care that you removed it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't care that I removed it...so your point is???? Also I don't see what the show has to do with incest, it's about hebephilia (attraction to minors under 16) and pedophilia (attraction to minors under 14) so how it reflects a change in the incest taboo I don't see, I don't see any incestuous undertones to the show, no offense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJR3333 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the reference was not vandalism, but I don't care that you removed the reference. On a side note, hebephilia is the sexual preference for early pubescents (generally 11 to 14-year-olds), which falls under the scope of To Catch a Predator...if this was/is the sexual preference of these men (and I only say "was" in this case because a few of the men have since died). Pedophilia, usually dealing with minors 13 or under, has nothing to do with this show because these men, as Chris Hansen states, are not looking for prepubescents. The incest commentary is attributed to the author. We may not see what the author is talking about, but the author feels this way. It should have been explained what the author is talking about. Anyway, I'm over this. Was never concerned about it or your removal. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate Flyer22 so much I'm leaving wikipedia so I don't care about offense anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJR3333 (talk contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Then leave already and stop announcing it on Wikipedia, such as on your user page! You have proven more than once that Wikipedia is not the place for you, as recently as expressing your hatred toward me on Wikipedia. That is not how Wikipedia works. But if it hasn't dawned on you, I don't care. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Legality of Showing Suspects on Camera?

Do the suspects caught during raids sign a release of some sort consenting to appear on the show? There are certainly many instances of persons who may have been unwillingly recorded during the filming of a show being blurred out (such as on MSNBC's 'Lock Up') conceivably because those persons did not consent to appearing on television. So how does To Catch A Predator legally broadcast these people? I doubt many would willingly sign a consent to appear on TV due to the salacious nature of their alleged crimes. I am not familiar with laws regarding this. Perhaps the answer to this could be added to the article for clarification?68.195.21.220 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

At least one suspect, Anurag Tiwari, has filed a lawsuit against NBC, which makes it highly unlikely that any releases were obtained. For more information see NBC Must Defend Conduct in 'To Catch A Predator' Lawsuit Says Judge or other press reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.41.167 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent 17-18

I wanted about six months ago to add info that many states, at least 19 if I'm remembering correctly, have an age of consent of 17 or 18 but Flyer22 would not let me include the info next to the age range, only as a footnote. I think the information is important because simply stating the age range is 12-15 gives a misleading impression that all 50 states allow children 16 and older to consent to sex with adults, which is not true. Is it at all possible that the statement that not all states have an age of consent of 16 can be included next to the age range. I'm not edit warring I'm taking it to the talk page to see if I can get consensus. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This matter was already settled after extensive debate. Refer to #Age of consent above. It wasn't about me not letting you do anything. It was about WP:Consensus being against you, and for valid reasons. I'm not about to repeat much of what was stated by me and various other editors on this matter. Furthermore, the lead is currently very clear that it's only the age range on the show that is designated as 12-15. I compromised more than enough with you on this. The current wording isn't even the agreed-upon consensus wording, but it is wording that I compromised with you on upon your return to Wikipedia. And once again, the lead of this article is not for mentioning age of consent laws, and your concern is no longer valid since the lead explicitly states "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15." Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It would only take one sentence to clarify that issue, its not like it would take a paragraph. And Malke's whole point against me was that the edit gave a false impression that the age of consent in the USA is 16. So I think its worth having one sentence clarifying that. Also I disagree that the lead should not mention laws, because the only reason the show exists is because these men are breaking the law. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is already clarified. And, like I stated, I am not repeating to you what was made explicitly clear to you by me and several other editors last year. Oh, and WP:LEAD is clear about what the lead should mention. Off-topic material is not a requirement or advised. And age of consent laws in the lead is off-topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And changing the lead back to the contested, consensus-violation wording, which I again reverted, after you've repeated your contested view on this talk page, is something that you should never do. You should wait until the discussion is over. And if you see that the discussion is over, and you still haven't gotten your way, then too bad. We go by consensus when there's been a dispute that couldn't be settled between two or more editors, and consensus is clear on this. Do you think I'm suddenly going to agree with you? That is not going to happen, and, as stated, I've compromised with you enough on this. Your recent restoration of that contested edit is exactly what I was complaining to you about when I mentioned how you revert and revert, hoping to tire out the opposing editor and/or have the opposing editor finally agree with you. If I were to ask the Wikipedia community to weigh in on this again, the outcome would be the same. No doubt. So you need to move on from this discussion. See WP:DEADHORSE. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the note in a better way, "age of consent varies by state", because it does. And this way it doesn't look like its editorializing, unlike the previous "it should be noted in some states it is 17". The age of consent in Virginia is fifteen, for example, at least according to Hansen's book. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you added the note in a way that still violates WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. Thank goodness Zadignose stepped in and reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just stepped into this conversation, at by the look of it there's been some edit warring over what looks like a non-issue. The text:

"It was devoted to impersonating underage youth ranging from 11 to 15 years in age, and detaining adults who contacted them over the Internet for sexual liaisons."

is entirely unambiguous, and requires no qualification or elaboration. It doesn't need any explanation of the various state laws regarding age of consent, as it doesn't even mention such laws, which seems entirely appropriate to the article. (I've also corrected verb tense). I can't see any sensible reason why someone would want to introduce ambiguity, conflate the article with other unrelated issues, and then struggle to find the right way to clarify what didn't need to be mentioned in the first place. I'm not sure that my input on this will resolve anything, but if one more voice will be able to refocus the debate on the principal goal of clearly describing the topic of the article... well, I can hope, anyway. zadignose (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Zadignose. No matter how many outside editors we get telling RJR3333 that he is wrong on this matter, no matter how many compromises, he keeps trying to put in the unneeded wording about age of consent laws. The Age of consent article is pipelinked as "underage," and that is enough. I also changed "11" back to "12," because only one case included an 11-year-old decoy. So I added "generally" back as well, which used to be there. As for the verb tense, like I stated in my edit summary, "I've been told that we should initially use 'is' to refer to any show, no matter if off the air, because it's always going to be a show. It's never not a show. But I won't object if I'm reverted on that." See here, where Pinkadelica cites WP:TENSE and WP:MOSTV#Lead paragraphs. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but the age of consent in Virginia is fifteen (Hansen himself said this in his book), and in California its debateably fourteen depending on how you read the law, which is why they stopped at 13 in California, so it might be useful to clarify that the range varies, because otherwise people would assume fifteen is illegal in all states and that isn't true, or on the flip side they might think sixteen is legal in all states and that isn't true, so a note could be useful. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly that no one is likely to confuse anything regarding this because it's safe to say that readers will know (or at least generally know) that we are talking about the age range on the show, not the age of consent for all of America or the world. But you continue to argue against this sound reasoning. I am beyond tired of this debate with you, every debate with you, and I'm damn tired of compromising with you on things that I shouldn't have to compromise with you on, such as this, only for you to tamper with the text yet again. Go ahead and add back "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15" if you must and leave it at that. Don't tamper with it again. Don't bring this subject up again. Consensus has been against you on this since last year. Defer to it, and stop beating a dead horse. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just know that since you have again violated consensus, I will be reporting you if that edit is not reverted. No more compromising. No more playing nice. So don't repeat to me how important you think that edit is. I'm giving Zadignose a heads-up on your conduct, and then I will be reporting you as soon as I pull together a case...if that edit is not reverted. You have no respect for the talk page environment and don't take WP:Consensus seriously. Well, if I do end up pulling a case against you, you will after this. Don't think that any rants about our disputes, and how terribly awful I've supposedly been to you, will save you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that edit did not violate consensus. The only consensus was that "age of consent" would not be used in the article, and instead "underage" with a pipelink to "age of consent" would be used. But I've already seen instances of Hansen himself using the term, which makes Malke's concern no longer valid. --RJR3333 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does because every editor there stated that no elaboration was needed. They stated that either just using the term "age of consent" or "underage" is enough, which obviously goes for what you continue to try to do as well. And more than just Zadignose and myself have reverted you on your note. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasons not to archive ALL of this talk page

There are still some discussions on this talk page that are relevant enough that deleting it would be inapropriate. For example someone brought up that the article had a bias in favor of the show and pushed a minority pov, pointing out that in most foreign countries, the age of consent is below 16. I removed a part of the article that dealt with that point because I thought it did so in to opinionated a manner, but we might want to look into reworking it into the article at some point, if it can be worded more neutrally. There are other issues that are still relevant on this talk page also. So it isn't only about the discussion of clarifying age of consent laws in the USA.--RJR3333 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:To_Catch_a_Predator#POV-pushing_epithet This is what I'm referring to partially. I do think the article's calling the men predators is biased, since fifteen year olds are generally post-pubescent and often look no different from perfectly legal sixteen year olds and older, which also means that not all of the men were pedophiles, hebephiles, or even ephebiophiles. There are other issues that were debated on the talk page that I did not think were touched on enough such as whether it was legal show the suspects on camera. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We both know why you unarchived the talk page, and, besides trying to WP:DEADHORSE the 17-18 issue above, it's not because of what you just stated. Old and settled discussions are archived all the time on Wikipedia. You have simply acted inappropriately again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't the main reason. The main reason was the concerns I mentioned above. You can't just randomly archive the page without discussing these concerns with anyone, and I've restored my comment so you no longer have a reason to archive the page. Also you were the one who originally said showing the age range as ending at fifteen "gives a false impression that the age of consent in the United States always begins at age 16", but I guess your concern was not valid so I'll drop it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hansen&diff=prev&oldid=448712414RJR3333 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can archive a talk page full of old and settled discussions without needing to discuss it, especially when it is to keep an editor from acting inappropriately with regard to comments; again, this is done all the time and is completely appropriate. The way you have been violating WP:TALK is not. And you have taken what I stated out of context. I explained myself in that section quite well. In that discussion, I was still arguing against your "false impression" contention. The matter of the fact is...you have repeatedly acted inappropriately and have repeatedly violated WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. I'm not debating the "false impression" issue with you again; it was settled. You lost. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of who won or lost is completely irrelevant to whether the talk page should be deleted, take that argument somewhere else. And I do not care about winning. I can make it so that the "age of consent 17-18" discussion is archived, but the rest of the talk page stays. But to delete the entire talk page would be a mistake. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I even have highlighted my inappropriate comment and gave it its own section so everyone can see it to deprive you of your argument that I'm trying to keep this talk page here just to cover up that comment.--RJR3333 (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway there are a few other concerns I have. I have a vague worry that since I reverted the compromise with Malke2010 to use underage instead of age of consent that he'll start arguing on this article again. So I'll deal with one of his mistakes straight up, the term age of consent does appear in some state's legislation, at least one Rhode Island http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/TITLE11/11-37/11-37-6.HTM Rhode Island's law uses the term "age of consent" and defines it as "sixteen years of age". So that disproves Malke2010 both on the idea that age of consent does not appear in any legislation, and that the age of majority for sex is always 18. And Chris Hansen himself used the term age of consent in at least one episode of To Catch a Predator Chris Hansen said to Chuck Harding in California "thirteen is not the age of consent" and in his book he said sixteen was "the legal age in Ohio" for an adult to have sex with a minor and he also stated in his book on page 131 that the age of consent in Virginia is fifteen. So this all disproves Malke2010's arguments in case he tries to change age of consent to underage. And another way to avoid all possible confusion of giving a false impression that the age of majority for sex always begins at sixteen without adding the note is to pipelink to the age of consent in North America for sex article with the term age of consent instead of pipelinking to the age of consent article. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of who won or who lost is not completely irrelevant to you beating a dead horse, which is what I pipelinked to under "You lost." And if you did not care about winning, you would not beat dead horses all over Wikipedia, as you have been doing. Furthermore, I've already made clear that you are wrong regarding your views about archiving the talk page. There's nothing to debate on that, and I'm not going to debate you any further on it. You are wrong. Plain and simple. If you had more Wikipedia experience, you'd know that. Or maybe not, since you never seem to grasp Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I already stated that I'm not debating the "false impression" issue with you again. You can keep debating that with yourself all you want. Every editor has stated that there is no false impression given by using "age of consent" or including the show's age range, as recently as Zadignose. You didn't listen to him either, and he obviously considers you just as hard-headed and disruptive as I do. You had a compromise that made explicitly clear that we are speaking of the age ranges for the show only, when the wording was "on the program, the range is usually ages 12–15," but you threw that away to stubbornly add your desired wording. Malke hasn't been on Wikipedia since May. And the Archive 2/ Talk:To Catch a Predator makes no sense whatsoever. That information is already archived at Talk:To Catch a Predator/Archive 1. If you were experienced with archiving, you'd know that when you reverted my archive edit...reverting my edit to the archive was necessary as well. Even though you should be focusing on as many articles that you are not likely to encounter me on, you are still focusing on me in one way or another. And that's a mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually Malke has returned to wikipedia so it is good that I made that post, because he might be more inclined to go along with the new wording due to my reasoning. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Show criticisms section

I took this section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Catch_a_Predator&diff=494443614&oldid=494443415 out because it was full of weasel words and unsourced. But I think it was worth pointing out that there has been some controversy over the show, because not all the perpetrators who showed up on the show were pedophiles, hebephiles, or even ephebiophiles since the decoys were often as old as fifteen and fifteen year olds are generally post-pubescent, and 14-15 is the age of consent in many foreign countries. So I am going to look into the possibility of restoring if it can be better sourced, more accurate, and worded in a less pov manner. --RJR3333 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)