Talk:Online predator

Untitled

I added the following information. Someone took it down after my information was posted on wikipidia awhile ago. My question is why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baez09 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC) I added some information: "But do not forget that children as well are high risk victims like adolescents and the elderly. [2] In addition, according to "The Crime Watch" newsletter of the city of New Brighton, some parents are not aware that the internet is a primary communication medium. [3] Everyone should be aware of false information people use to lure their victims into giving out their personal information and make others fear their predators that may not actually exist. [10]Tips on How to Deal with Online Predators: There are cartoon games that anyone can play with that can help them defend themselves from their predators. [13]"

Please let me know what you think thank you.

"But do not forget" and "Everyone should be aware" is not correct tone for an encyclopedia, the Crime Watch newsletter of New Brighton is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia should not contain tips. See WP:TONE, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:RS. Theymos (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay i see both points of view. Thank you for your help. baez09 (talk) 17:09 , 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I added a {{cleanup}} tag to this page because it is really messy and the list "precautions to take against these renegades" is POV and needs some serious work and should be rewritten as a section instead of a list. Fuelbottle | Talk 19:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page sure needs work! --SafeLibraries 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about keeping kids safe online would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because an interesting video narrated by John Walsh is prominently featured. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=48 please consider it. Jrosenfe 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

protection and methods

should methods of online predators and protection against online predators be added? Solar Flute (talk)

Shouldn't there be online ways of stoping online predators, other then the methods used on abc dateline. Cant parents put a stop to it?

Online predators are bad for all

Online predators are bad for all kinds of people and can really hurt. it is always good when predators are caught because then theres one less online predator in the world i my self have experianced an online predator and he was luckly found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.250.21 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of objectivism

Has anybody read the page lately? What is this "To Catch a Predator and its unique cohort Perverted Justice, ruined or rather significantly lessened the use of popular regional chat rooms on Yahoo.com." stuff? And also "With this vague, but binding participation of law enforcement the actions of adults acting as children, whilst being videotaped by a weekly news-magazine, could then enable complete satisfaction of the viewers at home.". This isn't even close to objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.147.146 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the article's defintion of "Online predator"

The article defines "online predator" as "an adult Internet user who exploits vulnerable children or teens, usually for sexual or other abusive purposes. Online victimization of minors can include child grooming, requests to engage in sexual activities or discussions by an adult, unwanted exposure to sexual material (email with naked pictures, etc.), and online harassment, threats or other aggressive communications that are not sexual in nature but cause distress, fear or embarrassment." but this definition suffers from a few issues. First, the first sentence refers "vulnerable children or teens" but does that mean that exploiting non-vulnerable children or teens is not make one a child predator? Also, does teens include 18 & 19 year old adults teens or teens over the age of consent (where the age of consent is below then 18? The second sentence has it's own issues too. First, would exposing a child to wanted as apposed sexual to "unwanted exposure to sexual material" mean that you not a sexual predator? I somehow doubt many people would classify an adult who sent porn to a child as a non-predator simply because the child wanted the porn. Finely, the last bit that reads "other aggressive communications that are not sexual in nature but cause distress, fear or embarrassment." is a bit vague. A one-off message threatening or aggressive communications between an adult and child that caused distress, fear, or embarrassment would not necessarily fit the usual definition of a online predator. Usually the both motive motive and whether it's a premeditated thing matters. For example, a one-time threatening or aggressive e-mail, forum post, chat-room response, etc. directed towards a child/teen by an adult as the result of that child/teen's malicious actions towards the adult might qualify as wrong but wouldn't necessarily make one a online predator. Finely, I have seen the term "online predator" used to refer to predators of not just children/teens but also the elderly and mentally disabled/handicapped. Maybe the article should mention that the while the term usually refers just to online child predators it can also include those that exploit the elderly and mentally disabled/handicapped in some contexts. --Cab88 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

One of the least neutral article I have read here in years (reminding me of the bad old days when pro pedophile propaganda saturated certain articles). There was an emphasis on one particular primary source, well if its notable there will be secondary sources describing it and these can be included but please dont restore the primary source, for this level of POV pushing secondary sources are absolutely required (and I suspect those supporting the theme of this article being a fuss about nothing dont actually exist)♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)=

This whole article should be deleted due to subjectivity

That being said, this sentence, 'Internet predators have initiated actions designed to protect children' makes absolutely no sense and needs changed.

24.239.124.140 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I second this. I tried to fix this article up but it is in pretty terrible shape. I think we should just have a redirect to pedophilic grooming or to rapists. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Prevention section

Bradenbear424 (talk · contribs), regarding this edit you made, I wouldn't state that all of that was WP:NOTHOWTO content. Furthermore, as seen at WP:MEDMOS#Sections and at the Rape article, we have Prevention sections. The section you removed simply needed a little work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• West Midlands Police.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Life orientation

Discuss difference between cyberbullying and cyber safety 41.114.235.207 (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)