Talk:FBI document reviews symbols used by pedophiles

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I received the initial "leak: from a member of Wikileaks, thorugh my wikinewsie e-mail account. I forwarded the relative document through DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look out kiddy fiddlers![edit]

Interesting article.... but surely now that this has been published on something as high profile as wikinews; which probably means that it'll be reproduced in print worldwide... won't paedophiles now know not to use those symbols anymore? There's probably a reason why the FBI (or whoever) didn't make it public that they knew about this. This article is a 'heads-up' to child abusers IMHO. In the worst case scenario it may have helped a child abuser avoid conviction. Shane.Bell 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BLogo, GLogo and CLogo are public symbols of pride, and one can't be arrested for their use. Being a paedophile is not a crime. IdiotVictim 06:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that being a paedophile was a crime. The term I referred to as being illegal was 'child abuser' which certainly is. Either way, unless your definition of paedophile is the literal Greek and 'soft' definition of someone who is friends with children then both are illegal. At least in my country. In England, downloading inappropriate images of children or simply taking a camera to certain places like schools will land you in very hot water. Personally I try to have absolutely nothing to do with kids as this country is currently in the grips of mass hysteria with the new Folk Devil that has been created from the very small number of genuinely sick and abusive individuals who are out there.
My previous comment was based on the false knowledge that the symbols in the article were as described (ie. covert symbols used by child abusers). If they were such; then their use (although certainly not illegal) would prompt an investigation which may lead to a conviction. That is why I said worst case scenario. However, it now seems that the symbols are not what they were first reported to be; so this may have all been a gigantic waste of everyone's time. Shane.Bell 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You can't trust Wikileaks as a reliable source! I am sure anyone could put something on there. Contralya 08:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Wikinews you mean? :) Shane.Bell 09:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there a line of conduct? I mean, Wikinews is about confirmed events in the world and it's content is closely controlled. Wikileak is something anyone can put stuff on, say that it is real, and no-one would dispute the content in the way wikipedia or wikinews is in order to keep with guidelines. Wikileak is an unreliable source for an article... Contralya 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikileaks is unreliable? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned Wikileaks is as reliable a source as any... Wikileaks IS controlled. Wikileaks content IS examined and verified as far as possible and IS disputed at times. Compare this to corporate news entities which run stories based on reports (sometimes based on the testimonies of people with alterior motives and bias) and who may or may not bother to verify that anything they print is correct; depending on how they feel and often whether or not it is in the company's interests to disprove a story. If these news bodies are reliable then I have no problem with Wikileaks. Shane.Bell 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really 'exposed'[edit]

These logos are not some sort of secret underground symbol as the article seems to imply. Do a Google image search for childlove, girlove, or boylove and you'll find them awfully easily.

lol, just the google cache I want on my computer...I'll take your word for it ;) Sherurcij 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck they were on Wikipedia up until the big "pedo purge", actually, the "GLove" symbol is still there. --TUFKAAP 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a good point, these aren't exactly secret, when I investigate these networks they're posted all over the place. Sherurcij, you don't really have anything to be afraid of, having a site in your cache isn't problematic if there's no illegal pics, which I don't think there are any on those forums.

Triangles and hearts[edit]

One thing that's confusing about these symbols is that triangles are for boys and hearts for girls... okay... but for the butterfly symbol, it is created out of hearts. Shouldn't it be created out of 2 hearts and 2 triangles by merging the symbols or something? It seems pretty inconsistant with the prior ones. Not to mention, since they use 'love' rather than 'abuse' in their lingo, it seems biased to say that the butterfly represents child abusers. Not everyone who uses it necessarily has abused someone. Tyciol (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a document signed for the fbi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most are not child abusers[edit]

"The last logo, 'The ChildLover logo' (CLogo), "resembles a butterfly and represents non-preferential gender child abusers," added the document."

Not all, in fact most, pedophiles are not child abusers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better version of the butterfly[edit]

Media:Pedophile-butterfly.svg is by far superior technically to the image currently used, but semantically is identical. Beta M (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]