Talk:Chester Chronicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chester's Guide to...

Hmm. I remember the campaign well and I'm curious to know what these 'false statements' were. Here [1] is the article in question - please use it to verify your statements. Ericatom 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Practically all assertions of the campaign were false. It was not a pedophile's website. It was not a real guide to child abuse. What they had found was an article intended to be humourous. I'm going to translate the German article. --Eldred 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Eldred 09:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the Chronicle article again. It doesn't say it's a "paedophile's website" (ie. a website owned by a paedophile), it says it's a "paedophile site" (ie. a site about or related to paedophilia). It doesn't say it's a real guide to child abuse. Chester's Guide may be "intended to be humourous" but it isn't. It's just sick. Censorship isn't the answer but if you're going to pick on newspapers for over-reacting to stories they don't really understand, why start here? Ericatom 10:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of "paedophile site" apparently was an English weakness on my side, the classification is still misleading. The article does depict the text as a real guide or at least strongly suggests this by stating "amongst its contents are: Tips on (...) Guidelines on (...) How to (...) How to (...)". Chester Chronicle didn't stop at giving an opinion on that website. --Eldred 11:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But the fact the newspaper misunderstood the content of the site and took it seriously doesn't mean the campaign was based on 'false statements'. As such, I've removed that - I've also added a little balance. Ericatom 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)