Talk:Chris Hansen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

why don't you have a seat over there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.233.170 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

I've added a main image for the article. Resize as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockPunchX69 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More discussion

A valid source must be provided. Until then, I have deleted the allegation.

--Slyguy 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

All right, this is becoming ridiculous. You can disagree with Chris Hansen and Dateline's methods, but you cannot add random bullshit to his WP entry anonymously. If this keeps happening, I will contact the administrators. --Slyguy 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

30 Rock

Chris Hansen also cameoed as himself on the sitcom 30 Rock. This should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalegend (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== Deletion nomination ==

Everything has been removed from this article. Why keep it around?

I wanted to know who chris hansen was, so I typed his name into google and this is the first thing that came up. It answered all I wanted to know, namely who he was and why he is an internet meme. So it serves its purpose and wikipedias purpose well. plz gtfo or stop nominating useful articles for deletion. 24.108.208.160 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also be added that he was parodied on South Park in season 11's Le_Petit_Tourette?208.125.235.35 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 settlement

I know the link goes to latimesblogs.latimes.com, but I swear that I read it in the newspaper, where they don't publish blogs. I don't know why it's under the blogs heading, but if you read the article it's factual, concise, and researched; there's no hint of any opinion or such that blogs normally have. Therefore I consider this to be a good source. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take a seat?

Surprised not to see any mention of his "catchphrase". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.133.141 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Dateline all he does?

He says that he has been in television for 24 years, and I'm pretty sure the Dateline segment isn't that old. Can anyone find what else he has done in his career? Also, not to nag, but if the article is going to be this short it shouldn't even exist. And no, don't ask me to do it myself.

7FlushSetzer 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes,He also does like Cold Case type shows on MSNBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.240.181 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Has he ever been physical attacked on the show?--98.141.70.51 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

About categories

I think Internet phenomena should be add to them, anyone agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.28.168 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Why would this article not have a picture? --R3ZN2H8 Speak 10:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that has their own picture of him should take a seat over there. --Evilbetty1991 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Conradt

The section on Louis Conradt should have this sentence removed since it is POV: "Hansen admitted to several other inconsistencies or gaps in his personal memory.". To be more explicit, by asserting the existence of "memory gaps" it takes the POV that the purported events really happened: something has to have first happened before it can be forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.147.57 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed 65.93.45.213 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Chris Hansen did not win seven emmy awards, that is not true.

 Not done If it is not true, then find secondary source published and independent references that explain how many he did win. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

show designation "sexual predator."

The show called these men "sexual predators" because they favored children aged 13 to 15, as opposed to pedophiles who focused on prepubescent children. This is according to the show and to an interview Chris Hansen gave (as noted in the thread above). I've added this terminology to reflect that. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit is fine with me, Malke. As shown in the thread above, I added "perpetrator" to simply get it away from "pedophile." If these men were to professionally be diagnosed with anything, it would more so be hebephilia. (But even that is about the preference, rather than just an adult finding a pubescent somewhat sexually attractive.) Age 13 can fall under the term pedophilia, as the lead of the Pedophilia article notes, but most people (especially girls) have already hit puberty before age 13.

That said, I still believe the show focused on attraction to 12-15 year-olds and that the source you added for the age range has it wrong. But I'll look more into that. Maybe my memory is faulty on that bit. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As I just stated at Talk:To Catch a Predator, this source, which also mentions "underage," shows that decoys pretending to be 12-year-olds were also included, just as I thought. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a section in the main article on Chris Hansen's affair? Manofmyth (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Age of consent."

An editor keeps adding "below the age of consent," to the section on "To Catch a Predator." This gives a false impression on two fronts: 1) it is a generalization and makes it appear that consent in the United States begins at age 16, which it does not, and 2) that the State and Federal statutes that protect children from sexual predators use the language "age of consent." Neither is true, nor does the use of "below the age of consent," have a citation to back it up. It is WP:OR to add that in without having a citation to support it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that the age of consent always starts at 16. I said that SOME STATES DO, there are 3 states where it does, Indiana, Kentucky, and Georgia. In Illinois its 17. In the rest its 18. I NEVER SAID THE AGE LIMIT WAS 16 IN ALL STATES, I SAID THAT IN SOME STATES IT WAS. But the reason these men go to jail is because the teens are below the age of consent. And in the wikipedia article on To Catch a Predator someone else not me wrote the exact same thing and that was not controversial. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "age of consent for sex" in the United States. The statutes and laws of the States and the Federal Government are there to protect children from sexual predators. They do not exist to announce to the world when children are legally able to "consent" to sex. This is an important legal distinction and one that pedophiles and sexual predators would like to see eliminated. Where you believe the child of 16 is at an "age of consent" for sex, a careful reading of the relevant statutes will show that the laws are written to allow for things such as what to do when two teenagers have sex; what to do when a teenager becomes pregnant by an adult, what to do when the "adult" is just one year older, or what to do when the adult is 20 years older. The statutes try to make allowances for local customs/behaviors, so that they aren't locking up high school kids who have sex with each other. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok but I actually argued what you said a while ago and Legitimus took down my posts arguing that and said I made that up. And also I've read the text of my state's law at least 20 times because I was confused because my family and friends all said Legitimus was lying but Legitimus was saying they were and I don't see anything in Indiana's law that forbids, say a 50 year old from having with a 16 year old unless he works at the teen's school or place of employment. I actually tried to find anything in Indiana law that said that and found nothing. So I don't believe your interpretation is correct. Can you show where the Indiana law, for example, forbids that? --RJR3333 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While this edit can give a false impression that age of consent in the United States always begins at age 16, simply saying "below the age of consent" does not. All it does is make it clear that Dateline was catching men who believed these people were below the age of consent. And no matter what the state and federal statutes say, "age of consent" was stressed on To Catch a Predator often. That is not WP:OR. And the decoys weren't just pretending to be 13-15; they were pretending to be 12-15. 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.

Malke 2010, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no such thing as an 'age of consent for sex' in the United States." But the Age of consent and Ages of consent in North America articles disagree with you. I understand what you are saying about the "close in age" factor, but the term "age of consent" is still used in the United States and is made at the state level (see the State laws section).

RJR3333, Legitimus knows what he's talking about. I advise you to stop this erratic, sloppy, unsourced and careless editing of yours. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on "consent" are filled with made up stuff, to put it politely. And as this article is a WP:BLP, as I've been reminded, then the made up stuff needs to be removed. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok technically speaking "age of consent" does not actually appear in any legislation, and 9 out of 10 neither does "statutory rape" (there's one or more states that actually call it that, but most don't). These terms are more or less shorthand concepts that are often used to simplify how these laws function, and yes, often these laws contains complex exceptions and nuances that make them less black-and-white than is commonly believed.

With that said, it seems unnecessary to sidetrack that section of this article by adding specific mentions of these laws. A mention of the ages being impersonated sounds more that sufficient to make the point. RJR3333 you have a lot of steam built over this subject matter, but I can't help but feel it is headed in a foolhardy direction if you do not have a sufficient understanding of the subject matter.

My only criticism of this section is the use of the term "pedophile." This is merely a pet peeve of mine, but this is a frequent misuse of this term. A pedophile desires children before they have attained puberty, and this is generally understood as children under 11. The age range being impersonated for this trap definitely falls outside this. It is of particular importance to make this distinction because the psychiatric manifestation and course is very different between such offenders. They often offend in very different ways and for very different reasons.Legitimus (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Malke, the Age of consent and Ages of consent in North America articles also include actual laws and sourced material. There is unsourced information and possibly OR in them, yes, but there is a lot of truth in them as well. I wouldn't have pointed you to those two articles if the information in them was completely make-believe. And Legitimus carefully watches the Ages of consent in North America article, so I doubt that there is much "made up" stuff there, if any at all.

The point is...you pushed aside my point. Ages of consent do exist in the United States, as the sourced State laws section shows. They may typically be called other names by the state and federal statutes, like Legitimus stated, but they exist. As also mentioned, statutory rape usually has other names (as the lead of that article makes clear)...but it definitely exists. Bottomline? People age 30, or around that age, have been publicly "outed" as engaging in sexual activities with 17-year-olds in New York, which is the age of consent there, and have not gotten into trouble for it. This has happened elsewhere in America as well. So all this "there is no age of consent in the United States" and "it's 18 across the board" talk is what is made up. Not to mention, I can gather various reliable sources showing the terms' use in the United States and that plenty of law enforcement circles also use the terms "age of consent" and "statutory rape."

I also share Legitimus's pet peeve about the misuse of the term pedophile. A true pedophile wouldn't sexually engage with a clearly pubescent 15-year-old, for example, not unless that 15-year-old looks prepubescent. They are not sexually attracted to adult-like bodies, although they are known to take adult partners just to get close to prepubescent children. I didn't notice that "pedophile" was used in the debated section of this article because I didn't really look it over, but I will be removing it because it is simply wrong. Further, as the following line in the lead of the To Catch a Predator article (which is sourced) states, Show host Chris Hansen emphasizes that these subjects should be labeled as potential sexual predators, and not pedophiles. "Pedophiles have a very specific definition, people who are interested in prepubescent sex," he stated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a comment noting that the age of consent in the USA is not 16, that prevents the false impression that stating "ages 12-15" or "15 and younger" or "below 16" apparently gives. I wish I had done this in the first place so Malke2010 and Flyer22 didn't have a leg to stand on in attacking me. I hope no one objects to the note. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no false impression given in the lead. The age of consent is 16 in many US states. You yourself even said "some" above. You were arguing this very point to Malke. So why you are back-peddling now is beyond me. 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 the 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 what you are talking about.

And why are you bringing this up yet again? Now, two months later, after you said you were over it and would not be edit-warring? I told you it was settled through a WP:Consensus process, where every editor agreed with me.[1] Malke also agreed to go along with the wording I eventually implemented as a result of that discussion. I was only attacking some of your editing, as I am now. Not you personally. I was not understanding your or Malke's reasoning, as I don't right now. And, yes, I reverted you at the To Catch a Predator article again because not only was your change not based in sound reasoning, it was unencyclopedic and went against consensus. Consensus I'd, as said, already achieved with Malke and other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok but the lead gives the impression that it is in all states by saying 12-15 and that's what you criticized me for when I said "15 and younger" when it says 12-15 it gives the same impression because it stops at 15. Its not true that the age of consent is 16 in the whole US. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I already responded to you about this a little higher. But 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. Still, I don't believe that most people would take the current wording[2] to mean "that the age of consent is 16 in the whole US." 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. And like I just stated at the main article talk page: 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 [you] ha[ve] 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 [you] of edit warring. I said that if [you] 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 [you] should also respect that consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 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) 02:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How is saying "15 and younger" any different from saying "12-15", it still stops at 15. And in your earlier comment as I showed on the other talk page, you did criticize my edit for giving a false impression that there a national age of consent of 16, you said "this edit gives a false impression that the age of consent in the USA always begins at age 16". The only way around the issue is to use a footnote or else drop the reference to "consent" and "minors" altogether and revert back to saying "children 12-15" but that would create the problem of distinguishing them from prepubsecent (below 10) children. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you keep this discussion in one place? I don't like responding to you in two different places. I just responded here. Did you not just read where I stated above that 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? Did you not see where I said "If you noticed, I also defended that past wording by you" (pointing to my exact words)? If so, WHY ARE YOU MAKING ME REPEAT MYSELF? It's as though you read the parts you want to see. I said, "While this edit can give a false impression that age of consent in the United States always begins at age 16," but then I went on to clarify and say that I saw no problem with that edit. Do I see a problem with it now? Yes. Because "15 and younger" 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.

There will be no dropping "age of consent"/"underage" per the reasons stated in the consensus discussion. And there will be no using "children," per reasons (stated by me) in that discussion. Let "children" refer to "biological children" (as in prepubescents) and "minors" refer to pubescents and post-pubescents. Flyer22 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As an Internet Meme

Basically anyone who's ever been on a forum site knows that there ae hundreds of Chrius Hansen anti-pedo pictures. All the evidence you need: [3] Anyway, I can't understand the pont of being opposed to the section. Necessary or not, it is a fact about Chris Hansen. --CPO Pieman (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad link. The point of being opposed? Beacuse it's just not encyclopedic. It goes against our core values of WP:V and WP:NOR. We do not make or assert things. We can only report on what other people have said. We need other people to verify it. It has to be notable enough for us to mention it. There are many, many things I would love to write, but they haven't been covered in reliable publications, so I can't say them. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There. I put in a reference. But really, anyone who's ever been to most forum sites (mostly BB.com) will tell you that he's an internet meme. It's on the Chuck Norris article, why can't it be in this one? --CPO Pieman (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, as dragon states above, and as I've said on your talk page. Both the pop culture and internet meme section are completely non-notable. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat stupid. I came to this article in order to research the meme, not the person. 80.109.22.34 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You should be looking at Know Your Meme, then, not Wikipedia. Powers ^T 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Image

Why is there no image of Mr. Hanseon when there is a legitement picture of him on Google somewhere? Josh Nickles (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the image freely licensed? If you know of a image with a free license, please link it. Powers ^T 14:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection

This article was indefinitely protected almost three years ago and there's been little activity since. Would like semi-protection to be removed or downgraded to pending changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.251.152 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Hanses Age

I noticed an error on the page. I went to the same High School in Michigan as Chris Hanses, and he graduated in 1977. It says on the page that he is now 42 years old, but if he graduated high school in '77 that means for that to be true he would have had to of been 12 when he graduated, since that was 30 years ago....He was born in 1958 I am pretty sure about that you guys might just want to check up on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.34.187 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Is he related to Chris Hansen?Robinrobin (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

Today Chris Hansen was on the Anthony Cumia show. On the show (1 hour, 19 minutes in), he made mention that his Wikipedia page says his birth date and place of birth is march 26, 1959 in Lansing Michigan. He states on the show that his REAL birth date is September 13, 1959 in Chicago Illinois. he knows it's a minor thing and he should go change it but he uses it as an example to show how Wikipedia is not a credible source. Chevyxm42 (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: all the sources I can find say his birth date is indeed March 26, not September 13. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Birth City Confusion

It states in the information box on the right hand side that Chris Hansen was born in Chicago, Illinois, however, further down in the article under "Personal Life" it states he was born in Lansing, Michigan.

Tairabiteru2012 (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad article

This article reads like PR puff piece written by Hansen's reps. 70.162.91.240 (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

PLEASE CHANGE "The show ended it's run in June 2018." TO "The show ended its run in June 2018." THANK YOU 192.76.8.75 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. RudolfRed (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

On Jan. 14, 2019, Hansen was arrested by Stamford Police Department in Connecticut for larceny. In 2017, Hansen allegedly purchased $13,000 worth of promotional items including hats, shirts and mugs, from a local company and paid for them with a check that bounced. After repeated attempts by the shop to collect payment from Hansen, which included a second bounced check, a warrant was issued for his arrest and Hansen turned himself in shortly thereafter. Jeff reid2 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. It seems something about this has been added already. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Allegation of criminal conduct

I removed sentences relating to charges against Chris Hansen that were later dropped. I did so on the basis of the logic contained in the guideline [4]: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." George Custer's Sabre 02:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty silly reason. You are using a guideline to discuss the notability of creating a stand alone article and applying it to the inclusion within an article. Those are very different things. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. It received coverage and there is no reason to exclude it just because charges are dropped. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your judgment, just as you disagree with mine. But there's no need to use words like "silly". It's not personal. And I am not censoring the article. Let's see what other editors think. George Custer's Sabre 02:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with GCS. A presumption of innocence, and exclusion of claims concerning alleged criminality on the part of our subjects unless proven guilty, are policies that apply throughout Wikipedia, not just to the creation of new articles, and apply most especially in biographical articles concerning living persons. See Biography of living persons. If a person is charged and the charges are later dropped, we must assume that either means that the person is actually innocent or that the charges could not be proved. Either way, the charges should not be published on Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 03:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on what in WP:BLP? Its WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It doesn't violate any policy to include. It received substantial coverage and there there is no valid policy based reason to exclude. Based on your logic, Wikipedia should never include anything on any arrest until they are proven guilty. If it was suitable for inclusion before being thrown out, than it still is. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 03:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinion seems to be against you, but let's wait another two weeks or so before we feel able to draw firm conclusions. George Custer's Sabre 01:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

7 days is standard. And its not a WP:VOTE its about the quality of the arguments. And so far there is a vague reference to page creation criteria which does not apply here, and a WP:BLP general reference without a defense of why. So yeah, no its not against me. Look at pages of anyone who has been arrested with charges dropped, its always left. Sean Waltman#Personal life includes his 2017 arrest that was dropped. I am sure I could find tons more examples. What makes this one different? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any policy-based reason for removing this text. I'm in agreement with Galatz. @GorgeCustersSabre: You are citing text that's designed to help editors decide whether a perpetrator or victim is to be considered notable enough to have an article created about them. If multiple media outlets considered this notable enough to write about, it should be reflect here regardless of whether the charges were dropped. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, both of you deserve to be trouted for the asinine number of reverts you've performed. --Laser brain (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

As of 2019 Chris Hansen has Launched a new Series called Hansen VS Predators. The series will be available on YouTube and Chris Hansen's official website at http://hansenvspredators.com. The new series will have investigations from Drug,sex trades, to Confronting adults who are seeking minors. The official live show was aired May 1st 2019 on YouTube. The shows and website is being produced by Vincent Nicotra who works with Chris Hansen, and Reel media (NYC) as the film crew Vnicotra (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 10:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

New York

please change ((New York)) to ((New York City|New York))

Done - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

2011 infidelity Scandal

I would suggest that some mention be made of the June 2011 scandal in which Mr Hansen was found to have been engaged in an extramarital affair. Since his personal life does have an entry, I would suggest that this would be the appropriate place to make such a mention. It is significant at least in part because of the parallels between the techniques of which he makes use in his programmes and those used in discovery of his affair. A news mention of the incident may be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009511/To-Catch-Predators-Chris-Hansen-caught-cheating-wife.html?ito=feeds-newsxml. Wbehun (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Mentors I'd like to know if a reporter for a Detroit TV news station was a mentor to Chris Hansen? I always thought that he sounded so much like Al Allen that if you closed your eyes you could not tell the difference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.2.5.103 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I agree, the scandal is covered by major news organizations and deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.127.237 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As the primary source for this controversial information about a living person is the National Enquirer which engages in tabloid journalism, I would wait for a traditional news source, preferably US-based as the primary subjects work in the States, to report on either

(1) a public comment from either of the subjects or Hansen's wife

(2) any legal action pursued in civil court that would indicate that the allegations have merit.

Remember that wikipedia is not the place for news WP:NOTNEWS. If this turns out to be true, the editor adding to this wiki article can attribute the National Enquirer as the original source. Kjmonkey (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does the source have to be American? The Daily Mail is a legitimate British newspaper, but the story has also been covered by The Huffington Post and The NY Daily News. I think enough news organisations have vetted this story that it can be considered legitimate. Considering Hansen's moral high handedness on his show, I think the inclusion of Hansen's infidelity and the fact that it was caught on film deserves inclusion in Hansen's Wikipedia page.

I would agree with the comment above that at least some mention be made of the June 2011 infidelity scandal. Hansen is famous as a reporter who "catches" and exposes morally questionable sexual deviance. He is caught for engaging in morally questionable sexual deviance himself, albeit arguably less serious than the scenarios featured on To Catch a Predator, and there is no mention of it whatsoever on his wikipedia article. Why not mention it for what it is instead of keeping it strangely absent? Yes, it was first reported by a tabloid, but 1) the story was then picked up by other, more reputable news sources from what I saw, 2) the story included video footage of Hansen and his alleged mistress (possibly photographic footage, too, I assume, though I didn't immediately see any), 3) the NY Post cites sources (unidentified) that say the scandal cost Hansen the job of lead anchor of Dateline. I'm not saying any of the allegations should be stated as facts, but at least the story itself should be mentioned I would think. Thoughts? Jrw1234 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrw1234 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Hansen has hired an image rehabilitation company that has some of its agents infiltrated as a wikipedia editor. It's ridiculous to deny a video, and the fact that he was fired so there are no explanation to them being kept at bay other than those rebuttals are being directed by a lawyer on technicalities. It's "death by wikipedia rules". Interesting how those image rehabilitation companies are working nowadays, very smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.165.221.166 (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above me. The irony here is overwhelming and should be mentioned considering his previous line of work. How can this not be mentioned? It used to be here, but suddenly gone?

Hansen did not expose ‘morally questionable sexual deviance’. He exposed criminal sex perversion of an unusually repulsive kind. Comparing this to adultery (which is morally questionable) is ridiculous. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Besides all that the Daily Mail was banned by Wikipedia for it's unreliability. That is a fact that more reliable sources have cited. Tabloid journalism has no place in the truth. And the Huffington Post has a lot of unpaid bloggers, and Wikipedia has certain rules about using blogs as sources. If a more reliable source steps forward its likely it would be put back on the Article. Maxcardun (talk) 7:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Blog Links

All the blog links are dead! Please either flag or remove. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

March 17 YouTube video

Please remove. Marketing pitch based on pseudoscience. Pmhendry (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chris Hansen in 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ChrisHansen1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Hansen affair with reporter "20 years his junior"

This should be emphasized, the irony in which this so-called "Catch A Predator" person had an affair with someone who "could be his daughter" - using his language 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:C87:F22F:2ECD:9678 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What irony? She could be his wife - that disposes of the pervert charge.

He is still guilty of adultery, but that is not criminal - just immoral. Why is the distinction so hard? 77.69.34.203 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

When last I checked that story was based off a report from the National Enquirer. That paper has been telling lies and gossip for years and is a most unreliable source. So far no one has brought up a source that was not a tabloid or gossip column rendering the story most likely untrue. Maxcardun (talk) 4:30 PM June 15 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello I would like to speak to a mod for this page please

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansenAssociate (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How may I help you today? CLCStudent (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to have a private conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansenAssociate (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For that you have to go into a Freenode channel listed on Wikipedia:IRC. CLCStudent (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Chris Hansen's children

Hello, i did some research and have found Chris Hansen's children: Connor Hansen and Chase Hansen. Here are the references: https://twitter.com/chrishansen/status/1116147287498088450 https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/16019/video_a_brief_chat_with_chris_hansen_about_his_new_crime_shows https://liverampup.com/entertainment/chris-hansen-cheating-wife-fired-nbc-due-extra-marital-affair.html If anybody is able to edit this article, please add his children under Personal Life as this page is semi-protected. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitt1337 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Better photo

Can someone post a better pic of Hansen? The posted pic looks like a mugshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.81.169 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest show 2020-2021

Working with law enforcement in Flint, MI. 3 shows so far. The article could use some info on this. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:90C6:AA0F:949D:FE4E (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New Photo from mine!

Have uploaded to Wiki Commons! Welcome to add to the article as I can't add it. From 2007.;

File:Chris-hansen.jpg

Thanks! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulDrinkwaterPhoto (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

New photo of Chris I have added from 2007.

File:Chris-hansen.jpg

PaulDrinkwaterPhoto (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Existing image is more recent. Melmann 19:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

“To Catch a Predator” host Chris Hansen has a warrant out for his arrest after skipping court in Michigan on Thursday, a report said.

Hansen was supposed to appear in a Shiawassee County courtroom in connection to a sting operation. ( Per reliable news article written by the NY Post, NOT by CNN's Brian Doughboy Stelzers liberal 'Unreliable Sources' propaganda program, so facts are not questioned.) 184.96.145.94 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Can we do everything in our power to get a better photo of him up here? This doesn’t resemble his true likeness whatsoever & is extremely misleading in how his appearance genuinely is Elvisisalive95 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

New Predator series announced.

On Episode 50 of Hansen's Predators Ive Caught podcast, Hansen reveals that he has a new series which has the working title Takedown with Chris Hansen: Predator Edition and that one investigation for the new series has already been completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:997F:6B80:DBA:CCF9:AA44:C53F (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New wife

I added some information about his new wife, sourced to The Sun. I'd normally prefer just about any other source, but it's the only one I could find, and for a basic fact of a celebrity wedding, I presume it is good enough. As a part of the process, I noticed that we made some - in my opinion - thinly sourced claims that maybe he was back together with his now ex-wife. Since clearly he is not, and since the only sourcing was original research (youtube videos), I've just removed it. If there's an actual quality-sourced story that he and his now ex-wife did get back together from a time, then I suppose that could be re-included if it's somehow encyclopedic. (I'd say now, as an initial guess, the only real relevance is that his divorce was amicable enough that they could still appear together in youtube videos. But I haven't watched the videos as I don't think it's all that interesting in the first place.)

One issue I think this article has is that a lot of stuff has been "pending" for some time, and some of it may not be newsworthy enough to make much of a splash when resolved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)