Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Impending Forum Raid

Alright, alright. Wikipedia isn't the place to hold mud-slinging battles, especially where what is being discussed bears extremely little relevance to article writing. I have removed the discourse that went here, due to the mutual incivility being shown in it. Please try and contribute constructively instead. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -Will Beback · † · 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the forum raid completely failed.--Someone

Free Speech

Now that they've moved beyond baiting to organized campaigns of harassment and censorship of pedophiles, surely *someone* has called them out on it by now? The criticism section seems a little weak for a group so removed from reality that they call Wikipedia and Google corporate sex offenders. Birdboy2000 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the real name of Del Harvey should be listed on this site as well.

I couldn't agree more. They have essentially taken every corporation that follows the constitution of the United States, and thrown them into a category of "Corporate Sex Offenders" His motto is "If your company supports freedom of speech, you are a corporate sex offender!" He's drinking alot of Kool Aid over there. He lists LiveJournal, Google, Wikipedia, Libsyn.org, Verizon/MCI Worldcom, Youtube, CafePress, and every associated company that these corporations also own as "Sex Offenders". Its just delusional. His nickname is "Angry German" and to be honest, that fits very well with his angst ridden anti american propaganda. If you don't like freedom of speech laws, than why don't you go to Iraq or North Korea where you wouldn't have the right to speak such delusional crap ?

I find it absolutely sick that they have an entire section of their web site "PeeJ Wankers" dedicated to posting pornographic pictures of people. How does that work ? The bottom line is "Perverted Justice" relishes in 'convictions' and throwing people behind bars. They actually are happy to see people's lives ruined ? They don't want these people to get help, nor do they care. They just want to throw everybody who dis-agrees with them into jail cells for the rest of their life. That's not justice at all. Look up the word justice and you might see one of the following things.

11.do justice, a.to act or treat justly or fairly.

Brdennis 13:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, this isn't a free speech forum. Please comment on the article, but if you want to discuss the subject there are other forums and groups for that purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the creepy name of this organization

"Perverted Justice"? Certainly, one must take it that they aren't advocates of perverted justice. That would be something like what was going on in the rape rooms and torture chambers of the Saddam Husein regime. I think they deserve some critizism for this unfortunate choice of name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.87.1.114 (talk • contribs).

Find some and you can add it to the article. Powers ^T 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fresh NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/technology/13justice.html?hp&ex=1165986000&en=acd4803fc0d4d9d3&ei=5094&partner=homepage - crz crztalk 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I have removed the section that went here, as I feel it was created merely with the intent of a personal attack and contributes nothing to article content discussion. Please refrain from posting such material in the future; users are warned that continued posting of this material may, at an administrator's discretion, lead to being blocked. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

A significant portion of this article references little more than a blog (corrupted-justice.net) that reports original and unsubstantiated research. I move that a great deal of this text be removed. Vagr4nt 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If Corrupted-Justice.net is "little more than a blog", then Corrupted-Justice.com is "little more than a blog." The information in the articles you removed is linked but more importantly, has been admitted by Corrupted-Justice.com themselves. Their administration has admitted Carpenter's past as being legitimate and true. Insane double standard in this article if one is "just a blog" and the other is not. In general, the entire criticism section is old, outdated and could use a rewrite. XavierVE 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A blog is always a bad source. Anything not backed by a reliable source should be removed. Atom 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's not a blog. The question is, if one is a blog according to a pretty new Wikipedian, how is the other not a blog? They're both built with the same architecture. If .Net is removed as a source, so should .com. The websites use an identical design, both with main page articles and a forum community. XavierVE 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

.Net is run by you and your crew Xavier, a simple IP Check prooves that all to well. .Com actually has information that could come in hand for people who don't agree with your point of view. Not everyone agrees with PJ, it's not rocket science.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate and concession. The administration of Corrupted-Justce.com does not have the authority allow unsubstantiated claims to be made even in an article about Perverted Justice. As a guidline, exceptional claims (e.g. "XYZ is a member of extremist organization ABC") require exceptional sources. Additionally, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources." Self-published sources (blogs or otherwise) are not considered reliable sources. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for further reading.

I will endeavor to clean this article up. If Corrupted-Justice.com is used as source for supporting contentious or extraordinary claims, I will respectfully remove them as well. Vagr4nt 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed the statement "and claim to have uncovered ties between Corrupted-Justice.com and anti-age-of-consent groups, including NAMBLA" yet left intact the statement "has made a large number of attacks on the organization, and claims credit for a number of changes to Perverted-Justice methods." Why was one claim deemed to be a violation of WP:OR and WP:VER but the other not? I also don't see how either one could be claimed as Original Research, since they were clearly sourced to other parties. I apologizing for undoing your edit before checking the talk page first; I should not have done that. But I stand by the reversion, as I find your stated reasons for the removal invalid. Powers ^T 16:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove both claims. The sources in either case are not reliable. Vagr4nt 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to remove both CJ.com and CJ.net for being unreliable, okay. My contention is that CJ.net is not a blog, it has nothing in common with a blog. The website is set up in the exact same manner as .com. So long as Wikipedian standards are applied fairly to both websites either in removing or including claims, so be it. Still I haven't seen you remove CJ.com claims or Scott Morrow quotes from the article, so I'm viewing your edits with suspicion. XavierVE 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ABC News is a reliable news source. Reverting part of your previous edit. Vagr4nt 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting back, you can't say on one hand that anything from .net is unreliable because it's "just a blog" (It's not a blog) and then on the other hand keep .com references as .com is set up with the same architecture as .net. ABCnews.com quoting the owner of a "blog" is no more Wikipedia-worthy than the "blog" itself being used. Of course, overall, I parrot the opinion of Lt. Powers, your objection to .net content as being "original research" and a "blog" is more than off-base. XavierVE 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is with the nature of self-publishing. The burden to keep contentious content in the article lies on the editor trying to keep it in, and not the editor trying to keep it out. The Corrupted-Justice.com/.net stuff is self published. It is not published by a reliable news source. ABC news is an established mainstream news source. Vagr4nt 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ABCnews merely published a quote, what I'm removing is not news reported by ABC but a quote published by ABCnews.com. If it were a "fact" or a "statement of truth" from ABCnews.com, you'd have a point. However, the quote itself is of a non-notable person whose website, according to you, doesn't even rise to the merits of inclusion in this article. There are plenty of news stories that quote all manner of people regarding what we do, the inclusion of a quote of someone you've decided is a "blog owner" is not needed. I shall revert your reversion and you can take it up with an actual Wikipedian editor or admin. XavierVE 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"ABCnews merely published a quote" -- This is not correct. Consider reading the entire article. It outlines a great deal of the widely held criticism for this organization. It isn't merely a "quote" you're attempting to remove. Vagr4nt 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The quoted section I removed was merely a quote, if you'd like to rewrite the criticism section to include the actual criticism from the old ABCnews.com piece, feel free. "Widely held criticism" - LOL XavierVE 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

XavierVE, please review WP:VER "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." Guidelines for reliable sources can be found in [1]. Vagr4nt 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the ABCnews material should stay. ABCnews is a reliable source, for our purposes, and we properly attribute the material to the speaker. ABCnews thought his comment was worth reporting so the notability is established. Frankly, it seems like a mild criticism. -Will Beback · † · 06:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't the quote, but the double-standard of Vagrant, who seems to be editing with a POV. He stated that both .com and .net references should be removed as both are "original research" which is of course, a misapplication of what "original research" on Wikipedia means. The ABCnews Morrow quote was removed due to this. Read Lt. Powers proper criticism of Vagrants weird application of Wikipedia guidelines, please, and respond to that. XavierVE 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The issues with CJ.net or CJ.com are separate. Just because we use ABCnews quoting someone it doesn't follow that we'd use that same person's blog as a source directly. -Will Beback · † · 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the claims that I removed were linked to pages citing chat logs, Usenet postings, and bulletin board postings. These sources are not reliable enough to merit inclusion in a wikipedia article. Anyone could have made those statements, and in fact, we have no way of verifying whether they were made at all (additionally, I have my doubts as to whether they are even relevent to the article). The content I left in is a different matter. A mainstream news media outlet like ABC News is likely to practice the sort of journalistic rigour that merits inclusion in a wikipedia article. I feel we can be reasonably certain that their claims have been verified, i.e. Scott Morrow in all likelihood did make those statements. This isn't my standard, but rather the standard the community has asserted and upheld. Vagr4nt 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism : Opinions of PJ Management

I removed several entries in the criticism section as they pertain to responses of criticism, and not actual criticism itself. Vagr4nt 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your changes, this article was written by neutral NPOV Wikipedians, which you are not. The criticism section covers both the published criticism and the published response to said criticism. Your attempts to lay down criticism without response implies the criticism has not been responded to, creating a lack of balance and NPOV. If you have a problem with my reversion, take it to arbitration. XavierVE 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

things on wikipedia are accomplished by consensus. i agree with Vagr4nt. one site simply explains how they were victims and reads more like a teenagers blog than a criticism. threating arbitration after one reversion is simply telling others that every edit you make will have to be taken to a higher level. its all about consensus. the_undertow ^talk 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism without response is unbalanced. Take it to arbitration if you disagree. I really want to see Wikipedia rule that removing all response to criticism from 2004 is NPOV. That'd be a pretty great thing to publicize. Simply removing the response to criticism suggests that there is no response to said criticism. Either keep the response IN there or make a section "response to criticism." Your line... "one site simply explains how they were victims and reads more like a teenagers blog than a criticism" makes no sense in the context of this argument, either. XavierVE 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

how many times do you want to call arbitration? i was specifically referring to this EL. i think we may be arguing the same point. if you want to call your father to get me off your property, i would expect that. i dont need to see response to a criticism. i feel critical points are valid, as in the Rene Descartes article. wikipedia is not a forum. those that are critical of a subject need not responses to be valid. but the link i have provided is not a criticism, it is a POV attack and holds no weight. criticism WITH response is a discussion. it refutes the entire idea of a critique. if this really bugs you, take it to arbitration. as far as i am concerned ELs are a waste. your entire idea of a rebuttal actually goes against a criticism. this is not high school debate club. this is an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that CJ.com does not have legitimate criticism, hence we're arguing the same point. My argument is that if such weak criticism is to be quoted, the published response to said criticism should also be included as an issue of fairness and balance. If criticism by legitimate figures (Bradley Russ, NCMEC, EFF) were the sole basis of the criticism section, I wouldn't be taking my time to make the argument I'm making. XavierVE 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

XavierVE, you reverted considerably more than you claimed. I have restored content pertaining to articles on the Dallas Morning News and ABC News. Vagr4nt 01:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article by removing sections from the criticism section, as well as proper links to websites which discuss the claims against Perverted-Justice.com. It's already been requested that you take it to arbitration and I've already made requests for Wikipedian review of your trollish edits. If you have content to ADD to the piece, feel free, stop trying to claim ownership by removing sections of the article you happen to disagree with. Lastly, your removal of the CJ.net article regarding the Raisley information is not in keeping with Wikipedian standards. The Radar source uses the CJ.net article as it's source. Saying that the CJ.net article is not a valid source de facto means the Radar article itself isn't proper criticism since he used the CJ.net article as his source. XavierVE 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

These accusations are utterly without merit. Each of my edits have been made independently of eachother. This is obvious to anyone reviewing the diff history. Instead of reviewing my edits carefully, you simply reverted them all rather recklessly. It is, in fact, you who are removing content that I've placed in the article. Each contrubution I've made to the article is cited by a reputible 3rd party source. I have only endeavored to remove content that is uncited, poorly cited, or irrelevent. I have weathered your personal attacks and name calling and I'm growing weary of it. Yes, we should seek the assistance of a wiki admin. Vagr4nt 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been vandalizing this article since day one. I've offered numerous suggestions, removing the response to criticism material to a category below it, but no. You insist on criticism without response, which is unbalancing and POV. Your edits have been contradictory in nature all throughout. I suggested arbitration immediately as your attempt is little more than forcing POV without any balance. XavierVE 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

i think that we can work this out without arbitration. i would ask you xavierve, and you vagr4nt, to simply provide the information that you each think should be included/deleted. let's go from there. the_undertow ^talk

I have a specific problem with: "To date, not one entrapment defense has worked in a case with evidence brought by the website." This is sourced to a self-published F.A.Q. where they simply make this claim. There is no independent, third party verification of their claim. I think it should be removed. See also: WP:A. Vagr4nt 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

without a newsreport, or the entire case filings against PJ, this is not verified. i agree with the removal, simply because the source is the subject of the article, and not a published article/source. the_undertow ^talk 06:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-published Material

"To date, not one entrapment defense has worked in a case with evidence brought by the website." This is referenced to a self-published FAQ where they simply make this claim. It's not verified by any 3rd party. I think if this assertion can't be backed up by a reputible source it should be removed. Other references to the same FAQ come off more as soap-boxing, but this one is written to sound like it's a hard, established fact (which it may or may not be -- it's just not properly sourced). See also: "WP:VER - self-published", "WP:NOT - Soapbox" Anyone object? Vagr4nt 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link: Corrupted-Justice.NET

A number of editors have attempted remove this content, only to have it reintroduced into the article. It has been suggested that the link is not relevent to the topic WP:NOT. The topic is, afterall, Perverted-Justice.COM, and the Corrupted-Justice.NET website is aimed at criticising a different site (Corrupted-Justice.COM). Much of the content on Corrupted-Justice.NET is self-published and un-verifiable. It's largely comprised of chat transcripts and bulletin board postings aimed at personally attacking individuals who run Corrupted-Justice.COM -- again, little to do with the topic of this article, Perverted-Justice. Vagr4nt 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrupted-Justice.net addresses criticisms against Perverted-Justice.com. In fact, it's a source in the story itself as the Radar piece used it to talk about the Raisley case. The very idea that the link should be removed is beyond spurious and yet another attempt to unbalance the article. XavierVE 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Praise

After seeing a non-notable defense attorney, of all people, quoted in the criticism section, I created a praise section in order to create balance to the article. One thing I did not do a good job was wikifying my references section down at the bottom. I'll work on that later, unless someone else wishes to add the titles of the webpages. XavierVE 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times saw fit to publish the quote of the "non-notable" attorney. I think we need to stick with quality sources. Much of the praise section is filled out with self-published content (PJ.COM) and unrelated content (praise of Dateline NBC). Vagr4nt 03:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. Just because the Times publishes someone doesn't mean they're notable. The criticism of a defense attorney isn't notable to the article. As for the praise, all are referenced and quoted. You really betray your bias with this complaint and the very suggestion that they're praising Dateline NBC and not Perverted-Justice.com and To Catch a Predator. XavierVE 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not my standard, but the standard upheld by the wikipedia community. Vagr4nt 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already seen you fail at applying Wikipedian standards on this page before, remember your argument with Powers?XavierVE 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment is neither accurate nor relevent. I strongly urge you to review official wiki policy WP:NPA. You may also want to refer to your "logical fallacy" web page for further reading on the subject of "ad hominem". Vagr4nt 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem, snicker. Learn to spell it before you try to misapply it. Besides, it's not an ad hominem to point out your lack of understanding and application of Wikipedian standards when it's already been pointed out on this very page. :) XavierVE 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a praise section is a good idea. Just make sure everything is sourced to reliable press links, and that the praise is unambiguous, and I see no problem. PS: Thanks for the grammar tip. Vagr4nt 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is calling the section "Praise" still maintaining a neutral point of view? It sounds like a word that implies something positive to me. Wouldn't "accomplishments" or something similar be more neutral? Miss Innocent 08:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"There is no TCAP without Perverted-Justice.com"

To attribute praise for the Dateline show to PJ is, as one editor would put it, "beyond spurious". Likewise, one wouldn't wish that criticism of the Dateline show to be reflected in the Criticism section of the PJ article. Vagr4nt 02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not spurious at all. Do you think, when Jon Stewart, or Oprah, thanked Chris Hansen for the To Catch a Predator series, they were thanking him for the excellent reporting on the PeeJ/law enforcement stings? No, they were thanking him, by proxy, for the whole operation, exposing the potential predators. The stings are PeeJ; Dateline simply facilitates them. Powers ^T 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So should criticism of Dateline be included in the PJ criticism section? I don't agree. I think attribition of praise needs to be specific for it to be included in the article. Otherwise it's a stretch of logic -- original research. Wikipedia is not the place for drawing conclusions based on conjecture. We simply record the conclusions and assertions published elsewhere. Vagr4nt 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not criticism/praise of Dateline, it's criticism/praise of To Catch a Predator, a series for which PeeJ is just as responsible as Dateline or the local police forces. Powers ^T 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by Dateline, I meant the TV Show, Dateline: To Catch a Predator, which has its own wikipedia entry To_catch_a_predator. Praise for that project should go there. Praise for the organization Perverted-Justoce.com should go here. Vagr4nt 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"'Motivation' section needed"

I wonder what it is that motivates someone to spend their time with an organization such as Perverted Justice. While some who join may have been abused a child, for many others I think it is something else. I think those that join Perverted Justice feel that they have been wronged by the laws/rules of society, and so in turn, to even the score, use society's laws against others. The weapon they feel that has been used against them (society's laws) they turn on others, with a feeling of triumph gained at having achieved mastery over the 'system'. It is, I believe, a desire for power that motivates the members of Perverted Justice; the strength of their desire for power forged by suffered past humiliations.

I think this might be a good idea. Check out this article on Fox News: [2] "Members of Perverted Justice] are not watching out for themselves by trying to pretend they're a child on the Internet," she said. "They're doing it for the thrill, fun, and notoriety they seem to be getting out of it." I think this should go in the criticism section, but a "Motivation" section could be more appropriate. Vagr4nt 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That quotation is a simple opinion from a lawyer, rather than an actual informed conclusion from a psychologist or, say, someone who's actually ever spoken with anyone at PeeJ. It doesn't belong in this article. Powers ^T 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an informed conclusion by a professional who's involved in the field. Fox News saw fit to print the quote. A mainstream news agency is subject to editorial oversight, fact-checking, and peer review. I think it's fair game. Vagr4nt 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how "A lawyer thinks PeeJ is doing it just for kicks" is relevant. This lawyer's never spoken to anyone at PeeJ; how can it possibly be an informed conclusion? It also addresses PeeJ volunteers' states of mind; how is a lawyer qualified to speculate on that? A lawyer would be qualified to speculate on the legality of PeeJ's activities, but not on their motivations. She even said "... notoriety they seem to be getting out of it," (emphasis mine). For her to conclude that since they "seem" to be having fun, that that must be why they're doing it, is ridiculous, Fox News or not. Powers ^T 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Fox News meets WP:RS. Using personal life-experience from the covered website to grade reputable sources that cover it is WP:OR, in my opinion. Abe Froman 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way did I do that? I'm analyzing the precise words the lawyer used. She drew a positive conclusion from what she herself admitted was nothing more than what "seemed" to be occurring. To say that that is not a very good basis on which to draw a definite conclusion is not original research; it's simple logic. WP:RS does not require that we accept everything Fox News decides is relevant as relevant; we are allowed to use our own faculties to be a bit discriminating in what we include. Powers ^T 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote just articulates a point made in the Fox article -- one that's reflected in the public dialog. Many wiki articles feature such quotes. This article, for example, features a lot of quotes by law enforcement and the like. Again, I stress that we are not here to draw our own conclusions and make our own judgements about PJ. We should leave that to professional authors, journalists, and experts. There are the ones with the credentials. They are subject to strict editorial oversight. We're simply editors, summarizing their findings. Vagr4nt 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It would not even be allowed into a court of law because she is assuming the mindset of someone she has not met, nor evaluated as a professional. That type of guessing does not belong in the article.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS source that says this. Otherwise, the statement is WP:OR. Abe Froman 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.29.85.119 (talk • contribs).

A mess

Well, thanks to the constant back-and-forth, this article is a jumble. Much of the criticism section deals with things that PeeJ no longer does; in particular, there's one outdated criticism from 2004 that, while completely baseless, lacks any refutation in the article itself. Presumably, this is because the only available refutation is on the PeeJ web site; so because no other media outlet has seen fit to even address such an absurdity, we're supposed to just let it speak for itself as if it's never been refuted?

Which item in particular? Vagr4nt 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar is the claim that no entrapment defense has yet been effectively used in court: as a negative proposition, this is the default; the article should be allowed to note that the people who say "This might be entrapment" haven't presented a case where entrapment was used as a defense. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the "this might be entrapment" criticism shouldn't even be in the article until someone comes up with evidence that that defense might ever be used successfully.

The concerns about entrapment have been brought up repeatedly in recent articles by the NYT, ABC News, the Dallas Morning News, Fox News, and the New Your Sun. Vagr4nt 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's so much more wrong with the article I scarcely know where to begin. We need a serious discussion about a) what sources we can use in this article; and b) what criticisms are remotely valid and which are outdated or baseless. There's more, but that seems like a good start. Powers ^T 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Find articles published by the mainstream press. Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, self-published, or unsourced research. I think the self-published material needs to be removed. It strikes as vanity, especially when we have the founder of the organization coming in here publishing praise for it, concerns should be raised about conflicts of interest. Vagr4nt 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after having reviewed the history of the article, I'm not quite sure to what you're referring. On the whole, the criticism section has actually changed very little in the last 4 weeks. Vagr4nt 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments into the middle of mine. It causes my signature to be disassociated from my comments.

Anyway, the specific criticism to which I was referring was the canard from the New York Sun in 2004, about child pornography. I realize concerns about entrapment have been raised by various sources, but with over 150 convictions and not one single solitary successful entrapment defense, to continue to entertain the possibility that entrapment might be involved is absurd. When it's mentioned on the Dateline web site, it's in the context of answering viewers who are confused about the concept; that doesn't in any way make it a legitimate criticism.

I'm not suggesting we abandon the rules against self-published material. When I'm asking what sources we can use in this article, I mean the crap like corrupted-justice.com, which is essentially an anti-PeeJ hate site.

Finally, I never said the jumbling occurred exclusively recently. Powers ^T 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know it wouldn't be clear who was speaking via the indentation convention.

I agree that the article should stick to hard, reputible journalism. The content on Perverted-Justice.com, Corrupted-Justice.com, and Corrupted-Justice.net should be excluded. For example, CJ.net could be construed as anti-CeeJ site, no? Vagr4nt 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but it is also the only source that directly addresses the claims on C-J.com; it's irresponsible to include the latter but not the former. I agree with you on reputable journalism; that's why the Radar piece is objectionable as well. Powers ^T 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's "the only source". If it's not a good source, it shouldn't be used.

I don't see that the Radar piece is objectionable at all. Radar is a print publication with a circulation of 80,000. The author of the article (John Cook) is an award winning journalist who has been published in The New York Times, Harper's, the LA Times. He's worked on staff at the Chicago Tribune. He's a lecturer at one of the finest journalism schools in the world (Northwestern).

The recent addition of content from the blog Officer.com, on the other hand, probably doesn't come close to passing similar muster. Vagr4nt 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, you're such an obvious idiotic troll. Amazing. XavierVE 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not really helpful, X. Powers ^T 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A blog? Where in the world do you get the idea that that article is from a weblog? As far as I can tell, it's an online version of an article from the print magazine Law Enforcement Technology, with a claimed circulation of 28,000 law enforcement officers (yes, I realize that's smaller than Radar's claimed circulation, but it's a specialty magazine, not general-interest). That's about as far from a blog as you can get.

Furthermore, whether a source article is objectionable or not is not solely based on the publication in which it appears. Cook's articles for Radar appear to me to be tripe. The raw facts may be true, but he sprinkles them liberally with opinion and invective in an attempt to be funny; it's obvious he writes with an objective in mind (which is not the same as writing objectively!). I don't know what award he's won, but I imagine it wasn't the Pulitzer, and you forgot to mention that he was a television columnist for the Tribune.

In short, the Radar piece is objectionable because it's so transparently critical of PeeJ. The basic facts are true, but they're presented in a slanted fashion and without even acknowledging the other side. Powers ^T 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Radar citation meets WP:RS, which is all editors should be concerned about. Applying logic games to it is WP:OR with a healthy dose of POV. Abe Froman 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely concur, and I've held this repeatedly.

As for the journalistic credentials of Ronnie Garrett, I'm still attempting to establish them. Let me know if you come accross anything. I'm inclined to think the Officer.com stuff can stay, but it seems a bit more peripheral than most of the articles used in sourcing this article. Vagr4nt 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You said we should stick to "hard, reputible [sic] journalism". That's a far cry from 'Anything that meets WP:RS is okay'. Powers ^T 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but I guess you're entitled to your own interpretation. Regardless, my original point stands. The PJ.COM/CJ.COM/NET reports do not satisfy WP:RS. Mainstream media reports by credentialed journalists do. Lets keep this article -- particularly the contentious content -- relying on reliable sources. Fair enough? Vagr4nt 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations of Perverted-Justice.com, the web site, do qualify as a reliable primary source for certain purposes. I'll agree that the two C-J sites don't satisfy WP:RS, but as far as I can tell, neither is currently cited, so it's rather a moot point. My confusion above was because Scott Morrow of C-J.com was quoted, via ABC News, in the article (an outdated criticism, BTW, that minimally needs to be dated and probably should go away entirely), but that's not the same as using C-J.com as a source. For that I apologize. Powers ^T 13:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps you didn't notice it, but there is still an external link to a CJ.NET entry in the artcle. Since we both agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:RS, I'm going to remove it. Vagr4nt 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism of the Radar article is that it's "presented in a slanted fashion and without even acknowledging the other side." Have you read the recently included Officer.com article? Can you point out to me where it even acknowledges "the other side"? It reads to me like soapbox journalism coupled with a gushing circle jerk. By the way, John Cook is a recipient of the John Bartlow Martin Award for Public Interest Magazine Journalism (sponsored by Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism), so your attempt to belittle him as a mere entertainment columnist is more than off base. I'm still working on Ronnie Garrett's credentials. It appears she's written a couple articles for Officer.com.

If one objects to the Radar piece, I can't possibly see how he or she would even consider the Office.com piece as acceptible. Vagr4nt 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it assuage your conscience if the reference were changed to the print magazine instead of the online copy? Regardless, my objection to the Radar piece was based on your stated standard of reputability, which, as Abe noted, isn't the standard used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, all we can do is attribute the statements correctly and let the reader judge the reputability of the piece.

The "other side" is acknowledged in the Officer.com piece in the sections headed "Citizen cyber sleuths", "But isn't it entrapment?", "Addressing court challenges", and "Its everywhere". Quoting it all would be a waste of space, but here's just one example: "Experts question whether the organization consists of concerned citizens desiring to assist the criminal justice system or vigilantes subverting people's Constitutional rights." It then goes on to explain why and how various departments have overcome these questions. That's the kind of balance missing from the Radar article.

Nonetheless, I concede the two sources are of similar, though not identical, quality as far as reliability goes. The Officer.com piece is vitally important due to it being one of the first sources outside of Dateline and to address, in-depth, some of these issues and present PeeJ's side of the story. Since the Radar piece is currently only used to cite the incident between Xavier and Bruce Raisley, I can't really object to the way it's currently being used. (Though I do question the relevance of that particular topic.) Powers ^T 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What you describe (putting up a misrepresentation of an opposition argument and then knocking it down) isn't "balance", it's called Straw man. Vagr4nt 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it a misrepresentation? What are, then, the opposition arguments, if not the ones mentioned in the LET article? Powers ^T 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "Office.com" piece despite your trollish assertions otherwise. It is the publication "Law Enforcement Technology" Magazine. The piece is reprinted on Officer.com. The idea that Radar Magazine, a entertainment/pop culture tabloid funded by Jesse Jackson's sons is more "journalistic" in nature than a long-running magazine for the law enforcement community is beyond absurd and indicative of why you're here editing a lone article and are not, in any way, a multi-topic legitimate Wikipedian. XavierVE 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in 'Criticisms' section

Shouldn't there be mention here about the claims Perverted Justice has used minors to bait pedophiles? It's fairly well documented that one of their official contributors, Satine, was 17 when she did her first bust posted on their site, there are apparently quite a few others on the PJ site who are underage but they are not official contributors. It seems strange a site that is supposedly trying to protect children is encouraging children to come into contact with sexual predators. There is also concern about the fact that they provide pictures of underage girls they find on rating sites to potential predators without the consent of the girls or their parents.

I have added the unbalanced tag to the article because all responses to criticism are from PJ themselves and are clearly not neutral. Without independent responses how can one claim to be neutrally refuting a claim? 69.207.139.221 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't even make sense. Who exactly is supposed to refute random claims but the person themselves? That's akin to saying that one shouldn't quote the White House when they respond to allegations because they're not an "independent" source. That's ridiculous. XavierVE 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved simply by presenting the refutation; the source of the refutation needn't be any more "neutral" than the source of the criticism. Powers ^T 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose to balance the 'Praise' section, refutation of said praise found on self-published websites (CJ.COM?) would be admissible by this standard? Vagr4nt 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the current organization. I assume the "Praise" section is there in an attempt to balance the criticism, which is running rampant. It's not how I'd choose to organize it anyway. Powers ^T 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When criticisms have crumbled to such weak attempts as quoting defense attorneys (roll eyes) then a praise section is needed. Without it, it appears that there is only criticism towards the website, when critical comments are completely in the minority and typically from individuals with an ax to grind (Defense attorneys, Morrow, etc). The article was utterly unbalanced without it. XavierVE 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, quotations from LE officers who also have an agenda are included throughout the article. However, I contend that the standard of inclusion is not our standard, but the journalistic standard. When mainstream news media outlets feel it fit to print the quotes from these individuals as they are covering the topic, then I feel they merit inclusion in this article. Vagr4nt 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They may merit inclusion in this article. It's certainly not a given. I still don't understand the relevance of a defense attorney's opinion about the psychological motivations of people she's never met. Maybe if she was a psychologist... Regardless, that a source is quoted in a major media outlet in no way obligates us to include the quotation. Otherwise, these articles would be awfully long! Powers ^T 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, the praise section AND the refutation within the criticism section are both needed to balanance the criticism section? That doesn't seem balanced to me. Vagr4nt 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The line "they claim the criticism against them lacks coherence, that none of the criticisms made are unanswerable, and many criticisms stem from objections to age of consent laws" really seems rather superfluous and obvious. Of course this is going to be their belief, why is it even necessary? Vagr4nt 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Xavier and the rest of PJ are editing an 'encyclopedia' to appear the way THEY want too. That it not consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV. Which states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views". Xavier changed a factual statement about the 23 SUSPECTED of committing a crime In Colin County, Texas. They were released. period. There is no if ands buts about it. They were released, and never charged with a crime because there was no evidence that they committed a crime. Legally speaking the evidence was all in-admissible in court. Hence, they were released. A non prosecution is generally an agreement between two parties. In the legal sense it is not used in the context that Xavier tried to use. When somebody is released from prison due to lack of evidence, when was the last time you heard anybody say "non prosecuted". Do a search of google news, and you will never see that term EVER used in the context Xavier tried to use it in. Why ? Because thats not a proper way to describe one's release from jail. It is as blatant bias as it gets. Go due some legal homework Xavier, and maybe you would have an better understanding of how the legal system works. Anymore blatant biased edits of the Critiscm section and you will be referred to an administrator of Wikipedia for violating the NPOV. If you wish to refute criticism due it on the talk page. Your criticism is biased, and violates numerous rules on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Brdennis 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know little about how the legal system works. These people were already released on a little thing we call "bail" in America. They (nor few other criminals anywhere in the country) are not held pending charges, because charges sometimes take months to come about. None of the individuals that Collin County declined prosecution on were in jail at the time of their declining to prosecution, hence the term non-prosecution is proper.

Go ahead and refer this issue to an administrator of Wikipedia, when you do so I'll point out your obvious attacks on me here on this talk page despite our never having any prior interaction on Wikipedia. And please work on your spelling. XavierVE 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've modified it to say the charges were dropped. "Non-prosecution" is usually used in reference to written agreements, while in this case they simply weren't prosecuted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. XavierVE 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the claim that an official contributor was 17 at the time she contributed too Perverted-Justice. The forum allows members as young as 15 to register. I got this message when I attempted to register as an 14 year old. "You must be at least 15 years old to register!" So this claim does not sound far fetched or concocted at all.

Brdennis 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in this video, the founder of "Perverted Justice" Xavier Von Erck insults and physically touches a 35 year veteran investigative journalist, and verbally attacks him by saying he is "old" and "has problems". This the kind of neutrality Xavier has when dealing with people who have questions or concerns about their vigilante group. He will not even answer a respectable journalist questions, instead he name calls him and grabs his suit. Who does he think he is ? Getting into an old mans face and touching his suit, and saying he has "problems" ? This is nothing less than what I would expect from a vigilante organization. See the video for yourself :

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c95_1184868760 This kind of behavior needs to be shown to help improve the criticism section and show how vigilante this organization really is. Brdennis 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That video doesn't appear to have anything to tell us about the topic of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Action is louder than words. It shows plenty. Look at how he verbally attacked and grabbed that reporters suit. That is worth a thousand words. In words it doesn't tell us anything, because Xavier wouldn't do anything but insult the reporter. But his actions speak plenty about his character and how he runs the organization. This is an conference, where he is the speaker and this is a reporter who is allowed to be there. He tried to intimidate the reporter, by getting up and in his face, and than grabbing on his suit. You are not allowed to touch people in an aggressive manner. That's called assault.

24.22.148.100 03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Xavier got up and said "no you got up into my face son" to a nearly 70 year old man ? After this reporter came and told him he was going to be taping the conference. And Xavier tells him he is getting into his face.

03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say may all be true, but this isn't what wikipedia is all about. We are supposed to be the neutral 3rd party who merely summarizes events as told to us by others. Find a news article where the incident is described and placed in context, and work with it from there. Vagr4nt 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

24.22.148.100 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"23:00, 19 July 2007 Will Beback (Talk | contribs) (87,155 bytes) (→Neutrality in 'Criticisms' section - not PJ-related) "

I'm sorry can you explain to me how this is not PJ related ? This is the founder giving a conference ON Perverted Justice, and than he assault and verbally attacks a reporter. I'm curious as to how thats "not pj related".

Brdennis 03:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not PJ related because at no point do the peopple in the video mention anything substantive about PJ, or even about XVE. If the point is to show that the founder of PJ is rude to old reporters then even if it's true it isn't relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that having editors interpret the raw footage of the incident would be considered WP:OR. I think that the incident itself is relevant to the topic of PJ to the extent that the incident involves the behavior of the PJ founder while he was presenting on behalf of the organization. Again though, leave the interpretation to professional journalists. Perhaps an item from this article about the incident should be included: [3]? Vagr4nt 06:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good find. While I still don't think that touching the lapel of a reporter is notable, that article does have other relevant info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I saw a lot of claims without a lot of backup. It didn't seem like an unbiased piece to me. 69.204.125.123 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever done an unbiased piece on PJ. However a network affiliate is a mainstream news outlet and counts as a reliable source for our purposes. Of course, whatever we use from it would still need to be presneted neutrally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chill out, everybody. We're not here to discuss the subject (PJ), much less its members or founder. The only purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. It is a requirement that we all act in a civil manner towards each other. Even folks who "duke it out" elsewhere need to be minimally respectful. That goes all around. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Our purpose here is just, and only, to have a decent article about "Perverted-Justice". We're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. If you have something negative to say about a fellow editor, please take it elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is about Perverted-Justice.com

Unfortunately I had to remove the Radar Raisley "criticism" from the "criticism" section. As anyone would note, the Raisley affair occurred between Corrupted-Justice.com and Corrupted-Justice.net. It did not occur with the involvement of the Perverted-Justice.com organization. At no point in the Radar article does Cook relate the Raisley story in relation to Perverted-Justice.com, but uses it to insult myself, not the organization. As it is a criticism of *me* and not a criticism of the organization itself, the paragraph itself isn't appropriate for inclusion into an article regarding Perverted-Justice.com.

Had the Perverted-Justice.com website hosted the evidence against Raisley, the criticism would make sense in an article regarding Perverted-Justice.com. A criticism of myself, say for example, anything ranging from my political views to any other act outside of Perverted-Justice.com would also not be proper under Wikipedia standards for inclusion into a criticism section towards the organization itself.

Relate criticisms towards acts of the organization or statements against the organization, please stop trying to include non-organization criticisms. Thanks! XavierVE 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Radar article says that the sting was done by the head of PJ in retaliation for Raisley's attacks on PJ and PJ volunteers. The Radar article is about PJ. The article doesn't mention Corrupted-Justice.com or Corrupted-Justice.net directly, though apparently the initial complaints occured on AVSO.

According to an account posted by Von Erck, one of Perverted Justice's fiercest critics was a 44-year-old software developer from Searcy, AR, named Bruce Raisley. Raisley was a frequent poster to a forum at an anti-PJ site called Anti-Vigilante Special Operations (AVSO) and he posted several threatening and seemingly deranged comments to the site. He claimed, among other things, to have written a virus that he would unleash upon Perverted Justice volunteers, and used his computer skills to harass Perverted Justice members by exposing the online handles they used when posing as children and tracking down their real identities. He once threatened, during an IM chat, to "fuck or beat" one Perverted Justice activist if he ever met him (Raisley thought he was communicating with a woman at the time). It's unclear why Raisley, a private pilot and ham radio enthusiast, was so militantly opposed to Perverted Justice. He has claimed he was once a Perverted Justice member but broke with the group after another member found a photograph of Railey's son online and used it in a decoy Yahoo profile—in other words, used his son as bait for perverts. Perverted Justice denies this.
Von Erck claims he contacted local authorities in Arkansas and the FBI about Raisley but they "simply weren't moving fast enough for my tastes, considering how bold he was getting about his threats." So he decided to mete out his own form of perverse justice, introducing himself to Raisley online, via instant messenger.
Holly would occasionally inquire about Raisley's anti-Perverted Justice activities, but eventually the conversation turned to sex:
Then he posted it online, along with the entire text of their chat and a threat to release a video file he claimed showed Raisley masturbating. And then this message to Perverted Justice's detractors: "[W]hen you attempt to threaten members of Perverted-Justice.com... this can happen to you. Tonight, Bruce Raisley stood around at an airport, flowers in hand, waiting for a woman that turned out to be a man. He's not in love. He has destroyed his relationship with his wife, he has denigrated her, and he has betrayed all those around him. He has no one. He has no more secrets. We at Perverted-Justice.com will only tolerate so much in the way of threats and attacks upon us."[4]

In that last sentence Von Erck himself connects the Raisly matter with Perverted-Justice.com and its attackers. -Will Beback · † · 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good argument, perhaps the criticism should be re-written then, to reflect the connection to the website, perhaps actually using the verbiage from the article itself. XavierVE 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the text slightly. It currently reads:

According to the magazine Radar, Von Erck targeted an individual who had made online threats to Perverted Justice contributors via instant message in the past. Von Erck "set out to destroy [him] by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of his target masturbating..." The individual was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online. ^[1]

That puts the connection to the website first, and then has a substantial quotation for the article. Is that sufficient? -Will Beback · † · 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That writeup is still pretty lacking. A better, far more balanced version follows:

"According to the magazine Radar, Von Erck retaliated against an individual who was making graphic violent threats against Perverted Justice contributors and volunteers after a lack of response from law enforcement. Von Erck "set out to destroy [him] by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of the individual masturbating..." The individual was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks."

That would be a far more balanced description of that situation, though the idea that the source material for the Radar snippet (the .net account of the matter) is not viable to be linked when it is the whole sum of Radar's reporting is quite ridiculous, whether that fits Wikipedia standards or not. XavierVE 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, I'll make the change. Is there a better source on this issue? -Will Beback · † · 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Only two sources, CJ.net and the tabloid Radar, which used CJ.net as it's sole "source." XavierVE 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that the "whole sum" of Radar's reporting on the matter is merely the CJ.NET account. Short of contacting John Cook, we can only speculate as to how he validated the facts prior to publishing them. We do know that he's an established and credentialed journalist, and that his publication is widely circulated in print. Radar, as the secondary source, assumes the role of interpretting, verifying, analyzing, and the primary sources how it sees fit. I'm not arguing that journalists don't make mistakes, I'm sure they do all the time. But as wikipedians, it's not our role to do the analysis or fact checking. I think we should rely on reliable and verifiable secondary sources whenever possible, prior to considering any primary sources. This is how I read WP:RS anyway.

I think it's important that we attribute the content of the Radar piece accurately and properly present the alleged criticism from the article. To that ends, I propose the following modification:

According to the magazine Radar, Von Erck "once set out to destroy an enemy by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of the individual masturbating..." Reportedly, the individual, Bruce Raisley, had made graphic violent threats against Perverted Justice contributors and volunteers. Raisley claimed he had at one time been a member of Perverted Justice, but had left the group after they used a photograph of his son in a PJ decoy profile. Perverted Justice denies this claim. After a lack of response from law enforcement, Von Erck decided to address the matter on his own, contacting Raisley via IM under the guise of 'Holly'. An online relationship ensued between the pair, and they eventually made plans to meet. Raisley was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks.

I think this more closely follows the event as deplicted in the Radar article. I also think it does a good job of tying the relevency to PJ. Vagr4nt 07:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to cover the same ground in fewer words? While I think it's relevant we still need to keep it in perspective. Also, since the accounts of Radar and CJ.net largely agree, I don't know that we need to say "According to Radar". Though that one quote is theirs and should be attributed if used, the overall story isn't disputed. I think we can drop the "according to" part, or at least make it less prominent. -Will Beback · † · 09:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Vagrants writeup too long in general, it doesn't differ substantially from the writeup I presented and is in no way an improvement. As well, other Wikipedians didn't like the idea of naming Raisley when this was discussed ad naseum prior (though obviously I'm not opposed to it). "An online relationship ensued between the pair, and they eventually made plans to meet." - Lastly, that wording is dreadfully inaccurate. The writeup as it stands is concise and summarizes the "story." There's no benefit to Vagrants bloated account.

As a note, I'm not "assuming" that the CJ.net article is the whole source for the account on Radar, I know it is. Cook stated so in email exchanges.

The characterization of Radar being legitimate for having a large circulation is also intellectually suspect, the National Enquirer has 100x the circulation, so what? Both are tabloid magazines. Cook, prior to being a tabloid columnist for Radar, was a TV columnist for the Chicago Tribune. XavierVE 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, "Radar is an American online and print publication that features an eclectic, irreverent mix of articles on entertainment, fashion, politics, and general human interest." I don't see the word "tabloid" anywhere in the article or anywhere else. As I mentioned before, John Cook is a lecturer at one of the most prestigious journalism schools in the country, as well as an award winning journalist in the area of public interest journalism. I digress.

Here's an attempt to streamline in 250 fewer characters:

Von Erck "once set out to destroy an enemy by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of the individual masturbating..." The individual, a former PJ member, had made graphic violent threats against Perverted Justice contributors and volunteers after the group used a photograph of his son in a PJ decoy profile (PJ denies this claim). After a lack of response from law enforcement, Von Erck engaged the individual in an online relationship under the guise of 'Holly'. Eventually, the individual was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks.

Better? Vagr4nt 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the advantage over the existing text? -Will Beback · † · 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

None, in fact there's no way that would be allowed to stand since he writes it as though Raisley's claims are fact (pictures of his son were never fucking used let alone possessed, nor was he ever a "PJ Member." Raisley claims that garbage, but the guy is/was psychotic to say the least), and not even Cook, the tabloid journalist that he is, went that far as to present Raisley's claims as being fact or legitimate. Typical Vagrant, typical stuff he tries with this article. There's absolutely no benefit to that version. XavierVE 22:06, 23 April 2007(UTC)

This is why I include where the Cook article states: (PJ denies this claim). It's really a case of "Raisley says... PJ says...", but if we properly attribute each assertion as the Cook article does, then I don't see a problem. Vagr4nt 22:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it more closely parallels the article itself in terms of the facts and the thrust of the criticism. I think it's relevent to point out that this was a former PJ member, and that he claims he left because of what he feels PJ did to him. I don't like the use of the term "retaliated", as Cook doesn't characterize it this way (retaliation implies "response in kind"). Vagr4nt 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Radar article says that the guy simply claimed to be a PJ member, so I don't think we should simply state that he was a member. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about:

Von Erck "once set out to destroy an enemy by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of the individual masturbating..." The individual, claiming to be a former PJ member, had made graphic violent threats against PJ contributors and volunteers after he claims the group used a photograph of his son in a PJ decoy profile (PJ denies this claim). After a lack of response from law enforcement, Von Erck engaged the individual in an online relationship under the guise of 'Holly'. Eventually, the individual was lured to an airport waiting area, where he was secretly photographed by associates of Von Erck. The photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks.

Is that a little more clear? Vagr4nt 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Better. -Will Beback · † · 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to put the focus on Xavier's response rather than on Raisley's harassment of PeeJ, which was, after all, the whole point of this thread. =) Powers ^T 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The way it's been rewritten, the original complaint still stands. Article is about Perverted-Justice.com, the account should either be written to reflect linkage to the organization (Raisley's harassment) or be removed. Lastly, the way it's written, the "photos were later posted online along with a warning against further threats and attacks" - Posted where? The Radar article includes a link to the CJ.net account of the matter, hence it makes me wonder why the link isn't included when it was judged proper to be included by Cook, who vagrant seemingly has a man-crush on. I mean, his reasoning is that a "professional journalist" included it, so why would he argue against it in this piece? More hypocrisy. XavierVE 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make negative personal comments about other editors. Regarding the Radar article, it seems to focus on the reaction to the harassment rather than the harassment itself. -Will Beback · † · 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was nice, I criticized his edits, not him. Anyways, the article focusing on the reaction would be focusing on something posted at CJ.net, not posted at Perverted-Justice.com. Again, the original complaint was that the snippet was edited to focus on something that happened off-Perverted-Justice.com. The article is entitled Perverted-Justice.com. Unless anyone can show that any of the reaction to the attacks was carried out ON Perverted-Justice.com, then the criticism is misplaced on an article about the organization. The organization itself didn't carry out the response. Without a focus on the attacks ON the organization, there is little relevancy on a page talking about the organization itself.

If the head of General Motors goes out to a park, off-duty, and mocks a handicapped person... is that then a criticism of General Motors the corporation and their products or the head of GM himself? If I go out tomorrow and beat a hooker dead, does that then become a criticism of the work done by the organization or of myself personally? The article isn't "Xavier Von Erck and the things he does", it's Perverted-Justice.com. Criticism should then be related to Perverted-Justice.com, not as a footnote, but in some substantial way. XavierVE 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The attacks were on PJ and its members. They were responded to by the head and apparent owner of PJ, who described his response as being related to the attacks on PJ. The whole thing was described in an article profiling PJ. If GM were solely owned by one person, and if that person attacked someone who criticized GM, warning he'd likewise attack any other critics, then yes, we'd probably include it in the GM article. -Will Beback · † · 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a few things. One, Perverted-Justice.com isn't owned by one person. It's a non-profit. It has a board of directors. It has three main administrators. Prior to filing non-profit, it was a regular corporation with ownership split three ways. So the assertion that there's one owner is simply incorrect. Secondly, the Radar article doesn't profile PJ, it attacks Dateline NBC for associating with Xavier Von Erck. If you read the Radar article, there's very little criticism of the organization itself, if any. Thirdly, my objection is that the blurb is written without the attacks, death threats and graphic sexual violent threats on the organization's members as being the lead relevant aspect. That's the only link between the Raisley story and Perverted-Justice.com itself. You are correct in saying there's a link THERE, just as I'm correct in complaining that the link between the criticism and Perverted-Justice.com is not written as the lead relevant aspect to the Wikipedia blurb.

Lastly, Raisley was not a "critic" of the website, people who are merely "critical" don't threaten to "rape or beat" people, don't pose as individuals attempting to get them sexually assaulted and don't threaten to smash faces with a baseball bat. The warning is against further attacks and threats, not against further "criticisms." XavierVE 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the ownership - my mistake. -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Couple quick points. 1) Xavier Von Erck is the founder of PJ. Virtually every news article refers to him as such, including the Radar article. 2) The Radar article refers to "Perverted Justice" 28 times. It's clearly an article about Perverted Justice. 3) The 'blurb' does mention the graphic threats. 4) The blurb is included in the "Criticism" section, which is the "lead relevant aspect" in that context. The story highlights criticism of the actions of the founder of PJ and properly puts it in context. 5) The Cook article refers to Raisley as a critic. Vagr4nt 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article talks about "To Catch a Predator" and Dateline NBC, it's an article about NBC news and the relationship to Von Erck. The article, while it does criticize Von Erck and NBC news, does not in any substantive way criticize Perverted-Justice. The Raisley account happened 100% off of the Perverted-Justice.com organization, the only tangible link is that the retaliation was due to the violent graphic threats by Raisley. Unless the graphic threats by Raisley is the lead of the blurb, then there is no association between the Raisley situation and Perverted-Justice.com.

As stated by ol' Vagrant: "The story highlights criticism of the actions of the founder of PJ"

Criticizing the "actions" of the founder OFF of Perverted-Justice.com is NOT a criticism of Perverted-Justice.com itself. This is not an article about the founder, it's an article about the organization. Make a substantial link to the organization acting against Raisley (Which you can't) or make the thrust of the criticism relate to the organization itself (which only is tangentially, through the harassment Raisley undertook against the organization). XavierVE 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody being in a position like that of Xavier requires high moral standards, both on the job and off. Essentially what he is saying is "what I do in my private life has nothing to do with PJ" Which is not true. If a police officer was off committing robberies or smoking crack in his private life, would that not relate to his job as a police officer ? The actions Xavier has taken in his private life directly reflect the way he runs the organization known as 'Perverted Justice'.

It is clear in this statement, that he is a text book vigilante in the lack of response he claims to the incident involving Raisley. Von Erck claims he contacted local authorities in Arkansas and the FBI about Raisley but they "simply weren't moving fast enough for my tastes, considering how bold he was getting about his threats." So he decided to mete out his own form of perverse justice, introducing himself to Raisley online, via instant messenger.

The definition of a vigilante is "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime."

This action taken by Xavier was in response to something Xavier claims Raisley had done to PJ. So what were you saying again Xavier ?

It's also interesting to point out, that minors ARE allowed on the perverted-justice forums. When I tried to register as an 14 year old I got this message "You must be at least 15 years old to register!" So 15 year olds are allowed to read highly graphic material ? Shouldn't PJ require parental consent before allowing their son/daughter onto such a graphic forum ? So we have minors involved in an anti-pedophile organization thats awesome! With no parental supervision what so ever. Sounds like a great plan.

Brdennis 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrupted-Justice.net Link

I object to the inclusion of the Corrupted-Justice.net link as it's a self-published, primary source. We have no way of verifying the claims made on that page. We've already adequately cited the claims with a verifiable secondary source. That secondary source as an independent news publisher assumes responsibility for its own verification of the facts. It is not our responsibility to scrutinize the sources of secondary sources we include on wikipedia. This has already been discussed to death on this page. Other editors have agreed that content published on CJ.NET do not satisfy WP:RS [5], [6]. Vagr4nt 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Object all day, let's use your own words when talking about why Morrow's quote should be included.

"The content I left in is a different matter. A mainstream news media outlet like ABC News is likely to practice the sort of journalistic rigour that merits inclusion in a wikipedia article. I feel we can be reasonably certain that their claims have been verified, i.e. Scott Morrow in all likelihood did make those statements. This isn't my standard, but rather the standard the community has asserted and upheld"

Or, if you prefer, read the edit page of the article and you'll see another quote I lifted off of you where you defend plopping in random quotes by defense attorneys about the psychology of PeeJ volunteers.

So here is my response: According to Wikipedia editor Vagrant, John Cook is a reputable journalist and Radar is a reputable magazine with editorial oversight. When Cook spoke of the Raisley incident, he linked to the CJ.net account in the story itself. A mainstream news media outlet like Radar is likely to practice the sort of journalistic rigor that merits inclusion in a wikipedia article. I feel we can be reasonable certain that their claims have been verified, i.e. CJ.net article in all likelihood has information used in the Radar piece. This isn't my standard, but rather the standard the community has asserted and upheld.

The .net account is linked by the Radar piece talking about that claim henceforth it should be linked here as well, just as you defended the Morrow quote. XavierVE 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper use primary sources that we do not. Please don't add the link back. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's really the Wikipedia standard? Please link. That's gold. "We use newspaper accounts, but the sources newspapers use and attribute in the articles themselves are not proper to note." If that's true, that's truly hilarious. No wonder people treat this place as a joke. XavierVE 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in WP:V and WP:RS. If you think about it, it makes sense. A newspaper reporter can call up someone, get an interview, then report on it. Wikipedia editors cannot do that, though we can summarize the reporter's article. -Will Beback · † · 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's IN the article. The link is IN the article itself. Hence why this makes literally no sense to me. What you're saying is "Okay, we can't call people" and that's perfectly right. However, the link is IN the article when he references where the material was posted. Same as I did in the Wikipedia article. It's not "assuming" that's the source, it's linking what Cook links in the article itself. That's where that makes little to no sense to me. What you're essentially saying is that "Okay, we can copy and paste his comments on it, but we can't link the fact that he links it himself in the article." XavierVE 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything contradictory in the above. On the one hand, I'm saying we should source a quotation to a verifiable, secondary source. On the other hand, I'm saying we shouldn't include a link to a unverifiable primary source. Two completely different things. Just because a secondary source links to a primary source that we wouldn't, it doesn't follow that we would link to it as well. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. Vagr4nt 00:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

The official web site seems to variously call the organization "Perverted-Justice.com", "Perverted Justice" or "PeeJ", while every other source I've ever read uses the name "Perverted Justice". I haven't seen the form "Perverted-Justice" anywhere else.

On 1 March 2007, Teque5 moved the article from Perverted-Justice.com to Perverted-Justice, stating that

Under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, .com should not be an appended field. Can find no evidence of other articles where .com, .net, etc are acceptable.

However, the naming conventions don't appear to say anything about .com nor appended fields. (And for evidence of appending .com, look no further than Amazon.com.) Instead, the naming conventions recommend that

Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

I happen to agree, and I believe "Perverted Justice" would be much more appropriate than "Perverted-Justice.com" and "Perverted-Justice" as they are not commonly used.
— Asch jr. ^{talk to me} 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the proposed change. I was going to make the move myself but Perverted Justice has a history, so we'll need admin help. Powers ^T 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it would cause a ton of confusion, as "Perverted Justice" is a term that means any number of things and we're almost always referred to as Perverted-Justice.com since we are a website, not a general term. XavierVE 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have done my own research first. Dateline's web site primarily uses the dash, though not the .com. Many other references (including our own To Catch a Predator article) omit both; some use "Perverted-Justice.com". There's no clear mandate for any of the names, so the status quo should be fine. I'm not sure who would get confused were we to remove the hyphen from the title, though. =) Powers ^T 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Powers, I don't believe removing the hyphen would cause any confusion. Wikipedia's readers will not read "Perverted Justice" and think of perverted justice in general; they will think of the organization. The capital J will distinguish the organization's name from any general reference to perverted justice.

I had never seen the other forms before reading the article, and I think "Perverted-Justice" is plain uglier (being ungrammatical or containing unnecessary punctuation, depending on how you look at it) than "Perverted Justice". ("Perverted-Justice.com" is forgiven since spaces are banned in domain names.) Oh well, I can live with an ugly article name or two among 1,800,000. :)
— Asch jr. ^{talk to me} 08:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I really care, just don't want to see people confused and it seems like a candidate for possible later disambiguation. And I'm glad the - is forgiven in the URL :) XavierVE 09:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

describe adults as "pedophile"?

Here, SqueakBox added the adjective "pedophile" to the clause "dedicated to identifying pedophile adults willing to have chat room sexual encounters with minors." It seems unnecessary, since not all of the adults willing to have chat room sexual encounters with minors are pedophiles (at least, not under every definition of the word). Thus, calling them pedophiles is POV in that it implies a particular definition of the word "pedophile". The description of what they're willing to do, along with the description earlier int he sentence of PeeJ as an "anti-pedophile organization" is sufficient to explain the purpose without introducing any POV. Powers ^T 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Two points: As a theoretical matter, someone who uses a chatroom to solicit sex from a child would appear to be doing so for pedophilic reasons. While some child sexual abusers do so for "situational" reasons rather than due to pedophilia, that explanation doesn't cover chatroom solicitation. However it isn't for us to decide. PJ itself regularly refers to the people it targets as "pedophiles". The term is used often on their website and is included in the HTML description of their home page. "Slamming wannabe pedophiles with a little Perverted Justice." So it is verifaibly true that their aim is to target pedophiles. Whether the targets are in fact pedophiles is a side issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PeeJ is usually careful to refer to the marks as "wannabe pedophiles," thus seemingly adopting the definition of pedophile as "child molester". In that case, PeeJ is definitely not dedicated (strictly) to identifying pedophile adults, but rather "wannabe pedophile" adults -- a usage which is either vague or redundant in the sentence in question. Of course, the word is gone from the sentence at this point so I suppose it's a moot point. =) Powers ^T 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Powers. Anchoress 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

weasel words

When a line in an article claims someone says something, it needs a source confirming that attribution. So when the article says, "administrators say..." it needs a reference. Other than that...glad PeeJ is in my hometown! VanTucky ^(talk) 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (sad its not in mine), SqueakBox 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

The following is a video that was taken by some members of the public that waited outside the courtroom too harass the people that showed up in court following the Dateline NBC sting in Riverside, California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGFTAGvKIVE Brdennis 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The video you describe was only partially used (probably in violation of copyright) in the video to which you linked. The video you linked wasted 3 minutes of my time attempting and failing to make some sort of point. Powers ^T 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't use a video like that as a source. We don't know who made it, who the people are in the video, their affiliation with PJ, etc. If reliable sources have covered this topic then we can cover it in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't anyone associated with Perverted-Justice.com anyways. Some couple in Riverside that had a old blogspot blog. XavierVE 08:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

^ "Strange Bedfellows" By John Cook, , Radar, September, 2006

[Radar-1] "Strange Bedfellows" By John Cook, , Radar, September, 2006

[1]