Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Detroit News

If any actual Wikipedian wants to Wikify the recent happenings in Detroit, that'd be cool. - Detroit News XavierVE 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC Article

Someone might want to incorporate this article into the page. --Jersey Devil 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article

The [1] Rolling Stone article about PJ indicates that the entry needs to be rewritten, especially the history section since the article seems to have more information than the entry does about this (including the other founding member and the actual beginnings of the site). --86.63.141.110 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Powers T 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was plagiarized from another article by John Cook of radaronline.com. (That radar article was disputed by BOTH parties, Xavier and Bruce.) John cook got his information from the PJ slander site corrupted-justice.net (that site is now gone.) Just because a reporter reports on something does not automatically make it truth. When the information was on the slander site it did not qualify to be here. There is no reason it should qualify now because some one you believe is reputable is repeating it.

So unsigned IP, are you accusing Rolling Stone of publishing a plagiarized article? If that's true we'll be hearing about it in the news I'm sure. And corrupted-justice.net was a counter-site run by Von Erck to counteract the anti-PJ site corupted-justice.com, so .net wasn't a slander site. Also, if that information is disputed by both sides, please show evidence of such. Just because Von Erck says it's so doesn't make it true, either.--Torbaby 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is just Eide come back to cause trouble now that he is banned. There is no plagiarism. Ignore the trollMuckrakerius 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Wrong side of America, Xavier lives in Portland, SqueakBox 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article claims he walks with a limp. In this very recent video [2] he is walking fine. Should I tear it apart for you? The magazine is a tabloid... Just like radar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.176.24 (talk) 01:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Your personal observations re: Eide's limping are not verified by a secondary source. We can't use our own observations in articles we edit because that would be a violations of WP:NOR. I'd say, if you a reliable source on this issue, you could include it, but it's a moot point, as our article doesn't make a claim either way on the matter. Vagr4nt 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me nobody wants to address what was said above here. The article is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.176.24 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is flawed; she should have done more research on the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcarpenter06 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Xavier's real name or not?

There's a revert war going on over this. The editor who wants to include it says it's been discussed before, those removing it call it 'outing' and 'blp violation'. Can we discuss it on the talkpage instead of via edit summaries? I'll start. I'm not straight out advocating for the inclusion of the info, but I don't think it's a BLP violation or 'outing', because the information has been published in several notable and well-read publications and websites, including salon.com, nytimes, esquire.com, rickross.com, topix.com, etc, per xavier "Phillip John Eide". However, I don't know that it's on-topic to the article. If there has been relevant discussion in the past on this issue, can those claiming it exists link to it so we can see? And could those who are for/against inclusion please state why here, rather than in edit summaries? Please and thank you. Anchoress 04:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are samples of the old discussions. This is not all of them. [3] [4] [5] [6] Keep in mind that the subject of this name discussion was recently blocked indefinitely [7], so a flurry of activity concerning them may have been motivated by this action. Abe Froman 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been discussed in mainstream media articles, it's been discussed here on wiki to death. User:XavierVE also allowed it's inclusion. Show me where it's inclusion violates WP:BLP. Vagr4nt 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't. The problem with it is that it's completely irrelevant to this article. It's a data point that would only be relevant to an article on Xavier himself. Powers T 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to go into this again? [8] [9] [10] [11] Reliable Sources such as salon.com, the New York Times, and Esquire magazine have reported the name change. Also, other Wikipedia pages covering organizations do note the original and altered names of the founders. Abe Froman 16:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That Salon and other sources have reported the name change in no way requires us to do so. How does it add to the article on Perverted-Justice? As for other Wikipedia pages, please, provide some examples. Powers T 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I remember now you found a few examples. It's hardly universal though; there are a lot more articles that don't comment on individuals' former names than do. The question remains, though: how does this add to the article on Perverted-Justice? How is it relevant? Powers T 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it relevant. The majority of editors in these discussions found it germane. This discussion is the same earth that's been spaded over and over since 2005. Abe Froman 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The majority of editors? You overstate the case. There's obviously no consensus for including his birth name, nor have you explained why you find it relevant. Powers T 01:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Eide/Von Erck is the founder, spokesperson, and public face of the organization. Anyone attempting to study the organization will find this information helpful in efforts to cross reference the subject with both possible aliases. If we had a dedicated Xavier Von Erck article, this would no doubt go there. We don't as of this time, so it's appropriate here. Vagr4nt 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on, anyone who wants to do digging into X's life will come upon those reliable sources you mentioned very quickly. This article is not about Xavier. The only information that belongs in this article is information relevant to Perverted-Justice; Xavier's birth name has nothing to do with Perverted-Justice. Powers T 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's our job to summarize those reliable sources to create the article that reflects what's being talked about in the world. On the subject of Perverted Justice, information about its leader comes up frequently -- notably in articles in the Times, Salon, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, etc. All these media sources find the topic of Xavier's real/birth name to be pertinent to the topic on which they're reporting (Dateline/ Perverted Justice). We're simply reflecting this in our summary here on wiki. Vagr4nt 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but those articles may have a wider scope than our article does. Powers T 11:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Not in this case. If you examine those articles, you'll see that scope is Perverted Justice, precisely this article. If there were a separate wiki article on Eide, we could put this info there. But there isn't as of this time. Vagr4nt 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read the articles. The scope is Perverted Justice and its founder, who seems to be a controversial figure to some people. The Radar article in particular seemed intent on digging up as much dirt on Xavier as possible, especially since the worst it could find on PeeJ as an organization was that they accepted money from Dateline. Even in the Radar article, the aside about X changing his name seems to be a non sequitur; in this article, it makes even less sense. Powers T 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're either not reading the articles carefully, or you're seeing only what you want to see. Vagr4nt 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Eide? Who is he? Nobodyu of that name exist, ie nobody called Eide ahs anything to do with PJ and your insinuations that that is his name are getting tedious. Please desist and call him by his proper name here, SqueakBox 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Its absolutely correct that the majority of editors do not support the inclusion of this off topic bit of information and claiming that is so doesnt make it so, SqueakBox 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the inclusion of this informmation, and this is more relevant than ever as he cant comment on his inclusion in this article any more. When there are serious BLP issues we have to ask ourselves whether including his name would imporve the article. I cant see any way in which it would and it copuld be considered an attempt to out his identity, as I believe someone pointed out in an edit summary yesterday, SqueakBox 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been stated on this Talk page that he didn't care if it was included or not. Abe Froman 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well he has written to me (now he is banned and so cannot contribute directly) saying that his real name is Xavier. I notice we cannot confirm the ref because it is a pay site ref (which isnt a good ref) so given the poor ref and the fact that the subject of the article is saying it isnt true strikes me as enough though of course the best argument is that it does not in any way improve the article which is about PJ and not about Xavier anyway, SqueakBox 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether he wrote to you or not, that is immaterial because we rely on Reliable Sources that can be verified through our own search. The New York Times more than meets WP:RS [12]. I also find your edit summary [13] for removing the birth name, "rm ref that is to a pay site and which we cannot thus confirm but meanwhile the subject denies is true ie BLP concerns" to be misleading. The link to the article does not ask for payment, and the information is freely available. I think it is WP:OR to decide for ourselves whether Xavier has one name or two. A reliable source has reported he had another. And that is hardly the only source [14] [15] The story should end there. Abe Froman 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It is never OR to not mention something and this ref isnt worth anything, its not like newspapers dont get things wrong, this is just scurrilous gossip whose only purpose included here, from what I can see, is to attack the subject. Where was the name nchanged? When? How? Withjoput the most basic facts of the case this info is worhtless though it is worhtl;ess anyway as it has nothing to do with Perverted Justice, SqueakBox 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We dont just rely on RS as if that is a debate closer. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and also WP:N, this fact is completely unnotable re PJ, 100% unnotable, SqueakBox 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Several points here. 1) The New York Times is NOT a pay site. You simply need to log in to view the article there. This does not make the source a bad source. 2) Eide himself doesn't have any problem with its inclusion in the article. 3) It doesn't violate WP:BLP. 4) Its relevant to the article as it was relevant to the many articles this article is based upon. Vagr4nt 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now logged on and see my above comments re it being a poor source. Eide does have problems with this, who are you to say what he thinks? and its completely not notable, SqueakBox 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is hilarious. "It is untenable for you to be so presumptive of a third party's thought processes. Unless, of course, you're me, and are somehow magically able to see what you are not, that thing that I said no-one could comment on." Apropos of that, I think that the notion of the organizer of a site like this changing his name legally to that of his 'alter ego' he used to lure predators via that same site not being notable is, frankly, laughable. Achromatic (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I shall explain, simply. Previously, you are lambasting other users for being as presumptive as to know someone else's thoughts and motivations. You do so by stating that same someone else's thoughts and motivations. What is it that gives you such insight as to speak with authority on another person's thoughts and motivations, whilst simultaneously attacking others for doing the same? Achromatic (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the link to the NYT article so that no user registration is required. Vagr4nt 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding Squaek's WP:BLP "poorly sourced" argument hard to substantiate. Is the New York Times, Radar Magazine, MSNBC, and everyone else who reported the birth name wrong? Does he have a source for this allegation? This argument has also been farmed before. See its history in these discussion links [16] [17] [18] [19] Abe Froman 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting, after reading the article, that it is a por source for what is clearly contentious material (more than one editor disputes its inclusion) and the question of both mine and the Lt that you havent answered is why this info is notable enough for inclusion anyway as the article is about PJ and not about Xavier. Not everything that appears in the NYT is automatically a good source for us, SqueakBox 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
" The New York Times is NOT a poor source just because you say it is. The information is relevant because he is the founder of the organization the article is about. As yet, we don't have an article for Eide/Von Erck. Perhaps in time we will have one. Vagr4nt 23:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I think he will have to become more notable first, right now such an article would likely be afd'd immediately. And my opinion is as valuable as yours on this one so if you say this particular source is notable it doesnt actually make it so. Obviously I ma not saying NYT isnt ever a good source (anything but) merely in this case and based on the article itself. Newspapers need to sell papers and base their output on that whereas our duty is to write a good encyclopedia of all notable information, which this is most certainly not. I'd say the same for The Times, The Guardina etc, SqueakBox 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He is sufficiently notable (certainly by his own admission) as he's been on television repeatedly the last 2 years. He's the primary face and spokesperson for the organization referenced in just about every article produced by the mainstream press. An Xavier Von Erck stub article may be the solution. Vagr4nt 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to this issue as it would merely transfer it there and all the interested editors would go there too. Xavier isnt notable apart from PJ and PJ isnt so notable its Director of Operations needs to have a separate article, at least right now. He's not a tv personality rightn now so notability would be very hard to prove, SqueakBox 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that he is not notable is rasta-laughable on the face of it. 1) He is the founding member of a notorious national vigilante group 2) there are many anti- Eide sites that exist on the internet to fight what he does 3) there are profiles of him in national magazines 4) his group is the background of a nationally popular NBC segment of Dateline. Any one of these reasons would be Rasta enough. Muckrakerius 05:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Er Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia was clearly not a pedophile nor commented ont he matter so what are you bringing him here for. This is an encyclopedia not a place for polemics about divine beings. There is no-one called Eide involved with the anti-pedophile activism struggle either, I do know that, SqueakBox 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
well, he's not a pedophile and I never said he was. He also isn't Divine either but you can Rasta-believe what you wanna. And Eide is Xavier's birth name. No matter how many times you type that it isn't, it is. And well, it isn't really anti pedophilia activism. It's basically self- aggrandizing entrapment. But if you think you "know" things like you say, may Haile bless you and keep you Amen! Muckrakerius 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Since when did you get to be the arbiter of who is divine and who isnt? Another Essjay? lol. Stopping insulting other people's religious beliefs would, IMO, be a pre-requisite for both editing here and getting on in life generally so drop the Rasta bit and do it now. Okay? We are here to discuss PJ, not God, SqueakBox 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
But YOUR OPINION is wrong and banal. You can believe that Popeye the Sailor is divine it don't make it so. You can believe that Xavier's birth name is not Eide, but it is. You can believe like some did that the earth is the center of the universe. Expressing opinions and discussions is what this talk page is for. I'm Rastaserious. I've read your home page and your position and it seems to be designed in bad faith to convince editors to do something that is simply incorrect. Muckrakerius 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Powers and Squeak on this one. It was me who created the link to an article on Xavier but now I know a bit more about wikipedia and its policies I can see that was wrong. Pol64 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that using the name Philip John Eide is inappropriate for this article. Wiki policies aside, he uses the name Xavier Von Erck on PJ - so how is this other name even remotely relevant to Perverted-Justice? FrederickTG 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant for any number of reasons stated in this talk and previous discussions. Xavier Von Erck himself didn't object to its relevancy. But the bottom line is, it's relevant per the reliable secondary sources cited with its inclusion. Vagr4nt 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Stating that it's so doesn't make it so. There are plenty of people who disagree with you. Powers T 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the birth name it appears in multiple Reliable Sources, I doubt it can be attacked from any RS angle. Erck has acknowledged he used the birth name previously, so BLP privacy does not seem to be a concern. Other Wikipedia articles have noted the original names of founders. Why Xavier's birth name merits special treatment, I do not know. I do not think it is that important. Abe Froman 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is doubting the veracity of the info, ie this is not an RS issues ints anotability issue. You still havent given a reason why this information should be added to the article on PJ, and while I havent seen these other articles IMO they are more likely to be in the wrong. Merely because something is true isnt a reaswon to add it, and especially as this sint an article about Xavier but about PJ. Its just plain off topic and that is why we shouldnt include it, we dont include everything just because it is true, it has to be notable too and the consensus seems to be that this information is irreleavnt to the topic at hand, PJ, SqueakBox 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Squeak, are you aware that this article is about Von Erck AND PJ? If so, realize that there is a precedent that every article about a person best known under a stage name or a pseudonym must also have his or her birth name, if known. If you do not feel this info should be included in the article about PJ, then Von Erck should get a separate article. WhisperToMe 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
WhisperToMe is right: Xavier Von Erck redirects to this article. Considering the nature of the subject (which employs people pretending to be children) it is germane to note that the head of the group has changed his name to match his handle. His original name is less relevant but since it's well known it hardly seems worth hiding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It was me who set the redirect, so yes I am aware, and that was reverting an attempt at a separate article on the same grounds of lacking notability. If you want we can take the validity of that article to afd (nobody has challenged the redirect so far but I wont edit war over it just take it to afd), but otherwise its not about hiding his name its about the name having complete lack of notability in article about PJ, and that lack of notability re inserting his name here seems to have consensus right now, SqueakBox 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Squeak, you can't have it both ways. You don't want his birthname in this article, and you don't want an article about the guy himself. The Von Erkc/ Eide is notable. He's been featured on a prime time network tv show for 2 years. He's made numerous appearances on television news programs, national radio, the blogosphere, and has been featured in major print publications in connection to this topic. The topic of his birthname is notable to journalists covering the topic. Perhaps they include it because of the way ironically parallels the way he does business, or perhaps it stems from contemplating the flamboyant character of the chosen name (like something out of a comic book or professional wrestling). There is no violation of BLP, and the person in question, has NEVER objected to the inclusion. This matter was settled ages ago, after much discussion, and your repeated attemps to remove this content are downright disruptive to the project. This is becoming tiresome. Vagr4nt 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
X has never appeared on Dateline NBC, to my knowledge. Where are you getting your information? This matter was also never "settled", let alone "ages ago." Stop trying to revise history to fit your preferred version. Powers T 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to revise history. It's all here for everyone to see: [20] [21] [22] [23]. Shall I dig up more? I'm getting my information from all the sources at the bottom of this article (ABC News, the New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, WFAA television, Rolling Stone Magazine, Esquire, CNN, Fox News, etc etc etc) . Please feel free to actually read up on this topic prior to making disruptive edits to the article and attacking me. Vagr4nt 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Second that. These removals are disruptive. A collection of reliable sources support including this information. Users from this organization should look at other articles, not just this one. Birth names mentioned along with current names, anchored by a reliable source, are a norm on Wikipedia. Plenty of other pages on Wikipedia could be improved with the time wasted in circular arguments presented ad infinitum on this topic. Abe Froman 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If the removals are disruptive, the additions are as well. That reliable sources report the information in question in no way requires us to include it as well; examples are legion throughout the encyclopedia where reliable sources report information not included here. Birth names with current names are norm on articles about the person, not about their organizations; the examples you've found have unusual circumstances that make the information more relevant than here. Powers T 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Which one of those myriad sources states that Xavier has appeared on Dateline? Which episode was he on? What date? Powers T 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A nice circular argument we have going on here. Please, take this to RfC if that will speed an end to this waste of time. It seems if this organization cannnot rule its article, it will disrupt it instead. Abe Froman 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said those sources said he was on Dateline. I made the point that he is notable. You asked me what my sources were. I indulged you. I don't really see how anyone can say he's not notable. Vagr4nt 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the sources are not necessarily "Dateline" - The mass of media coverage = it is okay to show the name. We don't need an RFC. We need to stamp our feet, and declare the issue closed. In other words, "It is okay to show Von Erck's real name! ADMIT IT!" (See [24] about the "Admit it" part) WhisperToMe 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course he's notable. That fact by itself doesn't mean his birth name is in any way relevant to Perverted-Justice. I really, honestly, don't understand why this information seems so vital to some editors. Powers T 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked where you got the information that he's been "featured on a prime time network tv show for 2 years". I assumed you meant Dateline NBC, but maybe you had something else in mind. Powers T 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

People are still putting the name back in when there is clearly no consensus nor does it improve the article. Do people have a grudge against Xavier? because if not I am totally baffled, SqueakBox 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing resembling a clear consensus, and even if there was, consensus never trumps policy. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy that states we have to include this information, there is nothing even remotely resembling such a policy. This indformation fails notability, BLP (as the subject doesnt want it included) and the pillar of doing no harm (for the same reason) but specifically it fails the notability policy so I find your comment very confusing, SqueakBox 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly does not fail the notability policy: being referenced by the NY Times, MSNBC, and Rolling Stone establishes the notability of the information. As for whether policy states we have to include the information, policy states we should not simply remove the information. We are in the business of building information. Any information that is neutral, sourced, and verifiable should be included. What the subject wants is largely irrelevant, and the few cases that it is relevant is for the WMF OTRS team to decide. I should further note that making edits on the behalf of a banned editor is something we block people for (I don't mean this as a threat, I mean this to say don't make edits because Xavier wants them. He does not dictate the rules around here. Policy does.) The name has a benefit to the encyclopedia: it establishes the correct name of the ED of the PJ organization. The page is as much about von Erck as it is about PJ, since the articles were merged together. The information was more than notable enough for the NY Times, Rolling Stone, and MSNBC to include. That means it is notable enough for us to include, so long as it satisfies BLP. It does satisfy BLP because the information is neutral, not negative in tone, and does not provide any undue weight. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the inclusion in NYT et al merely establishes the notability of the information in certain circumstances (eg an article on Xavier), it does not estabklish notability in this particular article. Things have to be more than merely in an RS to wearrant inclusion here, they have to be relevant to the article itself and this is a classic off-topic statement and that is why it fails notability. That somebody wrote a stub for 2 mins does not make for the Xavier article ahving been "merged" inott his article, if you really think that then the other article should be restored and afd'd (or just afd the redirect) because I dont buy this is an article about Xavier. We dont need to establisdh Xavier's identity more than we have done, ie we have given his legal name. I also disagree that the information is neutral in tone, certainly the subject of the bio does not think so, and nor do I or others.
I would point out that my stating what Xavier thinks does not mean I am acting as his meat-puppet when I edit let me confirm that Xavier has not asked me to remove this information, he has told me he doesnt like it because it isnt his name. Is it that you are arguing that because Xavier does not want it and he is blocked we must not allow it to be removed? (but I am confused by yopur statement re this issue as if it is policy it is one I have never read it. I have seen admins rightly break it, eg Guy and the latest Don Murphy afd, nobody was threatening to block him for that (but I do hear you arent threatening to block me either), SqueakBox 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for JzG. He doesn't always make the right decisions. And I'm not saying you're acting as his meat puppet. And I'm further not saying you're going to be blocked, not at all. I'm saying that his intentions are largely irrelevant here, and your edits need to have some sort of basis behind them other than that Xavier wants them. And I feel that there is not a good enough reason to remove it, and plenty of good reason to keep it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Media section

The Media section claims WTMJ-TV was the first to do a media bust. This is not true.

The WTMJ channel 4 media bust was in April of 2005. Dateline did the very first media bust in 2004, but it was not called “To Catch a Predator” at that time. After the very first Dateline there was several media bust from various independent and local affiliate broadcasters. Dateline then picked it up again and started the series after contracts where signed. This section needs to be totally rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.176.24 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? Abe Froman 02:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the original poster of this is confused. I believe PJ did two media busts with WTMJ - the one in 2005 was the 2nd one. FrederickTG 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Esquire article

Someone please mediate the current edit war (not really a war, more of a mild disagreement) between me and Squeakbox on the Esquire article as I've summarized it in the criticism subsection. Squeakbox claims it is not nPOV...but which part? The part that claims that Esquire made those criticisms? I think anyone who reads the article will find that Esquire did make those claims and those claims could be classified as criticism of PJ. Fargobottom 08:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well FWIW, it is an edit war, lol. I think both of you should take this to the talkpage rather than trying to work it out through warring edit summaries. For everyone's information, HERE is Fargobottom's addition. I am not going to read it right now, but hopefully others will have input. I definitely think the issue needs to be covered; it's one of PeeJ's most notorious 'bust's (in fact, I am surprised it wasn't here before), but I don't know if the way you wrote it is ideal. Let's discuss it here, anyway, so as to avoid 3RR for anyone. Anchoress 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My belief is that the article is important and I tried to get to the specific allegations of the article, which is that PJ allegedly called some of the shots during a law enforcement action. More detail is given in the main Louis Conradt article. Fargobottom 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
of course it is important. Squeakbox is friends with Von Erck/Eide and is not a neutral party. He should recuse and Rasta party on that Island of his.Muckrakerius 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Esquire piece (re: the Conradt debt) may have some pertinent content, but we need to keep things concise, in perspective, and in context. I'm going to take it down for now, and lets hammer out some consesus. Sound good? Vagr4nt 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text that was currently proposed:

Some critics argue that Perverted-Justice members play too much of a lead role in a law enforcement operation, as Esquire writer Luke Dittrich did in a September 2007 article in Esquire magazine [1], in which he alleges that Perverted-Justice and Dateline producers pressured police into raiding the home of Louis Conradt, even though Conradt had refused to take the bait and had stopped answering phone calls and online messages. Conradt killed himself during the raid. Esquire writer Luke Dittrich claims in his article that the wall between Perverted-Justice and law enforcement was broken in this incident. Chris Hansen claimed that no member of Perverted-Justice was at the scene of the Conradt raid until Dittrich provided evidence. Dittrich claims in his article that this Perverted-Justice member actually directed police to call Conradt in his home. His source for this (he includes a direct quote) is unclear; it may have come in the raw footage Esquire obtained of the incident.

My first concern is that it's a little too long, and not entirely specific to PJ. I think it's definitely relevant to the article. How can we improve this passage? Vagr4nt 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Some critics argue that Perverted-Justice members play too much of a lead role in a law enforcement operation, as Esquire writer Luke Dittrich did in a September 2007 article in Esquire magazine [1], in which he alleges that Perverted-Justice and Dateline producers pressured police into raiding the home of Louis Conradt, who ended up committing suicide during the raid. Dittrich also claims that a Perverted-Justice member was at the scene and gave police directions, such as calling Conradt's home number to coax him out.

Fargobottom 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, replace "claims" with "asserts" or "states" - "claims" seems to have a "what this guy is saying is dubious" stigma attached to it. WhisperToMe 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Claims" is as fine as "alleges," I think. My problem is with "Some critics;" we have one critic here. Powers T 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is better, but we want to be pinpoint accurate. Something that attributes the criticism properly to the specific critic. Perhaps:
In the September 2007 Esquire, writer Luke Dittrich argues that Perverted-Justice members play too much of a lead role in law enforcement operations. He writes that Perverted-Justice and Dateline producers pressured police into raiding the home of Louis Conradt, who ended up committing suicide during the raid. Dittrich also claims that a Perverted-Justice member was at the scene and gave police directions, such as calling Conradt's home number to coax him out. [1]
How does this work for you guys? Vagr4nt 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is definitely more than one critic who believes that PJ does too much law enforcement work. In this case alone, this was the protest of former Murphy police and the Collins DA office, which ended up not prosecuting the cases, this reason being one of several.Fargobottom 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't read the article, so I don't know who the criticism should be attributed to, but go with whatever the article suggests. Just summarize the article accurately, keep the summary concise, and properly reference it and I think it's fair play. Vagr4nt 05:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PJ redirecting links from Wikipedia

Apparently someone else has already noticed this, but PJ is redirecting any link from here to a nice little rant about how the evil pedophiles have overrun Wikipedia and it's all our fault for not banning anyone who might even possibly be a pedophile just because they think things people don't like. Besides the fact that it's paranoid bullshit, they are redirecting not just links to the front page but to any page. While that in itself is pretty damn annoying, they're also providing no way to get to the originally linked page, thus making any link to their site utterly worthless. I've no clue as to what should be done about this, so I figured I'd post it here to get some opinions on it. Stically 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it means that anything in the PeeJ article that is currently verfied via a link to PeeJ will have to be removed as unsupported. This should probably go to AN/I or OFFICE. Anchoress 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'll clean out the offending links until someone can find a new source. Thanks for the heads up. Vagr4nt 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like User:Sarah has already taken care of this. Vagr4nt 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've removed all out outgoing links (I think). I also noticed that the page they are redirecting our traffic to has a link to a wiki page which contains a list of Wikipedia users who they allege are pedophiles. I'm going to report this on AN/I shortly and hopefully some more admins will start watching the page. Thanks to the person who first reported this and thanks Vagr4nt for letting me know about the one I missed. Sarah 06:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason to remove them. Just break them so people can still copy and paste into browser adress bar.Geni 11:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. This isnt the first site to do this and all we have to do is give nowiki links, SqueakBox 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't object to doing that at all. I just wanted the links removed while I got other administrators involved. Thanks everyone for commenting, Sarah 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not experiencing this redirect. Powers T 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is because the link was deactivated. Try accessing it from this edit [25] - Anyway, I will recommend for Von Erck to read the series Death Note and to study the actions and consequences of Light Yagami, the titular character. Light starts a campaign, in the series, to kill criminals in the world. Light's downfall comes from his desire to challenge opponents in the police forces and people who are willing to expose the identity of "Kira" (the pseudonym for the person killing criminals - the world does not know that "Kira" is Light). Von Erck's desire to challenge his opponents may prove to be his downfall. WhisperToMe 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I did access it from that link; it comes up fine. Someone on the AN/I thread mentioned that my browser is probably set to not transmit the referrer. Powers T 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As I recall, an article should be developed from reliable source information that is independent of the topic. The two links to the Perverted-Justice website in the infobox and the external links section are fine. The rest probably should go (along with the information "sourced" to that website.) This recent development may have relevancy in the article or to those admins watching the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's almost unbelievable how many facts that piece gets incorrect. And yes, articles should be developed from independent sources, but primary sources can be used for certain purposes: see WP:SELFPUB. Powers T 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't "clean" or remove the links

Use Template:Derefer ... by linking to a URL which redirects to the target URL with the use of meta-HTML tags, it strips the HTTP request of any URL referrer-info. I added it to the bottom of this article, and it works fine. --Iamunknown 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Salaciousness does not equal criticism

This part of the criticism section does not belong, in my opinion:

Von Erck once acted against an individual who was making graphic violent threats against Perverted-Justice contributors and volunteers after a lack of response from law enforcement. The individual, describing himself as a former PJ member, had made the threats after he asserted that the group used a photograph of his son in a PJ decoy profile (PJ denies the statement). 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.[2] [3]

I see absolutely no criticism of Perverted Justice within that text. That's what this article is about, right? Perverted Justice? Now, I would have absolutely no objections to have this anecdote rewritten to make it a criticism of Perverted Justice, but I highly object to having this included as-is. FrederickTG 07:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware that "PJ" stands for "Perverted Justice". This incident is clearly related to the subject of this article. The articles in Radar and Rolling Stone, which are the sources for this material, clearly contain criticism. The inclusion of this incident was previously discussed here: Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 5#Article is about Perverted-Justice.com. It is no more salacious than other material in the article. Considering the nature of the work the subject engages in, "salaciousness" is not a reasonable cause for deleting material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well you're obviously not understanding my point - of course it's related, but how is it a criticism? How does an anecdote about what Xavier and his associates did to someone act as a criticism of the organization? There is no NPOV analysis/criticism in the text as it stands now. That doesn't mean I don't think this story can't be used to criticize PJ but it needs to be an actual criticism (or moved out of the criticism section). This piece doesn't read like the rest of the criticisms - the rest start out "Some say..." "Critics claim..." - this doesn't do that, it just tells a story.FrederickTG 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and in regards to this:
The critics of the site include the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), among others. Tina Schwartz, NCMEC director of communication, has said: "It's really not the safest, most effective way to combat this problem ... From what I've seen ... they embarrass the people, but I don't know that complete justice is ever served".[39]
I thought I was pretty clear why I felt it needed to be removed, but since you obviously aren't assuming I am acting in good faith I'll spell it out again: The criticism that what PJ does is just "embarrass people" is outdated - expired - no longer relevant to what the organization currently does. If the text does say, it really should have indication that the criticism is old/outdated/no longer applies to what PJ does, in the interest of full disclosure. Plus, this quote here:
"What it does is embarrass them for the moment... but then they'll go and get a different screen name and know to check things out a little more thoroughly next time."
By Julie Posey basically says the same thing. Does it really need to be said twice? All I'm trying to do is make sure that this article is balanced while trimming away some of the unneccessary content - I feel this article on a whole has become unwieldly. FrederickTG 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's reasonable to included both takes. One corroborates the other. Vagr4nt 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Frederick is right; there's no actual criticism in that paragraph. It leaves the reader wondering why that paragraph is included in that section. Perhaps worse, it implies by its mere presence that the actions Xavier took were deserving of criticism without sourcing that opinion. Powers T 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We can create a new heading for this and similar material, "Controverisal incidents" for exmaple. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you did. The paragraph as it stands doesn't explain what was controversial, either. Powers T 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty self-evident to me. Vagr4nt 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that's a large part of the whole problem we're having with this article, isn't it? Anyway, we can't just stick something in a section titled "Controversial incidents" without providing some reference for the claim that the incident is controversial. Powers T 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it was covered in the press is itself an indication of its controversy. However, if there's a better description for it we can change its heading. "Response to opponents"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the fact that it was covered in the press is indicative of its notability, not of its controversy. "Response to opponents" would be even worse, since that would imply that Perverted-Justice, as an organization, performs such operations against its detractors, rather than it being an apparently isolated incident by its founder working independently. Powers T 02:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so how about "Notable incidents"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
IF we're going with a "Notable incidents" heading, than the recovery of the girl from Washington fits better under that heading than under the "Convictions" heading. I have moved it already; if anyone objects to that I'm open to discussion on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederickTG (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it fits very well under that section. I was actually going to propose the same. Vagr4nt 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ICAC being called "law enforcement"

This section here is entirely misleading:

Some law-enforcement agencies have also stated that, while they appreciate the site's mission, they do not agree with some of the operators' and volunteers' practices. In a December 2004 article in the New York Sun, Bradley Russ, the training director for the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, which employs about 200 federal agents nationwide, said the tactics of Perverted-Justice sometimes run counter to the task force's standards. For instance, Russ said, by accepting child pornography from their "busts" to bolster a potential legal case, the volunteers are themselves in possession of unlawful images. He said federal authorities have begun considering whether to seize Perverted-Justice contributors' computers. "It's a noble effort gone too far," Russ told the newspaper. He also said the site's tactics can make it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute cases they present because those cases can be considered tainted by entrapment claims.[44] According to Russ, "I have a real problem with any citizens' group conducting any investigation into any crime... It's a mistake for law enforcement to abdicate its responsibility to citizens." [45] Said Russ, "I think it's a huge mistake when law enforcement partners with citizens to do investigations. ... I'm very concerned about entrapment issues." [46]

ICAC itself is run by civilians. They are NOT law enforcement. They receive government grants to train law enforcement, but they themselves are not law enforcement, nor do they "employ" agents. This section leads the reader to believe that ICAC itself is law enforcement. I will attempt to re-write the section, unless someone else thinks they can do it. FrederickTG 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I came up with:
Some agencies have also stated that, while they appreciate the site's mission, they do not agree with some of the operators' and volunteers' practices. In a December 2004 article in the New York Sun, Bradley Russ, the training director for the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, which has trained approximately 200 law enforcement officers nationwide, said the tactics of Perverted-Justice sometimes run counter to the task force's standards. For instance, Russ said, by accepting child pornography from their "busts" to bolster a potential legal case, the volunteers are themselves in possession of unlawful images. He said federal authorities have begun considering whether to seize Perverted-Justice contributors' computers. "It's a noble effort gone too far," Russ told the newspaper. He also said the site's tactics can make it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute cases they present because those cases can be considered tainted by entrapment claims.[44] According to Russ, "I have a real problem with any citizens' group conducting any investigation into any crime... It's a mistake for law enforcement to abdicate its responsibility to citizens." [45] Said Russ, "I think it's a huge mistake when law enforcement partners with citizens to do investigations. ... I'm very concerned about entrapment issues." [46]FrederickTG 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Instead of "law enforcement agencies" how about "law enforcement experts". Also, if it's "trained" more so than "employs" then I guess we can change that too. Other than that, looks fine to me. Vagr4nt 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see how they can be labeled as "experts" to me in an encyclopedia-type entry, it seems fairly subjective to me. FrederickTG 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice#Other efforts

This section within the article profiles their accusations against major corporations of being 'sex offenders'. While I can't find any evidence that they've reacted, could they? It does seem to be a bit libellous to call someone a sex offender like that. While they might get away with it without proof against a lot of people, these guys who have lawyers and stuff seem pretty capable of defending themselves. Also another aspect of their 'CorporateSexOffenders' site is a 'wikisposure' in the style of wikipedia in which they engage in the same harassment campaigns they did against people they called before, only this time they don't go after people who chat up their agents, but rather, people who they accuse of being pedophiles due to engaging in free speech on the internet. It is not an openly-edited wiki, and no effort is made to verify facts, or to update them in response to requests or new information. It is something that condemns those who have controversial viewpoints and who are careless with their personal information. It serves to destroy the people who would generally be the least threatening. It will serve as an example to motivate true predators to not share a thing and become more self-involved and thus threatening to others, and to draw attention away from them towards confused individuals who may even mistakenly identify themselves as a pedophile without knowing the implications associated with the word. This is not seen as an adequate defense in their eyes. They presume the worst in all cases, that what could be an honest mistake is better assumed to be an evasion tactic. Tyciol 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Only men?

This article appears to be implying that only men molest children (or, at the very least, that this organisation only targets men who molest children). Throughout the article, these pedophiles are referred to not only by male pronouns but directly as "these men" (etc). This needs to be either substantiated or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.16.127 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, PJ has only caught men. Therefore, calling them "men" in the context of this article is entirely appropriate. FrederickTG 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Because Xavier himself has said they've never found women trolling chat rooms, and that's basically all they do. It has nothing to do with saying only men molest kids. The org does seem to focus a lot on them, though, and Xavier's known hatred of his own father could probably help send a psychiatrist's kids to college... --Torbaby 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious about this too. The article begins by stating "for adult men to approach them," and continues on in this fashion. Unless the mission statement is truly only to catch men, this needs to be rectified. --HarmonicFeather 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Link

Articleissues|POV=August 2007|refimprove = September 2007

The radar link is bad. It does not exists. If it was ever there it is no more. It may be possible the article was removed because it was a lie, or by court or who knows. Anyways this article is based on phony links. Somebody needs to repair it. [unsigned]

Fixed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to agree with the first guy. IT IS A BAD LINK!, And now it is a page on another site that looks like it is radar online. Since when is Website spoofing allowed on wikipedia as a referance? I must admit I HATE THE SITE. But there is no reason to fabricate evidence. If Radar has removed it there must be something wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.191.221 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP user raises an interesting point - although I will admit I know nothing about Wiki's policy on using archived pages. Perhaps an investigation as to why the piece was removed from Radar would be in order? If the piece contained inaccurate and/or libelous material that warranted its removal, it should not be used. FrederickTG 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Many news sources routinely archive or simply remove old articles. We can't assume that because it is no longer presnet that the organization has withdrawn it for any particular reasons. Certainly, if they have disavowed its contents thenit is no longer usable as a reliable source. As for linking to webarchive when a link goes dead, that is the recommended procedure in Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok Mr. Will Beback please explain the dead link at the archive site... I believe it needs to be removed from the article. Can it be? Can it be true what Xavier is saying about the editors here? Are you people BLIND? It is blatantly obvious the Radar article has been removed. And the archive site discovered a defamation/copy righted article on their system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.191.221 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Will, the wayback link is not working either. It would appear that Radar has blocked it. The Radar piece was the source for the quotation in this particular criticism, too - that quotation will have to be removed, since there is no longer a direct source for it. If it stays, it should be re-written using the Rolling Stone commentary on the incident.
My concern here isn't the fact that PJ is being portrayed in a negative light; rather, it's the fact that the main source for the information has removed all trace of the info. The accusations made against living people are extremely serious, and having those serious accusations mainly sourced by a story that no longer exists does not sit well with me. Again, why was the story removed? Maybe it's regular housekeeping, like you said, or maybe not. I would think that most Wikipedia editors would prefer to err on the side of caution. FrederickTG 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like FrederickTG has been baned for stating the truth. I am convinced this article taken over by pedophiles. When will I find MY IP blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.191.221 (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

An archive of the article can be found at http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice26.html. Vagr4nt 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If using the www.rickross.com link (http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice26.html) for the radar story that no longer exists is okay to use, then the two references in the article to the old radar story need to be changed out. I don't know how one would properly reference a non-original source like that. FrederickTG 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out: What to do when a reference link "goes dead". It's pretty clear that the link should not be removed just because the original is dead, and that our substitute link will suffice. Vagr4nt 08:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well, the policy may be clear, but my concern was using the rickross site as an original source. I may be wrong, but it seems like it's someone's blog, and that would make it an unusable source. FrederickTG 18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that the source isn't Rick Ross, it's Radar. It's simply a copy of the Radar article the Rick Ross site. Vagr4nt 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Furthermore, the Rick Ross site does not appear to be a blog.
Yes, but the important question is whether his copy can be relied on as accurate. Rick Ross has a Wikipedia article, and it seems he's a fairly well-known consultant on cults and controversial organizations. He is himself controversial, though most of it comes (not surprisingly) from cult-like religious organizations. I would say his copy is probably accurate and can probably be counted on to remain so, but we may want to annotate the link in the article to indicate it's a copy. Powers T 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The webarchive link is working again. Vagr4nt 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Bad Link

The "Official Website" link appears to be advertising click-fodder for ultimod.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.253.167 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an explanation, but I think this was done because if you go direct from Wikipedia to their site, they pop up a special page saying that Wikipedia is a host for pedophiles, and we didn't want to have that show up. You can see what I mean if you click on this link which goes straight to their site, versus the URL listed in the article now. Georgewilliamherbert 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That appears to be the case. Did not know about their referral trap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.253.167 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Riverside confusion

Okay, there seems to be some confusion about what has happened in Riverside county. There has only been ONE deadlocked jury (in the Havey case, 10-2). That other example that Vagrant gave of a 6-6 deadlock doesn't even mention PJ in the story, AND it is from 1999, which is before PJ even existed. Also, the judge did not "throw out" the case, he just commented on the case's merits. The jury deadlocked. There potentially could have been a retrial, but I guess for whatever reason they decided not to persue it. The way I have edited the section now is accurate. Please read each cited article carefully.FrederickTG 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Who here thought that the name perverted justice was a pun out of the onion at first glance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.215.146 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Income and Salaries

In light of recent articles discussing the financial details and motives relating to PeeJ's dealings with NBC (per IRS filings), I find it pertinent to include these figures as well as the salaries paid to the organization's three chief officers (Von Erck, Kerr, and Shea). The amounts involved are not only notable, but rather significant. Vagr4nt 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the source - something like Guidestar? If other articles have already discussed financial details then a primary source would be permissible in this instance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CorporateSexOffenders

We need to have some text on CorporateSexOffenders.com. If you go to the site and look on the left hand side, they work with people like AbsoluteZeroUnited.org and other vigilantes. Yes, this is what they are. They have attacked many people who are sex offenders but not who these people say they are, just for speaking out on Sex Offender Issues and laws, and they say you are pro-pedophile or pro-sex offender, which is all lies. Other people they work with, go around, shutting down blogs, web sites, and harassing people online, send threatening emails, etc. Just go to their Wikisposure.com web site and read some things they say about SOSEN, SOclear, Roar4Freedom, etc. Most of it is lies. Please investigate these people. You can also go to Corrupted-justice.com which has ex-PJ members, and they will show you what PJ, CorporateSexOffenders and these other people are really like. Don't take my word for it, please do investigate them.... User:68.242.82.213 08:00, 22 November 2007

Any sourced reliable information about corruption, motivations, and behavior of CorporateSexOffenders is welcome in the article. However, material cannot be added if it's based on hearsay or is not sourced to an appropriate notable outside party. Wikipedia doesn't claim that CSO is a reliable source of information or a reasonable entity at that (after all, it even lists Wikipedia as a corporate sex offender), but WP does point out that this group is notable in the anti-pedophile movement. As such, CSO deserves some space within the project, as does Corrupted-Justice, which stands in opposition to its activities. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Corrupted-Justice stands in opposition to CSO. It was formed far before CSO was. It stands in opposition to P-J primarily, and if they are opposed to CSO it would likely be for the reason that it is an extension of P-J operated by them. I personally do find going after non-criminals to be more alarming than going after criminals. Tyciol (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)