Talk:Perverted-Justice

• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 1: December 2004 – January 31 2005
• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 2: February 2005 – April 03, 2005
• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 3: May 2005
• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 4: May 2005 – November 2006

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.

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)