From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Birth names

I hate to open this can of worms again, but I still don't see how Xavier's birth name is relevant. The argument used above boiled down to "Radar reported it, so we have to include it in the article". However, it has never been the case that a detail reported in a source is something that must be reproduced in a Wikipedia article. Articles on Perverted Justice have mentioned Xavier's age, but we don't mention that in this article; why is his birth name any different?

The other issue is Del Harvey's name. Radar reports it as a pseudonym, but, quite frankly, the article this is sourced to is a blatantly biased piece of trash. Cook isn't even trying to be neutral here, and he gives no source for his claim of Del's "real" name. Every other media report -- Dateline, the View, local TV -- identify her as Del Harvey, and unless there's some sort of public record (like, perhaps, the PJFI non-profit application) that says otherwise, I see no reason we should repeat Cook's assertion. I daresay this enters into WP:BLP territory, as there may be issues of privacy and security involved here. Thoughts? -- Powers T 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, something like this would only be relevant on a biographical article, which has not been created. Real names, when included, should always be referenced. This said, if people are using aliases on television and commanding an organization, were the media to publicize a real name and this were to cause a debacle I would imagine it would become relevant information at that point. Tyciol (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Radar is a dubious source at best. As SwatJester pointed out above, "It also looks like that means the website is patently incorrect, since they said it was a default judgment." In my opinion, that calls into suspect any other claims made by Radar and Cook on matters involving Perverted Justice. FrederickTG (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, but what is the connection between and Radar? Powers T 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe you had said that the chatmag source cited Radar for it's information. If that's not the case, I apologize.FrederickTG (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I recall, but I don't see chatmag listed as a source for this article anyway; Radar is, twice. Powers T 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My mistake; I must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere. FrederickTG (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should remove the birth name. This isnt even an artice about xavier (who isnt notable enough for an article) and it violates our do no harm pillar. I would say go for removing it. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, due to lack of objection. Powers T 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree it should be removed for lack of verifiability/relevancy, I don't see how 'do not harm' would be an applicable objection. Real names of all sorts of people on Wikipedia are listed without harming them, so how would this harm him? Tyciol (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many, many sorts of people who aren't the sworn, and highly effective, enemies of the most heinous criminals in the world. Von Erck's birth name would be a great thing to put in the article if we were 'The Internet Tabloid/Pedo Stalk-fest Anyone Can Edit'- but, you know, this is an Encyclopedia. John Nevard (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Need I remind you of WP:SOAP? Or is this just uncivil? I don't really know, but I'd love to know why you consider pedophiles "the most heinous criminals in the world". But that's neither here nor there. I'm just saying that this is not your soapbox, and your personal opinion is not a valid reason for a decision. Your vote, yes. Not a decision. I too vote against including von Erck's birth name, but merely because of non-notability. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Cougar regarding Nevard's ridiculous assertions that thought=action as well as this not being his (or PJ's or WS's) personal soapbox. I do believe that a single mention of his name is appropriate, in the interest of informativeness, but that on all subsequent references only his preferred "internet name" be used. Something like this: "Xavier Von Eick (born Phil Eide)..." or whatever, and all future references only use the Xavier name. (Going back and forth is rather soapbox-y too.) VigilancePrime 17:25 (UTC) 11 Mar '08
I have always failed to see how adding this birth name (which, by all accounts, he no longer uses) is relevant to the article about Perverted Justice. I would totally agree to the relevancy of its inclusion if this article were on Xavier Von Erck, but it's not; it has been decided that he's not notable enough to warrant his own article. You say that it is his "internet name" but I have seen sources where it is reported that it is now his legal name (New York Times: It's not a "preferred internet name", it's the guy's real name. Including it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity and distracts from the topic that the article is supposed to be about. FrederickTG (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"it violates our do no harm pillar." I fail to see how having his real name as part of the article about his life's work is harmful to him. I'm sure he wouldn't see it that way. Vagr4nt (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"the article this is sourced to is a blatantly biased piece of trash. Cook" John Cook is an award winning journalist with credentials from arguably the most prestigious journalism schools in the country. Alison Shea earns $120,000 a year for her work at the PJ site. She is one of 3 principals who run this controversial site. Inclusion of her real name is both adequately sourced and relevant in it's inclusion. Vagr4nt (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but you also like to mischarecterise those who disagree with you as vandals, which is distinctly unhelpful, as well as being uncivil. And there is simply no need to clutter up his name with refs. Your attempt to read his mind is just that, you don't know what he thinks. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to remove these highly reliable sources from the article. Particularly in light of the fact that this piece of information is so frequently the target of those who would push the POV that its inclusion is irrelevant. It is VERY relevant, as exhibited by this handful of widely respected news media sources. There is absolutely nothing in wiki policy to suggest that multiple sources not be included -- in fact multiple sources is ENCOURAGED. Having a few refs after his name does not detract from the article in the slightest. Anyone attempting to remove these references is in all likelihood attempting to push a certain POV and this strikes me as nothing more than trollish vandalism. Vagr4nt (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


If it's his legal name now, (and sourced), I can see that. It brings up an interesting point...Why doesn't Xavier have a page? I mean, we have people far less notable than this guy with pages. Granted, it'd be hotly contested, probably live under semi-protection, and have some great "discussions", but the Big X probably should have a page. After all, he created PJ and WS, and has been featured on or been a part of more shows than Jack McClellan. Why would McClellan have a page and not Eide? Is that a form of bias I wonder? Thoughts? VigilancePrime 03:31 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

My view of Xavier's notability notwithstanding, you do have a point. I suppose perhaps it has to do with WP:BLP more than anything. That, and Xavier (or someone claiming to be him) has had a history of, shall we say...less than open-minded edits to the pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism pages, that bordered on vandalism. Clearly, also, even though he appears to have left Wikipedia (with the PJFI policy on WP supporting that), there are supporters of PJ here, and I'd really rather not open up that can of worms. So yes, if we could find a way to be accurate, fair, and impartial with an article on him, sure, I'd love to have it. But do you think we can be all of those? Cougar Draven (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We've managed to do so with McClellan. Is Xavier any worse (from the neutrality-ability standpoint)? VigilancePrime 20:58 (UTC) 12 Mar '08
I just don't find him notable enough to warrant his own article. I know you use Jack McClellan as an example, but his noteriety is based off of his personal actions, whereas Xavier's "claim to fame" is the creation of PJ and events rising out of that creation - events that are covered thoroughly in this (Perverted-Justice) article already. Building on what Cougar Draven said, there are people that edit here that have a boiling hatred of Xavier. At best it would end up filled with redundant information, at worst it would be a huge and unnecessary BLP headache for the administration. FrederickTG (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think not having an article because it would be a BLP concern is a legitimate reason, any more than an AfD would accept the argument that "this article is the subject of too many edit wars" or "it's always difficult maintaining BLP neutrality". The prior argument I can understand and agree with, that X's big claim to fame (or infame) is in PJ and WS, which is already covered in other articles. I think it's a borderline issue... there's enough notability to justify an article, but not enough to mandate it, so to speak. Maybe that's the best analysis. VigilancePrime 04:22 (UTC) 13 Mar '08
Actually, commenting on Frederick, Jack McClellan isn't really notable for his actions, but for the actions taken to attempt to criminalize his actions. At least, IMHO. And regardless of whether an article about Xavier could be justified, I agree with Frederick that it would be far too much of a BLP headache to even bother. Cougar Draven (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kruska suit

  • On January 10, 2008, a multi-count civil lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by Jan Kruska, an activist who seeks change in curret sex offender laws. Kruska is suing the group and other related websites, claiming defamation, cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment after she was made an entrant on the Wikisposure site[30]. I had thought that corrupted justice was not a valid source to utilize. Surely there can be a better source found. Also, I would say it belongs in the criticisms section, like all the other lawsuits. FrederickTG (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The only reference to Kruska filing any suits is some 'wah wah, internet vigilantism' story about a website registered in her name by another group -- which manages to quote a lot of complaints by her but somehow fails to do the same for her (briefly mentioned) attempts to minimize the crimes of pedophiles by blaming the parents of abduction victims.[1] Primary sources, especially where supposedly transcribed on dubious websites like 'corrupted justice', are particularly inappropriate. John Nevard (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And Perverted-Justice, along with its Wikisposure, is somehow not a "dubious website"? ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No. They're honest. They have a serious mission which doesn't involve support for sex offenders. And unlike Corrupted-Justice, they don't modify court documents that they claim to be transcripts. John Nevard (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I trust that you can provide proof of this? Cougar Draven (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's a court document, a public court document, shouldn't we be able to find it somewhere on a public site? No, PJ/WS is absolutely not a reliable source and has a gargantuam COI. CJ also has COI and is, to a lesser extent, not a reliable source. They can both be used to document themselves (e.g. so-and-so's mission statement is "blah blah" <ref>[so-and-so]</ref>), but not for actual factual information. (And making that blanket decision will surely help prevent future edit wars...) VigilancePrime 17:29 (UTC) 11 Mar '08
Again, I don't have any idea what you're trying to do. I already replaced the reference to a primary source on the wanna-be site with a reference to a primary source on a public website. Neither establish any relevance to the article for Kruska's joke suit, as I'm sure we'll see argued 'if' she loses- and comparing them will show that your 'to a lesser extent, not a reliable source' altered public court documents. John Nevard (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
So in other words, you are agreeing with me agreeing with you and others that CJ and PJ are less than reliable sources? Glad you resourced the document... you oughtta mentioned it here too with something like "fixed it, moot point now" as well, like most good editors do. Anyway, as you and I both said, we are agreeing. Amazing, huh? Never thought you'd be agreeing with me, did you? VigilancePrime 03:31 (UTC) 12 Mar '08
Vigilance, might I remind you that you still have to be civil? It's definitely a good thing that John's comment can be interpreted as supporting the idea that both PJ and CJ are unreliable when it comes to this topic, and it definitely gets an answer I can support. However, you don't need to, him about it. His affiliation is clear, at least to me; let it be that way. Additionally, it appears that the debate of whether CJ is a reliable source is completely moot at this point. Cougar Draven (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes made by Roman

I have a few issues with some of the changes roman recently made.

  • Why remove the descriptions of the foundation's other activities from the intro? The point of the intro is to have a brief introduction/overview of the article's subject,and then those items are gone into more in-depth in the article. The removed material is entirely appropriate where it was, in my opinion.
  • Attributing ownership of resourceforarecourse and howtodealwithcreepypeople sites to Del Harvey. Sure, perhaps Del is involved in the projects, but what is the source that says she owns and operates those sites? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are under the umbrella of the Perverted Justice Foundation. In no way can we conclude that Del Harvey is the owner/operator of those sites; in fact, to say so is just silly. FrederickTG (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I assumed someone looked up the WHOIS records on the domains, but you're right; we need a source for those. Powers T 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Roman decided to take everything that PJ expanded into out of the intro. It was included because it was decided that this article was now going to incorporate every aspect of what PJ now does. It's not meant to be an "advertisement", it's an a description of the different activities/projects. The article has to either include or exclude the other activities of PJ; it can't be both ways. Either we remove all references to anything not related to the main PJ site, or we include the overview of everything. My vote is for the latter, and the text that was there before should be restored. FrederickTG (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that the other projects really should be expanded upon in the "Other Activities" section. I'll try to put something together and submit it for review here in the next few days weeks (work is slammin' me with stuff, the freetime is going to be limited). FrederickTG (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Perverted Justice screenshot-5-18-2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Founder's birth name

See this [2] discussion for my justification for reinserting the deleted birth name of the organization's founder. Abe Froman (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't recall there being a full consensus reached in that previous discussion (in fact I see quite a few concerns raised), and currently there seems to be a consensus to omit the name. But thanks for accusing me of perpetrating a whitewash. FrederickTG (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he was referring to John Nevard's unilateralism. As for the "consensus", there is none. The general feel is that it is not necessary, but there's been no good reason not to include it and a lot of poor/wrong reasons not too ("Do No Harm"? Who are you kidding?). I don't particularly care, and don't feel like jumping into that edit war anytime soon. But no, there's no true consensus and no true reasons not to include it. VigilancePrime 04:55 (UTC) 17 Mar '08
The 'concerns' are raised by partisans linked to this organization. Fact is, a review of the archived, voluminous discussions on this naming topic reveal the best practice on Wikipedia is to indeed name the founder's of organizations, including birth names when available. Deleting content lessens the mission of the encyclopedia, which is to provide information. The mission is not to present a whitewashed view. 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is relevant, though probably only minimally so, and recommend (see comment somewhere above) that it should be noted on first reference - especially as it's thoroughly referenced - and not after that. At one point, it was used multiple times in the article and that was just confusing to read. Not listing it at all is just causing information lack. Best to have it once and be done with it. VigilancePrime 01:39 (UTC) 18 Mar '08
Actually I was one of those who raised the issue and I am not partisan towards PJ, I'm not even an American. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And I'll agree with that. Squeak is nobody's puppet and acts on his own accord; that is a very redeeming quality, and he's also not afraid to speak his mind (like me), occasionally a little too much (again, much like me). Squeak has his own agenda (as we all do one way or another), which focuses on keeping a slightly-to-the-negative-side POV in PAW articles, guarding other BLP articles against BLP violations, and apparently posting to Jimbo's talk page at least a dozen times a day. While Squeak and I differ in our opinions on content matters and sometimes in behavioral matters regarding Wikipedia, I will absolutely defend that he is not a PJ partisan. Favorable to the organization? Of course, yes. But that's him, not PJ using him to achieve their goals. So, to recap:
  1. Squeak is his own person, nobody's puppet or personal partisan.
  2. Like all of us, Squeak has issues on which he feels strongly, and that comes out clearly in his contributions.
  3. The name still should be in the article, but should in no way be the focus of it (even peripherally).
Cheers, VigilancePrime 01:54 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

"(diff) (hist) . . Perverted-Justice‎; 03:06 . . (-922) . . John Nevard (Talk | contribs | block) (many thanks for the helpful summary. if there were valid points in the archives, someone would have pointed out or repeated them.)"

He's still doing it! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that. For some reason I only read the actual discussion of the issues involved, rather than this. Maybe V.P. could ask Vagr4nt to contribute to the discussion? John Nevard (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of the arguments in that archive seem to be erronous. I'm not impressed with the reliance on the X.V.E redirects to P.J. argument. WP:REDIRECT lists templates for every appropriate use of a redirect. There just is not going to be a Von Erck section expanded into a "article carved out of the target page." Instead, he comes under "People who are members of a group, organization, ensemble or team". He's a member, one of the leaders. That doesn't mean we write his biography in the group's article. John Nevard (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary was wholly inappropriate, John. While it is painfully obvious that you see anyone who disagrees with you "a PPA", to attack and insult other wikipedians in such a matter is, quite simply, deserving of a (reasonably long) block. Your vile hatred of myself and other editors, who are discussions rationally on this page, is apparent and, while your right, does not give you free reign to impune us. You have asserted that you are normal and anyone who disagrees with you is therefore abnormal. While your right under freedom of thought (something you apparently with to stomp out in others), it is a scream for help and you'd be good to seek it out. Many others here have been trying to work with you, avoid the petty name-calling in which you are now engaged, and prevent edit-warring over the mega-minor issue. You'll have none of that; so much is clear. For the sake of your own WikiSanity, you need to reevaluate that "I'm right and everyone else is a PPA!" mentality. Take a breather. Deep breath. Now let it out. Try relaxing some. Then come back and collaborate like the rest of us. VigilancePrime 07:26 (UTC) 18 Mar '08
Oh dear, again with the therapy comments. Maybe you should take the drama to my talk page. John Nevard (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you both should take it off this page. But then, that's just me. Cougar Draven (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing thereof

Do we really need 5 sources attached to this? As unnecessary as it is in the first place, I would think that we should pick the best one or two and go with those. Five is a bit of an overkill. FrederickTG (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fred, but the problem is that if we only have one reference on it, the edit-warring will resume again... "there's only one reference and it's not even a good one" is the typical argument. I think it's ridiculous too, but that's the WikiWay, unfortunately. Is there a better solution? I'd love to hear it as well. VigilancePrime 03:09 (UTC) 20 Mar '08

Side Note: Think of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT-deleted Adult-child sex article... in spite of having more than a half-dozen solid references in the first three words, that article was deleted by crusaders. The argument went something like this: "(Even though the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and many other sources have used this phrase in its literal sense in journalistic articles,) There is no such thing as this term, and these (the major newspapers noted above) are not reliable sources to show otherwise. (And besides, I don't like it.)" That's the problem... when people on Wikipedia simply dislike something, even with one, two, or half a dozen references, they will find a way to justify the deletion. Same concept applies here. Even though the fact is undisputed, and it is only marginally relevant, without solid and multiple sourcing, some crusader will start up the edit war to remove it. Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, that's the way it is. VigilancePrime 03:15 (UTC) 20 Mar '08

I can accept that, and I hope that I'm wrong in this and that there is no major edit-warring on it. Good form, Squeak. Thanks, VigilancePrime 03:17 (UTC) 20 Mar '08
I do not think that the edit warring is occuring over the accuracy of the information; rather, the relevency and appropriateness of including the information in an article about Perverted-Justice. One source or 50 sources, it's still the same. I can see why the harassment bit in the intro needs multiple sources, but not this. FrederickTG (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to make the same point as Frederick myself, ie that there has never been edit warring re the sources for this one (though disputing refs is a common edit warring cause) but on the appropriateness of including his real name. I still believe we should remove it as a possible BLP violation and as failing notability within the article but I do nopt dispute the sources themselves. As the first was from the NYT I removed the others because it was first. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the long history of this article, you find that newish editors attempt to remove this piece of information on the grounds that it's obscure or irrelevant. The inclusion of 5 varied sources not only establishes its validity, but also its relevance to the topic at hand. I honestly can't see any valid reason for striking out a valid reference from an article. It is no way hinders the article. More than anything, having ample references supports and strengthens an article. Vagr4nt (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate

Squeak, in your add of the BLP, you wrote "tag for BLP as this article has issues". Can you elaborate specifically what some of those issues are (preferably without commentary in in a short, concise, bulleted list)? That way we can together address those concerns. I agree that, per the BLP page, this could fall under its purview to a small extent. My concern would be that someone in the future starts making sweeping changes (read: deletions) based on IDONTLIKEIT with the BLP as their smokescreen justification. I don't think that's your intent, but at some point it could happen from another. I'm hoping we all can mitigate that possibility now. Thanks in advance for clarifying. VigilancePrime 21:49 (UTC) 19 Mar '08

Well Xavier for a start but also the other founder and indeed other living people. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#BLP discussion on proposed change to make BLP apply "everywhere" for more details and be assured I haven't picked PJ out but have started tagging a lot of non directly biography talk pages on articles with BLP issues. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Praise and Criticisms sections

These sections as they are now read like a news feed. Various praises and criticisms are repeated in each different anecdote that is listed. To make the article more encyclopedic, I propose a condensing of these sections, with each listing the unique praises and criticisms only once with the references attached to them so that people may investigate them further, if they so desire. I propose something like this:

Praise The Perverted-Justice organization and its volunteers have been praised for its efforts over the years by a number of individuals and organizations. Those praising the site include the host of America's Most Wanted, John Walsh[1], child-safety advocate Marc Klaas[2], and founder and executive director of Love Our Children USA Ross Ellis.[3] The website's Law Enforcement Technology magazine covered and praised their operations with law enforcement.[4] The Internet safety website ChildSeekNetwork set up a webpage praising Perverted-Justice.[5] A letter was sent from the office of Senator Orrin Hatch (R - UT) to the organization praising their efforts.[6] Active-duty law enforcement who have worked directly with Perverted-Justice on arrests and stings have praised the organization and touted the merits of the organization[7][8][9][10], with one presenting administrators Del Harvey and Dennis Kerr with an award for the sting they performed in their city.[11]

Criticisms Perverted-Justice and its volunteers have also been criticized over the years by different individuals and organizations. Before Perverted-Justice began working primarily with law enforcement[12], concerns were raised that the site's tactic of exposure and embarassment was not an effective way to combat the problem of Internet predators.[13][14][15] Others have raised the concern that Perverted-Justice's standards are not on level with the standards followed by law enforcement officials when building cases, including concerns over child pornography and entrapment.[16][17][18] Concerns have also been raised over police agencies abdicating portions of their investigations to an organization composed of civilians.[19][17] Various criticisms have also been leveled against Perverted-Justice in civil lawsuits that have been filed[20][21], and the father of one man that was arrested attempted (although ultimately failed[22]) to have criminal charges brought against the site's founder.[23][24] A prosecutor in Texas refused to prosecute 23 cases brought to his office after he stated that Perverted-Justice failed to provide enough usable evidence.[25] A Website critical of Perverted-Justice argues that, in their opinion, there is no way to hold the site and its volunteers accountable for mistakes.[15] FrederickTG (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to remove significant content from this article amount to POV aimed vandalism. The sections you removed without consensus reflect the work of hundrerds of hours of good faith edits made by dozens of good faith editors. You should be ashamed of yourself. Vagr4nt (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
FrederickTG is obviously involved [3] with this organization in some way. Otherwise his essentially single-article edit history would not make sense. Whether that rises to the level of Conflict of Interest, I do not know for sure. But he should be the last editor to remove praise and criticism sections. Improve them, sure. But not remove. Abe Froman (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to throw arround wild accusations at a good-faith editor like FrederickTG and claim he is involved in the anti-pedophile association Perverted Justice, what exactly does that make Vagr4nt, an editor with a similar article profile (except that he doesn't edit anything not related to pedophilia?) Make sure you ignore all the evidence that points to one being interested in a concise, encyclopedic article and one being focused on making the criticism:praise section ratio approach infinity.John Nevard (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it wouldn't read so much as a news feed if YOU hadn't added the bullet points: [4] , [5]. It seems obvious to me that you've attempted to remove criticism of the organization with this two pronged attack on the article. Vagr4nt (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You can throw around all the insults and insinuations you want, but the merit of my argument stands. A lot of those "hundreds of hours" were my hours, too, you know. There was not one criticism or praise "whitewashed" - every single one was included. So what's the point of repeating them endlessly? Okay so a bunch of people have said that the site is good, why list them all? Another bunch has said the site enages in entrapment, so why list them all one by one? I realize it is in the interest of certain people to keep the sections as long and scandalous as possible, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - you know, a brief synopsis. And why, Abe, should I be the "last person" to "remove" the sections? I removed nothing, only condensed them into how an actual encyclopedia article should be formatted. I have no affiliation with this organization - I researched it for a college paper, and found this article to be lacking in all areas - as it is now, it will never EVER be considered as a featured article. Isn't that the ultimate goal of any article? But Abe, it's good to see that you think that you have some sort of ownership of this article and feel like you can dictate who can and cannot make any type of edits. I was just doing what I thought was encouraged here - being bold, and since it is a controversial article, waiting for reversion and DISCUSSION (or in this case, insults). No one made ANY type of comment after three days, so I edited. What a crime. Oh, and I added in those bullet points, Vagrant, to make those abortions of sections easier to read - the points don't change the freakin' content. Weak, really weak. And you really are the last person who should be going into the motivations of editors. FrederickTG (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cutting down the praise and criticism sections by an order of magnitude is not going to find much consensus from most editors. However, what if the praise and criticism were reintegrated into a revised article that covered this organization's evolution? I think all would agree that 2003's PJ is not like 2008's. But this article doesn't necessarily make that clear. Perhaps three sections, 1. Beginning Efforts, 2. Evolution, and 3. Current Efforts could be constructed, each with a praise and criticism section? A sandbox could be used for this purpose, and the editors could approve a new version without getting into conflict. Thoughts? Abe Froman (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. I think what's there right now is a pretty good start. Obviously more integration is always better, but what we have now is a good sight better than long laundry lists of praise and complaints. I would certainly support a switch to a more chronological view, because that places the criticism and the praise in their proper contexts. Powers T 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the redundancy? I am pretty sure that it is not the job of an encyclopedia to give the details; how do you suggest eliminating the same praises/criticisms listed over and over again? FrederickTG (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought you did a pretty good job with it, actually. Is there something more that needs to be done, aside from switching to a more chronological organization as Abe suggested? Powers T 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I object to the proposed revision as it removes significant detail and promotes a certain bias. I'm not completely opposed to some consolidation, but the proposed text is a butchering. Vagr4nt (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's exceptionally vague. Care to specify which "significant detail" was removed? And which bias it is promoting? I would genuinely like to know; I would hate for you to think I was vandalizing the article again. FrederickTG (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You remove 40% of the article, and demand to know specifics. Mind-boggling. No, you're not being genuine in the slightest. Vagr4nt (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed nothing - all I did was condense redundant bloat on BOTH sides. Every single thing that was in the article is still there, just in a far more readable and organized fashion. As you can see, there is support for this suggestion. I asked for your input on this, but it is becoming apparent that your intentions here are to judge the motivations of other editors and not contribute to a meaningful discussion on the topic. FrederickTG (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you see the utter hypocrisy of what you just said as you judge my motivations? Unbelievable. Vagr4nt (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Removing 40% of an article is behavior to be encouraged when it's necessary to achieve a better article. Those praise and criticism sections were ridiculously long, and I think any impartial reviewer (such as those at GA or FA review) would agree they needed to be pared down. If there's specific information you think is missing that should be re-added, we can address that, but restoring all of it makes for a bloated, unwieldy article. Powers T 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If consensus is that the article has become "ridiculously long", then perhaps it's time to fork the article. I'm open to suggestions on best to go about this. Vagr4nt (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, if you can't see the total bias in how FrederickTG has structured this "revision", then I'm afraid you're likely suffering from that same bias. For instance, notice how in his proposed Praise section he appeals to authority, citing names and organizations, whereas in the proposed Criticism section he omits this information, only referring to these people and groups unspecifically. Furthermore, the editorial narrative of several sentences amount to Original Research. For example, to preface three unrelated criticisms with "Before Perverted-Justice began working primarily with law enforcement", when those sources make no such claim, is pure, unsubstantiated editorializing. I'm sorry, but this revision will not do at all. Vagr4nt (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Those problems are easily reparable without reverting to the previous version, which had entire paragraphs on each source of criticism and praise. I also don't see the point of a fork, frankly. Sometimes when an article is too long, information needs to be pared down; splitting is not the only solution. Anyway, since you're apparently convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is irreparably tainted by association with Perverted Justice -- and those accusations are getting rather tiresome -- perhaps it's time to bring in some additional, uninvolved opinions? Powers T 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The proposed revision needlessly removes substantial information (40% of the article). There's absolutely no reason to suppress relevant, succinct, properly sourced information. "I don't like seeing it" is not a legitimate reason. If you think this article is too long (it isn't, really), we can fork it to a "Criticism of Perverted Justice" article (e.g. [6], [7], etc.) and we can use FrederickTG's proposed text as the lead-in summary in the main article. Vagr4nt (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, this does not need to be forked. It needs to be pared down. Really, entire articles dedicated to the praise and criticisms of PJ? This article is just as long as the article for the American Red Cross and just a bit smaller than the article for the FBI - two organizations that have much larger profiles than this organization. Those "entire paragraphs" would be fine for a website whose goal is to praise or criticize PJ, but not for an encyclopedia article. Vagrant, if you find my revision to be lacking, why don't you help out by proposing a pared-down version of your own? That's the reason I posted it here before I made the initial edit, you know. I also agree with Powers T that some additional opinions may be in order. FrederickTG (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and when I say pared down, I do not mean remove any of the praises or criticisms, I mean condensing the similar praises and criticisms into one statement with the sources attached, like I did before. FrederickTG (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's like you didn't even read my response. Information is not being "suppressed"; the references in the "pared-down" version are, I believe, identical to the ones in the expanded version. An encyclopedia's job is to summarize the sources, not to provide exhaustive detail on who, what, when, where, and why. To that end, when an article gets bogged down by such excessive detail, to the point where recounting other people's responses to the subject takes up more room than the subject itself, then yes, removing "properly sourced information" is absolutely justified. (I beg to differ with the "succinct" adjective, and "relevant" is a matter of opinion, as we've seen in previous discussions.) I again suggest soliciting outside opinions, and in fact invite you, Vagr4nt, to write the request (perhaps at WP:RFC) -- since you don't think Frederick and I are capable of composing a neutral passage. Powers T 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been a week now with nothing. It is the feeling of myself and others that sections as they are now need to be changed. Where do these sections end? As time passes, are we to keep adding every repetitious praise/criticism that can be found? It just makes sense to condense each praise/criticism without going into specific details. I have done my best to work with Vagrant, but all I get in return are tiresome claims of vandalism and personal attacks[8]. I guess that I will submit a WP:RFC to see if some opinions of other editors will make a difference. FrederickTG (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on everyone, let's keep the discussion civil. We all have the same goal. Powers T 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing I'd like to know is why Praise would be listed first. Going by alphabetical order, Criticism should come first. Is it a common policy on Wikipedia to put praise prior to criticism on a subject? To be honest, I have trouble finding articles on other organizations which describe it in this manner of 'praise' and 'criticism'. Can people give examples of other articles using that format of subtitling? Tyciol (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Do the praise and criticism sections need to be condensed?

Does each individual praise and criticism need to be addressed in specific detail, or should they be combined into general praises and criticisms (with existing stories attached as references)?

  • Yes: Because of the controversial nature of the website, the criticisms/praises, outlined in separate sections, would make the article unecessarily long. Condense them into one section, but keep each praise/criticism brief with references to outside sources. If necessary, link to other Wikipedia pages that may concern the particular praise or criticism. Spartacusprime (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Yes" isn't very clear, since it was an either-or question. Am I correct to infer that you approve of the second option rather than the first? Powers T 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No: Simply an excuse to whitewash. Reorganize, do not remove. Abe Froman (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • First of all, Abe, RFCs are for uninvolved editors to comment. Second of all, "No" what? As I mentioned above, this is an either-or question, not a yes-no question. Powers T 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Powers, if you think that you count as an "uninvolved" editor, I have a bridge to sell you. Abe Froman (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You'll note I'm not commenting one way or another on the question, merely asking for clarification. That's allowed, last I knew. Powers T 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I can't seem to find the recommendation that RfCs be restricted to uninvolved editors, so maybe that's been changed. It's a reasonable rule, though -- the purpose is to get additional views, not to rehash the ones already made abundantly clear above. Your comment (aside from "No" being ambiguous given the question) is not really useful because we already know your opinion on the subject, and this isn't a vote. Same would go for V4grant or myself or Frederick or John Nevard, or anyone else who's weighed in above. Powers T 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head, Abe. The proposed revision removes significant content, they claim because it's cluttering the article, but they also oppose relocating the content to a fork page. Basic conclusion: POV whitewashing. Vagr4nt (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No: There is not reason to remove the work of many edits to protect the orginization againsts critics. Many articles on wikipedia contain critic sections as should this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is not to remove the "critic section" or do any protection against critics... FrederickTG (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to remove a significant portion of the facts. Why? Vagr4nt (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Condense: Why these sections were allowed to get the way they are is beyond me. Also, I do not see how doing this will be protecting the organization against critics, seeing how the criticisms will still be there. The proposal also suggests condensing the praise section - would we be whitewashing the praises too? Also, one could make the argument that the work of many edits was done to paint a POV picture to begin with. (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that the criticisms aren't still there. He's removed names, events, facts, and details of the language that's already been scrutinized, reworded, and balanced again and again. Vagr4nt (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider: The policy regarding trivia sections, in other words, lists of facts does not a good encyclopedia make. My opinion on how to fix:
  1. Get rid of the praise section; few, if any, other articles have one and it smells like kneejerk response to OMFG Wikipedia is being invaded by kiddie fiddlers. It's a given that most people either support or don't give a fuck about this organization, so it really isn't our job to praise them for what they do (their website can do that). Someone was using FBI as a comparison earlier in the discussion, I think that is apt. Notice that the FBI article has no praise section. It does, however, have a criticism section. You could take one or two of the most illustrative examples of their work and add it to the main section, but resist the urge to include more than that. Also, do not attempt to add rebuttals to these instances, Wikipedia is not your personal forum for debating evidence.
  2. Significantly pair down the criticism section; privacy activists and other people who don't like this organization do not have a right to turn this article into a coatrack for venting their displeasure. The criticism section should only be a paragraph with two or three of the most substantiated and factual criticisms. In other words, get rid of the fluff and nonsense criticisms. Do be sure to consider how much weight each criticism is worth as you evaluate them, pick only the most valid. Do not insert rebuttals to the criticism, Wikipedia is not your personal forum for debating evidence.
  3. No POV forks; criticisms of ... articles are considered highly inappropriate and almost certainly will be nominated for deletion. Just don't even think of doing it.
Take a look at how other featured articles with some controversy look like and you will notice they follow these principles. The main problem here is that some editors are treating this as a battleground for their personal crusades. Don't let the contentious nature of this topic affect your rationality. Step back and pretend they are people who investigate spammers or something like that. If you can't do that, then find another article to edit. Wikipedia will not collapse if this article is not edited by you, so don't worry so much about it. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I should point out:
It only looks like a trivia section because the guy who is trying to gut the article first added the bullet points. These aren't just lists of sundry facts. They're carefully documented and chronologically presented summaries of major news media coverage. Each criticism HAS been scrutinized upon entry (familiarize yourself with the article history if you need to see for yourself).
Also, I fail to see a problem with criticism forks. They exist everywhere in the encyclopedia (Criticism of Google, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Wikipedia) and I see no problem with them. The fact is, this is a controversial organization, and as the mainstream media coverage of its activities reflects this, so should our entry. Vagr4nt (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dragon695. I understand it is frustrating to get such a feedback after spending a lot of time on these sections, but he has given -in my opinion- an excellent rationale. I'd get rid of the praise section (you could mention 2-3 of them in the appropriate context) and rewrite the criticism section, explaining/mentioning in 2-3 paragraphs *what* is criticized and pointing to the relevant pages (x,y,z are criticized/controversial because a,b,c -without a case by case explanation and quoting what each person said). Another option is to move the criticism section to a separate article and write a summary on this article, but if it's not notable enough it will be likely proposed for deletion. I'd choose here the most notable cases too. Good luck! Iunaw 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You are STILL going on about the bullet points Vagrant? Wow. The only reason I put them in was to make the sections somewhat readable. Take them out if they irk you so, Vagrant - as I said before, adding/removing the bullets doesn't change the content.
It would appear that the consensus of the uninvolved editors is to re-write and condense the criticisms section and remove the praise section (and integrate the praise section items where appropriate into other areas). Are there any suggestions as the best way to accomplish this? FrederickTG (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I hardly see there being any such consensus, nor do I see any wiki precedent suggesting that uninvolved editors somehow have the authority to dictate what gets included or not included in article. You've wanted to gut this article from the beginning, and now you're cherry picking some feedback from others to advance your original agenda.
I don't see anything wrong with the article as it's written. It's the result of the work of a lot of different editors over the years. There is no compelling reason or consensus to change it. Vagr4nt (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You also do not own this article. Your arguments are quite self-defeating - take into consideration that this article is the result of the work of a lot of different editors that have been banned from Wikipedia for pro-pedophile POV pushing. Myself and others have given a compelling reason to change the article - you have yet to give a compelling reason to keep it the way it is, other than it's been too much work to make this article the crapfest that it is today and that changing it perpetrates a whitewash. Just because you want to keep this article a hunk of crap does not mean it should not be changed. Near every uninvolved editor's comment advocates change - that's not a consensus? Pray tell then, what is? And one must begin to question your motives to want to keep it the way it is, given the good suggestions given? FrederickTG (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The burden is not on the community to give you reasons not to change it. The burden is on you to convince us that your changes have merit. As of yet, you have not convinced us. You have provided no compelling case that there is anything wrong with the information you wish to remove from the article, and your POV edit history would suggest your only aim here is less than honorable. For one, you pick suggestions from 2 uninvolved editors and declare consensus, while ignoring other suggestions made by those and other editors which could hinder your agenda here. Very telling.
Further, I would warn you against labeling editors as pedophiles lest you become a banned editor yourself. If you have a specific charge that a particular edit was made by a pedophile, then identify it explicitly. You are treading a very dangerous path.
The community won't stand by and allow you to whitewash this article as your repeated efforts would suggest. Vagr4nt (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hyperbole much, Vagr4nt? You are a walking logical fallacy. Glass houses stones and such. The criticisms section was mainly composed by YOU maybe you should read WP:OWN (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You are kidding, right? The goal of any wikipedia article is one of evolution and improvement towards good article status. I don't see any "us" in objections to change, only a "you." Even Abe was for a re-organization. There are good suggestions being made. And you question my motives? What about the movtives of maintaining the status-quo of a garbage article? Also, your threat of my treading a thin line, while empty, is actually quite laughable. I won't list any names, but at least 4 names of editors banned for pro-pedophile POV pushing that have had a hand in this article come to mind without even having to look. FrederickTG (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that I realize that I am getting off-topic for the talk page of this article. As I get the feeling that Vagrant is not looking to work constructively with myself or others on this article, this will probably be the last time I address one of his/her responses. FrederickTG (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If something is excessively long, then condense it, but not at the cost of sparing any necessary details about a praise or criticism. I do like having different sections for praise and criticism just to collect it. Although in some cases, I think you can have people who both praise and criticize simultaneously. It's possible to be in favour of some things the group does while not being in favour of other things they do. I can see your point in merging the sections so that there's no need to make a third section called 'praise and criticism' for people of mixed opinions like that. Although some people are purely praising or purely criticizing, and having that collected rather than having people look through it, is conveniant for readers. Perhaps 'praise and criticism' could be two tilds as are the other sections, and 'praise', 'mixed response' and 'criticism' could be the three subsections which have 3 tilds each? Tyciol (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
But what constitutes a "necessary detail?" And how much detail does an encyclopedia article need? Names, specific dates, long quotes, etc? Or just a description of what each criticism/praise is? FrederickTG (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the link

It doesn't take you straight to the main page if you click it from , as opposed to on the secure server (if you are using that). Also, there was a lot of controversy about this redirect - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#Perverted_Justice & - I guess it doesn't really matter to me, but it certainly did matter to other people. :\ --Iamunknown 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While there are legitimate concerns there that weren't raised by banned pedophilia advocates, such as "they're also providing no way to get to the originally linked page, thus making any link to their site utterly worthless", these don't apply to links to the main page which has a click-through link to the destination.
Additionally, there are some BADSITES concerns, which are irrelevant following the rejection of that policy. While not all the editors that the linked Wikipedia Campaign page notes are pedophile editors have yet been banned, the way the Wikipedia community has dealt with most of them says a lot about whether the intersital page is inappropriate or incorrect. John Nevard (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh? I think I've gotten a bit too far into wiki-politics for my liking. My primary concern regarding the link is that it does not go to the main page. I wasn't really considering all of the things you have brought for consideration. To be honest, I'm not sure I agree that they should be considered - but I suppose we would need a wider group of editors to discuss any relevant topics and reach a consensus. --Iamunknown 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A dead link or nearby parenthetical explanation seems appropriate, where sites change the effective link target based on the referring site. Certainly we should link to PJ regardless of whether they'd posted this essay, but our goal is and should be directing readers to their main page. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There's simply no reason not to use the derefer code for links to this site. With the derefer code, the links lead to the appropriate page as intended. Without the code, they take you elsewhere. That "elsewhere" is to a grandstanding rant against wikipedia by an individual who was banned from editing wikipedia for his continued abuse of editors and disruption to the project is notwithstanding. Vagr4nt (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "RS30Jul" :
    • [ "'To Catch a Predator': The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles"], By Vanessa Grigoriadis, [[Rolling Stone]], July 30, 2007
    • {{cite news |first=Vanessa |last=Grigoriadis |author= |coauthors= |title="'To Catch a Predator': The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles" |url= |page=5 |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |publisher=[[Wenner Media]] |location=[[San Francisco]], [[California]] |id=Issue 1032 |date=2007-07-30 |accessdate=2008-07-14 |quote=Though he wasn't molested himself, Von Erck felt robbed of his childhood by his father and legally changed his name from Phillip Eide to eradicate the last vestiges of his paternal namesake. "My dad was an alcoholic scumbag commercial fisherman who hit my mom," he says. "She left him when I was one, and he went on to impregnate ten more women up and down the West Coast. His name is garbage."}}
    • [ "'To Catch a Predator': The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles"], By Vanessa Grigoriadis, ''[[Rolling Stone]]'', July 30, 2007

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble telling the diff besides where the author's name is written before or after, can you point out which you think is better? If it's all the same story we can pick the simplest one and do a multi-ref thing so it's listed only once. Tyciol (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised for NPOV

I made some changes to one sentence as well as some minor semantics for a more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink minion (talkcontribs) 08:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation

The Suit is still pending against perverted justice, dismissed against everyone else. See Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation[9]

Notable incidents

There is a major error in the Notable incidents section. This is false: "She had met her 47-year-old kidnapper in a chat room." In fact, as it now stands, the man was not convicted of anything unless he was already retried, but he was found not guilty of kidnapping and all the more serious offenses. See the appellate court opinion.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsubpoena (talkcontribs) 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The link does not state that he was found "not guilty", just that certain convictions were reversed and that the state can retry him. Rlendog (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
He was found not guilty by the jury of the "more serious" charges (rape, kidnapping and other charges). The remaining 8 convictions were reversed. See FN5 [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
unsigned is correct. The claim that they met in a chat is also misleading since they met through the minor's profile found on an adult BDSM site where she claimed to be 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsubpoena (talkcontribs) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


It follows that this is also false: "Von Erck is also credited with locating a 14-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped, and tortured by a 47-year-old man she met online." See the appellant brief. [12] Citations to the record are presumed correct particularly if the court does not point out errors.

Suggested changes

Given this new information, I suggest changes on my talk page. Jsubpoena (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Transcripts - March 17, 2007" Larry King Live, March, 2007
  2. ^ "'Scarborough Country' for February 6th" Scarborough Country, February 6th, 2006
  3. ^ "Chris Hansen, Dateline NBC and Perverted Justice Honored by Love Our Children USA" Love Our Children USA
  4. ^ "Internet Watchdogs"
  5. ^ "Why is Perverted Justice So Controversial?" Child Seek Network
  6. ^ [ "Letter from Orrin Hatch"]
  7. ^ "A parade of potential predators in a small town" Dateline NBC
  8. ^ "'To Catch a Predator' III" Dateline NBC
  9. ^ "A cyber twilight zone in Ft. Myers, Fla." Dateline NBC
  10. ^ "The scariest potential predator" Dateline NBC
  11. ^ [ "Perverted-Justice Updates"]
  12. ^ [ "Police Info" at]
  13. ^ "Online group involved in man's arrest," Roanoke Times, 22 January 2005
  14. ^ "'Vigilante' Web Site Posts 'Pedophile' Information", WBAL11, February 26 2004
  15. ^ a b "Controversial Web Site Claims to 'Out' Would-Be Child Molesters" by Jonathan Silverstein, ABC News, 10 January 2005
  16. ^ "Firefighter Nabbed by Cyber-Vigilantes" by Geoffrey Gray, The New York Sun, December 29 2004
  17. ^ a b Sandra Stokley (September 27 2007). "'To Catch a Predator' sex stings net mixed results". Press Enterprise.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ As battles Web pedophiles, some raise concerns over its tactics - Americas - International Herald Tribune
  19. ^ 'Gotcha' Shows Aimed at Nabbing Sexual Predators Raise Controversy, Daniella Gallego, Fox News, August 8 2006.
  20. ^ "'Predator' producer loses ethics lawsuit", Phil Rosenthal, Chicago Tribune, November 2 2007
  21. ^ Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation Incorporated.Org et al :: Justia News
  22. ^ "Court won't order arrest of vigilante group leader", Lee Shearer, Athens Banner-Herald, October 16 2007.
  23. ^ Online
  24. ^ Online
  25. ^ "Prosecutor faults Internet group after rejection of sex-sting cases", Tiara Ellis, Dallas Morning News, June 7 2007.