Talk:2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids/Archive 1

message: I must just be a naive Wiki-newbie and missing something obvious here because this can't have occured only to me and escaped everybody else.  But it seems to me that the problem with re-submitting the LS Studios article, under that title, is largely semantic.  By that I mean, it's just a question of using sufficiently neutral, objective language like, "People who claim to have viewed the material report that the models appear to enjoy posing and treat the whole exercise as a funny game"; and, "Press reports of 'child pornography' studios in Ukraine being raided by police, and the organisers being prosecuted, in 2004, are widely believed to refer to LS Studios, or to the production of material under that trademark, though this has never been confirmed by official sources".  
Then you could identify and list the themes and topics that the LS phenomenon involves and relates to (with links to other Wiki entries which explain them in more detail).  All of these are highly emotive and hotly contested, so how can you possibly deal with this in the factual and neutral manner of an encyclopedia?  By typing: "These issues are highly emotive and hotly contested".  On the definition of 'child pornography', for example: 
"Definitions vary widely across time, cultures and national jurisdictions.  Many argue (e.g. Judith Levine) that in the USA and UK the legal limits are unclear and dependent on the highly subjective interpretation of judges and juries, in which massive influence wielded by expert witnesses is almost never contested (trust me, I'm a shrink); and these interpretations together with a host of new laws, are constantly shifting in a conservative direction at the behest of 'political correctness', certain feminist groups, children's charities such as NCH, and tabloid populism."
OK, I wouldn't really include the "Trust me, I'm a shrink"; that was just a bit of fun.  
Then you could reference the ten-level scale used in the UK, the relevant parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Protocol on Child Prostitution and Pornography - noting that the two are lumped together, and that a 'child' is defined in international law as anybody aged under 18, with no distinction between a 17-year-old and a 7-year-old who pose topless in front of a camera.  Both are assumed to be 'victims of commercial sexual exploitation'.  BTW, that includes Samantha Fox and a host of other 17-year-old models who posed topless for Page Three of The Sun (British tabloid newspaper) in the 1970s and early 1980s; which by itself illustrates how the ideological status of a picture can shift from mainstream 'blokey' legitimacy to the unmitigated evil of 'child porn' within the space of a generation.
Jason4sanity 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are good ideas indeed. Be bold and give it a try. Just be aware that this particular subject will be scrutinized more closely than others in Wikipedia, so verifiability will be paramount. Zebruh 17:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2006 

message: I'd have assumed from use by Zebruch of the archiving and from the raids that these sites are no longer online. Yet I very easily found them online (although I probably shouldn't list their current sites... what was easy for me might not be easy for everybody else to find! Plus am not wishing to get into trouble like Zebruch did! lol So it would seem ls hasn't really been shut down, how come they still exist? 
Also shall we mention the actions of google? Was surprised to see this from a google search, I'd pressume it has got to be iok to include a link like that!! lol Anyway, just seemed odd to me that google would actually remove links from their results!! :o Perhaps it isn't too surprising, and should be expect. Just it seems like google could be going down the road they are already all the way down in china... How long until the china google is the worldwide google?
Came across this here, has a bunch of interesting info (although don't worry, no pictures there! lol). Might perhaps add this to the wiki article, such as the pay (10 to 40 dollars per hour, that sounds very very good to me if you are living in the former USSR!!)
Oh, this seems of most interest:
"LS found out:
1.Video is more lucrative than still pictures. For one thing, it's harder to repost on the usenet
2.A technical improvement in video quality yields big returns.
3. A woman directing or shooting the video gets more out of the girls and lowers their inhibitions.
4. Preteen girls (age 7-10) have fewer inhibitions than adolescent girls, less "leg lock". Then comes LS Magazine: Each issue with 600-800 photos of 2 or 3 girls in 6-8 sets plus 16-20 videos of about 60-80 MB each.
The magazine sells like crazy. Some explicit close ups, but doesn't really set off alarm bells until
LS Magazine #13. I saw this issue on the usenet.
Two girls about age 8-9; one blonde, one brunette. The photo sets include close-ups of "eagle spreads", suggestive play with food (sucking cucumbers, putting them in underwear, spilling liquids down their fronts, etc.). The videos include stripping to music, with a few planned "eagle spreads".
LS Dreams had girls doing everyday activities, but LS Magazine had a definite raunchy side. There was a lot of talk about this set, particularly the blonde girl who definitely had a great time. Most of the issue is artistic, however.
Scared (or warned), LS Studios put out two more LS Magazines that showed a lot less before they were shut down."
Should the article perhaps explain how LS studios is different from say somebody like  David Hamilton? Because as it is now I really can't see why LS was raided when compared to David Hamilton's work?? Although I could be slightly superfical here in viewing the work of each of them.
Mathmo 15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still online?!?! 

message: I added all the sites created by LS Studio of which I am aware. This was primarily from links in the LS-Forum archived in the Wayback Machine ..... Zebruh 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: Productions 

message: This entire article reads like it was compiled from chatter in the preteen girl newsgroups of a year ago. The ukrainian news sources cited are not themselves objective and may be considered propoganda of the ruling elite. 
There were hundreds of models involved with this "project" but it was not limited to LS studio. The photographic studio itself remains in business, the principals free, in large part because cultural norms in that part of the world vary so dramatically from the west. And it was the west which pressured the closin of this particular "project," under threat of trade sanctions. None were overtly linked this way in public, but one need only look back two years at the trade environment between ukraine and the us and the accusations that were flying back and forth to see ample evidence of this.
I can verify this content was, in fact, hosted on US servers. I once did an discussion article about these sites and I traced them, at the time, to a hosting company in Detroit, MI. They hosted not just the LS sites but other, harder sites, one called "working girls" or something like that, with a theme of children dressed as adult street prostitutes. I contacted them for comment but they refused. Within a month the content disappeared (temporarily, of course). 
The money trail is what ultimately led to this project's demise and at least two of the organizers are in US prison after being extradited from france and prosecuted under US money laundering laws (if they can't get you any other way, they'll always find a way to drag out the money laundering charges). However, the content from this project has been archived and is still offered online in its entirety via multiple commercial outlets. Many other sites, like "BD series" were also using the same billing source. And while LS was, in some ways, the Penthouse of the preteen market, some of the sites this billing agency was handling really were little more than online video brothels where customers could request the girls do pretty much anything - and they would, for a fee. Though the original billing structure was destroyed, much of that "darker" content also remains online via commercial outlets that accept trade of egold, etc. for payment.
Really, the only thing the article gets right is the girls wore beautiful costumes and were photographed in and out of these clothes. From a culturally pertinent POV there was nothing indecent about the photos, and the only girls who simulated kissing and fondling were older and the behavior was entirely age appropriate (no matter how this might offend some, the fact remains 12, 13 and 14 year olds know about sex and are curious about it - and a great many are also quite sexually active). 
Some of the young models can be found in online portfolios at other agencies and a scant few of the older models are now appearing in "legal" adult pornography. Many of the photos from the LS sites have, in fact, appeared in these young model's commercial online portfolios right alongside work they have done for such well recognized names as DKNY. I will also point out that you could, at the time, find work in such publications as vogue bambina and xuxa's online children's clothing catalog that was pretty obviously influenced stylistically by these works.
My bet: once (or if) the west gets over this feminist driven obsession with "child predators" these works will be looked back upon in the same way we now look back upon french postcards of the 1930s which also often featured children in "racy" poses and attire. In twenty years people will have many of these photos bound in books and displayed proudly on their coffee tables.
:Good points. Thanks for adding a refreshing perspective to our discussion. If you have verifiable sources for some of this information, it would be great to add it to the actual article if it ever becomes unprotected again. Zebruh 16:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsolicited commentary from a news reader 

message: Do the external links contain illegal images? // paroxysm (n) 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether they are legal (besides, legality is not consistent across the globe), but there are pictures of very beautiful young girls who are obviously content and happy. Many are nude, but I haven't seen any images in the The LS-Forum or the The LS-Models links that I would call lascivious. Zebruh 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal links?

message: Should "child pornography" maybe be added under "See also", and "LS Studio" be added under the CP article's "See also"? Joey Q. McCartney 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in total agreement, as far as I can tell, about referencing the CP article. Joey Q. McCartney 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also CP article?

message: I've been thinking very much for the last 32 hours about these discussions and how best to respond.
Ever since discovering Wikipedia in November, I've been very excited. I think this place is absolutely awesome. I visit multiple times a day, and for many subjects which intrigue me, Wikipedia has become my first source, replacing my long-time favorite, Google. Often I'll have a moment of curiosity, rush to the computer and click the "wikipedia" shortcut now permanently on my browser's shortcut bar.
I have been especially impressed by Wikipedia's core values and guidelines of conduct. Respect is extremely important to me.
But then something happened yesterday, which has cast a shadow on my Wikipedia experience: Jimbo Wales, founder, asked me to stop trolling. I have been dumbfounded. My stomach has literally been in knots. I've been thinking to myself: "Have I been trolling?" "Maybe I don't really know what trolling is."
Jimbo's comment has also deeply confused me, as of all people, I would never expect him to respond in such direct opposition to so many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But those things can be disputed, and when it comes to such a controversial subject as this, I will respect Jimbo's opinion. Besides, he is founder.
However, I am even more deeply concerned with his accusation of trolling.
*I have made a very deliberate effort on this page to be impartial, civil, logical, and respectful. I have, however, been a bit more persistent lately. Has that been perceived as trolling?
*I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and to get along with the current community. Can someone explain to me what part of my entries above are trolling? I need to know so I won't do it again.
Zebruh 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POINT. You gave a list of material that were very probably illegal to possess in several countries, based on an archived version of some forum postings (what an authoritative source!). It's basically unverifiable. In addition, it has no encyclopedic content: the only use I can see of this list is to help people who trade such contents, not people who want to inform themselves on LS Studio's activities. David.Monniaux 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if your allegation is true, Jimbo should assume good faith allthesame. It should be clear to anyone that Zebruh is not intentionally trying to aggravate anyone, but instead only very _politely_ debating with Jimbo about the merits of the list. Wouldn't it be nice if Jimbo could do the same? Ineloquent 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ineloquent. I was wondering if anyone would notice. Zebruh 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolling?

message: Could an Admin add de:LA Studio an new Interwiki-Link? Thanks Kenwilliams 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, :de:LS Studio --timecop 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Legasthenic... Kenwilliams 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. -Will Beback 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) Kenwilliams 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: The article suggests that the news articles on the Ukraine bust might refer to LS Studio. That's just a theory on the part of Wikipedia editors and therefore violates WP:NOR. The whole article might even be based on original research, but surely that aspect of it is. Joey Q. McCartney 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:NOR

message: I personally understand and concede Jimbo's views, and to the others here. I have no interest in reviving the controversial (and, I admit, inappropriate) content that I had previously introduced. How do we get this article unprotected? Zebruh 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was left protected accidently by someone who apparently thought he'd unprotected it. I've fixed that now. -Will Beback 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect this article, please. 

message: ::No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas.
I removed this on the grounds there is no ref, and it has been questioned. I'm not saying it's wrong, but could someone find a ref and cite it before you replace it? I appreciate you're cooperation in understanding these things, right or wrong, still need refs. Thanks. --DanielCD 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DanielCD is right. We need to use verifiable, reliable sources or it is original research. Since this is a controversial subject, the text needs to be backed up by sources before it go in the article. FloNight talk 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to seem like we are censoring something, but the laws are tough on this, and we can't refer to anything illegal. I want to tell the truth though. Anyone concerned should help search for appropriate refs. I don't know anything about this, so as usual, I'll have to do a lot of reading before I can really help in any substantial way. Sucking on bananas?...WTF?? --DanielCD 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, with all those external links, certainly much more material could be cited here. The intro says it's a photography studio, but later the article says it's a child pornography deal. Are we being inconsistant here? --DanielCD 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last night, I spent quite a bit of time looking for better citations or articles linking this studio to criminal activity. I never saw any. Lots of blogs and victims rights groups picked up the Reuters story in 2004 and that what most hits are. There is no mention of this studio in that story. Am I missing something. People using this site at the time it happened may have first hand knowledge about why the site closed. But that is OR.  --FloNight talk 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bananas

message: OK, I've been watching all this talk - are people trying to hold this article to a different, higher standard than other articles since it touches on the topic of child porn? I hope not.
It looks to me that there are two basic questions here:
#Are the LS-sites really the Ukranian sites in all those news reports?
#What would it take for the article to include appropriately cited descriptions of the contents of the LS sites?
The questions are tied together. The news articles do not use the name "LS Studio", they don't name any of the Internet sites run by the perpetrators, they don't name any of the people involved. THe only thing listed are some cities in the Ukraine. But the news article describes the models and how they were dressed and how the photo shoots went. If we combine that info with info from the photo shoots and movies, then it's pretty clear they are the same studio.
It's easy to produce citations and check the contents. The picture collections all have their own names and we can cite individual pictures or videos if necessary by collection name and file name. Then all a fact checker does is track down some LS material and check it. Try using Google and a credit card. The "bandits" who hold the files are always finding a place to post them on line and a credit card company to collect fees.
Yeah, there's a little matter of cost and legality and maybe taste. You have to live in a country that doesn't jail people just for looking at something. You have to subscribe. You have to look at the stuff. I looked at the rules for verifiable sources and it doesn't say that the sources must be legal or easy to check a source, just that it has to exist and be authoritative.
Look at the entries for Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Both cite themselves as sources for the Wiki article. I don't plan to read either one of them, and there are places where these things are probably illegal for me to buy, sell, or own. People don't argue that it's "opinion" or "original research" to describe their contents based on (how shocking) the contents themselves. 
Believe me, or check for yourself. An "ordinary adult" can look at the LS stuff and conclude that most have good lighting, the kids wear special costumes, they strip, sometimes the hold banannas in "suggestive" ways (NOT opinion! holding at your crotch has obvious meaning!). There's a woman's voice in the background giving directions. Everyone speaks Russian. The kids are in good spirits and treat it all like a funny game. Facts anyone can inspect and verify. All you have to do is check for yourself.
I'll end with an opinion. I'm no legal expert on porn and stuff, but some scenes look like masturbation, and I bet those would be child porn in a lot of places. I haven't heard that the FBI has arrested anyone for owning a big LS collection, but news reports skip that sort of detail. 194.177.100.34 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you asking for here? Yes this article will be held to a higher standard than a lot of them are because of the subject matter, which is highly controversial. Controversial things are obviously going to get more scruitany. And no, you can't ask someone to verify something by looking at illrgal material, nor can first-hand observation of such material be a source. --DanielCD 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you put something in, it is in no way my job to reference it. I don't know what makes you think me or anyone else is shucking responsibility by not referencing your work for you. --DanielCD 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 194.177.100.34, DanielCD is right. Introducing article content without sources is not helpful. Deliberating adding content verifiable only by an illegal web site and expecting us to use it is very unhelpful. It makes extra work for the editors that are trying to make this article meet WP policy and guidelines for content. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV,  WP:RS, and WP:CITE speak to Wikipedia expectations for proper content and proper sourcing. Please don't ask us to use content that goes against core WP policy. FloNight talk 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and Citations 

message: (Found this discussion from the brief exchanges on the WikiEN-L mailing list.)
Child pornography is an infamous crime today. By this I mean that it is a crime generally considered one of the most heinous; one that gets a lot of moral panic-style press articles; and one that nobody wants to be personally associated with. Other infamous crimes today include terrorism, and the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.
There are some difficult problems in writing encyclopedic articles about infamous crime. First off, it's hard to get good sources. Media articles tend to be panicky and biased; they tend to make a problem sound omnipresent even if it is in fact relatively rare. They tend not to divulge many relevant details. And often, the people who know the most about the crime -- the perpetrators -- are inaccessible or even simply not questioned. Who wants to hear from a terrorist, a child pornographer, or a drug pusher?
(Really. When was the last time you saw an article about a meth lab being busted, where the lab operators were even quoted? Surely they have something to say besides "crap, we got busted." Like, why did they go into the meth business? How much money did they make? What did their friends and relatives think? What's their story? For that matter, there are lots of panicky articles about meth users which don't even quote any meth users.)
Another problem is that the best sources about infamous crime will sometimes be ... (surprise!) disreputable people. If you want to report on how much meth there is in your community, the cops aren't likely to have an accurate idea, because meth users systematically conceal themselves from cops. But the meth users and dealers will know. (For that matter, see Steven Levitt's discussion of the economics student who spent a while studying and living with crack dealers in Freakonomics.) Likewise, the most accurate information about child pornography dealers is going to come from ... pedophiles, or other people who are familiar with child pornography.
Of course, many encyclopedists are uncomfortable with the idea of pedophiles contributing to the encyclopedia ... just as they are probably uncomfortable with the idea of meth dealers or terrorists contributing. Working with people you despise is not so much fun. However, the fact is that if we want Wikipedia to be able to cover infamous crime, we're going to need contributors who are familiar with it. If law enforcement don't provide the details, insiders probably will.
Naturally, that doesn't mean our articles should reflect a criminal POV ... any more than they should reflect a law-enforcement POV, the way that the mass media usually does about drugs. However, if a bunch of pedophiles are standing around saying that the child pornographers who were busted in the Ukraine were known to them as "LS Studio", then unless anyone can come up with a source that says otherwise, it seems we should take that as a provisional fact. --FOo 02:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FOo, it's called original research and it is not allowed. All articles must be based on information from reliable sources. FloNight talk 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on infamous crime 

message: Awesome work, Thebainer. This version is better for Wikipedia. Zebruh 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If every one of these news articles came out and said so. --Jelligraze 21:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's what I thought. But why every one? Would not just one suffice? Oh, never mind. I understand what you're saying. Zebruh 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a redirect is a fair compromise. There were other Ukrainian child porn operations shut down in 2004. They can be included in this article also with proper references. I don't think we need a seperate article on every Ukrainian operation shut down. FloNight talk 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect is better than a separate article, but I think that the result "No page with that title exists" would be best of all. Redirecting says that there's some connection between the two terms, and in this instance I don't think such a connection is verifiable with reference to a reliable source. Joey Q. McCartney 07:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what Joey said. If LS can't be mentioned in this article due to verifiability/importance issues, then the LS pages should be put up for deletion instead of being redirected here. --Dodo bird 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids 

message: Hey, I want to create a redirection link to a better explained article. What should I do?
Lsmodelclub (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSMODELCLUB