Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 5

message: Phil Sandifer tagged the article for proposed deletion, giving the reason that "Doesn't seem like anyone cares..."  If I might suggest, perhaps the people who care about this article would be more prone to make contributions if those contributions weren't under threat of unilateral deletion.  The deletion of this article is anything but uncontroversial.  I care, but I'd rather do other things than make edits that seem destined to fall off the face of the Earth.  I expect that my feeling isn't wholly unique to me.  It also strikes me as not being particularly fair dealing to reduce an article to a meaningless stub then propose it for deletion.  Rather like killing one's parents then begging the Court's mercy since you're an orphan.  My intent is not to give Phil (or anyone) a hard time, but rather to lay bare the extreme amount of frustration at a deletion decision I see as doing more harm to our product than it could possibly help.--Ssbohio 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will confess, my prodding of this article was perhaps a shred pointy - that said, I'm surprised that this article created such outcry a year ago when it was deleted and has been mostly silent this time around. Phil Sandifer 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no prior discussion of the article deletion, since the deletion wasn't based on a request from the subject,  and since the reasons given for the deletion was very weak, I'm inclined to restore the previous version. "Undue weight" is not a part of WP:BLP. We can easily delete any material that is unbalanced using normal editing procedures.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 05:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP-violating material should not remain in edit histories, however. This is the main problem. If I could have scoured the article of the offending material, nuked the history, and started a new article from there, I would have. But that would have violated the GFDL. Phil Sandifer 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those situations where you say there was biographies of living persons policy violating material there, and I trust that you sincerely believe that, but the question of whether the material actually runs afoul of this particular iteration of BLP is a subjective one.  I desperately want to ask what the presumed violative material is, but I realize that answering me would defeat the purpose of removing the material in the first place.  I've reviewed everything I could to see what the problem might have been, and I've come up empty.  To my minfd, the article gave the facts in a neutral way while avoiding overly graphic depictions of the events for which Berry became famous.  I'm uncertain what more can be done to resolve either of our concerns, but I am certain that the pre-deletion article was more encyclopedic than the one that exists now. --Ssbohio 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that any material violated BLP to the extent that it would need to be expunged from the history. There was no unsourced derogatory material. The account of the so-called "salacious" events was sourced primarly from the New York Times.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, were you going to be restoring the previous version of this article?  If so, I'll hold off from doing much with it, particularly since the references list is gone and the research I did on it would need to be redone.  --Ssbohio 12:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW the current version appears to be blatant copyvio from http://www.cscic.state.ny.us/security/conferences/awareness/2006/bio.htm. I would delete it for this reason but I don't want to get into the middle of an existing storm. But this needs to be addressed somehow, and right away. Herostratus 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to this latest problem, and a lack of adequate justification for the article deletion, I'm going to restore the previous edition. Any salacious material which is not germane to a neutral bioography should be removed.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD|Proposed deletion]] of this article 

message: I have cropped the probably fair use image, there is simply no reason to include the Mexican McDonald's worker in this article. Come on, get your act together folk, SqueakBox 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a little more respect would be helpful rather than a little less?  Perhaps, there was even a reason not to crop the photo, beyond my not having my "act together?"  I couldn't see a way to crop the picture and still leave the watermark of Berry's website in place.  Now, the image lacks that piece of information.  It's a case of differing views, and I see your point about removing the woman from the picture, since we don't know her relation to the matter.  I'm just not sure that I'd throw the baby out with the bathwater as you have.  Also, since the watermark is gone, shouldn't the name of the website be in the photo caption, since Berry has operated so many adult websites?  --Ssbohio 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The person who was not being respected before was the Mexican McDonald's worker. She is alive (to the best of our knowledge) and IMO unless we have a written statement from her allowing us to use her photo in this article that it simply not fair use. I bet she doesnt know its there (even if she uses wikipedia its likely to be the Spanish version). I also couldnt crop the image in a way that leaves the watermark but not the Mexican girl and it may be we should not use either version but to me using the pic of this girl without her  knowledge and express permission is simply not on and we would be far better to ahve no pic as illustrating Berry is not a justification for vioalting someone else's privacy (and particularly given the somewhat reputation Berry has because of what happened a few years back), SqueakBox 20:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that cropping the woman out of the picture is justified.  My reply was intended to address why the photo wasn't previously cropped, to combat your accusation that I didn't have my act together.  I find that sort of language to be disrespectful.  I expect my fellow editors to assume that editing decisions I make are made in good faith, that they aren't the result of animosity, carelessness, or deception.  I assume that in your edits, even when we are 180° apart on an issue.  --21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments certainly werent solely or specifically addressed to you in that edit summary, coming more from a sense of despair at the whole community that we arent being more careful and vigilant re theswe issues. Many people have edited the Berry article without addressing this issue so it was in no way personally directed to you, more along the lines of "come on team, lets be more vigilant" and I do assume you are coming from a good faith space as I havent sen anything to suggest that, SqueakBox 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My response was predicated on the idea that I was in the group whom you described as needing to get it together, not an altogether flattering description, unfortunately.  Let's be more vigilant is a much more positive and less critical way to approach the question.  Based on what we've discussed here & on your talk page, I agree with your cropping the photo.  I should've done it myself some time ago.  --Ssbohio 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic crop

message: I've scrubbed this section too. GenerationQ is not sufficient coverage for this to be a notable part of Berry's life. I can see the argument that it should be notable, but if this is the only source for it, it's not. Do not re-add it without a better source. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GenerationQ is not the only source for the proxy story.  When you say "do not re-add it without a better source," are the multiple sources referenced sufficient? --Ssbohio 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I decided to be bold and restore the information, since it is more broadly sourced than indicated above.  I'd be happy to add even more sources if necessary, depending on what's available.  I won't re-add it if you remove it a third time, since it's better to reach a resolution here.  What aspects of GenerationQ lead you to believe that its coverage is "insufficient?"  To my mind, an article on the subject is sufficient, but my view is just one, and not necessarily correct.  Or is it some aspect of GenerationQ itself that gives you pause? --Ssbohio 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is to me a no brainer, we shouldnt have the info here, our task is to write an encyclopedia, it isnt to make staments (sourced or not) that harm an individual's reputation, SqueakBox 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likewise to me a no-brainer.  Since Berry works as a public speaker on the dangers of the Internet, it is entirely relevent for an article on him to report that he was operating, then selling tools that are antithetical to his public stance.  We aren't here to enhance Berry's self-esteem, but to write a neutral article about him.  How does suppressing sourced, relevent information improve the reader's knowledge of this subject? --Ssbohio 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not a vigilante body here to expose the contradictions in the personality of anybody, and we need to remember BLP and show sensitivity. Outing the contradictions in a well known personality is the job of journalists, our job is to write a neutral encyclopedic article that is fair to the subject, SqueakBox 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contradiction between Berry's words and his actions were already "outed" by a journalist in the Generation Q article.  Reporting the facts in this article is part & parcel of maintaining a neutral point of view.  We cannot show so much sensitivity that we ignore the facts.  Our job is to write a neutral encyclopedic article that is not only fair to the subject, but to the entirety of the issue.  Factual, sourced information has once more been removed from this article, first because it wasn't sufficiently sourced (not so), now because it is apparently being a vigilante to include facts from secondary sources like media reports, backed up by primary sources.  Have you checked the sourcing on this?  After checking, do you believe that we are outing Berry's contradictions, or reporting facts on the other side of Berry's self-told story?  Apparently, we're united in wanting an encyclopedic article, but divided in what that means, in this case. --Ssbohio 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, your contention that this material makes Wikipedia a "vigilante body" is contrary to the fact that the information was previously published.  Vigilantes act alone.  Reporting facts previously researched & reported by others is what an encyclopedia does.  There is no policy or custom basis for removing sourced, negative material from an article under false pretenses.  In fact, it's more like you yourself are being the vigilante here, removing unfavorable content in an attempt to "show sensitivity" rather than write an encyclopedia.  I'm sympathetic to what Berry went through; That doesn't prevent me from wanting this article to be neutral.  I disagree with you that the content of this article should bow to your passions about Berry & his plight.  Writing an encyclopedia is, necessarily a dispassionate process.  I invite you (once again) to justify your reversion of my edit from a factual basis, since you haven't responded her, nor did you provide an explanatory edit summary.  If not, I see no other alternative but to once again restore the content, unless Phil once more draws his sword and cuts it out permanently.  I fear that may happen, but I hope it won't. --Ssbohio 13:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proxies

message: The strongest argument here is that omission of fact, knowingly or redacted, is fabrication of a falsehood. If it is generally accepted that only a "spin" of the facts that present the subject in a positive light is allowed then Wikipedia is nothing more than tabloid material. It is impossible to be considered a reputable source on any subject with an underlying knowledge that the reader is only presented partial truths should the subject matter be highly controversial. Wikipedia hasn't taken this position with other subject matters of greater weight and substance why should it now? Facts are facts and presenting them with a neutral POV is encyclopedic. If Charles Manson's Wikipedia was subjected to the egos and posturing witnessed by this article future generations might conclude after reading such edited material that Charlie was just an unlucky guy in jail with some strange friends. It's time to move past all that's been plagued here and justify your readers, remember them? They are the people who thirst for factual real truth about something they know nothing about. Let's not let them down by telling them a flowery sunshine filled half truth influenced by feelings and belief. AZ8 20:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader's Input 

message: Counterpunch (CounterPunch.org) bills itself as a bi-weekly muckraking newsletter.  Muckraking is, despite the vaguely desultory impression given above, a good thing.  Early muckrakers like Upton Sinclair and Ida M. Tarbell exposed problems in public and private sector alike, issues not covered in the mainstream media.  In the modern day, muckrakers like Ralph Nader and Woodward & Bernstein do a similar service.  CounterPunch is described as as must-read by Noam Chomsky, and enjoys a good reputation for factual accuracy.  It's importasnt to note that the content of the Counterpunch newsletter is not always published to the website, since the former is by subscription and the latter is free of charge.  This may explain why the article isn't amenable to Googling. --Ssbohio 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterpunch 

message: The article in GenerationQ is a bit more of a new kid. It doesn't have the weight or reputation of a print publication like Counterpunch.  That was one of the reasons that I referenced the source documents (Berry's proxy site & auction) which supported GenerationQ's reporting.  This was not because I doubted GenerationQ.  I'm familiar with their work and trust them as a source.  I just felt that, in a controversial article like this one, it was better to secure additional sources for the information.  --Ssbohio 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GenerationQ 

message: :Here is where we part company.  Berry would be a non-notable person if he had come to the fore then faded away, like many people in the news will do.  Berry, however, hasn't done this.  He worked with Kurt Eichenwald on a major exposeé in The New York Times, and has continued to thrust himself upon the public stage, appearing on many mass media programs, testifying in well-publicized Congressional hearings, and even hiring professional representation to sell his services as a public speaker.  At this point, it's no longer a question of whether he is a public figure, or whether he wants to be.  By his own actions, he is one and has remained one of his own volition.  --Ssbohio 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous Comment here: I watched the Congressional hearings on C-SPAN when Justin Berry first appeared.  I ROTFLOLed.  My thoughts at the time were, "Here is some kid crying because he made A LOT of money off internet pedophiles and got caught.  And now he's in a full blow 'born again christian guilt complex' playing the victim."  And with the speaking career, looks like he's taking FULL advantage of his "crimes".  Call me trollish, but that's my .02$ from having seen the testimony. 24.155.24.8 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Justin Berry

message: As it now stands, this article makes absolutely no sense. Eichenwald's ethical lapse in paying Justin and the subsequent payments he made are not discussed. I learned more about that part in the article about Eichenwald himself, and that should be included here.
Further, the article doesn't even attempt to explain who Ken Gourlay is. It only says he was accused of molesting Justin. It seems to me that there are potential WP:BLP violations in this, since that is stated without giving any references to back that up. Why is he pictured in the article, too, and named, if there is no context given? It is also strange that there are so many external links to him in the article, as the article is not about him and he appears in only one sentence. Those I shall be removing per BLP.
I also don't understand why Justin's getting immunity to testify is not discussed in thew article, or the fact that he could also have been charged with sexual abuse once he was over 18 and procuring minors for his sex site. That is basic info and needs to be included. It was in the NYTimes article, so it is definitely verifiable.
All in all, this article is a mess and a shame on Wikipedia. I read another version (one deleted by Wales himself) that was a hell of a lot better. I don't know why it was deleted, as it seemed to be verifiable, and replaced with this piece of crap. I hope the obstructionist and deletionist editors willstep aside and allow a decent article to be written once again. Jeffpw 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. Proper and effective deletions is what this encyclopedia is crying out for, in spitye of the obstructionists who think it is fine to add material but not remove it but oif course never quote policy to back this up. If you see BLP vios please feel free to delete yourself but take great care while adding material. We are an encyclopedia not an attack site for notable people and we need to keep this in mind while editing this article which, IMO, is seriously improved over what it was, SqueakBox 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article makes no sense

message: Ok, three suggested changes. First, in the NYT section mention that he was given immunity by the feds(cite to NYT). Second, for the earlier problematic material from GenerationQ add the following: "On May 29, 2007, GenerationQ, an online magazine devoted to GLBT issues claimed that while Berry was engaging in payed public speaking concerning his exploitation, Berry had also been running a series of for-profit open proxy websites, enabling users to bypass content-control software and visit websites otherwise off-limits, as well as hide their IP addresses while doing so.. Berry subsequently sold these sites ". Finally, for the Counterpunch material "In April of 2007, the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch published an article by journalist Debbie Nathan entitled "The New York Times, Kurt Eichenwald and the World of Justin Berry: Hysteria, Exploitation and Witch-Hunting in the Age of Internet Sex" claiming that there was  "serious mishandling" of the reporting of this story by Kurt Eichenwald. The piece argued that  Berry is at least somewhat culpable and that consequently his immunity deal may have been appropriate." JoshuaZ 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These look like good compromises to me - they are restrained, they make clear the nature of the sources, they steer clear of salacious detail. Phil Sandifer 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it also avoids the original research that somehow his open proxy websites encouraged pedophilia (some of thwe worst OR I have ever seen), and we should avoid the word muckraking as we arent here to do down the reputation of counterpunch either, but otherwise it looks fine, SqueakBox 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The open proxy Websites specifically recommended their use to bypass school filters, at a time when Berry was speaking out recommending closer monitoring of Internet use by minors.  I don't think this has anything to do with pedophilia, per se, but it does strongly suggest he was simultaneously playing both sides of the issue.  I think GenerationQ oversold the "Justin Selling to Predators" angle a bit.  While it's true that predators could cloak their IPs just like anyone else using the services Justin was providing, there's no evidence to suggest this was Justin's specific intent.  Hermitian 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also change "claimed" to "reported" in the suggested text.  "Thinks," "claims," "feels," and "believes," are the four most commonly used weasel words. Hermitian 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Open proxy websites have many uses (wikipedia blocks as many as it can find) and there are so may non-predatory uses of open proxies that it seems far fetched and implies that in order to protect people from predators we should not allow open proxies, which is an extreme minority view with no place here. Were there a source that it was Justin's intent that would be a different matter but as you say we have no evidence that it was his intent, just the OR of a journalist trying to make a story that sells money and possibly pursuing a different agenda (ie anonymity on the internet). I agree that claimed could beb changed to reported in this case, I'll go for either, SqueakBox 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text which Phil deleted sourced the statement about using the proxies to bypass Internet filtering directly to the advertising copy for Berry's website FastAssProxy.com.  Is Berry's website an unreliable source about what it, itself, says?  --Ssbohio 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Counterpunch refers to itself as a muckraking newsletter, so I have no problems repeating the statement. Perhaps "self-profsessed muckraking newsletter" to make that clear? Phil Sandifer 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that now (hadnt looked at that article). Muckraking implies our judgement so self-styled muckrakers etc would be much better, SqueakBox 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Self-styled muckraking seems a bit negative in connotation. The term "self-styled" is often POV even if the denotation is not. Can we maybe find a reliable source that calls them muckraking and just cite that also? JoshuaZ 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-proclaimed, self-identified, "which describes itself as a muckraking newsletter?" Phil Sandifer 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like that last one. It is a bit wordy but seems to handle the issues well. JoshuaZ 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The editorial or political stance of Counterpunch has no bearing on the reliability of this particular article;  Rather, including it would serve to throw dust in the jury-men's eyes.  This article isn't the sort of thing that Counterpunch carries ordinarily, and Debbie Nathan, as I've shown above, is well-credentialed as a writer on the topic of child sexual abuse.  Injecting the term muckraking, because of its negative connotation, would serve to mislead the reader about the cited source.  Counterpunch didn't write this article, Debbie Nathan did, and Debbie Nathan is regarded as an experienced writer in this field.  It's bad enough that the pro-deletion argument here relies on leering innuendoes with no evidentiary backup, it would be doubly so if such a salacious point of view were allowed to insinuate itself into the facts of this article, however well-intentioned the addition would be. --Ssbohio 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that Counterpunch does spend time trying to dig up dirt is arguably relevant. When in doubt, we should have more information. In this case, more info about Counterpunch is a good thing. If you are concerned, one solution may be for you to write an article on Debbie Nathan and have her wikilinked which will maybe make it more clear that she's generally reliable. It appears that there is enough info about her to make a decent stub. JoshuaZ 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for addressing yourself to my concern, Joshua.  I take your point, and my objection is not that more information is being added bout Counterpunch, but that the information added has a negative connotation in popular culture and is being added without any balancing positive information about the quality of the reports Counterpunch publishes.  Including the sobriquet "muckraking" also denies the reality of this article: that it was written by Debbie Nathan first, then published by Counterpunch, arguably because other publications are wary both of criticizing Berry and of Eichenwald's litigious nature.  I'd rather see Counterpunch wikilinked and the reader can follow the link to find out more about it than have a pejorative term attached to this source, but, if it has to be, then it should be balanced by a positive reference to its reputation for truthfulness & Debbie Nathan's reputation as an expert in this field.  The article is culled from hours of research and interviews, and to reduce it to "muckraking" serves to deny that in the reader's mind.  --Ssbohio 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, the word muckraking doesn't have negative connotations to me. If it does have serious negative connotations that may be a problem (although since they self-identify as that, it is hard to see it as that problematic). JoshuaZ 14:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have negative connotations, implying a certain level of tabloid journalism. That said, I think those negative connotations are important here - Counterpunch is the sort of publication that would be interested in publishing this kind of criticism. That it identifies as such is significant. Phil Sandifer 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I think this is going to be the closest were likely to get to a consensus about what to stick in. If no one else objects, I'll add it to the text. JoshuaZ 02:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By using the term muckraking in such a way as to play up its negative connotation when Counterpunch uses the term in its original meaning, that, to me, misleads the reader.  (See my comments above)  The facts in Debbie Nathan's article are either true or not true;  tarring the publication in which her work appeared with these negative connotations does not serve to either support or refute the facts.  Counterpunch (on its homepage) quotes another magazine's description of it as "America's best political newsletter."  Its connotation is as positive as "muckraking" is negative;  I think the facts should speak for themselves, but if we're going to take shots at Counterpunch, they should be balanced by positive statements, instead of having the negative connotation given undue weight by standing alone.  --Ssbohio 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "which describes itself as a muckraking political newsletter" hits this perfectly. The editors of Counterpunch are not unaware of the connotations that "muckraking" carries - they are almost certainly embracing them to be a bit inflammatory, and noting that this is their description carries far more than just the meaning of muckraking - it's an elegant shorthand for much of their attitude and approach. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think that only including a negative comment about this source is, however well-intentioned, a tactic which would both deprecate the source and bias the reader.  You, yourself, have used muckraking to imply something unseemly about Counterpunch without ever providing a factual basis for the insinuation about its reliability.  I'm aware of your opinion of Counterpunch.  I'm also aware that this isn't OpinionPedia.  If you want to challenge the source, back up your accusation with facts.  If you want to present the subject neutrally, then allow both a positive and a negative description.  I'll even go a step further: you can describe it as muckraking on first reference, and I'll wait until the second reference to balance the scales.  You'll be able to impress upon the reader the unreliability of a thoroughly-researched article by an authority in the field solely because of where it was published.  Pro forma, but without hope of an answer, I'll ask again: have you read the article?  My proposal above is a compromise that still gives your perspective the advantage in the article.  Are you amenable to it?  --Ssbohio 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Wikilink Counterpunch and add the material in, so we can all get on with our lives.  Hermitian 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes to put in BLP related material 

message: I am pretty freaking amazed that an image created as advertising for an underage prostitute is considered ethically appropriate for Wikipedia. Another child prostitute, Masha Allen, told CNN in an interview:
:: "My pictures that are on the Internet disturb me more than what Matthew [her abuser] did because I know that the abuse stopped but those pictures are still on the Internet."
Not only were images of Masha's face scrupulously removed from photos associated with her case even when being used as evidence, but I see that her article itself has now been removed from Wikipedia.
Is the posting of Berry's picture considered less abusive because the prostitute in question is male? 
I just couldn't be more astonished to see this allowed under the fair-use policy, when ordinary promotional shots of artists are barred.
DanB†DanD 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To directly refute your assertions, I have a hard time seeing the image as one that advertises Berry as an underaged prostitute.  The photo is the least salacious I could find that pictures Berry as he looked at that time.  The photo of himself as a young teen that Berry uses now on his modeling page is far more salacious and titilating, though legal.  Berry's gender isn't the issue, though it has been published that male-male child sexual abuse is punished more severely than its male-female counterpart.  As to your concern about the use of this photo, the fair use rationale given on the image page is fairly detailed.  Have you read it?  The photo is not a mere representation of Berry, but a specific image of Berry as he looked at the time the events that brought him notoriety were taking place.  One cannot take a picture of Berry now in order to illustrate his appearance then, any more than one can take a picture of Soldier Field now in order to see what it looked like in the past.  Furthermore, to allay your concerns about treating Berry respectfully, Berry, himself, uses at least one image from his Internet pornography business as part of his current actor/model profile.  He, unlike a victim such as Masha Allen, has embraced and cultivated his image, starting as a teenager, and continues to do so even to this day.  I know people who are survivors of child sexual abuse.  It's difficult for me to know what I know about Berry and think of him in the same category as them. --Ssbohio 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any evidence that the image was created as "advertising for an underage prostitute."  It looks like an ordinary tourist photo to me.  The fact that Berry was an underage prostitute doesn't mean that every photograph of him depicts him engaging in such activities.  Hermitian 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't agree with the inclusion of the pictures, the double standard may have more to do with the fact that while Justin Berry may have been abused he also appears to have been actively involved in the production of the pornography and websites and its promotion including after he became an adult. Wasn't the Masha case one where she was raped by her adoptive father from something like age 5 who specifically adopted her to rape her and posted the pictures? Also in terms of fair use we generally only fair use images of living people if they are unique, can't be resonably replaced and is intended to show more then just what they look like in general. Clearly a promotional shot of an artist is none of these, it's intention is to simply show the artist it can be resonably replaced because it's general rather easy to get a photo of a living famous person particularly an artist. Nil Einne 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics of using Berry's image

message: *User talk:DanB DanD#Berry image
*User talk:Ssbohio/Justin Berry
*User talk:SqueakBox/history#Justin Berry
*User talk:Phil Sandifer#Ethics of Justin Berry article
*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Counterpunch -- Ssbohio 11:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant discussion

message: ====Statement by DanB DanD====
I am pretty sure I wandered onto the scene long after Jeff became actively involved in this quarrel, so I'm not certain why he gets to be an "outside observer" while my poor little talk page is listed as the first relevant area of the dispute.
Sorry about my nonfeasance, everybody!
Anyway, I don't really care about Justin Berry. I think he's of very dubious notability and I think the argument over his story is really a semi-veiled version of the argument over underage sex that is one of Wikipedia's most reliable crowd-pleasers. I think the best solution would be a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald, as it is really his journalistic ethics that have been the enduring subject of public notice.
However, I think the fair-use rationale used for the images in the article is about the most transparent thing I've ever seen. If the fact that an image showed "what an individual is known for" then a vast proportion of the commercial and private images of musicians, actors, and other performers that have been deleted under the recent stricter application of fair use would have to be restored. And I'm not thrilled with the ethics of showing a possibly-underaged person engaged in sex work.
And yes, I think it is obviously sex work to appear in an advertisement for a underage pornographic website, and to give a big hug to a customer and business associate of your underage pornographic website.
DanB†DanD 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by involved parties

message: I am pretty sure I wandered onto the scene long after Jeff became actively involved in this quarrel, so I'm not certain why he gets to be an "outside observer" while my poor little talk page is listed as the first relevant area of the dispute.
Sorry about my nonfeasance, everybody!
Anyway, I don't really care about Justin Berry. I think he's of very dubious notability and I think the argument over his story is really a semi-veiled version of the argument over underage sex that is one of Wikipedia's most reliable crowd-pleasers. I think the best solution would be a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald, as it is really his journalistic ethics that have been the enduring subject of public notice.
However, I think the fair-use rationale used for the images in the article is about the most transparent thing I've ever seen. If the fact that an image showed "what an individual is known for" then a vast proportion of the commercial and private images of musicians, actors, and other performers that have been deleted under the recent stricter application of fair use would have to be restored. And I'm not thrilled with the ethics of showing a possibly-underaged person engaged in sex work.
And yes, I think it is obviously sex work to appear in an advertisement for a underage pornographic website, and to give a big hug to a customer and business associate of your underage pornographic website.
DanB†DanD 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by DanB DanD

message: I've been trying to get this statement just right for a week now, and I finally decided that I would post it the way it is and hope that any errors or imperfections will be looked on with mercy by my fellow editors.
To better understand this conflict, here's a chronology of what's happened, taken from logs and other sources:
=====Article chronology=====
*8 March 2006 -  deleted "Justin Berry" as a foundation-mandated office action.  The article at the time contained unsourced criticism of Berry.
**In my view, the article was salvageable, but in its pre-deletion form was excessively critical and insufficiently sourced.
**Unverified talk page discussion said that Wales had received a phone call from Berry complaining about the article
**, a self-described pedophile, was a major contributor to the article.  On the same day as the office action, Wales also blocked Rookiee for 24 hours "while I sort out what's going on." On 9 March 2006,  indefinitely blocked Rookie for "pedophile trolling."  This block was removed on 5 March 2006 by   and the block reinstated on 21 September 2006 by  for "using WP as a personal home page."
*12 March 2006 -  semiprotected the article because IP editors were persistently readding deleted content that was preserved off-Wiki.   unprotected it the same day, and  semiprotected it once more on 29 April 2006.
*28 May 2007 -  deleted the article because of "Repeated and egregious BLP issues."  The same day, he restored a single revision, deleted the article again, and restored a single revision again, with the cryptic comment "Try again!"
**The same day,  semiprotected the article due to "IP vandalism."
*3 June 2007 - Following much talk page discussion,  restored the revisions deleted by Phil Sandifer.
*16 August 2007 -  once again deleted the article and selectively restored a small number of revisions.
*21 August 2007 - Following complaints about the lack of a GFDL-compliant history for the article, Phil Sandifer made further deletions.
=====The issues=====
======Deletion======
Phil Sandifer deleted a great deal of encyclopedic material and has heretofore refused to provide a factual basis for his assertion that the deletion was necessary to comply with biographies of living persons policy.  He has repeated in August a deletion he made in May which was found to be unwarranted and reversed.  This (extremely slow motion) wheel war is nonsensical, since Sandifer was constructively on notice that his deletion was controversial and lacked consensus.
I assert that there was no BLP problem in the deleted article that required the deletion of hundereds of edits to remove.  If a few edits contain material that is legitimately deletable, then so be it, but wholesale destruction of the article (which Sandifer calls nuking) is unwarranted and a denegration of the hard work of all who have edited here.  It gives the appearance of abuse of authority and bad faith action in knowing opposition to consensus.  
Restoration of the article is, to me, needed for any informed discussion about it;  Unless sufficient factual support is provided for the deletion, I see restoration of the deleted article as an essential first step in any resolution.  I've previously offered to discuss this with Phil Sandifer off-wiki, but he has maintained his silence, refusing to either accept or reject my offer.
======Notability======
Berry is notable.  In addition to the December 2005 feature story in The New York Times, in 2006, Berry has appeared on Larry King Live, the Oprah Winfrey Show, in Congressional testimony on C-SPAN, and on NBC's Today show, among others.  His case has been (more or less) dramatized by Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.  In 2007, he continued his public relations efforts, appearing as a public speaker at several events and appearing on CTV's Canada AM and the Australian 9 network's 60 Minutes.  He has engaged in public speaking and has hired an agent for that purpose.  He offers his services online as an actor and model.  He has played a significant role in the Federal prosecutions of Kenneth Gourlay, Greg Mitchell, Aaron Brown, and Timothy Richards.  He has been written about in Counterpunch, in GenerationQ, in Gawker, in Editor & Publisher, in Slate.com, and in numerous other sources.  Theclaim that he is nonnotable is belied by his continued media appearances.  It is frankly unfathomable to me that he could be considered non-notable.
======Sourcing======
Berry has been covered in media that meet the test for being reliable sources.  Sources critical of Berry are derided here as unreliable, while sources favorable to him are never given such attention.  Like with the deletion, every attempt to address Phil Sandifer's concerns about sourcing is thwarted by his refusal to provide factual support for his allegations of unreliability.
====== Counterpunch ======
Counterpunch is a noted and well-regarded newsletter dealing with law and politics in America.  It has been praised by such noted Americans as Noam Chomsky.  It enjoys a stellar reputation for factual accuracy and truth-telling.  It has published two stories by Debbie Nathan about Justin Berry, exposing factual material absent from other media accounts.  The article and its publisher are both of easily sufficient quality to be relied upon here.  Phil Sandifer, who has objected loudly to the use of this source, has kept silent on whether he has actually read the story in question, despite numerous requests that he do.
====== Debbie Nathan ======
Debbie Nathan is personally and professionally respected for her writing concerning child sexual abuse.  She has written a book on the subject that has received very good reviews and is used in college-level courses.  She writes for New York magazine, the New Yorker, CounterPunch, and numerous other publications.
====== GenerationQ ======
This is a more difficult source to evaluate.  Its editorial content is largely written directly by its editor.  While I personally find this source reliable, because of its editorial structure, I would support using this source only where it can be employed in conjunction with another reliable source.
====== The New York Times ======
Unlike with Jayson Blair, this time, the Grey Lady has been very slow off the mark in terms of admitting the editorial lapses in this story.  They have published an Editor's Note.  Their Public Editor, Byron Calame, has written about the issues.  Each time, however, the Times has continued to doggedly insist that the underlying story is untainted.  I can't see deprecating a source as august as the Times, but in this circumstance, its version of the story must be balanced by other voices in the interest of providing fair & balanced coverage.
====== Images ======
I've deliberately been extremely conservative in selecting images for this article.  :Image:Justinpicture1.jpg is easily the tamest picture of Berry I've heard of from the time he operated his last website, JustinsFriends.net.  It was difficult to find, considering the "taint" that attaches to anyone who admits having dealings with Berry.  It was a free photo available to anyone browsing the website, as opposed to a members-only photo.  An anonymous poster on another website had the photo and, to preserve his anonymity with me, I had him register an account and upload the photo.  I provided a detailed fair-use rationale and the photo sat undisturbed under that rationale for months.  While I originally resisted  in his attempt to crop the photo to remove the second person pictured because it would also remove the site watermark that identified its origin, he made a strong, well-supported argument and I came to see it his way.  The image itself is important because it gives the reader a chance to look at Berry's story & the self-serving protestations of those his evidence has imprisoned and decide for themselves whether Berry's customers should have known better than to believe the site was 18+ upon seeing him.  Instead of opining, we leave the final judgment to the reader.
As far as :Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg, what could be more topical than depicting Berry with Ken Gourlay, the erstwhile business partner who turned out to have engaged Berry in unlawful acts for which Gourlay was convicted in Michigan.  It depicts their seemingly cordial meeting in Mexico a few years after Berry alleges he was molested by Gourlay.  It was Gourlay's trial that exposed the first payment from Kurt Eichenwald to Berry such that the media picked up on the story.
=====Conclusion=====
My views:
* That keeping the article's history deleted denies any editor here the opportunity to review the purportedly BLP-violating materials.
* There has been no supported, factual argument made to justify the deletion of the article's history entirely.  
* There has been no supported, factual argument made to justify the deprecation of Debbie Nathan & Counterpunch as sources.
* There is ample evidence of Berry's notability.
* Restoring the article would amply demonstrate that Berry's story is more than simply an adjunct to Eichenwald's
* The images are integral to telling the story and are not replaceable because how Berry looked at the time and how he related to others involved in these activities is an important piece of information for the reader.
* Almost all of what's been done to decimate this article has been done in good faith, but some have carried their good faith efforts beyond what consensus supports in their zeal to preserve BLP and avoid naysaying a self-described victim of sexual exploitation.
I am open to questions, comments, & criticisms, but I prefer that arguments made be factually based, and I offer to have discussions via email if anyone feels they have something to say that shouldn't be placed on-wiki.  --Ssbohio 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]]

message: My views:
* That keeping the article's history deleted denies any editor here the opportunity to review the purportedly BLP-violating materials.
* There has been no supported, factual argument made to justify the deletion of the article's history entirely.  
* There has been no supported, factual argument made to justify the deprecation of Debbie Nathan & Counterpunch as sources.
* There is ample evidence of Berry's notability.
* Restoring the article would amply demonstrate that Berry's story is more than simply an adjunct to Eichenwald's
* The images are integral to telling the story and are not replaceable because how Berry looked at the time and how he related to others involved in these activities is an important piece of information for the reader.
* Almost all of what's been done to decimate this article has been done in good faith, but some have carried their good faith efforts beyond what consensus supports in their zeal to preserve BLP and avoid naysaying a self-described victim of sexual exploitation.
I am open to questions, comments, & criticisms, but I prefer that arguments made be factually based, and I offer to have discussions via email if anyone feels they have something to say that shouldn't be placed on-wiki.  --Ssbohio 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Well I want simply offer my insight in hopes that it does help. Frankly, the article seems promising until you get past the first two sections then, for those of us who saw the Oprah Winfrey show (she's big on stopping pedophiles), the meal falls flat. I learned much more from Oprah about how pedophiles operate online, who are they and some basic misconceptions. The article, in short, could be doubled just by using the Oprah transcript. For instance Why would Berry accept that money? It should explain how he got started. This is useful and appropriate information that would actually be fascinating and might even prevent other kids and their parents from being naive. Before we get to the juicy scandalous stuff was he a good business owner? And how exactly were any other kids employees of his operation? We can be clinical-ish and dry but what did they do, was it solo work? Were they ensnared in the same way or did what? 
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this case blow the lid open on the public's consciousness of pedophilia issues? 
Eichenwald requested demonstrations of the workings of Berry's online business which Berry provided, including live conversations with subscribers. Typical conversation? Was it pure lecherousness? How did this develop? And what were those workings? If I remember he was a tech wiz and had his own apartment?
Eichenwald persuaded him to discontinue the business and turn his information about those minors over to the authorities. So what happened? Resulting in ... (ahh you're killing me!) 
Members of the committee said his testimony had fueled a new effort to toughen up the laws against the producers and purchasers of child pornography and... did anything happen? Why?
Berry created InternetSafety.tv as a world-wide anti-child pornography resource.[2] Really?! Do they do anything? any success or is it just a front of some sort?
It would be nice to add something to the lede that suggested a little more of the impact his story has made.
To me it would also help to have more of a timeline from Berry as porn provider to  public speaker (whatever that is); wasn't he in Mexico through part of this? I remember his dad being a partner in Mexico?
Also Public speaker[2] & former webcam pornographer[1] in the bio box seems to miss the mark that he was victimized and was a pornographer (quite the loaded word) as a minor. Public speaker is also odd to me as well, it seems vague as I've never heard someone call themselves a public speaker. Activist, educator, motivational speaker - all of those but save public speaker for the tax forms. The equivalent in taxesse for former webcam pornographer, by the way, is "retired film director."  Benjiboi 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Benjiboi

message: The subject, and events involving the subject, appear to lack notability, while the article itself falls short of WP:BLP and resembles several flavours of what Wikipedia is not (eg. tabloid, blog, soapbox, memorial site, battleground, web host, indiscriminate collection of information). To quote the latter, "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." The section on Gourlay is semi-biographical of him (not the subject). I support article delete.--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Brendan.lloyd|Brendan Lloyd]]

message: ====Jeffpw's reply to Danb DanD====
I listed you as an involved party because you nominated an image for deletion, edited the text of the article and have suggested deleting this article and merging the content into another article. I listed myself as an outside party because I have never edited the article nor have I initiated any administrative actions related to it. I assure you there was no attempt to obfuscate my role in this dispute. I have made my preferences for a resolution clear both elsewhere in the talk page and here in the Rfc. However, I have no intention of editing this article at all, and thus feel I am outside of the dispute. Jeffpw 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarifying note - my only edits to the article have been to add the notice of the ongoing IfDs to the captions of the two images. DanB†DanD 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not understanding something here. We had a set of decent texts that Phil and others agreed would work. The vandalism problem simply means we need to ask a few more admins to keep watch over the article. I fail to see why we need this RfC. JoshuaZ 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through the RfC process and getting input from outside editors will result in a higher barrier to arbitrary removal of material from the article in the future.  In addition, it counts as mediation, and we can then go directly to arbcon if Phil acts unilaterally again.  Hermitian 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I listed you as an involved party because you nominated an image for deletion, edited the text of the article and have suggested deleting this article and merging the content into another article. I listed myself as an outside party because I have never edited the article nor have I initiated any administrative actions related to it. I assure you there was no attempt to obfuscate my role in this dispute. I have made my preferences for a resolution clear both elsewhere in the talk page and here in the Rfc. However, I have no intention of editing this article at all, and thus feel I am outside of the dispute. Jeffpw 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarifying note - my only edits to the article have been to add the notice of the ongoing IfDs to the captions of the two images. DanB†DanD 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not understanding something here. We had a set of decent texts that Phil and others agreed would work. The vandalism problem simply means we need to ask a few more admins to keep watch over the article. I fail to see why we need this RfC. JoshuaZ 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through the RfC process and getting input from outside editors will result in a higher barrier to arbitrary removal of material from the article in the future.  In addition, it counts as mediation, and we can then go directly to arbcon if Phil acts unilaterally again.  Hermitian 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeffpw's reply to Danb DanD

message: looks to me like it can readily be used for an actually well-done overview of the controversy here. Phil Sandifer 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you made your opinion the heading for this section, do you consider this to finally be a good source because it supports your view of the controversy?  That's how it's most readily differentiated from the sources you denegrate.  The dividing line between sources you approve of and thos you don't seems to be how well they agree with your view of the controversy.  We all have to work from the same core policies here, and a source doesn't become better or worse based on how well it fits your view of the situation. --Ssbohio 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was thinking it was a good source because it was from a mainstream journalistic source and provided an overview of the situation instead of an editorial screed. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And of Debbie Nathan, an explicit advocate on issues relating to child sexuality, yes. An uninvolved mainstream source writing a general overview is preferable to a partisan source of questionable reliability written by an advocate for a particular perspective who is actively trying to advance that perspective. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also discount Kurt Eichenwald, since he is an "explicit advocate" when it comes to Justin Berry?  Advocacy journalism is still journalism.  Nathan has been published in multiple places, and has written a book published by a mainstream house.  The facts are what they are.  Nathan's or Eichenwald's opinion surrounding those facts doesn't make the facts they report less citable.  --Ssbohio 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're joking, right? Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not joking.  If you could rephrase that comment, however, I'd appreciate it.  --Ssbohio 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally, a good source

message: Considering the Times role in all this, it appears that being "in the mainstream" is no guarantee of reliability.  Conversely, a source's being out of the mainstream doesn't make it unreliable, especially when it comes to matters of fact.  You've raised this oblique criticism before;  What's your basis for alleging unreliability on the part of another source (presumably, you speak of Counterpunch)? --Ssbohio 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of Debbie Nathan, an explicit advocate on issues relating to child sexuality, yes. An uninvolved mainstream source writing a general overview is preferable to a partisan source of questionable reliability written by an advocate for a particular perspective who is actively trying to advance that perspective. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also discount Kurt Eichenwald, since he is an "explicit advocate" when it comes to Justin Berry?  Advocacy journalism is still journalism.  Nathan has been published in multiple places, and has written a book published by a mainstream house.  The facts are what they are.  Nathan's or Eichenwald's opinion surrounding those facts doesn't make the facts they report less citable.  --Ssbohio 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream source reliability

message: In what way does it provide an overview of the situation?  It doesn't even cover all the information Eichenwald disclosed in the interview.  By my reading it discusses Eichenwald's actions from Eichenwald's point of view and barely mentions any other part of the situation.  It's a good source for a statement about Eichenwald's reported failure to recall being caused by his epilepsy, but I'm not seeing the overview of which you speak. --Ssbohio 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking, right? Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not joking.  If you could rephrase that comment, however, I'd appreciate it.  --Ssbohio 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview