Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 5

message: Alright, alright. Wikipedia isn't the place to hold mud-slinging battles, especially where what is being discussed bears extremely little relevance to article writing. I have removed the discourse that went here, due to the mutual incivility being shown in it. Please try and contribute constructively instead. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending Forum Raid 

message: "Perverted Justice"?  Certainly, one must take it that they aren't advocates of perverted justice.  That would be something like what was going on in the rape rooms and torture chambers of the Saddam Husein regime.  I think they deserve some critizism for this unfortunate choice of name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.87.1.114 (talk • contribs).
: Find some and you can add it to the article.  Powers T 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the creepy name of this organization 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/technology/13justice.html?hp&ex=1165986000&en=acd4803fc0d4d9d3&ei=5094&partner=homepage - crz crztalk 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh NYT article 

message: I have removed the section that went here, as I feel it was created merely with the intent of a personal attack and contributes nothing to article content discussion. Please refrain from posting such material in the future; users are warned that continued posting of this material may, at an administrator's discretion, lead to being blocked. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: "To date, not one entrapment defense has worked in a case with evidence brought by the website." This is referenced to a self-published FAQ where they simply make this claim. It's not verified by any 3rd party. I think if this assertion can't be backed up by a reputible source it should be removed. Other references to the same FAQ come off more as soap-boxing, but this one is written to sound like it's a hard, established fact (which it may or may not be -- it's just not properly sourced). See also: "WP:VER - self-published", "WP:NOT - Soapbox" Anyone object? Vagr4nt 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published Material 

message: A number of editors have attempted remove this content, only to have it reintroduced into the article. It has been suggested that the link is not relevent to the topic WP:NOT. The topic is, afterall, Perverted-Justice.COM, and the Corrupted-Justice.NET website is aimed at criticising a different site (Corrupted-Justice.COM). Much of the content on Corrupted-Justice.NET is self-published and un-verifiable. It's largely comprised of chat transcripts and bulletin board postings aimed at personally attacking individuals who run Corrupted-Justice.COM -- again, little to do with the topic of this article, Perverted-Justice. Vagr4nt 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrupted-Justice.net addresses criticisms against Perverted-Justice.com. In fact, it's a source in the story itself as the Radar piece used it to talk about the Raisley case. The very idea that the link should be removed is beyond spurious and yet another attempt to unbalance the article. XavierVE 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link: Corrupted-Justice.NET 

message: After seeing a non-notable defense attorney, of all people, quoted in the criticism section, I created a praise section in order to create balance to the article. One thing I did not do a good job was wikifying my references section down at the bottom. I'll work on that later, unless someone else wishes to add the titles of the webpages. XavierVE 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times saw fit to publish the quote of the "non-notable" attorney. I think we need to stick with quality sources. Much of the praise section is filled out with self-published content (PJ.COM) and unrelated content (praise of Dateline NBC). Vagr4nt 03:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. Just because the Times publishes someone doesn't mean they're notable. The criticism of a defense attorney isn't notable to the article. As for the praise, all are referenced and quoted. You really betray your bias with this complaint and the very suggestion that they're praising Dateline NBC and not Perverted-Justice.com and To Catch a Predator. XavierVE 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not my standard, but the standard upheld by the wikipedia community. Vagr4nt 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already seen you fail at applying Wikipedian standards on this page before, remember your argument with Powers?XavierVE 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comment is neither accurate nor relevent. I strongly urge you to review official wiki policy WP:NPA. You may also want to refer to your "logical fallacy" web page for further reading on the subject of "ad hominem". Vagr4nt 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem, snicker. Learn to spell it before you try to misapply it. Besides, it's not an ad hominem to point out your lack of understanding and application of Wikipedian standards when it's already been pointed out on this very page. :) XavierVE 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a praise section is a good idea. Just make sure everything is sourced to reliable press links, and that the praise is unambiguous, and I see no problem. PS: Thanks for the grammar tip. Vagr4nt 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is calling the section "Praise" still maintaining a neutral point of view?  It sounds like a word that implies something positive to me.  Wouldn't "accomplishments" or something similar be more neutral?  Miss Innocent 08:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: To attribute praise for the Dateline show to PJ is, as one editor would put it, "beyond spurious". Likewise, one wouldn't wish that criticism of the Dateline show to be reflected in the Criticism section of the PJ article. Vagr4nt 02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, it's not spurious at all.  Do you think, when Jon Stewart, or Oprah, thanked Chris Hansen for the To Catch a Predator series, they were thanking him for the excellent reporting on the PeeJ/law enforcement stings?  No, they were thanking him, by proxy, for the whole operation, exposing the potential predators.  The stings are PeeJ; Dateline simply facilitates them.  Powers T 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So should criticism of Dateline be included in the PJ criticism section? I don't agree. I think attribition of praise needs to be specific for it to be included in the article. Otherwise it's a stretch of logic -- original research. Wikipedia is not the place for drawing conclusions based on conjecture. We simply record the conclusions and assertions published elsewhere. Vagr4nt 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not criticism/praise of Dateline, it's criticism/praise of To Catch a Predator, a series for which PeeJ is just as responsible as Dateline or the local police forces.  Powers T 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, by Dateline, I meant the TV Show, Dateline: To Catch a Predator, which has its own wikipedia entry To_catch_a_predator. Praise for that project should go there. Praise for the organization Perverted-Justoce.com should go here. Vagr4nt 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is no TCAP without Perverted-Justice.com" 

message: Here, SqueakBox added the adjective "pedophile" to the clause "dedicated to identifying pedophile adults willing to have chat room sexual encounters with minors."  It seems unnecessary, since not all of the adults willing to have chat room sexual encounters with minors are pedophiles (at least, not under every definition of the word).  Thus, calling them pedophiles is POV in that it implies a particular definition of the word "pedophile".  The description of what they're willing to do, along with the description earlier int he sentence of PeeJ as an "anti-pedophile organization" is sufficient to explain the purpose without introducing any POV.  Powers T 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: As a theoretical matter, someone who uses a chatroom to solicit sex from a child would appear to be doing so for pedophilic reasons. While some child sexual abusers do so for "situational" reasons rather than due to pedophilia, that explanation doesn't cover chatroom solicitation. However it isn't for us to decide. PJ itself regularly refers to the people it targets as "pedophiles". The term is used often on their website and is included in the HTML description of their home page. "Slamming wannabe pedophiles with a little Perverted Justice." So it is verifaibly true that their aim is to target pedophiles. Whether the targets are in fact pedophiles is a side issue.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PeeJ is usually careful to refer to the marks as "wannabe pedophiles," thus seemingly adopting the definition of pedophile as "child molester".  In that case, PeeJ is definitely not dedicated (strictly) to identifying pedophile adults, but rather "wannabe pedophile" adults -- a usage which is either vague or redundant in the sentence in question.  Of course, the word is gone from the sentence at this point so I suppose it's a moot point.  =)  Powers T 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Powers. Anchoress 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  describe adults as "pedophile"? 

message: When a line in an article claims someone says something, it needs a source confirming that attribution. So when the article says, "administrators say..." it needs a reference. Other than that...glad PeeJ is in my hometown! VanTucky (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed (sad its not in mine), SqueakBox 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: :The following is a video that was taken by some members of the public that waited outside the courtroom too harass the people that showed up in court following the Dateline NBC sting in Riverside, California.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGFTAGvKIVE
Brdennis 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video you describe was only partially used (probably in violation of copyright) in the video to which you linked.  The video you linked wasted 3 minutes of my time attempting and failing to make some sort of point.  Powers T 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use a video like that as a source. We don't know who made it, who the people are in the video, their affiliation with PJ, etc. If reliable sources have covered this topic then we can cover it in the article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't anyone associated with Perverted-Justice.com anyways. Some couple in Riverside that had a old blogspot blog. XavierVE 08:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harassment