Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed reorganization

I'm starting to think that this article should be reorganized along chronological lines, which seems to be the house style when it comes to biographies. Thoughts, feelings, opinions? Perhaps a straw poll? --Ssbohio 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution of Richards

Am I mistaken, or does the information on Timothy Ryan Richards just come out of left field? Other that noting that some of the charges relate to Berry, there's no context at all given for who he is or why he's even relevant to this article. Esrever 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. The section on Timothy Richards isn't well tied-in to the overall narrative. I have primary sources that give a chronology of their business dealings, and I'm looking for secondary sources to support them. It's my hope hat if the article is reorganized chronologically, some of the confusion would be eliminated. According to my sources, Richards (a/k/a Casey) was approached by Aaron Brown, owner of neova.net, a credit card processor specializing in adult websites. Richards & Brown were long-time friends, and had performed on the same webcam sites before moving on to other opportunities. Brown asked Richards to administer Berry's latest site, JustinsFriends.net, as Berry had walked away leaving paid subscribers in the lurch. By his own account, Richards believe the site to be legal in every aspect, as it bore the correct legal compliance language. Richards administered the site, while, Brown, Berry, & Greg Mitchel still had access to it. Separately, Richards operated CaseyAndDew.tv, a non-pornographic webcam site that did depict a fully-clothed minor as he grew up as a gay teen. Once I get the sourcing straightened out, I'll be incorporating some of this information into the article. I'm also considering forking off the information on others involved in Berry's enterprises, to reduce the length & complexity of the article. --Ssbohio 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this info should be split out. This article isn't about Richards. I think the long indictment of a third party should be summarized in a few lines. -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that these men are not, as a general rule, notable aside from their role in Berry's (criminal?) enterprises. While Richards may, indeed, have a claim not entirely based on the Berry affair, he seems to be the only one. I think this would be an example of an allowable spinoff based on forking policy. However, I've never done one of those before, and considering the tendentious nature of this article's history, I'd want to get it right the first time around. --Ssbohio 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Let's remember this article is about the person, not the incident. -Will Beback · † · 06:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Is the removed content being forked into a separate article? I ask so that I don't duplicate your efforts. Also, with the possible exceptions of Kurt Eichenwald, Tim Richards, & (possibly) Gilo Tunno, none of the others in this story, Berry included, seem to be notable outside of its context. --Ssbohio 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started the Timothy Ryan Richards page in a hope to be able to get all sides to this story, it appears that many of the edits here are still being made by people who don't want Mr. Berry painted in any type of negative light. If I understand BPL well enough, then it would appear that on Mr. Richard's page, his personal testimony would take precedence much like Berry's personal testimony is taking precedence in this article. I am still new to wiki formatting though, so I could use some help. --Julien Deveraux 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sites disputing Berry's story

This material was recently deleted:

• Friends and relatives of Timothy Ryan Richards (a/k/a Casey), accused by Berry of distributing Berry's underage photos and videos, have created two websites: The Truth About Justin is an information sharing site, and Free Casey is an online community for his supporters, containing blogs, podcasts, and discussion forums. These sites have gathered extensive information on the subject.

The second site doesn't apper to meet our standards for an external link, but the first one might. It may offer a different POV which would help neutrality. Have we already discussed these links? -Will Beback · † · 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These links have not been discussed and they should. If they're not included on this page then it should be removed completely as Justin Berry will likely want only his POV or those that parrot it. It should also be noted that neither of these sites are "pro-pedophilia". In fact, the very opposite. Justin Berry was 18 when Richards maintained Justin's servers. Child pornography was added by Justin without the knowledge of Tim Richards. So for Justin to come on here and claim that a website denouncing Justin's crimes is "pro-pedophilia"... well that's just silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.111.51.110 (talk • contribs).

I apriciate the help of the moderators on this site to continue with the effort of this article. JustinBerry 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Links removed. do not post again. JustinBerry 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the ordinary course of events, we try to achieve consensus as to what should be included in an article. Any information you have that would help achieve that consensus (beyond your instruction above) would help me form an opinion. Additionally, as a contributor to one of the websites in question, I'm personally bothered by the inference that I am "pro-pedophilia." Nothing could be further from the truth. --Ssbohio 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "free Casey" link doesn't meet our external link guidelines. I can't comment on the first one as each time I try to open it I get a "Server not found" error. I will try again later. Sarah 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thetruthaboutjustin.com works for me. Give it another try. Can someone please explain what happens if the subject insists that this link be removed but is deemed valid from a wikipedia standpoint? I can see this turning into a rv war of sorts if it doesn't get some type of authoritative attention. I totally understand that the subject of the bio would like for only his side of the story to be shared, but there be some level of neutrality.

The CounterPunch/Debbie Nathan article link should also be restored. It is a properly resourced article based on evidence. The only reason it was removed is because it disputes the subjects version of events factually. Does that make it valid to remove it? And stating that the article or anyone else's viewpoint is "worthless" just doesn't cut it.

Should the QueerPlanet articles be removed as well? They're not consistent with Justin's views either and contain letters from Casey telling his version of events.

CounterPunch, though unconventional, is usually accepted as a reliable source. I'm not sure why it was deleted either.[1] At least one of the QueerPlanet.us links is used as a reference so there'd be no reason to also include it in the external links. Regarding the involvement of the subject in editing the article, our specific principles are detailed in WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Both discourage subjects from directly editing biographies. An overriding principle is that we should be ethical in dealing with subjects. Each of us should imagine we're the subject and think of how we'd want to be treated. Going forward it would be best if the subject raises any issues about the article here on the talk page and allow other editors to make the changes. -Will Beback · † · 07:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Anon. I just discovered the reason it didn't work is the link I used, the one in the article at the time, had a typo in it. I've told Justin privately about COI and AUTO and he understands and appears genuinely willing to work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This article has been very problematic in the past and was deleted at one point by Jimbo, came under WP:OFFICE and was also the subject of OTRS complaints. I agree with Will's comments wrt dealing with article subjects ethically and with compassion, but that, of course, doesn't mean that we allow an article to become slanted or to be used as a vehicle by either side. We're looking for a balanced, honest article. Sarah 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Will & Sarah, thanks for weighing in here. I looked at WP:LINKS, and I can see where arguments can be made for both FreeCasey.Com's inclusion & its exclusion. My instinct is to keep it in the external links section because, while it is a site with a POV, it also provides much greater detail about the Berry/Richards interaction and alleged conspiracy than would make sense to include anywhere but in an article on Richards. I've personally used information from that site to develop and research information for the article, though I wouldn't use it as a sole source for anything, since it has an agenda to push. That said, in the eyes of Debbie Nathan (New York Magazine) and Jack Shafer (Slate), the primary source of this article (the NY Times exposee) also appears to have a slant to it. I was wondering if you could flesh out your reasoning for seeing it as an excluded site.

Early on, this article became about villifying Berry, but that's been corrected. I would ask everyone contributing here, from me & you to JustinBerry & Kurt Berry, to avoid repeated deletion & restoration of content. If it's not part of the consensus view on the content of this article, then we should discuss it here, rather than playing revert roulette. While I think FreeCasey.Com should be noted as an external link (but described as a POV website), I'm not going to restore it to the article unless that's what consensus dictates. If we could all practice restraint in out article edits, I think consensus can be reestablished.

To be clear, I have a point of view on this matter. My edits (I believe) do not. I've been sensitive to the heightened scrutiny on this article and tried to remove poorly-sourced material with alacrity, in the spirit of WP:BLP. I want this article to reflect the diversity of opinion on this topic, with both support and refutation coming from people of note. --Ssbohio 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've again reverted the removal of the link to the CounterPunch article. It's a published article by a reputable writer in a reliable source. Anyone planning to further delete this link (or make any other possibly controversial change) is asked to please discuss it here first. This article can be improved, but by consensus. --Ssbohio 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for the removal of the CounterPunch article. As part of one removal an anonymous editor (presumably the subject) left this hidden comment, " REMOVED DO NOT ADD AGAIN. You've been warned."[2][3] That kind of remark is not helpful, especially when there's no justification given for the removal. OTOH, the timeline does not appear properly sourced and should be left out unless it can be carefully referenced. -Will Beback · † · 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Under current policy, the removal of embarassing, but reliably sourced, content is not called for, and may be seen as a means of "pushing" a point of view, or, in the extreme, evidence of a conflict of interest. I was careful to only revert the removal of the link to the CounterPunch article, while maintaining the removal of the timeline, content I myself removed a few days ago as inadequately sourced. From my read of the CounterPunch article, some form of timeline could be developed using it as a source. Until that happens, this article will need monitoring, as these unsourced additions and out-of-policy deletions seem to keep repeating. --Ssbohio 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good start to the fact-checking on the timeline that's being disputed here: http://gawker.com/news/kurt-eichenwald/kurt-eichenwald-has-some-splaining-to-do-242699.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.111.51.110 (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The Gawker appears to qualify as a reliable source as it has an editing team. Do we really need a day-by-day timeline? Could we summarize it in a paragraph instead? -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reracking indent) The Gawker piece serves to further call into doubt the verifiability & reliability of the timeline as a whole, while giving cutious support to portions of it. The timeline is (at first glance) at least partially supported by the CounterPunch article. In fact, the article can be used to source quite a bit of information that may be worthy of inclusion in the article. It merits more review than I have the time to give it. --Ssbohio 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A contributor has added the following text as an HTML comment in the article's external links section:

<!-- Please see talk page discussion. Removal of TheTruthAboutJustin.Com & FreeCasey.Com were stated as due to concerns over NPOV & RS. -->

My understanding is that TheTruthAboutJustin.Com is acceptable per linking policy but that FreeCasey.Com is not. I've edited the article to conform to that view, removing a reference to the FreeCasey site that was recently added by an IP contributor. I wanted to bring the HTML commenter's opinion here for consideration, rather than deleting it outright. I can't see any good coming from discussing content issues in HTML comments within the article. --Ssbohio 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead image changes

I believe that the change to the lead image in the article is not an improvement. Simply put, Berry became known for his appearances on his various websites. The previous image, an entirely G-rated photo from the archive.org copy of one of his websites, more clearly indicates Berry's claim to notability. Additionally, Berry's age and appearance at the time of his performances is central to his notability as a teen webcammer. To look at it another way, he became a public speaker because he became notable for his websites. He didn't become notable by being a public speaker. I've restored the original image further down, in the section of the article that introduces mexicofriends.com, the website from which the image is taken. If no significant objections are raised, I plan to restore it as lead image, as that was the consensus version of the article, while moving the new photo(s) down to a section on Berry's public appearances or his role as a speaker. --Ssbohio 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

His speaker's fee isn't notable, and the fact that it isn't listed is even less notable. As for the photo, it's fair use which means we should try to limit its use to places where we're discussing it directly rather than using it simply for identification. We can improve the free-use image that's there now by brightening and cropping it. -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Berry's career as a speaker is arguably not notable, either, as it hasn't been established as a going concern rather than a one-off event. One of the central issues among Berry's detractors is the perception that he profited from what they see as participation in criminal conspiracies for which others have been imprisoned. The question of whether he's still profiting now is, to my mind, germane to the article, especially for maintaining WP:NPOV. Otherwise, the impression is that Berry is not deriving income from his speaking engagements. I'm going to rewrite the line, but I believe it's necessary to mention his status as a compensated speaker who has elected not to disclose his fee for speaking.

To be clear, the lead image, Image:Berry.JPG, isn't a free use image, based on its tagging, and the fact that the person who uploaded it is pictured and could not possibly have taken the picture as well as appear in it. Being that it appears to be a professional photo, it's unlikely that the image is free use. Either way, until it's properly tagged, we won't know. I've considered improving the cropping and color balance of the image, but I'm reluctant to create a derivative work from an original of unclear provenance and copyright status. --Ssbohio 06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't free, or even identified at all. It may be gone soon which'll make the question here moot. -Will Beback · † · 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Berry's speaker's fees

As for the speakers fee I can't imagine writing in an article that "the subject's salary isn't disclosed". This is original rasearch unless a reliable source makes an issue of it. The information may be easily available by phone, for example. As for his present career, it's notable in a generic biographical way. We typically record the places of residence and marriages of subjects, even when they aren't notable for those facts. We don't ever say, "he won't say how much he's paid". We have biographies of hundreds of people who are speakers and I've edited dozens of them. Speakers fees are only notable when they are noted for being unusual or in conflicts of interest. When Bill Clinton gets $100,000+ that's notable. When an inspirational speaker gets, or doesn't get, $10,000 that isn't notable. Likewise for actors' salaries. -Will Beback · † · 06:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If Berry were selling insurance or working in a factory, his compensation would be irrelevant. But, when he arguably became famous for the illegal activities he was involved in and the various ways he profited from them, the fact that other speakers disclose their fees but Berry doesn't is something that bears noting, but not undue weight. In the heterodox view of Berry, his continued derivation of income from his past notoriety is part of a pattern and practice that, in a limited way, resembles that of others who have profited from books, movies, or speaker's fees based on their past criminal activities.

As to claims of original research, I believe that the sentence in question represents a straightforward reporting of the disclosures made on his page at his speaker's bureau. Other speakers disclose their salary. Berry does not. Reporting a sourced fact should not be considered OR, since the fact is being presented unanalyzed.

Is there language that can be included related to his undisclosed speaker's fee that would be a compromise between our views? Would it be better to get the information on his fees from Berry or his agent (if available) and report that amount, instead of the fact of its nondisclosure? I'm confident there's a middle road that can be taken on this question. --Ssbohio 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the subject's pay situation were worth noting someone would have noted it. Until they do leave it out. -Will Beback · † · 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many aspects of the subject's history were apparently notable enough to be included in Debbie Nathan's article in CounterPunch, but they didn't suddenly become so the day she published. Arguing that not being noted is evidence of not being notable is an exercise in tautology. I consulted WP:RS & WP:NOR, and based on those, I can cite primary source material regarding Berry's pay being undisclosed, as long as the fact itself is cited, rather than being used as the basis for analysis or speculation, which would be original research. I've addressed notability with the arguments given above. If there's something I should consider, please respond to the argument I've already made, and I'll be open to your views, just as I have been in the past. I don't edit any article lightly. This article has the potential to become hagiography rather than biography, and I'm interested in preventing that. Also, I'm faintly concerned about the instructive tone of your comment. Content is a matter of consensus, and I'm trying to arrive at a consensus. That's why I haven't added back the disputed statement while we're still discussing it. While I believe that policy backs my view, I'm well aware that each of us thinks we're right, which is why I'm here talking about the removal instead of taking actution unilaterally. --Ssbohio 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right, things are more obviously notable when someone has noted them. As soon as a reliable source publishes something about Berry's failure to disclose his speaker's fee we can record that in the article. Until then it's original research. More than that, the sustained effort to insert that information appears intended to present a POV. You've already identified that you are unsympathetic to the subject and so inserting unsympathetic factoids does not appear neutral. And you're not quoting a primary source, you are making a conclusion based on the lack of information in a primary source. I don't think it's likely that you'll get a consensus on this talk page to agree to that material. -Will Beback · † · 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot to cover, so I'll take them one-by-one:

• Things are, indeed more obviously notable when noted. However, in your previous comment, you assert the reverse, that a lack of being noted is evidence of a lack of notability. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• A reliable source has been found. The speaker's bureau that represents Berry is authoritative on whether they publish his speaking fees. According to WP:RS, reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Who is more credible on the subject of prices than the company that's charging the prices?
• Your statement that this is original research doesn't make it so. Relevant policy states that primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, in this case information from Berry's speaker's bureau is both primary and reliable, by my understanding of the policy definitions. How does your understanding differ?
• I categorically reject your assertion, bordering on accusation, that I am trying to present a POV with this. The effort to include this information is intended to maintain NPOV. If we talk about the fact that he does public speaking engagements but ignore (or worse suppress) the issue of compensation, that shifts the POV balance in a more pro-Berry direction.
• My lack of sympathy for the subject does not bear on my editing history here. Editors have points of view, articles should not. I've acted with alacrity to revert the edits that needed it, whether those edits be favorable or unfavorable to Berry. This kind of allegation treads dangerously close to assuming bad faith in my edits, and I'd request that it be made into either an accusation I can answer or a less pointed statement.
• Your statement that I am making a conclusion based on lack of information is demonstrably false. The source states: Fee: Contact Us. That is a positive assertion that his fee is unpublished and that the bureau must be contacted to determine his fee. It takes no conclusion to read that as fact & report it as fact. Checking the cited source could have resolved your concern without raising it here at all.
• As far as getting consensus, so far, this discussion is between you & me. It's (at best) a tie. I'm willing to wait for other perspectives to be offered. I've already asked whether there is a verbiage change or a softening of the statement that we could compromise on. I don't see where that request was responded to.

I'm here to find consensus. Otherwise I'd be off in the article like any of the tendentious editors that annoy us all. Although I'm trying to find consensus, don't misunderstand that as weakness. I'm here to make this article the best it can be. I'm certain you are too. There has to be some common ground / third way solution to this impasse. The question is: Can we find it? --Ssbohio 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't found a source which says Berry's "compensation for his speaking engagements is not publicized". You found a page which doesn't mention his fee. Those are two different things. You've asserted, with no evidence except your own opinion, that this omission is definitive (that his fee is not publicized in any place or in any fashion) and that it is noteworthy. I believe you've indicated above that you feel it is useful evidence for a "pattern and practice" which you seek to prove. None of that is acceptable. Your doggedness in wanting to insert this material makes you apeear to be a non-neutral POV-pusher. I'm sure you aren't, but let's remember that the job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We're not here to make cases about criminal activities. If you want to bring in more opinions you are welcome to file a request for comments. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have, indeed, found a source which says that his compensation is not publicized. I have found the company that books his speaking engagements, and they say that his fee is not publicized, that a person would have to contact them.
• Stating that the page "doesn't mention his fee" leaves out the fact that the page directs inquirers to contact the speaker's bureau that owns the site to determine his fees. The information is not simply missing. There is a space for it, and there is a positive indication that the information is not publicized, but must be individually requested.
• I've asserted that the company which books his speaking engagements does not publicize his fee. Since the information starts from them, they are definitive in determining to whom the information is released. It is released selectively but not published. I've already stated my willingness to change the language to suit objections. Would "Berry's speaker's bureau dos not publicize his fee" be a better way to put it? It avoids the impression that I had scoured every website looking for his fee, and it was nowhere.
• I'm not attempting to "prove a pattern and practice." Rather, his taking compensation for these speaking engagements ties his current activity into the criticism that Berry profited from his crimes but escaped punishment for them. It is not a novel theory. Plenty of others have profited from their criminal involvement, even after their predicate activities ended.
• Stating that Berry does not disclose his speaking fees (or that his speaker's bureau does not disclose his fees) is not an exercise in POV-pushing. It is a neutral, objective, verifiable fact, one that illustrates his continued derivation of income from his notoriety. Whether one derives profit from describing events can bear on how credible that versio of events is taken to be. In this case, it's the bare fact of his earning income based on his notoriety that is part of the narrative.
• There is no intent on my part to make a case of any sort, much less one about criminal activities. Accepting speaker's fees is not a crime.

Your argument resembles the classic straw man in that (in my view) you seek to repackage me & my argument in a way that makes both more easily overcome. We disagree on the facts, but more importantly we disagree on the conclusions. I evaluate the fact set & say this is part of Berry's story, that he earns an undisclosed amount of income for speaking based on his past activities. You evaluate the fact set and say that we don't know that for certain and, even if we did, it isn't notable in this context. Have I fairly summarized?

How would u feel about soliciting opinions from people interested in this article first, as they should be more up to speed than those who only heard of it through the RfC process. One option would be a straw poll. An informal third opinion might provide a resolution that neither of us had considered. In any regard, we both seem to have support for our positions, and there doesn't seem to be a place carved out for compromise, so we need to do something to bring this to a conclusion. --Ssbohio 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a plain old RfC. -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Ssbohio's point here, (sorry will); he has cited a source indicating that the speakers fee is not-disclosed; so there doesn't seem to be a reason to NOT put it in the article. I am more convinced that to NOT include it and to be so vehement about it, is stronger evidence of NPOV, than trying to include it; and this is coming from an outsider's perspective ( I am only now getting familiar with this case) --Julien Deveraux 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me a single other biography that includes a similar fact similarly sourced? There should be a hundred thousand because it's unusual for anyone to release their income or fee information. To be consistent we'd have to add this fact to huge numbers of articels. While making fees public is more customary with speakers bureaus (due to the need to choose based on budget), even then it isn't universal. For example, the first topic at Five Star is "adventurers".[4] It has 21 entries of which five don't disclose their fees on the website. about 24%. That's too common to be notable.

Why do we want to include this anyway? It seems like we're just picking out a small detail from a primary source in order to help prove a thesis. -Will Beback · † · 09:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of quoting myself here, as my feeling is that this question has been addressed previously. I remain willing to provide further clarification of my view. First, there's this:

• If Berry were selling insurance or working in a factory, his compensation would be irrelevant. But, when he arguably became famous for the illegal activities he was involved in and the various ways he profited from them, the fact that other speakers disclose their fees but Berry doesn't is something that bears noting, but not undue weight. In the heterodox view of Berry, his continued derivation of income from his past notoriety is part of a pattern and practice that, in a limited way, resembles that of others who have profited from books, movies, or speaker's fees based on their past criminal activities.

And then this:

• Stating that Berry does not disclose his speaking fees (or that his speaker's bureau does not disclose his fees) is not an exercise in POV-pushing. It is a neutral, objective, verifiable fact, one that illustrates his continued derivation of income from his notoriety. Whether one derives profit from describing events can bear on how credible that version of events is taken to be. In this case, it's the bare fact of his earning income based on his notoriety that is part of the narrative.

At the very least, the fact that he works as a compensated speaker is notable in the article, both for its relation to the question of Berry's profiting from past activities and for its contribution toward weighing Berry's credibility. I contacted the speaker's bureau and spoke with his agent, who confirmed his fee for corporate engagements ($5,000), but a telephone interview would rely on others' accepting my credibility, and thus would not be a reliable source. Would describing him as a compensated or paid speaker (without raising whether the fee is disclosed) be an acceptable compromise? --Ssbohio 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Everyone who has ever written memoirs or a novel, or sold the rights to stories based on their personal experience is in the same situation. As is almost every person on that speakers bureau. Nonetheless, their veracity is not dependent on their fees. We don't add the fact that an adventurer gets 10k per speech to his biography in order to impeach (or confirm) his credibility. I have no objection to saying that he now works as a speaker, as that may be regaded as his occupation. Would we descibe anyone as a "compensated insurance salesman"? Anyway, "paid speaker" is an acceptable compromise. -Will Beback · † · 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be making an edit to the article presently to reflect our compromise language. From your response, I'm concerned that the issues I'm raising aren't coming through clearly. I see a clear difference between Berry's working as a speaker based on his past immunized criminal activity and Jack Hanna's career as a speaker based on his lawful activities. While the Son of Sam law applies only to convicted criminals, the principle here is the same and his compensation is worthy of mention. Also, Berry made a practice of doing & saying what men wanted in exchange for money, regardless of whether he believed in what he was saying or doing. As his current work involves saying things for money, the question of whether what he says is influenced by what he is paid again bears mention, as it fits a historical pattern that is unique to this set of circumstances. Were he merely selling insurance, this wouldn't be the case. --Ssbohio 11:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A new Yahoo group :victimsofjustinberry@yahoo.com.nz has been started by 2 men who were prosecuted for accessing Berry's site, and 3 Mexican teenagers who were paid by Berry to peform on his website Mexican Friends.The 2 men claim that they believed they were accessing a legal aged site as the website stated all performers were over the age of 18 and quoted the appropriate US law statutes. Both men claim their family lives were destroyed and one was jailed for 18 months. The Mexican youths claim they are victims of sexual assault at Berry's behest and are angry that the US authorities and the FBI have given Berry immunity for the assaults upon them. They claim it is pure racism as they are regarded as simply poor Mexicans who do not count and that if they had been US citizens their assault claims would have been taken seriously. The group plan to sue Berry for falsely enducing them to commit a crime. The Mexican youths plan to take a class civil action against Berry for sexual assault. It's believed up to 4 men committed suicide after they were publicly charged for the possession of child pornorgraphy whilest claiming they were innocent of the knowledge of Justin Berry's age.

Gourlay trial

This article appears to me to go into too much detail about the Gourlay trial. We have day-by-day accounts of the preliminary hearings, discussions of individual motions and delays, descriptions of Gourlay's demeanor, and other details that are not reasonable parts of an encyclopedia biography of Berry. The trial only lasted four days, and it isn't even the topic of this article. We might extract a few details that are important and relevant to the subject, but I think we can cut the thousand words down to a hundred. -Will Beback · † · 09:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on this. Also, the Gourlay account relies too heavily on quotes from Gourlay's defense attorney. Joie de Vivre 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on Gourlay is overly detailed. However, when removing content, remember that Gourlay also has a version of the story to tell. Since he is "indisposed," it is up to his defense team to tell his story. It's important that Berry's version not be the only account of their relationship that is included here. --Ssbohio 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

The lede and descriptions of the court cases sound to me as though they were written by people who are displeased with Berry's decision to assist in prosecution. The previous version described Berry's departure from pornography as "abandoning his business". It made a disclaimer at the beginning, alluding to bias. It focused heavily on quotes from Gourlay's defense attorney. It made repeated references to the money and gifts Berry received and alluded to Berry having a great deal of autonomy in what occurred. I find this to be slanted towards a POV that seeks to vilify Berry. I attempted to make the reports more fact-based and neutral. The article still needs work in terms of how the story is presented -- it focuses too much on court proceedings and is chronologically unclear. A timeline would be useful. Joie de Vivre 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misperception that we vet facts in this article by whether they make Berry look good. This is incorrect. We vet them by whether they are relevant, and come from verifiable sources. The extent to which the facts may be used to support one side or another in some sort of culture war is not our concern. You seem to have simply gone through the article, and deleted everything from which one might infer Berry was something other than a mindless automaton in all of this. Of course, that's just as POV as making the article deliberately anti-Berry. If Berry's behavior, as described by reputable sources, vilifies Berry, that is a problem for Berry's handlers, not Wikipedia. Hermitian 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Berry's role in these activities was such that he could not be considered innocent. His criminal culpability was such that he required immunity before he would "assist in prosecution." Editing the article to remove sourced information that reflects negatively on its subject introduces a POV that Berry, despite evidence to the contrary, is blameless.

When an editor changes Berry's garnering profits from Ken Gourlay's websites into Gourlay's being the one who derived the profits, it distorts the picture, reducing Berry's level of culpability, fundamentally obscuring his role and reinforcing the hagiographic depiction of Berry as entirely innocent. This article started out as rabidly anti-Berry, so much so that it was deleted completely. The next version portrayed Berry as a sympathetic victim who was a passive part of the story. The current incarnation attempts to balance the two perspectives.

I will be rewriting some of these edits to restore deleted content. It is important to avoid the wholesale excision of negative material about Berry, because a pro-Berry POV, while it matches the POV of some media outlests, is still a POV. The neutrality of the article has been reduced by some of the changes made, while others created a clearer, more concise narrative. --Ssbohio 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eichenwald has an article that already has material on this controversy. We only need tha parts here that directly concern Berry. I don't think that the large section we just re-added is really relevant here.-Will Beback · † · 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added back the portion of the deleted content that bears on the controversy over Eichenwald's & Berry's relationship. That would include Eichenwald's advocacy on behalf of Berry, as well as sourced criticism of the advocacy relationship, as well as reporting on the money Eichenwald paid Berry. Instead of re-editing each other, what do you feel still needs cut? I thought I'd trimmed the fat, but there could always be more that I haven't seen. --Ssbohio 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the information on the $2,000 check was mentioned elsewhere, so I synthesized it into the section containing the rest of the information on the check. --Ssbohio 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The parts that have to dowith how Berry acted are appropriate, the parts that are just about the NYT article or Eichenwald are not. Again, he has an article for himself where that stuff is totally appropriate. I've removed the parts which don't seem to address Berry. -Will Beback · † · 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed a paragraph that included this text: Both call into question Eichenwald's personal involvement in a story he was reporting, and the motivations that lay behind Berry's decision to close his business and cooperate with the government. Questions about Berry's reasons for seeking immunity & turning state's evidence are apparently germane to an article on Berry. If anything, more information needs to be brought in from the NY Times to make the information specific. In any regard, there's something unsettling about seeing this removal under the edit summary leave part that mentions Berry, since the removed text mentions Berry. I'll try to find time to rewrite & better-research it tomorrow before further editing. If I could ask a favor: if you could have the discussion here somewhat before you make the deletion, especially when the deletion is not uncontested, I'd appreciate that over seeing this chain of editing back & forth. --Ssbohio 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The text you are referring to came from "letters to the editor". It shouldn't have been in the article to begin with, unless the letters were from especially notable people. Please don't restore it. -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and I won't restore it unless improved sourcing can be found. I was flummoxed when I read the edit summary and then saw the edit that was actually done. Similar issues have been raised by Romanesko, by Jack Shafer (of Slate), & by Debbie Nathan, if I recall correctly. I'll work on pulling together the information to source the information reliably. --Ssbohio 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I believe this article needs a SERIOUS re-organization as it appears to be a jumble of words together on a page. I'm sure this isn't intentional but am wondering if people here would take issue if I attempted to re-write it, with both a chronological perspective and a "differing points of view" perspective. Berry's testimony would still take precedence, but I also will not ignore that citeable sources, refuting his story, are out there and provide links to them in the article. I have also started a Timothy Ryan Richards article. Suggestions, questions, comments? --Julien Deveraux 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(Refactored above to start new section) A short time ago, I started a workspace for rewriting & reorganizing the article. The text there is not suitable for direct inclusion in the article, as it was cut and pasted from a previous version, and there have been significant changes (mainly removals) since then. The previous stable version (which definitely needed work) was about 30% larger than the article is now. My feeling is that the pendulum has swung pretty far in the direction of removal of content, but it remains to be seen where consensus lies. --Ssbohio 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)