Talk:2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids/Archive 1

Archive 1

May 2006

I must just be a naive Wiki-newbie and missing something obvious here because this can't have occured only to me and escaped everybody else. But it seems to me that the problem with re-submitting the LS Studios article, under that title, is largely semantic. By that I mean, it's just a question of using sufficiently neutral, objective language like, "People who claim to have viewed the material report that the models appear to enjoy posing and treat the whole exercise as a funny game"; and, "Press reports of 'child pornography' studios in Ukraine being raided by police, and the organisers being prosecuted, in 2004, are widely believed to refer to LS Studios, or to the production of material under that trademark, though this has never been confirmed by official sources".

Then you could identify and list the themes and topics that the LS phenomenon involves and relates to (with links to other Wiki entries which explain them in more detail). All of these are highly emotive and hotly contested, so how can you possibly deal with this in the factual and neutral manner of an encyclopedia? By typing: "These issues are highly emotive and hotly contested". On the definition of 'child pornography', for example:

"Definitions vary widely across time, cultures and national jurisdictions. Many argue (e.g. Judith Levine) that in the USA and UK the legal limits are unclear and dependent on the highly subjective interpretation of judges and juries, in which massive influence wielded by expert witnesses is almost never contested (trust me, I'm a shrink); and these interpretations together with a host of new laws, are constantly shifting in a conservative direction at the behest of 'political correctness', certain feminist groups, children's charities such as NCH, and tabloid populism."

OK, I wouldn't really include the "Trust me, I'm a shrink"; that was just a bit of fun.

Then you could reference the ten-level scale used in the UK, the relevant parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Protocol on Child Prostitution and Pornography - noting that the two are lumped together, and that a 'child' is defined in international law as anybody aged under 18, with no distinction between a 17-year-old and a 7-year-old who pose topless in front of a camera. Both are assumed to be 'victims of commercial sexual exploitation'. BTW, that includes Samantha Fox and a host of other 17-year-old models who posed topless for Page Three of The Sun (British tabloid newspaper) in the 1970s and early 1980s; which by itself illustrates how the ideological status of a picture can shift from mainstream 'blokey' legitimacy to the unmitigated evil of 'child porn' within the space of a generation. Jason4sanity 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are good ideas indeed. Be bold and give it a try. Just be aware that this particular subject will be scrutinized more closely than others in Wikipedia, so verifiability will be paramount. Zebruh 17:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

2005

It is not true that no overt sexuality was seen in the videotapes. Many contain simulated masturbation, sexual kissing and simulated oral sex.

Bacci40: Simulated masturbation is not overt sexuality. Neither is kissing or simulated oral sex. Those are suggested sexuality, agreed. But the fact still stands: No LS content contains overt sexual acts. Zebruh 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Zebruh, the acts that appear on the tapes are a sight more graphic than just girls "licking bannanas". I am just pointing that out.

Well yes. Of course I agree. But they are not overt sexual acts. :) Zebruh 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Zebruh, I'm not sure I agree with you about that. (By the way, I am not the person who left the unsigned messages above, but I wanted to comment anyway.) Joey Q. McCartney 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute if you have additional information. I plan on adding more in time. Zebruh 05:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I've been working on making this neutral. It should be much better now. Zebruh 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this information? For example, how do we know that the girls always appeared cheerfulor that the scenes were well-lit? The one source provided doens't seem to cover these assertions. -Willmcw 20:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to this article. Also, your question is a great one: How can we objectively assert that the scenes were well-lit and the girls were cheerful? I wish I knew how to answer that, as I suppose it would be a subjective observation. If no sources can be found, does that mean that such statements should not be included here? Zebruh 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything we include should have verifiable sources. Also, we should not make critical judgements of our own because Wikipedia has another firm rule, no original research. Thus, if I were to watch several of the films it would be inappropriate for me to write: "they are well-done" or "they are horrible" because those would be my personal opinions. If a notable critic had seen them and written those same comments then I could properly use them. See Wikipedia:Five pillars for a rundown of our core policies. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have been reading about no original research and verifiable sources... very informative and helpful. I'll edit this article to follow those guidelines. Zebruh 21:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Still online?!?!

I'd have assumed from use by Zebruch of the archiving and from the raids that these sites are no longer online. Yet I very easily found them online (although I probably shouldn't list their current sites... what was easy for me might not be easy for everybody else to find! Plus am not wishing to get into trouble like Zebruch did! lol So it would seem ls hasn't really been shut down, how come they still exist?

Also shall we mention the actions of google? Was surprised to see this from a google search, I'd pressume it has got to be iok to include a link like that!! lol Anyway, just seemed odd to me that google would actually remove links from their results!! :o Perhaps it isn't too surprising, and should be expect. Just it seems like google could be going down the road they are already all the way down in china... How long until the china google is the worldwide google?

Came across this here, has a bunch of interesting info (although don't worry, no pictures there! lol). Might perhaps add this to the wiki article, such as the pay (10 to 40 dollars per hour, that sounds very very good to me if you are living in the former USSR!!)

Oh, this seems of most interest:

"LS found out: 1.Video is more lucrative than still pictures. For one thing, it's harder to repost on the usenet 2.A technical improvement in video quality yields big returns. 3. A woman directing or shooting the video gets more out of the girls and lowers their inhibitions. 4. Preteen girls (age 7-10) have fewer inhibitions than adolescent girls, less "leg lock". Then comes LS Magazine: Each issue with 600-800 photos of 2 or 3 girls in 6-8 sets plus 16-20 videos of about 60-80 MB each. The magazine sells like crazy. Some explicit close ups, but doesn't really set off alarm bells until LS Magazine #13. I saw this issue on the usenet. Two girls about age 8-9; one blonde, one brunette. The photo sets include close-ups of "eagle spreads", suggestive play with food (sucking cucumbers, putting them in underwear, spilling liquids down their fronts, etc.). The videos include stripping to music, with a few planned "eagle spreads". LS Dreams had girls doing everyday activities, but LS Magazine had a definite raunchy side. There was a lot of talk about this set, particularly the blonde girl who definitely had a great time. Most of the issue is artistic, however. Scared (or warned), LS Studios put out two more LS Magazines that showed a lot less before they were shut down."

Should the article perhaps explain how LS studios is different from say somebody like David Hamilton? Because as it is now I really can't see why LS was raided when compared to David Hamilton's work?? Although I could be slightly superfical here in viewing the work of each of them.

Mathmo 15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I´m with you, Mathmo. We have to show the people the big menace it is. Ken Bruce April 20, 2006 21:54 (São Paulo, Brazil)

Further refinements

For those who wish to download the material from p2p networks, beware...while it is being suggested that these were all "artistic" shoots many of the girls are both photographed and videotaped in sexual situations. To the point where it could be considered soft core pornography. To list the entirety of the collection is to aide and abet those who initially molested these girls. To say that no harm was done because the studios were well lit and the girls apeared cheerful is not the issue. Child abuse is child abuse. And this operation was shut down because they were abusing children.

Bacci40: Neither photography nor videotaping is molestation. How is listing LS productions aiding and abetting? The "issue" at Wikipedia is documenting all human knowledge. Zebruh 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the label "child pornography" because it implies depictions of sexual acts, which are not present in LS content.

Also, the potential value judgments about content (professionally lit and happy girls) have been removed, until some way to verify them can be found.

You're welcome to download the material in question off your favorite p2p network and confirm for yourself. --timecop 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is my dilemma: I believe it would be "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" that LS photography is high quality and that the girls are always very happy. But who would dare say that they had verified such claims by looking at LS content?

... just some thoughts ...

How would "any reasonable adult" view all of the LS Studio output in order to verify the assertion that the images "always" have certain characteristics ? As for calling it a "child pornography" site, I see from this forum that they apparently had nude photos.[1] (note: that site would not be a proper source for the article because it's a forum). Weren't they raided and shut down for that? -Willmcw 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. "Always" isn't verifiable.
• Regarding using the forum as a source: agreed. I need to link directly to those news sources
• Why was LS raided? Because of nude photos? Hard to say definitively. But regardless, there is not currently agreement between individuals or countries on the definition of child pornography. Some have felt that any depiction of a child without clothing is child pornography, while some may also define it as overt depictions of sexual acts involving children. LS did not sell depictions of sexual acts via its websites.

Zebruh 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

New Section: Productions

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

Unsolicited commentary from a news reader

This entire article reads like it was compiled from chatter in the preteen girl newsgroups of a year ago. The ukrainian news sources cited are not themselves objective and may be considered propoganda of the ruling elite.

There were hundreds of models involved with this "project" but it was not limited to LS studio. The photographic studio itself remains in business, the principals free, in large part because cultural norms in that part of the world vary so dramatically from the west. And it was the west which pressured the closin of this particular "project," under threat of trade sanctions. None were overtly linked this way in public, but one need only look back two years at the trade environment between ukraine and the us and the accusations that were flying back and forth to see ample evidence of this.

I can verify this content was, in fact, hosted on US servers. I once did an discussion article about these sites and I traced them, at the time, to a hosting company in Detroit, MI. They hosted not just the LS sites but other, harder sites, one called "working girls" or something like that, with a theme of children dressed as adult street prostitutes. I contacted them for comment but they refused. Within a month the content disappeared (temporarily, of course).

The money trail is what ultimately led to this project's demise and at least two of the organizers are in US prison after being extradited from france and prosecuted under US money laundering laws (if they can't get you any other way, they'll always find a way to drag out the money laundering charges). However, the content from this project has been archived and is still offered online in its entirety via multiple commercial outlets. Many other sites, like "BD series" were also using the same billing source. And while LS was, in some ways, the Penthouse of the preteen market, some of the sites this billing agency was handling really were little more than online video brothels where customers could request the girls do pretty much anything - and they would, for a fee. Though the original billing structure was destroyed, much of that "darker" content also remains online via commercial outlets that accept trade of egold, etc. for payment.

Really, the only thing the article gets right is the girls wore beautiful costumes and were photographed in and out of these clothes. From a culturally pertinent POV there was nothing indecent about the photos, and the only girls who simulated kissing and fondling were older and the behavior was entirely age appropriate (no matter how this might offend some, the fact remains 12, 13 and 14 year olds know about sex and are curious about it - and a great many are also quite sexually active).

Some of the young models can be found in online portfolios at other agencies and a scant few of the older models are now appearing in "legal" adult pornography. Many of the photos from the LS sites have, in fact, appeared in these young model's commercial online portfolios right alongside work they have done for such well recognized names as DKNY. I will also point out that you could, at the time, find work in such publications as vogue bambina and xuxa's online children's clothing catalog that was pretty obviously influenced stylistically by these works.

My bet: once (or if) the west gets over this feminist driven obsession with "child predators" these works will be looked back upon in the same way we now look back upon french postcards of the 1930s which also often featured children in "racy" poses and attire. In twenty years people will have many of these photos bound in books and displayed proudly on their coffee tables.

Good points. Thanks for adding a refreshing perspective to our discussion. If you have verifiable sources for some of this information, it would be great to add it to the actual article if it ever becomes unprotected again. Zebruh 16:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal links?

Do the external links contain illegal images? // paroxysm (n) 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• We are not a guide for child pornography which this has been judged to be. I am removing any such links and removing the catalogue items. The article will be page protected as well. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  Your censorship fails, as does your unsound moral justification for it. Wikipedia isn't a catelogue for kiddie porn? Says who? The information is highly relevant and patently encyclopedic: it deserves to be catalogued. And since when was "Preteen Buzz" child porn? // paroxysm (n) 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed?

Seems like we'd need a source for the following info:

• "...based in the Ukraine..."
• "... and had thousands of members worldwide..."
• "Approximately 1500 children, ages 8 to 16 were recruited as models in Kiev, Kharkov and Simferopol in Ukraine. Various nude photos were taken and uploaded to servers in United States and Canada. Quality and quantity of material on the site was unmatched, and soon it became the most popular child pornography website in the world. The site brought in several hundred thousand dollars in profit during the 3 years it was in service. The entire operation was ran by an Ukraininian man in mid-20s."

I assume the source for the following information is the sites themselves, but no citation is given in the article:

• "...was an online subscription service and photography studio that created hundreds of thousands of photographic images (and hundreds of videos) of young teen and prepubescent girls, and sold them via the Internet from 2001 to August 2004. During that time, they produced approximately 80 issues or collections, such as LS-Land, LS-Stars, LS-Barbie, LS-Flash, LS-Girls and LS-Fantasy..."
• "Subscription was done entirely online, and members paid for the service with credit cards...."
• "While early collections often featured nude girls in natural poses, later collections also contained many images of girls in sexually suggestive poses. No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas. Many later collections also featured the girls wearing custom-tailored costumes. The backgrounds appeared to be custom-built, similar to stage-play sets."

As far as giving the actual links as citations, I'm not sure whether or not that's appropriate. (The article itself says that the girls were in sexually suggestive poses, which indicates that some countries might consider them illegal. Not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on linking to sites with arguably illegal content.) But if the citation can't be included for whatever reason, then I assume the information can't be either.

Joey Q. McCartney 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joey, for pointing those out. Some of those points are covered in the linked articles, and I'll make it more clear asap.

As for the links, we had some that led to the sites' public pages (in the Wayback Machine) but they were removed for fear of illegality. However, the images at those public links are legal, as there is no lascivious exhibition of the genitals, and they are certainly not lewd or obscene. Rather, every image is of a very beautiful, very happy girl who sometimes happens to show some innocent nudity. One would not be able to find, from the links that I previously provided, any of the sexually suggestive images to which members would have had access.

Zebruh 08:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I may have overemphasized the importance of citing sources. It's important, I guess, but not an emergency. That said, there are a couple statements that look like they might be hard to verify:

"No actual sexual acts were portrayed..." (should probably be more specific or probably just deleted.)

"Quality and quantity of material on the site was unmatched" and "soon it became the most popular child pornography website in the world." (maybe POV-ish)

This particular sentence was my translation from ja:LS Magazine. But it is a fairly accurate representation of the site's status. --timecop 00:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm definitely not questioning the statement's accuracy. Just raising WP:V. Unfortunately I've been having trouble getting japanese characters to display on any of my browsers :-( so I don't know if the japanese 'pedia gave a source or not. Joey Q. McCartney 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Joey Q. McCartney 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, now i see the japan LS-magazine article. Joey Q. McCartney 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See also CP article?

Should "child pornography" maybe be added under "See also", and "LS Studio" be added under the CP article's "See also"? Joey Q. McCartney 08:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfornately Joey is wrong. In one of the collections of LS-Studio, two girls are masturbating with dildos. The consideration of child pornography must be still referenced. Ken Bruce 18:44, March 3, 2006 (in São Paulo, Brazil)

We're in total agreement, as far as I can tell, about referencing the CP article. Joey Q. McCartney 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Catalogue

The catalogue was removed as

• unverifiable
• unencyclopedic.

Please do not reinsert it. Ah, the Wikimedia Foundation is also getting a lot of complaints about it. David.Monniaux 07:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this article. Some observations:

• Verifiability: The list of sites created by LS Studio is certainly verifiable, through legal (albeit controvercial) websites. All of the information provided can be verified via LS Studio's own forum which can be (removed link...) This is stated in the opening paragraph of the section that was removed.
• Unencyclopedic: I do not see anything at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not which supports the claim that a list of productions is unencyclopedic.

The Wikimedia Foundation receives many complaints about controvercial articles. That is not an acceptable reason to delete the information. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

LS Studio had an undeniable influence, and was hugely controvercial. Listing the many sites that they created gives a solid example of their daring endeavors, and is just as legitimate as the lists on these pages:

• Recreational_drug_use
• The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts
• List_of_assassinated_persons
• List_of_wars_2003–current

Zebruh 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is original research and it is pointless to include in the article. "daring endeavors"? Give me a break. Stop trolling.--Jimbo Wales 16:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please understand: I definitely do not intend to troll. I have tried to keep my responses here level-headed, nonjudgmental, and as fact-based as possible.

How about we remove the "File prefix" column, which is probably not appropriate here, so that the list becomes like this? Zebruh 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No. And do NOT repost the wayback link, or any other link that takes one to the content discribed in the article - not only is the content controversial (as you delicately put it), but potentially illegal in some places, and we cannot have our users stumbling into that (like I just did). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand one point being (inconsistently) made here: the work of LS was indeed both controversial and influencial to the greater child model industry. How is allowing a catalog of, say, Vivid video productions allowable and within the guidelines while the same sort of list relevant to the LS works, not? All great art is both controversial and influencial - that's the entire point: great art stiumlates discussion. Links to nazi memorabilia and nazi propganda could be illegal in some jurisdictions; likewise would liks to propoganda regarding liberty and democracy. But propaganda itself is both influencial and art (see: Karl Orff) Should wikipedia likewise refuse to allow links to that content?

Good point about the inconsistency. I think the bottom line is: Those in power just really really do not want it here. So what can be done? I've run out of steam. Polite, logical reasoning has proven to be an ineffective approach. Zebruh 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Trolling?

I've been thinking very much for the last 32 hours about these discussions and how best to respond.

Ever since discovering Wikipedia in November, I've been very excited. I think this place is absolutely awesome. I visit multiple times a day, and for many subjects which intrigue me, Wikipedia has become my first source, replacing my long-time favorite, Google. Often I'll have a moment of curiosity, rush to the computer and click the "wikipedia" shortcut now permanently on my browser's shortcut bar.

I have been especially impressed by Wikipedia's core values and guidelines of conduct. Respect is extremely important to me.

But then something happened yesterday, which has cast a shadow on my Wikipedia experience: Jimbo Wales, founder, asked me to stop trolling. I have been dumbfounded. My stomach has literally been in knots. I've been thinking to myself: "Have I been trolling?" "Maybe I don't really know what trolling is."

Jimbo's comment has also deeply confused me, as of all people, I would never expect him to respond in such direct opposition to so many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But those things can be disputed, and when it comes to such a controversial subject as this, I will respect Jimbo's opinion. Besides, he is founder.

However, I am even more deeply concerned with his accusation of trolling.

• I have made a very deliberate effort on this page to be impartial, civil, logical, and respectful. I have, however, been a bit more persistent lately. Has that been perceived as trolling?
• I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and to get along with the current community. Can someone explain to me what part of my entries above are trolling? I need to know so I won't do it again.

Zebruh 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT. You gave a list of material that were very probably illegal to possess in several countries, based on an archived version of some forum postings (what an authoritative source!). It's basically unverifiable. In addition, it has no encyclopedic content: the only use I can see of this list is to help people who trade such contents, not people who want to inform themselves on LS Studio's activities. David.Monniaux 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if your allegation is true, Jimbo should assume good faith allthesame. It should be clear to anyone that Zebruh is not intentionally trying to aggravate anyone, but instead only very _politely_ debating with Jimbo about the merits of the list. Wouldn't it be nice if Jimbo could do the same? Ineloquent 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ineloquent. I was wondering if anyone would notice. Zebruh 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

totem judgment

LS site collections varied greatly in quality and content. This article understates the obvious in several instances. The handmade backdrops, props and costums are in incredibly intricate in some instances. The time and effort that went into creating the thematic studio scenes is worth noting. Often times each set was used for only a few shoots, some for only one. The style is conservative artistically, and it is artistic as there were common elements, threads that could be traced through the studios work that enhanced the shot. The models costumes were classy and tailored to the scene. More tasteful than any folly to date, never rich or pretentious; the threat poses is that it is unparalleled -- the threat leveled at the art, entertainment and porn industries.

The models never display a notion of coercion. Their expressions are comfortable and relaxed. While clearly staged modeling, the striking aspect is the self esteem and natural desire to be attractive. To tell one of these girls that they were doing something wrong would be quite new information to them. And as perfectly as they are crowned, the proposition would be difficult to persuade them of.

Unaltered nature on beaches of rock, the shade of tree and vast landscapes, perfect weather sets the scene and the models natural beauty shines through. More mundane atmosphere is achieved when fantastic sets are traded for various rooms of a mansion. Realism is in achieved in a conventional TV room. Fully thematic sites incorporate costumes and sets that could be described as cute, creative, childish, dumb or goofy. The thematic approach steers the focus away from the stigma of sexual exploitation that just plain pictures of naked girls attracts. The mission statement might read something for everyone. While some girls like to feel pretty and attractive other girls are naughty and down right raunchy. After seeing photos of girls so unassuming it is suprising to hear them speak in a foreign language. Videos capture immaturity as two girl poke at each others crotches and smack each other on the backside as they imitate adult sexuality and gesture mockingly at sodomy and nakedness.

LS-Studios not only produced something for everyone but enough as well. The impact this has can be seen as porn site kings and .com gurus seek the same search engine results in attempts to steer potential customers to their sites although not providing the same content. Child porn marketability all but disappeared with this legal alternative that provided high quality content that wasn't overpriced or a potential credit disaster.

It is ridiculous to compare the work of LS-Studios that of the pornography industry. So called soft-core porn is classified as such based upon the parts of the body visible and what those body parts are doing. The premise how ever is the same throughout. They pit females in degrading roles subject to phallic fornications. Its end is a restrained prostitution. If it is something other than this it is traditionally classified as art. LS captures the sexuality of young girls professionally and tastefully. The attention to the entertainment value does not detract from it as an artistic work. Familiarity with art or smut does not factor into the premise of objections only arguments of objectors. Threat is perceived from girls sexuality, from the fact that they can be and are naked without embarrassment, from an approach to presenting sexuality that is based on beauty rather than vulgarity, and fear of a denuded inadequacy in the American justice system namely the FBI and its prior standing errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by But wash your hands (talk • contribs) .

Interwiki

Could an Admin add de:LA Studio an new Interwiki-Link? Thanks Kenwilliams 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean, de:LS Studio --timecop 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Legasthenic... Kenwilliams 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I made an mistake with one Letter - the requestion is still there de:LS-Studio. Kenwilliams 16:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Will Beback 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Kenwilliams 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn, but not really?

I'm having a hard time understanding this article. I've never seen the site in question so I don't know exactly what it featured; however, this article and the sources coming with it all claim there were no actual sexual acts. If this is the case then why is this still called "child pornography?" I mean, if there isn't any porn involved then how is it porn? I'm not trying to make an argument... i'm just asking anyone who is intelligent in legal matters/terminology to explain this to me. I mean if there isn't any form of insertions then I didn't think it would classify as pornography (& I don't think bannana sucking classifies as an insertion). --Jelligraze 07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You could check the laws on child pornography in your country. They might be online. Joey Q. McCartney 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Boy is that a good question. I've pondered that many times myself. I placed this article in the Child Pornography category because I didn't know where else to put it. If there were a child erotica section I'd have probably put it there instead. But you know what? To some people, someone posing in a sexy bikini is pornography. This whole concept of "Child Porn" is so convoluted and indescribable, that the media can get away with such things as calling someone a Child Porn Teacher when (according to the article) he had nothing in his possession worse than suggestively posed children. (The article says he had 21 level four pictures). Zebruh 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a very fine line between porn and erotica. Does posing a little girl to simulate oral sex on a banana have "high art aspirations?"

I haven't seen LS, so I don't know really, but it doesn't sound like it's all about innocent, tasteful nudes. 24.224.153.40 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's porn in pictures of LS Magazine. There masturbation with dildos, I know. Unfornately still there are sites containing the photos of studio. I´m not a pedophile; I´m searching the sites and delivering them to the authorities. Ken Bruce 18:49, March 3 2006. (in São Paulo, Brazil)

I don't think it's a good idea to do that Ken. The authorities might still come after you thinking your a pedophile. I wouldn't go anywhere near those sites. You don't want to get caught up in a court battle. --Jelligraze 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know I´m in risk when I search these sites. But I´m not a pedophile. Everything I do is delivering their addresses to the authorities. It´d be worse if I went to some PD and said that I´m entering in pedophile sites. I didn´t discover LS Studio for the net, but for a P2P program, typing things with any relation. Please, Jelligraze and all the people that discuss here, don´t have a bad impression about me. I´m just doing the right thing, which seems don´t matter to the police and to the politicians. Few people has the courage I have to go ahead with no fear. Repeat: I´m not a pedophile. Ken Bruce 20:00, March 7 2006 (UTC)

And I thought I could explain things not known for the public! Details: the sites of child modeling are the doors to the pedophiles sites. If the maintenance guess that this last sentence must be removed, all right. Do it. But my mission here is just explaining to the people that the menace is closer of us all. Don´t close your eyes, my wiki partners. Ken Bruce 20:11, March 7 2006 (UTC)

------------------------To Ken, I read last night that even those people who claim they are "working" for the government (volunteers) delivering them sites of CP will still be prosecuted unless they are formally hired. I also read that many people when caught, tell their families or friends, "Oh, don't worry. I was helping the FBI." Did you stop to think that almost EVERYONE says that when their arrested? Why would they believe you, over anyone else? Oftentimes (and this was on www.Pedowatch.com great site btw) people who acquire child porn feel guilty and then "report" it to the agencies as a cover. I would caution you against your feverish posts touting, "I'm Not a pedophile!" multiple times, as it screams guilt to me. Nobody claimed you were, they simply suggested you rethink your position. I think it's mighty suspicious personally. As a psychologist, I've noticed that people don't look at specific (and illegal) material unless they are interested in it. -Dr. Calm 72.177.81.187 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The... ahem... psychologist has spoken. No, we're not claiming you are, we're just strongly implying it ;). --DanielCD 17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Calm, is this it? Well, as a doctor you must know various cases involving persons with this problem. You must know that many people have the pedophilia as a psychological disease or a trauma. It´s true there are people who don´t have the minimum sense of morality when they do it, but it´s not my case, sir. I never was interested to look for pedophilic pictures or content. Simply I was searching images in a P2P program and I found them. I felt so bad, and I denounced them to the police. Since then I´m a volunteer in this fight, and it´s because of it I´m talking with you, reading you opinion. I don´t hate for have a bad idea for me. But I'd like to say again: I´m not a pedophile. If the people who are writing this article are doing a good work, but I wanted them to explain better to the people why we don´t have to permiss these things. If you still guess that I´m a pedophile, the problem is yours. I have my conscience clean, because I know I´m not doing nothing wrong. People like me shouldn´t been arrested, but the people who do these worst things. But if our governments don´t do nothing to stop it, what can we do? In my opinion, try to change the public opinion to don´t let these thing be forgotten or pardoned. Pedophilia is the worst crime a human being can do in the life. Ken Bruce 21:32, March 30 2006 (São Paulo, Brazil)

Pedophilia is not a crime. Child sexual abuse is. One is an attraction. The other is an action.

I love the Hummer H2, but such love is not a crime. If I steal one, however, that is a crime.

One is an attraction. The other is an action. Zebruh 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We´re talking about people, not about objects. Ken Bruce April 20, 2006 (I hate to put the time every time!)

WP:NOR

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

Please, Joey, explain me your theory. Ken Bruce 20:04, March 7 2006 (UTC)

And the porn?

I want a change in the article. There are pictures showing girls using dildos. Actually, there´s insertion. The world needs to know the truth and don´t think that it was an innocent thing (softcore pictures). Ken Bruce 13:46, March 19 (São Paulo, Brazil)

The text now reads:

• No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were .

I'm not sure what our source for this information is, or what source you have for your assertion. But we could change the text to read:

• Actual sexual acts were almost never portrayed, and then limited only to implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas, or playing with dildoes.

Would that be correct? -Will Beback 20:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should jump the gun and include dildos without concrete sources. --Jelligraze 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's limit ourselves to concrete sources. Do we have any for including bananas? -Will Beback 01:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I assumed we did. If not then we should delete them too. Just because this organization is controversial doesn't mean the article needs to be treated any different than other articles. If this were another subject we wouldn't allow unverifiable accusations to sink through like this. --Jelligraze 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the only verifiable sources are the videos and images themselves. Quite a dilemma. Zebruh 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any police reports, news links or anything in that relation? There has to be something out there. We can't take the words of individuals who claim to have seen them. I'll search through the articles on our external links. I'd like to search Google for news articles or police reports but with the government trying to get info from Google for search terms that have any connection at all to child pornographic material, i'm fearful of searching links related to "LS." --Jelligraze 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure even if a reporter or writer did look at the pics, they would never dare to make it publicly known that they had done so. Police reports may be another story. But I doubt such reports would go into enough detail to be considered a verifiable and sufficiently comprehensive source on what does or does not appear in LS material. Zebruh 21:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion, do we have any support in the references for this paragraph?

• While early collections often featured nude girls in natural poses, later collections also contained many images of girls in sexually suggestive poses. No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas. Many later collections also featured the girls wearing custom-tailored costumes. The backgrounds appeared to be custom-built, similar to stage-play sets.

If not, then perhaps we should delete it. -Will Beback 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The following statements could be "easily verified by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge", although such verification may possibly be illegal:

• While early collections often featured nude girls in natural poses, later collections also contained many images of girls in sexually suggestive poses.
• Many later collections also featured the girls wearing custom-tailored costumes. The backgrounds appeared to be custom-built, similar to stage-play sets.

This statement would probably not be easily verifiable, as it would require looking at all of LS Studio's content:

• No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas.

So the question must be raised: Is verifiability contingent on whether such verification is legal? Zebruh 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say yes. We cannot require editors to buy or view illegal materials in order to verify the article. It'd be like requiring them to obtain state secrets to verify an artilce about a weapon system. It's always better to use secondary sources anyway. So if we can't find a description of the contents in one of the sources then we need to make it much less specific. More like "The videos were soft-core, employing suggestive poses and props" and leave it at that. -Will Beback 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Will. I agree with them all, and think a less-specific description is a good idea. Zebruh 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jelligraze 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I´m here again. I know that my words aren´t verifiable, and I´m not willing to search for those photos again. They are easily to be found, and I´m perplex for the fail of FBI and other authorities to take off these sites from the net. Sincerely, I ask again that the people come to know that there are photos with porn. If not, I think that many people will read this article and they´ll say that the "erotism" in the chil modeling is a normal thing. I just want to keep my word and my willing to make the people know the truth. Ken Bruce 17:00, March 23 2006 (São Paulo, Brazil)

There must be an adequate ref out there somewhere. It is just a fact of the laws that they ban stuff and seem to also ban informing people about the stuff at the same time. --DanielCD 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammar error

There's an error it refer to an Ukraininian man in mid-20s. Two errors should be "a Ukranian" (ukranian is pronounced you-kranian) and "in his mid-20s". These things irritate :)

Unprotect this article, please.

I personally understand and concede Jimbo's views, and to the others here. I have no interest in reviving the controversial (and, I admit, inappropriate) content that I had previously introduced. How do we get this article unprotected? Zebruh 16:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article was left protected accidently by someone who apparently thought he'd unprotected it. I've fixed that now. -Will Beback 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bananas

No actual sexual acts were portrayed but there were implied sexual acts such as the models sucking on bananas.

I removed this on the grounds there is no ref, and it has been questioned. I'm not saying it's wrong, but could someone find a ref and cite it before you replace it? I appreciate you're cooperation in understanding these things, right or wrong, still need refs. Thanks. --DanielCD 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If the pictures are illegal, and someone saw them first-hand, that can't be a source. Find somewhere where someone states in a news clip or something that this is present. There needs to be a statement somewhere, not first-hand observation. It has to be verifiable. --DanielCD 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD is right. We need to use verifiable, reliable sources or it is original research. Since this is a controversial subject, the text needs to be backed up by sources before it go in the article. FloNight ^talk 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like we are censoring something, but the laws are tough on this, and we can't refer to anything illegal. I want to tell the truth though. Anyone concerned should help search for appropriate refs. I don't know anything about this, so as usual, I'll have to do a lot of reading before I can really help in any substantial way. Sucking on bananas?...WTF?? --DanielCD 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, with all those external links, certainly much more material could be cited here. The intro says it's a photography studio, but later the article says it's a child pornography deal. Are we being inconsistant here? --DanielCD 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Last night, I spent quite a bit of time looking for better citations or articles linking this studio to criminal activity. I never saw any. Lots of blogs and victims rights groups picked up the Reuters story in 2004 and that what most hits are. There is no mention of this studio in that story. Am I missing something. People using this site at the time it happened may have first hand knowledge about why the site closed. But that is OR. --FloNight ^talk 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Citations

OK, I've been watching all this talk - are people trying to hold this article to a different, higher standard than other articles since it touches on the topic of child porn? I hope not.

It looks to me that there are two basic questions here:

1. Are the LS-sites really the Ukranian sites in all those news reports?
2. What would it take for the article to include appropriately cited descriptions of the contents of the LS sites?

The questions are tied together. The news articles do not use the name "LS Studio", they don't name any of the Internet sites run by the perpetrators, they don't name any of the people involved. THe only thing listed are some cities in the Ukraine. But the news article describes the models and how they were dressed and how the photo shoots went. If we combine that info with info from the photo shoots and movies, then it's pretty clear they are the same studio.

It's easy to produce citations and check the contents. The picture collections all have their own names and we can cite individual pictures or videos if necessary by collection name and file name. Then all a fact checker does is track down some LS material and check it. Try using Google and a credit card. The "bandits" who hold the files are always finding a place to post them on line and a credit card company to collect fees.

Yeah, there's a little matter of cost and legality and maybe taste. You have to live in a country that doesn't jail people just for looking at something. You have to subscribe. You have to look at the stuff. I looked at the rules for verifiable sources and it doesn't say that the sources must be legal or easy to check a source, just that it has to exist and be authoritative.

Look at the entries for Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Both cite themselves as sources for the Wiki article. I don't plan to read either one of them, and there are places where these things are probably illegal for me to buy, sell, or own. People don't argue that it's "opinion" or "original research" to describe their contents based on (how shocking) the contents themselves.

Believe me, or check for yourself. An "ordinary adult" can look at the LS stuff and conclude that most have good lighting, the kids wear special costumes, they strip, sometimes the hold banannas in "suggestive" ways (NOT opinion! holding at your crotch has obvious meaning!). There's a woman's voice in the background giving directions. Everyone speaks Russian. The kids are in good spirits and treat it all like a funny game. Facts anyone can inspect and verify. All you have to do is check for yourself.

I'll end with an opinion. I'm no legal expert on porn and stuff, but some scenes look like masturbation, and I bet those would be child porn in a lot of places. I haven't heard that the FBI has arrested anyone for owning a big LS collection, but news reports skip that sort of detail. 194.177.100.34 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you asking for here? Yes this article will be held to a higher standard than a lot of them are because of the subject matter, which is highly controversial. Controversial things are obviously going to get more scruitany. And no, you can't ask someone to verify something by looking at illrgal material, nor can first-hand observation of such material be a source. --DanielCD 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that an article about a photo studio in the Ukraine needs to be held to a higher standard than internationally nororous works that have famously promoted anti-Semitism. You need to get perspective.

Second, the article has been mis-edited due to misunderstandings of the No Original Research policy. The primary source material for this article is the output of the LS Studios, and it is easily found on the Internet. Factual statements that any reasonable adult can verify by looking at the primary source material are NOT original research. It would be nice if there were secondary sources to cite, but nobody has found any, and are not required by Wiki policy.

Third, editorial work in Wiki falls to those who are willing to do the research and report on it. It's a volunteer job. If you don't want to do the job and review the sources, then you should edit something else. You can't dispute facts simply because you don't want to visit the library and look them up, or because your library doesn't have the right books, or won't let you look at them. Let somebody do it who can. 194.177.100.34 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put something in, it is in no way my job to reference it. I don't know what makes you think me or anyone else is shucking responsibility by not referencing your work for you. --DanielCD 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

194.177.100.34, DanielCD is right. Introducing article content without sources is not helpful. Deliberating adding content verifiable only by an illegal web site and expecting us to use it is very unhelpful. It makes extra work for the editors that are trying to make this article meet WP policy and guidelines for content. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:CITE speak to Wikipedia expectations for proper content and proper sourcing. Please don't ask us to use content that goes against core WP policy. FloNight ^talk 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Plan to Afd

I'm trying to gather consensus to delete this article. There is no verifiable reliable source for the content of the article. Evidently the current content is original research. Look through past versions and you will see that more detailed original research describing the web site has been removed. None of the newspaper articles identify LS Studio by name. I searched through FBI press announcements looking for some evidence that LS Studio was raided. I looked through the United States official statements on human rights violations for Ukraine. Again, I find general reference to the FBI's involvement in shutting down child porn web sites in Ukraine but nothing specifically naming this studio.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LS Studio I'm not satisfied with the outcome of this Afd. There was heavy input from pro-pedophilia pov editors. There was a vote from a brand new user. This Afd vote was their first and last edit. Unless someone can find verifiable reliable sources in the next 48 hours I'm going to start another Afd. The article Child pornography already includes this content so there is no need to merge. FloNight ^talk 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A Nexis search turned up nothing for LS Studio and pornography or LS Studio and Ukraine. FWIW. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's make it clear. I agree with FloNight. There is no verifiable source for any informations about "LS Studio". The only information we have is about a child porn ring shutted down in Ukraine. Unless somebody can provide verifiable and reliable source for this studio work, this article has not his place in Wikipedia. I agree for a AfD as WP:V and WP:RS. --Sam67fr 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are valid. None of the referenced articles mention LS Studio by name. And since the actual verifiable output of LS Studio is possibly illegal to verify, it seems that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, LS Studio did not exist. This is unfortunate, because regardless of the controversial nature of LS Studio, it did exist.

Actually, if you take a look at the comments beloew the news stories, it is pretty clear that those commenting are fully aware that the story refers to "LS Studio": some would appear to have been clients themselves. Yucky though it might seem, they are the people most likely to know. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 13:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I carefully looked at the comments below the news stories, and it's pretty clear that some people think they know something about those stories. But those comments are not reliable sources of information. There is actually no way to verify if LS Studio existed, and if their supposed web site was a part of the child porn ring shutted down in 2004. So this article should be nominated for deletion. The part concerning the child porn ring should maybe be included in another article, but I can't find which one could be the best.--Sam67fr 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

When Jimbo said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge...", I wonder what he was thinking about controversial subjects such as LS Studio. Zebruh 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this deletion. The information about an unnamed child pornography ring being busted in Ukraine could be added to a relevant article, such as Pedophilia. -Jelligraze 23:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Zebruh, the standard for incluction in Wikipedia is not truth. A complete reading of the Wikipedia policies no original research, neutral point of view, verifiability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not shows that the Wikipedia project desires to include all encyclopedic information that can be verified using reliable sources. Whether something is controversial is of little importance when decisions are made about content exclusion. In fact, controversial articles are much more likely to be included and edited by a large number of people. FloNight ^talk 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles on infamous crime

(Found this discussion from the brief exchanges on the WikiEN-L mailing list.)

Child pornography is an infamous crime today. By this I mean that it is a crime generally considered one of the most heinous; one that gets a lot of moral panic-style press articles; and one that nobody wants to be personally associated with. Other infamous crimes today include terrorism, and the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.

There are some difficult problems in writing encyclopedic articles about infamous crime. First off, it's hard to get good sources. Media articles tend to be panicky and biased; they tend to make a problem sound omnipresent even if it is in fact relatively rare. They tend not to divulge many relevant details. And often, the people who know the most about the crime -- the perpetrators -- are inaccessible or even simply not questioned. Who wants to hear from a terrorist, a child pornographer, or a drug pusher?

(Really. When was the last time you saw an article about a meth lab being busted, where the lab operators were even quoted? Surely they have something to say besides "crap, we got busted." Like, why did they go into the meth business? How much money did they make? What did their friends and relatives think? What's their story? For that matter, there are lots of panicky articles about meth users which don't even quote any meth users.)

Another problem is that the best sources about infamous crime will sometimes be ... (surprise!) disreputable people. If you want to report on how much meth there is in your community, the cops aren't likely to have an accurate idea, because meth users systematically conceal themselves from cops. But the meth users and dealers will know. (For that matter, see Steven Levitt's discussion of the economics student who spent a while studying and living with crack dealers in Freakonomics.) Likewise, the most accurate information about child pornography dealers is going to come from ... pedophiles, or other people who are familiar with child pornography.

Of course, many encyclopedists are uncomfortable with the idea of pedophiles contributing to the encyclopedia ... just as they are probably uncomfortable with the idea of meth dealers or terrorists contributing. Working with people you despise is not so much fun. However, the fact is that if we want Wikipedia to be able to cover infamous crime, we're going to need contributors who are familiar with it. If law enforcement don't provide the details, insiders probably will.

Naturally, that doesn't mean our articles should reflect a criminal POV ... any more than they should reflect a law-enforcement POV, the way that the mass media usually does about drugs. However, if a bunch of pedophiles are standing around saying that the child pornographers who were busted in the Ukraine were known to them as "LS Studio", then unless anyone can come up with a source that says otherwise, it seems we should take that as a provisional fact. --FOo 02:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

FOo, it's called original research and it is not allowed. All articles must be based on information from reliable sources. FloNight ^talk 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids

Awesome work, Thebainer. This version is better for Wikipedia. Zebruh 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to state that LS Studio—and only LS Studio—fits every one of the descriptions in these news articles? Particularly, LS Studio's sites ceased to exist precisely when these events took place. Zebruh 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If every one of these news articles came out and said so. --Jelligraze 21:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought. But why every one? Would not just one suffice? Oh, never mind. I understand what you're saying. Zebruh 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

While browsing the double redirects, I see a list of Ls studios related articles redirect here. From the talk page, it seems a valid redirect, but if LS don't even deserve a mention in the article, why should it redirect here? --Dodo bird 07:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a redirect is a fair compromise. There were other Ukrainian child porn operations shut down in 2004. They can be included in this article also with proper references. I don't think we need a seperate article on every Ukrainian operation shut down. FloNight ^talk 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is better than a separate article, but I think that the result "No page with that title exists" would be best of all. Redirecting says that there's some connection between the two terms, and in this instance I don't think such a connection is verifiable with reference to a reliable source. Joey Q. McCartney 07:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what Joey said. If LS can't be mentioned in this article due to verifiability/importance issues, then the LS pages should be put up for deletion instead of being redirected here. --Dodo bird 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

LSMODELCLUB

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