Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete as a poorly-sourced biography, non-notable, very likely a hoax and now blanked. (aeropagitica) 09:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Byars Jr.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very long, very strange screed. Most of it is blatant violation of WP:BLP, and my senses are telling me this a hoax. The references are either irrelevant or very tangential. IMDB has a single reference to the film, with the name Billy Byars included, but I can't dig up any other info. RJASE1 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To RJASE1;

Because you are ignorant of the subject matter does not make it a "hoax". Please give examples of: "blatant violations"? "irrelevant references"? "very tangential references"?

RJASE1 wrote..."IMDB has a single reference to the film, with the name Billy Byars included, but I can't dig up any other info." That's the point, I have spent two years "digging up" the information. Are you under some strange assumption that "Google" and/or "IMDB" should be your only source? Try leaving your bedroom and visit a library for real research. However, if you are housebound and insist on only using the Internet, you must be able to find more then one reference to Billy Byars. When I get a chance I'll help you out.

Ballog 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Ballog, you must remain civil. There is no reason to insult another editor. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as Byars is/was real but this article is very problematic and needs a thorough cleanup. SOme of it appears to be original research (admitted above). The best place to start looking is probably Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung:

I don't believe suggesting to someone that "Googling" is not the only possible research, nor even research at all, is being uncivil. I do believe that calling actual professional research a "hoax" is uncivil, childish and igonorant. Especially when all one has to do is send a message to the author and ask questions.

Also, please, in this type of discussion forum, it may be best to refrain from "wiki speak". "Weak Keep"? Could you put that in more concise language?

All my Best, Ballog 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Reply: Ballog, I repeat, please remain civil and stop the personal attacks (words like "childish and ignorant" are unacceptable, and you could be banned if you don't stop). Please also assume good faith of other editors on the project. These are Wikipedia policies that you must follow.
 * I'm sorry that you didn't understand my vote summary of "weak keep", but if you will familiarize yourself with deletion policy and other discussions on articles for deletion you will see that this is necessary shorthand for a busy part of Wikipedia. My argument is that Byars, the subject, is a topic worth having in Wikipedia, but Billy Byars Jr. the article, as it stands, is a problem article that needs trimming and cleanup to comply with Wikipedia policies, including the sacrosanct biographies of living persons policy. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 5

February 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung:

Please understand "ignorant" is not a pejorative. It means "lacking knowledge". It does does not mean dumb or stupid.

Since I am obviously "ignorant" of "wikiworld" I would still like to be educated as to why calling someone's research a "hoax" in not considered "uncivil", especially when the researcher could easily be "messaged" with any questions.

As for "trimming" the article, I understand we live in a world where young adults have a "child like" attention span and can't be expected to read an article that would take them longer than 60 seconds to read, but perhaps we can begin here today and show young people what articles should be. Finally, breaking-up articles into different pages with fun hyperlink clicking may be all the rage for a tiny minority, but it gives most people a headache.

I hope you take my comments in the cooperative spirit intended.

Best wishes, Ballog 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Comment. WP:HOAX is a particular guideline at Wikipedia and a valid rationale for deletion. By raising it, RJASE1 legitimately asked the community for consensus on whether the article was valid and verifiable enough to keep. That is a label placed on the article, not on an editor. You can't be incivil to an inanimate object, but editors are assumed to be real persons and we should all respect that. My reference to trimming was not in regard to attention spans or for brevity, but because much of the article appears difficult to reconcile with our strict policies requiring verification from reliable sources. We can keep the article if a) the article can be trimmed to encyclopedic information about the man that b) demonstrates notability. Anything that cannot be cited, but could be considered libelous, such as accusing someone of manufacturing what would today be considered child pornography, must be removed immediately, and the person wishing to keep it has the responsibility of justifying it by coming up with sources. Anything that involves synthesis, conjecture, or conclusion that is not citable to a secondary source is considered original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia, which is by design and policy a tertiary source. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I want to apologize for using the word 'screed' and will remove the 'hoax' tag, since I'm willing to concede that this person existed. But the only fact about this person that I am willing to accept at this point is that he produced/wrote the film mentioned in the article. I don't see how that makes him notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion if there is nothing else published about him. All the gay porn stuff has got to either be referenced or removed immediately because it's potentially libellous. - RJASE1 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the internet sources don't back up any of the substance of the article. The book source appears to be difficult to obtain and amazon gives a different year of publishing, possibly a change of publisher or a plain mistake. I'm uneasy about having so contentious an article with only these sources on Wikipedia. Malla  nox  23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (changed vote). I have reviewed the article twice and as many of the sources as I can, and I find nothing indicating that Byars was truly notable. The only thing that might make it notable is the child pornography investigation, but the article states that the LA Times explicitly did not cover it. Many times the article relies on original research (e.g. tax records), conjecture, or weasel words to arrive at a conclusion. This article may be of interest to some publication, Ballog, but it is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from the author:

(Believing that being involved in "gay porn" is "libellous" shows a personal prejudice and bias)

-This is how "difficult to obtain" the book sources are:

Books:(All of which mention Byars)

"Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981. Everest House.

- Library of Congress #HQ144.L56 ISBN:0-89696-197-4

- Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: Children In Chains by Clifford L. Linedecker)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991. G.P. Putnam's and Sons.

-Library of Congress #HV7911.H6S86 ISBN:0-399-13800-5

-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

-"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976. Vanguard Press.

-ISBN#0814907733

-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in Americaby Robin Lloyd)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

Magazine Articles:

-Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972, p. 18.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Marvin Jones, The Advocate, 1972, copyright Campfire Video - 2000.

also:

A brief Internet article on the scandal: http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/exp/cliffsrc.html

Dhartung wrote, "...Not notable...": Let's see, Son of J. Edgar Hoover's and Dwight Eisenhower's friend Billy Byars Sr., who was a multi-million dollar oil baron who owned what has become Exxon/Mobile. Both Byars are constantly mentioned in the JFK assassin theories. Oh yes, Byars Jr. arrested in what "The Meese Commission" called the largest child porn case in history. And don't forget, Byars Jr, was the employer of Loretta Young's son who pleaded guilty in the case.

Dhartung wrote, "...The L.A. Times didn't cover it": It was the lead front page story on Saturday October 27, 1973. The paper also wrote on the the later trials.

Dhartung wrote, "Many times the article relies on original research (e.g. tax records)": LOL. God forbid the online community is exposed to actual original scholarly research (althought I don't know of any tax records being used). I see, it's better to use second hand unverified information. Good point.

The article was almost completely sourced earlier today and yet it is still flagged.

Please see similar Wiki articles, with less sourcing, on men such as:

James Whitey Bulger

Hugh Hefner

Is it possible here at "wikiworld" articles are not judged on their merit but rather how much grief the author gives the "editors"?

Ballog 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Attention Dhartung and RJASE1: I have received a private message from a longtime Wiki user who informs me that your behaivor here has been abusive and that you are not "administrators". I have been advised to contact a Wiki administrator if your abusive behaivor continues. Also, Dhartung, I have read some of the pages you have created. Shall we continue to discuss "sourcing" and "notability"? I mean really, "Clint Hartung", "Bettye LeVette", "Phillip Perry", "Miles Copeland Jr.", etc. Your bio articles are some of the least referenced on Wiki and concern people far less "notable" than my mailman.

Ballog 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * Comment. I freely admit I am not an administrator - I spend most of my Wiki-time on anti-vandalism patrol. That is, however, not relevant to this debate. My bottom-line point is that the article fails verifiability criteria per WP:BLP and WP:OR, and includes potentially defamatory claims. If the non-complying material is removed from the article in its present state (and it needs to be, sooner rather than later, unless it's verified, per this policy), the little remaining material is not enough for the article to pass WP:NOTE and the whole article should probably be deleted. I'm sorry if the author was offended - nothing personal. I recommend the author read WP:OWN. RJASE1 04:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ballog, your behavior is less than stellar and can earn you a nice fat block for running afoul of WP:POINT. Whether or not you feel as though you're not getting a fair shake, stop (and I never thought I'd use this phrase) being a dick. I'm not an admin either, but that doesn't mean I can't give you a heads up. JuJube 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1: You continue to fail to cite specifics. Please cite any potentially defamatory claims which have not been sourced or referenced. You also confuse good sourcing with "convienence" of verification by you. Simply because you can't read the contents of a book or magazine online does not mean it's a bad source. The fact that you might need to pay a fee at a web site or visit a brick and mortar library to verify a source does not make the source invalid.

Admittedly, there has been confusion about the term "original research" here. My original research (original because I am the first to research the material for this subject) is all of previously published materials. Items such as United States birth, death, social security records, etc. are official records and are just about the most reliable source available. So to are state sex offender lists. Wiki's definition of "OR" is information that has not been previously or seperately published. The information I cite has been previously and/or seperately published.

Simply by repeating your false claims again..."If the non-complying material is removed from the article in its present state (and it needs to be, sooner rather than later, unless it's..", does not help your argument. Once again, you fail to cite specifics.  This constant repeating of unsubstaniated claims can be viewed as evidence that your are simply being abusive and attempting to "flame" an article.

I previously cited three books, a magazine article, an internet article and The Los Angeles Times as sources confirming that Billy Byars, who owned Lyric which produced pornography, was arrested in 1973 for charges specified in the article. Now, please explain to me how this does not meet the criteria for sourcing?

Final request RJASE1, cite "specific" violations or stop the abusive behaivor.

24.60.54.59 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

RJASE1:

Stop being a "wikigeek" and using "WP"s to make your arguments and retorts. Can't you think for yourself? Do you really need to rely on material written by others to protect yourself. "WP"s are for the "Berkley" crowd who chant "group think" sayings like "Bush Lied, People Died" Use your own God giving brain.

24.60.54.59 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * Comment Despite the increasingly humorous incivility on the part of Ballog, I am persuaded that this article basically passes WP:N and WP:V, the two bones of contention. However, it's a complete mess, nearly incomprehensible, and essentially needs a total rewrite.  - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * stubbify and recreate, or delete. The problem here is that many of the occurrences are in fact notable, but they are notable as crimes. However, the subject of the article appears not to have been convicted of them, and the indictment was (according to the article itself) never prosecuted, so an attempt to discuss them from the standpoint of trying to demonstrate the subject's guilt is an obvious violation of BLP. Similarly the criminal actions of others are discussed--in some cases safely, because they have been convicted, but in some cases not, which is also a violation of BLP.
 * BLP is not a technical WP matter--it is a basic principle of fairness in any encyclopedic source, and it is also the basic way of avoiding libel for any publication.
 * Personally, i would have deleted or at least blanked the entire article as it now stands as libel.
 * That does not mean an article cannot be written, for the subject of the article is unfortunately notable, and sufficiently notable that an article would be appropriate even over his objections, and enough verifiable non BLP material found. But the present article is so obviously full of prejudicial and unsupported testimony that it cannot reasonably stand. WP is not a court of law. DGG 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG, let's discuss notability. What we have here is: son of an oilman, "boy film" producer, apparently well-known as someone J. Edgar Hoover once threw a quote at, but not prominent in the JFK assassination, once indicted but not prosecuted for what the Meese Commission did call "the first child pornography ring". Is that notability? I'm unconvinced at this point. How does he pass WP:BIO? --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I stubbified it. After slogging through the whole thing, I would definitely classify it as libelous, particularly as none of the "charges" are backed up by anything but one editor's sleuth work.  Furthermore, a lot of it was not supported by anything but opinion - the paragraph about Zipper magazine stated only that "it's obvious that Byars published it." - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Weak Keep as the stub it now is. Per {{WP:BLP]] potentially libellous material must be well referenced, and oerehaos some of the disputed material, if it is indeed referenced to reliable and verifiable sources, could be restores. But Ballog has gone way over the line with personal attacks, on this page and on the article's talk page, where he complains that "It appears that the "lifer Wiki geeks", who mostly live in their mother's basements, will remove the article shortly." Wikipedia is not a blog where one wins by flaming anyone who disagrees. Please read and follow WP:NPA.Edison 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - if only for the history, which violates BLP in so many ways... we won't even get into the incoherence of it all. -- Elar  a  girl  {{sup|Talk|Count}} 11:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I categorically support the stubbing of this article, obviously. I am open to arguments on how the subject is notable per sources acceptable to make an article adhering to WP:BLP. But an article under the guise of a biography that is little more than slugfest of controversies just will not cut it. Currently, such an article seems to be the intent of the article's primary author. Elaragirl's suggestion that the history be deleted should definitely be followed if this article is kept. Folks, let me suggest that there hundreds, even many thousands of BLPs on WP that are as bad as this, basically hidden from everyday view. They are awaiting our proactive discovery and most diligent intervention. CyberAnth 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - First, I've independently verified a number of the sources the author cites: the L.A. Times on microfilm years ago (it's online now), the J. Edgar Hoover biography, the Warren Report, the best-selling Robin Lloyd book. The sources are all genuine. (On the other hand, they'd fail the quality test being demanded here: Lloyd sources nothing, the Hoover bio is where the now discredited story of Hoover in drag came from.)

I have read the Original Research policy. I´m not sure I fully understand it, but it seems more a barrier against people who take a handful of facts and conclude that everything's due to the Patriachy or the Illuminati. This merely takes scattered facts about a man and puts them together. There are no Big Theories involved, and no twisting of facts to a predetermined conclusion.

Yes, the article sounds strange. The subject is strange - and interesting. Style questions I won't address, it's easier to fix style and organization than content.

Regarding the statements that are potentially libelous, they are all from public sources. The Warren Report failed to verify its facts and see that the "child pornography ring" wasn't a ring and no charges were brought based on child pornography, and that the only movie mentioned in the L.A. Times was from the description entirely legal.

An analogous case, also from Los Angeles, was the McMartin school satanic sexual abuse scandal. One cannot argue that there should't be an article on it because the charges were false. They were false, and the first of many similar charges. The charges against Byars were false too, or at least never proved. Some of the charges were found false by a jury; part of the article is an interview by another of the falsely accused where he says that he pled guilty but the police were ready to frame him.

The persecution of child pornography has been a significant excuse for the attacks on civil liberties over the past thirty years in the United States, especially on the Internet. A great deal of the "original research" on which those policies have been based is, frankly, a crock. Byars was one of the first victims. A comparison of the facts, presented here, against the lies, in such places as the Attorney's General's pornography report, is illuminating. Keep.

REVERT to last version by Ballog

Keep

Comment Much discussion and many comments however absolutely no specific violations cited. Most comments are vague, uncivil and personal attacks against editors with other opinions. (Please review Wiki guidlines)

Comment - How I love unsigned comments without a single shred of recourse to, oh, actual policy? '''This. Article. Is. Unsourced. With. Sources. That. Are. Reliable.''' The guidelines are clear, and the article needs to be cut down to a stub until someone more .... neutral ... can source everything stated. -- Elar  a  girl  {{sup|Talk|Count}} 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Stub and Rewrite, per Elaragirl, including the need for new editors. If my vote isn't really an option, count me as a Delete. ThuranX 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You wish to delete because the sources are reliable?

Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Neutral? This is not an "issue" oriented article where any type of "view" was taken. What biased view was taken and what was the controversy. I missed the controversy, and I wrote the article.

Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

I believe 9 seperate requests for "specific" instances in the article where a fact was stipulated without reference. Not one reply.

Ballog 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Actually it would appear that User:Elaragirl is of the opinion that the sources in this article are not reliable.--Isotope23 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I don't believe my English professor would be able to correctly read that and many other comments here. It must be "New Grammar", you know, like "New Math".

Ballog 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Regarding libel, several references were removed to the late "pornographer" Guy Strait. It's not libel, since he's dead and it's famously true. According to the Chicago Tribune, Strait "was one of the nation's leading pornographers ... he had cornered the market on the production of ‘kiddie porn'."(Chicago Tribune, 17 May 1977, p. 1-8.) The articles are reprinted in ''Sexual Exploitation of Children, Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.'' (1977) pp 428-42. The "statement of Guy Strait, producer of child pornography" appears in the same volume on pp 23-28. Mr. Strait was also the founder of the first gay newspaper in San Franciso in 1961, which at the time took courage.

There were objections to "the first child pornography ring [...] brought to public view." (Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (1986) PART 3: Law Enforcement Recommendations. Chapter 3, paragraph 5.) I agree that the charge is false. However it was made by the Attorney General's commision, which failed to check primary sources or court records before perpetuating the accusation. The article does not qualify for exclusion as "original research". While I agree that more footnotes are needed, I own or have read a number of the sources given, and the article is in line with available source references. The lack of footnotes is a correctable flaw. There is no ideological bias. I've read some "original research" - I recall something on the Ark of the Covenant being an electrical capacitor - but the only burning passion I see here is a desire for completeness.

Is it controversial? The man apparently has led an eventful and colorful life, and the article reflects that.

Regarding the notability of the subject, the scandal that ended Mr. Byars's company was one of the early events of the campaign against child pornography, still today used as the major argument for censorship and regulation of the Internet. The arrests were the first major appearance in the papers of LAPD sergeant Lloyd Martin who became one of stars of the 1977 child pornography panic, and who is now discredited.

One of the problems the author faces here is that the usual "reliable sources", aren't. The Meese Commission didn't bother to see if the charges were proved, but only that they were made. The headline in the LA Times said "14 Men Indicted in Sex Movies", there were no charges involving "sex movies" and the only movie mentioned was a nudist films legal then and now. The Chicago Times gives numbers for the child pornography market, and for Strait's income as the man with a corner on the market; the numbers are incompatible by an order of magnitude. The book by Robin Lloyd, a best seller with an introduction by a U.S. Senator, has no footnotes, but where one can compare it to the L.A. Times articles, Lloyd reuses the same incident three times, without telling the reader. His major contribution to the kiddy porn panic was inventing the number of "300,000 boy prostitutes" in the U.S.

The article is more accurate and even in its current state better sourced than the "research" on the topic that was the foundation for past and current public policy.

Child pornography may not be notable, but the attempt to repress it - or rather the repression done or advocated in the name of repressing it - certainly is. Mr. Byars was one of the first to be attacked under that banner. He's notable. Chapado 03:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only going through about half of the pre-stubbed version. I wouldn't be suprised if there's more in the second half. Natalie 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Although the immediate BLP issue has been resolved, as the article has been stubbed, here are some specific example of unsourced, potentially libelous statements, Ballog:
 * "Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men."
 * "Other Internet rumors contend "Glawson", who was an obvious favorite of Byars, was given the "rights" to the Lyric works", which is part of a completely unsourced paragraph.
 * "One Internet poster claims "Terry Stuart" was "Byars first" (possibly meaning first lover or first model)".
 * "this person basically ruined the film under the direction of Byars who was really only interested in displaying the naked boys."
 * "One can be certain the writer obtained this biographical information from Byars himself who constantly felt a need to exaggerate his true experiences."

Natalie

Congratulations, you are the first of the people who wish to delete this article who took the time to actually read it (well at least half) and actually cite specific sections you have concerns about.

Now let us review your concerns:

"Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men."

First, the Pfeiffer photographs have never been considered illegal and have always been available legally, as they continue to be today. It can not be considered libelous to credit someone with photography that is not considered illegal. Conjecture by an editor is not prohibited so as long as it is clearly conjecture. For example, in numerous encyclopedic articles of the past thirty years concerning Watergate, there has been much conjecture about the identity of Bob Woodward’s “Deep Throat”. The current Wiki article about Rush Limbaugh contains open conjecture about his addition to prescription drugs being the cause of his temporary deafness.

"Other Internet rumors contend "Glawson", who was an obvious favorite of Byars, was given the "rights" to the Lyric works.” "One Internet poster claims "Terry Stuart" was "Byars first" (possibly meaning first lover or first model).”

Again, these was clearly identified as a rumor and Usenet postings. Perhaps they do need a link to the Google archived source. (Note: The “favorite of Byars” issue is also contained in the book “Children in Chains”)

"this person basically ruined the film under the direction of Byars who was really only interested in displaying the naked boys." This was clearly attributed to the 2006 interview with the Director of the film “Genesis Children”, Anthony Aikman. This sourcing question really isn’t even debatable.

"One can be certain the writer obtained this biographical information from Byars himself who constantly felt a need to exaggerate his true experiences."

This is a valid concern and should be reconstructed.

“ I wouldn't be suprised if there's more in the second half.”

Not a productive comment.

The article is nearly 10,000 words long. I’m sure you don’t think it should be reduced to one sentence because of the above few concerns. Ballog 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Comment, actually conjecture by an editor is prohibited even if clearly labeled. Please see WP:OR.  If the Rush Limbaugh article contains conjecture about his hearing loss, that should be removed as well.  WP:OR is very clear in the prohibition of original synthesis of thougth.  Additionally Usenet postings are not WP:RS and even if clearly identified as such should not be used as a source or even included in an aricle.  Wikipedia is expressly not the place for republishing rumors, particularly those that come from Usenet threads.  Something else I've noticed that I'm not sure anyone has touched on is the "What ever happened to…?" section, which is completely inappropriate in the context of this article.  This is an article on Byers and off-topic explorations of what happened to individuals who are not Byers don't belong in an article about him. Beyond that, Natalies concerns are valid and are a good reason to see this article reduced to one line at this time per WP:BLP.--Isotope23 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23

Thank you for interesting comments. Perhaps my use of the word "conjecture" is misplaced.

Would you also comment on why you feel the parts of the article that are sourced to the following references should be removed? Please also mention which of these souces you have read and have not read.

Books:(All of which mention Byars)

"Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981. Everest House.

- Library of Congress #HQ144.L56 ISBN:0-89696-197-4

- Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: Children In Chains by Clifford L. Linedecker)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991. G.P. Putnam's and Sons.

-Library of Congress #HV7911.H6S86 ISBN:0-399-13800-5

-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

-"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976. Vanguard Press.

-ISBN#0814907733

-Many used copies for sale via the Internet (Google: For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in Americaby Robin Lloyd)

-Numerous copies available at libraries across America. ww.sjlibrary.org/services/literacy/info_comp/books_finding.htm

Magazine Articles:

-Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972, p. 18.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

-Marvin Jones, The Advocate, 1972, copyright Campfire Video - 2000.

Thanks,

Ballog 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * "Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981
 * The only parts of the article clearly sourced by this concern Guy Strait and as this is a biography for Byars, those sections should be removed regardless of whether or not they are sourced as they concern an individual other than the subject.


 * "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991
 * Ignoring for a moment what could certainly be a wider discussion about considering summers to be an actual reliable source, the mentions and the sourced sections in this article are rather trival factoids. I'm rather neutral on them; they don't really add much to the article.

"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976

Am I missing something here? I don't see this cited as a source anywhere.
 * "Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972 :Nothing particularly wrong with this source or how it is used.
 * Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972
 * Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972
 * I don't see anything particularly wrong with the sources themselves, but in one case they are used in a section that is formatted as a trivia section.


 * Monte Davis, "Genesis Child", Zipper Magazine, July 1972
 * Not sure if I'm missing something, but as with Lloyd I don't see where this is clearly cited.


 * Marvin Jones, The Advocate, 1972, copyright Campfire Video - 2000
 * As with the Linedecker source, this is used to source information about someone other than the subject, namely Christopher Paul Lewis. As with the Guy Strait sections, none of this is directly about Byars and other than mentioning him in passing I would take out the large sections on someone who is not the subject of this article.--Isotope23 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23

I wish you would have indicated which of these sources you have actually read.

Children In Chains" by Clifford L. Linedecker - 1981 and

Official and Confidential by Anthony Summers - 1991

are both used as sources for both Byars and Strait as well as other information. Are you actually saying that an article primarily about one man can’t contain information about anyone else? But if the article does contain information about someone else, it shouldn’t be sourced? Is that what are contending?
 * What I'm contending is that large sections of an article that are about someone other than the subject should not be in the article, even if they are sourced. It is off-topic.  Passing mention is one thing, whole paragraphs should not be there.  Beyond that, it is not clear where these are used as sources other than where they are explicitly cited.

''"For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America" by Robin Lloyd - 1976. '' Am I missing something here? I don't see this cited as a source anywhere.

Yes, I believe you have missed something here.
 * Then the source is not clearly cited in the article... which it should be. It is impossible to determine anything about it unless it is correctly cited.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Viola Hegyi Swisher, "Generating The Genesis Children", After Dark Magazine, September 1972:  Nothing particularly wrong with this source or how it is used.

'''Great. So you agree that section should be returned.'''

''"Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers - 1991. '' Ignoring for a moment what could certainly be a wider discussion about considering summers to be an actual reliable source, the mentions and the sourced sections in this article are rather trival factoids. I'm rather neutral on them; they don't really add much to the article. '''It is used as an additional source to confirm Byars' arrest and his fleaing prosecutuion. The more sources you can cite the better. Not the reverse.'''
 * Only if those sources are actually reliable...--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

''Dr. John Linendoll, "The Genesis Children", Zipper Magazine, July 1972. '' Dr. John Linendoll, "International Boys Camp", Zipper Magazine, July 1972.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the sources themselves, but in one case they are used in a section that is formatted as a trivia section.

I have no idea what your comment means. Please see WP:TRIV. Bullet pointed sections should not appear in the narrative.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that if Zipper Magazine was published by Byars, as the longer version of the article asserts, it cannot be considered a reliable source due to conflict of interest. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

''"Marvin Jones, The Advocate, 1972, copyright Campfire Video - 2000." '' As with the Linedecker source, this is used to source information about someone other than the subject, namely Christopher Paul Lewis. As with the Guy Strait sections, none of this is directly about Byars and other than mentioning him in passing I would take out the large sections on someone who is not the subject of this article.<

'''My same response at to Strait. Both are integral in Byars life and I know of no policy that forbids mentioning persons other than the main subject.'''Ballog 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * I can't point you to an explicit policy, but what is in the article is not "mentioning" it is whole paragraphs that go completely off the topic of Byars and onto another individual. It simply is not a good way to write a biographical article.--Isotope23 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I would think that having to spend two years locating information from sources that are not wholly reliable (Internet forums are not RS at all) simply screams NN, and even a Salon article that mentions him also points out that he was a teenager at the time.  The non-libelous version of this article is all of one line, and it seems that the author is trying to pursue an agenda instead of sticking to verified fact. MSJapan 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan

“I would think that having to spend two years locating information from sources that are not wholly reliable (Internet forums are not RS at all) simply screams NN...”

The article contains about 1% of information attributed to Internet forums. You choose to ignore the remaining 99% of the sources (books, magazines, newspapers, official United States records) listed for the article. Perhaps you actually didn’t read the article but only the discussion here.

“...and even a Salon article that mentions him also points out that he was a teenager at the time.”

I am entirely confused by this statement. The Salon article is a source concerning Detective Lloyd Martin and the prosecution of child pornography. I don’t believe it ever mentions Byars. This Wiki article is about Byars entire life. What do you mean by, “he was a teenager at the time”? What time? Ballog 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Chapado "Some of the photographs and films were attributed to a "Harlan 'Slim' Pfeiffer" [7] whom may actually be Byars himself", referencing photographs that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men." Not libel. First, Byars was unquestionably producer of a film that "featured extensive nudity of boys and young men". Second, there's a long tradition of that in Western art; see Germaine Greer's The Beautiful Boy. Third, photographs of nudity aren't illegal. The Genesis Children is on sale even now; at least one of Byars's magazines is in the New York Public Library.

Regarding the Salon article: it's wrong. The reference is to a meeting that supposedly took place between J. Edgar Hoover and Byars after the Kennedy assasination; Byars was born in 1936 and 27 at the time of Kennedy's death. The Salon author, you see, was unable to check his facts in Wikipedia...

...it seems that the author is trying to pursue an agenda instead of sticking to verified fact. What agenda? He seems to pursuing facts, lots and lots of facts. Perhaps they could be better organized. There may be a lack of a narrative thread, but I can't detect an ideological one.

Several people have said the sources seem scattered. periferical, and unreliable. Yes. Who else appears in the Meese Report and one of the best-selling books focusing on the subject of the Warren Report? There's a real-life Forrest Gump quality to the man. And, as said above, while a lot of the sources are unreliable (Robin Lloyd, the Meese report, the LAPD accusations) an awful lot of public policy has relied upon them. --Chapado 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * — Chapado (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete After thorough review, I'm unconvinced a verifiable article can be created from reliable sources that asserts notability. As for Alger Hiss, any details about Whittaker Chambers are relevant to the article and any irrelevant biographical details on Chambers are correctly placed in his article.  The comparison is null and void. One Night In Hackney 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My reference to Hiss and Chambers was not directed to any article here on Wiki (I did not know that there was one), it was referring to thousands of articles about Hiss in actual professional scholarly articles. There is a world outside of Wiki. (FYI, a "comparison" can never be "null and void". Please see accepted definitions)

Ballog 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * Comment Please see WP:TROLL. One Night In Hackney 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

'''Please do not respond to posts here that are obviously attempts to flame and start a war. I have been assured people making such posts will be dealt with by Admins in the appropriate manner. Let us limit our comments to the article only.'''

Ballog 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * Comment - can someone do something about the unreadability of this page?- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving some of the off-topic commentary to Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' Close and delete per WP:SNOW? One Night In Hackney 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW doesn't really apply, and I am still inclined toward my original keep vote, I was thinking more along the lines of moving most of the commentary above to a subpage. There are only a small handful of non-Ballog comments up there.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines I have renamed this article to better reflect the original intent of the author. This should clear up many issues. Ballog 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * I've reverted this...Please don't move articles to a new namespace in the middle of an afd, this just creates all kind of confusion. If it is your intent to have a DOM/Lyric article then I'd  suggest you start one from scratch or propose a move here.--Isotope23 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to learn and be cooperative. You have good points that this should not be a biography so I am attempting to comply. I'm sure it was just an oversight but you forgot to do that "WP" thing and cite the Wiki rule you are applying. Could you please "WP" and show the rule against renaming a page in the middle of an afd. I just want read it and continue my Wiki education. Thanks much. Ballog 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * There is no rule to cite (we don't have rules)... it's just not a good idea to move a page mid-AFD as it simply creates a ton of confusion. I'm not doubting you acted in good faith but it is a good idea to let this run it's course.  If you want to start a DOM/Lyric article you should do it from scratch.--Isotope23 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The goal here should be a good article. Not for some "process" to run it's course or for someone to save face in an argument. When this article was created, the author did not label it a "biography", someone else did. By changing the name and removing the "biography" label, 90 percent of the issues would have been resolved. It is important to remember the actual goal here and not to simply focus on "process". Ballog 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * Even if you move the previous version of the article to the other namespace, it would still have large tracts of WP:OR, have sections that were off topic, and have WP:NPOV issues. I'm not convinced a move would fix the problems here.--Isotope23 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article were renamed "DOM/Lyric Studios" there would be absolutely nothing off topic. Everyone knows there is no point of view in this article so that appears to be just a new diversion to continue "process". Ballog 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * View it how you will... I have no illusions about changing your mind here.--Isotope23 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources are cited in the article to substantiate notability. I notice that The Genesis Children is also unsourced, and a possible AfD candidate for notability concerns. Nick Graves 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ballog, the concerns about the content remain even if the article is renamed...WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just "biographical" ones. For example, I couldn't put specious accusations against Bill Gates in the Microsoft article. RJASE1 07:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article contains no "accusations", specious or otherwise, as is indicated by your continued failure to cite any specific instances. Next. Ballog 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * The Bill Gates was a hypothetical example...I am going to be so glad when this discussion is closed. RJASE1 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Ballog, I'm new here, although I have used Wikipedia for reference often in the past. I do not wish to tread on any toes or break any rules.

It would appear that a biography of a living person is particularly fraught with hazards for a new contributor. Nonetheless, Notability:
 * Billy Byars, Jr. was one of the principal figures in what the Meese commission called "the first child pornography ring";
 * "Child pornography rings" make a lot of appearances in the media, a new one having turned up in Austria during this discussion;
 * The specter of child pornography remains the artument most heavily used to justify regulation, censorship and eavesdropping on the internet, even after the 9/11 attacks;
 * At least one of those who later became notorious in the crusade against child pornography first appeared in the charges against Mr. Byars;
 * Looking at the primary sources, then the secondary sources, as done here, leads one to the conclusion that the secondary sources, (e.g. the Meese Report) would never withstand a Wikipedia deletion review.

Mr. Byars was an important if involuntary participant in an event that marked the start of a significant societal trend. That the charges against him appear unfounded only increases his importance.

Article quality: Yes, there are missing footnotes. Having read many of the sources cited, I am aware that nearly all of the claims made can be substanciated.

I'm also aware that in an encyclopedia, and especially in an article on a living person, there's an enormous difference between claims being provable, and being proven. The editor offered to add in the footnotes. The article being stubbed I believe prevents him from doing so. I'm certainly not going to try because there are too many rules of which I'm unaware.

There may be a lack of narrative thread, and perhaps there is content not essential to the topic.

Original research: Much of the world's knowledge is available in libraries, in microfilm or dead-tree format. Clicking a mouse can in seconds give you reams of information on something that happened last week or last year. Something that happened thirty years ago, however, requires you to get your hat and coat and go down to the library. Sometimes many libraries, as one defunct magazine may be in one, another in another, instead of bytes which are searchable from anywhere.

From the No Original Research policy: However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. With the exception of interviews he conducted with people involved in events that took place over thirty years ago, it seems to me that that is precisely what Ballog did. It also seems to me that he's getting ragged for having done it in the library rather than on-line.

It takes time and effort to research that way. What can be found for a recent event on Google in two seconds can take longer for information not on the Internet. Two years, say.

But to suggest that the information is somehow less reliable, or less important, or less significant, because it can't be verified by anyone without moving from their desks, is provincial.

The article does not - with exception of the data based on interviews - violate the policy as stated above. The Policy also bars "... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Several people have suggested that's a problem here. I've asked someone to explain to me what "theory" is being advanced by the article, but no one has answered. It's just a collection of facts. I've put some theory in above justifying notability, but I don't think there's that much theory in the whole article.

Civility: Ballog's civility or lack thereof has been subject to sufficent comment here. I will not add to it.

I did find that there's a "Please don't bite the newbies" policy. I like to ask the others here to consider that they have put considerable effort - effort, not just gazing into space to find the right phrase, but shoeleather, squinting at microfilm, scanning chapters and footnotes rather than using full-text search, etc. - into producing an article, on a person whose strange life you find interesting. You post it. Someone says, "Jeez, I can't verify this in under a minute online. Must be a hoax. Let's delete it."

The lack of footnotes in a biography of a living person is a significant flaw, which unquestionably must be corrected. Trouble is, with the article stubbed, the editor can't correct it. I'm sure this isn't a Catch-22, but if someone were to say what the usual way is to proceed, that might be productive.

Also, while I realize that a long-standing community develops a mutually understood technical shorthand, to a newcomer it's crypic gobbleygook. "ABC, DEF, GHI! Q.E.D.! Delete! HIP HIP Hooray!" is roughly how it reads to the uninitiated. I note that early on someone said "HOAX" which is a technical term meaning something different than "Hoax!" That editor explained and even apologized. Unfortunately, that didn't stop the flow of acronyms.

Libel: This bears repeating. The material which Mr. Byars's company produced, of which his feature film The Genesis Children is an example, featuring nude young men and boys, was not and is not pornographic. Byars publicly defended the artistic merit of his productions. Much of his material freely and legally circulates today. No pornography charges were ever brought against him; none of his associates were ever convicted on pornography charges. One of his associates, the late Guy Strait, with whom he cooperated in distribution but apparently not production, was a pornographer and a child pornographer, but Byars himself was not.

There is a doctine heard in free speech circles, called the "chilling effect". If something is made illegal, people become very cautious about approaching the limit of what is illegal, and what can't be said because of fear of approaching the illegal extends the zone of what is effectively prohibited. Mr. Byar's work falls into the area of "chill" - it is not illegal, but rarely produced nowadays because the penalties for stepping over the line are so great.

Conclusion: The subject is notable; the article well researched, but badly footnoted. The style and organization can perhaps be improved, but that is more easily done than adding facts to a fine piece of empty prose.

The author is perhaps abrasive, but he's also in his first effort been met by what appears less an open community than a closed club, with acronyms in place of secret handshakes. He's had his research disdained because it was conducted with two years of gumshoe work rather than via Google. He seems to be pissed off at that. I would be too.

The No Original Research policy has been unfairly invoked against the article. While the first-hand interviews violate it, the vast majority of the article does not. While people have suggested that there's an agenda, they won't say what it is. I think there's merely a collection of facts. An encyclopedic collection of facts.

If the article is kept - and I think it should be - I assume there's a standard procedure for these cases. Perhaps it goes back in sections as the editor footnotes the material. Maybe the original interviews get left out until the editor publishes them elsewhere. There seem to be a lot of policies about what not to do; surely there are some as to the best or easiet way to do this. Perhaps they could be shared with the same open-handedness as the "thou shalt not" policies have been. Chapado 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.