Jump to content

Talk:Jon Schillaci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted TfD

[edit]

{{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} has been nominated for deletion. As this template is transcluded here, contributors to the "Jon Schillaci" article may want comment in the discussion here. I propose that if the template is deleted, then most transclusions would be changed to {{Infobox Criminal}}. -- Mark Chovain 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dylan Thomas"

[edit]

This article needs a massive rewrite, due to new information on Schillaci's post-release activities. See the ED article on Dylan thomas. Didaskalosmrm (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED is not exactly a reliable source. Obviously we can get some stuff from the FBI report but for the rest we will have to see what the media pic up.Geni 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Schillaci's homosexuality

[edit]

If anyone has a compelling reason why Schillaci should not be classified as an LGBT person from the United States, please make the argument here. Everything I know about the man, from his crimes involving boys to his involvement with BoyChat.org, indicates "sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex," which is the Wikipedia definition of homosexuality. If you do not think that 'boylovers' should be classified as homosexuals, despite clearly falling into the above criteria, please consider amending the Wikipedia article on homosexuality before you remove the tag 'LGBT people from the United States' from Schillaci's page.

--ZhorblisMaycom (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with you, Zhorblis. I've contributed most of the information of this article, and I argued with SatyrTN about this issue several months ago, but he disagreed with me. There are several factors that indicate he's a LGBT person:
  • Schillaci frequented Montrose area, which is a gay village in Houston.
  • Schillaci raped two young children as a juvenile, and currently faces charges of molesting another child. The victims are all boys, so far.
  • Schillaci was a boychat's webmaster and a self-described boylover who wrote posts about... boys.
All this is true, check out the sources. He is a pedophile, either homosexual or bisexual. Reverend X (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that he is most probably gay. However, there is always a small possibility that identifies himself as a heterosexual, but prefers to have sex with teenage or pre-teen boys. He could be MSM, i.e, Males who have sex with Males. Just read the article for more info. Is there any evidence that he had a sexual affair with an adult male? While he is a well known pedarast, it does not automatically qualify him as homosexual, as a pedarast could also be MSM. Could you provide any credible or verifiable source which states that he identifies himself as a homosexual, or that he is a homosexual? That should solve the problem. If not, then just remove the LGBT categories. Its never wise to make assumptions. Joyson Noel (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a sexual affair with an adult male is not a prerequisite for being homosexual. If this were the case, no adolescent who is attracted to other adolescents of the same gender could be considered gay, a proposition that seems outlandish. By looking at the behavioral category of MSM, we can see that some males who have sex with other males do not have a homosexual identity. Those individuals might not fit into the LGBT categories. Yet everything we know about Schillaci suggests that he identified himself with the homosexual subculture of boylovers. The evidence for this includes his involvement with BoyChat and his work with a boylover oriented radio station. Thus you have two proofs: 1. homosexual behavior and 2. homosexual identity. You may say that boylovers do not have homosexual identity because the objects of their attraction are not adult men. However, this appropriates meaning for the word 'homosexual' that it has never had: the age of the desired person. Before anyone strips the category LGBT from this page, it is necessary, then, to amend the wiki page on homosexuality. --ZhorblisMaycom (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLP and WP:CATGRS. Unless we have a reliable source where Schillaci says he's gay, we cannot put him in an LGBT category. For some really outstanding cases, take a look at Little Richard and Jodi Foster. Foster has never said she was a lesbian, ergo no cat. Little Richard *used* to be gay, but isn't anymore. So unless you have a good ref, it doesn't matter who he's had sex with, or what neighborhoods he's frequented, we don't add the cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Satyr, Schillaci openly identified as a boylover, and by this his homosexuality is logically unassailable, because boylovers are sexually attracted to boys, and boys are males. His participation within online boylover groups, which has already been sourced in news articles, provides sufficient evidence. We do not need a second source in which Schillaci identifies as 'gay', when this fact is so easily deduced from his identification as a boylover. Verifiable sources are of course vital to the success of wikipedia, but simple logic is far more powerful a tool. I ask you to please stop contravening it. --ZhorblisMaycom (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, show me the reference?
Second, "easily deduced" is what we call original research, or synthesis, which is not allowed.
Third, a pedophile and/or rapist are NOT "boylovers". As you may or may not know, gay, and LGBT does not simply refer to sex with the same gender - it refers to being members of a self-identified social construct. I urge you to re-think the "sex with boys = gay" stance - it's offensive and wrong.
So far, the references provided show that Schillaci raped boys. That does not mean that he was gay, and that does not put him in the category "LGBT". Until you can provide a reference that says he was gay, the category stays off. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My simple deduction is neither synthesis nor original research, it is an exercise in plain, time-tested logic. Logical writing and associations are fundamental to the wikipedia project, and there are are no wiki provisions stating that logic be overridden for political expediency or political correctness, as you are attempting to do. If a male identifies as a boylover, he also identifies as homosexual, ie. a person with same sex orientation, with the possibility remaining that the person may be bisexual (also falling within the LGBT category). Jon Schillaci identified as a boylover, and this has already been sourced. Therefore he is a person with same sex orientation, ie. homosexual/bisexual, ie. gay/bi. If your objective is to remove the LGBT categories from the pages of people who have not self identified as homosexual (as Schillaci has), you should start somewhere else. May I suggest the wiki article on Roy Cohn?
In regards to your third point, a boylover is by definition a homosexual pedophile or a pedophile with homosexual attractions. The term 'boylover' is obviously a construct of boylovers themselves, but that should not deter us from apprehending its common usage. Therefore to say that a pedophile cannot be a boylover is a failure to apprehend the meaning of the term as it has always been used.
The term 'gay' is often perceived as a cultural construct, but it is also widely recognized as a descriptive synonym for homosexual. The wiki article on gay says:

"Most people consider gay and homosexual to be synonyms. This is how, in fact, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. However, some consider gay to be a matter of self-identification, while homosexual refers to sexual orientation."

If we allow this Wikipedia definition to stand, the following statement, made by you, can only be perceived as an attempt to exclude from 'gay' it's most common usage as a synonym for homosexual:

As you may or may not know, gay, and LGBT does not simply refer to sex with the same gender - it refers to being members of a self-identified social construct.

Any act that involves sex between two or more male people is a homosexual act. Therefore, sex between a man (male aged 18+ in UK) and a boy (male under 17 in UK) is a homosexual act. Engaging in a homosexual act does not make one a homosexual, but a pattern of homosexual behavior and a pattern of self-identification as a homosexual is about as hard a proof as one can possibly obtain that a person is gay. --ZhorblisMaycom (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It does sound to me like his self-identification as a "boylover" says that he is gay or bisexual in addition to being a pedophile. Aleta Sing 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhorblis, you yourself said that being a homosexual is not the same as performing sexual acts. Therefore, even a "pattern of homosexual behavior" doesn't equate to being gay. Furthermore, you are equating Schillaci's rape of boys to being gay - the two are not synonymous. And Aleta, take a look at Jodi Foster - unless there is a reliable source where he himself identifies as gay, he's not to be in the category. You're also making the classic mistake that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality - pedophilia is a "power over" construct where the gender of the victim rarely matters. But prove me wrong - provide a reliable source where Schillaci identifies as homosexual or gay and I'll shut up :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Satyr, Foster has not identified as lesbian (or bi or whatever), whereas Schillaci has apparently (I have not reviewed the sources) identified himself as a "boylover". Satyr, I am not conflating pedophile with gay - of course they are not the same thing, but they do overlap. If he had identified as a "girllover", I'd say that told us that he was straight (or bi) and a pedophile, again overlapping but not equal categories. Aleta Sing 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I may be getting a bit over enthusiastic here. For what it's worth, [Google search for Schillaci as a boylover returns 9 very questionable results. Likewise, a Google search for Schillaci as gay or homosexual turns up only questionable results. As I said, bring me a reliable source that says he's gay and I'll shut up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am here at Satyr's request. I am also out of my depth. No, I do not think that he is gay. Yes, a sexual act between two males is by my definition a homosexual act. No, you do not have to have a homosexual orientation to engage in a homosexual act, but that still remains a homosexual act. Is that of interest to the GLBT domain here? Specializing, as I do, in documenting pederasty, I am wary of attempts to restrict LGBT to mainstream behaviors. How far to extend that umbrella? Let me think. Certainly to activity with adolescents. This, however, was a five year old child. Homosexuality is understood to consist of three main forms: same-age relationships (adult/adult); transgender relationships; and pederasty, (specifically defined as relations with adolescents). The present case fits none of those categories, thus is not bona fide homosexuality. Yet instinctively I would have said that it is a homosexual act. Fortunately I am no authority on anything, not here, anyway. Haiduc (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright folks, I have searched and found couple of sources to solve this mystery. In this and this post Schillaci wrote about his relationship with another boy when he was a teenager, and he even mentions himself being gay.

However, in this post Schillaci wrote about boychat community and himself. Quote by Schillaci: "Let me run from the words. I'm not a boylover. I'm merely gay, and coincedentally appreciate the beauty of youth. I'm not even gay. I just care for children."

I suggest you read these sources, as I think they're reliable enough to draw some kind of conclusions. Opinions? Reverend X (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can just categorize him under "Very confused." Haiduc (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisposure/Evil Unveiled claims

[edit]

There is no evidence that this organisation played a role in Schillaci's detection or arrest as claimed, and the source cited is a broken link. Wikisposure's credibility has been depricated since its demise, to say the least. Willemslie (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Unveiled/Wikisposure claims

[edit]

Since no one has come back to me on my previous comments, I intend removing the Wikisposure references within the next few days.

"Perverted Justice" was a front for far-right extremists posing as child-abuse vigilantes. Its DNS server was "aryanunity.com", the same as the "redwatch" site, which sought to accuse political activists of paedophilia and the like purely on the basis of their differing beliefs. (I was one of their victims.)

While admitting that I'm not exactly neutral on this issue, I don't feel PJ's claim has any place in an encyclopaedic bio of a notable sex offender. Willemslie (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Concord Monitor has been repaired. Both it and the Houston Chronicle source corroborate PJs involvement. Your claims, however, have no sourcing whatsoever, and so are not valid reasons for removal of sources.Legitimus (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jon Schillaci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Schillaci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jon Schillaci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Schillaci&oldid=1208194025"