Talk:BoyChat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Clayboy, shouldn't the term "homosexual MAAs" be changed into "boy-attracted MAAs"? I seem to remember a few women that post there :) JBleBonhomme 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such term in the article after my edit :-) Clayboy 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Harbour chick

In the late nineties, Boychat was linked to the sexual abusing of a 15-year-old boy and also of raping and murdering an 11-year-old boy.[2]

As far as I can see, no connection between BoyChat and these crimes has *ever* been established. WW alleged - without evidence, and in the face of _all_ other sources - that Stephen Simmons met his victims on BoyChat. When Jim called them out on their bullshit, they admitted their accusations could not be verified (I wonder why?). In addition to that, the entire article is a smear peice.

At the very least, both sides should be presented objectively.

Several members of the organization are currently known to be imprisoned for child sexual abuse and/or possession of child pornography.

Unsourced.

a designation invented by them as a means of exerting pressure on corporate entities that host pedophiliac material.

Verizon didn't host "pedophiliac" material, Epifora did.

BoyChat has since been removed from various other hosting resources for being in violation of terms-of-service agreements due to the material on their forum.

There was never any terms-of-service violation. Jillium 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jillium - My POV

If you do not allow the opposing POV in the controversy section, you are eliminating the public from seeing why there is a controversy to begin with. To continue to edit the way you have basically reads that there is no controversy surrounding BC. As much as you would like BoyChat to be presented in a positive light, there are those you disagree with your stance, and there in lies the controversy. Please consider this before reverting back to your overt opinion that there is nothing worth expressing about the oposite side in the controversy section. Need I provide you with examples on other pages?

Harbour chick 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Points of view must be presented neutrally. You can't try to declare that BC violated the TOS, flat-out, but you can say that PeeJ and others allege it has. Likewise, it isn't POV to note the response to WW's criticism.
And please point out where the current version is biased. Jillium 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be NPOV

Jillium's edits are pro-pedophile POV but the removal of the Willamette Week correction and the item about legal issues is also POV. All the facts should be included. Blake22 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

EXPLAIN why my edits are POV, then. Jillium 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One example is saying the people whose feelings are bottled up are dangerous. That's POV in favor of BoyChat. Another example is the TOS violations. If the ISP says the TOS was violated then it was violated. Blake22 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to read WP:NPOV before you accuse me of violating it. Neutrally quoting an opinion is not POV in itself, and my revision never claimed FS's suggestion was true; you're welcome to add a different opinion. And no, the ISP's opinion shouldn't be held as fact, particularly from a legalistic point of view. Jillium 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is BoyChat an organization? Why?

Regarding this edit by Couldbeanyone: why would BoyChat be considered an organization by "global standards"? I'm referring to the sentence "... several members of the organization are currently known to be imprisoned ...", which reads much better as "several past participants/regulars". There is really no membership structure for BoyChat, anyone who drops by can post and read, and at no point can you apply for membership. When would you say you become a member, Couldbeanyone? How can there be membership if there are no membership lists? What constitutes an organization? I think the "organization/membership" wording carries some POV, and that is the issue here. Clayboy 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit based on my understanding of the word.
Wiki defines an organization as;
An organization or organisation (read more about -ize vs -ise) is a formal group of people with one or more shared goals. The word itself is derived from the Greek word ὄργανον (organon) meaning tool. The term is used in both daily and scientific English in multiple ways.
Based on the opening line to the article;
BoyChat is a discussion board for people who are sexually, romantically or emotionally attracted to underage boys.
Which tells me that Boychat meets all requirements of an organization. Boychat is a formal group of individuals that founded a space to discuss their attractions. My edit was not in regards to a POV, but if anything, to keep the article as honest as possible.
Couldbeanyone 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Couldbeanyone
But there is nothing formal about BoyChat. Anyone can drop by, write a message, and leave. Does that make them members of an organization? Is every web forum an organization? Clayboy 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. Again you must look at the definition of the words we use.
The Wikitionary defines formal as;
1.being in accord with established forms
2.official
3.relating to the form or structure of something
4.ceremonial
Boychat is a formal message board.
Again, taken directly from the article.
The board has over 3000 registered posters [2], who must follow seven rules for posting. Anyone who follows the rules may post, including people who are hostile to those attracted to minors. A team of moderators known as "cogs" moderate the board, enforcing the seven rules in order to ensure the continued existence and legality of the board as well as the privacy of its posters.
To me that seems like a structured website. Hence my edit. Again, I show no POV to this article, I am just looking to maintain its honesty.Couldbeanyone 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So posters who have protected their nicknames with password are members of the BoyChat organization. I think this is a very thinly stretched use of the terms "organization" and "membership". Why do you feel that describing BoyChat as an organization with membership maintains the article's "honesty" more than describing BoyChat as a web forum with regulars or participants? If "organization" is indeed more "honest", then it should be used throughout, not in just that particular place, where it sticks out as quite sordid. Clayboy 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that any poster would be considered a member.
As an example, do you have a credit card? If so, you are a member of that credit card company.
The credit card company, in order to protect their members, provides its members a card that is unique to them. Much like Boychat provides passwords for its members. You would not want someone posting under your nickname, much like you would not want someone using your credit card. I understand that, to some, the destinction is often hard to see.
Boychat has a member list. There is a link to it in the article, to prove the validity of the 3000 posters mentioned in the article. That shows to me, that Boychat, as an organization, can distinguish what constitues a member.
The mention of the "cogs" in the article speaks of a hierarchy to the organization. If there are members that police the public majority it speaks to a very formal structure.
Having a member list and a formal structure all tie back to the orginal statement that Boychat is an organization. Which is what caused my edit.
in regards to my concerns in keeping the article honest, if there are other parts of the article you have issue with I would be more then happy to look at them and give you my opinion of them and why I feel they meet the proper context, in my opinion.Couldbeanyone 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Couldbeanyone
"Organization" is still usually taken as "enterprise," despite its literal meaning. The other wording is much more clear. Jillium 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would only disagree with that based on the context.
As our society has become more and more "electronic"; meaning more and more of our socialization is done through "virtual" societies, the term organization must evolve as we have.
During the days of American segregation many black leaders "organized" the black communities for a common goal. Later during the Vietnam era, many anti-war leaders "organized" their communities to rally against the war. We see that even today with those that have "organized" against America's current war.
If you then evolve that further into the "virtual" world, I would say, that Boychat has done just that for its communities. They have "organized" them to discuss and share their common experiences.
That is why Boychat is an organization. Its that simple.Couldbeanyone 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Couldbeanyone
This whole thing reeks of misrepresentation. As it stands, one gets the impression that there have been crackdowns on "the BoyChat organization" by law enforcement, especially since the statement appears under the "Legal issues" section. This section is about BoyChat's legal issues, but the statement is about the personal legal issues of some people who happens to also have been regulars at BoyChat. There is no causality, no relationship. They weren't arrested on BoyChat, and they weren't arrested for activities related to BoyChat. So why has this statement been made part of the explanation of BoyChat's legal issues? I tried to move the statement into the "Controversy" section instead, but it was bounced right back up. Sure, you could argue that "BoyChat made them do it", but that's a point of view, isn't it. And that's how it appears now. Clayboy 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to the Legal issues section because it showed the law enforcement actions toward the board versus toward the members and I still think it fits better there. No causality implied. Blake22 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it so important to say that BoyChat doesn't have members? Most other web boards call their members members. I tried to compromise on this by changing members to participants but I don't see why it's an issue. Blake22 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Clayboy and Jillium are registered members of Free Spirits websites including BoyChat, hence they and the administration of BoyChat don't want people called "members" because then when their members commit crimes (such as the recent arrest of BoyChat member GhostWriter for traveling to Mexico in order to have sex with a minor) it can be shown that "members of BoyChat are under arrest for attempted molestation", etc... etc... etc. It's their attempt to sleight-of-hand for the organization. That's why both are so active in this article. If you check out BoyChat.org, they have a thread talking about wishing to subvert this article, Clayboy and Jillium are their representatives here to do so. XavierVE 21:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If by "subvert" you mean "try to keep factual", then yes. Full disclosure: [1], [2]. Clayboy 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hacking boards are controversial and they call their members members so I don't see why Boychat won't do the same, but I've changed the term to participant to try and avoid an edit war. Blake22 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia conventional style would seem to be more relevant to the question than terms used by hacking boards. As a point of comparison, the Slashdot article primarily uses the term users. The term poster also appears, in reference to Anonymous Cowards, but, even in this case, 'user' seems to be preferred. --Foo of boychat 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ILuv2Surf

Blogs are not acceptable, per WP:EL and WP:V. Jillium 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of disturbing info on that site but it may not be appropriate due to WP:V. Links to news stories would be better, especially stories that make direct reference to BoyChat members. Blake22 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and Members of an Organization

Jillium, you said this statement was unsourced.

"Several members of the organization are currently known to be imprisoned for child sexual abuse and/or possession of child pornography."

I have provided 2 sources, one of which is from BoyChat itself.

Clayboy, you take issue with the terms "member" and "organization", yet from BoyChat's own FAQ's this the the response to the question:

"Why are BC moderators called "Cogs"?"

We get the following answer, from BoyChat itself:

"Cog n. A subordinate member of an organization who performs necessary but usually minor or routine functions.

The Cogs are the gears that keep the BoyChat machine working."

I think that pretty much settles the terms war/debate that has been going on.

Harbour chick 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The "cog" definition is pasted verbatim from the American Heritage Dictionary. It isn't a self-description.
And since the KMFM article makes no mention of Smith's online activities, it isn't a source, though the BC link is sufficient. Jillium 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you care for me to also include BoyChat source that link Ghostwriter as being Smith, therefore allowing for an additional reference source? Please think about the edits you are making before you delete sources. Thank You.Harbour chick 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Cogs are 'subordinate members' of the BC administrative team, but this point does not obviously shed light on the question of whether posters -- participants in discussion -- should be referred to as members. --Foo of boychat 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jillium: Use of Free Spirits as a reliable source: Free Spirits runs BoyChat. Using www.freespirits.org as a source is no more or less reliable than using www.boychat.org. Showing the number of active posters in a given month is much more honest than showing the total number of nicks over 11 years. --User:dfpc 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PAW edit

I've removed the parts dealing with rumours and accusations. I realise that this shifts the POV of the article a bit, but such things aren't allowed by WP:CITE. I can't think of a way to introduce this subject without violating guidelines. It is probably better that neither side of this argument is introduced into wikipedia. Reporting on allegations introduces a POV which then needs to be countered, this is a start of a slippery slope. --Monotonehell 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sourcing?

I converted the in-line citations to the new <ref>...url...</ref> format, and I found that that made it clear that all of the refs are to either boychat or freespirits. Are there not neutral, respected, verifiable third-party cites that could be used instead? Herostratus 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) OK I had missed a couple, but they are to perverted-justice. Note that criteria for WP:WEB are:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Uh I think that we can probably rule out #2 and #3... so editors interested in the retention of this article should probably think about looking for newspaper and magazine stories to cite. This shouldn't be too hard, and would help keep the article pared down to verifiable facts, I would thinbk. Herostratus 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started a thread Call made for independent BC article references on BoyChat, the third paragraph of the post listing a few candidates for citation. Others may have better recommendations. --Foo of boychat 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] partial re-revert... let's not edit war... see talk

I re-reverted some of the language at issue, and some I retained.

It's not really accurate to characterize entities as "vigilante" unless they use actual ropes and actual trees, or self-characterize themselves that way. So that's right out.

This section:

:In the fall of 2006, BoyChat's ISP, Epifora, was disconnected from the Verizon backbone after Perverted-Justice.com declared Verizon to be a "Corporate Sex Offender,"[5] a label used to designate any company they deem facilitates pedophile activism. BoyChat has since been dropped by another ISP after campaigns by Perverted-Justice.com. These campaigns are based on their claims that BoyChat exists for the purpose of advocating child sexual abuse and encouraging illegal activity.[6] These claims led to the disconnection of Epifora for Terms of Service violations. The current ISP decided that Perverted Justice's claims of illegal activity were inaccurate, and following a temporary disconnection during a review of the site, they reconnected Epifora to the internet."

seems OK as it simply states the occurrence of historical events, but a couple of issues: first, the last sentence is very unclear. Is the current ISP Epifora or another ISP? How can one ISP reconnect another to the internet? Or does the "they" in "...they reconnected Epifora..." refer to Verizon? Or what? Second: cites and sources, please! Otherwise the information cannot be allowed to stay in. There is one cite in the paragraph but it needs (at least) one other re the reconnection. Herostratus 04:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence is not only unsourced, but completely inaccurate. Current "ISP" (Host) is Steadfast, Steadfast's founder has communicated that they will be removed on December 13th. No doubt they have some other host lined up who is unaware of their actual nature so I anticipate no immediate downtime, but their claim of it being found to be acceptable is utterly incorrect. XavierVE 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah well then. That ought to be in the article then, but with a source cited. Herostratus 14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Source is my email box, hence it would violate WP's original research clause. XavierVE 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. But it might have gotten a notice somewhere in one of the trade papers? Herostratus 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Attracted Individual is not the accepted terminology and should not be used.

The only people who use the term Minor Attracted Individual seem to be the BoyChat posters who edit this article and anyone associated with BoyChat, Epifora and Freespirits. This is a fringe community created neologism and should not be used in this article. There are plently of better words for these individuals which are accepted through scientific peer review and various bodies of Psychologists. --Quirex 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give some examples of these plenty of better words. "Minor-attracted adult" means just exactly what it literally says: Someone who is considered an adult, who is attracted to someone who is considered a minor. This is a very broad term, which cannot be replaced by "pedophile" (someone who is attracted to pre- or peripubescent individuals) or "ephebophile" (someone who is attracted to an adolescent individual). So we end up using "pedophiles and ephebophiles" over and over, which is harder to read and, some would argue, still not broad enough. So if there is an academically accepted term with equal applicability, please do not keep it to yourself. Clayboy 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather repeat 3 or more names over and over again then try to create a new term that comes directly from the community the article is about. The use of Minor Attracted Individual is basically an act of activism on behalf of Freespirits et al. If this article is the top google result for minor attracted individual or adult you know it is a clique phrase. Using activist terminology makes wikipedia an activist, which means it is no longer adhereing to WP:NPOV. --Quirex 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted for the record that Clayboy's opinion is one of a BoyChat poster, hence his opinion is not NPOV when it comes to trying to shove through the pedophile-created MAA term. XavierVE 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Where appropriate, perhaps the prosaic 'those attracted to underage boys' could be used instead of the less specific rare compound 'minor-attracted individual'. Note, however, that it may not always be an appropriate replacement for the combination 'pedophiles and ephebophiles', as the latter refer more specifically to a preferential attraction. --Foo of boychat 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/y/Talk%7EBoyChat_4ee6.html"