Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New discussion of Bryant

I’m new to Wikipedia, but after reading the discussion on Bryant's book, I find it interesting that Phoenix and Winslow disparages Bryant’s credibility, because he’s written for Gear Magazine. Bryant has also written for the Journal of Professional Ethics, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, and Journal of School Health. He’s even co-authored a book on medical and developmental problems facing lower socioeconomic children in America--America’s Children: Triumph of Tragedy. It seems to me that Bryant has written a lot about children’s issues in very reputable publications.

I see. Got a link for all that? And are you sure it's the same Nick Bryant? Also, can he really be fairly described as an "investigative journalist," since most of his published work appears to be in the area of child psychology? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen him interviewed on "Mobsters," which is a television show running on the Biography and History Channels. He's referred to as an "investigative journalist" by those networks. But, perhaps, those networks don't meet high the standards of Phoenix and Winslow?

I suspect that such sources would meet the same fate as his book when presented at WP:RSN. The high standards I require are required by Wikipedia. These are extremely ugly allegations about living people. Please click on these links and read Wikipedia's policies concerning the reliability of sourcing when we are posting negative information about living people:

• WP:BLP
• WP:RS
• WP:SOURCE

If there's anything else I can help you with, just ask. Welcome to Wikipedia. By the way please sign all your posts on Talk pages with four tildes to create the standard signature block, like this: ~~~~ Do not sign changes to the articles themselves. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Phoenix and Winslow, here's a link that should meet your high standards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sIZrrt5m50

I find it rather fascinating that you're so against Bryant and his book, and you've never read it.Spinoza & Friends (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I read about half of it when it first came out. Then I tossed it back on the shelf. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So you read it and didn't pay for it? Wayne (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything?--MONGO 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Could explain his behaviour here. Wayne (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...maybe he's disgusted?--MONGO 18:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody's book report

Why do we have an editor's own paragraph summarizing Bryant's book when there is no reliable source summarizing it for us? This paragraph:

In 2009, another book about the scandal and alleged coverup, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal, was published by investigative journalist Nick Bryant. Bryant's work built on work done by former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp and included contemporary interviews with many of the parties associated with the Franklin case, leading him to the conclusion that the Franklin allegations of sexual child abuse and child prostitution had been covered up, both by Nebraska state authorities and federal authorities. —Bryant, Nick: The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. Trine Day: 2009. ISBN 0-9777953-5-7

...is simply somebody's book report. The source given is the book itself! This type of summary does not establish the book as notable, a significant work toward which the reader should be directed. Where is an objective review beyond that of the book's own website? Where is the reliable source telling us that this book is widely praised, an accepted high-quality text worthy of a paragraph in this article? Rather, the book deserves only a simple bullet-point listing down in the reference section or in Further reading. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a review of Bryant's book. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/3386 Apostle12 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern San Diego County is a sparsely populated rural area, a desert filled with sagebrush and scrub. That magazine is not exactly the New York Review of Books, but I acknowledge that it is a review by someone who is not the author or publisher. Does it establish the book as being so important that it deserves its own paragraph here? I don't think it accomplishes that. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"San Diego Press Club named East County Magazine the best general interest website in San Diego County for 2009. Our website was also named second best news site after the San Diego Union-Tribune, winning a total of 32 journalism prizes for investigative reporting, news, features and more in 2009 and 2010. We also received an investigative reporting award from Society for Professional Journalists."

East County Magazine receives two to three million hits per month and is the official news partner of San Diego's "10 News."

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/about

I gather all that sagebrush and scrub hasn't discredited them too much. Bryant's book is certainly notable and it is directly relevant to the Franklin case. We aren't using it as a source for the article. Apostle12 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

All that clean air is doing them good! Thanks for finding such good support for that magazine. That review stands. Can you quote it in the paragraph? Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. When the page frees up, I'll go ahead and quote it. Apostle12 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Working on this article has become impossible due to disruptive editing and edit warring by Mongo. Good faith, well-sourced edits made in response to other editors' stated concerns have been reverted without explanation.Apostle12 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Its never disruptive if editors are adding innuendo and speculation and editors like myself are removing them...you're trying to overwhelm this article with conspiracy theories, making the facts of the event impossible to know for sure for the reader. Besides, I haven't removed or reverted all your additions, so to call it edit warring is inaccurate.--MONGO 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I added no innuendo or speculation. Your assertions are unfounded. You reverted the addition of material another editor specifically asked for as to how the Bryant book related to the storyline. Then you reverted your revert. Then you reverted your revert of the revert, saying simply that it was "controversial." Of course it's controversial; the events being discussed are controversial and we are trying to present both sides of the controversy. And, yes, your editing is disruptive.Apostle12 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just placed a friendly reminder about the 3RR rule on your talkpage...please don't edit war. See also WP:COATRACK.--MONGO 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of edit-warring. I did my revert in stages because it was difficult to work on both sections at the same time, however it was a single revert.Apostle12 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To help prevent you from exceeding the 3RR...I have asked for full page protection.--MONGO 18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for a week. Any admin is free to unprotect it sooner, if the this content dispute can be solved before that. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.Apostle12 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll create a new draft for this article which will eliminate the disaster WLRoss and Apostle12 have created here. Its funny that Apostle12 keeps saying Phoenix and Winslow is trying to OWN this article when Apostle12 has 3X as many edits...I'm sure Apostle12 and WLRoss won't like my rendition for this article but I'll give it a shot...MONGO 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is hardly whether or not any particular editor will "like" the article. Nor is the issue how many edits a single editor has made. The issue is whether or not the article accurately tells the Franklin story, maintaining NPOV by offering the competing perspectives. Any attempt to tell the story as though it is cut-and-dried will be a failure. Apostle12 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So, MONGO freely admits that he intends to be disruptive (again). He has already indicated his editng will be POV and has declined requests to indicate where there are problems with the article, are we going to be stuck with another case of WP:OWN?. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never believed that it was constructive for you to make such accusations. There are two "competing perspectives." One is majority opinion, reflected by the grand jury rulings and the trial of Alisha Owen. The other is either minority opinion (at best) or fringe theory (at worst). Whether it is minority or fringe is debatable. Whether it deserves equal space and weight with the majority opinion is not debatable. Adding material that supports the minority (fringe) opinion violates WP:WEIGHT. User:Rocksanddirt has offered a valuable insight at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard: it's a fringe theory but it's notable enough to get a little coverage in this article. What's notable is not the theory itself, but the people who have supported it, such as Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

User:Will Beback has also offered some valuable insight. There is no indication that Lyndon LaRouche has personally endorsed this conspiracy theory. Future editing should only describe its adherents as "followers of Lyndon LaRouche." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at Tarpley and Chaitkin's WP pages and neither are described as conspiracy theorists nor is the term used on their pages. I also did a google search and, excluding blogs and forums, found no RS using the descriptive "conspiracy theorist" for Tarpley and only one for Chaitkin (but several thousand for LaRouche). While we can call them "followers of Lyndon LaRouche" we can't use a perjoritive descriptive per WP:NPOV. Using the descriptive "political activist" seems more appropriate. Wayne (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep it simple. 1. Your argument that the Franklin Committee findings are fringe failed to get support at the fringe noticeboard while increasing it's weight did get support. Both have weight comensurate with their notability that is not based on your personal opinion. 2. "Followers of LaRouche" are not an issue because you are the only one who wants to add what they say. Wayne (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Point #1 is incorrect. Previously uninvolved editors User:Rocksanddirt and User:MONGO support defining it as fringe. There's no visible support for defining it as "one of several significant opinions" or increasing its weight, except from previously involved editors WLRoss and Apostle12. #2 is not an issue because I don't want to add what LaRouche disciples say either. (Peculiarly, it is precisely the same thing that DeCamp says — and what DeCamp says about satanic rituals, the most goofy part of the fringe theory, has been added to the article — but not by me.) You and Apostle12, however, are campaigning to include more and more questionably sourced details that tend to support what LaRouche disciples say. It's an indirect way to push fringe theory, but it pushes fringe theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop associating us with LaRouche disciples. Neither I nor WLRoss have anything to do with them, and if some points we support happen to coincide with what they say, that is irrelevant. We certainly are NOT pushing the more radical LaRouche agenda, nor was the Franklin Committee or anyone else pushing such a thing. You keep harping on this irrelevancy; please stop. Apostle12 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss...oh nevermind!--MONGO 23:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, nevermind you too Mongo. Which is the polite way of saying what I would really like to say. Apostle12 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you and WLRoss will be at arbcom over this issue...there is no doubt in my mind the two of you are misusing this website to promote fringe theories...over emphasizing them at the least, if not downright POV pushing them. I live in Omaha and no one I know has ever called this mess as anything other than a hoax...and a not so notable one EVEN HERE where it happened! It's only notable for those that want to "believe" in hoaxes.--MONGO 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When the accused child prostitution ringleaders aren't even indicted, and their accusers either go to prison for perjury, are declared incompetent to stand trial for perjury or recant their accusations, and the attorney for the one who went to prison withdrew from the case because she knew her client was committing perjury, it's pretty clear to reasonable people that it was all a hoax. There are people out there who would prefer to believe these lies (and convince others to believe them) for various reasons. Most of these reasons are related to political extremism or conspiracy theory. It's a small size version of the 9/11 Truther and Obama Birther movements, the Gore Won Florida movement etc. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide a resource center for people like those. They have Nick Bryant's website for that. Wikipedia exists to provide a concise summary of the notable events that actually happened, and were reported in reliable secondary sources.

Persistently campaigning to turn Wikipedia into a resource center for conspiracy theorists and political extremists is disruptive and should be addressed accordingly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you mischaracterize our sincere attempt to tell the whole story in the Franklin case by falsely associating this effort with the 9/11 Truther, Obama Birther, Gore Won Florida movements--all of which, I agree, are bogus. Your first attempt was to limit sourcing, and we have yielded to the community desire in that respect. Now that we have managed to find acceptable alternate sourcing so that the main currents of what happened in the Franklin case can be told, you resort to attacking us with illogical "guilt by association" arguments. Apostle12 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Telling the whole story" is frequently the battle cry of the 9/11 Truther movement, and it isn't acceptable alternate sourcing. DeCamp, for example, is being cited as a source now. [1] He is self-published and both you and WLRoss have claimed that he isn't being cited. Furthermore, HTML "copies" of newspaper articles posted at conspiracy theory websites are not reliable, since the authors of the conspiracy theory websites can edit HTML. Even if it was a reliable source, it is not reasonable for you to derive half of this Wikipedia article from a single newspaper article. This is a painfully obvious WP:WEIGHT violation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You know full well that DeCamp is not used as a source for anything in the body of the article; he is included ONLY as a source for himself, which is perfectly acceptable for self-published sources. Similarly, you use Webster Tarpley's and Anton Chaitkin's George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography as a source for itself.

When you write "Telling the whole story" is frequently the battle cry of the 9/11 Truther movement" once again this is an attempt to broadcast guilt by association. When you write "it isn't acceptable alternate sourcing" I have no idea what you mean; there is no "alternate" sourcing used in the article, except that which all the editors have agreed to--namely OWH articles themselves. These OWH articles, unlike the text and analysis provided in Bryant's book, have been deemed reliable.

Only the Franklin Committee section (I'd be surprised if it comprises 10% of the article, certainly not your wildly exaggerated claim of "half of this Wikipedia article") is derived from a "single newspaper article." The newspaper published the Franklin Committee final report, and we are referring to the text itself.

And what does all this have to do with the sincere desire to tell the whole story; do I gather that you do not want to tell the whole story...that you sincerely want to hide part of the story? That is certainly what it seems like.

When discussing copies of newspaper articles published online, you previously went on record at RS as considering these reliable...I believe you said it was "unlikely copies of these articles would actually be falsified," and we all agreed. (I can find the reference if it hasn't been erased.) Now you seem to be backtracking.

More and more this is getting to be an irrational discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A great deal more than the Franklin Committee section is derived from that single newspaper article. There's also a large part of the Coverup Allegations section, where the Franklin Committee is quoted again at length. This is just one of many examples of misleading statements you've made in defense of fringe theory. That one newspaper article is cited 12 times, throughout the mainspace. Accusing me of not wanting the whole story to be told is also misleading. I want the whole story told, but I want it told consistently with Wikipedia policy concerning WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

Providing an inventory of every detail that's used by fringe theorists is a promotion of fringe theory. How many times must I use the word "concise"? How many times must I point out that we are writing an encyclopedia article, not a book?

On the other hand, identifying notable conspiracy theorists and CT publications that have adopted this fringe theory is appropriate. Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin are notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies; Executive Intelligence Review also has its own Wikipedia article. Nick Bryant does not have a Wikipedia biography. I also notice that the allegedly "prominent Republican fundraiser" Lawrence E. King doesn't have a Wikipedia biography; that link redirects here. Perhaps it's because they aren't really that notable or prominent. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The copy of the OWH used for the Franklin Committee appears to be a photocopy. Not being computor savy I have to ask if photocopies are in HTML code? And even if it is then MONGO has indicated that he can confirm the text has not been altered. Wayne (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't an issue with whether the original newspaper pieces are identical with what is posted at the website used as a reference here...it is about the weight given to the conspiracy theories regarding the incidents. The only reason to double check the actual newspapers is to make sure the website is accurate...I haven't yet done a side by side comparison of the two and Phoenix and Winslow is working out the details though he has what I was sent to me via email from the Omaha Public Library.--MONGO 16:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference 12 Dorr, Robert. "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit." Omaha World-Herald, February 24, 1999. seems to be a dead link...no worries though as I have obtained the original Omaha World Herald piece on that article from the local public library archives.--MONGO 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Reference 15 also appears to be a dead link.--MONGO 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a library card, MONGO. Just go to the Omaha public library and make photocopies from their microfilm. Each copy will probably cost 10 cents. But then you own it, and it won't need to be checked out of the library. That article, and the 1992 article about the Franklin Committee report, are the two most critical ones. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is an easy way to check the veracity of published copies. Glad you have access to the Omaha public library archives and can help keep everything above board. Apostle12 (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I already have them...they were sent to you Phoenix via email...--MONGO 15:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Fresh Start--The Lede

Back on April 19 2011, we began to pursue a suggestion that we discuss the article section-by-section. On that date there were only two controversial points in the lede, so we began there. The first point had to do with how we might best describe Lawrence King, and we settled on the version that prevails in the article as of today--a compromise that fully satisfies no one, but which acknowledges previously voiced concerns. The second point had to do with how to characterize those who charge that a coverup was involved in the Franklin case; again the version of the article that prevails today was a compromise that fully satisfies no one, but which acknowledges previously voiced concerns. Comments please? Apostle12 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kings descriptive is very poorly written. He should be identified by his status at the time of the scandal and any previous affiliations should be in the article body. As I have suggested previously, I also believe that it should be mentioned in the article body that Republicans, Democrats and Independants were among those accused as a counter to the first mention of the case by the media only mentioning several Republicans. Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and others by conspiracy theorists. is wrong on several levels. Firstly, Bryant was not involved in the case and is definitely not a conspiracy theorist. Using the term conspiracy theorists is WP:OR as none of the subjects biographies call them conspiracy theorists. Following on from this, as the term is perjoritive it can be seen as POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede is acceptable just the way it is. It's a compromise. It was hammered out over the course of several months and as Apostle12 says, it satisfies no one (including me) but it means we have met each other halfway. We don't need to create a third category in the final sentence to accommodate Nick Bryant. The way it's written ("some ... and others") accommodates the possibility of several other categories. But yes, Tarpley and Chaitkin are conspiracy theorists and the absence of that term in their biographies is something that should be remedied. I suppose it might reflect how many LaRouche disciples have tried to WP:OWN LaRouche-related articles over the years. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly meeting halfway but more a case of allowing it to stay to avoid edit warring as the edit is only supported by you. I'm interested in how the phrase others by conspiracy theorists accommodates the possibility of several other categories. All it does is use OR and POV to characterise everyone who believes the Franklin Committee has credibiity as a conspiracy theorist. For example, the Nebraska Department of Social Services and the Nebraska Foster Care Board, who made allegations of a cover-up before DeCamp did, both support the Franklin Committee findings yet their pages dont call then conspiracy theorists. Wayne (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've remedied those glaring inaccuracies. Both Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin are now very clearly identified as conspiracy theorists in the lede sentences of their Wikipedia biographies .... as if the absence of that term somehow meant that they were not conspiracy theorists until I added it. Let's see how long that lasts before some LaRouche disciple reverts me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are asserting that LaRouche disciples are part of a conspiracy to control Wikipedia? Wayne (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Larouche pages and notice that they are actively policed to block Larouche "disciples" (almost 100 ArbComs since 2004). As one of the main Larouche topic editors is an editor who has his own Wikipedia bio that states he is notable for his critisism of Larouche I doubt these "disciples" can influence the articles very much other than in the very short term. Editing Larouche related articles to support your case here is not exactly WP:GF is it? Wayne (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps to control content on articles they have a stake in? When are you guys going to get the weight issues here resolved...I have asked a dozen people around Omaha what their recollection of this situation was (I have only lived here since 2001)..they all say it was a hoax...those perpetuating the hoax are conspiracy theorists...its all bogus. One person I know claims she was in the same church as Alisha Owen...I hadn't even brought up that name to them.--MONGO 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up. WP:OR supports it being a conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe asking a dozen Omaha residents their opinion is truly relevant to this discussion? Apostle12 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the King discriptor, the reason I am okay with saying he was "a prominent Nebraska political figure, first with the Democratic Party and then with the Republican Party" is because it is accurate and harmless. Anyone wishing to pursue the matter will quickly ascertain that his affiliation with the Republican Party was contemporaneous with the Franklin scandal.

I am okay with the sentence "Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and others by conspiracy theorists" for the following reasons:

-DeCamp was directly involved.

-Many others who allege a coverup (employees of Department of Social Services, Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board, Boys Town employees, employees of the North Omaha Girls Club and so on) were directly involved.

-Though I haven't read them, I understand that Tarpley and Chaitkin allege that there was a conspiracy to cover up the Franklin allegations, and they expand on these allegations to a considerable degree. It is hard to escape the pejorative connotation of the term "conspiracy theorist," however it is a descriptor that probably applies to them, whether pejorative or not.

-Though I would prefer adding a third category for Nick Bryant, I do not consider this essential because Bryant is an investigative journalist and an advocate for children's rights. As such he does not himself allege a coverup; he merely reports that many of those directly involved in the case allege that a coverup occurred--the Washington sisters' guardian ad litem Patricia Flocken, for example, whom Bryant interviewed. It is clear that the weight of the evidence Bryant gathered--from reliable interviewees (e.g. Flocken became Deputy Attorney for Washington County, Nebraska), from detailed reports written by Boys Town employee Julie Waters, from Douglas County Department of Social Services reports, and from multiple other sources--finally convinced him that a coverup had occurred, however he maintains the professional reserve of an investigative journalist, rejecting some sources as unreliable and qualifying his statements. Even when a social worker reports that she was directly contacted by the FBI and told "it would be in her best interests to forget this information" (information alleging physical and sexual abuse of foster children by Barbara and Jarett Webb), Bryant does not conclude that FBI intervention was the reason investigations of the Webb household went nowhere; rather he poses it as a possibility.

Only in his epilogue, "What is the Reality?" does Bryant share that the overwhelming weight of the Franklin evidence--not to mention the proven existence of government-associated pedophile rings in Belgium, Portugal and elsewhere--finally convinced him both that the Franklin allegations have merit and that they have larger implications as they relate to government corruption in 21st century America. However, even in this section, Bryant is careful to debunk Internet innuendo linking male escort Jeff Gannon and abductee Johnny Gosch, as well as false stories linking Hunter Thompson to the Franklin case. In other words, Bryant remains a professional, and he can hardly be labeled "a conspiracy theorist."

It is a close call, but I can accept the current version of the lede. Apostle12 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All of this garbage from the Nick Bryant book and website is garbage, according to WP:RS, and your constant, relentless references to this garbage are completely useless. It wastes Talk page space. It wastes your time, but more importantly, this garbage wastes my time and MONGO's because we read it before immediately deciding to ignore it. Post material that is reliably sourced, and stop wasting everyone's time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RS does not apply here. I am simply explaining my perspective, and there is no need to be hostile. Apostle12 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, your perspective should be based on reliable sources. Why do you insist on basing your perspective on unreliable sources that Wikipedia finds unacceptable? It makes about as much sense as a creationist participating in a symposium on the theory of evolution. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe this covers everyones concerns and is more accurate, how about: Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and by others incuding several conspiracy theorists? As for King, I still hold that mention of both affiliations in the lead is very poor writing and that his previous affiliation is irrelevant in the lead anyway (see MOS:LEAD). His political history can easily be expanded upon in the article body. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the intent is fine, however it just doesn't read very well. How about "Allegations of a coverup persist, both by those directly involved in the case and by others, including several conspiracy theorists." This is more grammatically correct and "others" can include a range of categories.

As far as I'm concerned, King's party affiliations can be moved to the body of the article. Phoenix and Winslow? Mongo? Apostle12 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. The "Allegations of a coverup" sentence is factually and grammatically correct and is not awkward. You fought so long and so hard to get the word "Republican" into the article lede, now you got your wish. And that sentence also fits the criteria: it's factually and grammatically correct and it isn't awkward. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you could simply share your perspective, minus the contempt, it would invite empathy and considerate response. Apostle12 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the allegations of a coverup DO NOT persist...except on private websites that aren't reliable as sources.--MONGO 05:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the lede to remain as it is, or do you want it altered? Apostle12 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Allegations of a coverup" sentence is not factual as it puts all uninvolved parties in the same category as conspiracy theorists. The King descriptor being factually and grammatically correct is not support for being in the lead as it is still a violation of MOS:LEAD. Where do you get "You fought so long and so hard to get the word "Republican fund raiser" into the article lede"? It got consensus the first time it was contested so the only "fighting" required was reverting it's deletion. I still dont understand why one of the common descriptives used by the media is not acceptable to you considering it is very tame compared the more commonly found "rising star in the Republican party". Wayne (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire article needs a complete rewrite...it needs to stick to the known evidence, not be overwhelmed by misinformation.--MONGO 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've recently tried to tinker with it a bit, but it's like a house that's too badly damaged to be repaired. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the foundation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire article is sourced; there is no "misinformation." Please see WP:OWN below.Apostle12 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Poorly sourced....that you can't see the misinformation is no surprise..you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well.--MONGO 22:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Given the history of edit warring on this article, I do believe we would be better off discussing sections of the article here and agreeing on changes before editing.

During discussion on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, no uninvolved editors supported the accusation by Mongo and Phoenix & Winslow that WLRoss and Apostle 12 had been pushing fringe theory. Here is what one editor said:

That's a matter of interpretation - from my reading, mostly WLRoss was providing greater context, while P&W was removing that. It doesn't necessarily look like a fringe theories problem. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused - which specific changes do you have a problem with? From what I can tell, the additions being disputed are sourced as well as other material in the article and often seem to be part of the Grand Jury findings. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it will be turned down, as there seems to be a lack of evidence. Is there a diff which shows this? So far there are a lot of claims of conspiracy pushing, but looking at the diffs provided I don't see examples, except as explained by Wayne above. Lots of hand waving and accusations, but nothing concrete to look at. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Mongo requested a week-long lockdown of the article. Despite lack of support for the fringe-pushing allegation, at one point Mongo asserted:

It's an odd coincidence I live in Omaha...I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not.--MONGO 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Later Mongo told Phoenix & Winslow that he intended to do a complete re-write of the article while it was locked, which Phoenix and Winslow encouraged. Now we hear more of the same.

Apparently editor Phoenix and Winslow and editor Mongo wish to abandon discussion and rewrite the article according to their own point of view. Apostle12 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've participated actively in this discussion for several months. And I am not abandoning discussion, Apostle12. But from this discussion, I've learned that you are basing your perceptions of this case on a book by Nick Bryant — a book which has been determined to be an unreliable source at WP:RSN. While Bryant criticizes the conspiracy theorists, he attempts to provide credibility and support for nearly all of the key points of their conspiracy theory, inventorying all of the details (wherever they come from, and from whatever unreliable witness) that support the conspiracy theory — a strategy which has now been adopted in the Wikipedia mainspace. Bilby is an individual who has followed me to WP:FTN from other articles, and who seems to be making a sport out of obstructing me. See WP:STALK. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If Bilby is indeed doing that, he needs to be warned by an administrator..post such evidence at AN/I.--MONGO 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My perceptions are based on the body of evidence as a whole. Your perceptions differ from mine, based to a great extent (as you have stated) on your rejection of faulty material published by "Executive Review," Tarpley, Chaitkin and other LaRouche-associated sources. I have never read these sources, so I am not sure what created your overwhelming perception that anything they touch upon must be bogus.

As for Bryant, I have accepted that we are not using his book as a source; much of what he writes about is corroborated by multiple sources that have been deemed reliable. You seem inappropriately suspicious of Bryant, even suggesting (to Mongo) that he might have altered the Omaha World Herald articles he published in his book--I cannot imagine an author hoping to get away with such a stunt. Perhaps you are inappropriately suspicious of Bilby as well.

For someone who purports to disdain "conspiracy theory," you seem rather prone to this sort of thinking yourself. Apostle12 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick of your accusations...I have a 50 hour a week job so I am not very active during the week. If anyone is trying to OWN the article, it is you and WLRoss who combined have 4 times as many edits to this article as Phoenix and Winslow...you two fringe POV pushers have tried to make sure the CT's in this article egregiously outweigh their true basis in fact. You've repeatedly attempted to turn this article into some delusional fantasyland of far out bullshit...it is a HOAX...and not even a very interesting one. You and WLRoss seem to be inspired to undermine not only this article but others with your fringe POV pushing...that sort of misuse of Wikipedia ultimately will get you blocked or topic banned or both.--MONGO 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, now Mongo...calm yourself. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re MONGO's adding that King was in jail at the time with the edit comment while King was serving time in prison.....this article is poisoned with POV pushing. Inclusion requires that what the judge said about it also be mentioned. Judge Urbon stated that it made no difference as he was served the summons (or whatever they call it) in prison and could have responded himself or through his attorneys if he wanted to. I have no problem with mention that he was in prison and it was actually Phoenix and Winslow who removed it (to get rid of what the judge said). You cant have it both ways. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apostle12: Your perceptions differ from mine, based to a great extent (as you have stated) on your rejection of faulty material published by "Executive Review," Tarpley, Chaitkin and other LaRouche-associated sources. Well, here's the thing: Nick Bryant relies on the very same faulty material, and reaches the very same conclusions. Yet for some reason you disdain the other conspiracy theorists, and revere Bryant as some sort of truth-teller. He's an unreliable source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not "revere" Bryant; I merely respect his investigative effort and I do not agree with your tendency to lump him in with "the other conspiracy theorists." I have no doubt that "Executive Review," Tarpley, Chaitkin and other LaRouche-associated sources have published faulty material, however I see no indication that Bryant relies on "the very same faulty material."

By now discussion of Bryant is beside the point, because I have accepted that we are not using him as a source. Since my editing of the article is based strictly on sources that we have all agreed are reliable, continuously referring back to Bryant is an unnecessary distraction.

I respect the perspective you wish to add to the article--essentially that the allegations of child sexual abuse and child prostitution were groundless, "a carefully crafted hoax." I would appreciate it if you could grant commensurate respect to the perspective of the Franklin Committee and many others, including myself, that the allegations of child sexual abuse and childhood prostitution had merit and that it is unlikely they were "a carefully crafted hoax." When both perspectives reach full representation in the article, NPOV will have been achieved. Apostle12 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"When both perspectives reach full representation in the article, NPOV will have been achieved."...no, that is not correct! When the facts are given precedent over fantasy and illusion, then NPOV will have been achieved. You simply do not understand the NPOV policy at all.--MONGO 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Perspectives based on fact, not "fantasy and illusion." Apostle12 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this might help, even if only accepted conditionally, as a concept:

Some things are cut-and-dried, whereas some are not. When things are not cut-and-dried, controversy emerges; people become committed to different perspectives with respect to the object of controversy.

With respect to the Franklin case, none of us can pretend to know exactly what happened. There are differing viewpoints, and controversy is normal in such a situation. Our job at Wikipedia is to present the differing viewpoints based on known facts (not based on fantasy and illusion). Self-righteous insistance that one knows "THE TRUTH" becomes counterproductive to this effort.Apostle12 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP Enforcement

I've removed a lot of dubious content from this article as a matter of WP:BLP enforcement. This was a good faith effort to correct an obvious problem. Perhaps my surgery has not been perfectly precise. Feel free to discuss or to suggest restoring content if reliable sources can be found. Please make sure to observe WP:V. WP:NOR. and WP:FRINGE. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to appreciate this series of edits as a good faith effort. You have eliminated any and all material based on contemporaneous articles that appeared in the Omaha World Herald, which is the newspaper of record for the city where the Franklin scandal occurred--Omaha, Nebraska. This newspaper is read by 80% of the citizens of the entire state of Nebraska.

Strangely, you have left intact a reference to the full text of the Franklin Committee's final report, yet you have (without explanation) deleted the entire section based on that report. Other aberrations abound; precise surgery is not usually accomplished with a meat cleaver. Apostle12 (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete anything else linking to that web site. First, it's not a reliable source. Go to the newspaper archives, find the articles, and cite them if it can be done in a neutral and proper way. Second, a lot of those references were to dead links. Third, attacking me won't help your case at arbitration; don't do it. I have no skin in this fight at all. I'm a totally disinterested outsider cleaning up a BLP situation. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As is obvious from reading Talk and the ArbCom Mongo has already checked the original OWH sources. It's up to him to replace those scanned copies if he believes they are "doctored". It is not good faith for you to do so now as you are not "a totally disinterested outsider." Wayne (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not "attacking" you; I am objecting to the extreme imprecision of your edits. Removing dead links is fine, however we have invested countless hours writing the article, based on sourcing that has heretofore been deeemed reliable for the specific purpose of accessing Omaha World Herald articles, depositions, and so on; no disparities have been revealed. We have a right to object when someone summarily deletes most of the article. Your edit notes notwithstanding, no "fringe theory" has been promoted in this article, as confirmed during a recent Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Apostle12 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

All of your work is present in the article history. If appropriate, upon discussion and consensus, it can be restored. But please don't do that without a consensus. There is no need to source anything to an online page. If you get the newspapers from the archive, it is possible to cite them. There's a secondary problem linking to the website you linked because those copies are potentially a copyright violation. We can't link to them because we must avoid contributory copyright infringement. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you are not attacking me, please strike your suggestion that I haven't acted in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment is stricken, however there are two problems with the sourcing protocol you are suggesting. The first is that the Omaha World Herald site is expensive to access, and the second is that it does not contain depositions and other material that are essential to properly write the article. As for consensus, to date that has proven quite impossible; the best we have achieved so far is an uneasy and fragile truce resulting in the inclusion of well-sourced summaries of the various points of view. Apostle12 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

we definitely must not cite original depositions and case documents! If it hasn't been reported in a reliable, secondary source, it doesn't belong here. wikipedia is not the place to break news, research or analysis. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It really is important to use the original newspapers...it isn't necessary to link to the website that has them posted there...as they are archived by the Omaha World Herald back to at least 1984 (I think that is what they told me)...anyway, it isn't actually easy to retrieve archived newspapers here in Omaha, though I did obtain emailed versions of the text only sent by the Omaha Public Library at a cost of 9 bucks just for those two clippings. I don't know how easy it is to go and do a search using the subjects names or Franklin Credit Union etc. The reason I mention this is because this was a big deal here, so it is likely that there were many dozens of articles in the Herald over the course of years regarding this incident...without having easy access to them, it is going to be difficult to be able to write a truly NPOV article overall...hence the need to stub this one severely. I appreciate Jehochman for stepping into this morass and in a very honest and nonpartisan manner, trimming the article down so that it better conforms to our policies.--MONGO 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could post the two articles here but as I mentioned, they are but two articles, so were missing the whole story.--MONGO 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are around 700 related OWH articles available at $2:95 each although a "package deal" is available lol. The newspaper articles were refenced originally but Phoenix and Winslow introduced the website which is why he never objected to it. I'm assuming so that the articles could be read online and everyone ran with it. Wayne (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To me it seems quite ridiculous to insist that editors spend thousands of dollars gaining access to OWH articles. These articles have been posted online "for educational purposes" with no copyright problems whatsoever, and no discrepancies have been noted between the posted articles and the originals. The net result of stubbification and insistence that everyone use "original" newspapers is that there will never be an NPOV article. Which I am sure is in keeping with the agendas of quite a number of interested parties. Apostle12 (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles posted for educational purposes are incomplete and only present a certain view. Jehochman has made it clear he is NPOV on this subject...you fail to understand the bias of your presentation or our need to remain neutral and keep within the BLP policies. But those that push fringe issues always see boogy men when there aren't any. I think the article could be stubbed a lot more actually.--MONGO 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

This is basically the situation with the Franklin case, because we have the Douglas County Grand Jury report on the one hand and the Nebraska State Legislature's Franklin Committee report on the other. The former was a legally constituted grand jury of Nebraska State citizens with a presiding judge, while the latter was a legally constituted legislative committee consisted of five sitting Nebraska State Senators who operated at the behest of the Nebraska State legislature as a whole. Both called witnesses, reviewed material and met for considerable lengths of time--although it might be argued that the Franklin Committee investigation was more extensive in that they called more witnesses, reviewed more material, and met for longer.

Recognizing the fact that people operate with certain agendas is not seeing "boogey men." You, for example, have stated the following:

It's an odd coincidence I live in Omaha...I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not.--MONGO 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You went on to say that you had asked quite a number of people around Omaha what they thought of the Franklin scandal, and they either had not heard of it or they had heard it was a hoax.

Based on your statements, I would say that you have an agenda. Yet I do not see you as a "boogey man."

My own "agenda" is to see that the Franklin case is described accurately, with both sides fairly represented in as neutral a tone as possible. This is hardly "pushing fringe theory," no matter how many times you repeat this groundless assertion.

I assume when you say that "the articles posted for educational purposes are incomplete" you mean that not all of the 700 or so OWH articles have been posted online. Apostle12 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

"Lawrence King Drops Appeal Of Judgment Lawrence E. King Jr., in federal prison for embezzling millions of dollars from a now-closed Omaha credit union, has dropped his appeal of a $ 1 million judgment against him in a lawsuit. The judgment resulted from a suit filed in 1991 by Paul A. Bonacci of Omaha, who alleged that King and others forced him to take part in a child-prostitution ring in Omaha in the 1980s. All of the 15 other defendants were cleared. King, formerly the top officer of the failed Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, never filed any court response to Bonacci's accusations. A federal judge entered a default judgment. King appealed that judgment to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but recently agreed to drop the appeal. The court dismissed King's appeal Jan. 4. Thus the $ 1 million judgment stands, said John DeCamp of Lincoln, Bonacci's lawyer. However, it is generally believed that King frittered away in high living the money he embezzled and that he had no assets when he went to prison. He is serving a 15-year sentence in a Florence, Colo., federal prison. He will become eligible for parole on April 10, 2001. A Douglas County grand jury concluded in 1990 that similar allegations of child sexual abuse made by four youths, including Bonacci, were a hoax." ROBERT DORR, WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER Omaha World-Herald; NEWS; Pg. 15 January 13, 2000, Thursday SUNRISE EDITION

--MONGO 00:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Chambers, Lowe concerned with Franklin editorial Two men who worked on a special legislative committee investigating the failure of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Omaha question whether confidential material has been released. Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, former committee vice chairman, and Jerry Lowe, former chief investigator, referred to a Sunday editorial in The Omaha World-Herald. The editorial praised Sen. Loran Schmit of Bellwood, committee chairman, for saying there was no verification of child abuse allegations tied to Lawrence E. King Jr., Franklin's former manager-treasurer who faces 40 fraud charges in a federal grand jury indictment. Chambers and Lowe resigned from the committee July 13 along with counsel Kirk Naylor Jr. to protest statements made by Schmit. Frank Partsch, The World-Herald's editorial page editor, declined comment Tuesday on reaction to the Sunday editorial. A portion of the editorial said: One child, who has been under psychiatric care, is said to believe that she saw George Bush at one of King's parties. This is the same person whose story of a severed head was looked into. Neither tale could be verified. Chambers said during a Monday interview with KKAR radio in Omaha the information came from the committee's confidential reports. What The World-Herald has done is lumped together statements and attribute them to one person and that is entirely erroneous. The statement they presented here is false, Chambers said. He said no child under psychiatric care has said she saw Bush at a party. The material about the homicides was made public when Senator Loran Schmit at a (June 22) public hearing read from one of these confidential reports, which the committee had not authorized him to do, he told KKAR. That was confidential information and my only hope is that it did not come from a member of the committee, he said. Lowe also told KKAR he was troubled by the inclusion of that information in the editorial. Chambers also questioned the editorial in light of what he said was the obvious relationship between Harold W. Andersen, World-Herald publisher, and King. Andersen headed an advisory board and led a building fund drive for the credit union." United Press International Regional News July 25, 1989, Tuesday, BC cycle

I certainly have no objection to the posting of either of these two articles, however perhaps someone might answer a couple of basic questions:

Are there copyright concerns when we post such articles in full?

Could we perhaps create our own database of Omaha World Herald articles here at Wikipedia, a certain number contributed by each of the various editors, so that the Franklin article might be edited based on the content of the posted articles? Apostle12 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a web host. Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is acceptable to post excerpts however. I suggest doing so on a sub-page. Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Sources. Just make sure that enough content is omitted to avoid copyright violations.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted these as just two examples (and just put quotes around them as they are reffed) of what are surely hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles that are likely going to be hard to find...Jehochman is correct, we are not a web host...but I don't favor creating a sources page as that too will inevitably become another coatrack.--MONGO 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why a collection of relevant sources would be a coatrack, so long as the sources are limited to the topic. The best way to write articles, IMO, is to collect sources and then summarize them. The use of sources is probably the key conflict here.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But, with so many articles potentially available, are we to include all of them or just the ones we think are useful and who decides that? Its not really worth arguing over as I also support as much sourcing as possible, but just above in my second clip, we have the Ernie Chambers guy saying the Omaha World Herald printed the wrong info, or that is was biased...its a quagmire.--MONGO 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there really that many good sources? If so you may be right.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My removal of content

I looked at the newspaper articles used as references in detail and could not see some of the important facts in the sections of the article where the material was used. So, I removed whole or large portions of the entire section because the context was not correct otherwise. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to be bold...I'm inclined to think that the article needs to be deleted and rewritten...then the history is buried except to admins and the major issues regarding BLP might be easier to contain.--MONGO 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm very concerned that existing material may mis-summarize the cited sources. Starting over from scratch, based purely on reliable sources, is the best strategy for this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article as previously written accurately summarized material available from a variety of sources, including contemporaneous articles published by the newspaper of record for the State of Nebraska, the Omaha World Herald. Even very minor mis-summarizations were eliminated long ago; the only dispute had to do with how much weight to give various parts of the story.

While the article was being developed, there was general consensus that the Omaha World Herald articles, posted online for educational purposes, constituted reliable sourcing. Now that the Omaha World Herald articles have been effectively excluded, of course the facts contained in those articles lack sourcing.

Given the roadblocks that have been erected, I suspect the article is headed for total extinction. I don't know anyone willing to pay for, and post excerpts of, all the relevant Omaha World Herald articles.

And Mongo wants the history buried too?! So even if one were to dig up the articles, pay for them, and cite them according to the "New Rules," untold hours of work would have been lost.

Nice job guys. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The rules haven't changed significantly, just the enforcement of them. Stubbing is a standard remedy for articles with significant problems, especially those concerning living people.

It's quite possible that some of the citations were scrambled during Jehochman's stubbing, but before then there were only 25 citations for the whole article, most of them either The New York Times or the Omaha World - Herald. It wouldn't be that hard to recreate the article from those 15 articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. However, this article constitutes a major sinkhole of time and energy, with no end in sight. The obstructionism I have observed here precludes customary assumptions of good faith. Apostle12 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Like a building, an article built on a bad foundation keeps having problems. The foundation for an article should be solid, reliable sources. If everyone agrees on those then there's less to disagree about later.   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what happened here, as I am sure you know. This was a hit job, plain and simple. Apostle12 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"A hit job"? Let's not be overdramatic. No one was hurt by the deletion of this article, and some harm to living people is potentially avoided.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion as enforcement of BLP policy

As enforcement of the BLP policy, I deleted the article to remove the revision history from view. A spot check of revisions showed that there were too many unsourced negative facts to clean up using a more conservative method. For example, the first 5 references did not support many of facts claimed in the text including allegations of which institutions and people were investigated and accurate details about the investigation. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can the most recent revisions be restored and the attribution be placed somewhere please? NW (Talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should restart it as a stub.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Attribution is located here and linked to in the revision history. NW (Talk) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Errors in stub

To the best of my knowledge only one purported victim was convicted of perjury. The source says "two." There was a Douglas County grand jury; what was the second grand jury?Apostle12 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on indicted; I missed the "convicted on unrelated charges" part. Do you have a source for convicted on perjury charges? The sources are from 1990, so they still say indicted.

The second NYT source mentions a federal grand jury, which I assume is separate from the county grand jury. NW (Talk) 06:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen were indicted for perjury, however only Owen was convicted. Bonacci was declared incompetent to stand trial.

The Omaha World Herald is the newspaper of record for the state of Nebraska, and they followed the Franklin case quite closely, publishing some 700 related articles during the period in question. The previous Wikipedia article (now deleted) was sourced using a number of complete Omaha World Herald articles posted online for educational purposes. The accuracy of the online postings has been verified. Although the consensus among previous editors was that this form of sourcing was allowable, it has recently been disallowed.

It is not possible to link directly to the Omaha World Herald articles, though individual Wikipedia editors have purchased copies. To purchase a substantial number of the relevant articles would be quite expensive. Administrator Will Beback has advocated that we post the Omaha World Herald articles (redacted sufficiently to avoid copyright conflicts) here at Wikipedia so that multiple editors might reference them in writing the article.

One editor is a current resident of Omaha, and even he cannot access the Omaha World Herald archives free of charge. To date I am not familiar with any library that maintains a remote archive, although next week I plan to visit the University of California at Berkeley to see what might be available through their system. Apostle12 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A Federal Grand Jury was called after the original Douglas County Grand Jury findings were overturned (and sealed) for "procedural irregularities." It was the Federal Jury that ruled that the abuse had occurred but that there was insufficient evidence to indict the accused, the Federal Jury also indicted Owen on eight counts of perjury (but not Bonacci) which were largely related to claims against Omaha Chief of Police Wadham but this Grand Jury, unlike the county one, made no claims regarding a hoax. Another error in the stub is the dates and it should read between 1985 and 1991. The 1985 Nebraska Foster Care Board made the original claims and the failure of law enforcment to act on those claims was the reason the Franklin Committee was set up (it was the main part of their brief). The Franklin Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Robert Spire to provide records proving that the 1985 claims had been investigated as he had claimed but he refused. Spire’s investigator, Thomas Vlahoulis was then issued a subpoena and he testified that none of the original claims had been investigated by the Attorney Generals department but they had been turned over to the Omaha P.D. whose Chief of police was one of those accused. It was this claimed "cover-up" that led to the first Grand jury which took testimony from two of the victims named in the 1985 investigation and another four of the 60 victims that Carodori had found who were willing to testify. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to pull up proper sources for most of that (i.e., not from sites like FranklinCase.org). As far as the 1985 stuff goes; I'm just following what the Jenkins book said. Feel free to change it to "late 1980s" if you want. NW (Talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is in the OWH articles, ie: the Franklin Committee brief and the original investigation (the Douglas Grand Jury did request that one of the accused be charged on the 1985 claims), unfortunately some is from primary sources ie: the Franklin Committee. Wayne (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching the article get rewritten may prove interesting.--MONGO 08:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have some great news. At significant personal expense, I've obtained photocopies of some of the original news stories printed in the paper edition of the Omaha World Herald and I'll start drafting a new, and very solidly sourced version of this article. It will be constructed on a WP:RS foundation of reinforced concrete (figuratively speaking). It's going to be rock solid. I'm going to email PDF copies of these articles to FloNight and Will Beback, so that we can have confirmation of the rock-solid reliability of this sourcing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please remember that the biographies of living persons policy is paramount here. In particular, note the following sentence from it: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I have reverted this edit and semi-protected the article indefinitely. I am also considering revision-deleting the edit, but I would appreciate comments on that. NW (Talk) 03:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing in that edit that warrants a revision-deletion. It was just poorly written and uncited. I would remind you that reporting what courts and legally constituted investigating committees say is protected by law from defamation (ie:BLP). Wayne (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need to reread all of WP:BLP again. Material doesn't have to be defamatory or libelous to violate it. NW (Talk) 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of BLP policy. None of the deleted original article would have been in violation if correctly sourced. Sourcing is the only problem that needs addressing. Wayne (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, it is exactly because of situations like this one, where it complicated and impossible for the average person to know if something is true or not that, that we have the BLP policy where unsourced negative claims are eligible for rev/del and suppression. Without sources we have no way of knowing if the information is factually accurate or not. The editors of this article engaged in subpar editing for a long time. We are now enforcing policy as it should have been done all along. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We did know that the sources were accurate because MONGO checked several of the originals against them, yet despite no evidence of BLP violation the article was deleted rather than simply reverted. Wayne (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, I personally evaluated the (old) article references against the content in the (old) article, and I can say with certainly that content of the first paragraphs of the (old) article was not supported by the cited references. I don't have my notes with me, but if memory serves me correctly, I compared the material from the first five references cited with the text in the article. I found many examples of facts in the text that was not found in the references. In one instance that I remember, the Wikipedia article text was being supported by a reference that was conveying the opposite information. Based on the vast number of problems that I saw I deleted the article because it was impossible to remove the material any other way to enforce BLP policy. Because I have oversight permission, I regularly review articles for suppression and have a good understanding of the criteria used. In any case, I referred the this edit to the oversight mailing list for review as is customary in complicated cases such as this one. So, it will be reviewed by other people, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I realise there were a lot of problems but that was mainly a result of Phoenix and Winslows editing which added OR, changed wording and often moved text without moving the refs with them. The article was relatively stable until he took an interest. When he couldn't find a ref he even altered other WP articles to support his edits here. Instead of being reverted to a stable version it was deleted which was a better result than P&W could have wished for. It's my own fault I guess, I spent way to much time trying to work with him when I should have reported him. Wayne (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was stable until Phoenix challenged your BLP violations...in order to protect the website, nonpartisan admins had to step in and delete it...and then stub it. I think the article title is defamatory still...bear in mind that the deletion included your edits to this article, and it was only deleted because your edits violated policies. Frankly why you haven't been sanctioned in this affair is a testiment to the tolerance and patience of the non partisan admins that took control of this mess.MONGO 16:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow first edited the article by removing material sourced from the NYT. It was only then that I became involved for the first time. Everything I added was not only sourced but also supported by the primary sources they reported on. If you have any evidence that my edits violated any policies please feel free to present it. As for the title, I can't understand why you want to minimise the significance of the allegations which are at the core of the entire affair as doing so only serves to protect the sex offenders and pedophiles that were recognised as such by the courts. You seem to be overlooking that neither the original allegations nor the original accusers were discredited by the Grand Jury. Only the additional witnesses found by the Franklin Committee investigation were accused of perjury and even then the Jury admitted they had been abused but had misidentified their abusers. In fact, the Grand Jury even requested that one of the accused be charged with pedophilia based on the evidence given by the accusers. He was in fact later charged and convicted. Wayne (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the article edit for the protection on my watchlist, I looked at the article history and rev/del the edit prior to seeing this discussion. I also sent an email to oversight asking for suppression. All material on Wikipedia that is negative needs to be sourced. Negative material about living people needs to be removed immediately if unsourced. If the material alludes to crimes then it is eligible for suppression as well as rev/del. The content of the edit is pushing the theory that crimes occurred without giving a reliable source to back it up, so imo it should be suppressed. We'll see if the oversight team agrees. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hum...anyone track that IP...checkuser may prove informative but I can't see what was added since its now invisible. As I mentioned before, some of the problem with sourcing this article is so much appeared in the Omaha World Herald and but token cherry picked articles are available at private websites, so unless someone wants to spend the bucks and obtain all the clippings, its going to be hard to write a NPOV article. Very sensitive issues are involved here...anyone promoting fringe and possibly libellous material should tread lightly.MONGO 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't add one sentence to this article which isn't properly sourced.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Will. Honestly, I was really starting to despair that there would ever be any action at all by an administrator to address this problem. I actually turned my back on the entire Wikipedia project for about a month, because it appeared that the fringe theorists were taking ownership of whatever article they chose. I would like to thank you, and FloNight, and all others who stepped in here, for finally taking the necessary action.

The fact that sanctions of some sort have not been applied to Apostle12 and Wayne is a little worrisome. Clearly their actions, for at least the first five months of 2011, were over the line. They put the Wikipedia project at risk for legal action, by any surviving targets of this smear campaign. They eroded the credibility of Wikipedia as an accurate and impartial encyclopedia, built on a foundation of reliable sources.

This was serious. And the fact that absolutely nothing was being done about it for many months troubled me deeply. I hope we can proceed in the future with an understanding that this must never happen again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "Phoenix and Winslow" (P/W) wants to sanction Wayne and Apostle12 is heinous, but unsurprising, when you consider what the words "accurate" and "impartial" mean to them. It is obvious that P/W has been assigned to track this article down and insofar as it is possible, prevent Wikipedia from leading people to the Omaha World Herald and the New York Times as reliable sources. Paul Bonacci won a civil trial against Larry King, and several prominent people "libeled" by the victims have since been convicted of pedophilia. P/W has to do whatever he can, no matter how outrageous, arbitrary, and irregular, to abuse his/her position as Wiki "editor" to protect the standing pedophilia/blackmail operation that is so vital to keeping the press and politicians in this country in line, as well as to continue the program of extreme child abuse that is so useful in maintaining a stable of tortured, abducted children who can be molded into covert operatives. Phoenix and Winslow have proven, at least, to be useful employees of the child rape, child abduction, and child torture operations of the US Government. It will be interesting to follow P/W's editing history, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.168.220 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My Request Ignored and Deleted?

Good evening, I left a request for advice about contributing to this page as it is sparce of information. Without having any reply my post was removed. Not refused, just removed. I don't mean to come across as hostile but to delete and ignore is ill mannered. So can someone please advise me on what I need to do to add to this page. I am happy to work with another in order to moderate as appropriate and mutually agreeable. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. (Webbero (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

This article has been a problem area, so editors are extra cautious. You asked about how to cite material from the documentary. The simple answer is that we can't cite it because it was never broadcast. Wikipedia articles must use published sources. The fact there there little can be found about this documentary is an indication of its obscurity. I've watched part of it and I can guess why it was never aired - it is full of libelous assertions with little proof.

The best way to develop articles is to start with the sources. There are few good source for this topic. If you want to work on it I suggest forgetting about the documentary and looking for high quality published (not self-published) sources instead. There are two books written about the case, but they were either self-published or issued by a dubious publisher. The best available material may be in newspapers.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The documentary was broadcast in the UK. That makes it a published source. I think it ought to be cited in its own section of the article to make it clear, and that all citations ought to name the speaker.JustAnotherMoron (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone can present documentation that the documentary was broadcast that would readily make it applicable as a source for this article. Until that happens nothing has changed in that regard. __meco (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Will Beback.

Thanks for the feedback. I have seen the whole documentary (as far as a rush edit can be considered "whole")and although the subject matter is extremely sensitive, I cannot say if it was libelous or not. If it is indeed libelous, are you aware of any private legal actions taken on behalf of those who may have been libeled against? I have had a look for further records of those accused and I can't see of any action taken in this regard. I did however find an item regarding a compensatory payment made to one of the victims, awarded in the alleged purpetrator's absence. I am aware of the court rulings against some of the people regarding purjury however are you aware if anyone was sued? If I had been accused of illegal activities, I would look to launching a legal proceeding. I am aware that there are differing libel laws in the US compared to the UK but the programme was made by the UK. Can I ask what would qualify as a "dubious publisher"? I think I have an idea what you might mean (ie not 25 copies printed on a hand press in some guys basement or the more out there conspiracy sites) but I would need some guidance if at all possible. Regardless I cannot see how the page cannot be given another edit without bias or prejudice either for or against the veracity of the allegations but advises that the documentary is on the web. Thanks once again for you time.(Webbero (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

The most comprehensive source is the Omaha World-Herald newspaper but to access all the articles would cost around $1100. Copies of these articles were determined by consensus not to be a RS so the originals have to be paid for by the editor who wants to use them. Some were paid for by an editor who believed the copies may not have been accurate but he later declined to use or share them. Nick Bryant wrote a book based on afadavits, court transcripts and the World-Herald articles (with photocopies of the pages) etc but it was published by Trine Day who were determined by consensus here to be a "dubious publisher" (despite being used as a RS for another 190 WP articles) so can not be used for this specific article. As for the case, two victims recanted and two who refused to recant were charged with perjury but charges were dropped against one after the other was sentenced to 15 years. The victim appealed but it was rejected on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to the hearsay evidence used to convict her. The Grand Jury determined that both had been abused as they claimed by not by the people they accused. One of the two who recanted later retracted the recantation and made claims of receiving threats if he didn't recant. An independant investigative commitee set up by the state legislature found the victims credible and condemned the Grand Juries findings. One of those accused was later charged with pedophilia and jailed based on the evidence given. Several accused were convicted on similar but unrelated charges. Another was ordered to pay damages in a civil claim (he declined to appear despite being issued a subpoena) and he later dropped an appeal against the damages. None of the accused sued as far as I am aware. I hope this gives you direction regarding what to look for and what to use, good luck with editing. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Decamp?

As the owner of the OWH was named as involved in the abuse, one must question whether the paper can truly be a reliable and objective source on the matter. Furthermore, the article seems to make no mention of the book published by Sen. DeCamp on his investigations into the matter. Certainly that is a published source. It's veracity can be questioned, sure, just as can the veracity of any article published by the OWH. NO libel suite against DeCamp was successful. Indeed, as far as I am aware, only one was filed, and it was shortly dismissed. 90% of Nebraskan's surveyed indicated that they believed the matter was covered up, not thoroughly investigated in proper channels, and that there were likely a great many truths to DeCamp's book. I'm not in any way, of course, advocating wikipedia take a position on the matter, but to be truly objective, BOTH sides of the question should be thoroughly addressed in the article. This article as as dismissive as the grand jury, the legality of which was strongly brought into question on various occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybaldwin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Joke

This whole article must be a joke. Also, there is no article (Or mention!) about the film and it's story of supression is comfirmed and higly relevant to the topic. Well if Washington pays... The documentary was and is pubished and available, and never been determined libelous or otherwise illegal. And either way, wikipedia never ceases or has to scease covering a subject just because it is "bad" or "illegal" (for example, there are wikipedia pages about crimes against humanity, and rightly so, and even cite nazi sources and etc.). Relevance is the issue. And this issue is relevant. Reducing the whole matter and evidence for child trafficking into a like three sentence "article" about a "conspiracy theory" is absolute disrespect for the topic or even cover-up. --190.174.103.147 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

lol I was just about to write the exact words "this is a joke". Wow, wikipedia's true form. A snarling child rape supporting shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.67.249 (talk) 23:00, July 18, 2012‎ (UTC)

Omaha World Herald

The "Omaha World Herald" was highly partisan in its reporting of the alleged scandal. This should be made clear when advising readers to use this newspaper as a source. Furthermore, the documentary was published so it can be used in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.170.36 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar in 'Overview' section

The final sentence needs to say part of a series of crimes, not "part of series of crimes", due to proper English usage being a Wikipedia requirment, and as this article is protected, apparently only an admin can make this fix. 75.252.15.24 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013

NickBryant (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My name is Nick Bryant, and I'm a little perplexed that this Wikipedia article has received so much scrutiny, but, yet, some of its facts are wrong. The book I wrote, The Franklin Scandal, is not self-published. It was published by Trinday, which is a commercial book publisher. I think getting that right would be a good start.

 Not done Please give a reliable source to back up your claim. - Camyoung54 talk 14:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bryant book was subject to discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in March 2011 and it was determined that it WAS NOT self published. You can read the discussion here. Wayne (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. It was Mr. DeCamp's book that was self-published. Instead, Mr. Bryant's was published by a tiny publishing company on the West Coast called Trine Day, which describes itself as "a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [2] Mr. Bryant details his earlier efforts shopping around the manuscript to larger and more reputable publishers here. Mr. Bryant acknowledges that one of the reasons why no reputable publisher was willing to publish it may have been that two grand juries had been convened, that none of the alleged child prostitution ring members was indicted, and that instead, two of the accusers were indicted for perjury; one (Paul Bonacci) was declared mentally unfit to stand trial, and the other (Alisha Owen) was convicted of perjury and served 4-1/2 years of a 10-year prison sentence before being released for good behavior. There was also a third accuser who recanted (Troy Boner) — he admitted that he lied. So the three accusers turned out to be a proven nutball, a proven liar, and an admitted liar. Here in the United States, and at Wikipedia, we generally call that "case closed." Or perhaps the better analogy is "game over." And we generally accept the judgment of not one, but two grand juries who looked all the witnesses in the eye, observed their demeanor, and were in a much better position than you, or me, or Mr. Bryant to determine who was lying. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing POV, OR or irrelevant about that post. Obviously you dont know what a grand jury is. Grand juries in Wikipedia parlance are not exactly reliable sources. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler once said a Grand jury prosectuor could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what he wanted to do. BTW, the Federal Grand Jury rejected the findings of the State Grand Jury regarding the claims being a hoax. The second Grand Jury found that the abuse did happen, but was not committed by the people accused. Wayne (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

POV being repeatedly introduced to article.

User:Phoenix and Winslow has been adding false and POV material to the article without using comments to explain why it should be there. As this editor will edit war to keep his version, instead of reverting him again I bring it here for him to justify his version.

• Almost without exception the sources mention Kings connection to the Republican party. It's the most prominent part of his life and what made him notable before Franklin. P&W keeps deleting it as irrelevant.
• P&W wants the text to read: unidentified people present at a closed meeting reported that Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers claimed he heard credible reports.
  This is very misleading as it implies he may not have said it. There were two meetings, Chambers spoke on the record at the open meeting. At the closed meeting "unidentified people" said he repeated the allegations.
• P&W deleted mention that the FBI were also investigating the claims independantly.
• P&W wants the text to read: Numerous conspiracy theories persisted afterward, claiming that the Franklin scandal was part of much more widespread series of crimes.
  Going to the source I find it actually says:
  The Nebraska scandal attracted interest from the regular conspiracy theorists but the story also won the sympathy of child protection leaders such as... then it goes on to name those who believe that the Franklin scandal was more widespread than thought. P%Ws version is POV pushing by putting everyone in the same category to discredit them.
• After I deleted a false claim made by P&W that Bryants book was self published, he first replaces the claim, then changes his mind and instead adds a totally irrelevant note (some WP:OR + the publishers mission statement) in an attempt to discredit Bryant.
• P&W has added that the documentary was never broadcast due to the network executives' concerns about libel.
  This is WP:OR as Yorkshire Television and Discovery Channel both declined to comment on why it was not aired so nobody knows the reason. Wayne (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We went over this and over this prior to the article being stubbed for your BLP violations, Wayne. Surely you remember. It's in Archive 3 and Archive 4 of this Talk page. Here we go again.

• Lawrence King's political affiliation is irrelevant, particularly since he was never indicted or convicted for any of the offenses he was accused of regarding child prostitution. He was convicted of embezzlement, but that had nothing to do with his politics. The political affiliation of Ernie Chambers would be fair game, since King is a Republican and Chambers is a highly partisan Democrat; therefore his motives in repeating these unproven allegations may have been partisan. Even if King's political affiliation was relevant, and I'm not conceding that it is, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede.
• The accused were never charged with any crime related to the child prostitution allegations. Splitting hairs about what Ernie Chambers said about it, and under what circumstances, is a waste of time. Chambers has done some pretty flaky stuff over the years, such as filing a lawsuit against God. The whole paragraph should be deleted.
• Since a federal grand jury was convened, it is reasonable for anyone to infer that the Federal Bureau of Investigations investigated. We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a book. Again, none of the accused were indicted for any charges related to the child prostitution allegations. It was all a "carefully crafted hoax."

Wikipedia is the Internet's public address system. We must not give these allegations any more credibility than they have inherently, which in light of the two grand jury results is virtually zero.

• The source you found is from several years ago, reciting allegations that were contemporaneous with the accusations by Owen, Bonacci and Boner. Since both grand juries later refused to indict the accused, and one instead chose to return perjury indictments against the only two accusers who didn't recant, I suspect those "child protection leaders" may have changed their tune. The source is an excellent one and I think its exploration of the Franklin case deserves much greater attention. The author explores how hot topics, whether or not they are worthy of attention or credible on their own merits, are seized by political opportunists for their own purposes. He also describes how cases such as the Franklin hoax can acquire credibility, even though they lack any credibility inherently, when reported in various media in a credulous voice, such as OWH. (Or Wikipedia, for that matter.) So yes, let's use the source to a greater extent. It satisfies all the requirements of WP:RS.
• The note is very relevant. A review of Trine Day's other titles indicates that they're a fringe theory publisher. A few of their titles could be legitimate, but it's hard to tell. Under these circumstances Mr. Bryant's work cannot be considered a reliable source, as was determined at WP:RSN.
• As I recall from a lot of reading about this two or three years ago, Discovery Channel's original review of the documentary removed several minutes of video to satisfy its American lawyers that a libel case could not be brought successfully. Unfortunately, Discovery Channel is also carried by some UK cable providers, and in the UK the libel laws are a great deal more strict, so a liability issue still existed. The network executives learned of this lingering problem shortly before the scheduled broadcast. So they pulled the whole documentary at the last minute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• So put mention in the article body then. Newspapers think it was relevant so why does your opinion trump the sources?
  Because you think Chambers is partisan, the article has to spin the source to discredit him? That is too many WP violations to list.
• Wrong! One of the accused was later charged and convicted on the basis of the claims made and another was later convicted of similar but unrelated crimes.
  Chambers was a sitting senator so he can be as flaky as he likes. His position makes mention relevant.
• So now Wikipedia has to let readers "infer" what happened?
  You cant call it a "carefully crafted hoax" because the second Federal Grand Jury rejected the State Grand Jury's findings and said it was not. All Wikipedia can do is say that the first found it to be a hoax.
• What you "suspect" is irrelevant. I suggest you read WP:OR.
  Quote: The source is an excellent one and I think its exploration of the Franklin case deserves much greater attention. Feel free although I doubt it can be given much more attention because the Franklin case is covered in it with only two pages which discusses it in terms of the wrong people being accused which is what the Federal Grand Jury found.
• More lies. Bryant was never found not to be a reliable source, only his publisher was and then only after you canvassed to get the numbers to get the consensus to swing your way. You cant add irrelevant material to discredit a source. That Trine Day only publish fringe theories is WP:OR.
• Again with the OR. If you have a reliable source that says the documentary was pulled because of libel then you can easily cite it. You can't include something because you "recall reading about it two or three years ago". The documentary was cleared by lawyers for broadcast in both the US and England so there were no libel issues. I recall that the reason it wasn't aired was because someone bought the rights but I didn't add that. In fact according to Ted Gunderson Yorkshire TV was refunded the cost of production by Discovery Channel who chose not to air it to strengthen their position in opposing planned legislation to increase censorship on TV programs so we were both wrong. Wayne (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's something you need to remember that I think you're forgetting, Wayne. When we lend Wikipedia's voice to these allegations, we provide enormous credibility to these allegations and without Wikipedia, that is something that they do not have. Credibility is something that two separate grand juries found that they do not have. Wikipedia is one of the most frequently read websites on the Internet. Considering the content of the tiny number of sites that are even more popular (Google, for example, a search engine that has no content of its own), this is the Internet's public address system. We must not give these allegations any more credibility than they have inherently, which in light of the two grand jury results is virtually zero. For that reason, I believe any discussion of these continuing claims in the mainspace must be done with a caution and a reserve that you are not displaying. This is not "one of many theories regarding the case." This is a fringe theory that has been embraced by the followers of Lyndon LaRouche, other conspiracy theorists, and left-wing political junkies in their efforts to smear their political opponents. Wikipedia should not be allowed to become their weapon. whether you are acting by accident, in good faith, or by design. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that Wikipedia must lie (and possibly empower pedophiles) to avoid giving credibility to any of the claims? IE: we dont mention that reliable sources have supported some of the claims and instead state in Wikipedia's voice that all supporters are conspiracy theorists. And we dont mention that the Federal Grand Jury rejected the findings of the State Grand Jury regarding the claims being a hoax. That sounds messed up to me. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

... we dont mention that reliable sources have supported some of the claims ... What reliable sources? Which claims? And WP:BLP requires Wikipedia to "avoid giving credibility to any of the claims," since they were not proven. That isn't lying, nor does it "empower pedophiles." It avoids empowering liars and perjurors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lying through ommission is still lying no matter how you spin it and that's even ignoring the outright lies you add. Point out where WP:BLP states "avoid giving credibility to any of the claims" not proven. Your edits violate WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:NOR. I suggest you read BLP instead of making it up to support your own view. Wayne (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you dial it back, Wayne. There are several sections of BLP that are implicated here. Notably WP:BLPSTYLE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Most especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." In this case, several law-abiding and innocent people in Omaha were victimized by hideous false accusations: child prostitution, ritual sexual abuse and murder. Wikipedia must not be used to participate in or prolong their victimization. And then there's WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:BLPSTYLE example does not apply. A contemporary survey found that 56% of Omaha residents believed some sort of abuse had occured and the second Grand Jury found the abuse happened but not by those accused. Even if we ignore the survey because it was contemporary, we still have the Federal court findings, the State Foster Care Review Board investigation findings and the legislative committee findings; you cant call those a "tiny minority". WP:AVOIDVICTIM, so you believe it is ok to deliberately victimise the victims of pedophiles instead? That is very disturbing. You need to remember that of the 30+ victims the prosecutor chose only four to testify. One of those four was not charged with perjury because she did not name those who abused her and both of the victims who recanted later retracted their recantations claiming they had recanted under duress. You are cherrypicking WP:BLPCRIME. I see no problem if the accused are not named. King can be named because he lost the civil case after refusing to attend the court. I direct you to this article for an similar example. Wayne (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your tiny minority, and it is indeed a tiny minority, is already very well represented in the article mainspace by such remarks as "travesty" and "strange document." It's disproportionate already in my opinion, but I won't press this issue at this time. Citing WP:BLPSTYLE is appropriate. We cannot give even more disproportionate space to the viewpoint of your tiny minority. For WP:AVOIDVICTIM, in this case even the federal grand jury agreed that these particular accused persons had been falsely accused, otherwise they would never have indicted two accusers for perjury. Therefore these particular persons were victimized. Therefore Wikipedia, and all Wikipedians including you, Wayne, must accept our responsibility to not participate in, prolong, or otherwise enable this victimization of these particular accused persons.

WP:BLPCRIME is a bullseye here, and your mention of O. J. Simpson is ridiculous. For years he was the most incredible running back in Division I college football, winning the Heisman Trophy by a margin of votes that's still the all-time record. Then he was the most incredible running back in the National Football League, very first player in history to gain more than 2000 yards in one season, will always be the only person ever to do it in a 14-game season, still holds the all-time record for average number of yards gained per game, and absolutely tore the record book into confetti. And after his playing days were over he enjoyed some success and fame as a Hollywood actor and football broadcaster. And he lost the civil case like King; but in stark contrast to King, it wasn't by default. A jury awarded over $33 million in damages to the plaintiffs. WP:BLPCRIME applies to "relatively unknown" persons, Wayne. Citing Simpson is ridiculous. These were five "prominent citizens" of Omaha, Nebraska. To put this into perspective for you, it's like saying they were five prominent citizens of Darwin, Australia. A small city out in the middle of nowhere. These were relatively unknown persons from a world perspective, or a national perspective. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Spin it all you like, it's the sources that count not your opinion. From your past behaviour it seems you consider anything less than 100% a minority so how can any one win an argument with you. No one is being victimised except the accusers. Wikipedia should not take the side of the pedophiles simply because their victims named the wrong perpetrators. To the majority of the world O. J. Simpson's notability was as a supporting actor in the Naked Gun Movies until the murders. I was only vaguely aware he played football. From a world perspective the scandal is important because it parallels remarkably similar scandals in Belgium, Chile, Mexico and Portugal where abuse victims named prominent people. Why is King's default judgement any different to Simpson's case? King was subpoened to appear and refused. Wayne (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

now hear this, i get that you dont want people looking into conspiracy theories and taking them seriously, but you need to at least present some of what is alleged not just say "Numerous conspiracy theories have persisted afterward, claiming that the Franklin allegations were true, and part of much more widespread series of crimes.[1] Journalist Nick Bryant published a book about the Franklin allegations alleging a coverup of child abuse.[8][notes 1]" because it adds absolutely nothing and doesn't point me in the right direction to do any research of my own. if something is obviously false people will be able to tell, you don't need to put up pictures and go on tirades about the moral obligation you have to protect wikipedia's honor. there are pages dedicated to evidence that the moon landing was faked, when its pretty obvious that we went to the moon, no one screams that were going to lead the simple minded to stop believing in the moon landing. you appear to be more interested in censorship than the spread of information and ideas. you say that it is so obvious that these conspiracy theories are false, then why are you afraid of people reading them? you don't make no sense man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.71.43 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is there nothing in here about "Conspiracy of Silence?" It's a documentary that was to be aired in the UK and Ireland but was banned before it aired. It was also supposed to be aired on the discovery channel in the US but it never happened. The unreleased version can be found on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.108.145 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Was there anything that had a credible source that was removed, or anything that has a credible source that's not in the article? If so, add it, if not, don't. 98.24.14.97 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)