Revision as of 16:49, 4 April 2016 view source50.141.29.72 (talk) →Addendum re: Biased, Ego-Driven Obstruction by certain Wiki users← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:42, 5 April 2016 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 editsm Reverted edits by 50.141.29.72 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIINext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
PS: again, still not my citations below <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | PS: again, still not my citations below <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
:Contact whoever you wish. We're not going to violate our BLP policy to add material that is circumspect at best.--] 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | :Contact whoever you wish. We're not going to violate our BLP policy to add material that is circumspect at best.--] 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
:Still at it, eh Mongo? I wonder how you sleep at night protecting the criminals who perpetrated these despicable offenses. | |||
== Boys Town == | == Boys Town == |
Revision as of 00:42, 5 April 2016
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep (nomination withdrawn). |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations at the Reference desk. |
Toolbox |
---|
more info helpful for developing the article, possibly
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2015/04/08/fleur-showing-johnny-gosch-documentary/25488959/ apparently this film is downloadable. This article mentions Paul Bonacci. "Police recovered no evidence after Gosch's abduction, and arrested no suspects. Nine years later, Paul Bonacci, a sex abuse victim and offender in Omaha who had multiple-personality disorder, told his attorney and local media he helped abduct Gosch. Bonacci claimed he was the first to molest Gosch on film as part of a far-reaching child-sex ring. West Des Moines police dismissed Bonacci's story without ever interviewing him. A grand jury later called the sex abuse allegations "a carefully crafted hoax."" GangofOne (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The amount of detail that has already been provided in the article mainspace, regarding these unproven and sensational accusations that one grand jury called a "carefully crafted hoax" and led to one of the accusers going to prison for perjury, is sufficient by Misplaced Pages standards. WP:BLP is one of the bedrock principles of Misplaced Pages and the Des Moines Register doesn't have to follow it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Article is biased and should not have protected edit settings--lacks perspective, breadth of information
While not inclined to believe conspiracy theories, I do find it odd that this article has a protected editing status, particularly given how fully one-sided the presentation of facts and information is. The author neglects to even mention, for example, that (although she only served 4 1/2 years), Alisha Owen was sentenced to 27 years in prison for perjury. This is an excessive penalty by any standard. Furthermore, Owen subsequently sued the State of Nebraska in appellate court, due in part to alleged misconduct and improper communication between the judge and jury during her trial (see source link below). None of these facts, nor any others running counter to the argument that this case was a hoax and the alleged victims were liars, is presented in this article.
This Wiki article, as it stands, fails to even provide the perspective of those who alleged that abuse did in fact take place. Whether or not the alleged crimes took place, this article should be much longer, more nuanced, and present both sides of the issue. And just to play devil's advocate, if there was no abuse and no cover-up, who is so determined to keep this article short and one-sided, and block others from editing it?
Please note: I did not insert the first to references and don't know how to remove them. I only cited the legal doc.
MGK206 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Addendum re: Biased, Ego-Driven Obstruction by certain Wiki users
I've combed through all the history, and then some, to try to get to the bottom of the bizarre nature of this article as it stands, and the macho shoving match around its edits. This entire situation is such a mess. Whatever one's belief about the facts of this case, and whatever their personal stake in said case (because for some of you it appears to be awfully personal--either that or you don't have much going on for yourself), an entire breadth of information, with all facts and all perspectives, should be provided. This is the STANDARD for journalism as well as scholarly articles. The back and forth bullying and the clear obstruction of information dissemination by some with respect to this article and this story is truly appalling and flies in the face of all academic standards. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and complained, providing several links, citations and usernames. Cheers! MGK206 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: again, still not my citations below — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGK206 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Contact whoever you wish. We're not going to violate our BLP policy to add material that is circumspect at best.--MONGO 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Boys Town
the "Boys Town" link in this page links to Boys Town , Nebraska -but in fact is meant to link to another article
https://en.wikipedia.org/Boys_Town_(organization)
68.34.127.226 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done.--MONGO 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Start-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Nebraska articles
- Unknown-importance Nebraska articles
- WikiProject Nebraska articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors