Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:19, 13 May 2011 view sourceFloNight (talk \| contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Deletion as enforcement of BLP policy: ; spelling← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:21, 13 May 2011 view source FloNight (talk \| contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Deletion as enforcement of BLP policy: ; tweak wordingNext edit →
Line 689:		Line 689:
	::::::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.   <b>]  ]  </b> 08:37, 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.   <b>]  ]  </b> 08:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
	==Deletion as enforcement of BLP policy==		==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 ~~investigations~~ were investigated and accurate details about the investigation. ]]		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. ]]

Revision as of 16:21, 13 May 2011

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep (nomination withdrawn).

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

And some more discussion

The charges you make ("repeatedly added"..."repeatedly stuffing") are false. Any sourcing discrepancies were corrected immediately with no protest, and there was no attempt to revert such corrections.

I would still defend the version of the article I was advocating just a few days ago, provided we could use Bryant as a source. Your referral to WP:RSN has successfully eliminated Bryant, at least for now. That does not make you "right;" it means that most of the editors who chose to comment agree that Bryant should not be used. Your assertion that "every last one of them agreed that Bryant is not a reliable source" is untrue; Administrator Will Bebeck stated that Bryant is an acceptable source for unexceptional claims, and you yourself supported the likely veracity, and use, of original source material that appears in Bryant's book and on his associated web page.

In order to improve the article further, it appears we will need to pursue alternate sourcing (relevant issues of the Omaha World-Herald not posted on-line, Douglas County grand jury documents, Franklin Committee documents), which according to editor Wayne's research will involve considerable expensive.

Your paranoid fantasy regarding a possible scandal at the hands of some conservative blogger deserves no comment.

On other issues we have each been "right" or "wrong" at various points, and our opinions have differed. As for "deferring to your judgment," I don't think so. Perhaps we might readily agree that you are an exceedingly self-righteous individual--though I suspect you might consider that a virtue.

Your exposition defining the limited role of the Douglas County grand jury is both correct and erroneous--a grand jury is empowered to indict on the basis of substantial, though limited, evidence if it believes that expanded inquiry, investigation and testimony will likely lead to a successful prosecution. In this regard, the Franklin Committee concluded that the grand jury had not fulfilled its obligation to the citizens of Nebraska.

Another day....Apostle12 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryants reliablity has still not been addressed. Editors in the RSN have been specifically asked to explain why Bryant is not reliable and none have replied so there cant be a consensus. Saying that a publisher that is acceptable when used in other WP articles is not a reliable source for this one doesn't count for much without an explanation as to why such a division should exist. Currently there has been no evidence given that Bryant is not a RS, apart from his book being published by an "iffy" source. Iffy does not equal unreliable. As far as King is concerned, innocent or not, it is acceptable to state that a government investigation has accused him, especially when, according to the judge, those charges were not proceeded with only because he was facing other felony charges. You keep on and on about "conspiracy". Claims of a some form of "coverup" are supported by affadavits from reliable sources (including jurors from the Grand Jury) so there is no conspiracy, only claims and counterclaims. Some years ago I saw a judge during a trial accuse the police of forging documents to get a conviction. The judge dismissed the jury two days into the trial and ordered that the charges be dropped but no action was taken against the police. Was this a conspiracy? Hardly, but by your standard yes. Wayne (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Redundant full-name and professional identifications (i.e. former World-Herald columnist) for King and Citron were added, removed, added again, and removed again. Same thing for that supremely poisonous phrase, "with minors." (2) When I said "every last one of them," I was obviously referring to previously uninvolved editors, who could look at this with a fresh pair of eyes and no possible trace of a grudge. Will Beback is not a previously uninvolved editor. When archiving the Talk page, I see his remarks going back to at least 2009. While I respect his opinion as I do yours, my statement was correct: regarding previously uninvolved editors, every last one of them agrees that Bryant is unreliable. (3) Original research violates WP policy. See WP:NOR. If you and Wayne would like to conduct your research and convince a reputable publishing company such as Random House to publish it, then we'll be getting somewhere.

(4) There was a remark at WP:RSN suggesting that a thorough review of archived World-Herald articles would cost $1000. Sadly, that seems to be the only option since Bryant is unreliable. This newspaper is probably kept on microfilm in such public libraries as Kansas City and St. Louis, and may be available much less expensively through an inter-library loan. Bryant's reliability was fully addressed at WP:RSN, and now that Doc and Cuchullain have added their voices there is an obvious consensus, by a wide margin, against using Bryant as a source. The explanation for the division has been provided: self-published and unreliably published sources can be used at WP in articles about the author, but nowhere else. (5) An "iffy" publisher does equal unreliable. It's the publisher's fact-checking process that we rely upon here. We're talking about exceptional claims, adopted by a minority/fringe, in a BLP article. "Iffy" just doesn't cut it. Nothing but solid gold sourcing can be allowed here. I even question the use of the Omaha World-Herald, since a former columnist and a former publisher are listed among the accused. But I will concede that point. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been almost no comment on Bryants own reliability with most discussion only referring to his publisher Trine Day as being "iffy". I have asked several times for an explanation as to why that should extend to Bryant and received no reply. If Bryant is only used for claims supported by RS that he quotes I cant see him as unreliable and such claims are not exceptional, minority or fringe. A publisher's fact-checking process is irrelevant when the author provides copies of his sources. Very few publishers have more than a basic fact-checking process and there is no evidence that Trine day does not have one. In fact a search of libel law suits finds that they consistently win. Wayne (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I will take the time to spell out for you exactly why Trine Day's unreliability must be extended to Nick Bryant. Every previously uninvolved (and therefore neutral) editor at WP:RSN agreed that Trine Day is an unreliable publisher. It is the publisher's fact-checking process that WP relies upon in the editing process, since we are a non-profit on a shoestring budget and can't afford to sustain a fact-checking operation on all our millions of articles. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that Trine Day does not have a reliable fact-checking process. As the editors seeking to add material or restore reverted material, the burden is on you (per WP:V) to prove that Trine Day does have a reliable fact-checking process. Without it, Bryant's story has the same quality as the hearsay evidence that is complained of in this minority opinion.

The difference is that there was no objection to unreliable hearsay evidence at trial. Here at Misplaced Pages I am objecting to the use of unreliable sources, and WP:RSN was our "appellate court," where the decision in my favor was unanimous. Libel cases are very difficult to prove under US law, particularly when a book is written about a "public figure" (a malleable term). An offended public figure must not only prove that the publication was false, but also that the publisher acted not just with reckless disregard for the truth, but with actual malice. So it doesn't surprise me one bit that Trine Day has managed to avoid being bankrupted by a successful libel judgment. That doesn't make them reliable and you're welcome to take your argument back to WP:RSN or any other Misplaced Pages venue you choose. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that the allegations are legally "true" as a result of the civil case. Libel doesn't apply to King. Wayne (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that the trial court judge explicitly made no findings on the merits of that case, and that we have already included a large amount of detail about the civil case. WP:BLP applies to King, and if you think it doesn't, take your argument to the BLP noticeboard. Unless you can find a new reliable source, and can then demonstrate that adding it would not violate WP:WEIGHT, we're done here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued insistence that your judgment should prevail with regard to WP:WEIGHT, coupled with the dismissive tone, make for a profoundly repellent wiki personna.Apostle12 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've run out of patience, and I apologize to the entire WP community for it. You and Wayne are POV pushing. You have embraced conspiracy theory in defiance of the rule of law, you argue that the lunatic fringe deserves equal weight with the majority, you claim that the convicted perjuror was telling the truth and the prosecutor was lying, and you have been repeatedly, consistently wrong about WP policy. Bringing in neutral, uninvolved editors has produced unanimous agreement on your misapplication of policy among the neutral, uninvolved editors. You put the entire Misplaced Pages project at risk. I again apologize for losing my patience but I will not apologize for stopping you, and protecting the Misplaced Pages project from you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Wayne and I have consistently respected your point of view. You once again demonstrate lack of respect by accusing us of "embrac(ing)conspiracy theory in defiance of the rule of law"..."argu(ing) in favor of the lunatic fringe"...and being "consistently wrong." You, Wayne and I have each been right or wrong on various issues; only you feel the need to hide behind a banner of "protecting the Misplaced Pages project," instead of disciplining yourself to work in a collegial spirit.

Perhaps you should apologize for your attitude rather than for the loss of your "patience," which in any case has never been in evidence on these pages. Apostle12 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Report me to WP:WQA. Considering the way that you persistently exposed the Misplaced Pages project to the risk of scandal and civil liability in multiple ways, through violations of multiple bedrock policies, I have been at least as courteous as many administrators and veteran WP editors in similar situations. I have also refrained from reporting you at WP:ANEW and WP:ANI, which is an enormous courtesy; if you think I've been discourteous, wait till you've been kicked around and insulted by those people. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Found some interesting details of COI involving the case. Of course we just need RS to confirm them. The foreman of the Douglas County Grand Jury was not only an employee of the Union Pacific Railroad (one of Pacific's chief executives was a member of the Franklin Credit Union Board) but he had also recently had charges of pedophilia dropped after his employer paid a civil settlement on his behalf. Then we have one of the members of the jury declaring in court that she was close friends with one of the accused yet she was not excused from the jury. Also, the judge in the federal trial had been named by Troy Boner as being present at some of the parties. Doesn't COI apply in the US system? Wayne (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that no reliable source has repeated these claims should tell you everything you need to know about their inclusion in this article. It certainly does that for me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Wayne never said "no reliable source has repeated these claims"--that is merely your unfounded assertion. Conflict of interest DOES apply in the American system, though I am sure it is much too late to rectify whatever injustices might have been perpetrated in the Franklin case. The best we might hope for is correction of the historical record. Apostle12 (talk) 08

46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverend James Bevel

Do you think it's appropriate to mention here that Reverend James Bevel, the chairman of the Schiller Institute's ten-member "citizens fact-finding commission," was later accused of incest by his own daughter, convicted of "unlawful fornication" and thrown in prison? Or do you agree that questions of WP:WEIGHT should be considered in deciding what to include in this article's mainspace? Entirely apart from the question of Bryant's reliability as a source is the question of weight. Is it appropriate to include each and every detail supporting a fringe theory? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume your first question is rhetorical, however I will respond anyway. No, the Schiller Institute's choice to spotlight this story does not make them a major part of the story--they are mentioned here as an aside, and they have little standing. To add prurient detail about a single member of the Schiller Institute's obscure "fact finding commission" would take it to a new level of ad hominem absurdity. Your continued focus on LaRouche and related organizations gives undue weight WP:WEIGHT to the importance of their role in matters associated with Franklin--to put it simply, they had no role whatever.

This article as currently revised (after W.L.Ross' revision and my support of his revision) hardly includes "each and every detail supporting a fringe theory." It includes basic material from the Franklin Committee special report after it became clear to them that the Douglas County grand jury proceedings were tainted: were we to venture into "undue weight" territory, we might include personal statements from the grand jurors themselves complaining that they had been manipulated by the judge assigned to the case, or we might supply a myriad of other facts from Bryant. All of the parties referenced in the current revision were key players in Franklin, not lone commentators after the fact. We could provide much other material from Bryant's book that would support "fringe theory" (rather than conscientious objection to the grand jury proceedings) however we have limited the material to the bare facts of the case in specific deference to WP:WEIGHT.

I might suggest that you work with the other editors here rather than continuing with your stubborn insistence that you alone are the final arbiter of what constitutes appropriate adherence to Misplaced Pages policy; to do so violates WP:OWN.Apostle12 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The December 1991 issue of Gentleman's Quarterly apparently carried a long article on the topic. Will Beback talk 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New Approach

Edits (and deletions) need to have consensus. As an alternative to taking the dispute further lets try and discuss proposed edits in Talk and include only what is agreed to by more than one editor. Wayne (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems consensus has become impossible. With regard to the Bonacci case (discussion above) I worked to define the merits of the case, fastidiously sourcing every change in accord with P. & W.'s previous demands. P. & W. changed some aspects of my revision, which you found unacceptable, so you reverted to the version that prevailed during March. P. & W. then objected to the March version, further truncating the text because of concerns about "wordiness." Since you basically supported my Bonacci case revision, and since I could agree with many of P. & W.'s concerns about wordiness, I carefully edited my revision of the Bonacci case and incorporated most of P. & W.'s suggested changes. P. & W. reverted wholesale, then you reverted his changes...and the war leaves us back at the beginning.

I do feel my last revision of the Bonacci case was a good-faith attempt to honor everyone's concerns. You asked me to include in full the last sentence of the third paragraph, and P. & W. asked for his more concise language, which I incorporated. My reasons for submitting a new version of the Bonacci case are clearly detailed above.

On February 1, 1991, former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp filed a civil suit on behalf of Paul Bonacci. The suit named Lawrence King, the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, the Omaha World-Herald, retired Omaha World-Herald publisher Harold W. Andersen, the Omaha School District, former Omaha Police Chief Robert Wadham, and others. The Bonacci suit alleged that King and the other named defendants had forced Bonacci to participate in a child-prostitution ring that involved satanic rituals and orgies with other boys and girls. Bonacci claimed that the defendants abused him sexually, or were responsible for abusing him, which caused him permanent harm.

Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town, and an appeal against the removal failed. The other named defendants were cleared, leaving only King to stand trial.

At the time of the civil trial, King was still in prison serving time for embezzlement. He was served a court summons, however he never responded to Bonacci's allegations. Judge Urbom said, "There is no indication he (King) wanted to dispute this."

On February 4, 1999, Judge Urbom awarded Bonacci a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petitioner's allegations, however he ruled that the failure of King's attorney to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm.

An appeal of the default judgment was filed, however it was dropped in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.

I do not understand why we are back to square one having made no progress whatever. I respect your desire to achieve consensus. It is obvious that P. & W. has no desire to achieve consensus or even to work collaboratively to improve the article--his attitude is "my way or the highway." and his abusive language adds insult to injury.

I am withdrawing from editing this article. Apostle12 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is required for any contentious changes to any article at Misplaced Pages; and with such a tiny group of active editors on the article, virtual unanimity is necessary to show consensus. Because of this requirement for unanimity when there are only two or three people working on the article, Apostle12 has recognized that consensus is impossible to reach for the particular changes you're seeking. I don't understand why the two of you insist on diminishing the importance of (A) the failure to indict on any of the child prostitution allegations, and (B) the perjury cases, by adding a mountain of WP:WEIGHT to everything else. I disagree that you have "made no progress whatever," since I have compromised with you to identify King in the lede as a "prominent political fundraiser," and you have added a second blockquote from the Franklin Committee report.

But the title of the article is "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations," because that is the one thing most widely known about this complex hoax/scandal. It is not titled "Paul Bonacci lawsuit," nor is it titled "Lawrence King embezzlement case." If you want an article that devotes 1/2 of its space and weight (or more) to those topics, then I encourage you to create separate articles for those topics and write as much as you choose to write about them. And we can link them here. But this article is principally about the child prostitution ring allegations, and the fact that they turned out to be a "carefully crafted hoax." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:CNB. Wayne (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been back and forth in it but I deleted the LaRouche sentence from the intro because, though a significant detail about the later allegations, it is too minor for the intro. This topic is complicated enough already. Let's try to streamline it and remember the reader. Will Beback talk 11:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I can not see how LaRouches involvement is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. In regards to P&Ws insistence that he be called a conspiracy theorist I had a look at his biography which states political activist...Often described as a political extremist...largely promoting a conspiracist view. With "conspiracist" the third of three descriptives and having the qualifier "largely" we cant justify using that per WP:BLPSTYLE. Using it seems to me to be an attempt at discrediting legitimate oponents by implication which is a clear violation of the policies P&W claims to defend. Wayne (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche was not directly involved in the issue. If anyone from his movement deserves a little more description it would be James Bevel. We now know that at about the same time as he was in Omaha alleging a cover-up of child abuse he was also molesting his own underage daughters. I'm not sure that there's an appropriate way of mentioning that in this article, but the hypocrisy is clear. Will Beback talk 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources (starting with the New York Times) have described LaRouche as a conspiracy theorist. The fact that the LaRouche biography at WP doesn't give his identity as a conspiracy theorist top billing is a considerable flaw in that article and may reflect LaRouche disciples WP:OWNing that article, in much the same way that I suspect they've tried to WP:OWN this one from time to time, as well as the Webster Tarpley biography. Focusing on this article, there is more reliable media coverage of the involvement of LaRouche and his disciples than the Franklin Committee's final report. According to Misplaced Pages policy, LaRouche and his disciples should therefore be given greater space and weight, including the lede, than the Franklin Committee report. Our opinions must be subordinated to Misplaced Pages policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a question. But is it the most important question? I think that if we asked ourselves how this article could be improved the most, the answer would not include LaRouche. That's a minor, but still significant, sideshow. As a slightly engaged observer, I'd say that this article is noted for the passionate engagement of its editors and of the interested parties. Less is more: let's edit conservatively with respect of living people and strive for consensus and stability. Will Beback talk 11:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd become involved more, Will. You've been editing this article for several years, so you're more familiar with its editing histories and the personalities that have come and gone. Also, with your experience as an administrator, I'm sure you've been learning a lot about policy, and that you're concerned about policy violations on this page. I was greatly relieved when the Bryant book was proven to be an unreliable source at RSN. But it appears that its advocates have only shifted their focus, rather than accepting the grand jury findings and perjury trial verdict as the majority opinion in this article. Now that they can't use Bryant as the principal source of this article, they're now trying to use one or two Omaha World-Herald articles that have been reprinted (with questionable reliability) on Bryant's website, to achieve the same effect: giving the minority/fringe conspiracy theory more space and weight. How do you feel about WP:WEIGHT at this point? And what is your answer to the question you posed: how can this article be improved the most? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. You know full well that no one even considered using Bryant as a principle source for the article nor has anyone rejected the grand jury and perjury findings as the majority opinion although the word majority is WP:OR and WP:POV. The correct term would be primary opinion as polls taken at the time indicate they were not a majority opinion. The "focus" has always been on NPOV and has not changed one iota. As far as I know the OWH has been in the article for some time and is not something added since Bryant was rejected. If you believe the OWH articles have been fabricated please supply evidence or is that more WP:OR? Wayne (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"You know full well that no one even considered using Bryant as a principle source ..." Previous versions of this article cite Bryant's book repeatedly as a reference for the statements presented in the article mainspace.

"... polls taken at the time indicate they were not a majority opinion." You have a reliable source for these multiple polls you're relying on so heavily, right? Would you care to post a link to that reliable source? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryant may have been used as a source but it was never the principle source. The Omaha World Herald (one of Nebraska's two primary daily newspapers) polled readers, finding that 70% did not agree with the Grand Jury verdict. The Lincoln Journal Star (the other Nebraska major daily) conducted a similar poll finding that 56% of readers believed the Grand Jury was a cover-up. Wayne (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the link. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

I notice that Phoenix and Winslow has deleted more text despite a request that edits be discussed to avoid edit warring. Due to the dispute, unless it is for grammar corrections I suggest Phoenix and Winslow show some good faith and work with editors to improve the article, not against.

The following are the edits that are being discussed in WP:CN. The edits disputed, and deleted, by Phoenix and Winslow are in bold text.

Lawrence King convictions
Lawrence King faced 40 charges relating to the collapse of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and the embezzlement of $38 million from the Franklin credit union. In 1991 the court accepted a plea bargain, dropping 37 charges with King admitting guilt to three. King was later declared mentally incompetent to stand trial and sentenced to three consecutive 5-year prison terms. According to the New York Times, Democratic Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers stated King's involvement in the Franklin scandal was "just the tip of an iceberg, and he's not in it by himself." The Times also reported Chambers claimed to have heard credible reports of "boys and girls, some of them from foster homes, who had been transported around the country by airplane to provide sexual favors, for which they were rewarded." But the grand jury never called King as a witness, and he was never indicted or convicted for the alleged sexual crimes against children.

Bonacci Case
On February 1, 1991, former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp filed a civil suit on behalf of Paul Bonacci. The suit named Lawrence King, the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, the Omaha World-Herald, retired Omaha World-Herald publisher Harold W. Andersen, the Omaha School District, former Omaha Police Chief Robert Wadham, and others. The Bonacci suit alleged that King and the other named defendants had forced Bonacci to participate in a child-prostitution ring that involved satanic rituals and orgies with other boys and girls. The federal judge removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town and an appeal against the removal failed. The other named defendants were cleared, leaving only King to stand trial.

Bonacci won a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in the civil action against King. King was in prison at the time, having been sentenced in June 1991 following his conviction in the criminal case. Urbom stated that King had been served the court summons in prison and could have responded but that there was "no indication he wanted to dispute this." The judge declined to consider the merits of the petition's allegations, stating that the failure of King's attorney to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Wayne (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the deleted information should be reinstated, as it adds clarity. In particular, including the named defendants in the Bonacci case and the specific nature of the allegations deserves mention. With regard to the charges brought against King, I believe it is important to mention that King was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. I am somewhat less concerned about deletion of the phrase the collapse of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and, since this fact is not directly relevant to the matter at hand. All of the deleted material is sourced. Apostle12 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In most cases the material is redundant, In one case (identifying each and every one of the Bonacci lawsuit defendants who were later dismissed out of the suit), it's minutiae. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not a 300-page book. And in the last case, I can't find any reliable source stating that King was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. If he was, how was he found guilty on the embezzlement charges? And if you can prove with reliable sources that he was found incompetent, but later found competent to stand trial and found guilty, is it notable enough to include in the article? Again we're talking about minutiae here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The competency issue is quite complex. Some information regarding his March, 1990 declaration of incompetence can be found here: http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126:king-expands-into-food-service-something-on-every-burner-jan-12-1985-&catid=6:news-articles&Itemid=14. ("...earlier mental examinations and testing that led in March to his being declared incompetent to assist his lawyers in a defense.") Here King's former lover, Terry Wies, discusses Kings possible motive for pretending incompetence: http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95:king-expands-into-food-service-something-on-every-burner-jan-12-1985-&catid=6:news-articles&Itemid=14

In the end, King decided not to stand trial. He accepted a plea bargain, admitting guilt to 3 of the 40 counts of embezzlement and fraud, and he served nearly 10 years of his 15-year sentence based on that admission of guilt. There are a number of other sources that discuss King's competency, which was debated among medical professionals at the time.

The information surrounding King's pre-trial actions, the declaration of his incompetency, debate about his competency, and related matters appears in a series of contemporaneous OWH and WSJ articles.

I have decided to resume editing this article.Apostle12 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that the original proposed edits also included Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm., however I agreed with Phoenix and Winslow that that edit was uneccassary so did not include it in the above. Wayne (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you have rejected my effort at compromise by again labeling King as a Republican in the article lede. Your campaign to inflate everything besides the majority opinion doesn't have the support of consensus here on the Talk page; even if it did, Misplaced Pages policy (specifically WP:WEIGHT) is more important than consensus. If you want to write a book about everything except the majority opinion, write your book and have it published by Trine Day, or self-publish it. In the alternative, you can write a separate Misplaced Pages article about the Bonacci lawsuit, another about Gary Caradori, another about the two foster parents, and another about the embezzlement charges, and we can link them all here. This article is about the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, the fact that they were found to be a "carefully crafted hoax," and the reasons why the accusers would be found by any court to have no credibility.

The article mainspace already covers the most important events of the Bonacci lawsuit, the embezzlement case and the death of Caradori. Dumping in buckets of trivia, and repeating facts that were already provided earlier in the article, is unencyclopedic even if reliable sources can be found. We provide links to the sources and if readers are interested, they can click on the links and read more about it. This Misplaced Pages article should not become a mirror for Franklincase.com, or any other unreliable website. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet again Phoenix and Winslow has dishonestly deleted existing text along with a revert without noting that he did so. "Labeling" King as a Republican had consensus before any issues went to a noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow offering a "compromise" to exclude it is WP:OWN and the continual reversion is edit warring. Contrary to what Phoenix and Winslow wants, this article is not about the Grand Jury findings but the allegations. I will follow his lead and suggest that he write a separate Misplaced Pages article on the Grand Jury findings which is the standard procedure for other similar articles such as the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy which has a section for, and a separate article, for the Hindmarsh Island Royal Commission that found the allegations to be a hoax. Editing to say "all" the allegations were thrown out is POV pushing as clearly they were not. The 1985 investigation and allegations involving the Webbs were the trigger for the entire Franklin investigation and they were specifically included in the Grand Jury investigation. In fact the Webbs should have their own section. Phoenix and Winslow insists the Grand Jury be given more weight and yet cherry picks by deleting some of their findings. As far as the Franklin Commission is concerned, replacing "convened to look into the allegations" with the actual brief they were given is factual and relevant. This Misplaced Pages article should not become a mirror for PhoenixandWinslow.com. Possibly Caradori has too much weight and I'll address that shortly but Phoenix and Winslow can discuss any remaining problems he has with that here. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Caradori, prior to yesterday's revision the article mentioned Caradori's death under the heading "Coverup Allegations," yet it provided no context to suggest why his death might be considered suspicious. Since ample evidence, with good sourcing, is available as to why Caradori's death was suspicious, this information is relevant. The section on Caradori is hardly bloated with trivia or unencyclopedic.

I note that some weeks ago Phoenix and Winslow himself added the following regarding Caradori:

Of course this addition served to discredit Caradori's investigation. So to maintain NPOV, a balancing paragraph became necessary, since the Franklin Committee made a special point of defending Caradori in their final report.

The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about his investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci."

(Please note that the balancing paragraph is somewhat shorter than the paragraph that attempted to indict Caradori and, by extension, the Franklin Committee.)

If we choose to pare down discussion of Caradori in this article, I would propose that we delete both Phoenix and Winslow's discrediting paragraph and the balancing paragraph that dealt with the Franklin Committee's defense of Caradori. The highly relevant information regarding threats made against Caradori, the tampering with his automobiles, and his concern (voiced to a highly reliable witness prior to the plane crash that killed him and his young son) that his plane might be similarly sabotaged--these facts need to appear in the "Coverup Allegations" section.Apostle12 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much space. Too much weight. What effect did the declaration of mental incompetency for Lawrence King (to give just one example) have on the outcome of the case? What effect did the investigation of the Webbs have on the outcome of the case? What is it that makes all these trivial details notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article? The brief and convoluted reference to King's incompetency finding can be safely left out of the article, since it isn't notable. The same thing goes for the involvement of the Webbs, the death of Caradori's son in the plane crash, and a host of other minor details. The official finding of a government agency was that the Caradori plane crash was an accident. Once again, all these details you want to add just happen to be the details that give fuel and oxygen to conspiracy theorists. Misplaced Pages is not the Executive Intelligence Review nor is it Wikispooks.com. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of using Bryant's Conspiracy Press book as the principal source for this article, we are using an Omaha World-Herald article that was republished on Bryant's website. And what article do you suppose it is? "Franklin Panel Faults Grand Jury's Conclusions." It's cited 13 times — almost as many as all other sources combined. The second most frequently cited source in this article is "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit," another OWH article republished on Bryant's website. It's cited three times. If I enforced the letter of the law from WP:RS, none of the OWH articles that are republished on Bryant's website satisfy our reliable source standards because they have been republished. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Will Beback wants to include information in the article about James Bevel's criminal conviction for improper sexual relations with his young daughters. Since Bevel was in Nebraska making child prostitution allegations during the same time period he was having sex with his daughters, according to Will the hypocrisy is evident and notable. Should we include that detail? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to mention of Bevel's hypocricy, though I don't see it as critical--it just further discredits LaRouche et al; they are pretty discredited already, and I don't see anyone wanting to defend them. I agree that the March 1990 finding as to King's incompetence, as well as the lengthy professional debate concerning same, are not important to this article (Just checked to be sure; it's not even mentioned in the current edit.) The investigation into the Webbs triggered the Franklin Committee investigation, and they are mentioned both in the grand jury report and the Franklin Committee report, so they are notable and relevant--we probably should track down what became of them and mention that. We could delete mention of Caradori's son's death, though doing so saves but a few words--far more than that was deleted during the revert. As mentioned above, I believe we could safely delete the Grand Jury/Franklin Committee debate re: Caradori's integrity. This would eliminate two full paragraphs. If we are to use Trine Day's mission statement (a triviality that Phoenix and Winslow insisted on adding), I believe it should be quoted in full; personally I believe the mission statement could be deleted entirely with no ill effect.Apostle12 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets step back for a minute. The continual reversions are leading to loss of material and inclusion of errors. For example, several edits that had consensus have been deleted and the Franklin response is now incorrectly noted as a report. The Webbs are very relevant because there would have been no allegations without them and the Grand Jury included them in it's investigation, the mental incompetency of King is relevant because, according to the Franklin Committtee, a trial where they expected the sexual abuse claims against him would be addressed was avoided. It should be noted that as the Grand Juries findings were sealed, the only source we have for it is the Franklin Committee and OWH, both reliable sources. The OWH cites are valid by themselves and can be used without any online availability. Bryants website reproduces copies and photostats of OWH pages so are only used as a convenience for the WP reader to avoid the need to pay to see the original. To reject it as an unreliable source for this use would be counterproductive. Excluding facts because they may give "fuel and oxygen to conspiracy theorists" is dishonest although I agree that Caradori can be reworded to be less accusatory. Weight is not a significant issue as the article is about the allegations. I still feel we can discuss the merits of edits without one editor dictating what can or can not be in the article. I also ask Apostle12 to discuss edits here. Lets avoid this edit warring. Wayne (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Franklin Committee report is referred to as a "report" both in the article where the full text appears and in the OWH article discussing same. The report does "respond" to the grand jury report, however I believe calling it a "response" could be confusing. Probably better to standardize our terminology here. Apostle12 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I believe editor Phoenix and Winslow may be in violation of the Three Revert Rule. Could someone more familiar with its function please check. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to look into this. I hate trying to judge 3RR violations. Suffice it to say that edit warring is strongly discouraged and may result in blocks. While three reverts per day is the formal limit, editors may be blocked for fewer if there's an appearance of sterile reverting. I urge editors here to seek consensus on the talk page, to avoid using edit summaries for discussion, and to perhaps take a voluntary break from article edits in order for the talk page discussions to catch up. I further advise editors to seek mediation. WP:MEDCAB. Will Beback talk 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Consensus is impossible when good faith is lacking, as I believe it is with editor Phoenix and Winslow; he wants to own the article, plain and simple. I took a voluntary break from editing, however nothing was resolved in my absence. Visited the mediation page; just to fill out the form would take half a day. Frankly I'm not willing to invest much more time in a process that, according to the description offered, seems unlikely to solve the problem. Apostle12 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start

I am totally up for discussion. To me that means give and take, good faith efforts to arrive at meaningful compromise, and respect for one another’s opinions. It’s a bit awkward to do this because the Wiki mechanics do not allow one to move back and forth between the talk page, the article as it appears now, and previous versions of the article. Every time one tries to do so, the talk page composition is deleted.

I’ll begin at the start of the article:

-There was an objection to a lede phrase, “a prominent Republican fundraiser.” I think the suggested revision is fine. It read “a prominent Nebraska political figure, first with the Democratic Party and then with the Republican party.”

-There was an objection to a lede sentence, “The Franklin Committee denounced the grand jury's findings.” While I realize the Franklin Committee did not use the term “denounce,” they voiced many criticisms and objections, while at the same time completely rejecting the grand jury conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” So I decided simply to quote from the report: “The Franklin Committee issued a final report, objecting to the grand jury findings for multiple reasons. In particular they “fail(ed) to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities was ‘a carefully crafted hoax.’" (To me "denounce" is shorthand for this, but hey...) What doesn’t work for me is completely eliminating any mention that the Franklin Committee strenuously objected to the grand jury findings.

-I think it’s fine to mention that some conspiracy theorists have gotten involved. Specific mention of LaRouche seems to me to give him undeserved prominence. I added this to the last paragraph of the lede: “Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and others by conspiracy theorists.”

-The current version of “Grand jury findings” looks fine. I think “a carefully crafted hoax” should be eliminated. The grand jury said a lot more than that--apparently they didn’t think the Webb’s foster children were perpetrating a “hoax,” for example.

-The current version of “Franklin Committee report” needs to be revised to eliminate the phrase “denounced the grand jury findings.” I think this works:

Although the Franklin Committee had originally recommended empaneling the Douglas County grand jury, in their final report all five committee members (State Senators Schmit, Warner, Labedz, Lynch and Baack) objected to the grand jury findings for multiple reasons. In particular they “fail(ed) to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities was ‘a carefully crafted hoax.’"

"To assume that the 'hoax' was crafted assumed the existence of a craftsman. Who was it? To state that it was 'carefully crafted' assumes someone with intelligence and enough knowledge of accurate facts to make the 'hoax' credible. ... We can find no clear evidence which conclusively establishes what was the truth and what was a hoax."

The committee was critical of the grand jury's finding that Citron's case was unconnected to Franklin. They also disagreed with the grand jury's decision not to call Lawrence King as a witness or charge him with sexual crimes, since that prevented a full investigation. "Who might he have implicated? ... We are left wondering whether there is much more to this story."

Nebraska Senator Loran Schmit, head of the Franklin Committee, called the grand jury report "a strange document"...."That is the kindest thing I can say about it."

I think it is correct to note that this article is titled “Franklin child prostitution ring allegations.” It is not entitled “Grand jury debunks false accusers” or “A carefully crafted hoax.” Therefore each perspective related to the allegations requires full exposition. There is no majority/minority opinion.

-I believe the “Bonacci case” revision I proposed previously is still appropriate for the reasons I expressed in the discussion pages. Have made a few changes to eliminate redundant info re: King's sentence.:

At the time of the civil trial, King was still in prison serving a fifteen year sentence related to financial crimes at Franklin Community Federal Credit Union. He was served a court summons, however he never responded to Bonacci's allegations. Judge Urbom said, "There is no indication he (King) wanted to dispute this."

On February 4, 1999, Judge Urbom awarded Bonacci a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in the civil action against King. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petitioner's allegations, however he ruled that the failure of King's legal representation to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm.

An appeal of the $1 million judgment against King was filed, however he dropped the appeal in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.

-Since the “Coverup allegation” section discusses coverup allegations, I believe it is important to mention the factors that raised suspicion with respect to the crash of Caradori’s plane. It’s good that we now have a source for the official NTSB report—this information should be highlighted, along with the fact that Caradori was threatened and his cars tampered with. That he feared his plane might be sabotaged, and expressed this fear to others, is also important. I believe the Caradori section should read:

Gary Caradori, a former Nebraska State Patrol trooper and private investigator, had been hired as lead investigator by the Franklin Committee as they explored the allegations of sexual child abuse. In late June 1990, Caradori told Trish Lanphier — founder of Concerned Parents, a parents' group formed after the Franklin child abuse allegations first surfaced — that he had received threats, that his automobiles had been tampered with, and that he feared his plane might also be sabotaged. Caradori's brother alleged that the family had been threatened and told to "back off." On July 11 1990, Caradori and his eight-year-old son were killed when Caradori's small plane broke up in flight over Illinois. The National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the crash was an accident and that the breakup of the plane was likely caused by pilot error.

Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmit told the Omaha World-Herald that " believed that something was going to come out of this investigation. He believed that the evidence was there to be developed and that things couldn't stay under cover forever." Pamela Vuchetich, a Lincoln Nebraska attorney for one of the young men who had alleged sexual abuse, commented that Caradori's death "sure puts some holes in the case. He was a major player in it. He had a lot of knowledge. That's been lost."

The grand jury's report, which appeared after Caradori's death, alleged that Caradori was leading his witnesses and feeding them information: "We believe that Caradori was duped into working with Casey, who took advantage of Caradori's background information." The grand jury also described Casey, a free-lance writer, as a con man and alleged that Caradori "stood to gain professionally and personally" from the sexual abuse allegations. The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about his investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci."

Out of time, so that’s it for now. Welcome your comments. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not crazy about the wording but I can accept that.
Would "rejected" work?
I dont think mention of conspiracy theorists belong in the lead as they are not notable enough. I didn't know any were involved at all but then I dont live in the U.S. so it could be more prominent there.
"a carefully crafted hoax" should be removed from the section heading. Not only because that was not all they "found" but also because WP is not a newspaper and shouldn't be written in that style.
Looks ok but I'm open to modification.
I feel that "filed a civil suit alleging sexual abuse on behalf of Paul Bonacci" works better than the last sentence of the first para. The third paragraph reads better as "King was in prison at the time, having been sentenced in June 1991 to 15 years following his conviction in the criminal case. Urbom stated that King had been served the court summons in prison and could have responded but that there was "no indication he wanted to dispute this." I dont think we need the last sentence of the fourth para.
I dont think we should include the hearsay evidence of threats. I'll be bold and suggest the following:
Following concerns from the Nebraska Legislature regarding the lack of progress in the investigation, in October 1989, the Legislature set up the Franklin Committee to investigate the allegations. After being informed that there was little supporting evidence and no leads to follow up, the Franklin Committee hired Gary Caradori, a former Nebraska State Patrol trooper and private investigator, as a special investigator. Caradori went on to accumulate several tons of documents, many of which allegedly supported various allegations. On July 11 1990, Caradori and his eight-year-old son were killed when Caradori's plane broke up in flight over Illinois. Despite speculation following claims that Caradori had been receiving death threats, the National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the crash was an accident likely caused by pilot error.
Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmit told the Omaha World-Herald that " believed that something was going to come out of this investigation. He believed that the evidence was there to be developed and that things couldn't stay under cover forever." Pamela Vuchetich, a Lincoln Nebraska attorney for one of the young men who had alleged sexual abuse, commented that Caradori's death "sure puts some holes in the case. He was a major player in it. He had a lot of knowledge. That's been lost." Following Caradori’s death his documents were seized by the FBI and were not made available for the Grand Jury investigation. A later attempt to access the records for Owens perjury trial was unsuccessful.
The Grand Jury report alleged that Caradori was leading his witnesses and feeding them information: "We believe that Caradori was duped into working with Casey, who took advantage of Caradori's background information." The grand jury also described Casey, a free-lance writer, as a con man and alleged that Caradori "stood to gain professionally and personally" from the sexual abuse allegations. The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about his investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci."
Comments? Wayne (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with you, however I'm having trouble correlating your comments with mine. For example, when you write "Looks okay, but I'm open to modification," I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Re: the Bonacci case, I think it's important to establish the connection between the nature of the suit and the eventual size of the award. The reason I think this is important is because Bonacci alleged not just that King had fondled him or molested him, but rather that King had "forced Bonacci to participate in a child-prostitution ring that involved satanic rituals and orgies with other boys and girls." Your proposed third paragraph revision looks fine.

Re: Caradori I think the information regarding the origins of the Franklin Committee is redundant. The background information on Caradori is helpful, but may be too lengthy. I believe it is appropriate to refer to the threats (not referred to in our source specifically as "death" threats), the tampering with his cars, and his fear that his plane might be sabotaged--our source refers to several individuals attesting to these security issues. Also, the information regarding Owen's perjury trial is not relevant here (perhaps it should be mentioned in that section), and some terminology was awkward (e.g. do you literally mean "tons of documents"?). I've worked on what you submitted, below:

The Franklin Committee hired Gary Caradori, a former Nebraska State Patrol trooper and private investigator, as head investigator to follow up leads and develop supporting evidence in the Franklin case. Caradori collected documents, photographs, videotaped statements, and other material. During the course of his investigation, threats were made against Caradori and his family and his cars were tampered with. Caradori expressed concern that the private plane he used during the course of the investigation might be sabotaged. On July 11 1990, Caradori and his eight-year-old son were killed when Caradori's plane broke up in flight over Illinois. The National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the crash was an accident likely caused by pilot error.

Following Caradori’s death, his collected documents and other materials were seized by the FBI and were not made available for the grand jury investigation. Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmit told the Omaha World-Herald that " believed that something was going to come out of this investigation. He believed that the evidence was there to be developed and that things couldn't stay under cover forever." Pamela Vuchetich, a Lincoln Nebraska attorney for one of the young men who had alleged sexual abuse, commented that Caradori's death "sure puts some holes in the case. He was a major player in it. He had a lot of knowledge. That's been lost."

The Grand Jury report alleged that Caradori was leading his witnesses and feeding them information: "We believe that Caradori was duped into working with Casey, who took advantage of Caradori's background information." The grand jury also described Casey, a free-lance writer, as a con man and alleged that Caradori "stood to gain professionally and personally" from the sexual abuse allegations. The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about the investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci.Apostle12 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You used a - to separate edits so my fifth * was refering to the fifth edit you suggested. Re: the Bonacci case, I'm concerned that too much detail may spur edit warring, perhaps substitute "filed a civil suit on behalf of Paul Bonacci, repeating the sexual abuse claims made in his previously recanted testimony"? Re: Caradori, Context is important. My para explains why Caradori was brought in which is relevant as the Grand Jury stated he shouldn't have been and made allegations against him. The first three sentences could be moved to the first section though with your para modified to suit the shift of info. I think we should shy away from the perception of being too accusatory to avoid problems with edit warring both now and in the future so your revised para eliminating specific threats now looks better. The information regarding Owen's perjury trial is possibly more relevant here as it is in context with the background of the info "being lost" whereas in her section it would be "orphaned" with no indication of importance. I did literally mean "tons of documents" as that is how the quantity is usually described, apparently the FBI used several flatbed trucks to transport them. Wayne (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I now understand about the fifth edit.

Re: Bonacci, I suppose you are correct about the edit warring. I'm concerned that the phrase "abuse claims made in his previously recanted testimony" will be impossible to untangle except for the few who already have studied the case. (Too bad this case is so unbelievably complex!) I'm not sure why the desire to make things clear should spur edit warring, unless the desire truly is to obscure.

It' just as complex trying to explain why Caradori was brought in and why the grand jury had a vested interest in discrediting him. You are correct that it is relevant; again not sure how to clarify the whole picture in a concise way.

The connection to the loss of the information to Owen's perjury trial is similarly relevant (in the context of obfuscation), however it's difficult to convey because of the time sequencing--the perjury trial happened after all the main events.

Although it may be literally true that Caradori collected "tons" of material, I don't think we can use this term without it sounding metaphorical and thus unencyclopedic. Do we have a reliable source for the fact that it took several flatbed trucks for the FBI to transport the material? If so, we could communicate just how much material there was by referring to this fact rather than saying "tons." Similarly, if we had a reliable source for the fact that the FBI took photographic evidence (obtained from Rusty Nelson) and other material away from the crash site before the NTSB investigation we could clarify why Caradori might have been eliminated.

Needs work. This weekend is tax weekend in the U.S. (tomorrow is the deadline for filing federal taxes), so no more time right now. I think we will need to come up with some edit proposals based on this discussion, perhaps scaling back the more ambitious goal of explaining everything in favor of doing what is possible to clarify the most important points. Apostle12 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I took two and a half days off from this article. Changing the citation at the end of the article from "Franklin Committee report denouncing the grand jury report" to "Franklin Committee response to the grand jury report" is the only good thing I see, since it makes the article more NPOV. The other changes are no good, for reasons I have already discussed at great length, over and over, ad infinitum. I won't repeat that detailed discussion again but will highlight important points: You just don't have consensus for all these changes. They are a violation of WP:WEIGHT. They elevate a minority opinion to majority status, which in turn is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. They simply describe King as a "prominent Republican" when the sources you cite make it very clear that for most of his life he was a Democrat. Wayne, describing him "first as a Democrat, then as a Republican" and mentioning conspiracy theorists in the lede restores NPOV, and apparently this is supported by Apostle12. Jarrett and Barbara Webb are such a minor facet of this story that they don't even rate a footnote.

Some of the details that you wish to add are unsourced in reliable sources, although I'm sure they appear in Bryant's book. The most important of these appears to be the claim that the grand jury accepted the fact that the accusers had been sexually abused, but then found that they had misidentified their abusers. The weekend's edits also mention certain details redundantly. Throwing in all these details, and especially repeating them over and over, adds space and weight to the minority opinion; we cite the sources, so if the reader is seeking more detail, he can look up those sources. That's what encyclopedia articles do: they briefly summarize the most salient facts, maintain perspective regarding majority and minority opinion, and cite sources for those who seek out more details. Encyclopedia articles are clear but CONCISE.

Apostle12 ended the weekend's discussion on a very promising note: "scaling back the more ambitious goal of explaining everything in favor of... clarify the most important points." That's what writing an encyclopedia article is all about. We need to keep it clear, but also short. Most of all, it must be completely neutral. Therefore we cannot show favoritism for the minority POV. If you want to take this to RfC and then mediation, I would agree to that. I was supported unanimously by the previously uninvolved editors at WP:RSN, and I suspect you may experience a similar result again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: I take issue with the characterization that the Franklin Committee was "completely rejecting" the grand jury's findings. They did stick up for Caradori in an unequivocal way. But regarding the central finding, the Committee said "we can't tell how much is true, and how much is a hoax" (or similar words to that effect). So the Committee accepted the fact that at least part of the allegations were a hoax. That isn't a complete rejection, and we definitely shouldn't characterize it that way in the mainspace. The Committee seemed to be more concerned with the grand jury's failure to explicitly identify the hoaxter(s) — but in indicting Bonacci and Owen on multiple perjury counts, the grand jury's actions spoke louder than any words could.

Again, if you want RfC and then mediation, just let me know. But I believe it will only reinforce my position in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We are making an attempt to work together to improve the page by discussing edits before any are made and were hoping you would participate, but again you reject co-operation by introducing WP:OWN and reverting what you dont like which not only included some of our previous edits but existing text. Your revert also introduced several errors such as the claim that all charges were thrown out and that Bonnacci was convicted when in fact he was awaiting trial. WP:WEIGHT is not an issue on your word alone and I myself increased the Grand Jury section by including more detail on their findings and have been arguing to pare down Caradori. WP articles are not meant to summarise the most important facts and leave the reader to use the sources if they want more information as you claim, the articles are meant to be stand alone articles where sources can be checked for minor details. As there is nothing in the text that you reverted that is not reliably sourced and factual I reverted it for discussion. Jarrett and Barbara Webb are such a major facet that there would have been no Franklin Committtee or Grand Jury at all without them and I will probably add a section on their involvement eventually but we are working on the existing text first which includes addressing your concerns that have merit. Requesting RFCs and mediation for every reliably sourced edit you disagree with is not good faith. Please try and work with editors and discuss your view so we can get consensus. Wayne (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Phoenix and Winslow is still having trouble with discussion, I suggest that we discuss only one section at a time to avoid being bogged down with debating too many edits at once. Hopefully this will avoid excessively long replies on why the edits are wrong and allow Phoenix and Winslow to discuss a few edits at a time more clearly. Wayne (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no trouble at all with discussion. I have trouble with completely pointless and unproductive discussions; my time is valuable and if I'm going to waste it, I'd much rather be playing a computer game than arguing with the two of you over your latest WP:FRINGE violation. It appears that WLRoss has a long and colorful history of POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory, and unfortunately, presenting his behavior in an RfC may be the most productive way to finally resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage Phoenix and Winslow to participate in discussion of the specific points, one section at a time, so that we may arrive at consensus on those points. We welcome his participation, however if he doesn't wish to devote the required time to discuss the article in productive ways that is his choice. Apostle12 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on "The Franklin Committee final report"

Good idea Wayne. What I'd like to do here is focus on the section called "Franklin Committee Final Report." In this section our aim must be to provide a true rendering of the position of the Franklin Committee regarding the grand jury findings. Let’s see if we can, through discussion, arrive at consensus on this one section.

Currently this section reads as follows:

Awhile back I suggested the following:

Nebraska Senator Loran Schmit, head of the Franklin Committee, called the grand jury report "a strange document"...."That is the kindest thing I can say about it."

Perhaps instead of arguing endlessly about terminology (e.g. “Did the Franklin Committee ‘partially accept,’ ‘partially reject,’ ‘reject,’ or ‘denounce’ the grand jury report?"), we might best concentrate on what the committee actually said in their final written report, which was signed by all the committee members. With full access to this written report (especially since the Douglas County grand jury report has been sealed, and the records of Alisha Owen’s perjury trial have been “lost”), this remains our best hope of arriving at consensus. Here’s what I get from the Franklin Committee report:

1./ The grand jury was charged with investigation of the Franklin Community Credit Union, alleged illegal activities by Lawrence E. King and others associated with the credit union, and activities involving drug use, drug trafficking, child pornography, illicit sexual activity and sexual child abuse.

2./ A primary reason for the empowerment of the Franklin Committee were the longstanding (since 1985) allegations that matters involving child sexual abuse were not being adequately investigated by the authorities normally charged with such investigations. The Franklin Committee was concurrently charged with investigating matters associated with the credit union’s collapse.

3./ The Franklin Committee and its chief investigator, Gary Caradori, did everything in their power to keep the investigation confidential. Mr. Caradori did share the results of his investigation with law enforcement.

4./ After the Douglas County grand jury made its report public, the Franklin Committee commented that this was “unprecedented” and no longer saw merit in keeping matters associated with the investigation confidential.

5./ The Franklin Committee investigated matters under their purview for 540 days; the grand jury investigation lasted 82 days. Given this fact, the Franklin Committee considered itself qualified to comment on matters included in the grand jury report.

6./ The Franklin Committee agreed with the report as follows:

a./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding of probable cause with respect to Lawrence King’s solicitation of men in their late teens and early 20s to engage in acts of prostitution and other illicit sexual activities. The Franklin Committee agreed that it might be expensive to prosecute King for these and other crimes, however they disagreed with the grand jury’s decision not to prosecute him. The Franklin Committee thought King should have been indicted.

b./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Washington County district attorney should have filed criminal charges against Jarrett Webb in connection with his sexual abuse of foster children in his care. They also agreed with the decision of the new Washington County district attorney to file such charges.

c./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Omaha Police Department did not adequately follow up on allegations of sexual abuse and cult activity, which led to a lack of public confidence in the Omaha Police Department. They agreed that the Omaha Police Department handling of continued complaints of sexual abuse against children was “flawed” and marked by “indifference.”

d./ They agreed with the grand jury that the media had been irresponsible in printing material leaked to them about the Franklin case and the personalities associated with the case.

e./ They agreed with the grand jury finding that more than 500 pedophiles lived in the Omaha, Nebraska area and regularly preyed on young children. Here the Franklin Committee raised a critical question: “Why, given all this illicit sexual activity with children, were there so few complaints registered, why was so little attention given to the sexual abuse complaints that were submitted, and why was the rate of conviction so low?”

f./ They were disappointed that so few victims of childhood sexual abuse were willing to cooperate with the authorities, however they agreed with the decisions, following the grand jury’s recommendations, to prosecute Jarrett Webb, Alan Baer and Peter Citron.

g./ They agreed with the grand jury recommendations for constructive changes in the laws governing child sexual abuse.

7./ The Franklin Committee expressed “profound disappointment” with the grand jury conclusions with respect to the following:

a./ Their stated conclusions about the Franklin Committee.

b./ Their stated conclusions about the integrity of individual Franklin Committee members.

c./ Their stated conclusions regarding the integrity of investigator Gary Caradori.

d./ Their stated conclusions regarding the videotaped testimony of three witnesses interviewed by investigator Gary Caradori.

e./ The overall tone of the grand jury report and its apparent eagerness to find fault with the Franklin Committee, even to the point of questioning the validity of the committee’s existence.

8./ The Franklin Committee was particularly appalled that the grand jury criticized them for “straying” in pursuing allegations of child sexual abuse, and it pointed out that the committee had specifically been charged by the Nebraska Legislature with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse; they stated that the committee would have been derelict in its duties had it not done so.

9./ The Franklin Committee expressed consternation that the grand jury criticized them for lack of due diligence, with the grand jury going so far as to claim that had the committee done its work it would not have been necessary to convene the grand jury.

10./ The Franklin Committee went to great lengths to clarify that grand jury criticism was groundless, especially with respect to the committee not following proper protocol in conducting its meetings.

11./ The Franklin Committee reserved its strongest condemnation for the grand jury’s stated opinion that the Nebraska State Legislature, and its appointed committee, should not be involved in the investigation of alleged crimes, citing as national precedents the Watergate investigation, RICO investigations into organized crime, investigations that centered on the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional investigation of the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy. They rejected completely the grand jury’s assertion that "The Legislature is not in the business of investigating alleged crimes.”

12./ Most relevant to our discussion here were the Franklin Committee statements regarding the grand jury’s conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” With regard to this conclusion the Franklin Committee, in its typically understated (and sometimes droll) way, said the following:

a./ They said they were “puzzled by the choice of words and the basis for the conclusion.”

b./ Quoting the Franklin Committee report: “As Committee members who viewed the tapes, interrogated our investigator (Caradori), and looked at other corroborating circumstances, we wonder how the grand jury was able to differentiate between “a carefully crafted hoax” and the truth. To the extent that the grand jury relied on allegations against Mr. Casey and the claims of movie rights to the ‘scandal,’ these allegations were known to the (Franklin Committee), and we found them unsubstantiated and unpersuasive. Apparently the grand jury did not take testimony from Mr. Casey. To the extent the (grand jury) conclusion was based on the now famous recantation by Troy Boner, perhaps it was the grand jury that was the victim of the hoax. Mr. Boner has now betrayed himself as a pathological liar. If the grand jury believed Mr. Boner over Alisha Owen, who stands by her story, the hoax may well have been perpetrated on the grand jury.”

Please note that taking certain sections out of context from the above-quoted text (b./) of the Franklin committee report cannot support an argument stipulating that the Franklin Committee agreed that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee went on to say “We assume from their choice of words—“a carefully crafted hoax”—that the grand jury was persuaded that the testimony of the witnesses corroborated each other, and included facts and circumstances that were readily verifiable and attested to by other witnesses. Otherwise it could not logically be deemed “carefully crafted.” If it was “carefully crafted,” who crafted it and when?”

The Franklin Committee continued its commentary before issuing a final rejection/condemnation/denunciation of the grand jury’s most central finding—that the Franklin case was “a carefully crafted hoax.” Lest there be any doubt as to where the committee stood, it stated unequivocally “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee closed by showing a certain faith in the judicial process, with Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen standing by their videotaped testimony (even as Boner and King had recanted) and Owen facing her perjury trial. The committee roundly criticized the grand jury's choice to award Boner and King for having recanted. And their faith in the judicial process turned out to be unwarranted; Paul Bonacci, prior to his death (which occurred under suspicious circumstances), stated that the FBI pressured him with threats to recant his testimony just before the perjury trial (he swore in an affadavit that his videotaped statement, and Owen's, were absolutely true), leaving Owen alone and defenseless before prosecutors who had much to lose if she were found innocent. Apostle12 (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I suggest doing the easy sections first, beginning with the lead. These sections, with relatively few or minor disputes, should be quick to get out of the way and will also be a good showcase for Phoenix and Winslow proving that he is able to collaborate to improve the article. Wayne (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Lede Section

Lets start with the lead. There are only two disputed edits and we are already working on a word to replace "denounced".
Although consensus is to call King a "prominent Republican fundraiser" it has been suggested that it be noted that he was a democrat before he became a republican.

The media don’t consider it notable that King was a democrat (it is not mentioned at all by the NYT or WP). The current mention is actually innocuous when compared to most RS that commonly describe King as a Republican activist," "rising star in the Republican party" and/or "GOP high roller." King's involvement with the Democrats was limited to being the head of the organization "Black Democrats for George McGovern" while he later gained significant prominence as the chairman of the "National Black Republican Council", hosted Republican National Conventions and donated millions to the GOP. I have no problem with his Democrat background being mentioned in the article body but I don’t feel it is relevant for the lead.

The other disputed edit is mention of Lyndon LaRouche in the lead, specifically: "Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and others by conspiracy theorists such as Lyndon LaRouche."

LaRouche's involvement is barely notable and irrelevant for the lead and he already has a significant mention in the article body that states he is a conspiracy theorist although this is possibly a BLP violation as it is not what he is primarily notable for. To justify inclusion of the above end of sentence, we would have to show that other conspiracy theorists are also pushing the allegations. If it is only LaRouche and his followers then the conspiracy theorists descriptive in the lead is POV and unnecessary as is naming LaRouche. Wayne (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning on both issues. I have no objection, however, to brief mention of King's affiliation with the Democratic Party, even though it was overshadowed by his political career among Republicans.

I absolutely agree that giving LaRouche prominence in the lead is inappropriate. Whether or not there are "other conspiracy theorists" is debatable. I suspect there are others, however I am not familiar with any and I have no source for such an assertion. We could say the following: "Allegations of a coverup persist, some leveled by those directly involved in the case and others by critics whom some consider conspiracy theorists." Apostle12 (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We could include a short "bio" (as above) for King in the article body. As for LaRouche, without evidence of conspiracy theorists taking up the "cause" you can legitimately ask whether LaRouche is acting as a political activist rather than in the pervue of a conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this, but let me make one point about LaRouche. The people involved in the coverup allegations were his followers, not LaRouche himself. I'm not sure if he even commented on it publicly. Their involvement is noteworthy, but his is not. Will Beback talk 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Like minds breed similar concepts or speculations.--MONGO 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment--moved from discussion of article lede

I have started a Request for Comment on User:WLRoss here. Since his embrace of conspiracy theory has disrupted editing of this article, I hope you will please join me at the RfC. Please post comments there regarding your experiences with WLRoss. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:WLRoss makes it clear on his home page that he is not a "conspiracy theorist." For example, his objections to the official 9/11 report are careful and metered; they do not support conspiracy theory. My experiences with WLRoss have proven that he is an exceptionally balanced editor who works well with others to define meaningful compromises in editing a variety of Misplaced Pages articles. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Phoenix and Winslow; his charge of disruptive editing seems to be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black."Apostle12 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what do they support...honestly, he makes it clear that he thinks there was an alternative explanation to 911...aka:conspiracy theory.--MONGO 04:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I've made clear that I believe there could be an alternative explanation, one that doesn't involve any conspiracy theory at all but then MONGO is not interested in any one elses view. He has made it very clear he is not NPOV on the subject. Anyway, this is not a 911 related article so let it go. Wayne (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if that view is based on innuendo and speculation...you're bordering on BLP violations by adding such innuendo and you're making this article a coatrack with your constant POV pushing of such stuff.--MONGO 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New discussion of Bryant

I’m new to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. These are extremely ugly allegations about living people. Please click on these links and read Misplaced Pages's policies concerning the reliability of sourcing when we are posting negative information about living people:

If there's anything else I can help you with, just ask. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 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. Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to provide a resource center for people like those. They have Nick Bryant's website for that. Misplaced Pages exists to provide a concise summary of the notable events that actually happened, and were reported in reliable secondary sources.

Persistently campaigning to turn Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages biographies; Executive Intelligence Review also has its own Misplaced Pages article. Nick Bryant does not have a Misplaced Pages biography. I also notice that the allegedly "prominent Republican fundraiser" Lawrence E. King doesn't have a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, your perspective should be based on reliable sources. Why do you insist on basing your perspective on unreliable sources that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages is not a web host. Jehochman 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)

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 ♥♥♥♥