This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 12:05, 5 November 2013 (→Inappropriate categories: MONGO not ignorant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:05, 5 November 2013 by MONGO (talk | contribs) (→Inappropriate categories: MONGO not ignorant)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep (nomination withdrawn). |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Article sources, User Pheonix & Winslow
I am an infrequent editor but long time reader and have donated to the Misplaced Pages fund in the past. I'm concerned by the lack of sourcing on the Conspiracy of Silence documentary and Bryant's book. Whether something has been peer reviewed or not doesn't effect it's inclusion in this article. In fact, sourcing the accusations from those two controversial media sources is essential in my opinion to understanding the scandal. This isn't an issue of verifying a claim or not, but detailing the accusations. All parties in the media and courts seem to have stated their opinions and judgements many years ago. I hope a higher ranking moderator will comment on this and fix this quickly. Thanks so much. P&W, you seem to know a lot about this, I learned some from your informative talk posts, but please don't censor the allegations, read the article title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.122.181 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC) To add to this I read there is not a single quote from any of the accusers though these are readily available and If memory holds the documentary and book are sources of these quotes. It's not hard to imagine you work for the republican party or some other biased interest P&W, reading a bit more of your talk posts. You really believe that King's party affiliation is unrelated to the allegations or this article, the theme of accused political figures (who were not named in P&W's dominated article)? No article exists on King himself, though someone should do that. I don't know of the specific edit that you changed in this regard. I ask that as a serious question. King was convicted and charged of and released for "embezzling" around 40 million dollars from the credit union. Again, it concerns me that there are no quotes of the accusers themselves, whatever their current status. I also respond to P&W comment that this is "not a book," in effort to keep the article short. This was a nationwide story lasting for months, worthy of a full length article, the dignity of the truth, especially for the accused if he is truly innocent. Also the tactlessly biased note about the book's publisher? This was a nationwide continual story covered by the New York Times.69.253.122.181 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The heading at the top of the article is why none of what you wish is going to happen.--MONGO 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was reading this, the New York Times describes in their 5 sentence article him as a "prominent republican." http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/us/omaha-tales-of-sexual-abuse-ruled-false.html? There is one clearly sourced disagreement with P&W. As far as sourcing the allegations, we are talking about historic events which occured 30 years ago, the subject of the article is the allegations, this implies the media coverage as well, not only the court case in 1990. I understand that libelous seeming claims are moderated on here and perhaps inappropriate, these child sex allegations against politicians would fit that well. It's creepy to hear about this story and the ruling with the modern retrospective of the Vatican, Orthodox Judaism and other recently exposed scandals, all over the world. Thanks69.253.122.181 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- One more point about the discussion of minority voices and the guidelines. It seems clearly that the majority of editors here are in favor of a less biased article. It seems you P&W are the only person with the gall to argue for a less inclusive article describing the allegations. I keep in mind the potentially libelous claims, the many newspaper articles and documentary stories are the basis of such an article. I've honestly never read Bryant's book but assume it has the testimony of the accusers in it. I honestly can't judge the relevance of it but I imagine it's similar to the documentary Conspiracy of Silence which was similarly not mentioned. Mentioning and cross referencing the books and documentaries on the subject isn't the same as writing libelous accusations. In fact, the anecdote about the Phillip Jenkins book is in response to these unnamed sources is longer than the one sentence of dubbed "conspiracy theories," referenced by Bryant's book which S&W has talked about. I would petition to remove Jenkins mention as I feel it is opinionated and overall unrelated to the core subject. I wouldn't mind it in a full length article, it seems more suited for a wider topic. 69.253.122.181 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess we have "gall" then to enforce the BLP policy and to keep preposterous conspiracy theories out of this article. That docudrama you mention is a conspiracy theory...it has no place here.--MONGO 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The Federal Grand Jury found that the alleged abuse did occur but that the victims had identified the wrong perpetrators (why this can't be mentioned in the article baffles me) so what exactly is the conspiracy theory? Some conspiracy against the accused? A conspiracy against the victims? Please elaborate and perhaps explain why an article about a "conspiracy theory" can't detail what the conspiracy actualy is. Wayne (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen the "docudrama?" It was produced by Yorkshire Television in the UK and actually aired on British television before being cancelled in the USA. This fact is not preposterous or a conspiracy theory. The comment calling the documentary itself a conspiracy theory does not make logical sense, I assume you mean something else, like the subject of the allegations and supposed coverup have been dubbed "conspiracy theory" before, for the subject of the article. The version re-released by John DeCamp contains some title sequences with claims about politicians and Washington figures being involved in the supposed ring which differ from the original footage of the originally aired documentary. More importantly, DeCamp's re-release version and ostensibly the original contain several relevant references of first hand interviews with police and a variety of figures in Omaha and the related controversy. Forgive me if my gall comment inflames you, but you show similar bias as S&W, MONGO, in my view. It strikes me that someone would hold a bias on such an issue. 69.253.122.181 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- As you say, "re-released" by John DeCamp...means it's original research and a conspiracy theory. I'm not the least bit inflamed, just letting you know that we're not going to violate the BLP policy to add in conspiracy theories. This article was vastly trimmed to keep it in compliance with policy...which you should familiarize yourself with.--MONGO 15:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I guess we have "gall" then to enforce the BLP policy and to keep preposterous conspiracy theories out of this article. That docudrama you mention is a conspiracy theory...it has no place here.--MONGO 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- One more point about the discussion of minority voices and the guidelines. It seems clearly that the majority of editors here are in favor of a less biased article. It seems you P&W are the only person with the gall to argue for a less inclusive article describing the allegations. I keep in mind the potentially libelous claims, the many newspaper articles and documentary stories are the basis of such an article. I've honestly never read Bryant's book but assume it has the testimony of the accusers in it. I honestly can't judge the relevance of it but I imagine it's similar to the documentary Conspiracy of Silence which was similarly not mentioned. Mentioning and cross referencing the books and documentaries on the subject isn't the same as writing libelous accusations. In fact, the anecdote about the Phillip Jenkins book is in response to these unnamed sources is longer than the one sentence of dubbed "conspiracy theories," referenced by Bryant's book which S&W has talked about. I would petition to remove Jenkins mention as I feel it is opinionated and overall unrelated to the core subject. I wouldn't mind it in a full length article, it seems more suited for a wider topic. 69.253.122.181 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was reading this, the New York Times describes in their 5 sentence article him as a "prominent republican." http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/us/omaha-tales-of-sexual-abuse-ruled-false.html? There is one clearly sourced disagreement with P&W. As far as sourcing the allegations, we are talking about historic events which occured 30 years ago, the subject of the article is the allegations, this implies the media coverage as well, not only the court case in 1990. I understand that libelous seeming claims are moderated on here and perhaps inappropriate, these child sex allegations against politicians would fit that well. It's creepy to hear about this story and the ruling with the modern retrospective of the Vatican, Orthodox Judaism and other recently exposed scandals, all over the world. Thanks69.253.122.181 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate categories
User:MONGO keeps adding the categories Conspiracy theories and Hoaxes in the United States. The first Grand Jury may have found this but the claim of hoax was rejected by the second Grand Jury, the Nebraska Legislature committee which investigated the allegations and by Judge Urbon in the later civil suit. The conspiracy accusations involve claims which are not mentioned in the WP article so this category is also not appropriate. Addition of the categories appears to be WP:OR and POV.
"the defendant King, continually subjected the plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults, false imprisonments, infliction of extreme emotional distress ... forced the plaintiff to 'scavenge' for children to be a part of the defendant King's sexual abuse and pornography ring, forced the plaintiff to engage in numerous masochistic orgies with other minor children" — Finding by Judge Urbon 1999 civil suit. United States District Court For the District of Nebraska; Paul A. Bonacci vs. Lawrence E. King; 4:CV91-3037
I know MONGO wont back down and I don't want to start an edit war so I invite comments. Wayne (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just going by the edits left in place when a sitting member of the Arbitration Committee trimmed all the superstition out of the article to make it BLP compliant.--MONGO 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- The top links - prisonplanet, abovetopsecret, whatreallyhappened - that come up when googling the article title suggest the categories are appropriate. Tom Harrison 11:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also...since the sources for the CT end of things are unreliable, we can't infringe on BLP just to discuss the CT within article space.--MONGO 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ User:Tom harrison; There are other sources than those you pointed out as any serious search would find. Top links merely indicates most visited which shouldn't suggest anything to an editor other than that they are visited the most. None of those sources were ever used in the article. There are reliable sources, such as a defamation suit transcript hosted on a legal website, that support that the County Grand Jury prosecutor co-wrote the Juries finding and maliciously and falsely defamed people. The Judges set aside this suit on the grounds that the Prosecutor and Jury had total immunity. There is also the trial of Bauer (one of the Franklin accused) who was charged and convicted on the evidence given to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury also recommended that King be charged. As the prosecutor committed King to a mental home these charges were not laid. The perjury charges involved the victims naming specific people, they did not involve the actual abuse claims. These claims are all public record. The article itself does not even mention any claims that are part of a conspiracy theory. @ User:MONGO; According to WP:BLP, the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text. Hoax is definitely not supported and there is no content in the article that justifies the CT category. The addition of those two categories are a violation of BLP. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a cleverly crafted hoax to me. Let me know when you have a reliable source for those conspiracy theories.--MONGO 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your OR is irrelevant. The examples above are all documented in court records. Blind Freddie could find the court transcript for the defamation case against the County Grand Jury prosecutor or are you claiming the three judges who presided over it are conspiracy theorists? It's telling that you have been making ignorant comments instead of trying to justify the categories. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If you think this "sounds like a cleverly crafted hoax" I'll help you out. Factual claims are not a conspiracy theory/hoax, a conspiracy theory/hoax is making unsubstantiated claims based on the factual claims. Wayne (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)DeCamp claimed that defendants intended to chill his freedom of speech "by using the position of the Grand Jury to accuse of wrongdoing in manner to prohibit and intimidate from further using his First Amendment rights to criticize public institutions"...we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed DeCamp's claim against the grand jurors because they possessed absolute immunity against liability. — Circuit Judges Gerald Heaney, George Gardner Fagg and Pasco Bowman II.
DeCamp contends the special prosecutors "stepped outside the scope of their official duties and responsibilities when they co-authored the report"...We believe the special prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for helping the grand jury draft an official report — Circuit Judges Fagg and Bowman with judge Heaney dissenting. 978 F.2d 1047 (1992)- No reason to get upset at me...strangely enough, I live in Omaha...and know that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory. Where is the reference from the reliable source?--MONGO 12:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your OR is irrelevant. The examples above are all documented in court records. Blind Freddie could find the court transcript for the defamation case against the County Grand Jury prosecutor or are you claiming the three judges who presided over it are conspiracy theorists? It's telling that you have been making ignorant comments instead of trying to justify the categories. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a cleverly crafted hoax to me. Let me know when you have a reliable source for those conspiracy theories.--MONGO 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ User:Tom harrison; There are other sources than those you pointed out as any serious search would find. Top links merely indicates most visited which shouldn't suggest anything to an editor other than that they are visited the most. None of those sources were ever used in the article. There are reliable sources, such as a defamation suit transcript hosted on a legal website, that support that the County Grand Jury prosecutor co-wrote the Juries finding and maliciously and falsely defamed people. The Judges set aside this suit on the grounds that the Prosecutor and Jury had total immunity. There is also the trial of Bauer (one of the Franklin accused) who was charged and convicted on the evidence given to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury also recommended that King be charged. As the prosecutor committed King to a mental home these charges were not laid. The perjury charges involved the victims naming specific people, they did not involve the actual abuse claims. These claims are all public record. The article itself does not even mention any claims that are part of a conspiracy theory. @ User:MONGO; According to WP:BLP, the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text. Hoax is definitely not supported and there is no content in the article that justifies the CT category. The addition of those two categories are a violation of BLP. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also...since the sources for the CT end of things are unreliable, we can't infringe on BLP just to discuss the CT within article space.--MONGO 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)