Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rename discussion at satanic ritual abuse

Editors note generalized discussion affecting all ritual abuse cases, at Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Rename_discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection to political bias and labeling on this page!

I don’t appreciate the passing equations of conspiracy theory loons and the “right-wing” mentioned here in this context, During the 1980s daycare child abuse hysteria, an uncanny modern reproduction of the Salem witch trials, it was conservative organs such as the Wall Street Journal and the Reader’s Digest that led the counterattack attempting to stop the lunacy, though 60 Minutes and PBS's Frontline did eventually join in support.

Unscrupulous prosecutors loved these cases as they were high profile and required (all too often) no evidence to convict beyond accusations bred from coaching by “therapists,” suggesting to little kids what to think and say. Where was the ACLU at the time? They were too busy pursuing left wing political issues to be bothered with such a salient and pure civil liberties issue like this, which was supposed to be its founding principle and mandate.

I agree with the apparent opinion concerning DeCamp and Gunderson expressed by many here, but please keep your political bias out of the discussion. Not only does it violate neutrality, it is just plain wrong and mendacious. Loons come in all political persuasions, from Hitler to Stalin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

DeCamp book: Self-published?

The Decamp book,

• DeCamp, John: The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska. 2nd ed. Lincoln: 2006. ISBN 9780963215802

appears to be self-published. If so, it would be an unsuitable source for this article though we could include it in a "further reading" section. Does anyone have information about the publisher and their reputation for fact-checking?   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This page, [1], lists an address for "AWT, Inc" in Lincoln. It is the same address listed for John DeCamp's law offices here: [2] and here:[3]. That tends to confirm that the book is self-published.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published works are not necessarily unsuitable sources. This book has been in print for some time now, and its allegations have never been successfully refuted. Apostle12 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLP# Sources for the policies on using self-published sources. Under no circumstances should one be used for assertions about living people besides its author. Whether or not assertions have been refuted is irrelevent to the decision. Since there are few footnotes for this article, it's hard to tell what is derived from it. I suggest we pare this article down to what is directly cited to reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal

• Respected investigative journalist Nick Bryant has written a new book about the Franklin child prostitution ring and its connection to high-level U.S. politicians, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. This is a carefully researched work, released in August, 2009 after seven years of renewed investigation.
  • http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Scandal-Story-Powerbrokers-Betrayal/dp/0977795357

According to whom is Bryant a "respected investigative journalist"? Who says that this book is "carefully researched"? I don't see any reliable 3rd-party sources for those POV statements. With statements those removed, it's just an announcement of a book release with a commercial link. The assertions can remain if they're properly sourced. But we don't usually add a paragraph to articles on historical events every time a new book is published on the topic. Can you imagine what American Civil War would look like? I can't find a single reliable 3rd-party source that mentions it yet. If it gets reviewed we can mention that too. Meanwhile, it's just a book so it belongs in the list of books.   Will Beback  talk  11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your point with respect to topics like the Civil War, as it is true that such a list would be inordinately long. This article, however, has suffered from a dearth of reliable sources, so when one arrives I believe it may be helpful to give it more than a mere mention under "Further Reading." I'll work on finding reviews (other than those on Amazon), though given the subject matter I suspect these too will be few. Apostle12 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If the book is notable, then it should get more attention. At the moment, it isn't. I'm going to put it back in the list of books. In the future, if ther's more information about it, we can write a paragraph about it. But we have no basis for making the assertions that are currently in the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I am not suggesting it is a reliable source, I would like to introduce you to Nick Bryant's web page where he discusses the genesis of his book: http://franklinscandal.com/home-mainmenu-1.html In particular you might like to click through to "Background." By the way, I have no personal stake in this, just a desire to see that the Wikipedia article is accurate.Apostle12 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I tell you what, let's split the difference. All we can say about the book at this is that it has been released. So let's say that.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. Though Bryant's book has a better chance of being reviewed than previous works, I doubt any mainstream reviews will be forthcoming. The subject matter of his book, and this article, is now twenty years in the past, yet it doesn't take a conspiracy buff to see that there is still strong resistance to the story being told.Apostle12 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cancelled video

• More rumors of a coverup surfaced when a national television broadcast of Conspiracy of Silence, an hour-long documentary film about the scandal, was cancelled unexpectedly. The film was scheduled to air May 3, 1994, on the Discovery Channel and was listed in the April 3rd - May 6th edition of TV Guide magazine, but the broadcast was pulled for reasons that remain unclear.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggxiBWv4xYE

The Youtube video is not an adequate source for this assertion. We don't know who wrote that prologue that claims it was cancelled by "influential members of congress", and that source doesn't even talk about "more rumors". I think we should stick with more verifiable assertions, such as that the video was made, who made it, etc. FWIW, I checked Proquest, a newspaper archive, and I can't find any mention of this there.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Schiller Institute

An editor deleted a couple of sentences of sourced material with the summary:

• Schiller group involvement marginal and unverifiable[4]

First, the material is verifiable. I'd be happy to provide excerpts of the cited news reports. Second, the Schiller Institute's involvement is marginal in some respects, which is why the mention occurs towards the end of the article and is limited to a single paragraph. Though marginal it wasn't insignificant. Another important detail which should probably be included is that they especially blamed Omaha Police Chief Robert Wadman, and they pursued him with accusations to the next two jobs he held at police departments in Illinois and another state. The LaRouche movement is said to have used their fight against the satanic child abuse that occured in Omaha as a fundraising tool. So the material here doesn't even fully summarize the topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

The identification of King as a "prominent member of the Republican Party" is unnecessary to this article. To the best of my knowledge, he never served in public office at any level and there is no indication that he did in any of the cited sources. It may belong in his biography, but not here. Furthermore, he spent most of his life as a Democrat before switching to the Republican Party, and this is confirmed by The New York Times. Relentless attempts to include his Republican Party membership suggest a campaign to spread an "All Republicans are perverts" meme for partisan purposes. You may pursue your political agendas elsewhere.

The attempt to exclude any mention of the perjury charges against King's two principal accusers on the sexual charges, Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci, likewise reeks of a partisan agenda. The fact that Owen served 10 years in prison for perjury, for making her false accusations before a grand jury, is essential to serve WP:BLP. Although King is guilty of embezzlement, he is innocent of the sex-related accusations until proven guilty. The fact that his accuser went to prison for perjury underscores his innocence on that charge, and the fact that the followers of Lyndon Larouche have adopted this smear campaign, as part of their encyclopedia of smears, provides even more reason to leave political gamesmanship out of Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest that you carefully read Bryant's book. DeCamp's book is also essential to a proper understanding of this case.Apostle12 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't consider self-published sources to be reliable. Neither do I. If you'll pardon the term, they're crap. Any rich man with the will to do so can publish a book full of lies. Reputable publishers, and especially reputable periodicals with fact-checking departments, separate the truth from the crap. I'll rely on them instead if you don't mind, Apostle12. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DeCamp's book is self-published, however he was a four-term Nebraska State Senator when the Franklin story broke, he is a respected Lincoln, Nebraska attorney, and he represented several of the key accusers in the Franklin case; his standing demands that we give his point of view due weight, which is a valid exception to the sourcing policy. Bryant is an award-winning investigative journalist, his book is not self-published, and his work is impeccable. If you are depending on periodicals to "separate the truth from the crap," good luck! Apostle12 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the perjury charge should be mentioned but, to maintain due weight, it should also be mentioned that the verdict was suspect. Several of the jurors later submitted affidavits stating that they had been told to accept hearsay evidence and shown written statements not presented in court that "played a significant role" in deliberations and which mysteriously could not be located after the trial. One of the key witnesses against Owen later admitted to lying under oath and that Owen actually told the truth. Senator Schmit testified that another witness had a felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor in exchange for his evidence and her former lawyer Vuchetich refused to testify in Owen's defense citing attorney client privilege. Owen's appeal was apparently denied on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to the hearsay evidence which made up the majority of the evidence against her.Wayne (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the perjury charge is fine, provided the overall context of the charge, and the dubious nature of the Owen conviction, are mentioned as well. In fact the false testimony that marked the coverup is an important part of the story; Alisha Owen's conviction was used to silence other potential accusers. King's prominence in Republican Party politics during the years leading up to the scandal, and the fact that Republicans featured prominently in the scandal, seem very relevant to me--I am not, by the way, a Republican-basher, having voted independently for quite some time. That LaRouche followers have homed in on this case is irrelevant. Apostle12 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing at all dubious about the perjury conviction, Apostle12. I sense an agenda in everything you're saying here. Alisha Owen's perjury conviction survived appellate review with flying colors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no "agenda;" obviously you do. Apostle12 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the face of the available evidence only blind Freddie would not see anything dubious about the conviction. I would hardly call dismissing the appeal on the grounds that her lawyer did not object when dodgy evidence was presented "flying colours". The judge even admitted that the evidence for the conviction was unsupported hearsay. Wayne (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember folks, we're not here to retry the case or bring justice. This is an encyclopedia and all we're doing is verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Let's try to avoid arguing over the details of the case itself, and focus on improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  13:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I think we can agree that The New York Times is a reliable source. The attorney for the accusers is clearly an advocate for his clients, therefore biased; this little fact negates his standing in the WP:RS equation. His self-published book is most definitely not a reliable source and when you say "dodgy evidence," you're relying on that unreliable source. And in some circumstances, hearsay evidence is admissible (see "exceptions to the hearsay rule"); who are we to replace the judgment of the Nebraska appellate court with our own?

Wayne and Apostle12, are you attorneys with licenses to practice law in Nebraska? If not, please defer to the judgment of the appellate court, as I have. If we start devoting space in every article about court decisions to criticisms and whining by the losers and their lawyers, and the smear campaigns of the LaRouche organization, where do you suppose that road will take the encyclopedia project? Not to a good place. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding some of Phoenix and Winslows edits. The addition in the lead is out of context as it isn't mentioned why she was charged. The judge gave her the opportunity to retract her statement which she refused to do, leading to her indictment for perjury. If you mention that Bonacci was indicted you also need to mention that the claims were later accepted or the section only has an unanswered implication that he lied. Being in prison does not prevent you appearing in a civil action. Failure to appear means that you are not admitting guilt but do not dispute the charge. As a civil suit has a lower standard of evidence, guilt is not assumed even if "found" guilty, but new evidence may inadvertantly satisfy a criminal court so the benifit of a failure to appear is that you are not at risk of evidence against you being used to bring new charges in a criminal court.Wayne (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the perjury conviction. I'm not suggesting we say the verdict was dodgy. I'm only pointing out that criticism is relevant. The court found the abuse did occur but not by the people accused. Multiple victims having similar false memories is not uncommon and for a sexual abuse victim to be sentenced to any time at all for a false memory let alone 15 years is unusual to say the least considering there was evidence supporting some of the memories.Wayne (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

franklincoverup.com

• In 1990 Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury for her grand jury testimony. She was sentenced to nine to 15 years in the state penitentiary, and was released in 2001. Owen's former attorney, Pamela Vuchetich, stated in a January 2000 deposition that she "withdrew as her legal counsel because Alisha [Owen] was going to commit a crime ... The crime of perjury. And she was going to do so knowingly and willingly." Vuchetich later admitted to being in a relationship with a key witness against Owens.

The PDF file is no longer at that URL. The other two links are to depositions, which are primary sources. We should not base any assertions in the article on primary sources, though if we have secondary sources we can use primary sources for illustration. Can we find other sources for this?   Will Beback  talk  06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

• In 1993 the British-based TV station, Yorkshire Television, sent a team to Nebraska to launch its own investigation of the Franklin case. The resulting 56-minute documentary, "Conspiracy of Silence" was scheduled to air nation-wide on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994 with $500,000 paid for the air time. More allegations of a coverup came to light when an unknown party purchased the documentary days before it was due to air and pulled it from programming. The documentary has since surfaced on the Internet. The film features an interview with former CIA director William Colby, numerous members of the Nebraska state legislature including John DeCamp, and more than one alleged victim in the case.

This unsourced passage should be deleted unless reliable secondary sources can be found for it.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case I think deletion would ill serve the article. The existence of the "Conspiracy of Silence" video, its orgins, and its eventual fate are uncontested and referenced in both the DeCamp book and the Bryant book. I believe the passage should stay. Apostle12 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Uncontested" is not the Wikipedia standard. Verifiability is the relevant policy: WP:V. Unless these assertions can be verified using reliable sources, they should be deleted. The article is well-served by only including verifiable information.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it.Apostle12 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What kinds of sources are these?

• http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/coverups/decamp.html</ref>
• http://educate-yourself.org/cn/conspiracyofsilencenotairedandcopiesdestroyedapr00.shtml Conspiracy of Silence Pulled From TV and Copies Destroyed Ted L. Gunderson

The first seems to simply be a reprint of a self-published book which would not qualify as a reliable source. The second also seems to be a copy of a self-published source.[5] Both hosting websites have disclaimers, so they don't take responsibility for the texts. I'm afraid these sources will not do either. I've deleted the link to the video itself, as it's a copyright violation. I suggest that we trim the text to a simple statement like, "a video was made but not aired", pending sources for more extensive assertions.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That the documentary was made, was listed in the TV guide, air time paid for and eventually not aired is undisputed. The sources are acceptable under WP:RS guidelines on self published sources as they are making statements on their own beliefs on why the documentary was not aired which is relevant to the article topic and the text makes it clear that it is the authors beliefs. Simply saying "a video was made but not aired" understates the extent of the controversy and the role of the documentary in the controversy. Wayne (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, "undisputed" is not the standard we're trying to meet. "Verifiable" is what we need to achieve, along with NPOV, etc. If the controversy over the video is significant then we should be able to find reference to it in reliable secondary sources. I do not believe that the exceptions to the rule against using self-published sources apply in this situation at all. Using these as the only sources is especially inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of the video? This just-linked site disclaims any responsibility for copyright, and says it is just streaming material held on other websites.[6] Unfortunately, it doesn't make clear exactly where the video is coming from. But unless there's a release somewhere the assumption is that the film is copyrighted and that the video hosting site, whoever that is, does not have authorization. Sorry for seeming like a hard-ass about this section, but we need to follow the same standards that apply to all articles.   Will Beback  talk  10:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All the videos available are copies of a draft version that was given to De Camp who then distributed it to anyone interested so it's actually copyright free. The problem with this article is the lack of secondary sources online. Plenty of books and 1000s of websites that you would not call reliable, many with copies of official documents, but mainstream media seems to have distanced themselves from the scandal. After around 1990, apart from the Omaha World-Herald, no mainstream media seems to have covered the story and the Herald cant be regarded as a RS for this subject because of conflict of interest problems. I couldn't even find a RS for Bonacci winning the civil suit. I did find a full transcript of the civil case but that was on De Camps website. I cant understand why you dont regard his book as reliable, it documents everything it claims and is written by a decorated war veteran and 16 year Senator not to mention that he names everyone which would have resulted in libel suits if any of the claims were not supported. Wayne (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights: All works created after 1989 are automatically copyrighted. The only significant exceptions are works created by the US federal government or works explicitly released to the public domain. The argument that the ideo is "copyright free" is not valid. If you'd like another assessment there's the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page. The text prohibiting linking to copyvios is at WP:COPYLINK.

Regarding self-published sources: The policy is at WP:SPS. The fact that no one has sued De Camp, or that he was a war veteran, does not mean his book is reliable. If you'd like another opinion there's WP:RSN..

Regarding primary sources: Transcripts and court documents are primary sources. They may be used as sources within narrow limits, mostly limited to providing illustrative quotes or details to enhance material found in secondary sources. No conclusions may be drawn from primary sources. See WP:PSTS for a full discussion.

There are many topics about which the coverage in reliable sources is less than we'd wish. In these cases we simply have to restrict ourselves to saying what can be verified using Wikipedia standards. The answer is not to lower those standards. That is doubly true in a murky matter like this which presumably involves a number of still-living people. If we can only verify 100 words of text then that's preferable to 10,000 words of unreliable material.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights: Since the video was not produced by an US-company, US copyright may not apply here! Someone with more knowledge about international copyright law should comment on this. Anybody (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And theres the thing. No conclusions are drawn from the primary sources as they themselves contain all the claims mentioned in this article, and a lot more that havn't been even hinted at. I didn't say that De Camps reputation made his book reliable, I said that his reputation and the fact that the book is entirely based on primary sources should make it reliable. In this article, a dearth of seconday sources means we can rely on primary sources more than usual and as De Camp copies these in their entirety I see no problem with using the original primary source from him if it is not online elsewhere. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not using the De Camp book as as source at all, nor should we.

We are using two primary sourced documents. They are an affidavit[7] and a deposition[8]. Both documents are hosted by http://franklincoverup.com or http://franklinscandal.com/, which belongs to a researcher/author named Nick Bryant. The deposition is very incomplete. The last posted page is numbered 239, but only eight pages are posted. Someone chose which pages to post, which raises one of the principal problems with using primary sources: deciding which parts are relevant. The affidavit is just a statement and has little more value as a source then a letter to the editor. Since the affidavit includes someone recanting their recantation, it appears that the person is not a trustworthy witness or commentator on events. Further, it makes very serious charges about living people, with no evidence. We can bring these to WP:RSN to see what other editors think of these as sources. My view is that we should use them only if they've been discussed in secondary sources, and then only for illustrative quotes or details.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

• During the trial Troy Boner, Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci were informed by the judge that they could be indicted for perjury if they did not retract their testimony. Boner retracted his testimony, but Owen and Bonacci both refused. In 1990 Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury for her grand jury testimony. She was sentenced to nine to 15 years in the state penitentiary, and was released in 2001. Owen's former attorney, Pamela Vuchetich, stated in a January 2000 deposition that she "withdrew as her legal counsel because Alisha [Owen] was going to commit a crime ... The crime of perjury. And she was going to do so knowingly and willingly." However, in a 1990 interview with the Omaha World Herald, following her withdrawal as legal counsel, she stated that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and that she still believed Owen's account. Vuchetich later admitted that during the period when she was representing Owen she had been in a relationship with FBI agent Mott, a key witness against Owen. In 1993 Boner recanted in a affadavit, stating that his original testimony and that of Owen was true. He stated that he had retracted his testimony only because he was told by FBI agents Mott and Culver that he would go to prison for 20 years if he did not do so, regardless of whether his testimony was the truth or not.

This whole paragraph is citied to primary sources except for one sentence. the first link is dead. I believe we can find sources for Owen's prison term, but the rest of this needs better sourcing or it should be deleted. Since it concerns living people, we shouldn't leave it in the article any longer than absolutely necessary. Let's give it a few days or a week to see what we can do to improve it, then delete the parts without adequate secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Four days have passed, Will, and the advocate for including this material has not produced a suitably reliable secondary source. For example, the alleged 4/30/90 story in the Omaha World-Herald (in which Vuchetich allegedly provides a quote helpful to the conspiracy theorists) cannot be found anywhere. Accordingly, I've deleted some of the more egregious CT material. I encourage you to remove other material you may find objectionable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourced, relevant material should not be removed without a good reason. I've started a thread below about one particular term.

As for this material, the editor who was talking about this recently is apparently a little busy, so I told him that we could wait a little. But I agree that we should act sooner than later.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After a two-day search, finally located my misplaced copy of Nick Bryant's excellent book, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse, & Betrayal. Bryant is a well-respected and widely-published investigative journalist who focuses on the plight of disadvantaged and abused children in the United States. His book is exhaustively researched and footnoted; I will be including additional sourcing, with page numbers, where existing sourcing is sketchy.Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that TrineDay is a reputable publisher. I see you had previous discussions about it, including at Talk:Project MKULTRA. Elsewhere, a senior editor dismisses it as "tiny, extremist, and fringe".[9]   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See also our previous discussion of this book on this page, #The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal, above.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing everything TrineDay publishes. However the two books I do endorse (Albarelli's and Bryant's) are remarkable in their depth and breadth. Regarding Conspiracy of Silence, for example, Bryant contacted Tim Tate, Yorkshire Television's director, who confirmed the genesis of the documentary and his participation in creating it. Tate denied the claims stated in the documentary's preamble, which lean towards conspiracy theory, so Bryant likewise rejects these claims and cites the need to approach with care the maze of information surrounding Franklin . (p.16) I found it reassuring that Bryant demonstrates through his sleuthing a willingness to discard everything he cannot independently verify.Apostle12 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did find this May 23, 2010 East County Magazine review of The Franklin Scandal. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/3386

East County Magazine is an up-and-coming San Diego County publication that has received numerous awards from the San Diego Press Club. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/about Apostle12 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviews help establish the reliability of a source. However a single review in a local news website is not definitive. I've searched the Proquest newspaper archive for anything written by Nick Bryant, but nothing shows up for that name except some pieces by a London-based reporter. What evidence does he present that he's a "well-respected and widely-published investigative journalist"? I see that he co-wrote some articles and a book with Charles N. Oberg, but it's not clear what Bryant's role was - perhaps he was a graduate student working with his faculty advisor? He was never the lead author.

I won't remove the citations you added, but let's not add any more, especially concerning living people, until we've found a consensus on this book. Should we get broader input at WP:RSN?   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A recent interview with Nick Bryant http://american-commentary.blogspot.com/2010/06/franklin-scandal-interview-with-nick.html. Apostle12 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Bryant includes approximately 100 pages of original source material; this material supports his statement of the facts in the main text, as well as the timeline. An analysis of the original source material shows that certain facts in the current Wikipedia article (the length of Alisha Owen's imprisonment, for example--already changed) are(were) incorrect. I believe we should correct these errors. Apostle12 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: getting broader input at WP:RSN, perhaps. What I have seen previously is a tendency to dismiss any source that cannot easily be accessed online (e.g. archived copies of the Omaha World Herald). And I am not impressed by dismissals of Trine Day as "tiny, extremist, and fringe." I think the book itself must be evaluated on its merits--that means buying it (as I did) or securing it through interlibrary loan. Apostle12 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Two of the main factors in evaluating the reliability of a source are its author and its publisher. Though the author claims to be a well-respected investigative journalist, I can't find anything that he wrote on his own. The publisher's problems have already been discussed. BTW, here's a profile of Kris Millegan, owner and operator of TrineDay Books. "Sinister Forces: Millegan and company work to expose secret power bases" 2005 Eugene Weekly. While RSN may not be perfect, I don't know of a better resource for gaining community input.

It's dangerous to use primary sources for facts which haven't appeared in secondary sources. That said, i have seen a different value for Owens' actual time served in prison, and I agree we should correct that with the best available sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Prominent Republican fundraiser"

• The scandal centered around the actions of prominent Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, a former official at the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Omaha.
  • Associated Press Omaha Tales of Sexual Abuse Ruled False The New York Times. September 27, 1990
  • Associated Press Trial is delayed in Omaha Scandal The New York Times. March 31, 1990</ref>

Why does "prominent Republican fundraiser" keep getting removed? One of the linked sources calls him "a prominent Republican" and the other says he is "a prominent businessman who was once active nationally in the Republican Party [..] who sang the National Anthem at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas". I imagine we could find sources that call him a fundraiser, if that's the concern.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also removed were these sentences:

• While admitting that King had paid young men for sex, it dismissed the allegations of a sex ring.
  • Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales By WILLIAM ROBBINS, The New York Times July 29, 1990
• However, in a 1990 interview with the Omaha World Herald, following her withdrawal as legal counsel, she stated that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and that she still believed Owen's account.
  • Omaha World Herald April 30, 1990 Pg 1. [10]
• ...the petition alleged sexual assaults, false imprisonment, involvement in satanic rituals and participation in "deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies" with children.
  • Robert Dorr. "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit" Omaha World-Herald, February 24, 1999. (Internent Archive verions [11])

There was no explanation for these deletions.   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the sentences removed should be reinstated.Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow has stated that he doesn't want it mentioned that King was a Republican. No basis has been stated for the other deletions.Apostle12 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I see some discussion at #Recent edits, above. However the sources seem to think that King's notability was connected, at least in part, to his role in Republican politics.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Bryant supports this with extensive references to King. Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stated this repeatedly in edit summaries. King never served in any public office, and the very same linked sources observe that for most of his career, he was a Democrat. I offer two alternatives. The first is to leave his political affiliation out; it belongs in his biography perhaps, but not here. It's irrelevant. If you insist on putting it in, then it should be made clear that for most of his life, he was a Democrat. Persistent efforts to identify him as a Republican seem to be following an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda. How "prominent" was he in the Republican Party, really? How many of you had ever heard of Lawrence E. King before working on this article?

The prurient details of the sexual allegations cross the line into defamation and violate WP:BLP. We need to be very careful here. These allegations regarding sex with children, "deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies" were never proven on their merits, and one of the three main proponents went to prison for ten years for these lies. Another recanted. The third was mentally incapable of standing trial on perjury charges. It's a clean sweep: on the child molesting charges, King was as close to being proven innocent as anyone can be in the American court system. The details that remain in this article are more than sufficient to convey to the reader what actually happened and what was actually proven, without violating BLP. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about a scandal. The sources who write about the scandal specifically refer to King as a "prominent Republican". One doesn't need to have been elected to office to be prominent within a political party. I haven't seen the sources which refer to him as a Democrat, but we can present that information as well if it's relevant. Please do not assume that anyone is trying to promote an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda. There's clearly much more to this case than politics.

The details above are not prurient. We're not detailing who put what where. These are the basic facts of the case. If someone recanted their testimony then we can report that, but it's not a reason to delete the original testimony if it was publicly reported and affected the cases. As with any criminal case, it's natural and logical to report the charges, even those which were not proven at trial.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP only applies if there are insufficient sources. Can you clarify the BLP objection? Otherwise I'll restore the material.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few RS mention that King was a "rising star" of the Republican party and I have not seen a source that doesn't mention his connection. As for Owen's "lies". Several jurors later complained in affadavits that they were manipulated into finding her guilty by being given newspapers to read every day of the trial that were reporting that Owen was lying, that during their deliberations they were shown hearsay "evidence" that was never presented in court and that the jurors were also refused permission to review evidence that was given in court despite numerous requests. This was all brought up for Owens appeals, which were denied leaving these irregularities unanswered. Boner later retracted the recanting of his testimony. That Bonacci was "mentally incapable of standing trial" is fiction. He was mentally disturbed as the original grand jury had stated as much, but his perjury charges were apparently dropped without a psychiatric report being done to determine his fitness. King was hardly proven innocent as he later refused to apear for the civil case which ruled against him on the same claims that Owens was convicted of perjury for. The case is a lot more complicated than this article indicates.Wayne (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WLRoss that this case is extremely complicated. Especially in the 2006 edition of his self-published book, DeCamp does a good job of telling it. Nick Bryant, who invested 7 years in the project, does better; his 2009 book extends to 652 pages, and he carefully qualifies every point. As it stands, the Wikipedia article covers only some of the basics.

At regular intervals various editors attempt to gut the article by removing material they deem "prurient." I assume that most of this gutting is well-intended, however by this time it seems to me that at least some editors have a stake in keeping the story from being told--most especially they seem to want to whitewash any connection between the Franklin scandal and Republican Party luminaries, both in Omaha and Washington D.C. At the time of the events in question, King was one of those luminaries--all the sources support this fact.

Any connection between the Franklin scandal and nearby Boys Town, as well as connections between the Franklin scandal and the well-publicized child abuse that has plagued the Catholic Church during the past two decades, have also been vigorously resisted in such a concerted way that I am forced to conclude that such resistance has not been conducted in good faith. Apostle12 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's because the alleged "connections" have never been proven, because the grand jury described all of this as a "carefully crafted hoax," and because the principal accusers in this case either recanted, were convicted and imprisoned for 4 1/2 years for perjury, or were found mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about a scandal. The sources who write about the scandal specifically refer to King as a "prominent Republican". So what? Why is that relevant to this particular Wikipedia article? There are a lot of other facts we could include, but we don't. This is not an exhaustive listing of every fact (and claim) and all the minutiae that are offered in every source about Lawrence King. If we had a separate WP biography about King, then I think his full political history, including the fact that he was a Democrat for most of his life, would belong there. But not here. It isn't relevant. I suggest that a good compromise would be to refer to him as a "prominent political fundraiser."

Quite a few RS mention that King was a "rising star" of the Republican party ... The only truly reliable source that mentions this is The New York Times. The rest are self-published, such as the book by Nick Bryant and the ravings of the Lyndon Larouche disciples, and of dubious reliability. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that Nick Bryant's book is "self-published" is untrue. Please refer to Wikipedia Administrator Will Beback's comments above re: the undisputed, notable fact of King's "prominent Republican" status. Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed? yes. Prominent? perhaps. Relevant? definitely not. If it's relevant, then the party affiliation of Democratic state legislator Ernie Chambers (who flogged this hoax for partisan advantage at every opportunity) is also relevant, and the fact that King was a Democrat for most of his life is also relevant. Bryant's book is sensationalist trash published by a tiny company but you're right, it was DeCamp's book that was self-published. Bryant's book is no more reliable than DeCamp's though. Reputable publishers won't even touch this garbage. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the self description of the Trine Day publishing house. This little outfit should have its picture next to the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorist": "Mission Statement - TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [12] "Tiny," "extremist" and "fringe" are fairly mild and gentle terms in describing this outfit. In describing the author as "widely published," his work has appeared in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. Do you really claim this is a reliable source, Apostle12? We can resolve this at the RS noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Bryant's book is very carefully researched, and he debunks quite a lot of conspiracy theory along the way. Bryant spent years researching the topic, he interviewed nearly all of the key players, and he deserves credit for producing a balanced piece that is very far from conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should read it before judging it; only fair. Trine Day's mission statement, quoted above, is accurate and hardly the self-indictment you pretend. Too bad you have such a bug up your ass, Phoenix and Winslow; the tone you project is refreshingly absent from Bryant's work. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I only have a bug up my ass about the quality of this encyclopedia and this article, Apostle12. You are so dedicated to lending Wikipedia's credibility to these false accusations in the article that significant errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and style escape your notice; and when I've tried to correct them, you reverted me because in the same edit I happened to remove your Bryant/DeCamp garbage. King is guilty of embezzlement, but he and the rest of the accused in this article are innocent of child prostitution. In America, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the fevered mind of some conspiracy theorist at a tiny, extremist fringe publishing firm in someone's spare bedroom.

More importantly for our purposes, the prohibitions contained in WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear and ironclad. Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury and served 4-1/2 years in prison, and her attorney withdrew from the case because she knew Owen was going to commit perjury. Paul Bonacci was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. The third accuser had the good sense to admit he was lying, and his admission further undermines their credibility. So what we have here is a proven liar and a proven nutball. And both Bryant and DeCamp rely upon them as if their credibility was unblemished. DeCamp is self-published and Bryant might as well be. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems we were sidetracked from the original topic of the section. I have taken it to the WP:NPOVN board. Wayne (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

You continue to delete sourced material on the basis of "undue weight." However it is your insertion of "a carefully crafted hoax" in the heading that is the real offender when it comes to giving undue weight to a single line of the Douglas County grand jury findings. The Franklin Committee objections were many, substantive, and strenuous, yet you have chosen to leave only the mildest (and most neutral) sounding objection intact--"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." Your carefully selected quote gives the reader no insight as to why the Franklin Committe condemned the grand jury findings--they were not just complaining about "no clear evidence," rather they were complaining that justice had not been served in the grand jury proceedings, especially with respect to charging Peter Citron and Lawrence King with crimes against children.

As for your contention that the grand jury was not partisan and the Franklin Committee was, you know this to be untrue. The Franklin Committee was non-partisan, and carefully balanced between Democrats and Republicans.

In addition you continue to push your point of view that La Rouche is an important figure in this case, even including him in the lede.

Obviously you care nothing about the legitimate objections voiced by me and the other editors. You are attempting to enforce ownership of the article through continued, disruptive editing and reversion of sourced edits that do not match your point of view. We have attempted to accomodate your concerns, but you do not return the favor by honoring ours.

This is POV pushing at its worst.Apostle12 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "carefully selected quote" was not selected by me. It is fairly representative of what the committee said, it was here when I started editing the article, and there is no need to inject more of it into the article. As I said above, the grand jury findings have the force of law. The accused were not indicted; instead, the accusers were indicted for perjury, and the only one who didn't recant, and was found mentally competent to stand trial, was found guilty. "Carefully crafted hoax" is the thesis statement of this article. It is the watershed moment.

The Franklin Committee was not non-partisan, but bipartisan, and please educate yourself on the difference. Political partisans from both parties may reach the same wrong conclusion for different, equally partisan reasons. The Democrat, Ernie Chambers, was clearly flogging this case for political advantage. The Republican, Loran Schmit, may have either had some sort of factional dispute with King, or sought to purge the party of any unsavory elements. Or he may have been a homophobe.

Read WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:RS. Therein lies the resolution of this content dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Please educate yourself on the difference..." Condescending, as always.

The quote was not selected by you, true, but it was the only one you let stand, which does amount to "selection." As for your comments about Chambers and Schmit,that is pure speculation on your part. You are obviously determined that the article should read exactly as you wish no matter what anyone else thinks. Apostle12 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding more quotes lends more weight, and would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. That one quote seems to best summarize the committee's position. I've watched as greater and greater weight has been granted in the article mainspace to everything, and I do mean everything, except the one thing that should have the greatest weight: the grand jury findings, and subsequent perjury trial. I don't mean to sound condescending, Apostle12, but the "non-partisan" usage wasn't the only problem I see with what you've said over the past few days and weeks. Either you don't fully understand a few of the words you're using, or you're deliberately distorting the facts. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, rather than the latter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When I said "The Franklin Committee was non-partisan, and carefully balanced between Democrats and Republicans" I meant precisely what I said. The committee was dealing with an issue that was not primarily political; it had to do with the protection of innocent children from sexual predators in the State of Nebraska. The balancing of the Committee between Democrats and Republicans was to ensure that the emphasis would remain non-political and thus non-partisan. It was never a "bi-partisan" committee appointed to achieve a political compromise with respect to a particular problem; if it had been, I would have used "bi-partisan." Apostle12 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article will never improve with a single editor effectively having "ownership". I make no claim that anyones edits are NPOV but that is what the Talk page is for and I'm only too willing to take an editors concerns on board. Also, DeCamp is not used as a source at all and Bryant is only used where primary sources support him so I fail to see any basis for Phoenix and Winslow implying both sources are being used and, by implication, that Bryant repeating any of DeCamps claims makes him unreliable. P&W continually refuses to discuss possible compromises for edits, reverts wholesale (including grammar corrections), bases edits on personal opinion (ie: the Franklin Committee was partisan) and gives undue weight to anything that may imply the Franklin Committee (ie: Larouche) or Bryant (ie: adding Trine Days totally irrelevant mission statement) are not reliable. P&Ws editing behaviour is a problem to the extent that other editors are being effectively excluded from participating in the article despite repeated attempts by editors to accomodate him. If this behaviour continues I feel there will be no choice but to take the problem to mediation or arbitration. Wayne (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that P. & W.'s editing behavior has become problemmatical. I would hope that he moderates his behavior before mediation/ arbitration becomes necessary. 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)~

Civility

This is clearly a topic which people are passionate about. However passion has no place in encyclopedia editing. We should only work on topics where we can leave our passions at the doorstep, so to speak.

Wikipedia article talk pages are not the right places to discuss other editors. If we have complaints about a particular editor then we should raise those issues on their user talk pages, and if no resolution is found there then the community can get involved through dispute resolution process. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I have found that it is helpful to avoid using the accusatory pronoun "you" in talk page discussions. Wikipedia articles are built by consensus, and it's better to refer to that communal effort. Instead of asking, "Why did you add that text?", ask "Why are we saying this?" If editors would stop using the word "you" and use "we" instead the tone of this talk page would improve immediately.

WP:Civility is a policy. It can be enforced. In such cases, parties on both sides usually get punished. For that reason official sanctions are not an option that anyone should pursue. Please try to work together, and if that's impossible then find other articles to work on.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Time for WP:RSN

I think it's time for WP:RSN. Let me know when you are prepared to present your facts there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, aren't you the one who fought for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction? What's up with that anyway? Why was it so important to you that Owen would continue to appear truthful and with good credibility, to the eyes of the casual WP reader? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not "fight for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction." You are confused, and your consistently intemperate tone is not appreciated.Apostle12 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It must have been someone else then. WLRoss perhaps? I know someone here kept reverting every time I added any mention of Owen's perjury conviction. It's been a few months at least, but I know someone was doing it. The New York Times calls LaRouche a conspiracy theorist. So do many other reliable sources. See his biography: Lyndon LaRouche. His disciples at the Schiller Institute and elsewhere are also fairly described as such. In fact, most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another, such as Webster Tarpley, and therefore the use of the "conspiracy theorist" term in the article lede is called for. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no connection to Lyndon LaRouche, and I have little respect for him. You can legitimately mention that some sources consider LaRouche "a conspiracy theorist," but that should be sourced and limited to the appropriate section. You are speaking beyond your evidence when you state.."most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another." You cannot tar all of us who are concerned about Franklin with the "conspiracy theorist" brush. As for the "Grand Jury findings" subheading, the Grand Jury said a lot of things; please stop pushing your obvious POV by highlighting one of them.Apostle12 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche and his followers are so universally identified as conspiracy theorists that they can be identified as such in the article lede. Let me be clear: when I said "most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another," I was referring to the people described in the article mainspace. The Schiller Institute, as well as Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, are all followers of the peculiar, kooky LaRouche brand of extremism. Take those away and what's left? Paul Bonacci's lawyer (DeCamp) and some guy who had an article published in Gear (Bryant). Are you ready for WP:RSN? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche has also been described by critics as a fascist, an anti-Semite and a cult leader, as they are just as reliably sourced as "conspiracy theorist" I'm surprised you didn't add those as well. However, WP doesn't use minor descriptives in place of a main one because to do so is POV. As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists you cant state that all are. Also, the Nebraska legislative committee were not LaRouche disciples either. Wayne (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this context LaRouche's anti-Semitism (much like King's briefly adopted political party ID) is irrelevant, since there's no showing that anyone involved was Jewish. But his reputation as one of the world's leading conspiracy theorists is very, very relevant.

As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists ... Really? Like I said, it's the members of the Schiller Institute, its "Citizens Fact-Finding Commission" (ten people) plus LaRouche, Tarpley and Chaitkin on one side (total of at 14 people, likely many more) versus Knight and DeCamp (total of two people). Is my math right here, or is the group at least 88% conspiracy theorists? In the article lede, there's no denying that the story has been circulated among several conspiracy theorists. If you'd like we can add the words "and two other people." Okay? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Both your math and your argument are defective.Apostle12 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked whether you are ready for WP:RSN and you have repeatedly refused to answer me. This morning there has been an enormous amount of garbage shovelled into the article from these ridiculously unreliable sources, without any discussion. I am reverting all this garbage. Enormous reliance on enormously unreliable sources. This might as well have been written by Lyndon LaRouche himself. Obviously WP:RSN is overdue. Regardless of whether you're ready, I'm going there. You may join me there if you choose to do so, but I will treat the consensus decision of the larger community as binding in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of what you reverted, Phoenix and Winslow, was sourced from Omaha World Herald articles that have been part and parcel of this article for years. Most valuable were the direct quotes from the final report of the original Nebraska State Franklin Committee--these are not "garbage," as you put it; in fact they are essential to understand the context of the Committee's objections to the final Douglas County grand jury report.

Many of the changes were clarifications of existing text, or they were corrections of distortions that had crept into the article over time. Your reference to two sources as "LaRouche tainted" were retained, as those references were specific to those sources. Your disdain for Lyndon LaRouche was duly noted and respected, however your attempt to tar all those who question the correct handling of the Franklin case with the LaRouche brush is inaccurate and uncalled for POV pushing.

You have rejected Bryant's recent book, The Franklin Scandal... (2009), without evaluating it on its merits--it is a fine piece of investigative journalism based on many years of research, including interviews with an enormous number of the primary players. Bryant's work is very far from "conspiracy theory;" in fact he goes to great lengths to discredit those aspects of the Franklin literature that might be considered "conspiracy cooking," and his tone is not that of a "conspiracy theorist" in the pejorative sense that term is often used. The book is well-documented, and quite a number of original documents are included for reader review. In any case, only about one-third of the edits recently made are sourced using Bryant's book; your wholesale reversion is uncalled for, and it is vindictive in spirit. Perhaps you didn't consider it worth your time to check the sourcing for each of the changes so you might discern whether it was Bryant material you were reverting or changes made on the basis of sources (e.g. the Omaha World-Herald) that have enjoyed longstanding acceptance.

I and the other editors have had a longstanding disagreement with you as to whether Lawrence E. King should be referred to as a "prominent Republican fundraiser" or a "Republican luminary." You consider this irrevelant; I and many other editors do not, the material is well-sourced in multiple ways, and King's notability is associated with this descriptor. Wholesale reverts of good faith, responsible, sourced edits seems to be your chosen method to get your way; it is not appreciated.

Meanwhile, I would respectfully ask that you take the time to consider the edits that I and others have made and revert yourself on those that have nothing to do with questionable sourcing. This would include, especially, the vast portion of my edits yesterday that had to do with coverup allegations by responsible parties and other important matters. If you choose not to revert yourself within a day or so, I will restore the information myself.

Your attitude here has been disruptive, and your charges are irresponsible. I have posted my statement at WP:RSN? Apostle12 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RSN so far is that neither Bryant nor DeCamp is a reliable source. Therefore anything sourced there cannot be used. I'd also suggest that even the Omaha World-Herald may be less than completely reliable in some respects, since one of their retired CEOs appears on the list of the accused. If a responsible party calls the results of the grand jury into question it may be reported here, but only if that fact is reported by a reliable and neutral secondary source. Bryant and DeCamp are not reliable, neutral secondary sources.

Where Bryant has produced PDFs of original documents (such as the Vuchetich deposition) on his website, I will compromise with you to that extent. I doubt that he has gone so far as forging these documents. But Bryant treats Owen, Bonacci and Boner as reliable. Therefore, no matter how scholarly and professional he may sound and how well footnoted his book is, he is not reliable. Scholarly and professional-sounding works with abundant footnotes are part of the Lyndon LaRouche trap, and even though Bryant may not be a LaRouche disciple, others such as Tarpley and Chaitkin demonstrate that scholarly writing style does not alone convey reliability. The "corporate press" that Trine Day bitterly criticizes is the main avenue of reliability for Wikipedia sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion--"The consensus at WP:RSN so far is that neither Bryant nor DeCamp is a reliable source"--is intentionally misleading. Only DeCamp has been noted as an unacceptable source, and that was only in response to your incorrect assertion that I and other editors had used DeCamp for sourcing. One editor voiced his opinion that probably neither Bryant nor DeCamp was a reliable source. I and another editor defended the use of Bryant (not DeCamp) as a source. Administrator Will Beback voiced his opinion that Bryant is an acceptable source, except for claims that might be considered extreme--I agree. As I read the RSN record, the consensus falls on the side of accepting Bryant as a source for non-extreme claims.

I have read Bryant's book carefully, and he is quite careful not to make extreme claims; in reviewing the evidence his voice is one of balance and reason, and he summarily rejects extremism. He does mention some extreme claims (e.g. the claim the Washington D.C. child prostitution ring associated with Franklin fatally compromised the integrity of major U.S. politicians), however he does not lend weight to these claims; neither I nor any other editor favors bringing such claims into the article using Bryant or any other source.

I do think, in addition to your opinion that PDF's of original documents should be allowable, that general information based on Bryant's extensive research should also be allowable in the article. This would include Bryant's research indicating that Franklin Committee members felt stymied in their investigation of the facts by the FBI, the Nebraska State Patrol, and the Omaha Police Department, based on Bryant's extensive interview with key players. It would also include information that key personnel at Boys Town, Omaha's Child Protective Services, and Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) considered the Douglas Country grand jury report a "coverup." It was under the auspices of FCRB Executive Director Carol Stitt that the case against King and the others originated, following years of credible sexual child abuse complaints, so I think it is legitimate to at least mention Stitt as one of the reasonable people who criticized the Douglas County grand jury report.

I note your stubborn insistence on deleting well-sourced material proving that King was a "prominent Republican." You also continue to highlight LaRouche, even though there is no evidence he features prominently among those who find Franklin concerning--at your insistence, LaRouche is mentioned in the relevant section, however I believe further highlighting him is inappropriate. As for your assertion that "political extremists" are involved, this is a completely groundless assertion and I would ask you to remove it--you insist on sourcing from the other editors, yet you make no attempt to source your own unsubstantiated opinions. It is also your personal opinion that "a carefully crafted hoax" should be attached to the "Grand Jury findings" subheading--I disagree, as do others.

Overall, you seem unwillingly to work respectfully and co-operatively with the good-faith editors who have been attempting to improve this article. Your attitude is condescending at best and insulting at worst. I would ask you please to modify your approach.Apostle12 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Three editors — Maccy69, DreamGuy and myself — are clearly on the side of calling both DeCamp and Bryant unreliable sources. Note that DreamGuy referred to unreliable sources in the plural form, not the singular. You and WLRoss favor using Bryant. Will Beback favors using Bryant with great caution. That's a 3-3 tie, and consensus must be shown by those seeking to introduce the material.

I am truly sorry about my attitude and will try to do better in the future, but I grow weary of dealing with people who seek to compromise the integrity of this encyclopedia for whatever reason; and when trying to figure out the motives of such people, the first two that come to mind are "political partisanship" and "conspiracy theories." If your motives are pure, again I apologize. But simply mentioning the fact that these books have been published should be sufficient. At this point WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE also raise their heads. Greater weight should be given to the grand jury findings since they have the force of law. The opinions of the legislative committee are just that: opinions, and nothing more. They come from prominent sources, but they have no more weight than if the legislators had written letters to the editor. One blockquote is sufficient. More than that is too much.

Lyndon LaRouche and his followers are, literally, the lunatic fringe of American politics — the textbook example of WP:FRINGE — and yet we ramble on and on about them for three paragraphs. It's enough to simply mention afterward that a couple of books were published — by DeCamp and Bryant. And as I've said, there is no indication that they are not extremists or conspiracy theorists of a different stripe, who criticize LaRouche only because he doesn't drink the same brand of political Kool-Aid.

The three words, "carefully crafted hoax" are the thesis statement of the article and everything else fades in significance by comparison. For that reason, the phrase belongs in the section header. Grand juries send people one step — one giant leap, really — closer to prison, or even a death sentence. They look people in the eye, hear their tone of voice and watch their demeanor and body language, and determine the truth of the matter. Legislative committees generally do not and, unless they are passing laws, they have no real effect. Neither do self-published partisan lawyers, or people who style themselves "investigative journalists" but have never been published by a reputable newspaper or publishing firm, or tiny, fringe extremist publishing companies.

King is clearly an unsavory character — sex with men in their late teens, and embezzling $38 million — but men in their late teens are past the legal age of consent. And any wording that is even the slightest bit ambiguous about that should never see the light of day here at Wikipedia due to WP:BLP. Political extremists love to use this case as a broad brush to smear the entire Republican Party. It is our duty to ensure that the grand jury findings are given the proper amount of weight, and that fringe theories are given no more weight than they deserve. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. DreamGuy made a general comment about "bad sourcing," that went on to say this was the least of the article's problems: he never commented on DeCamp, much less Bryant. Your 3-3 tie is manufactured. You said you would abide by the consensus, yet now you are fudging.

Personally I give more weight to administrator Will Beback, which swings the consensus further in the direction of allowing inclusion of the Bryant source with appropriate caution. Perhaps you can be a mensch and honor your promise (though by this time I don't expect that you will).

You continue to refer to "political extremists" who "love to use this case as a broad brush to smear the entire Republican Party." This is an unfounded claim, and I have seen no evidence whatever that it might be true: do you have any? Apostle12 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback has no more weight in this than any other editor and as an admin, he'll be the first to confirm it. Even 3-2 is not sufficient for consensus, assuming DreamGuy has no opinion on Bryant; see WP:RFA, where one vote more than a 50/50 split does not convey a consensus. Perhaps we should let a few more editors weigh in on this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Jury is being given too much weight by Phoenix and Winslow. Several of the jurors submitted affidavits stating that they had been told to accept hearsay evidence such as accepting Wadhams unsupported claim he had taken a DNA test that had exonerated him (the judge refused to allow the existance of the test to be confirmed), and that during their deliberations they were shown written statements never presented in court that "played a significant role" in deliberations and which "mysteriously could not be located" after the trial and were also shown a television report claiming the accusers were telling lies. A "runaway" grand jury comes to mind.
Owen, Boner and Bonnacci accused both Democrats and Republicans so the article is hardly an attack on the Republicans.Wayne (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only person identified by party was King, a Republican; and the only people named in the story whose party affiliation would be known by the typical reader (without such an ID) were Ronald Reagan and the elder Bush, both Republicans. The grand jury isn't being given enough weight in my opinion, and everything else is being given too much weight, but I'm willing to compromise with the current version. These jurors' affidavits are only described by unreliable sources. The hearsay stuff was reviewed by an appellate court, and the appellate court confirmed the trial court's verdict — without requiring a new trial that excluded the hearsay evidence. Evidently Nebraska has more permissive rules regarding hearsay evidence than some other states. I do know that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule in cases where child sexual abuse has been alleged. The nature of those exceptions may vary from state to state.

If this case was really a gross miscarriage of justice as has been alleged, then why didn't the entire Nebraska state legislature change the hearsay rules, or take some other decisive action to protect the children of Nebraska from such predators? Why didn't the governor pardon Alisha Owen? Why didn't the Nebraska Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court reverse her conviction and set her free, or declare these hearsay rules unconstitutional? Why wasn't the trial court judge removed from the bench, and the prosecutor fired for misconduct? Child prostitution, of the enormity that was alleged by Owen, Boner and Bonacci, is the sort of thing that would really enrage the conservative people of Nebraska and through their elected representatives, I think that something would have been done about it if the accusers had even a microgram of credibility. But evidently they didn't. This case is described this way in the article not just because of what happened, but also because of what didn't happen. No higher authority took any action in response to all of the whining from Loran Schmit and Ernie Chambers. No reliable national publication took up this cause. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"No higher authority took any action in response to all of the whining from Loran Schmit and Ernie Chambers. No reliable national publication took up this cause." Yes, and it's a shame that those who were willing to step forward on behalf of the children of Nebraska are referred to as "whiners." Also a shame that you intend to keep it that way by obscuring the known facts. Of course some people truly have no capacity for shame. Apostle12 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion on reliable sources

The standard here is not "truth" but verifiability in reliable sources. This so-called "truth" cannot be verified in reliable sources. Therefore I am not going to be ashamed for strictly enforcing WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE to protect the encyclopedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No point in debating either the merits of the case (which topic you introduced), the reliability of the sources (where the consensus so far is that Bryant is allowable), appropriate enforcement of WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE, or anything else with an editor whose only desire is to listen to himself.Apostle12 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Being willing to compromise with the current version would be fine if the current version wasn't the version after you made the deletions to remove the edits using Bryant as a source. As there is no consensus that Bryant is not a reliable source the default position is that it is a RS, so I replaced the deleted text. Feel free to discuss any problems you still have and we can work on it but please do not delete the Bryant references just because you dont accept it as a reliable source. Wayne (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it. You said, "As there is no consensus ..." But the burden of showing consensus is on the people trying to introduce questionable material, not the people trying to keep it out. In particular, see the section on questionable sources here: [13] See also the appropriate sections in WP:V: [14] "The burden of evidence lies with the editor trying to add or restore material." Since there is no consensus, the material stays out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V also summarizes WP:BLP: "unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." So don't ask me, however politely, not to remove this poorly sourced contentious material about living persons. There's another good section of WP:V, one of the three principal policy statements of the Wikipedia project. It's called WP:SOURCES:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. .... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.

Please explain Trine Day's fact-checking process to me, and post a few links demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Prove to me that it's a "respected publishing house." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

You are making up the rules as you go along and insulting other editors in the process. "You just don't get it" is an insult to WLRoss|Wayne. Much of the material you want left out of the Franklin article comes from contemporaneous reporting that appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, noted as a reliable source; this material is directly relevant to why the Franklin Committee condemned the Douglas County grand jury proceedings. You continue to emphasize LaRouche and Schiller despite their marginal association with Franklin, yet you wish to eliminate even non-extreme material that simply mentions (without going into any detail) the names of people who are on public record as objecting to the Douglas County grand jury proceedings. On 21 March you posited that original material from Bryant was allowable. Now you insist that any use whatever of Bryant must be preceeded by proving to YOU that Bryant's publisher is up to par. What arrogance! You have already referred the Bryant sourcing issue to WP:RSN, where you got little support even though you attempted to conflate Bryant and DeCamp to bolster your position. Why don't you just work with the other editors? No one is promoting "fringe theory" here, despite your assertions. Apostle12 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is one of the bedrock principles of Wikipedia. If Trine Day does not have a rigorous fact-checking process and is not a "respected publishing house," then any claims made by the Bryant book alone must be excluded. If you have personally read Ohama World-Herald material, rather than relying on Bryant's reporting about an alleged OWH story, then go ahead and cite OWH as a source. Everything you've added to this article that cites OWH as its source I have left intact, despite substantial WP:WEIGHT concerns.

There is absolutely no reason to give this coverup theory equal weight with the grand jury findings and the results of Alisha Owen's perjury trial, let alone greater weight. Because the coverup theory is a minority theory at best, and WP:FRINGE at worst. And yet here we have two editors POV-pushing to give the coverup theory greater weight, and becoming indignant when I take appropriate action to protect the encyclopedia. You have not achieved consensus at RSN and WP:V requires you to achieve it before the Bryant material can be added. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a little test here. You state "Everything you've added to this article that cites OWH as its source I have left intact, despite substantial WP:WEIGHT concerns." I just added back the OWH material; I have personally read it, and you can too if you follow the provided links. Despite your assertion that you have "left (it) intact," it has been repeatedly deleted through your wholesale reverts; let's see if it remains intact before we go further. (BTW, please don't count this test as part of the 3-revert rule, since it's with your tacit consent.)

For the record, we are not giving "coverup theory" greater weight. We are simply reporting what those directly involved in the case said. It was the Franklin Committee members who asserted a coverup, as did employees of Boys Town, employees of Omaha's Child Protective Services, and the Executive Director of Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board. They all asserted a coverup; it was their opinion based on years of taking direct testimony from the children, that the Douglas County grand jury proceedings had been rigged by presenting false evidence that misled the jurors. Given the number of people involved this hardly represents a minority point of view, much less is it a fringe theory. Later on, when the jurors themselves became aware of the deceptive practices that had prevailed during the grand jury hearings, those who could muster the courage submitted affadavits of protest. Apostle12 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're giving "coverup theory" greater weight. To describe just one symptom, the grand jury is quoted in one inline quote for 19 words; the Franklin Committee now has two blockquotes totaling 104 words, a ratio of over 5-to-1. One of the two blockquotes needs to be removed, and the other needs to be shortened to even up this ratio. If you don't do it, I will. This is just one symptom of the overall disease of this WP:WEIGHT violation. You are lending greater weight, and therefore greater credibility to the minority view that it was a coverup. Also, you failed to mention here in Talk that you again removed the words "carefully crafted hoax" from the section header. And you keep replacing redundant material about Peter Citron, whose first name and OWH job were both provided just one paragraph earlier. When I said that I didn't take anything out that cited OWH as a source, I was referring to the last section. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. The stuff in the grand jury findings section that you have just added must be removed due to WP:WEIGHT, not WP:RS.

And for most of what you've said in the preceding paragraph here on the Talk page, you are relying on Nick Bryant. You must find him to be very, very persuasive. So it seems strange to me that you would do so, but reputable publishing companies didn't find him the least bit persuasive. As I said, I read a substantial portion of his book when it was first published. It follows the Tarpley/Chaitkin formula of writing that's in a scholarly style with plenty of footnotes, but constructed out of trash. Bryant, like Tarpley and Chaitkin, is far too eager to "connect the dots" when the dots are miles apart, so to speak. Meaning that it takes enormous leaps of both faith and logic to get from the proven facts, to the theory that Bryant, Tarpley and Chaitkin believe to be equally factual, and want the reader to believe to be equally factual.

For all these reasons, I put Bryant in the same category with Tarpley and Chaitkin. They're conspiracy theorists. Bryant just drinks a slightly different flavor of Kool-Aid. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn. Unending nonsense; please quit promising things that you have no intention of delivering! If you once again delete OWH sourced material, you will have utterly failed the test. Stating emphatically "If you don't do it, I will" does not communicate any intent to engage in productive work with other editors.

The Douglas County grand jury report is "quoted" for only 19 words because we do not have a full transcript that would allow further quotes; if you would prefer to quote them at greater length, find the transcript. More to the point the section devotes 345 words to presenting the grand jury perspective, based on NYT and OWH sourcing. I am beginning at "On July 23, 1990, after hearing many hours of testimony..." and concluding my count at "...major financial crimes associated with the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union."

By contrast the part of this section that presents the Franklin Committee perspective comprises a mix of description and quotes totaling only 210 words. I am beginning at "Members of the Franklin Committee..." and concluding my count at "...40 felony counts of embezzlement and fraud."

Your 5-1 ratio is bogus. What we are trying to do here is get both perspectives across, which we have done. By any stretch of the imagination, we have not given the Franklin Committee perspective undue weight; we have merely allowed them a point-by-point rebuttal.

You speak beyond your evidence when you accuse me of overreliance on Nick Bryant. In our discussions here, I am considering many sources that are broadly consistent--Bryant, my reading of the original source material (affadavits and so on), DeCamp (though I won't use him as a source, he provides valuable personal perspective) and a great many other sources including a myriad of OWH articles, NYT articles, and so on. My point was not that we should include everything I have considered, rather I was pointing out that we are demonstrating restraint by not even attempting to expand on this section.

Please stop lumping Bryant in with Tarpley/Chaitkin et al. There may be a lot of dot-connecting with Tarpley/Chaitkin; I don't know because I haven't read them and don't intend to. You said you only browsed Bryant at a bookstore. I understand that short exposure triggered your "conspiracy theorist" button, however I can tell you after having read the book with care that he explicitly refrains from "dot-connectng" and criticizes those who engage in this practice to construct groundless theories. You have expressed your opinion ad nauseum and seem unable to comprehend that your obsession with discrediting the LaRouche crowd has nothing to do with this subject or the article we are trying to write. Apostle12 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your word count of 210 words conveniently omits the entire "Coverup allegations" section which brings the grand total to 777 words, or more than a 2-to-1 ratio. Again, please review WP:FRINGE. And yes, that section should be included because it supports the Franklin Committee's version. The parallels between Tarpley/Chaitkin and Bryant are remarkable. They write in the same style and with few exceptions, the espouse the same birdbrained theories. There's a good reason why no reputable publishing company would touch Bryant's book. And it isn't a conspiracy by "corporate publishers." The position espoused by DeCamp, Bryant and Tarpley/Chaitkin is a textbook example of a conspiracy theory. WP:FRINGE speaks very clearly against giving conspiracy theories this amount of ink. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have "convenienly omitted" nothing; that's just you changing the rules, as usual. Please stop with your insulting insinuations. If you want to include the whole "Coverup allegation" section in our count, the paragraph dealing with the LaRouche associated sources really should be counted in favor of the Douglas County grand jury, since it includes the pejorative "conspiracy theorist" and I suspect this 135 word paragraph is one you might like to retain since it indicts LaRouche et al. By those rules we would add its 135 words to the initial 345 word count to yield a new-rules total of 480 words that are supportive of the grand jury position. If your count is correct we would subtract 135 words from your 777 word total to arrive at a new-rules total of 642 words that are supportive of the Franklin committee position. So the new-rules ratio would be 642-to-480, not 5-to-1 or even 2-to-1. But IMHO this is getting a little bit stupid. Apostle12 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, a careful review of the OWH article reveals several other problems with your work. One entire section was copied verbatim from that article and pasted into this Wikipedia article. That's plagiarism. You also conflated the Citron and King cases. Through your juxtaposition, a blockquote which is clearly about King is made to appear as though the committee was talking about Citron. Finally, the way in which you have presented the committee's final report strongly suggests that the committee found these accusers (Owen, Boner and Bonacci) to be credible. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm going to take another look at this mess in the morning, but you are more than welcome to clean it up tonight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is my work and some of it originated with others; many of my revisions built on earlier edits. After comparing the most recent edit and the OWH story, I do see similarity of wording, though tenses and other details have changed; there are only so many ways to succinctly state the facts. I did not spot an "entire section (that) was copied verbatim;" where is it? Made a few changes intended to address the problem, though I disagree with your "plagiarism" charge; that's a gross exaggeration.

I do see the problem with the Citron quote; will put it with King. The Franklin Committee disagreed with the grand jury decision not to indict King on sexual charges, lamenting that allegations of his illicit sexual acts were therefore never investigated. They suspected that there was more to the story and that he might have implicated others. With Citron their concern was similar; they objected to the grand jury decision not to link the Citron case to the Franklin case, even though Citron's arrest was based on documents prepared during the Franklin inquiry.

What the committee said was that they found it difficult to discern fact from fiction with respect to Owen, Boner and Bonacci, though Chairman Loran consistently accepted as credible the charges of sexual abuse at the hands of the powerful people under investigation. I believe this reality is communicated in the existing first blockquote. We could certainly expand the existing blockquote if you think that might be desirable, as the OWH article does include this:

"It could be that a large portion of the (sexual abuse) stories are true with certain lies incorporated where necessary to make the testimony more dramatic....We cannot be sure because the truth is now trapped in the minds of witnesses whose credibility cannot be ascertained with any certainty."

Do you want to add it? If so, whose word count should be credited?!

To really nail this section down, we would need to access original copies of the two reports--the Douglas County grand jury report and the Franklin Committee report--to make sure no distortions of fact or interpretation have crept into the sourced material, and from there found expression in the Wikipedia article. It's a complicated story, so without the original reports it is difficult to understand context even within the OWH article. I'll see if I can find them.

It is impossible to understand the Franklin case without understanding that all of these young adults/children were sexually abused from an early age. Even assigning them limited credibility is to accept that they were drafted into prostitution as children--the Douglas County grand jury accepted that. Bonacci's earlier conviction on sexual assault of a minor was related to his involvement in child prostitution, where such boundaries are stretched beyond recognition; he has also been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. None of these young people were well-educated, and the turmoil of their lives required them to operate in morally unconventional ways where "truth" was often their enemy in a battle for survival. Much of the fog surrounding Franklin has to do with these realities. That they were exploited by the very powerful is not hard to imagine. Apostle12 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll do it myself. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't clean things up, you just reverted...again. Your strategy is working though; you are wearing me down, and I will eventually find myself out of time and patience to deal with your unwillingness to edit collaboratively (and your intransigence). You will have asserted ownership, and once again I will regret having wasted many hours in a futile attempt to improve the Wikipedia article.

Too bad. Nearly twenty-five years after the actual events, I believe the victims' stories deserve a fair assessment by those who care about such things. I once hoped that Wikipedia might at least provide that possibility, since none of these cases will ever be reopened, and true justice is unlikely to be served. Apostle12 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy and Fifelfoo, a pair of regulars at WP:RSN, have weighed in on the subject of the Bryant and DeCamp books; and both these editors agree that both Bryant and DeCamp are unreliable sources. I hope that finally settles the matter. And I don't make up the rules as I go along. The victims' stories received a fair assessment, either by the grand jury or by the Franklin Committee (depending on whom one believes). The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a forum for such an assessment, or a re-assessment. Our purpose is simply to report whether such an assessment occurred and if it did, what results were produced — whether they were fair or not. In this case two separate assesssments occurred: one by the courts, and one by the investigative committee chaired by Loran Schmit. Only one of those assessments has the force of law, however.

No higher authority or national publication took up this cause; the grand jury's decision, and the subsequent perjury conviction of Alisha Owen which survive appellate review, are the "law of the case"; therefore, in a nation of laws, the grand jury findings and perjury trial conviction should receive the weight of a majority opinion, and all the rest who questioned or disagreed with those findings should receive the weight of a minority or fringe opinion per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Remember that by refusing to reverse the decisions of the grand jury and the trial court, grant executive clemency to Alisha Owen, or pass new laws forbidding the use of hearsay evidence in such cases, the governor, the Nebraska Supreme Court and appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state legislature (apart from the members of the committee) have joined the grand jury and trial court in viewing this as a "carefully crafted hoax." It's definitely a majority opinion. Mentioning and citing all these fringe sources — Executive Intelligence Review, The Unauthorized Biography of George W. Bush, the DeCamp book and the Bryant book — is sufficient without quoting them or even paraphrasing them. Those who believe such accounts are credible will seek them out and read them.

The amount of article space devoted to minority/fringe opinion is 777 words. Far too much. My position has always been that we should pick one blockquote from the Franklin Committee and get rid of the rest; until very recently, there was only one blockquote here and in my opinion, it was a reasonable summary of the committee's position. The recent addition of more unbalanced the article. Please remove the material and blockquotes that were recently added. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When the majority opinion did not support you at WP:RSN, you insisted you were not bound by the majority because it did not represent consensus. I note that you solicited opinions from Timidguy and Fifelfoo, which moves the balance ever so slightly in your favor; now you "hope that finally settles the matter." This IS making up the rules as you go along, despite your insistence to the contrary. I do not consider making up the rules as you go along honorable fair play.

You slandered both me and editor Wayne at WP:RSN when you stated you were "outnumbered by people who wanted to violate policy." You did the same when you said you "hope in the future these two editors will continue to become more compliant with WP policy." Our discussion there had nothing to do with "violation" or "compliance." The issue at WP:RSN was reliability with respect to the Bryant book--an honest disagreement despite your continued ad hominem attacks. Obviously you are a person who considers ad hominem attacks fair play. I do not. In addition such attacks violate WP:PA.

With regard to established policy guidelines at Wikipedia, I might suggest you review WP:OWN.

Once again you have given voice to your opinion that you wish to feature only one blockquote from the Franklin Committee--yesterday you reverted this section (twice) without demonstrating any willingness to work with me or the others on this issue. I believe the blockquotes as they appear at present balance this section in accord with your concern about WP:WEIGHT--the Franklin Committee viewpoint needs to have adequate expression specifically because, as you point out, it has "no force of law;" the single blockquote you favor does not convey why the Committee so strenuously objected to the Grand Jury findings. This does not make it a fringe, or even a minority, opinion--the Franklin Committee was lawfully assembled by the State of Nebraska, three Nebraska State Senators sat on the Committee, and it heard a great deal of testimony. Yesterday you requested that I edit this material and the blockquotes, which I have done. I do not favor removal, and I do not believe its removal is justified, especially under WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE. Please do not resort, as you have so often in the past, to wholesale reversion of material you do not favor.

With regard to the final section comprising 777 words, I would be happy to see deletion of the paragraph dealing with the LaRouche associated sources, thereby eliminating approxiately 135 words. I do not know anyone who considers these sources reliable, and I do not believe they deserve mention in the article.

Since you seem to be in favor of wikipolicying, perhaps you might try letting a few other editors hold sway on various issues in accord with WP:OWN. You get a little something, and the other editors get a bit of what they want; it's a win-win because the article ends up being better balanced than any of us could accomplish on our own. Of course this suggestion would require some adjustment of your "I'm always right" attitude. Apostle12 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not always right, Apostle12. But in this discussion, I've been right and you and WLRoss have been wrong, repeatedly. Since this is such a very important policy area, we must be absolutely right and we must err on the side of caution when we have any significant doubt about the acceptability of material from questionable sources. One of the two of you claimed that the "default position" was to assume that a source is reliable. I quoted chapter and verse from WP:V to prove that the "default position" is to leave it out, and that the burden of proof was on the shoulders of those seeking to add material or restore it once it's been removed. You claimed at great and tiresome length that Bryant is an eminently reliable source. You were deeply entrenched on that issue. But exposure of the discussion to uninvolved editors at WP:RSN produced a unanimous result among the uninvolved editors: every last one of them agreed that Bryant is not a reliable source.

You have repeatedly added the phrase "with minors" to describe King's sexual activities with young men. That phrase does not appear in the source being used. "Young men in their late teens" have passed the legal age of consent, which is no greater than 17 or 18 in nearly every state, including Nebraska. It is a libel against King to add those two words. They are pure poison. He is innocent until proven guilty on that charge, even though he was proven guilty on embezzlement charges.

And these are just three examples. I could list others. The juxtaposition of the quote about King, for example, to make it appear that it was about Citron. Repeatedly stuffing redundant material identifying King and Citron back into the article, after I've removed it because they were already very clearly identified just one paragraph earlier. I could go on.

All we need for this spectacle to be complete, Apostle12, is for some conservative blogger to spot this Talk page feud — or worse yet, the version of the article you were vigorously advocating for just days ago — and the Wikipedia project will be dragged through yet another embarassing exposé in the conservative press: "Wikipedia embraces conspiracy theories in Franklin case."

Since I've been right and you've been wrong so often, Apostle12, is there any way I could convince you to defer to my judgment in this matter? Including the paragraphs about the LaRouche people is every bit as essential as including the paragraph about Bryant and his book. They clearly illustrate the kind (or kinds) of people who have been attracted to this fringe theory, and the kind of publisher who would invest the money to put it into print. No, the place to cut down the coverage of this minority/fringe opinion is the extensive space you've granted to the Franklin Committee. They seemed to believe that justice would have been best served by charging everyone involved, to enable further investigation, and let the trial court sort it out. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the grand jury's role and its burden of proof. It cannot indict anyone unless it believes that the defendant is probably guilty, and can probably be proven guilty at trial. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin Committee

I thought there were only three people on the committee: Schmit, Decamp and Chambers. Now there is a paragraph surfacing that names five members, including Schmit and DeCamp but not Chambers. How did Chambers become involved and why does he speak with such great certainty that not only were the charges true, but that this was just "the tip of the iceberg"? If Chambers wasn't on the committee, he didn't hear this testimony. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Senator DeCamp was on the committee. In his capacity as Paul Bonacci's attorney (he may have represented Alisha Owen also, though I'd have to check), he submitted documents naming King, Citron, Wadham and others as having engaged in sexual relations with one or more of his clients while they were minors. These allegations were mirrored in independent reports, and videotaped testimony, submitted to the grand jury by the Nebraska State Foster Care Review Board and by other child care professionals. DeCamp's submissions during the original Franklin Committee hearings, which took place before the grand jury proceedings, were the basis for Citron's arrest and eventual conviction for molesting two boys--the boys' parents demanded, and got, an independent investigation based on DeCamp's submission. It was for this reason the Franklin Committee objected to the grand jury's assertion that Citron had nothing to do with the Franklin case.

The history of the Franklin Committee hearings is complex. Chambers participated in the hearings and heard all the testimony, however I believe that by the time the final report was submitted he was no longer a participant, hence the absence of his name among the signatories to the committee's final report.

In writing this article we are limited to sources that are accurate, yet incomplete; they do not go into sufficient detail to tell the whole story. Bryant's book is very thorough in this regard. If you wish I can use it to try to unravel the history of the Franklin Committee; it's quite easy to verify the accuracy of Bryant's analysis, since he provides full copies of original source material. Apostle12 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just checked this source (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DF143EF93BA25751C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1), which clarifies that Chambers presided over Nebraska State Executive Board hearings, which is where many of the allegations were originally aired. Nebraska provides for Executive Board hearings when the full state legislature is not in session. The NYT article quotes Chambers based on transcripts from the original Executive Board hearings, some of which were public. The Franklin Committee hearings followed the Executive Board hearings, and the Douglas County grand jury proceedings followed the Franklin Committee hearings. Apostle12 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're giving far too much weight to procedural matters in the civil case, Apostle12. The problem again is one of WP:WEIGHT. I'm going to restore the balance of the article. If you'd like, we can bring in some uninvolved editors through RfC. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to make threats. RFCs should be used after a failure to work out a compromise for a disputed edit, not for every single edit.Wayne (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Why not talk about it here? That's what the talk page is for. Perhaps you might state why you feel too much weight is given to procedural matters (instead of simply declaring it to be a fact) and we can go from there. Apostle12 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel that everything I suggest is a threat? I suggested RSN, and you felt threatened. Now I suggest RfC and you feel threatened again. I'm just trying to improve the article — and I believe more eyes on the subject would be a good thing, particularly some experienced and previously uninvolved editors. There is a persistent trend here by the two of you to fluff up everything except the criminal cases and their results. Meeting resistance in the area of conspiracy theory, you've shifted your focus to the civil default judgment. The overall goal appears to be diminishing the significance of the criminal cases, which are the most significant events in this story and should receive the lion's share of WP:WEIGHT. When I first started editing this article, even a mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction was quickly reverted.

Minute details of civil procedure require space and words. This lends weight to the civil case. It is my understanding that Paul Bonacci has never and will never collect a dime of his default judgment from Lawrence King. King is an ex-con and a pauper. The effect of the civil judgment on the parties is minimal. However, the effect of the criminal cases was substantial because two people went to prison for extended periods of time; and King (and other suspects) escaped spending the rest of their lives in prison for these truly hideous, and ultimately false sexual accusations. Most people familiar with this case don't even know about either the embezzlement charges or the civil lawsuit. They only know about the "child prostitution ring" allegations — which turned out to be an ugly pack of lies. The fact that the title of the article reflects this state of the public's general knowledge — "child prostitution" is mentioned, but the embezzlement case and the civil lawsuit are not — should provide us some guidance about where the most weight belongs: the criminal cases. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)