Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Bonacci case

On April 4th, I completed a rewrite of this section so that the Bonacci case might be better understood. I used the existing reliable sources to clarify exactly what the suit was about, how it was settled, and what the rationale for settlement was. Here's the rewrite as submitted:

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

Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town, and an appeal against the removal failed. The other named defendants were cleared, leaving only King to stand trial.[13]

At the time of the civil trial, King was still serving three consecutive 5-year sentences in federal prison following his 1991 criminal conviction on multiple charges of embezzling funds from Omaha's failed Franklin Community Federal Credit Union. King was served a court summons, however he never responded to Bonacci's allegations. Judge Urbom said, "There is no indication he (King) wanted to dispute this."

On February 4, 1999, Judge Urbom awarded Bonacci a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in the civil action against King. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petitioner's allegations, however he ruled that the failure of King's legal representation to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm.[14][13][15][16]

An appeal of the $1 million judgment against King was filed, however he dropped the appeal in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.[17]

The old version appears here:

On February 1, 1991, former Nebraska state senator John DeCamp filed a civil suit alleging sexual abuse on behalf of Bonacci, against King and the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha. The federal judge removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town and an appeal against the removal failed.

Bonacci won a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in the civil action against King. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petition's allegations, but ruled that the failure of King's legal representation to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him."[13][14]

The default judgment was awarded February 14, 1999, by senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha.[14] King was in prison at the time, having been sentenced in June 1991 following his conviction in the criminal case. Urbom stated that King had been served the court summons in prison and could have responded but that there was "no indication he [King] wanted to dispute this."[15][16]

An appeal of the $1 million judgment against King was filed, however he dropped the appeal in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.[17]

As I see it, the old version has several problems:

It includes few of the named defendants.

It includes the name of the judge and his title too late in the section.

It excludes many of the allegations that constitute the body of the suit, in particlar Bonacci's allegation that he was forced by King and the others to participate in a child prostitution ring, as well as orgies with other boys and girls.

Most importantly, it excludes Bonacci's allegation of "permanent harm," which Judge Urbom stated was his reason for awarding such exceptionally high damages.

It provides too little context. As with many civil suits, the parallel nature of the allegations and the defendants is important for readers to understand the relevance of Bonacci's civil suit to the Franklin case.

I made every effort to avoid the inclusion of information that was extraneous to the Franklin case (for example that Bonacci's sexual abuse led to his problems with multiple personality disorder). I do believe my rewrite of this section clarified the Bonacci case and improved the article. Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with your version (except you need to keep the entire last sentence of the third paragraph to avoid an implication that King was not able to respond) but when Phoenix and Winslow reverted your edit he also deleted some of the original section under the pretext of the revert (as he does all too often). I reverted back to the complete original to avoid the section becoming messed up. I did make an alteration though. I removed Kings actual sentence as it is already mentioned in the lead and an earlier section so is redundant here. Wayne (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. And you are correct about the redundant mention of King's actual sentence--hard to spot those sometimes! Could we please reinstate the rewrite along with your suggested changes? P.S. Added a couple of points above. Apostle12 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd rather not include the rewrite. As I stated previously, it lends too much WP:WEIGHT to the civil case. The civil case has had very little effect on the litigants, as I've explained in the previous section of the talk page. The criminal cases, however, had a profound effect on all participants — due to what happened to them (embezzlement conviction for King, perjury conviction for Owen and both getting several years in prison; recantation for two other accusers, and a mental incompetence ruling on the fourth) as well as what did NOT happen to them (no one was ever charged or convicted on the exceedingly lurid "child prostitution"/satanic ritual/orgy allegations). Including all of these minute details of civil procedure requires space and words, better invested elsewhere. You already got your second blockquote from the Franklin Committee report. Take what you can get and be done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. All good until your last comment: "Take what you can get and be done." Perhaps you are unaware that this is an unnecessarily abrasive and dismissive comment. Our discussion here is not about what any editor "gets" or does not get; it's about improving the article.Apostle12 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding more and more and more weight to everything except the criminal cases does not improve this article. Instead, it does the opposite. It makes the article worse. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I believe providing proper context improves the article. Apostle12 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe in being clear, but I also strongly believe in being concise. This is an encyclopedia article, not a 300-page book on the subject or even a 5-page magazine article on the subject. All these details are available at the sources and we've given links to the sources. It is sufficient to provide a brief summary of the most salient facts. Try reading the Wikipedia article on wordiness. I could easily inject another 1000 words into the portions of the article that cover the criminal cases, in order to restore balance per WP:WEIGHT, because they are the main events of this carnival, so to speak. I refrain from doing so. Instead, I implore you to stop adding material about the carnival sideshows.

Alisha Owen was convicted of eight counts of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. Not one. Not two. Just because it's hearsay doesn't mean it isn't true; perhaps this is why the defense attorney chose not to object at trial, because if the prosecutor had been forced to produce non-hearsay evidence, it might have been even more damaging to Owen. And according to Owen's attorney, Owen privately admitted to her that she was lying like a rug. Two other accusers recanted. Bonacci, the only other person telling these lies, was found to be incompetent to stand trial for perjury (and was a convicted felon as well). Courts usually find convicted perjurors and child molesters to be severely lacking in the credibility department, and for good reason. Their lies, and the rantings of the political extremists and conspiracy theorists who choose to believe these lies, do not deserve one more microgram of WP:WEIGHT in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Phoenix and Winslow even know anything about the case? OR has no place here, for example several of the charges referred to Owen claiming she had Wadhams baby. Wadham testified that he had taken a DNA test which excluded him but when the defense requested to see the result the judge refused. Her perjury was far from reasonable doubt. Owen's attorney also admitted to breaking client attorney priveledge, lieing before a Bar investigation and helping the prosecution while still Owens attorney, hardly a reliable witness. Recanting doesn't mean jack and doesn't explain why Eulice Washington, who also gave the same story, was not charged with perjury. But then she had passed four separate lie detector tests. As for Bonacci, he was mentally disturbed from years of child abuse which the Grand Jury accepted which doesn't make him a lier. The charge he was jailed for involved something that normally recieves a good behaviour bond. It is political extremists that believe only what they want to. The "carnival sideshows" are very relevant to the allegations. I reiterate, YOU DO NOT OWN THE ARTICLE and you must work with editors. Wayne (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New Approach

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

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

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

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

Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town, and an appeal against the removal failed. The other named defendants were cleared, leaving only King to stand trial.[13]

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

On February 4, 1999, Judge Urbom awarded Bonacci a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petitioner's allegations, however he ruled that the failure of King's attorney to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm.[14][13][15][16]

An appeal of the default judgment was filed, however it was dropped in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.[17]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Revert Rule

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

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

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

And some more discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverend James Bevel

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The grand jury's report, which appeared after Caradori's death, alleged that Caradori was leading his witnesses and feeding them information: "We believe that Caradori was duped into working with [Michael] Casey, who took advantage of Caradori's background information."[5] The grand jury also described Casey, a free-lance writer, as a con man and alleged that Caradori "stood to gain professionally and personally" from the sexual abuse allegations.[5]

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

The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about his investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci."[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh start

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

I’ll begin at the start of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An appeal of the $1 million judgment against King was filed, however he dropped the appeal in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.[17]

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

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

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

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

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

• Not crazy about the wording but I can accept that.
• Would "rejected" work?
• I dont think mention of conspiracy theorists belong in the lead as they are not notable enough. I didn't know any were involved at all but then I dont live in the U.S. so it could be more prominent there.
• "a carefully crafted hoax" should be removed from the section heading. Not only because that was not all they "found" but also because WP is not a newspaper and shouldn't be written in that style.
• Looks ok but I'm open to modification.
• I feel that "filed a civil suit alleging sexual abuse on behalf of Paul Bonacci" works better than the last sentence of the first para. The third paragraph reads better as "King was in prison at the time, having been sentenced in June 1991 to 15 years following his conviction in the criminal case. Urbom stated that King had been served the court summons in prison and could have responded but that there was "no indication he [King] wanted to dispute this." I dont think we need the last sentence of the fourth para.
• I dont think we should include the hearsay evidence of threats. I'll be bold and suggest the following:

  Following concerns from the Nebraska Legislature regarding the lack of progress in the investigation, in October 1989, the Legislature set up the Franklin Committee to investigate the allegations. After being informed that there was little supporting evidence and no leads to follow up, the Franklin Committee hired Gary Caradori, a former Nebraska State Patrol trooper and private investigator, as a special investigator. Caradori went on to accumulate several tons of documents, many of which allegedly supported various allegations. On July 11 1990, Caradori and his eight-year-old son were killed when Caradori's plane broke up in flight over Illinois. Despite speculation following claims that Caradori had been receiving death threats, the National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the crash was an accident likely caused by pilot error.
  Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmit told the Omaha World-Herald that "[Caradori] believed that something was going to come out of this investigation. He believed that the evidence was there to be developed and that things couldn't stay under cover forever." Pamela Vuchetich, a Lincoln Nebraska attorney for one of the young men who had alleged sexual abuse, commented that Caradori's death "sure puts some holes in the case. He was a major player in it. He had a lot of knowledge. That's been lost." Following Caradori’s death his documents were seized by the FBI and were not made available for the Grand Jury investigation. A later attempt to access the records for Owens perjury trial was unsuccessful.
  The Grand Jury report alleged that Caradori was leading his witnesses and feeding them information: "We believe that Caradori was duped into working with [Michael] Casey, who took advantage of Caradori's background information." The grand jury also described Casey, a free-lance writer, as a con man and alleged that Caradori "stood to gain professionally and personally" from the sexual abuse allegations. The Franklin Committee's report found Caradori to be credible and defended him against the grand jury allegations. The committee said that, although his death left many unanswered questions about his investigation, "We do not believe for a minute that he was a 'dupe' for anyone ... We also do not believe that he had any ulterior motives for developing the allegations made by Owen, Boner, King and Bonacci."

  Comments? Wayne (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now understand about the fifth edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focusing on "The Franklin Committee final report"

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

Currently this section reads as follows:

Although the Franklin Committee had originally recommended empaneling the Douglas County grand jury, in their final report all five committee members (State Senators Schmit, Warner, Labedz, Lynch and Baack) unanimously denounced the grand jury findings:

"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." [5]

The committee was critical of the grand jury's finding that Citron's case was unconnected to Franklin. They also disagreed with the grand jury's decision not to call Lawrence King as a witness or charge him with sexual crimes, since that prevented a full investigation. "Who might he have implicated? ... We are left wondering whether there is much more to this story." [5]

Awhile back I suggested the following:

Although the Franklin Committee had originally recommended empaneling the Douglas County grand jury, in their final report all five committee members (State Senators Schmit, Warner, Labedz, Lynch and Baack) objected to the grand jury findings for multiple reasons. In particular they “fail(ed) to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities was ‘a carefully crafted hoax.’" [9]

"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." [6]

The committee was critical of the grand jury's finding that Citron's case was unconnected to Franklin. They also disagreed with the grand jury's decision not to call Lawrence King as a witness or charge him with sexual crimes, since that prevented a full investigation. "Who might he have implicated? ... We are left wondering whether there is much more to this story." [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a./ Their stated conclusions about the Franklin Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment--moved from discussion of article lede

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

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

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

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

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