Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Article sources, User Pheonix & Winslow

I am an infrequent editor but long time reader and have donated to the Wikipedia fund in the past. I'm concerned by the lack of sourcing on the Conspiracy of Silence documentary and Bryant's book. Whether something has been peer reviewed or not doesn't effect it's inclusion in this article. In fact, sourcing the accusations from those two controversial media sources is essential in my opinion to understanding the scandal. This isn't an issue of verifying a claim or not, but detailing the accusations. All parties in the media and courts seem to have stated their opinions and judgements many years ago. I hope a higher ranking moderator will comment on this and fix this quickly. Thanks so much. P&W, you seem to know a lot about this, I learned some from your informative talk posts, but please don't censor the allegations, read the article title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.122.181 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC) To add to this I read there is not a single quote from any of the accusers though these are readily available and If memory holds the documentary and book are sources of these quotes. It's not hard to imagine you work for the republican party or some other biased interest P&W, reading a bit more of your talk posts. You really believe that King's party affiliation is unrelated to the allegations or this article, the theme of accused political figures (who were not named in P&W's dominated article)? No article exists on King himself, though someone should do that. I don't know of the specific edit that you changed in this regard. I ask that as a serious question. King was convicted and charged of and released for "embezzling" around 40 million dollars from the credit union. Again, it concerns me that there are no quotes of the accusers themselves, whatever their current status. I also respond to P&W comment that this is "not a book," in effort to keep the article short. This was a nationwide story lasting for months, worthy of a full length article, the dignity of the truth, especially for the accused if he is truly innocent. Also the tactlessly biased note about the book's publisher? This was a nationwide continual story covered by the New York Times.69.253.122.181 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The heading at the top of the article is why none of what you wish is going to happen.--MONGO 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was reading this, the New York Times describes in their 5 sentence article him as a "prominent republican." http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/us/omaha-tales-of-sexual-abuse-ruled-false.html? There is one clearly sourced disagreement with P&W. As far as sourcing the allegations, we are talking about historic events which occured 30 years ago, the subject of the article is the allegations, this implies the media coverage as well, not only the court case in 1990. I understand that libelous seeming claims are moderated on here and perhaps inappropriate, these child sex allegations against politicians would fit that well. It's creepy to hear about this story and the ruling with the modern retrospective of the Vatican, Orthodox Judaism and other recently exposed scandals, all over the world. Thanks69.253.122.181 (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One more point about the discussion of minority voices and the guidelines. It seems clearly that the majority of editors here are in favor of a less biased article. It seems you P&W are the only person with the gall to argue for a less inclusive article describing the allegations. I keep in mind the potentially libelous claims, the many newspaper articles and documentary stories are the basis of such an article. I've honestly never read Bryant's book but assume it has the testimony of the accusers in it. I honestly can't judge the relevance of it but I imagine it's similar to the documentary Conspiracy of Silence which was similarly not mentioned. Mentioning and cross referencing the books and documentaries on the subject isn't the same as writing libelous accusations. In fact, the anecdote about the Phillip Jenkins book is in response to these unnamed sources is longer than the one sentence of dubbed "conspiracy theories," referenced by Bryant's book which S&W has talked about. I would petition to remove Jenkins mention as I feel it is opinionated and overall unrelated to the core subject. I wouldn't mind it in a full length article, it seems more suited for a wider topic. 69.253.122.181 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have "gall" then to enforce the BLP policy and to keep preposterous conspiracy theories out of this article. That docudrama you mention is a conspiracy theory...it has no place here.--MONGO 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Federal Grand Jury found that the alleged abuse did occur but that the victims had identified the wrong perpetrators (why this can't be mentioned in the article baffles me) so what exactly is the conspiracy theory? Some conspiracy against the accused? A conspiracy against the victims? Please elaborate and perhaps explain why an article about a "conspiracy theory" can't detail what the conspiracy actualy is. Wayne (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the "docudrama?" It was produced by Yorkshire Television in the UK and actually aired on British television before being cancelled in the USA. This fact is not preposterous or a conspiracy theory. The comment calling the documentary itself a conspiracy theory does not make logical sense, I assume you mean something else, like the subject of the allegations and supposed coverup have been dubbed "conspiracy theory" before, for the subject of the article. The version re-released by John DeCamp contains some title sequences with claims about politicians and Washington figures being involved in the supposed ring which differ from the original footage of the originally aired documentary. More importantly, DeCamp's re-release version and ostensibly the original contain several relevant references of first hand interviews with police and a variety of figures in Omaha and the related controversy. Forgive me if my gall comment inflames you, but you show similar bias as S&W, MONGO, in my view. It strikes me that someone would hold a bias on such an issue. 69.253.122.181 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As you say, "re-released" by John DeCamp...means it's original research and a conspiracy theory. I'm not the least bit inflamed, just letting you know that we're not going to violate the BLP policy to add in conspiracy theories. This article was vastly trimmed to keep it in compliance with policy...which you should familiarize yourself with.--MONGO 15:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

€œUser:MONGO keeps adding the categories Conspiracy theories and Hoaxes in the United States. The first Grand Jury may have found this but the claim of hoax was rejected by the second Grand Jury, the Nebraska Legislature committee which investigated the allegations and by Judge Urbon in the later civil suit. The conspiracy accusations involve claims which are not mentioned in the WP article so this category is also not appropriate. Addition of the categories appears to be WP:OR and POV.

"the defendant King, continually subjected the plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults, false imprisonments, infliction of extreme emotional distress ... forced the plaintiff to '€˜scavenge'€™ for children to be a part of the defendant King's sexual abuse and pornography ring, forced the plaintiff to engage in numerous masochistic orgies with other minor children" — Finding by Judge Urbon 1999 civil suit. United States District Court For the District of Nebraska; Paul A. Bonacci vs. Lawrence E. King; 4:CV91-3037

I know MONGO wont back down and I don't want to start an edit war so I invite comments. Wayne (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just going by the edits left in place when a sitting member of the Arbitration Committee trimmed all the superstition out of the article to make it BLP compliant.--MONGO 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The top links - prisonplanet, abovetopsecret, whatreallyhappened - that come up when googling the article title suggest the categories are appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also...since the sources for the CT end of things are unreliable, we can't infringe on BLP just to discuss the CT within article space.--MONGO 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Tom harrison; There are other sources than those you pointed out as any serious search would find. Top links merely indicates most visited which shouldn't suggest anything to an editor other than that they are visited the most. None of those sources were ever used in the article. There are reliable sources, such as a defamation suit transcript hosted on a legal website, that support that the County Grand Jury prosecutor co-wrote the Juries finding and maliciously and falsely defamed people. The Judges set aside this suit on the grounds that the Prosecutor and Jury had total immunity. There is also the trial of Bauer (one of the Franklin accused) who was charged and convicted on the evidence given to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury also recommended that King be charged. As the prosecutor committed King to a mental home these charges were not laid. The perjury charges involved the victims naming specific people, they did not involve the actual abuse claims. These claims are all public record. The article itself does not even mention any claims that are part of a conspiracy theory. @ User:MONGO; According to WP:BLP, the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text. Hoax is definitely not supported and there is no content in the article that justifies the CT category. The addition of those two categories are a violation of BLP. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a cleverly crafted hoax to me. Let me know when you have a reliable source for those conspiracy theories.--MONGO 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your OR is irrelevant. The examples above are all documented in court records. Blind Freddie could find the court transcript for the defamation case against the County Grand Jury prosecutor or are you claiming the three judges who presided over it are conspiracy theorists? It's telling that you have been making ignorant comments instead of trying to justify the categories. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

DeCamp claimed that defendants intended to chill his freedom of speech "by using the position of the Grand Jury to accuse [him] of wrongdoing in manner [sic] to prohibit and intimidate [him] from further using his First Amendment rights to criticize public institutions"...we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed DeCamp's claim against the grand jurors because they possessed absolute immunity against liability. — Circuit Judges Gerald Heaney, George Gardner Fagg and Pasco Bowman II.
DeCamp contends the special prosecutors "stepped outside the scope of their official duties and responsibilities when they co-authored the [grand jury's] report"...We believe the special prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for helping the grand jury draft an official report — Circuit Judges Fagg and Bowman with judge Heaney dissenting. 978 F.2d 1047 (1992)

If you think this "sounds like a cleverly crafted hoax" I'll help you out. Factual claims are not a conspiracy theory/hoax, a conspiracy theory/hoax is making unsubstantiated claims based on the factual claims. Wayne (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No reason to get upset at me...strangely enough, I live in Omaha...and know that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory. Where is the reference from the reliable source?--MONGO 12:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" that it is a hoax and a conspiracy theory is WP:OR. You need to justify the categories. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wayne...where is the reference which says this isn't a hoax and a conspiracy theory?--MONGO 16:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's the reference that it is? Only the County Grand Jury found it was a hoax and even then it contradicted itself by also finding that the abuse had happened but not by those accused. The Federal Grand Jury and the Nebraska Legislature investigative committee rejected the County Grand Jury findings and the finding in the civil suit against King also found the claims of abuse to be true. Alan Baer (one of the Franklin accused) was charged and convicted on the testimony of Troy Boner. Then we have the original Nebraska Foster Care Review Board investigation which reported the abuse in 1988. The Foster Care Review Board had the testimony of around 30 alleged victims and to date not one has had their testimony refuted. Only one of the original alleged victims (the other four were chosen by the prosecutor from those who came forward later) testified before both Grand Juries and she was not charged with perjury. I know there are various conspiracies surrounding the case but not one of them is mentioned in the article, which is about the case, not the conspiracies anyway. You are the one trying to add content based on what you "know" so you are the one who needs to provide references. See WP:WEIGHT. Wayne (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added mention of the conspiracy theories to justify the category and removed the hoax category which remains unsupported after a week of discussion. Wayne (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just full protected this for one day due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

user Wayne has provided reference to court testimony substantiating allegations of sexual abuse. Yet the main article continues to present the entire sex abuse claim as a complete hoax. Someone is very wrong here. This should not be difficult to resolve. Either the court records exist or they don't. 72.73.111.36 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nick Bryant has transcripts for both Grand Jury trials which confirm that both found that the accusers had been abused but not by the people they accused. However, after Bryant published his book, the records for both Grand Jury trials were permanently sealed. Affidavits by jurors and the transcripts of other related trials, such as appeals, provide confirmation for Bryant's claims regarding the two trials. As Wikipedia has rejected Bryant's book as unreliable and also the affidavits and related trial transcripts as they are primary sources, this leaves minimal references that can be used. There was a RFC for the reliability of Bryant's book. Bryant himself was not found to be unreliable so a second discussion was started for his publisher. As his publisher was found not to be RS, Bryant's book by extension was also rejected. Wayne (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So what...there were no convictions, so who cares about testimony. Lots of testimonials exist from people that truly believe they saw Bigfoot or UFOs too....it's also known as fantasy.--MONGO 23:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There were convictions, the Grand Jury indicted Bauer for pandering and he was convicted. Similarly King was indicted but the charges were dropped after he was declared incompetent to stand trial by judge Kopf at a mental competency hearing. The Grand Jury also recommended that the Webbs, who were not among the accused, be investigated on the testimony of one of the accusers and both were later tried and convicted. Two other accused were later tried and convicted for pedophilia although this was not related to the Franklin case. You continue to rely on OR and straw man arguments to support your case that the abuse claims were a hoax. Only a few months ago a pedophile ring was broken by Toronto detectives with 348 members arrested and 230 abused children taken into protection so why do you find the Franklin case so unbelievable? Wayne (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this one was a hoax. Real bombings happen too. It doesn't mean that all bomb threats are real. Or that all bomb threats should be depicted as real bombing when it is discovered to be a hoax. Pedophilia happens enough and is so grievous that we treat an accusation as real and serious when it is made. Likewise, after it's been determined to be a hoax, we treat it like a hoax. The high school senior that calls in a bomb threat to his school to get out of a test and is arrested after an evacuation and search determines it was a hoax: we write it as a hoax, not as a real bombing that authorities just never found the explosives. Especially after conviction of false threats. It's not that bombings are unbelievable, just that this particular one is a hoax. --DHeyward (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All the GJ found was that the claims were "embellished and exaggerated," not that they were not true. And this only applied to four of the five victims as those named by the fifth (who was never charged with perjury) were eventually convicted. It is also significant that the perjury charges were related to naming perpetrators, not to making the claims of abuse. To use your example, the bombs were found but not in the rooms identified. Straw man arguments and personal beliefs do not cut it, you need to support your claim with the proof required to justify the category. It's been over two weeks, how much longer do you need? Wayne (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wayne...it's a hoax and a conspiracy theory. What you want to do is violate BLP to promote lies. That is not going to happen.--MONGO 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's your OR. All I'm doing is asking you to comply with Wikipedia policies by justifying the category. Wayne (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"After investigation, a Douglas County grand jury determined the abuse allegations were baseless, describing them as a "carefully crafted hoax" and indicted two of the accusers on perjury chargers." Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the rest is a lot of heresay. The main problem with the story is the facts have become overshadowed by the conspiracy theory since the latter is more interesting.--MONGO 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the County Grand Jury is the only source for the hoax claim. The Federal Grand Jury found otherwise as did the Nebraska legislative committee investigation. The Nebraska Legislature also believe the claims were "credible" while the Nebraska Foster Care Review Board (the source of the claims) still claims that the Franklin scandal proved the board was a reliable source of information on child abuse. You cant use the County GJ to support the hoax claim as it's findings were overruled. Nor can you use the fact that two of the accusers were charged with perjury as the charges were for claims against specific people. Both GJ found that the abuse did happen. Supply reliable sources for the category or remove it. Wayne (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I would challenge anyone alleging this to be a hoax to just skim Nick Bryant's account published in his book. It is 500 pages of extremely detailed information, and Bryant clearly has no qualms about debunking false info. This is not a "conspiracy theory" book. It reads like a meticulous cross-examined police report. If even 10% of the information in that book is true (and there is strong evidence that most of it is true), then there was certainly a real child prostitution-pedophilia network involved in the Franklin Scandal that has been actively covered up.

As user wayne has stated, there are numerous official committees that substantiated the child abuse claims. Puzzlingly, user MONGO appears to be asserting certain knowledge that it was all a hoax.

What is most telling is how widespread of an event this was, and how many official parties were involved. Yet Wikipedia has nothing to show but a tiny 4 paragraph article. Something is very wrong here. 70.16.207.123 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll get the article cleaned up again this weekend. I think we'll be able to stub it out at less than 4 paragraphs once we elimjnate the BLP issues and conspiracy theories. It's important that we not try to make a connection between the issues of financial impropriety and conflate them with the hoax about the child sex ring nonsense...since this article is about the latter issue, that's what we need to focus on. In other words, the financial impropriety does not make the child abuse issues a fact...implicating anyone guilty of the financial issues and insinuating they were part if the child sex ring allegations is a major BLP issue if it is unsubstantiated.--MONGO 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There are official findings and testimonies concerning the Franklin child abuse allegations that testify to its substance, whether or not a specific ruling alleged a hoax. (Frankly, if you've studied the subject matter at all, there is quite obviously a great deal of substance to the allegations, and that is a point of view coming from multiple official channels involved in the investigation.) A cherry-picked legal ruling is not cause to censor other information surrounding an event.

I can sympathize with a skeptical attitude about this event, but it is downright strange of user MONGO to continue to claim absolute knowledge of this event being a hoax. user MONGO is probably not qualified to be editing this article.

Hopefully, in the future, this subject will be accurately represented.70.16.207.123 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, instead of getting the article "cleaned up", I would suggest leaving this article to editors that are more knowledgeable of the subject matter. I don't mean this to be hostile, but you obviously are not equipped to deal with the article in any encyclopedic fashion. 70.16.207.123 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the innuendo...King was never charged with child abuse or involvement in the alleged sex scandal...I may need to eliminate more guilt by association material...but the conspiracy theory and hoax are still there and that is what the article needs to focus on.--MONGO 19:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs about which specific events should be focused on is irrelevant. User MONGO continues to make it abundantly clear he is unqualified to be editing this article. Oh well. I'm finishing up Bryant's book at the moment. Afterwards I will track down the appropriate sources and correct MONGO's failure. 72.95.103.141 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Okie dokie.--MONGO 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

New Edits - November 11, 2013

In order to more accurately represent this event, I've added references to two articles published in the Omaha World-Herald directly relating to this event. This is a mainstream publication and a reliable source. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I've removed the following text from the lead paragraph:

The allegations also claimed that the alleged sex ring was led by, "a cult of devil worshipers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice and cannibalism of numerous children."

Devil Worship and Satanic rituals were only briefly discussed by certain alleged victims, and is a very minor point compared to the main allegations of child sex abuse and prostitution. This statement presents a distorted and inaccurate picture of the Franklin child abuse allegations. It certainly does not belong in the introductory paragraph, or any sort of brief summary of the events.

The statement seems to be intended to make the allegations sound more fantastic and far fetched. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I've added another reference to the Omaha World-Herald regarding the Franklin committee's statements. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This material[1] seems to me to be not well enough supported by sources, given the nature of the accusations against living people. A clear consensus should be developed on the talk page before it's restored. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have left out the reference that mentioned Larry King but I have restored the other two references that make no mention of Larry King, therefore the BLP reasoning does not apply. You deleted references to two reliable sources without providing any reason whatsoever. Care to explain why? 72.65.126.63 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

King was sentenced to prison for crimes related to embezzlement...he was never charged with child abuse or any sex crimes, much less convicted of such acts. Expanding on him to make him seem more likely to have been a sex offender IS a BLP violation, and since he wasn't even charged, it is a conspiracy theory. Those that made the allegations were charged and one did serve time in prison for perjury related directly to the lies they told.--MONGO 22:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article on Larry King. It is an article on the Franklin child abuse allegations. The references I've included are to specific official statements regarding the investigation of those allegations and make no mention of Larry King. Your accusation of BLP is completely without merit. You're clearly grasping for any reason to remove information you personally dislike. If reliably sourced information is offensive to you, then I suggest you move on to trying to improve a different article. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

NO...but you are doing all you can to promote your conspiracy theories and link him and others to crimes for which there were never any charges brought much less any convictions...should charges be brought then we can discuss that, but the opinions of others about what they think happened are meaningless. Do the website a favor and register a username...that way you're more accountable for your POV pushing and makes it easier to be blocked if you continue.--MONGO 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your baseless opinion that, by adding reliably sourced statements and testimonials made by official investigation committees, I am "promoting conspiracy theories" is irrelevant and obviously wrong. Likewise, you have not provided any reasoning for your accusation that I am POV pushing. Your persistence of unfounded and unreasoned accusations is noted. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit

...due to major BLP violations, I request that an administrator remove the BLP violation that was added without concensus by an IP here. The IP is attempting to link crimes for which no charges were ever brought, much less convictions, against living persons. The IP is attempting to insinuate based on a misuse of sources that the allegations had a basis in reality when they didn't and no reliable sources are available to indicate that any charges were brought forth as there were none. The above discussion indicates that the IP had no concensus to add the material.--MONGO 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The following is the material which user MONGO is attempting to have removed. They are reliably sourced statements and testimonies given by the official legislative committee charged with investigating the Franklin financial and child abuse allegations. The information makes no mention of the accused living persons. Instead they are general statements about the nature of the trial and witnesses. user MONGO has not provided any valid reasoning for the removal of these references.

The Legislature's Franklin Committee, officially charged with the investigation, criticized a grand jury's conclusion that child-sexual-abuse allegations against prominent men amounted to "a carefully crafted hoax." [7] Former State Senator Loran Schmit, a member of the Franklin legislative committee, testified that he still found credible the sexual-abuse allegations. "It would be very difficult for them, in my opinion, to make up those stories," Schmit testified in the Douglas County District Court perjury trial of Alisha Owen. [8] The Franklin legislative committee expressed concern that the grand jury indicted two people who said they were victims of or witnesses to sexual abuse. "Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci are charged with perjury and Troy Boner and Danny King are not," the Franklin legislative committee report said. "As we see it, the victims who stand by their story are charged with perjury, while those that have admitted to false statements before the committee are not. That makes little sense to us. Either all of them should have been indicted or none of them. The message is mixed and appears to favor encouraging the recanting as a way to avoid the hazards of criminal prosecution. It also tells persons they can lie under oath to legislative committees, so long as they change their story by the time they get to court. Neither message is a good one." [9] 72.65.126.63 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with MONGO. The inference of living people being child sex abusers is a BLP violation. Don't care how many out of context sources the IP tries to coagulate into a paragraph. It needs to go pronto. --DHeyward (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither you, nor MONGO, nor anyone else have been able to specify where a BLP violation has occurred. The references make no mention, either directly or indirectly, of any accused child sex abusers. They are official statements regarding the general reliability of witnesses and court proceedings. The constant invocation of a BLP strawman amounts to nothing more than vague hand-waving. If users are personally offended that reliably sourced official statements call into question the court's and law enforcement's decision-making process, then they are suggested to move onto a different article. 72.73.114.233 (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with MONGO per BLPCRIME. These comments are extrajudicial and do not reflect a court criminal decision. JodyB _talk 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing this I removed the content. While the removal may not be uncontroversial I made the decision based upon the BLP statement that one need not wait for discussion before removing violations. I removed this because a grand jury refused to return indictments. The comments of a legislative body notwithstanding, these comments are clearly, in my judgement, a violation. JodyB _talk 02:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

JodyB:These comments are extrajudicial and do not reflect a court criminal decision.

Please ***explain*** why the article's reliably sourced information must only include court decisions. Is this article a legal document or an encyclopedic one?

JodyB: After reviewing this I removed the content. While the removal may not be uncontroversial I made the decision based upon the BLP statement that one need not wait for discussion before removing violations.

Please ***explain*** how the referenced paragraph is in violation of Biography of Living Persons, as it makes no mention of accused living persons. They are only general comments about the nature of the allegations and court proceedings given by the official legislative Franklin investigative committee.

In short please provide valid reasoning for removal of these sources. Otherwise I see no reason why the content should not be restored.

Awaiting your response. 72.73.114.233 (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to parrot others comments...it's probable others can reread their own comments without you parroting them. At this point I am convinced that any addition you attempt to make on this article is going to get an automatic reversion...you have repeatedly demonstrated your uttter inability to understand our policies.--MONGO 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, whatever user MONGO is or is not convinced of, is meaningless. You have repeatedly shown an emotional and personal POV investment with this article, previously claiming absolute knowledge of the truth of these events, as well as psychic access to the intentions of the parties involved. (I would guess this is related to you admitting to be from Omaha) In any case, your input is clearly non-objective and not worth further response. 72.73.114.233 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever....I will remove on sight any further POV pushing and policy violations I encounter and may move to have your IP ranged blocked if you persist in your disruption of the article and thus talkpage.--MONGO 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:BLPCRIME. The legislative committee is not a court and has no power to convict the named people of any crime. Since they are relatively unknown and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law they should not be mentioned in this article. The question is not whether the legislator said the things he is reported to have said. Perhaps he did. But we cannot repeat his comments since his comments do not carry the weight of a legal conviction. That is the policy. I do not intent to argue about this. If you disagree and cannot move on, you will need to appeal to a venue such as the BLP Noticeboard. JodyB _talk 13:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please inform me of who is being "mentioned in this article" as I can't find any the names you claim are there. Readers would find it extremely difficult if not impossible due to pay-walls to find the names of any accused apart from King although some may be tentatively identified due to being convicted at later dates of other pedophile crimes. Then we have the fact that three people were charged and convicted on the findings of the Grand Jury yet not only can't the article mention their names but it can't even mention that anyone was convicted. Why is King's civil trial deleted? It's deletion is not only a BLP violation but contradicts the reasoning you gave above. Why this campaign to keep sourced material out of the article? Why the heavy reliance on WP:OR as a reason for deletion? Why the refusal to cite specific policies supporting deletion despite repeated requests over the last three weeks? Wayne (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find it hard at all and the inference of guilt is beyond the pale. Sorry, but no. A default verdict in a civil trial isn't the subject of the article and has no merit or standing for facts. It's like inferring guilt for failing to appear in a criminal trial. It's not even admissible because it's inherently defamatory without any facts of guilt. It's not relevant. So no, there are no reasons to mention any of the things you keep trying to add and have been for 2 or 3 years. Maybe it's time to stub it or issue a topic ban. Permanently. Then lock and salt it so no more blatant BLP violations can be made. Just one line could replace the entire article "The Franklin Child Prostitution ring allegations was a hoax that attracted the attention of various fringe and conspiracy theorists. Like most hoaxes and conspiracy theories with political undertones, such as the Vince Foster suicide or the Kennedy assassination, there are few or no credible sources to support the allegation." That would cover the entire article. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wayne just doesnt get it. He fails to understand that even if King was deceased, discussing his embezzlement issues for which he served time in federal prison are only very tangentially related to the entire child molestation hoax. Mentioning King in any more than has been done in the article is simply drawing at straws to try give the illusion of impropriety for which no grand jury ever brought indictments. The most ridiculous thing about the allegations are that many investigators were involved in looking into the ongoings by members of the credit union including the news organizations and feds and they did many interviews of the alledged victims and found zero credibility to the allegations...while it may be a stretch to say the investigators would have liked the allegations to be true, for the sake of headlines, sensationalism or the opportunity to break up a child sex ring, the feds especially live to prosecute, and had the allegations had a chance of being worthy of being heard in a court of law, they would have been heard.--MONGO 12:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You both just don't get it. A hoax was never proven. The base allegations were never refuted. You need to keep in mind that as a Grand Jury is not a court of law it would have less weight than the Franklin Committee and is largely irrelevant in the context of assigning guilt, that is for courts to do. The Foster Care Board were commended by the legislature for their investigation despite the results of the Grand Jury. Several people were prosecuted and found guilty of pedophilia on the basis of the testimony given at the Grand Jury. Around half of the accused were eventually prosecuted for pedophilia unrelated to the Franklin case. Your claim that "many investigators were involved in looking into the ongoings by members of the credit union including the news organizations and feds and they did many interviews of the alledged victims and found zero credibility" is a huge mis-statement at the very least. According to the Foster Care Board the "Feds" only interviewed five of the victims, the five that the prosecutor selected to testify. Their abuse allegations were accepted as true, only who they claimed abused them and where was called a hoax. I suggest you read the photocopies of the legal documents before making unsubstantiated claims. Wayne (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As you say, unrelated to the Franklin Case...therefore, unrelated to this article and no business in this article.--MONGO 17:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Many pedophilia cases have been alleged and prosecuted over a number of subjects. Just as it would be inappropriate to infer football coaches are pedophiles due to Jerry Sandusky or that the Pope is a pedophile due to individual priests, it is just as wrong to imply with innuendo all the additions that the conspiracy theorists allege. It's simply wrong and defamatory. And to be blunt, rather evil to make these unsubstantiated ties. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant post, I suggest you read what is being said before replying. Who suggested adding anything unrelated to the Franklin case? Wayne (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Removal of Jenkins paragraph

I am suggesting that the following paragraph be removed:

"Historian Philip Jenkins explored how hot topics such as the Franklin allegations, whether or not they are worthy of attention or credible on their own merits, are seized by political opportunists for their own purposes. He also described how cases such as the Franklin allegations can acquire credibility, even if they lack any credibility inherently, when reported in various media in a credulous voice.[1] Numerous conspiracy theories evolved and persist, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, CIA arms dealing and links with the first Bush Administration."

Is Philip Jenkins' personal and general opinion about conspiracy theories really important or relevant enough to be added to the Franklin child abuse allegations? Should we add Jenkin's input on every single wikipedia article concerning conspiracies or devil worship?

This paragraph does not add any relevant information to the article, it is merely the expression of an author's opinion. Therefore I am suggesting it be removed. Let's hear some good reasons for it to remain. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can go ahead and try and promote conspiracy theories and use multiple IP's to try and circumvent being blocked, but rest assured, none of your violations, insinuations or mischaracterizations which are contrary to our Biographies of living people policy will stand. You will not be allowed to misuse this media to promote bullshit.--MONGO 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comment has nothing to do with the question of keeping or removing the paragraph on Jenkins, which is totally unrelated to BLP. If you cannot coherently discuss simple article changes without going on emotional tangents, and making baseless accusations, then you probably shouldn't be involved with the editing of this artcle. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated BLP with your baseless allegations and misuse of sources to promote conspiracy theories...since you fail to abide by our BLP policies, it is you that needs to step away from this article. You are misusing old newspaper opinions about what happened, when all we are allowed ot do based on policy is to recite what did happen, which is that those that made the allegations were charged with perjury and one served time in prison for it. King and others were never even charged with child abuse much less convicted...trying to tie the issue of embezzlement into malfeasence with children will not happen since it isn't supported by any reliable sources.--MONGO 22:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User MONGO is continuing to harass editors with fraudulent accusations of BLP violation and of "promoting conspiracy theories".

MONGO: You are misusing old newspaper opinions about what happened, when all we are allowed ot do based on policy is to recite what did happen

The statements I've referenced 'did happen' and are reliably sourced. They are stances taken by the official committee charged with investigating these events, and reported on by reliable mainstream publications. Whether or not you agree with those statements is irrelevant. Your constant hand-waving about "conspiracy theories" is equally irrelevant and without substance. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose references to support a fringe theory when the mainstream view is that it was a hoax that lingers on as a conspiracy theory. You especially can't do that when living individuals are named and associated by innunedo with devil worship and human sacrifice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I suggest you look up what a fringe theory is. Just because a view opposes a certain legal ruling, does not automatically make it fringe. In this case, the references clarify positions held by the official investigative committees of the Franklin events, that were officially discussed, seriously considered, and reported on by mainstream newspapers for years. That certainly does not fall under FRINGE.

Instead of throwing any alleged WP violation against the wall and seeing what sticks, I suggest you and MONGO deal with the possibility that there is no WP violation, and you simply have a personal problem with the reliably sourced information presented. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The opinions of the council are meaningless when we are talking about serious crimes for which neither a county nor a federal grand jury ever brought any charges...as well as the case was investigated by the Omaha World Herald and the feds when they did their embezzelment research, they would have loved to find truth behind the child abuse allegations and wouldn't have hesitated to bring charges about those crimes, but they didn't because the allegations were a hoax and they knew that the witnesses were completely unreliable...IP I am sorry you've been duped by misrepresentations about this event, but were not here to promote conspiracy theories when it violates our BLP policy.--MONGO 22:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, you continue to show your cards:

"as well as the case was investigated by the Omaha World Herald and the feds when they did their embezzelment research, they would have loved to find truth behind the child abuse allegations and wouldn't have hesitated to bring charges about those crimes, but they didn't because the allegations were a hoax and they knew that the witnesses were completely unreliable"

Your opinion on any of the involved parties' intentions or any other aspect of the case is completely irrelevant. Please stop blatantly pushing your personal biases and disrupting the function of this Talk page. 72.65.126.63 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hate to bring this up again, but as an innocent bystander reading about the case, this paragraph is absolutely unnecessary. I have to wonder why anyone would try to defend the promotion of an unrelated opinion on the page of an actual event. The Philip Jenkins paragraph should be removed, as there is no logical reason for its presence. Broketheinterweb (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Franklin Posting- objectivity debate, final paragraph debate

A few days ago I posted an edit, replacing the final paragraph of discussion of the Franklin Scandal with a paragraph more representative of the complex situation, in my opinion from the 1000 or so pages of documentation I've studied and the 15 to twenty people I've talk to that have some knowledge. My edit, within ten minutes, was tossed off, the offending paragraph restored, and the site "locked" as near as I can tell. When posting, I was unaware of this forum and that others had debated that paragraph before. I then went back and read the history. Interesting. Houston, we have a problem, or should I say, Omaha, we have a problem. I think we're going to have to get some higher-ups from Wiki-Pedia to referee this one.

Here's my take, narrowly on that final paragraph. While the kind of work Prof. Jenkins apparently does is quite important, and the nuttiness of some "conspiracy theories" needs to be exposed, and I play a role as a critical thinking instructor at times doing just that!, I did not think that reference was all at appropriate to the complex, and nuanced, Franklin situation. I replaced it with a paragraph inviting inquiring minds to follow up with further study, noting the issue has more interest and/or documentation with each passing year. But my very reasonable and appropriate paragraph was booted (within minutes...) and the surprisingly dismissive paragraph put back in place. One could interpret that so many different ways.

There's a lot more I could say--the Franklin situation is an involved one and is a "1,000-plus page study" before a person could really know what they're talking about--but as my very first post as a signed-in poster, I thought I would leave it at that.

Bottom line: Someone with no axe to grind, perhaps a senior person at Wiki if such persons exist, has got to get up to speed on this issue and referee a bit. The current squabbling just isn't working. One example of what may be worst of all: the current appearance of this section (Franklin Scandal) feeds right into any "conspiracy theorists" should one want to use the term. The terminal, dismissive paragraph not only has quite dubious relevance to THIS PARTICULAR scandal, but also draws on the work of a conspicuous conservative--some will say Dr. Jenkins is allied with some of the very folks implicated in the scandal, questioning the objectivity. Make no mistake, I have copied several articles from The American Conservative over the years and pushed them on folks as something they should read--I respect that publication (I subscribed at one time), I'm not hostile at all to Dr. Jenkins' affiliations and should we ever meet I would imagine we would enjoy each other and find much common ground. That's not the point.

I simply think the post on Franklin overall does it's importance and complexity a grave disservice, and we need some way out of this, the squabbles I've read thus far in this forum should be beneath us, and beneath Wikipedia. Hope I've followed guidelines okay as brand new forum poster, I'm just learning the ropes... ````Dr. Budd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Budd (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with any attempt to add any NPOV material. Due to the sensitivity of this article it is difficult to find many senior Wikipedians willing to look at it. I had edits reverted for "BLP violations" and despite frequent requests, the deleting editors refused to specify how they violated WP:BLP. I took the edits shown here to a senior editor who specialized in BLP issues and he charactised the objections to my edits as a simple content dispute after not being able to find any BLP violations. Unfortunately he seems to have given up and we are left with several conservative editors taking ownership of the article to prevent the addition of as much detail as they can. I'm assuming the deleting editors are claiming BLP violation as "I don't like the edit" cant be used as a reason. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Budd, if the edit you claim you made was this one, the reason it was removed is because it was just speculation and had zero references. I don't see why someone that is a Dr. should have trouble understanding that.--MONGO 07:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't need references to confirm the existence of notable books. If you think they do then why delete mention of them entirely instead of just linking to Google books or similar yourself? Wayne (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Because unlike you Wayne, I haven't made misusing this website to promote fringe nonsense my primary objective.--MONGO 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Bryant's book is notable. If it's not reliable for citation and there are no real mainstream reviews presented, it shouldn't remain in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, Dr. Budd here again, with my final comment. As a newcomer to the Talk portion, the discussion behind the discussion as it were, it's disconcerting to see so much Aggression leveled at the very idea of including all perspectives on this interesting moment in history. In my days in the classroom, I tried to teach that there's always a bigger picture to look at than may first be apparent. I'd didn't have a conservative bias, I didn't have a liberal one, my bias was "What might be missing in this picture?" Think, students, think, and keep exploring and digging, was my approach. So I'm saddened to see that even references to books on this Franklin subject have been tossed off the article, repeatedly over the years apparently, not just my attempt. Letting folks know where they can read more or learn more would seem to be pretty innocuous, except in Communist China or on this particular Wiki entry. So with sadness I've concluded it's worth no more of my time, but the obvious question: Don't the gatekeepers "Protesteth Too Much"? In other words, wouldn't most anyone, not just Shakespeare, scratch their head and start to ask "What's the agenda here?" Over and Out.----Dr. Budd

You are right to question the objectivity of editors considering the Marc Dutroux article includes details regarding the very similar Belgium Pedophilia Scandal that have been rejected for this article. In fact there are also six related articles. Wayne (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Budd, I am Doctor MONGO...sorry we not going to violate our BLP policy to add fringe nonsense to the article.--MONGO 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you refrain from citing BLP policy when it doesn't actually apply? Wayne (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

Please add hyphens, "21 year old" to 21-year-old" 149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Done.--MONGO 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

DEVILLE WORSHIP

Does the part on devil worship not count as trying to take away credibility from a serious claim. Not that I have read all this section, but.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.174.168 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Claims were also made that there was cannibalism and multiple homicides so devil worship seems comparably benign.--MONGO 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Those Deville worshipers are all Stanists. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Is being a worshiper of Satan supposed to be a bad thing now? Where is the neutrality? --Youngdrake (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I always liked Lincoln Continentals better.....--MONGO 16:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Prius worship seems more common today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with that... Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is!--MONGO 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Passive vs Active Voice

I find the use of passive voice in the lede very awkward. Was there an earlier editorial discussion about this? Does anyone disagree that the writing would be clearer and stronger if these allegations were attributed to agents? IE "so and so alleged that ...." Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Franklin Scandal

"Journalist Nick Bryant published a book..." This needs to be referenced to a reliable secondary source, not to Bryant's book itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the book itself proof that it was published? This is basically a "sky is blue" situation, self evident so the requirement for references is minimal. Wayne (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this book more like Case Closed by Gerald Posner, or The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin? Are there any reviews of this book in mainstream publications, and if so what do they say? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, here's a link to some general reviews of Bryant's book. The reviewers are quite right. This is not a "conspiracy theory" book. It is hundreds of pages of devastating and meticulous documentation on the events surrounding the Franklin scandal, many of which are reports coming from official channels.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/726441.The_Franklin_Scandal http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-franklin-scandal-nick-bryant/1012579375 http://www.amazon.com/The-Franklin-Scandal-Powerbrokers-Betrayal/product-reviews/0977795357?pageNumber=3

As per my repeated criticism to those controlling this article: it is absurd and irresponsible to be portraying this event in a paragraph as a simple "hoax". Due to the overwhelming amount of independent corroboration by witnesses, it is actually impossible for it to be a hoax. 64.223.170.119 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Those general reviews are worthless. The book is a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 22:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I expect lots of readers like and recommend David Icke's Children of the Matrix too. If as Wayne says above there was a an RfC that found the book was not a reliable source, and if there are no real reviews in mainstream publications, I think it should be removed from the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When the RfC failed to find the book or Bryant unreliable it instead went on to find his publisher unreliable so by extension the book could not be used. Wayne (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether, rather than delete the Jenkins link, the piece should talk more about the cultural component of this and provide a NPOV description of what happened with the canceled "Conspiracy of Silence" documentary, whose absence here is conspicuous. I don't mean Conspiracy of Silence should be used as a source but that was a notable enough incident to deserve mention. 69.181.40.145 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

One other thing: What's the Wikipedia policy for people who were never charged with any crime, but were held in civil court to be responsible for paying huge judgments to alleged victims? Because it seems like that happened here. I'm reading the Bryant book and I am not sold on the overall breathless conspiracy tone to it, but on the other hand this huge civil judgment against the alleged perpetrator seems to be for real. 99.22.92.72 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• MONGO et al., in Archive 3 I saw some discussion on Bryant's book, and Binksternet seemed to think it was possibly reliable enough (or, at least, that a review of it was published in a reliable enough source). Somewhere I saw mention of an RfC about the book--was there one? I didn't find one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• My comment can be found in Archive 4, where I complained that the book was being used to support itself, that there was no third party assessment of the book. Apostle12 found a third party review of the book which satisfied me. However, a discussion at RSN in March 2011 concluded with a slim majority of observers saying that Bryant's book, published by Trine Day, was not reliable, not even for the documents that are reprinted by Bryant in the book, such as court papers and newspaper articles. One month later, another discussion took place, this time at the Content Noticeboard, but a different result was not obtained, as there was almost nothing said by uninvolved editors. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link, Bink. That RSN majority may have been "slim", but if that were an RfC and I had to close it, the arguments against the book are really quite strong, and that is the tenor of Jayjg's close also. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having difficulty recollecting what happened three years ago. This article was deleted due to various issues. My take is that whether the book or the publisher is reliable is less an issue than the fact that fantastic claims demand fantastic references, particularly when BLP is involved and you have implications and insinuations of serious criminal offenses done by famous persons. With that in mind, one source of info of less than excellent reliability makes it in essence unreliable.--MONGO 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)