Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The Franklin Scandal revisited

There has been a great deal of discussion about this Wikipedia article. From my understanding of the comments, the individuals who are attempting to invalidate The Franklin Scandal are maintaining that Trinday isn't a reputable publisher. However, I recently wrote a book chapter on The Franklin Scandal, "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder," in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders. Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders is a book that was edited by two eminent psychiatrists, and it also contains chapters written by psychiatrists and therapists who counsel victims of child abuse. The book was published by Routledge, which is a subsidiary of the Taylor and Francis publishing group. In addition to my chapter on The Franklin Scandal being published by a "reputable" publisher, my chapter was also peer-reviewed. Here's a link to the chapter: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf And here's a link to Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://www.guilfordpress.co.uk/books/details/9780415718073/

At this point, I would like to start making changes to the Wikipedia article that are based on "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder." I'd also like to give you a link to a review of The Franklin Scandal by East County Magazine: http://eastcountymagazine.org/book-review-franklin-scandal. Nick 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I made changes to this page yesterday that were reverted. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the talk page, I concluded that the rationale for The Franklin Scandal not to be included on this page is that the publisher isn't reputable. Yesterday the source for the changes that I made was from a peer-reviewed chapter in a book, Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders, that was published by a "reputable," international publisher and the book chapter was referenced using the APA style for citations. I would suggest that the editors of this page and the administrator click on the aforementioned link and read the book chapter, and then I would like to discuss prospective changes. If the editors of this page are willing to make that effort, I'll be absolutely willing to discuss the book chapter with any editors who have questions about it.

Yesterday I used alleged when I referred to Lawrence E. King and his alleged molestation of Paul Bonacci. I've seen in the talk section where this issue was debated regarding the default judgement leveled against King. The judgement was leveled by a U.S. district court judge, and it was reported in the Omaha World-Herald, so I'm perplexed why this fact cannot be simply reported in Wikipedia. Moreover, this long-standing Wikipedia page discusses the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations.

I would like to work collectively with the other editors on Wikipedia to produce a truthful, unbiased account of the Franklin child prostitution allegations. If the other editors sincerely want to work to that end, I suggest that they read the book chapter on The Franklin Scandal published in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders. Nick 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

MONGO you reverted my edit when I deleted the Jenkins quote. The Jenkins quote is not accurate, and it very much misrepresents the crux of the "Franklin" allegations. Alleged ritual abuse played a very small role in the overall allegations, so why should it be integral to the article's lede? Have you read the book chapter that was published in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders? If you read the peer-reviewed chapter, you'll see that the current Wikipedia article greatly diverges from the facts of the case. Are you concerned about incorporating the actual facts regarding the Franklin Wikipedia article? Nick (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing how we diverge from the facts. The reference seems to support the article text.--MONGO 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if the Jenkins' quote was accurate, which it isn't, the allegations of ritual abuse played a small role in the overall allegations, so why is it in the lede? MONGO, have you read the book chapter that was published in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders? Nick (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll re-read it this evening.--MONGO 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to start reworking the Wikipedia article based on the peer-reviewed chapter in Global Perspective on Dissociative Disorders. The following is gleaned from Global Perspective on Dissociative Disorders, but the names of alleged perpetrators have been omitted in accordance with WP's living persons policy:

The first documented alleged victim of Franklin-related child abuse to come forward was Eulice Washington. She had been placed in a foster home as an 8-year-old. Her foster parents eventually adopted Eulice and her two sisters and two other children were adopted as well. Three foster children also lived in the home.

The children in the home told social services personnel of repeated “beatings” and “whippings” at the hands of their adoptive and foster parents (Carpenter, 1985). In fact, a physician who treated one of the children said that a “rubber hose” most likely produced the welts on his back (Carpenter, 1986). After years of social services' documented findings of abuse in the household, the children were ultimately placed in various foster homes, but child abuse charges were not leveled against the children's adoptive and foster parents.

After Eulice Washington was taken out of the home, she told her new foster mother that her adoptive father had repeatedly molested her. She passed a polygraph administered by the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) on her accusations (Carpenter, 1986), but her adoptive father was not prosecuted for his purported molestation of Eulice Washington. A grand jury would indict him for molesting Eulice several years after the molestations, but he escaped child abuse charges because of the statute of limitations.

Washington also told her foster mother that an officer of the Franklin Credit Union had flown her and several Boys Town students (Boys Town is the distinguished Catholic orphanage on the outskirts of Omaha) to pedophilic orgies in Chicago and New York City. In March of 1986, a Boys Town youth worker interviewed Eulice Washington and penned a very detailed report about her allegations regarding Boys Town students. Boys Town reportedly informed the NSP and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about Eulice Washington’s allegations, but no action was taken by law enforcement at the time her allegations originally surfaced. Nick (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can provide the social services report this information is taken from and also the report written by the Boys Town youth worker. Nick (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Lots of allegations, circumstantial evidence, no charges ever filed, much less any criminal prosecutions or of course guilty verdicts.--MONGO 17:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to read the sources. You give too much weight to the Grand Juries which have no judicial oversight. Basically, Grand Juries use untrained citizens to do what the police in other countries do, decide if there is enough evidence to take to trial. That no charges were filed was the reason the Foster Care Board took it to the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature, "lack of action" they called it. There was reliable testimony that the allegations were never investigated by police at all so it is hardly surprising that no charges were laid. The Federal Grand Jury found that the abuse did happen but not by those named. I believe Eulice Washington's adoptive father was eventually jailed for the abuse. Wayne (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally can't see any angle from which this particular passage reads like conspiracy theory. It's the plain language telling of a child reporting abuse in a foster home, being examined by a physician and passing a polygraph, both of which verify her credibility as well as can be expected in the area of child abuse allegations. Whether it is superfluous or not for this page is an entirely different question but, that she made claims which are difficult to comprehend (ie being flown to orgies in NYC) should not mean that referring to them here is an act of conspiracy theorizing. The claims are presented in this passage without extrapolation and do not suggest an editorial endorsement. IMHO, they belong in the article as they explain the context in which the Franklin case took place and so allow any interested party to better understand Franklin historically. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Books are not "peer-reviewed". They may be WP:RS, even WP:MEDRS, but they are not "peer-reviewed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Every chapter in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders was peer-reviewed. If you exercise due diligence, you'll see that the book was edited by two eminent psychiatrists and each of the chapters was peer-reviewed. MONGO, you said that you read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder." The book chapter isn't the stuff of "conspiracy theory," but, rather, it explains the events that transpired. Moreover, there's no "conspiracy theory" involved in the Eulice Washington narrative. It simply delineates the sequence of events that started the "Franklin" allegations. The narrative is taken from Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders, and I can provide the social services documentation that corroborates those events if you wish. Nick (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick...you keep "plugging" your own work which frankly smacks of advertising and doesn't help your case. I don't have a beef with you and I appreciate your remaining collegial here, but most of the stuff you want to add simply doesn't relate immediately to this allegation. Its quite peripheral. I recognize you have gotten some things published and the publishers are willing to take the heat should anyone decide to sue them or you, but our policies are different and we don't have a blank check.--MONGO 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the sense Nick is plugging his own work so much as consistently redirecting discussion towards a source that meets those criteria other WP editors are demanding. Having published academic articles in books before, I'm confident Nick has little financial motivation to plug his article. Given that a book he claims to have worked on for seven years has been given the carte blanche stamp of non-credibility, I can sympathize with him despite some of my own misgivings about parts of The Franklin Scandal. Regardless, I want to argue that Franklin is at least as relevant an event as the McMartin case and that the scope of this page should mirror the scope of the McMartin page. Having looked at it, it seems clear to me that this page should similarly tell a more detailed story of these allegations, including descriptions of key players, the Washington Times article, the BBC documentary, etc. as well as address the influence on sex abuse reporting and how Franklin contributed to certain forms of contemporary folklore etc. I'm not clear on where the objection lies to making the edits Nick proposed above, so long as they are journalistic and do not imply support of the girl's claims. Making these edits seems analogous to the "bizarre allegations" section on the McMartin page. If Franklin is simply a conspiracy theory (and it may be - I am pretty much agnostic on the matter even though I think Nick's book, which I read about four years ago, is far more diligent than the paranoid ramblings of David Icke et al), I would argue it could be beneficial to talk in more detail about its structure and how the whole thing unfolded. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll read the chapter, later, but, at first glance, it looks more like an advertisement for Nick's 2009 book than a detailed analysis. At best, it's a psychological analysis of the information in the book. Even if the chapter/paper was peer-reviewed, there is no guarantee that the reviewers didn't blindly "trust" the book (for the purpose of review). Whether we consider the book a reliable source is a separate issue; that the chapter (or paper) might be "reliable" doesn't really reflect on the book. In other words, although we can revisit the question of whether the book is reliable, the paper being "reliable" doesn't necessarily help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If the book is reliable the chapter is as well. You can't reject it on the grounds that the peer reviewers may have blindly "trusted" the chapter. If we reject it, then we have reject the peer review of any publication as inherently unreliable. Everything in that chapter is supported by reliably sourced documentation. I fail to understand the fierce opposition to covering the incident when Wikipedia has no problem with covering similar incidents in other countries. Wikipedia also covers similar incidents in the United States that actually were hoaxes such as the day care scandals in great detail and these include names. Wayne (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the chapter. It's outside the stated field of expertise of the journal, so the "peer-review" would be a nullity. The question resolves to: Is Bryant, himself an "expert" in the relevant field. If so, we can use his material to the extent it doesn't violate WP:BLP. If not, then not. I decline to state an opinion on that, because his work here seems to be primarily self-promotion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific WP policy that supports this line of argument (that "stated" field of expertise has more bearing than the authority implied by peer review), I don't see how an editor can, in good faith, discredit a work because they opine the author to be acting out of an interest in "self promotion," especially when the proposed material does not mention the author's name. As a policy, I think it would be disastrous to suggest WP editors are in a position to wield their personal opinion in such a way as to undermine the authority of peer-review. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, if, say, a mathematics journal publishes a "peer-reviewed" paper on psychology, we have no reason to consider it reliable. (That is, speaking as someone who has seen such an article, and who is a mathematics expert.) What we have here is a psychology journal publishing a paper on alleged criminal activity. It's not their field. Although there is no part of WP:RS that explicitly says that there must be evidence that the "peers" doing peer-review know anything about the subject of the article, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS still applies.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

(emphasis added). If the paper is not within the field of the journal, can it be considered "an appropriate source for that content"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Academic journals generally draw on reviewers who are experts in the area of a given paper. I see no reason to assume an internationally renowned journal has not properly selected editors who have the correct expertise to review this paper. Do you have any evidence to support this notion? If a mathematics journal chose to publish a paper on psychology, I would trust they had relied on peer reviewers who held expertise in psychology. I think the Sokal hoax definitely influenced the interdisciplinary peer review process for the better, in this regard. Also, all of the proposed edit is clearly attached to primary sources. For this reason, it seems the only legitimate point of divergence is personal opinion about what the scope of the article should be. I maintain the McMartin page is a reasonable analogue and that the material Nick has suggested adding has precedent in the "initial allegations" section of that page. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I emailed one of the Journal's editors, Martin Dorahy, and he confirmed that peer-reviewers for this book were mental health professionals with special expertise in "history, forensics, cults, organized abuse, etc " as well as expertise in counseling victims of human trafficking. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Break 1

Although it depends on exactly what it's to support, I'm not so far convinced that this source is going to be adequate for controversial material about living people, especially if it's contrary to other sources. I'd also mention that Wikipedia does not publish original research, which some remarks above seem to be approaching. Rather than bring this to Wikipedia and a bunch of random guys on the internet, it might be better to get the Washington Post or the NY Times or the Guardian interested. If there's a shocking truth to be revealed, they're the ones to do it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like quite a Maginot line. In addressing MONGO and Tom Harrison, I'm not directly naming the adoptive father and mother; ergo, the chances of a lawsuit are nil. Moreover, the adoptive mother is dead. Plus, the Omaha World-Herald published a 5/25/1990 article discussing the adoptive father being indicted for molesting Eulice, and it published a 12/27/1990 article on his molestation charges being dropped due to the statute of limitations. With regards to living persons and the above narrative about Eulice Washington, you're flogging a dead horse. If you're interested in the truth about the above narrative, I can email you the articles about the adoptive father being indicted for molesting Eulice and his charges being dropped because of the statute of limitations. I can also email the social services documentation. In addressing Arthur Rubin, I thought WP's mission was to discern the truth and reject speculation. Well, Arthur Rubin, your thoughts on the peer-reviewed chapter not being given due diligence are entirely speculation. Please refrain from such speculation unless you can provide evidence that the book chapter didn't meet the highest peer-reviewed standards. I'm also not out to plug a book, but, rather, I would like to see the Franklin child prostitution allegations depict more of an accurate portrayal of a very complex story. In summation, the Eulice Washington narrative is completely devoid of speculation: I'm simply delineating the facts as they're reported in social services documentation and the report written by the Boys Town youth worker, and I'm not directly naming alleged perpetrators. Eulice Washington's allegations are critical to understanding the Franklin child prostitution allegations, because she was the first alleged victim to come forward. Nick (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Jenkins quote should also be excised from the article's lede, because it's based on rumor and hearsay. Here's the quote in its full context: "The operation was said to have intelligence dimensions, involving the CIA arms dealing and blackmail. Rumored networks of homosexual prostitution implicated officials of the Bush administration, but the central organization was a cult of devil worshippers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice, and cannibalism of numerous children." "The operation was said to have have" and "[r]umored networks" are Jenkins speculation that isn't sourced. If WP's intention is to include the facts on the Franklin child prostitution allegations, "said to have" and "rumored networks" shouldn't be in the article's lede. Here's a link to the quote from Jenkin's book: [1] Nick (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I second the vote to strike the Jenkins quote for the same reasons Nick has given. It is already unclear if this page refers to the specific, documented allegations which led to the Grand Jury investigations or to something more broad that could include any allegation, ever, made by anyone about the case. Given this confusion, the Jenkins quote can too easily be misinterpreted as a formal statement that was part of the investigation. At a bare minimum, the quote should be moved so that it follows the sentence about Lawrence King. I really think the page deserves a clearer, journalistic timeline and that the conspiracy theory material should be given its own header. This could easily be created by adding a header above the page's final paragraph with linkage to Satanic Panic, Witch Hunt, etc.. There are so many wild conspiracy theories that have incorporated Franklin that I think we do a disservice by not more clearly describing what actually *did* happen. Wikipedia should serve to combat unfounded conspiracy theory, IMHO, and so I think there is a responsibility here to clearly delineate fact from fiction. I think this is better accomplished by offering more facts and historical context as opposed to (or in addition to) the kind of general sociology offered by Jenkins. Is there any opposition to striking the Jenkins quote or, secondarily, moving it to the end of its paragraph? Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not a vote and you can't "count" yourself twice!--MONGO 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Only a figure of speech, MONGO. :) Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In the Eulice Washington narrative, I've offered to email social services reports, newspaper articles, and the Boys Town youth worker's report, but none of the editors have even bothered to look at that documentation. I would simply like to incorporate additional facts on this WP page. As Luminous Hypothesis points out, the McMartin page incorporates additional facts other than a pithy overview. Eulice Washington was the first child to come forward alleging sexual abuse, and her narrative is devoid of litigious subject matter, so I don't understand the contempt prior to investigation? Are you determined that additional facts, other than your facts, are not incorporated into this page? Moreover, the discussion around the validity of Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders broaches farcical. Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders addresses several topics, including child abuse and dissociative disorders in a broader context. "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" addresses alleged child abuse and dissociative disorders in a broader context, and there isn't a truly valid reason why its subject matter shouldn't be incorporated into a WP article. Moreover, it provides a *well-sourced* overview of the allegations. WP's "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The living persons policy is not being violated with the Eulice Washington narrative, but MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Arthur Rubin are not respecting "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns..." In keeping with WP's decision-making, it's incumbent on you to honor the *factual* insertions of editors who may hold a different opinion than your opinion. Are you willing to work with us in good faith? Because, thus far, I have yet to see good faith. I'm offering well documented facts, and you're offering flimsy arguments—based on speculation or a rudimentary understanding of the allegations—why well documented facts shouldn't be incorporated into the article. Nick (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Nick, you appear to fail to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To begin with, your paper contains "facts" of the Franklin Scandal and investigations, it does not say anything about child abuse and dissociative disorders. I don't know what your book contains, but, as you seem not understand what is actually stated in your paper, I don't think we can take your word for it. I agree that some of the existing information seem to be from unreliable sources, but that is grounds for removing them, not adding countering information from other unreliable sources. The question seems to be: have you been published on a relevant topic in peer-reviewed journals which are on the relevant topic. The topic you are writing on seems to be criminal forensics, rather than abuse and psychological effects, so the journals should be about that, as well. [If you are not or have not claimed to be the "Nick Bryant" who wrote the paper and the book in question, I apologize. In that case, some of the "you"s refer to the editor, and some to the writer.]

I do not agree that a peer-reviewed journal on topic A, publishing a paper on topic B, necessarily fact-checks matters outside A. I would hope they would, but a even a good reputation in topic A wouldn't guarantee it. It should be taken to WP:RSN, but a reasonable default would be "no". Just as we are now (re)establishing at WT:RS that article titles and headlines, and conference proceedings, are not reliable, we would need to establish whether peer-reviewed journals writing outside their area of expertise should be considered "reviewed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As for "living people", if the article names them, and Nick does not name them, but identifies them, and the article uses Nick's identification, then it's subject to WP:BLP. Even if the article doesn't name them, but they can be readily identified from sources in the article, it would be pushing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Arthur, you lost me. The chapter I wrote does not say anything about child abuse? The whole chapter is about child abuse! I name several children who were allegedly sexually abused, and I discuss the circumstances around their abuse. I also discuss how law enforcement and the judiciary reacted to their alleged abuse. You wrote: "I don't know what your book contains, but, as you seem not understand what is actually stated in your paper, I don't think we can take your word for it." Arthur, if you can't see the chapter is about child abuse, I don't think we can take your word for anything. I would suggest that perhaps you attempt to read the chapter again. Nick (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. The book chapter does not particularly impress me as being in keeping with the purposes of the collected volume, or of the journal concerned. The questions involved do not fall within the field of child abuse or its medical consequences; they fall into the area of the operations of the judicial system and police investigations. The material is published by a reputable publisher, but not one of the very highest standards in any subject. Their material is good enough for ordinary purposes, but not for supporting extraordinary allegations, and conspiracy theories are extraordinary allegations. The interpretation of the material there, as showing a "conspiracy extending tot he highest levels" tends to make me doubt the entire approach. On the other hand, the approach taken in this article, of emphasizing satanism and similar matters, seems also inappropriate--the well-known utter falsity of "Satanic ritual abuse" has the effect of casting doubt on the whole matter, which does not seem to center around them.

I think we do need to take account of these publications; I do not think we ought to use them as the basis for the article. They're not good enough to dominate the approach to the topic in our article; they are good enough to mention. What would be appropriate is to mention these references as an alternative view. We are not responsible or qualified to make judgments on the issues. The reader will judge. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone. I looked at the index to the Jenkins book and found only 8 references to "Franklin." Six were un-related to this case. One was to the page quoted above and the last was to a conspiracy theory book on the case by John DeCamp which includes the satanism aspect. I think it would be appropriate to make clear in the article that Jenkins is referring specifically to that volume which appears to be quite popular on the web - do you have any thoughts on this? 67.128.10.34 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The allegations are not that extraordinary. The allegations are not even the conspiracy, even the Federal Court found the allegations of abuse to be largely true, the conspiracy was the alleged cover up of details of the incident (a conspiracy seemingly supported by the suppression of detail in this article). There is ample documentation that the "conspiracy" did extend to the highest levels as the Washington Call Boy Scandal was closely linked to the allegations against King. However, that was a minor part of the allegations. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry DGG...we're not going to violate BLP just so we can cater to the conspiracy (alternate) theory crowd. This endeavour called Wikipedia is not a tabloid after all.--MONGO 11:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, four editors have weighed in about the Jenkins' subject matter being inappropriate for this article. At this point, a consensus to delete the Jenkins' subject matter has been achieved. Nick (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, you reverted my changes regarding the Jenkins' subject matter, claiming that a consensus hasn't been achieved. Please look at the above dialogue. I believe that you're the only editor who has lobbied for the Jenkins' subject matter. Nick (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to make your conspiracy theory appear more plausible. I didn't count how many or who supported what but I see no concensus for your alterations.--MONGO 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, you're attempting to make the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations utterly divorced from reality. I believe I have the support of Luminous Hypothesis, Wayne, and DGG. It's time for you to step aside on the Jenkins' subject matter. Nick (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're going to end up getting blocked NickBryant aka Luminous Hypothesis.--MONGO 16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not a sock puppet and certainly not Nick Bryant. As I have said, I am relatively agnostic on the veracity of the allegations. I am an advocating only for more detail, context and history. I don't really care if the Jenkins quote stay so much as that it be properly contextualized as a commentary on John DeCamp's book. The formal allegations which are the subject of this page are currently too sloppily conflated with CT allegations in books like the one I mentioned. Please lay off the totally baseless accusations. Thanks. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, that's absolutely false. I don't operate with deception and lies. Indeed, it's most regretful that you have to resort to ad hominem prevarications. If you continue to make such unsupported allegations against your fellow editors, perhaps you might end up being blocked. Nick (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Break 2

The Jenkins reference is a reliable source used correctly to support the article. It's consistent with the mainstream view of the subject, and removing it and the statements it supports will skew the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Tom Harrison. So now we have two editors who say the Jenkins' subject matter should stay, and four who say it should go or be put in a proper context. I think a consensus has been achieved. Nick (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like consensus to me, although, if there is a legitimate claim that the material sourced to Jenkins is a BLP violation, the material should be removed until the matter is resolved. I don't see a BLP violation there. However, I have removed the Hoax category. Although the article unambiguously states that it was a hoax, we have reliable sources that say otherwise. The same cannot be said for "Conspiracy theory"; the only question is who the conspirators are? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't deal much with the categories, but it seems like having an article in the hoax category doesn't mean the topic is definitively a hoax, just that it's somehow related to hoaxes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Before I joined this melee, I read all the dialogue on the talk page. I noticed that editors who attempted to edit this page in good faith were either bullied and/or overwhelmed with disingenuous sophistry. Despite the previous dialogue on the talk page, I came to this page with good faith, and I offered a peer-reviewed book chapter I wrote, so we could discuss it. However, my peer-reviewed book chapter has been met with disingenuous sophistry too. MONGO has cast false aspersions at me, and when I deleted the Jenkins' quote he even stated: "You're trying to make your conspiracy theory appear more plausible." This statement is very telling, because it demonstrates that his editing of this page isn't about building a consensus that's truthful, it's about attempting to make these allegations look utterly implausible. Well, Mongo, Tom Harrison, and Arthur Rubin, three editors are for the Jenkins' quote and four editors are opposed to it or want it framed in its proper context, so unless you can come up with another editor to support the Jenkins' quote, you don't have a consensus and the quote should be deleted or put in its proper context. Moreover, the alleged victim who's mentioned on this page, Alisha Owen, never claimed satanic ritual abuse or satanic anything. So a consensus has been achieved about the Jenkins' subject matter, so it's time for you to act in good faith—if you're capable of acting in good faith. Nick (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS carefully. There is no new consensus for inclusion or exclusion of the Jenkins material. I haven't checked whether there had been a consensus when it was added; that's the "job" of those who want a change. Similarly, although I believe there is consensus against adding material from your book or chapter, there is no doubt that there is not a consensus for adding such material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You say you're a mathematician? I think 4 against 3 is a consensus against the Jenkins' quote. And, actually, DGG, Wayne, and Luminous Hypothesis would like to include subject matter from my book and chapter, so there isn't a consensus against my book or book chapter, but, as I mentioned, there are editors on this page who don't really care about the realities of this dialogue.Nick (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

— WP:Consensus#Determining consensus

I cannot find the policy where it is said it is not counting votes, but tradition is that a 2-1 supermajority may indicate consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, you're broaching disingenuous sophistry: You say that you believe there's a "consensus against adding material" from my book or chapter, but four editors are in favor of adding material from my book or chapter and three are opposed. So that's a consensus against adding material from my book or chapter? Arthur, you clearly have erroneous beliefs on consensus regarding this Wikipedia article. And invoking the red herring of "tradition" only serves to accentuate your erroneous beliefs. Nick (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick, this article was deleted then recreated as a stub....since then some expansion into the rumours has been permitted so there is context for an article. The notability of the event is based on the unfounded allegations so that is where the focus of the article is...that is its scope since that is all there is that is based in reliably referenced material. The rest is allegations, hearsay, rumor and innuendo and our policies on adding such material, when it involves living persons, is that we avoid speculating or playing investigative journalism. You may have gotten something published about the event, but that doesn't make it a reality for our purposes.--MONGO 21:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is asking that hearsay, rumor and innuendo be used in the article? All we are looking for is known facts. The Foster Care Review Board reported the abuse to authorities who took no action. No official investigations were ever undertaken and this is supported by the testimony of the Omaha chief of police and the Attorney General's own investigator. The Attorney General did claim an investigation was conducted and that the accusations were groundless but he then refused to answer several subpoenas for supporting documents. The FCRB then took the allegations to the Nebraska Legislature who appointed a subcommittee to investigate with a brief that included looking into the lack of action by police. This subcommittee is not even mentioned in the article despite the major part it played. King was independently accused by several victims who had never met or been in contact with each other who all gave the same story. The county Grand Jury found the allegations to be a hoax, but they also found that the abuse did happen, but were perpetrated by people other than the accused so your claims of "unfounded allegations" falls flat. The Grand Jury foreman later testified in an affidavit that the prosecutor basically wrote their findings for them. One of the accused was actually charged on the basis of Owens accusations but they were later reduced to a misdemeanor. He was found guilty. According to the New York Times King and Craig Spence (of Washington call boy scandal fame) were involved in both the Nebraska ring and the Washington scandal. Bonacci’s civil suit is established fact. Bonacci had corroborating witnesses, King refused to appear. King appealed but then withdrew it. The Nebraska Legislature enacted a number of protections for abused children based on information provided during the Franklin investigation by the Foster Care Review Board. All this is reliably sourced relevant fact, none of it is mentioned.In fact, omissions leave outright lies in the article. For example, the article states "Authorities launched a probe, interviewing a number of claimed abuse victims" when none were interviewed by authorities. The article mentions the allegations were a hoax without mentioning that the jury also found that the abuse was not. There is no mention of what Owen's counts of perjury actually were, leaving the false impression that everything she claimed was lies when the perjury only involved naming people for some specific events. Isn't the failure to include these facts a BLP violation? After all Owen is still alive. Wayne (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats quite the conspiracy theory, Wayne.--MONGO 11:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You really need to look up the definition of conspiracy theory. The above is called a chain of events, all reliably sourced and in compliance with Wikipedia policies. A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition derived from the available facts, something no one is asking to include. Wayne (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, it's become woefully obvious that you and your clique are not willing to even consider alternative viewpoints on this matter. I've offered a peer-reviewed book chapter that supports an alternative version of the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations," and I've also offered to provide social services' documentation and newspaper articles that support an alternative view, but, instead of inquiring about the documentation that I've offered to provide, you attack me with false aspersions. As I've previously mentioned, you also wrote: "You're trying to make your conspiracy theory appear more plausible." That statement truly elucidates that your editing of this page editing isn't concerned with alternative viewpoints, but, rather, your primary concern is to make these allegations look utterly implausible. The Jenkins' quote pertains to a self-published book about this issue. Now, if we attempted to introduce material from that self-published book, you would call it a conspiracy theory. So, MONGO, you have yourself in a bind: If you want to stick with the Jenkins' quote, you're committed to fleshing out the self-published book that Jenkins' derives his over simplified commentary. I realize that this approach is most likely far too rationale and logical for you, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to keep the Jenkins' quote, which four editors feel should be excised or framed in its proper context, you've opened the door to the self-published book for contextualization. I also think that my willingness to adopt subject matter from the self-published book, instead of my book or book chapter, demonstrates that my involvement with this WP page isn't about "plugging" my own work, which is another false aspersion you've cast against me. Nick (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't simply quote Jenkins. His Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America, published by Yale University Press, is a relaible secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I support quoting Jenkins, consider him a reliable source and agree that Yale is a well-regarded press. The issue is how the source is used. As it stands, the quote in the first paragraph serves to make it seem that the allegations which led to the grand jury investigation included Satanism, the CIA, cannibalism, etc. As far as I am aware, that is factually and objectively inaccurate. These lurid and arguably fantastic allegations were made after the fact in books like the one by former state Senator John DeCamp. This interpretation is well supported by the appearance of DeCamp's book in Jenkin's index. Regardless if you believe Franklin was a hoax or an episode of malfeasance, the opening paragraph is awful. If only in the interest of lucid writing, the page must distinguish between these two types of "allegations." It would be far clearer (and more neutral) if the formal allegations and their context were described, followed by a brief paragraph explaining that numerous conspiracy theories emerged in after the grand jury findings. Not distinguishing between these two types of allegations would be analogous to a page on "the OJ Simpson allegations" which treated allegations that Simpson murdered his wife as equivalent to allegations that he murdered her as part of a satanic ritual (making that up but I'm sure someone has made this claim online.) My earlier suggestion that this distinction be incorporated into the opening paragraph was ignored. Given the absence of protest, I can only assume full agreement. If anyone disagrees with the proposed edit, please let me know. Thanks. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, thank you so much for backing me up. I greatly appreciate it! You're absolutely right: The Jenkins' book is a "reliable secondary source" to the primary source, which is the self-published book. Although I think both sources are extremely flawed, I'm willing to explicate the primary source to properly contextualize the Jenkins' quote. Tom, I want to thank you for resolving this matter. So that means we need to start explicating the primary source. Again, my willingness to expound on the self-published book demonstrates that I'm not here to simply plug my own work. Nick (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"explicate the primary source to properly contextualize the Jenkins' quote." That's not what Wikipedia does. Evaluating primary sources is a job for scholars and researchers. Wikipedia does not synthesize from primary source material views that are not present in secondary sources. All we do is summarize secondary sources.

Also, it would be helpful if you could decide what you want to say, say it, and stop changing it. The edit conflicts are a nuisance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom your first comment is extremely silly, because WP is filled with information from primary sources. Your second comment is rather disingenuous, because you and your clique randomly change the playing field on the editors attempting to make changes to this article in good faith. But let's agree that WP is filled with information from primary sources, and then we can move forward. Nick (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesizing from primary sources is contrary to the policy on original research. To the extent that there's material sourced to primary sources, a secondary source needs to be cited or it needs to be removed. The policy on original research does not allow us - finally, just a bunch of random guys on the internet - to comb through primary sources and say "Ah, here's where Jenkins is wrong." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you're once again coming up with disingenuous sophistry. You're now lumping primary sources and original sources in the same category. The WP policy on original sources states: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The self-published book in question meets the criteria to be a WP source. You and your clique, however, have designated it to be unreliable, even though it's been sourced by a number of books, including the Jenkins' book that you so seem to hold in high esteem. By this standard, my peer-reviewed book chapter shouldn't be an issue as inclusion into a WP article. But your clique only uses the WP rules when they serve your agenda. Your game is woefully transparent at this point. Nick (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:No original research, which include a discussion of pimary, secondary, and tertiary sources. There's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which has sections on primary sources and self-published sources. There's Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which notes among other points that "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." I don't think original sources is a designation in Wikipedia policy. In any case, we can't cite things like court documents or transcripts to say Jenkins is wrong, and self-published sources cannot be used for controversial material about living people. There are other policies too, and simple editorial judgement. If what you want to do is tell the Truth about what really happened, that's not something that Wikipedia is set up to do.

Finally, some words of wisdom: "If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one. There is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it." Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this quote be more appropriately directed at that other apparently paranoid editor who imagined two editors that disagreed with his editorial practice were in fact one in the same person? Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you don't think original sources is a designation in Wikipedia policy? I've just quoted from the link you provided: "Wikipedia:No original research." Moreover, I'm not attempting to tell the "Truth." I'm simply attempting to introduce events that are well-documented and have met the peer-review process. Plus, Tom, your threat has already become a reality. I've attempted to edit this article in good faith, and I've been attacked with false aspersions. Luminous Hypothesis has been attacked by a false aspersion too. I'm not attacking you with false aspersions: I'm merely pointing out a woefully transparent reality. Nick (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people forget what they're even arguing for or about...the argument no longer holds validity yet they argue for the sake of arguing! Hugs and kisses!--MONGO 17:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in MONGO. I wouldn't expect anything less than a mocking non sequitur from you. I wish you and Tom a very happy 4th of July. Nick (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Franklin Scandal is referenced in the December 23, 2013 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry—Vol 48(1) 22-25. The article is entitled "Institutional Abuse and Societal Silence: An Emerging Global Problem," and the subject matter referencing The Franklin Scandal is found on page 24. "A prominent example of the extent to which an attempted cover-up can go is what has become known as ‘the Franklin Scandal’ in the United States. In this case, politically vested interests subverted the state police ... FBI, the judiciary and the press. The Nebraska State Legislature had so little confidence in the FBI investigation of a national paedophile ring closely associated with the influential and corrupt Republican Lawrence King in Omaha, Nebraska and the Washington lobbyist Craig Spence that they commissioned their own investigation. The State’s chief investigator, Gary Caradori, died (along with his son) when his light plane disintegrated and crashed into a cornfield near Aston, Illinois on 11 July 1990. Caradori’s briefcase, which was thought to contain vital evidence, was not recovered from the crash site, nor were the plane’s rear seats, the likeliest site for a bomb. His death in such circumstances effectively ended the Nebraska investigation, as additional witnesses were then too frightened to come forward. King, jailed for embezzling $40 million, had a $1 million civil settlement against him awarded in favour of a victim, Paul Bonacci, but has never been charged with sex offences (Bryant, 2009)."Institutional Abuse and Societal Silence: An Emerging Global Problem" had eight authors that included psychiatrists and psychotherapists. I think a paraphrasing of the subject matter from the article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry would make a much better lede to the WP page, because Jenkins' is solely drawing on the self-published book, and additional, highly corroborated information about this page has emerged since the self-published book and Jenkins' commentary on it. And, as always, I'll be happy to email editors my documentation. Nick (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

...Caradori’s briefcase, which was thought to contain vital evidence, was not recovered from the crash site, nor were the plane’s rear seats, the likeliest site for a bomb....sounds like a conspiracy theory! "Was thought"....rear seats not recovered...the most likely site for a bomb....so the plane was blown up! What bullshit...--MONGO 17:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, The Franklin Scandal and the peer-reviewed chapter I gave you include five sources who say that Caradori acquired critical evidence just prior to his plane breaking up in midair. I also discuss several anomalies involved in the investigation of Caradori's death, and a letter that was written by a Nebraska senator who speculated that a bomb had been placed under the plane's back seats, because they were missing after the crash. So if you read The Franklin Scandal, or even the peer-reviewed book chapter, you would understand the context of that quote. But you don't really care about the facts of the case, because your objective, as stated by you, is to make the WP page look as implausible as possible: "You're trying to make your conspiracy theory appear more plausible." You sadly think you know more about the subject than eight respected psychiatrists and psychologists who wrote that article and actually looked into the matter. What's perplexed me the most about our dialogue is the fact that you refuse to even consider subject matter that is counter to your beliefs. MONGO, are you familiar with this William Paley quote? "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Nick (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still not a "peer-reviewed chapter". And I think we need news articles, rather than potentially "incestuous" comments on your work by people in your field, which is not the field your work is in. If the theory you propose has any basis at all, it should be noted by notable conspiracy theorists. I have not seen any evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, you lost me again. It's "not" a peer-reviewed chapter? I wrote a book chapter about child abuse, and the people who peer-reviewed my book chapter are in the field of child abuse. I think that constitutes peer-reviewed. Nick (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick....you keep removing text you don't like and I'm going to just revert it as vandalism. You've been warned on your talk page and now I'm warning you here. This is Wikipedia and here we are your peers and your edits are not passing our peer review. Further POV pushing and disruption are going to lead to you being blocked and topic banned.--MONGO 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO ... four editors have stated that we should delete the Jenkins' quote or frame it in a proper context. A consensus has been built regarding the quote, but that's a reality you don't want to accept. It's not "vandalism" when you remove something when a consensus has been built. Plus, that's the second time you've threatened to have me blocked with erroneous allegations. Please refrain from erroneous allegations against me. Nick (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick. Pending further investigation, it may be a peer-reviewed paper, reprinted as a chapter. It's not a peer-reviewed chapter. The fact that you have been unable to provide news articles coming to the same conclusion as you do suggests either that there is something wrong with your conclusions or that they are uninteresting. I find it hard to believe the latter. 4-2 (or even 5-2) is not consensus.

MONGO. It's not vandalism. It's a mistaken view of consensus, but I cannot say the intent is to damage the encyclopedia, merely to emphasize his (Nick's) views. If he believes his views, he obviously believes they should be in the encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

He believes does he...or he wants the storyline of our article to jive with that of his conspiracy theory.... equals...sales for his book. Let's not coddle the single purpose accounts.--MONGO 17:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not vandalism: I agree with Arthur Rubin. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Then go ahead and override the protection since its protected on what you and Arthur assumes is the "wrong version" and restore what the single purpose POV pushing account is advocating for.--MONGO 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, I notice you reverted the edit I made to the opening paragraph after ignoring my preliminary request for objections to the edit. That you did not engage me on the talk page yet still chose to summarily revert my edit seems like clear enough evidence, IMHO, that you are operating out of bounds and essentially prohibiting real dialogue. Editors like you are why I stopped editing Wikipedia about four years ago. That I chose to enter the fray on this one despite not continuing to edit elsewhere does not, to the best of my knowledge of WP policy, in any way discredit my editing rights and responsibilities in the way you have suggested of "single purpose". Please explain why you reverted my edit. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're talking about this revert. Your "woven into a popular conspiracy theory" is not verified in the source. I will say, however, that your version has that passage in the more logical place, and that both of them have an incorrect comma. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the comma typo. Very poor form on my part. Is there wording you would accept to distinguish between the CT allegations in Jenkins book and the less extraordinary allegations which the grand jury investigated? Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've been reading the Bryant article. I find it difficult to assess. Sure, it's published by an academic press in an edited collection, but such articles are not always given the same kind of scrutiny (and I mean "kind", not necessarily "degree") as an article in a peer-reviewed journal. (I am unable to find any reviews in academic journals of the collection, Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders.) I am particularly struck by the frequent recourse to primary sources (including case files by investigators and such), and the narrative that is spun relies heavily on those sources--and on hypothesis and suggestion. Given the title and content of the collection (one of the articles in it is indexed by EBSCO databases), one would expect that the article should be reliable enough on the topic of dissociative disorders, but that's hardly the main topic of the article. For our purposes, in principle an article in an edited collection on a specific topic ought to be acceptable, yes--but here, the topic is not dissociative disorders, there is a large amount of material based on doubtful (not just primary, but doubtful) sources, and unfortunately I cannot say with certainty that I am convinced that a proper peer review was done by editors knowledgeable with the case and the case files, as would be the case in a journal article. So I am not willing to let the article be used to make statements that are BLP-questionable, so to speak.

  Now, NickBryant has emailed me once or twice to point my attention to this article. I'm not sure exactly what the dispute is. If it's this edit (is that the "Jenkins quote"), well, the quote is there in the book, and the book is reliable: I saw at least three positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. If the dispute is over this paragraph (here removed by MONGO--well, I couldn't argue for its inclusion, with its questionable sourcing. Nick, I'm sorry if this isn't what you had hoped for, but I am doing the best I can to make sure that the article remain BLP compliant. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with MONGO's reversion of the edit you cite here. To clarify: "the Jenkins quote" refers to the second sentence in the lede in which "the allegations" which are the subject of Jenkins chapter are conflated with those more limited allegations in Omaha which lead to a grand jury investigation. I've been advocating for nothing more than adding language which distinguishes between the way Jenkins uses the term "the allegations" in his book and the use of the term "the allegations" to refer specifically to what exactly the grand jury was reporting. This is a terrible entry if someone can walk away after reading it believing that the grand jury was primarily investigating satanism, cannibalism, etc Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Drmies. I agree with Luminous Hypothesis. The Jenkins' quote refers to a self-published book that greatly simplifies a very complex chain of events, so the Jenkins' quote greatly simplifies a very complex chain of events, and it shouldn't be in the article's lede. The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations have a complexity that rivals the McMartin case, and the McMartin case includes the various allegations that resulted in adjudication, so the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations page should also contain the various allegations that resulted in abjudication. These allegations can be enumerated without violating the BLP, but the recalcitrance of editors on this page have prevented a factual delineation of the allegations. Nick (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2015

Can someone please re-word the title and opening paragraph? It looks like there is some validity to these allegations, when in fact, there is none.

24.110.254.237 (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What exactly to you want it to say? Be specific. JodyB _talk 11:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Silence Documentary

I think this page should make mention of the documentary 'Conspiracy of Silence' made about this matter and available online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDVhoiirByo). At present the page sounds as if it is documenting a conspiracy theory or something which has been proven to be untrue (talking about how the allegations lack credibility etc.). In my view any serious allegation about paedophilia/rape/sex crimes has credibility and is made more serious by the fact that the supposed victim has spent 4 years in jail for perjury. It is very hard to watch the above documentary without at least considering the possibility that the allegations are true. Especially with similar (and genuine) allegations currently being investigated in the UK about a paedophile ring (and corresponding cover up) operating out of Westminster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, any "documentary" about paedophillia/rape/sex crimes should only be noted for the opinions presented as opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, but at the moment it isn't mentioned, the page seems a little one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the comment would be libel per se, we would need to be very careful—not because of any potential liability for Wikipedia or the editor (at least, in the US, per Section 230), but because it's the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that and I myself am not completely sure of the truth here, It's just that it is extremely hard to watch the above documentary fully (with extensive and detailed interviews with the 'victims') while keeping the 'they fabricated all this for money' line in your head (especially considering the way certain people involved have mysteriously died). If it is all a fabrication then these people are master actors. If you have the time I encourage you to watch this documentary, if for no other reason than to hear the 'victims' make the allegations themselves. Perhaps their could be a separate page detailing the 'conspiracy' theory regarding this matter (I have often thought that to be a very good way Wikipedia has of dealing with conspiracy theories) or a link to a page on the documentary itself and how it was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Was this really a Discovery Channel documentary and was it "Banned" as these other websites claim? The documentary is mentioned in various places, especially now with all the British pedophilia rings in the news. Their point is basically "look it happens in America also and they also cover it up." It was supposedly set to air on 5/3/94. Leaving that out there without a mention might not be the best thing, but the issue is what to say about it. Ileanadu (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Banned is the wrong word. No one knows exactly why the documentary was never aired. According to Yorkshire Television, who were contracted to produce the documentary, Discovery Channel decided at the last minute that the subject matter was not suitable for their audience. At the time, Congress was debating new censorship laws and according to an insider at Yorkshire television, several (unnamed) congressmen allegedly threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if the documentary was aired so it was pulled from scheduling. Whatever the reason, not long after, the rights to the documentary were purchased by an unknown party who is thought to have had it destroyed. Wayne (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Reptilians did not approve of the contents and if they don't approve then that's that!--MONGO 05:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if the rights-holder wanted it destroyed, then they should issue a takedown notice to YouTube. In any case, though, that is almost certainly an unauthorized copy on YouTube, so we cannot use it. We could use commentary about it, if such exists, not just a blog report of someone talking to "an insider at Yorkshire Television" — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So "original research" can't be cited. "First hand sources" can't be quoted. Peer-reviewed articles are just not peer-reviewed enough. Blogs are unacceptable. The documentary is "unauthorised" so can't be referenced.

Which means, lo and behold, the only data that passes your stringent tests of objectivity just happens to entirely support the official position and entirely suppress the alternatives.

I must say I also greatly admire your usage of the term "conspiracy theory" to even further limit available information. Apparently on Wiki a "conspiracy theory" is anything - even a collection of proven facts or supported data - which, if published would be detrimental to a belief system dear to the heart of the most embedded or dedicated editors.

Disgraceful.

Black Catte (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even mention that these illustrious editors ignore good faith requests for dialogue on the Talk page about proposed edits (see above for 3-4 times this happened to me) and reactively accuse those who disagree with them of being sock puppets. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Never been referred to as "illustrious"...thank you!--MONGO 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you self-identify as "reactive" and willfully ignorant, MONGO. BTW, as per the discussion of Chris Kyle on your Talk page, according to the New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs , at least 3 SEALs recounted Kyle claiming to have committed indiscriminate murder at the Superdome. So when you accuse the media of generating that story based on hearsay, I'd say you reveal your own political, "POV-pushing" biases rather strongly. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle and Navy SEALs have nothing to do with this article. Please stop importing other articles' content disputes into this one. Due to its relentless reliance on unreliable sources and conspiracy theories, this article was quite appropriately stubbed and started over. Let's not be forced to resort such drastic measures again. These allegations are hideous. The people who made these allegations either recanted, were convicted of perjury and sent to prison, or were declared incompetent to stand trial after being indicted for perjury. The appropriate way to handle these allegations should be very clear to anyone concerned with Wikipedia's reputation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That New Yorker piece fails to identify who those SEALS who made that claim are...and its based on a story made by Chris Kyle himself that in which he stated to another SEAL years before that he knew of some former military that had left the service, joined private security and that they had been at the Superdome. Kyle never said he was there, not once. If you have any inclination about how to do a shread of investigative work you might figure out how tall tales get made based on earlier reports and how, especially when some persons are no longer alive to defend themselves, that conspiracy theorist such as you enjoy living in a world of lies rather than accepting the truth. The truth here in this article is that none of the bullshit you're peddling has a shread of proof to it...its all bullshit. Further disruption of this article by a bullshit peddler like you will lead to you being blocked...which would be a zero loss to the project since you're not here to do anything but promote bullshit and spread lies and misinformation.--MONGO 11:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe, after just watching the full Documentary (slightly edited evidently), and reading some of the comments here, and all of the main article, that if the Discovery Channel could confirm that this was their work, or that they had indeed placed in much work to make a video documentary, that this mere fact would be worthy of mention in the main article. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

How is that going to happen?--MONGO 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongo: I do not want to get into a dispute over facts and theory, here. Everyone's time is precious. Yet someone did make a comment that the article appears slanted in the direction of FBI/Federal Policy/Official Judicial action. And, maybe after all, this side does represent the truth. I am not saying otherwise, but I am not being affirmative either. We should not go to Wiki as a forum to discuss opinions and views: Wiki's declared policy is very much against it. As if... and please forgive this going on to the old Larry King show of CNN, the 1990's to 2000's. However, if someone could contact Discovery and confirm that the documentary work, or much of it, in "Conspiracy of Silence" was indeed done by them, and that therefore it is true they did not broadcast due to some private reasons, I find this mere fact worthy of mention in the article. One could so insert: "However, the Discovery Channel once planned a special that supported the molestation charges: 'Conspiracy of Silence', and which was critical of governmental intervention, and judicial action. Nonetheless, they decided not to broadcast..." This would be a fair inclusion, along these lines. And perhaps Discovery can, if they did produce, give you the reasons why they didn't broadcast? Further, Mongo, I remember no point on "Conspiracy ... " where cannibalism was mentioned. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

We cannot go on someone's word...we depend on reliable printed sources and some sort of verbal affidavit is not going to suffice. Discovery probably pulled the documentary which though they knew they were promoting a conspiracy theory, it probably was too slanderous to broadcast.--MONGO 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

John. This is an article by Ted Gunderson, former head of the Los Angeles FBI, explaining what happened to the documentary. Wayne (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that a carbon copy scandal is now being investigated in England and that the Franklin scandal has been mentioned. Several news sources in America have also mentioned Franklin as fact in the last six months.

Quote: Numerous high ranking British politicians are being investigated for their involvement in an extensive pedophile ring, however the full scope of this scandal can't be fully appreciated without looking at the other side of the Atlantic. It wasn't that long ago that those who claimed that there was a massive pedophile ring involving officials in the highest levels of government were written off as conspiracy theorists and kooks. That is no longer the case, at least in the U.K. It turns out that this so called conspiracy theory was true, and is finally being officially investigated."

Then there is the child sex ring exposed in Virginia last year that was compared to the Franklin scandal (a VERY prominent corporation was fined $400 million for their involvement. I wont say who they are because their Wikipedia page doesn't mention it), Congressman Frank Wolf is pushing the investigation into this, and other child sex rings in Vermont and Pennsylvania. I give another source here but there are plenty more if you do a search. Wayne (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There could be hundreds of child sex rings out there but that would not make this one true. All the reliable sources regarding this one say it was a hoax so stop POV conspiracy theories please. Neither of those sources you link say one iota about this case.--MONGO 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wayne: I looked up Ted Gunderson on Wiki, and we are not sure if he is even alive or dead ?! Interestingly, he is a Conspiracy Theorist, yet evidently denied Franklin. This whole matter sounds batty, iyw, and problematical, and I might therefore recommend to Wiki to take the whole (Franklin) article down until it can be sourced better and more appropriately. An article against a particular conspiracy, by a general Conspiracy Theorist, who we do not know is alive or dead... Imho, I would toss the whole article, and place up a new one, on Franklyn, this time giving the view of both sides rather equal measure, but concluding with *we just do not know*. And there is no harm in this, as there is obviously some decent reason to believe in the accusers here. Thankfully, Wiki is not a U.S. Court of Law, so we do not have to abide by their ridiculous rules, standards and protocol. We can be more philosophical about the whole matter, more abstract, and say: we are just not sure where the truth lies here. This is to say, we should leave the matter open and unresolved until we have something definite one way or the other. Maybe we will never get this, as there are unsolved mysteries in history. So be it then. But doing this is better than your strategy of saying, 'We know the truth here, everyone else is disqualified, so be quiet.' This may work in a court of law (and I presume it indeed did), but not necessarily here. And btw, Truth itself can be considered a 'pov'.

Anyway, I grant that you (Mongo), Wayne, and others, no doubt have researched this far more than I did. But from what I limitedly saw, it would give any one pause for concern, especially when combined with similar activities elsewhere. And there is one more important, final point here: in the Documentary, I remember no mention of sacrifice or Devil Worship, and certainly not cannibalism. Don't trump up the charges, placing in "and" everywhere, and then say "they [the accused; the officials, politicians, etc.] are innocent". This is just straw man argumentation. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

Come on, John. Please review WP:BLP. This is Wikipedia policy. We cannot violate it. The last word on this subject from any court with jurisdiction was a perjury conviction for one of the accusers, a finding that another accuser indicted for perjury was unfit to stand trial, and a finding that their accusations were a "carefully crafted hoax." It is Wikipedia policy to report these findings, and show zero tolerance for rumors, conspiracy theories, and allegations that are unproven. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While we have to report the findings of the Grand Jury we cant give them too much weight. According to the American Bar Association, the grand jury is simply a "rubber stamp" for the prosecution. Defendants have no right to present their case or have legal representation. A judge is not present during proceedings and he does not give the jury any procedural directions. Only 12 of 36 jury members are required to concur to reach a decision. Grand jurors can not be rejected for bias or conflict of interest. The prosecutor alone decides which witnesses can testify. One Federal Judge has stated that "the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury." It should be noted that several jurors in the Franklin case have since stated that the prosecutor actually told them during deliberation what findings to make in this case. I agree that we should show zero tolerance for rumors, conspiracy theories, and allegations that are unproven but this article avoids even those facts that are proven if they at all suggest there may be truth in any of the accusations. The Paul Bonacci lawsuit is just one example of a fact supported by RS that has consistently been rejected for this article. Wayne (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much focus on one phase of the proceedings. Deliberately ignoring other phases of the proceedings, wherein one of the accusers was proven guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a unanimous jury. The defendant presented her cases and had legal representation, but was sentenced to prison for 4-1/2 years for the crime of perjury. A judge was present to ensure a fair trial. Please explain that one away, Wayne. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Easy. Firstly...there were 48 witnesses to the abuse, only four were chosen by the prosecution to give evidence. Two were in jail and one had psychiatric issues and those three are mentioned in the article. The fourth was the only one that had reported the abuse before the Franklin case actually came up. She was found to be credible and one of her abusers was actually charged, she is not mentioned at all (at least not anymore, despite being reliably sourced that was deleted from the article). Secondly, Alisha Owen was not charged with perjury over the broad accusations of abuse, the judge found that the abuse had occurred. She was charged with perjury over specific allegations against a specific person, one of which was her claim that he had fathered her child. That person testified that he had previously taken a paternity test which showed he was not the father. He declined to provide proof he had taken the test and the judge accepted his testimony. Wayne (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When prosecutors are selective about the witnesses they present, it's because some are more credible than others. They present those witnesses who are the most credible. The two who were in prison recanted. Paul Bonacci was found psychiatrically unfit to stand trial. So it came down to Alisha Owen, who was apparently the most credible witness out of the entire 48-witness pool, and she was found guilty of perjury. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were all lying. In the absence of any credible evidence from a reliable source (per WP:RS) that these legal proceedings were tainted or rigged in some way, Wikipedia simply reports the verdicts and the grand jury findings dispassionately.

We have been reviewing these sources for about three years now. Nothing has changed. A key source supporting the conspiracy theories was found to be unreliable. There has been no sudden emergence of new witnesses or a new reliable source. Previous efforts to push conspiracy theories into the article resulted in the article being stubbed, and then resulted in full protection which will apparently be indefinite. This article has been a battlefield for too long. Accept the result. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No reference to Lawrence E. King Jr. being known as Larry

Lawrence E. King Jr. is also know as Larry, the article should reflect this. Eulice Washington calls him Larry King in this clip youtube clip. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)