Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs) m →= Time for WP:RSN\: corrected section header |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
::: I only have a bug up my ass about the quality of this encyclopedia and this article, Apostle12. You are so dedicated to lending Wikipedia's credibility to these false accusations in the article that significant errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and style escape your notice; and when I've tried to correct them, you reverted me because in the same edit I happened to remove your Bryant/DeCamp garbage. King is guilty of embezzlement, but he and the rest of the accused in this article are innocent of child prostitution. In America, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the fevered mind of some conspiracy theorist at a tiny, extremist fringe publishing firm in someone's spare bedroom. |
::: I only have a bug up my ass about the quality of this encyclopedia and this article, Apostle12. You are so dedicated to lending Wikipedia's credibility to these false accusations in the article that significant errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and style escape your notice; and when I've tried to correct them, you reverted me because in the same edit I happened to remove your Bryant/DeCamp garbage. King is guilty of embezzlement, but he and the rest of the accused in this article are innocent of child prostitution. In America, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the fevered mind of some conspiracy theorist at a tiny, extremist fringe publishing firm in someone's spare bedroom. |
||
:::More importantly for our purposes, the prohibitions contained in [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:BLP]] are clear and ironclad. Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury and served 4-1/2 years in prison, and her attorney withdrew from the case because she knew Owen was going to commit perjury. Paul Bonacci was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. The third accuser had the good sense to admit he was lying, and his admission further undermines their credibility. So what we have here is a proven liar and a proven nutball. And both Bryant and DeCamp rely upon them as if their credibility was unblemished. DeCamp is self-published and Bryant might as well be. |
:::More importantly for our purposes, the prohibitions contained in [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:BLP]] are clear and ironclad. Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury and served 4-1/2 years in prison, and her attorney withdrew from the case because she knew Owen was going to commit perjury. Paul Bonacci was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. The third accuser had the good sense to admit he was lying, and his admission further undermines their credibility. So what we have here is a proven liar and a proven nutball. And both Bryant and DeCamp rely upon them as if their credibility was unblemished. DeCamp is self-published and Bryant might as well be. |
||
:::I think it's time for [[WP:RSN]]. Let me know when you are prepared to present your facts there. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Time for [[WP:RSN]] == |
|||
:::By the way, aren't you the one who fought for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction? What's up with that anyway? Why was it so important to you that Owen would continue to appear truthful and with good credibility, to the eyes of the casual WP reader? [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I think it's time for [[WP:RSN]]. Let me know when you are prepared to present your facts there. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
By the way, aren't you the one who fought for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction? What's up with that anyway? Why was it so important to you that Owen would continue to appear truthful and with good credibility, to the eyes of the casual WP reader? [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:No, I did not "fight for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction." You are confused, and your consistently intemperate tone is not appreciated.[[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have absolutely no connection to Lyndon LaRouche, and I have little respect for him. You can legitimately mention that some sources consider LaRouche "a conspiracy theorist," but that should be sourced and limited to the appropriate section. You are speaking beyond your evidence when you state.."most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another." You cannot tar all of us who are concerned about Franklin with the "conspiracy theorist" brush. As for the "Grand Jury findings" subheading, the Grand Jury said a lot of things; please stop pushing your obvious POV by highlighting one of them.[[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::It must have been someone else then. WLRoss perhaps? I know someone here kept reverting every time I added any mention of Owen's perjury conviction. It's been a few months at least, but I know someone was doing it. The ''New York Times'' calls LaRouche a conspiracy theorist. So do many other reliable sources. See his biography: [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. His disciples at the Schiller Institute and elsewhere are also fairly described as such. In fact, most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another, such as [[Webster Tarpley]], and therefore the use of the "conspiracy theorist" term in the article lede is called for. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: |
:::I ave absolutely no connection to Lyndon LaRouche, and I have little respect for him. You can legitimately mention that some sources consider LaRouche "a conspiracy theorist," but that should be sourced and limited to the appropriate section. You are speaking beyond your evidence when you state.."most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another." You cannot tar all of us who are concerned about Franklin with the "conspiracy theorist" brush. As for the "Grand Jury findings" subheading, the Grand Jury said a lot of things; please stop pushing your obvious POV by highlighting one of them.[[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::LaRouche and his followers are so universally identified as conspiracy theorists that they can be identified as such in the article lede. Let me be clear: when I said "most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another," I was referring to the people described in the article mainspace. The Schiller Institute, as well as Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, are all followers of the peculiar, kooky LaRouche brand of extremism. Take those away and what's left? Paul Bonacci's lawyer (DeCamp) and some guy who had an article published in ''[[Gear]]'' (Bryant). Are you ready for [[WP:RSN]]? [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 12:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:::::LaRouche has also been described by critics as a fascist, an anti-Semite and a cult leader, as they are just as reliably sourced as "conspiracy theorist" I'm surprised you didn't add those as well. However, WP doesn't use minor descriptives in place of a main one because to do so is POV. As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists you cant state that all are. Also, the Nebraska legislative committee were not LaRouche disciples either. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ::::''As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists ...'' Really? Like I said, it's the members of the Schiller Institute, its "Citizens Fact-Finding Commission" (ten people) plus LaRouche, Tarpley and Chaitkin on one side (total of at 14 people, likely many more) versus Knight and DeCamp (total of two people). Is my math right here, or is the group at least 88% conspiracy theorists? In the article lede, there's no denying that the story has been circulated among several conspiracy theorists. If you'd like we can add the words "and two other people." Okay? [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
::::I have repeatedly asked whether you are ready for [[WP:RSN]] and you have repeatedly refused to answer me. This morning there has been an enormous amount of garbage shovelled into the article from these ridiculously unreliable sources, without any discussion. I am reverting all this garbage. Enormous reliance on enormously unreliable sources. This might as well have been written by [[Lyndon LaRouche]] himself. Obviously [[WP:RSN]] is overdue. Regardless of whether you're ready, I'm going there. You may join me there if you choose to do so, but I will treat the consensus decision of the larger community as binding in this matter. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:19, 20 March 2011
Recent edits
The identification of King as a "prominent member of the Republican Party" is unnecessary to this article. To the best of my knowledge, he never served in public office at any level and there is no indication that he did in any of the cited sources. It may belong in his biography, but not here. Furthermore, he spent most of his life as a Democrat before switching to the Republican Party, and this is confirmed by The New York Times. Relentless attempts to include his Republican Party membership suggest a campaign to spread an "All Republicans are perverts" meme for partisan purposes. You may pursue your political agendas elsewhere.
The attempt to exclude any mention of the perjury charges against King's two principal accusers on the sexual charges, Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci, likewise reeks of a partisan agenda. The fact that Owen served 10 years in prison for perjury, for making her false accusations before a grand jury, is essential to serve WP:BLP. Although King is guilty of embezzlement, he is innocent of the sex-related accusations until proven guilty. The fact that his accuser went to prison for perjury underscores his innocence on that charge, and the fact that the followers of Lyndon Larouche have adopted this smear campaign, as part of their encyclopedia of smears, provides even more reason to leave political gamesmanship out of Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I might suggest that you carefully read Bryant's book. DeCamp's book is also essential to a proper understanding of this case.Apostle12 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't consider self-published sources to be reliable. Neither do I. If you'll pardon the term, they're crap. Any rich man with the will to do so can publish a book full of lies. Reputable publishers, and especially reputable periodicals with fact-checking departments, separate the truth from the crap. I'll rely on them instead if you don't mind, Apostle12. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- DeCamp's book is self-published, however he was a four-term Nebraska State Senator when the Franklin story broke, he is a respected Lincoln, Nebraska attorney, and he represented several of the key accusers in the Franklin case; his standing demands that we give his point of view due weight, which is a valid exception to the sourcing policy. Bryant is an award-winning investigative journalist, his book is not self-published, and his work is impeccable. If you are depending on periodicals to "separate the truth from the crap," good luck! Apostle12 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the perjury charge should be mentioned but, to maintain due weight, it should also be mentioned that the verdict was suspect. Several of the jurors later submitted affidavits stating that they had been told to accept hearsay evidence and shown written statements not presented in court that "played a significant role" in deliberations and which mysteriously could not be located after the trial. One of the key witnesses against Owen later admitted to lying under oath and that Owen actually told the truth. Senator Schmit testified that another witness had a felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor in exchange for his evidence and her former lawyer Vuchetich refused to testify in Owen's defense citing attorney client privilege. Owen's appeal was apparently denied on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to the hearsay evidence which made up the majority of the evidence against her.Wayne (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mentioning the perjury charge is fine, provided the overall context of the charge, and the dubious nature of the Owen conviction, are mentioned as well. In fact the false testimony that marked the coverup is an important part of the story; Alisha Owen's conviction was used to silence other potential accusers. King's prominence in Republican Party politics during the years leading up to the scandal, and the fact that Republicans featured prominently in the scandal, seem very relevant to me--I am not, by the way, a Republican-basher, having voted independently for quite some time. That LaRouche followers have homed in on this case is irrelevant. Apostle12 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing at all dubious about the perjury conviction, Apostle12. I sense an agenda in everything you're saying here. Alisha Owen's perjury conviction survived appellate review with flying colors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the face of the available evidence only blind Freddie would not see anything dubious about the conviction. I would hardly call dismissing the appeal on the grounds that her lawyer did not object when dodgy evidence was presented "flying colours". The judge even admitted that the evidence for the conviction was unsupported hearsay. Wayne (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Remember folks, we're not here to retry the case or bring justice. This is an encyclopedia and all we're doing is verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Let's try to avoid arguing over the details of the case itself, and focus on improving the article. Will Beback talk 13:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. I think we can agree that The New York Times is a reliable source. The attorney for the accusers is clearly an advocate for his clients, therefore biased; this little fact negates his standing in the WP:RS equation. His self-published book is most definitely not a reliable source and when you say "dodgy evidence," you're relying on that unreliable source. And in some circumstances, hearsay evidence is admissible (see "exceptions to the hearsay rule"); who are we to replace the judgment of the Nebraska appellate court with our own?
- Wayne and Apostle12, are you attorneys with licenses to practice law in Nebraska? If not, please defer to the judgment of the appellate court, as I have. If we start devoting space in every article about court decisions to criticisms and whining by the losers and their lawyers, and the smear campaigns of the LaRouche organization, where do you suppose that road will take the encyclopedia project? Not to a good place. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding some of Phoenix and Winslows edits. The addition in the lead is out of context as it isn't mentioned why she was charged. The judge gave her the opportunity to retract her statement which she refused to do, leading to her indictment for perjury. If you mention that Bonacci was indicted you also need to mention that the claims were later accepted or the section only has an unanswered implication that he lied. Being in prison does not prevent you appearing in a civil action. Failure to appear means that you are not admitting guilt but do not dispute the charge. As a civil suit has a lower standard of evidence, guilt is not assumed even if "found" guilty, but new evidence may inadvertantly satisfy a criminal court so the benifit of a failure to appear is that you are not at risk of evidence against you being used to bring new charges in a criminal court.Wayne (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As for the perjury conviction. I'm not suggesting we say the verdict was dodgy. I'm only pointing out that criticism is relevant. The court found the abuse did occur but not by the people accused. Multiple victims having similar false memories is not uncommon and for a sexual abuse victim to be sentenced to any time at all for a false memory let alone 15 years is unusual to say the least considering there was evidence supporting some of the memories.Wayne (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
franklincoverup.com
- In 1990 Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury for her grand jury testimony. She was sentenced to nine to 15 years in the state penitentiary, and was released in 2001.[1] Owen's former attorney, Pamela Vuchetich, stated in a January 2000 deposition that she "withdrew as her legal counsel because Alisha [Owen] was going to commit a crime ... The crime of perjury. And she was going to do so knowingly and willingly."[2] Vuchetich later admitted to being in a relationship with a key witness against Owens. [3]
The PDF file is no longer at that URL. The other two links are to depositions, which are primary sources. We should not base any assertions in the article on primary sources, though if we have secondary sources we can use primary sources for illustration. Can we find other sources for this? Will Beback talk 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Documentary
- In 1993 the British-based TV station, Yorkshire Television, sent a team to Nebraska to launch its own investigation of the Franklin case. The resulting 56-minute documentary, "Conspiracy of Silence" was scheduled to air nation-wide on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994 with $500,000 paid for the air time.[1] More allegations of a coverup came to light when an unknown party purchased the documentary days before it was due to air and pulled it from programming. The documentary has since surfaced on the Internet. The film features an interview with former CIA director William Colby, numerous members of the Nebraska state legislature including John DeCamp, and more than one alleged victim in the case.
This unsourced passage should be deleted unless reliable secondary sources can be found for it. Will Beback talk 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In this case I think deletion would ill serve the article. The existence of the "Conspiracy of Silence" video, its orgins, and its eventual fate are uncontested and referenced in both the DeCamp book and the Bryant book. I believe the passage should stay. Apostle12 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Uncontested" is not the Wikipedia standard. Verifiability is the relevant policy: WP:V. Unless these assertions can be verified using reliable sources, they should be deleted. The article is well-served by only including verifiable information. Will Beback talk 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What kinds of sources are these?
- http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/coverups/decamp.html</ref>
- http://educate-yourself.org/cn/conspiracyofsilencenotairedandcopiesdestroyedapr00.shtml Conspiracy of Silence Pulled From TV and Copies Destroyed Ted L. Gunderson
The first seems to simply be a reprint of a self-published book which would not qualify as a reliable source. The second also seems to be a copy of a self-published source.[1] Both hosting websites have disclaimers, so they don't take responsibility for the texts. I'm afraid these sources will not do either. I've deleted the link to the video itself, as it's a copyright violation. I suggest that we trim the text to a simple statement like, "a video was made but not aired", pending sources for more extensive assertions. Will Beback talk 07:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- That the documentary was made, was listed in the TV guide, air time paid for and eventually not aired is undisputed. The sources are acceptable under WP:RS guidelines on self published sources as they are making statements on their own beliefs on why the documentary was not aired which is relevant to the article topic and the text makes it clear that it is the authors beliefs. Simply saying "a video was made but not aired" understates the extent of the controversy and the role of the documentary in the controversy. Wayne (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, "undisputed" is not the standard we're trying to meet. "Verifiable" is what we need to achieve, along with NPOV, etc. If the controversy over the video is significant then we should be able to find reference to it in reliable secondary sources. I do not believe that the exceptions to the rule against using self-published sources apply in this situation at all. Using these as the only sources is especially inappropriate. Will Beback talk 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- What is the copyright status of the video? This just-linked site disclaims any responsibility for copyright, and says it is just streaming material held on other websites.[2] Unfortunately, it doesn't make clear exactly where the video is coming from. But unless there's a release somewhere the assumption is that the film is copyrighted and that the video hosting site, whoever that is, does not have authorization. Sorry for seeming like a hard-ass about this section, but we need to follow the same standards that apply to all articles. Will Beback talk 10:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- All the videos available are copies of a draft version that was given to De Camp who then distributed it to anyone interested so it's actually copyright free. The problem with this article is the lack of secondary sources online. Plenty of books and 1000s of websites that you would not call reliable, many with copies of official documents, but mainstream media seems to have distanced themselves from the scandal. After around 1990, apart from the Omaha World-Herald, no mainstream media seems to have covered the story and the Herald cant be regarded as a RS for this subject because of conflict of interest problems. I couldn't even find a RS for Bonacci winning the civil suit. I did find a full transcript of the civil case but that was on De Camps website. I cant understand why you dont regard his book as reliable, it documents everything it claims and is written by a decorated war veteran and 16 year Senator not to mention that he names everyone which would have resulted in libel suits if any of the claims were not supported. Wayne (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding copyrights: All works created after 1989 are automatically copyrighted. The only significant exceptions are works created by the US federal government or works explicitly released to the public domain. The argument that the ideo is "copyright free" is not valid. If you'd like another assessment there's the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page. The text prohibiting linking to copyvios is at WP:COPYLINK.
- Regarding self-published sources: The policy is at WP:SPS. The fact that no one has sued De Camp, or that he was a war veteran, does not mean his book is reliable. If you'd like another opinion there's WP:RSN..
- Regarding primary sources: Transcripts and court documents are primary sources. They may be used as sources within narrow limits, mostly limited to providing illustrative quotes or details to enhance material found in secondary sources. No conclusions may be drawn from primary sources. See WP:PSTS for a full discussion.
- There are many topics about which the coverage in reliable sources is less than we'd wish. In these cases we simply have to restrict ourselves to saying what can be verified using Wikipedia standards. The answer is not to lower those standards. That is doubly true in a murky matter like this which presumably involves a number of still-living people. If we can only verify 100 words of text then that's preferable to 10,000 words of unreliable material. Will Beback talk 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- And theres the thing. No conclusions are drawn from the primary sources as they themselves contain all the claims mentioned in this article, and a lot more that havn't been even hinted at. I didn't say that De Camps reputation made his book reliable, I said that his reputation and the fact that the book is entirely based on primary sources should make it reliable. In this article, a dearth of seconday sources means we can rely on primary sources more than usual and as De Camp copies these in their entirety I see no problem with using the original primary source from him if it is not online elsewhere. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- We're not using the De Camp book as as source at all, nor should we.
- We are using two primary sourced documents. They are an affidavit[3] and a deposition[4]. Both documents are hosted by http://franklincoverup.com or http://franklinscandal.com/, which belongs to a researcher/author named Nick Bryant. The deposition is very incomplete. The last posted page is numbered 239, but only eight pages are posted. Someone chose which pages to post, which raises one of the principal problems with using primary sources: deciding which parts are relevant. The affidavit is just a statement and has little more value as a source then a letter to the editor. Since the affidavit includes someone recanting their recantation, it appears that the person is not a trustworthy witness or commentator on events. Further, it makes very serious charges about living people, with no evidence. We can bring these to WP:RSN to see what other editors think of these as sources. My view is that we should use them only if they've been discussed in secondary sources, and then only for illustrative quotes or details. Will Beback talk 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- And theres the thing. No conclusions are drawn from the primary sources as they themselves contain all the claims mentioned in this article, and a lot more that havn't been even hinted at. I didn't say that De Camps reputation made his book reliable, I said that his reputation and the fact that the book is entirely based on primary sources should make it reliable. In this article, a dearth of seconday sources means we can rely on primary sources more than usual and as De Camp copies these in their entirety I see no problem with using the original primary source from him if it is not online elsewhere. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Poorly sourced material
- During the trial Troy Boner, Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci were informed by the judge that they could be indicted for perjury if they did not retract their testimony. Boner retracted his testimony, but Owen and Bonacci both refused. In 1990 Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury for her grand jury testimony. She was sentenced to nine to 15 years in the state penitentiary, and was released in 2001.[1] Owen's former attorney, Pamela Vuchetich, stated in a January 2000 deposition that she "withdrew as her legal counsel because Alisha [Owen] was going to commit a crime ... The crime of perjury. And she was going to do so knowingly and willingly."[2] However, in a 1990 interview with the Omaha World Herald, following her withdrawal as legal counsel, she stated that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and that she still believed Owen's account. [3] Vuchetich later admitted that during the period when she was representing Owen she had been in a relationship with FBI agent Mott, a key witness against Owen.[4] In 1993 Boner recanted in a affadavit, stating that his original testimony and that of Owen was true. He stated that he had retracted his testimony only because he was told by FBI agents Mott and Culver that he would go to prison for 20 years if he did not do so, regardless of whether his testimony was the truth or not.[5]
- ^ http://franklincoverup.com/images/stories/BigF.1/Decision8.3.93.AO.pdf
- ^ http://franklincoverup.com/images/stories/AO.1/Depo.Vuchetich.jpg
- ^ Omaha World Herald April 30, 1990 Pg 1.
- ^ http://franklincoverup.com/images/stories/AO.1/Depo.Vuchetich.jpg
- ^ Troy Boner Affadavit October 27, 1993
This whole paragraph is citied to primary sources except for one sentence. the first link is dead. I believe we can find sources for Owen's prison term, but the rest of this needs better sourcing or it should be deleted. Since it concerns living people, we shouldn't leave it in the article any longer than absolutely necessary. Let's give it a few days or a week to see what we can do to improve it, then delete the parts without adequate secondary sources. Will Beback talk 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Four days have passed, Will, and the advocate for including this material has not produced a suitably reliable secondary source. For example, the alleged 4/30/90 story in the Omaha World-Herald (in which Vuchetich allegedly provides a quote helpful to the conspiracy theorists) cannot be found anywhere. Accordingly, I've deleted some of the more egregious CT material. I encourage you to remove other material you may find objectionable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sourced, relevant material should not be removed without a good reason. I've started a thread below about one particular term.
- As for this material, the editor who was talking about this recently is apparently a little busy, so I told him that we could wait a little. But I agree that we should act sooner than later. Will Beback talk 05:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- After a two-day search, finally located my misplaced copy of Nick Bryant's excellent book, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse, & Betrayal. Bryant is a well-respected and widely-published investigative journalist who focuses on the plight of disadvantaged and abused children in the United States. His book is exhaustively researched and footnoted; I will be including additional sourcing, with page numbers, where existing sourcing is sketchy.Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure that TrineDay is a reputable publisher. I see you had previous discussions about it, including at Talk:Project MKULTRA. Elsewhere, a senior editor dismisses it as "tiny, extremist, and fringe".[5] Will Beback talk 07:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also our previous discussion of this book on this page, #The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal, above. Will Beback talk 07:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not endorsing everything TrineDay publishes. However the two books I do endorse (Albarelli's and Bryant's) are remarkable in their depth and breadth. Regarding Conspiracy of Silence, for example, Bryant contacted Tim Tate, Yorkshire Television's director, who confirmed the genesis of the documentary and his participation in creating it. Tate denied the claims stated in the documentary's preamble, which lean towards conspiracy theory, so Bryant likewise rejects these claims and cites the need to approach with care the maze of information surrounding Franklin . (p.16) I found it reassuring that Bryant demonstrates through his sleuthing a willingness to discard everything he cannot independently verify.Apostle12 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did find this May 23, 2010 East County Magazine review of The Franklin Scandal. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/3386
- East County Magazine is an up-and-coming San Diego County publication that has received numerous awards from the San Diego Press Club. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/about Apostle12 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- After a two-day search, finally located my misplaced copy of Nick Bryant's excellent book, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse, & Betrayal. Bryant is a well-respected and widely-published investigative journalist who focuses on the plight of disadvantaged and abused children in the United States. His book is exhaustively researched and footnoted; I will be including additional sourcing, with page numbers, where existing sourcing is sketchy.Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reviews help establish the reliability of a source. However a single review in a local news website is not definitive. I've searched the Proquest newspaper archive for anything written by Nick Bryant, but nothing shows up for that name except some pieces by a London-based reporter. What evidence does he present that he's a "well-respected and widely-published investigative journalist"? I see that he co-wrote some articles and a book with Charles N. Oberg, but it's not clear what Bryant's role was - perhaps he was a graduate student working with his faculty advisor? He was never the lead author.
- I won't remove the citations you added, but let's not add any more, especially concerning living people, until we've found a consensus on this book. Should we get broader input at WP:RSN? Will Beback talk 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- A recent interview with Nick Bryant http://american-commentary.blogspot.com/2010/06/franklin-scandal-interview-with-nick.html. Apostle12 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Bryant includes approximately 100 pages of original source material; this material supports his statement of the facts in the main text, as well as the timeline. An analysis of the original source material shows that certain facts in the current Wikipedia article (the length of Alisha Owen's imprisonment, for example--already changed) are(were) incorrect. I believe we should correct these errors. Apostle12 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re: getting broader input at WP:RSN, perhaps. What I have seen previously is a tendency to dismiss any source that cannot easily be accessed online (e.g. archived copies of the Omaha World Herald). And I am not impressed by dismissals of Trine Day as "tiny, extremist, and fringe." I think the book itself must be evaluated on its merits--that means buying it (as I did) or securing it through interlibrary loan. Apostle12 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two of the main factors in evaluating the reliability of a source are its author and its publisher. Though the author claims to be a well-respected investigative journalist, I can't find anything that he wrote on his own. The publisher's problems have already been discussed. BTW, here's a profile of Kris Millegan, owner and operator of TrineDay Books. "Sinister Forces: Millegan and company work to expose secret power bases" 2005 Eugene Weekly. While RSN may not be perfect, I don't know of a better resource for gaining community input.
- It's dangerous to use primary sources for facts which haven't appeared in secondary sources. That said, i have seen a different value for Owens' actual time served in prison, and I agree we should correct that with the best available sources. Will Beback talk 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re: getting broader input at WP:RSN, perhaps. What I have seen previously is a tendency to dismiss any source that cannot easily be accessed online (e.g. archived copies of the Omaha World Herald). And I am not impressed by dismissals of Trine Day as "tiny, extremist, and fringe." I think the book itself must be evaluated on its merits--that means buying it (as I did) or securing it through interlibrary loan. Apostle12 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"Prominent Republican fundraiser"
- The scandal centered around the actions of prominent Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, a former official at the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Omaha.
- Associated Press Omaha Tales of Sexual Abuse Ruled False The New York Times. September 27, 1990
- Associated Press Trial is delayed in Omaha Scandal The New York Times. March 31, 1990</ref>
Why does "prominent Republican fundraiser" keep getting removed? One of the linked sources calls him "a prominent Republican" and the other says he is "a prominent businessman who was once active nationally in the Republican Party [..] who sang the National Anthem at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas". I imagine we could find sources that call him a fundraiser, if that's the concern. Will Beback talk 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Also removed were these sentences:
- While admitting that King had paid young men for sex, it dismissed the allegations of a sex ring.
- Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales By WILLIAM ROBBINS, The New York Times July 29, 1990
- However, in a 1990 interview with the Omaha World Herald, following her withdrawal as legal counsel, she stated that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and that she still believed Owen's account.
- Omaha World Herald April 30, 1990 Pg 1. [6]
- ...the petition alleged sexual assaults, false imprisonment, involvement in satanic rituals and participation in "deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies" with children.
- Robert Dorr. "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit" Omaha World-Herald, February 24, 1999. (Internent Archive verions [7])
There was no explanation for these deletions. Will Beback talk 05:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Phoenix and Winslow has stated that he doesn't want it mentioned that King was a Republican. No basis has been stated for the other deletions.Apostle12 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see some discussion at #Recent edits, above. However the sources seem to think that King's notability was connected, at least in part, to his role in Republican politics. Will Beback talk 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. Bryant supports this with extensive references to King. Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've stated this repeatedly in edit summaries. King never served in any public office, and the very same linked sources observe that for most of his career, he was a Democrat. I offer two alternatives. The first is to leave his political affiliation out; it belongs in his biography perhaps, but not here. It's irrelevant. If you insist on putting it in, then it should be made clear that for most of his life, he was a Democrat. Persistent efforts to identify him as a Republican seem to be following an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda. How "prominent" was he in the Republican Party, really? How many of you had ever heard of Lawrence E. King before working on this article?
- The prurient details of the sexual allegations cross the line into defamation and violate WP:BLP. We need to be very careful here. These allegations regarding sex with children, "deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies" were never proven on their merits, and one of the three main proponents went to prison for ten years for these lies. Another recanted. The third was mentally incapable of standing trial on perjury charges. It's a clean sweep: on the child molesting charges, King was as close to being proven innocent as anyone can be in the American court system. The details that remain in this article are more than sufficient to convey to the reader what actually happened and what was actually proven, without violating BLP. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. Bryant supports this with extensive references to King. Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see some discussion at #Recent edits, above. However the sources seem to think that King's notability was connected, at least in part, to his role in Republican politics. Will Beback talk 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is an article about a scandal. The sources who write about the scandal specifically refer to King as a "prominent Republican". One doesn't need to have been elected to office to be prominent within a political party. I haven't seen the sources which refer to him as a Democrat, but we can present that information as well if it's relevant. Please do not assume that anyone is trying to promote an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda. There's clearly much more to this case than politics.
- The details above are not prurient. We're not detailing who put what where. These are the basic facts of the case. If someone recanted their testimony then we can report that, but it's not a reason to delete the original testimony if it was publicly reported and affected the cases. As with any criminal case, it's natural and logical to report the charges, even those which were not proven at trial. Will Beback talk 06:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- BLP only applies if there are insufficient sources. Can you clarify the BLP objection? Otherwise I'll restore the material. Will Beback talk 06:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quite a few RS mention that King was a "rising star" of the Republican party and I have not seen a source that doesn't mention his connection. As for Owen's "lies". Several jurors later complained in affadavits that they were manipulated into finding her guilty by being given newspapers to read every day of the trial that were reporting that Owen was lying, that during their deliberations they were shown hearsay "evidence" that was never presented in court and that the jurors were also refused permission to review evidence that was given in court despite numerous requests. This was all brought up for Owens appeals, which were denied leaving these irregularities unanswered. Boner later retracted the recanting of his testimony. That Bonacci was "mentally incapable of standing trial" is fiction. He was mentally disturbed as the original grand jury had stated as much, but his perjury charges were apparently dropped without a psychiatric report being done to determine his fitness. King was hardly proven innocent as he later refused to apear for the civil case which ruled against him on the same claims that Owens was convicted of perjury for. The case is a lot more complicated than this article indicates.Wayne (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with WLRoss that this case is extremely complicated. Especially in the 2006 edition of his self-published book, DeCamp does a good job of telling it. Nick Bryant, who invested 7 years in the project, does better; his 2009 book extends to 652 pages, and he carefully qualifies every point. As it stands, the Wikipedia article covers only some of the basics.
- At regular intervals various editors attempt to gut the article by removing material they deem "prurient." I assume that most of this gutting is well-intended, however by this time it seems to me that at least some editors have a stake in keeping the story from being told--most especially they seem to want to whitewash any connection between the Franklin scandal and Republican Party luminaries, both in Omaha and Washington D.C. At the time of the events in question, King was one of those luminaries--all the sources support this fact.
- Any connection between the Franklin scandal and nearby Boys Town, as well as connections between the Franklin scandal and the well-publicized child abuse that has plagued the Catholic Church during the past two decades, have also been vigorously resisted in such a concerted way that I am forced to conclude that such resistance has not been conducted in good faith. Apostle12 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps it's because the alleged "connections" have never been proven, because the grand jury described all of this as a "carefully crafted hoax," and because the principal accusers in this case either recanted, were convicted and imprisoned for 4 1/2 years for perjury, or were found mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is an article about a scandal. The sources who write about the scandal specifically refer to King as a "prominent Republican". So what? Why is that relevant to this particular Wikipedia article? There are a lot of other facts we could include, but we don't. This is not an exhaustive listing of every fact (and claim) and all the minutiae that are offered in every source about Lawrence King. If we had a separate WP biography about King, then I think his full political history, including the fact that he was a Democrat for most of his life, would belong there. But not here. It isn't relevant. I suggest that a good compromise would be to refer to him as a "prominent political fundraiser."
- Quite a few RS mention that King was a "rising star" of the Republican party ... The only truly reliable source that mentions this is The New York Times. The rest are self-published, such as the book by Nick Bryant and the ravings of the Lyndon Larouche disciples, and of dubious reliability. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your assertion that Nick Bryant's book is "self-published" is untrue. Please refer to Wikipedia Administrator Will Beback's comments above re: the undisputed, notable fact of King's "prominent Republican" status. Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Undisputed? yes. Prominent? perhaps. Relevant? definitely not. If it's relevant, then the party affiliation of Democratic state legislator Ernie Chambers (who flogged this hoax for partisan advantage at every opportunity) is also relevant, and the fact that King was a Democrat for most of his life is also relevant. Bryant's book is sensationalist trash published by a tiny company but you're right, it was DeCamp's book that was self-published. Bryant's book is no more reliable than DeCamp's though. Reputable publishers won't even touch this garbage. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the self description of the Trine Day publishing house. This little outfit should have its picture next to the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorist": "Mission Statement - TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [8] "Tiny," "extremist" and "fringe" are fairly mild and gentle terms in describing this outfit. In describing the author as "widely published," his work has appeared in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. Do you really claim this is a reliable source, Apostle12? We can resolve this at the RS noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Bryant's book is very carefully researched, and he debunks quite a lot of conspiracy theory along the way. Bryant spent years researching the topic, he interviewed nearly all of the key players, and he deserves credit for producing a balanced piece that is very far from conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should read it before judging it; only fair. Trine Day's mission statement, quoted above, is accurate and hardly the self-indictment you pretend. Too bad you have such a bug up your ass, Phoenix and Winslow; the tone you project is refreshingly absent from Bryant's work. Apostle12 (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your assertion that Nick Bryant's book is "self-published" is untrue. Please refer to Wikipedia Administrator Will Beback's comments above re: the undisputed, notable fact of King's "prominent Republican" status. Apostle12 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I only have a bug up my ass about the quality of this encyclopedia and this article, Apostle12. You are so dedicated to lending Wikipedia's credibility to these false accusations in the article that significant errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and style escape your notice; and when I've tried to correct them, you reverted me because in the same edit I happened to remove your Bryant/DeCamp garbage. King is guilty of embezzlement, but he and the rest of the accused in this article are innocent of child prostitution. In America, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the fevered mind of some conspiracy theorist at a tiny, extremist fringe publishing firm in someone's spare bedroom.
- More importantly for our purposes, the prohibitions contained in WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear and ironclad. Alisha Owen was convicted of perjury and served 4-1/2 years in prison, and her attorney withdrew from the case because she knew Owen was going to commit perjury. Paul Bonacci was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial for perjury. The third accuser had the good sense to admit he was lying, and his admission further undermines their credibility. So what we have here is a proven liar and a proven nutball. And both Bryant and DeCamp rely upon them as if their credibility was unblemished. DeCamp is self-published and Bryant might as well be.
Time for WP:RSN
I think it's time for WP:RSN. Let me know when you are prepared to present your facts there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, aren't you the one who fought for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction? What's up with that anyway? Why was it so important to you that Owen would continue to appear truthful and with good credibility, to the eyes of the casual WP reader? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I did not "fight for so long against including any mention of Alisha Owen's perjury conviction." You are confused, and your consistently intemperate tone is not appreciated.Apostle12 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It must have been someone else then. WLRoss perhaps? I know someone here kept reverting every time I added any mention of Owen's perjury conviction. It's been a few months at least, but I know someone was doing it. The New York Times calls LaRouche a conspiracy theorist. So do many other reliable sources. See his biography: Lyndon LaRouche. His disciples at the Schiller Institute and elsewhere are also fairly described as such. In fact, most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another, such as Webster Tarpley, and therefore the use of the "conspiracy theorist" term in the article lede is called for. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ave absolutely no connection to Lyndon LaRouche, and I have little respect for him. You can legitimately mention that some sources consider LaRouche "a conspiracy theorist," but that should be sourced and limited to the appropriate section. You are speaking beyond your evidence when you state.."most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another." You cannot tar all of us who are concerned about Franklin with the "conspiracy theorist" brush. As for the "Grand Jury findings" subheading, the Grand Jury said a lot of things; please stop pushing your obvious POV by highlighting one of them.Apostle12 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- LaRouche and his followers are so universally identified as conspiracy theorists that they can be identified as such in the article lede. Let me be clear: when I said "most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another," I was referring to the people described in the article mainspace. The Schiller Institute, as well as Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, are all followers of the peculiar, kooky LaRouche brand of extremism. Take those away and what's left? Paul Bonacci's lawyer (DeCamp) and some guy who had an article published in Gear (Bryant). Are you ready for WP:RSN? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- LaRouche has also been described by critics as a fascist, an anti-Semite and a cult leader, as they are just as reliably sourced as "conspiracy theorist" I'm surprised you didn't add those as well. However, WP doesn't use minor descriptives in place of a main one because to do so is POV. As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists you cant state that all are. Also, the Nebraska legislative committee were not LaRouche disciples either. Wayne (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, in this context LaRouche's anti-Semitism (much like King's briefly adopted political party ID) is irrelevant, since there's no showing that anyone involved was Jewish. But his reputation as one of the world's leading conspiracy theorists is very, very relevant.
- As the majority of those whose believe the Grand Jury findings were not supported by evidence are not conspiracy theorists ... Really? Like I said, it's the members of the Schiller Institute, its "Citizens Fact-Finding Commission" (ten people) plus LaRouche, Tarpley and Chaitkin on one side (total of at 14 people, likely many more) versus Knight and DeCamp (total of two people). Is my math right here, or is the group at least 88% conspiracy theorists? In the article lede, there's no denying that the story has been circulated among several conspiracy theorists. If you'd like we can add the words "and two other people." Okay? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked whether you are ready for WP:RSN and you have repeatedly refused to answer me. This morning there has been an enormous amount of garbage shovelled into the article from these ridiculously unreliable sources, without any discussion. I am reverting all this garbage. Enormous reliance on enormously unreliable sources. This might as well have been written by Lyndon LaRouche himself. Obviously WP:RSN is overdue. Regardless of whether you're ready, I'm going there. You may join me there if you choose to do so, but I will treat the consensus decision of the larger community as binding in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- LaRouche and his followers are so universally identified as conspiracy theorists that they can be identified as such in the article lede. Let me be clear: when I said "most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another," I was referring to the people described in the article mainspace. The Schiller Institute, as well as Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, are all followers of the peculiar, kooky LaRouche brand of extremism. Take those away and what's left? Paul Bonacci's lawyer (DeCamp) and some guy who had an article published in Gear (Bryant). Are you ready for WP:RSN? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I ave absolutely no connection to Lyndon LaRouche, and I have little respect for him. You can legitimately mention that some sources consider LaRouche "a conspiracy theorist," but that should be sourced and limited to the appropriate section. You are speaking beyond your evidence when you state.."most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another." You cannot tar all of us who are concerned about Franklin with the "conspiracy theorist" brush. As for the "Grand Jury findings" subheading, the Grand Jury said a lot of things; please stop pushing your obvious POV by highlighting one of them.Apostle12 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It must have been someone else then. WLRoss perhaps? I know someone here kept reverting every time I added any mention of Owen's perjury conviction. It's been a few months at least, but I know someone was doing it. The New York Times calls LaRouche a conspiracy theorist. So do many other reliable sources. See his biography: Lyndon LaRouche. His disciples at the Schiller Institute and elsewhere are also fairly described as such. In fact, most of the people who have been fluffing this story since Owen's conviction are LaRouche disciples of one sort or another, such as Webster Tarpley, and therefore the use of the "conspiracy theorist" term in the article lede is called for. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)