Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

"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in a 1990 interview with the Omaha World Herald, following her withdrawal as legal counsel, she stated that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest and that she still believed Owen's account.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. [1]
• ...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 [2])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the self description of the Trine Day publishing house. This little outfit should have its picture next to the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theorist": "Mission Statement - TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " [3] "Tiny," "extremist" and "fringe" are fairly mild and gentle terms in describing this outfit. In describing the author as "widely published," his work has appeared in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. Do you really claim this is a reliable source, Apostle12? We can resolve this at the RS noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Time for WP:RSN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further discussion on reliable sources

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

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

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

You don't get it. You said, "As there is no consensus ..." But the burden of showing consensus is on the people trying to introduce questionable material, not the people trying to keep it out. In particular, see the section on questionable sources here: [4] See also the appropriate sections in WP:V: [5] "The burden of evidence lies with the editor trying to add or restore material." Since there is no consensus, the material stays out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And some more discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverend James Bevel

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

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

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

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

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

You continue to delete sourced material on the basis of "undue weight." However it is your insertion of "a carefully crafted hoax" in the heading that is the real offender when it comes to giving undue weight to a single line of the Douglas County grand jury findings. The Franklin Committee objections were many, substantive, and strenuous, yet you have chosen to leave only the mildest (and most neutral) sounding objection intact--"To assume that the 'hoax' was crafted assumed the existence of a craftsman. Who was it? To state that it was 'carefully crafted' assumes someone with intelligence and enough knowledge of accurate facts to make the 'hoax' credible. ... We can find no clear evidence which conclusively establishes what was the truth and what was a hoax." Your carefully selected quote gives the reader no insight as to why the Franklin Committe condemned the grand jury findings--they were not just complaining about "no clear evidence," rather they were complaining that justice had not been served in the grand jury proceedings, especially with respect to charging Peter Citron and Lawrence King with crimes against children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

Franklin Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonacci case

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

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

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

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

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

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

The old version appears here:

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

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

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

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

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

It includes few of the named defendants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's really a shame that editors like yourself, whose pernicious narcissim makes it impossible to get outside their own heads, often take up residence at Wikipedia. Apostle12 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)