Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

more info helpful for developing the article, possibly

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/des-moines/2014/01/14/documentary-about-gosch-to-premiere-in-utah/4453513/

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2015/04/08/fleur-showing-johnny-gosch-documentary/25488959/ apparently this film is downloadable. This article mentions Paul Bonacci. "Police recovered no evidence after Gosch's abduction, and arrested no suspects. Nine years later, Paul Bonacci, a sex abuse victim and offender in Omaha who had multiple-personality disorder, told his attorney and local media he helped abduct Gosch. Bonacci claimed he was the first to molest Gosch on film as part of a far-reaching child-sex ring. West Des Moines police dismissed Bonacci's story without ever interviewing him. A grand jury later called the sex abuse allegations "a carefully crafted hoax."" GangofOne (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The amount of detail that has already been provided in the article mainspace, regarding these unproven and sensational accusations that one grand jury called a "carefully crafted hoax" and led to one of the accusers going to prison for perjury, is sufficient by Wikipedia standards. WP:BLP is one of the bedrock principles of Wikipedia and the Des Moines Register doesn't have to follow it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Article is biased and should not have protected edit settings--lacks perspective, breadth of information

While not inclined to believe conspiracy theories, I do find it odd that this article has a protected editing status, particularly given how fully one-sided the presentation of facts and information is. The author neglects to even mention, for example, that (although she only served 4 1/2 years), Alisha Owen was sentenced to 27 years in prison for perjury. This is an excessive penalty by any standard. Furthermore, Owen subsequently sued the State of Nebraska in appellate court, due in part to alleged misconduct and improper communication between the judge and jury during her trial (see source link below). None of these facts, nor any others running counter to the argument that this case was a hoax and the alleged victims were liars, is presented in this article.

This Wiki article, as it stands, fails to even provide the perspective of those who alleged that abuse did in fact take place. Whether or not the alleged crimes took place, this article should be much longer, more nuanced, and present both sides of the issue. And just to play devil's advocate, if there was no abuse and no cover-up, who is so determined to keep this article short and one-sided, and block others from editing it?

Please note: I did not insert the first to references and don't know how to remove them. I only cited the legal doc.

MGK206 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Addendum re: Biased, Ego-Driven Obstruction by certain Wiki users

I've combed through all the history, and then some, to try to get to the bottom of the bizarre nature of this article as it stands, and the macho shoving match around its edits. This entire situation is such a mess. Whatever one's belief about the facts of this case, and whatever their personal stake in said case (because for some of you it appears to be awfully personal--either that or you don't have much going on for yourself), an entire breadth of information, with all facts and all perspectives, should be provided. This is the STANDARD for journalism as well as scholarly articles. The back and forth bullying and the clear obstruction of information dissemination by some with respect to this article and this story is truly appalling and flies in the face of all academic standards. I have contacted Wikipedia and complained, providing several links, citations and usernames. Cheers! MGK206 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: again, still not my citations below — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGK206 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Contact whoever you wish. We're not going to violate our BLP policy to add material that is circumspect at best.--MONGO 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And who are those "we" exactly? Currently this article is violating the BLP policy because of "biased, malicious or overly promotional content". The current article is an excellent example of biased information in Wikipedia by means of information suppression, so much that it is hard to believe that no dishonesty is involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression Harald88 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Boys Town

the "Boys Town" link in this page links to Boys Town , Nebraska -but in fact is meant to link to another article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Town_(organization)

68.34.127.226 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done.--MONGO 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Absurdly biased

Reads like it was written by the Republican Party. I won’t even bother trying to follow in others’ footsteps and dare to add the inconvenient information that Paul Bonacci was awarded $1 million for the abuse and life-altering mental damage he suffered at the hands of Larry King. Or the information in a well regarded British film company’s documentary, or several other documentaries, or a book written by a Republican state senator. I would clearly just get subjected to obstruction and abuse. I can instantly see one obstructive editor below has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and consistent personal abuse. This article is clearly watched be many dedicated eyes. Wikipedia seems to be open only up to a point. What a shame. Autonova (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Perfect example of how to not get the article "fixed". Insult editors, accuse them of obstruction and offer zero reliable references. Maybe Wikipedia is not the best playground for you?--MONGO (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I, also, was going to ask: where are the actual reliable sources? — but it just seemed too ranty for me to bother. El_C 13:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So why isn't there mention of a judge awarding $1 million to Bonacci due to King's abuse? Source [1] Autonova (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be in here. It was not related to a sex ring, only to the court decision against King himself.--MONGO (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The judge explicitly mentions the allegations of scavenging for other children to be a part of a pornography ring, and the participation of King and others in “masochistic orgies with other minor children”, and that “the defendant King’s default has made the allegations true as to him”. Seeing as the article is concerned with allegations of King being involved in a child sex ring, this is clearly relevant information from a reliable source and needs mentioning in the article. Autonova (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The is a difference between criminal and civil findings. The case you speak of is civil, not criminal.--MONGO (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We're allowed to mention civil law action on Wikipedia. For example, this featured article mentions a civil lawsuit. Autonova (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Without a reliable source there's nothing to discuss. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

See above. Autonova (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's the one on scribd, that's not reliable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s also Executive Intelligence Review Volume 26, Number 12, March 19, 1999. Autonova (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean starting at page 65 in this Larouche rag? I quote from that piece "Paul Bonacci was a victim of the Monarch project, one of whose headquarters was in the bunkers of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha. In written depositions and in hours upon hours of videotaped testimony—during which several of his personalities clearly emerge—Bonacci has provided the most detailed account of the Monarch project ever to see the light of day." Really...--MONGO (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

For further context, read this full article.--MONGO (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. How about The Des Moines Register newspaper, 24th February 1999? Or The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes by Michael Newton [2]? Or The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant [3]? Or Robert Dorr, Omaha World-Herald newspaper, "King release to close book on Franklin" Jan 28, 2001? Autonova (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All conspiracy theories or not related. Do you have any reliable references to back up the argument? I mean "Monarch project"? I can't tell who the better hoaxers are, the kids that conjured up these preposterous tales or the grifters/writers that have capitalized on perpetuating these ridiculous claims.--MONGO (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. This is about Paul Bonacci being awarded $1 million by a district judge due to Larry King's actions. There are reliable sources which explicitly state this fact and they should be added to the article. Autonova (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Which you have provided zero.--MONGO (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate: The Des Moines Register newspaper, 24th February 1999? Or The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes by Michael Newton [4]? Or The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant [5]? Or Robert Dorr, Omaha World-Herald newspaper, "King release to close book on Franklin" Jan 28, 2001? Autonova (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)