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)