Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bogus Statement

The first sentence of this article:

The Franklin Coverup Scandal began on June 29, 1989, when the front page of the Washington Times bore the headline "Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush", and ended when a grand jury concluded the charges were a "carefully crafted hoax".

This is completely false. The scandal began five years before that in Nebraska and ended with several senior Republicans, including one who had previously been involved in child porn scandals, losing their jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 22:18, December 20, 2006‎ (UTC)

Of course, what you fail to mention is that the so-called scandal was investigated extensively by the Unicameral, and was found to be without basis. There is/was no scandal, other than in the twisted mind of Sen. John DeCamp. Morton devonshire 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, only an imbecile would be happy with the explantation given by the Unicameral when it was the very entity being accused of these crimes. It is a true scandal when the institution under question is also the institution performing the inquiry and investigation. You think that the O.J. Simpson trial was scandalous? Well what if he had been his own judge, jury and prosecutor? Give me a break...

No break. This was 17 years ago. If there's evidence, then where is it? No reputable source has ever given ANY credence to these allegations, and that's what we have to cite here on Wikipedia WP:RS. Blogs and ill-formed notions by Sen. DeCamp mean nothing here.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You ask for the evidence?? It's probably sitting on a shelf somewhere RIGHT next to John F. Kennedy's brain. Philosophically (I lament that I can't say 'Legally') there is a burden of proof that falls on the accused in this case, as is the same in any case where the accused has enough power to POTENTIALLY render the accuser powerless. Had history unfolded only slightly differently, people would refer to the Iran-Contra as a conspiracy theory, and you would be claiming that related articles should be Afd'd.

On Wikipedia, we are not here to prove or disprove conspiracy theories -- Wikipedia requires that we cite verifiable facts, using reliable sources. This is not a forum, it's an encyclopedia. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT#SOAP. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that confirms this is a "Hoax"? There are plenty of wikipedia articles on political affairs, where a legislature or even judiciary branch clears somebody/some institution of a charge, but in the minds of many it is still an open question. I believe categorizing this as a "Hoax" violates W:V rules. Wikipedia is also not a "Soapbox" - and that goes for self-proclaimed counter-conspiracy theorists as well. The Reichstag Fire could be claimed as a "Conspiracy Theory" if you are an ardent Nazi who believes Hitler and Goebbels were telling the truth, after all, official Government findings said Communists did it.

Perfectly fair to mention the defendants were cleared by the legislature; but not accurate to call it a hoax, as MSM news and witness testimonials, as well as the odd behavior of Boys Town itself still continue to raise questions. Also, there are no links to Franklin Cover Up Scandal advocacy pages.

There's a good reason we don't link to those pages. None of them are reliable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, you are correct, many of them seem to be zany. Therefore, I've added the Conspiracy of Silence video link, since that was produced by a joint production of the Discovery Channel with Yorkshire Television, which is a mainstream source.Thunderlips1 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am wondering who the "Carefully Constructed Hoax" craftspeople are? If it is a hoax, doesn't there need to be a hoaxer? Can we get this edited to relate who the likely hoaxers were?Thunderlips1 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be unprotected. Valid concerns have been raised about lack of relevancy of the "Reagan Inquiry" graphic at the top of the page. The first paragraph in general is in drastic need of an edit.Here's a link to the actual Washington Times "Reagan Inquiry" article (via a secondhand source, but easily verifiable) [copyvio source deleted in preparation for blacklisting Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) ] Here is a link to a NY Times article about a conviction in the case: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5DF173BF933A05755C0A96F948260 The "Franklin Savings and Loan" incident may or may not be a "hoax" but the Reagan prostitution ring A) is not a hoax and B) is of questionable relevance, unless the link between the two is explained. Please UNPROTECT this article so that it can be improved!

Please unprotect the page.

24.97.30.210 —Preceding comment was added at 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

General

In the bit of speculation about Jeff Gannon's past, 'Missing Persons' was linked to the wiki entry on the 80s New Wave band of the same name... not an entry about any missing persons list. So I removed the link, and that's all.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teapotfox (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute basis

Google sees nothing about Paul Bonacci on FindLaw. knoodelhed 21:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

nebraska records search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.18.233 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

it's fixed (sort of)...

Okay, I've revamped the page, ditched the goofy vandalism, and given a capsule explanation, with sources, of this complicated matter. Included the fringe conspiracy theory aspect of it as well as the (relatively) legit parts as covered originally by the Washington Times, New York Times, and Senator DeCamp. Still so much more that could be added though. wikipediatrix 07:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

look at the nebraska criminal records search/ paul bonacci is a convicted child molester [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.18.233 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gunderson link

I removed the Ted Gunderson external home page link again, with the following rationale:

• Gunderson himself is notable, that is, he qualifies for a Wikipedia article, has been noted in mainstream media, etc. However, that does not make him a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, or provide any sort of verifiability for the Guckert/Gannon allegations that had previously been in the article. He's still a fringe figure, and his unsupported (and not confirmed in mainstream media) speculations about the Franklin and and Guckert/Gannon are not encyclopedic.

• The external link was to Gunderson's home page itself, not to anything related to this article. It does not provide any assistance or deeper reading for a Wikipedia reader of this article.

I think if you take a good look at WP:EL I don't think a link to Gunderson's home page would qualify. Best, --MCB 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Like him or not (and I don't), Gunderson is a major figure in this subject, and his website features information on the subject. Furthermore, external links are not subject to WP:RS, so I don't even know why you're talking about that. The article is not using Gunderson or his website as a source, it is merely providing a link to him because he is mentioned in the article, and rightfully so. It doesn't matter whether Gunderson is a loon or not, he is prominently connected to the case. Unfortunate as that may be. wikipediatrix 11:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Gunderson is "prominently connected" to the case at all. Just because a loon makes some pronouncement about a subject does not mean that the pronouncement, or its maker, should be included in the article about the subject. If some fringe figure declared that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was caused by little green men from the planet Zorkon, should that be included in the earthquake article and his web site listed as an external link?

Again, please read WP:EL, specifically the guideline Links normally to be avoided: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)". Hence my citation of WP:RS. Gunderson's unverified original research adds nothing to either the article or to the links section. It should remain out of the article. --MCB 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says it's factually inaccurate? I mean, besides you? It's all a conspiracy THEORY in the first place. And Gunderson has been interviewed in mainstream media about the Gannon-Gosch connection, so he's more than just a "fringe figure", even though I do concede he is a raving nutcase. But it isn't up to we editors to make that judgment for others. If you have read up on this subject on the net, you will see that Gunderson's name, unfortunately, comes up often. Also, you are still confusing Wikipedia policies: Gunderson is not a Wikipedia editor, so it is meaningless to use the term "unverified original research" to his writing. wikipediatrix 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, it's not me who is confusing Wikipedia policies. The language from WP:EL quoted above is not at all ambiguous: avoid linking to sites with unverified original research, which is what Gunderson's site is. (If you can demonstrate that his work is, in fact, based on reliable sources, in the Wikipedia sense, or that he should be considered a reliable source on his own, then feel free to do so; however, we both agree that he's a raving nutcase.) Yes, the phrase "unverified original research" is in the guideline, and yes, it refers to people who are not Wikipedia editors. And yes, sites linked to are expected, except in rare illustrative cases, to be reliable sources. It's a good policy and it helps keep articles free of crackpot linkcruft. As for Gunderson's "prominent" connection to the case, if you can find reliable, citable, sources for that, then by all means add them to the article. Cheers, --MCB 05:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

why is this wrongly labeled a conspiracy theory? there's a reputable news source, witnesess testimony, plenty of facts. ?

In September, 1991, a large and dedicated citizens' group called the Nebraska Leaadership Conference issued a pamphlet named: "The Mystery of the Carefully Crafted Hoax" (a sarcastic reference to the the grand jury report). This group's report contradicted the grand jury on virtually every key issue. Copies of the 133-page report are available at Box 30165, Lincoln NE 68503. The pamphlet gives no office address--being ad hoc, it needed none. However, the report contains a foreword by Ted Gunderson, who had retired as Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles, CA. He investigated the case in Omaha and Lincoln from May to September. He closed his own report by asserting: "I can state without hesitation that every statement in this book is documented by hard evidence. Unlike some accounts, the information that has been gathered is neither spurious, not based on mere emotionalism, it is all cold, hard fact. And that, unfortunately, is what makes the Franklin case so shocking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartre88 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John DeCamp Conspiracy Theory

Citing to John DeCamp right-wing blogsites does not constitute citing to reliable sources. If there are sources for this story, provide them. If they're not there in 14 days, this one goes up for Afd. Morton devonshire 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly consider this source [2] which appears as an external link (third listed link), is not able to be used as a secondary source? It is a news site, it doesn't appear to be a personal website but a commercial website and it presents a photograph of a the Washington Times, front page, an article about the issue. [3] - Terryeo 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indymedia.org cites do not meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia. If you have reputable secondary sources, such as the Omaha World-Herald or others, cite to them, not some Leftist rag. Morton devonshire 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the Omaha World-Herald is itself implicated in the scandal by John DeCamp, it would be pretty retarded for a person to consider it a reputable source on this particular matter. Again, would one consider O.J. Simpson a reputable source regarding the controversy over his own murder trial? Give us SOME credit...

Well, if you can produce a reputable source that says that it's true, then add it. Blogs, self-published sources and videos (including DeCamp works), don't qualify as reputable sources here -- please read WP:RS. The problem is that there are ZERO reputable sources that say this is true, so, you can go on believing whatever it is that you want to about the supposed scandal, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it didn't happen.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty bizarre statement by you. Per Wikipedia standards, John DeCamp's works do qualify as a reputable source. He's a Republican and former Nebraska State Senator, who was hired by State Senator Loran Schmit, Chairman of the special committee to look into the allegations, as an investigator for the committee. DeCamp came into the case thinking that the charges must certainly be false and was hired because it was thought that he would help to whitewash the case, but he found out that the evidence showed that the charges are true and spoke out about it. Former CIA Director William E. Colby is interviewed in the documentary Conspiracy of Silence (1994), wherein William E. Colby backs up the importance of this case and also talks about the real risks of assassination that John DeCamp faces for speaking out about it.

Now, by reputable source, that doesn't mean that anything he says will be written up as an undesputed fact. Rather, what it means is that relevant points he made can be included along the lines of "DeCamp investigated such and such, and found that ..."--209.208.79.222 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to deny John DeCamp the status of a reliable source. All names of the witnesses he mentions can be checked and he refers to written testimonies which can be checked, as well.

I can tell you are new here, because you are not familiar with our reliability rules. Please review WP:Verify and WP:RS, which are our primary rules regarding citation. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that The Franklin Coverup and Conspiracy of Silence be merged into this article.--Rosicrucian 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I certainly do not think they should be merged. The other articles are about fairly notable and controversial media works, which if given time will expand in their own right, irrespective of other articles. Joe1141 01:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

The alleged event occurred in 1989, and has been thoroughly discredited through very formal proceedings in the State of Nebraska, which have long since been concluded. It enjoys a second life now, because of blogs, but blogs don't develop any new information, they just discuss prior information, and further, are not reputable sources under the rules of Wikipedia. The notability of the people involved or the subject is not likely to increase -- the subject is basically dead, even in the OWH, where you would expect considerable coverage if the subject still bore fruit for the journalistic mill. Morton devonshire 02:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge of "The Franklin Coverup" and "Conspiracy of Silence" not needed - film/book separate from the incident. Seems if the articles on the people were merged in the article might become confusing. Perhaps if someone wants to create what they think the merged article would look like in their user space it would be easier to consider. *Sparkhead 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would add the articles Paul A. Bonacci and Lawrence King to the proposed merger as well. Bonacci and King have no notability except for being featured parties in this conspiracy theory. Neither the DeCamp book nor the never-aired documentary received any particular media attention or wide public notice; there are very few if any reliable sources discussing anything here -- it's practically all fringe advocacy sites, blogs, web discussion boards, etc. There seems to be enough interest in the subject to support a single, reasonably well-sourced Wikipedia article; certainly not more than that. --MCB 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merging all of the above would be appropriate. None of them are notable on their own, only as they interrelate to this page. Go for it. Brimba 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. There is really only one story here, and it's not a long story. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge those that don't get Afd'd. To the extent that any of this story still has legs, all 6, count them, 6, articles should go into one place. The Nebraska Legislature's special investigative committee decided that these allegations were unfounded in 1989 (indeed, officially declared a "hoax"), and the subject has not received mainstream press coverage since. Any notability of these 6 subjects today is wholely a fabrication of the advocacy blogosphere, and thus unencyclopedic by Wikipedia standards. Morton devonshire 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• One thing I really noticed looking at these articles is they all seem to waste nearly 1-2 thirds of their space re-explaining the Franklin Coverup Scandal. That really drove home the justification to merge, at least for me.--Rosicrucian 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto Sparkhead. Let's see what you have in mind first. Derex 07:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Illuminati

Apparently the Illuminati is at least partially responsible for “covering up” this scandal according to this notable author. Are the Republicans and the Illuminati now working together? Morton devonshire 02:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now are we all sure that this is an acceptable link? I'm not so sure that it cites Reputable sources... could be a concern as far as integrity goes.

Wheh. I'm glad you posted that Morton, for a second there I thought you were biased looking at your other posts and at your profile where you are hostile towards what you call 'conspiracy theories' like the grove, which is just a theory because it only has eyewitness testimony, is mentioned by members like Nixon, is in the california phone book and has been videotaped. Also, why is it whenever I post an interview with John DeCamp it is deleted? Is John DeCamp not a reliable source even though he broke the story? El Juche 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided is not to a notable author, but to Des Griffin's website. We need reliable sources here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging people writeup

Rosicrucian's merge request section above is for the movie/book articles. The merge requests for the people is from two other editors. I'm requesting that merge be written up in one of their user spaces (or if someone else cares to volunteer) so we can review it. Thanks. *Sparkhead 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done so at User:Rosicrucian/Franklincombo. Note how much of The Franklin Coverup can be trimmed when it doesn't have to re-summarize the actual scandal. Current sandbox article only encompasses the three articles I proposed merged, feel free to tweak it.--Rosicrucian 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I stated, I don't think merging the book/movie is a good idea. The writeup I was looking for was those who suggested the merge of the people into this article. *Sparkhead 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To be candid, the article about the book is likely to be deleted, so the only mention of it will probably be a sentence or two in this article, which seems about right to me. --MCB 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And really, the book article itself is roughly two sentences, one of which is redundant in the context of the main article.--Rosicrucian 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice write-up. Go for it. Merge away! Morton devonshire 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Any other comments against the merge? Not seeing much justification for them being notable on their own.--Rosicrucian 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that we should leave more time for other editors to potentially come in and expand upon the articles in question, before merging them. Joe1141 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

Expand what? A story that was discredited 17 years ago? Do you honestly think that new facts are going to develop? Morton Devonshire^Yo 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In my mind it's just as easy to keep all three under the most likely search term, and split them out later if the sections get big enough.--Rosicrucian 02:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to proceed with the merger

I propose that it's time to proceed with the merge, using Rosicrucian's draft at User:Rosicrucian/Franklincombo. Does someone want to do this, or shall I? Thanks, --MCB 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest.--Rosicrucian 07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, partially done; I copied the draft to the article space. It still needs the following:

• Add Paul Bonacci case
• Redirect the merged-from articles
• Evaluate and delete references that do not meet WP:EL, WP:RS, or WP:BLP

I'll be working on these in the next few hours/day. --MCB 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Other

I wrote up a quick txt on King while watching Conspiracy of Silence, not sure how much is true, how much is exaggerated, that's why I wrote it down - just to have it as a jumping point. After all, presumably at least part of it is true (hard to "hoax" what charges police laid, for example...though no mention of a verdict) Anyways, if anybody cares to look into this at all, here's what I had written.

Lawrence King was a ... throughout the 1980s.

Franklin Federal Credit Union's general manager (Omaha, Nebraska), which he turned around.

He sponsored Boystown accounts, and several Boystown youth worked for FFCU's companies.

Conspiracy of Silence claims that he prostituted boys from the school, including Paul Menasse(?) who claimed to have been employed to "win the confidence" of youngsters at the school.

In 1986, Father Val Peter, CEO of Boystown, is told that King is "plundering" Boystown. In 1988, Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board investigates King's relationship with Boystown, after multiple youths at the school made allegations against King, and others -Department Store Millionaire Allen Baer -celebrity columnist of Omaha newspaper, Peter Sytron.

King spent a reported ten million dollars out of the Credit Union's coffers, on gifts of jewelry, private planes and similar luxury items, allegedly to buy himself political alliances.

Owned four homes simultaneously, three in Omaha, and one in DC

On April 11 1988, the IRS and FBI raided and shut down the Franklin Credit Union. King was arrested, and charged with the theft of forty million dollars from the CU. The following month, the Nebraska State Government set up a parallel investigation.

Carolyn Stitch testified before the legislative committee

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• There was a standalone article about Lawrence King which, at various times, had some of the information above; however, there was a consensus to merge it into this article for a number of reasons, including lack of personal notability, unreliability of sources (including Conspiracy of Silence), WP:BLP concerns, the difficulty of keeping a number of minor articles about figures in the case in sync, and the general fringe-conspiracy-theory nature of the entire Franklin case. --MCB 07:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to mention here that one victim-witness of the case, Troy Bonner, had been subjected to a polygraph test by the reporters of "Conspiracy of Silence" from Yorkshire Television (1993/94), which was done by the Keeler Polygraph Institute in Chicago. This test convinced the reporters that he was telling the truth (John DeCamp, "The Franklin Cover-up", 286).

Whatever you decide to do here...

...make sure you also do it to Yorkshire_Television, which contains a paragraph on the subject. 68.39.174.238 08:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Biggest Omission

There is one GLARING issue here that I think should be addressed: if this was truly a "carefully crafted hoax", then who exactly was involved in crafting it? Are people to believe that the young minds of Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci dreamed up and "carefully crafted" the whole mess, despite the fact that both grand juries concluded that the Owen and Bonacci had indeed been abused?

Senator Ernie Chambers is the originator, but John DeCamp and the Leftist blogosphere have turned it into a minor conspiracy industry. Please get a username, and sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't the unicam have recommended ethics committee actions/legal charges against them? Also, isn't it odd that the victim who was charged with perjury is still in jail, but King for massive fraud and Tax cheating was freed in 2001? Thunderlips1 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article fails to come up with any reasonable motive let alone evidence why Ernie Chambers/John DeCamp should have crafted this hoax. This claim is totally unfounded.

Biggest Omission 2

I think it's highly relevant and deserves noting that the grand jury came to these two conslusions: one, that this was a "carefully crafted hoax", and the other, that both Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci had indeed been abused by SOMEONE. Here's the thing: for the grand jury to have come to that first conlusion, there must have been evidence of the "hoax" having been "carefully crafted". For the grand jury to draw the latter conclusion, there must have been evidence of abuse. So what CAN one conclude from the EVIDENCE? That some MYSTERIOUS (to this date) person(s) is responsible for the careful crafting of this "hoax", and someone, perhaps the same person(s), perhaps not, is responsible for the real abuses suffered by Owen and Bonacci. Claim what you want about lack of evidence for other stories behind this matter, it doesn't change the facts, and the facts BEG explanation and speculation, because TOO MANY questions that should've been answered by the inquiry remain unanswered to this very day.71.216.14.66 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Smithers

It's no big mystery. Ernie Chambers made it up.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, mystery solved. Where can I read about how he made it up? Oh right, you'll say flat out that he made it up, but you won't cite yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.14.66 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Why on Earth would I cite myself?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the awkward wording here. You should cite the source for your claim that "Ernie Chambers made it up", that way we can assess the validity of your claim. Sound good? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.216.14.66 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't have to cite anything -- I'm not trying to get the assertion into the article. I'm just answering your question.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If an article is categorized as a hoax, it must have proof of hoaxers, named explicitly by reliable sources, otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory. Were there ethics charges or criminal charges brought against Ernie Chambers/DeCamp? Thunderlips1 05:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The grand jury's report called the whole affair a "carefully crafted hoax", and that fact, which is a matter of public record, was reported as such by the Omaha World Herald, a reliable source. That the grand jury was unable or unwilling to identify the hoaxers does not make it less of a hoax. (By the way, I personally don't believe it was Ernie Chambers.) --MCB 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank God Wikipedia never got rid of the discussion page

Those looking for more information should look here--68.56.0.116 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but we don't cite to Youtube as authority here on Wikipedia.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we have a standard called biographies of living persons, and this means that we can't just insert random, unproven assertions and treat them as fact. An encyclopedia is a repository of facts. Conspiracy theories have no basis in fact. I hope this helps! Pablothegreat85 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quite interesting to hear you say here that the U.S. government's official position on the 9/11 attacks has no basis in fact. As you said, "Conspiracy theories have no basis in fact." A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* it is a conspiracy, even if one completely accepts the U.S. government's official story. Hence, *by definition* the U.S. government's offical account is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.--209.208.79.222 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the government's official position has no basis in fact. That's a bullshit straw man attack. And secrecy is required for something to be considered a conspiracy theory. Al Qaeda has never kept it a secret that they used those planes as missiles. Pablothegreat85 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from your replies I can see that you're special, to use a turn of phrase. And here you sit in judgement of me. I think that's rather fitting. I shan't have it any other way.

And yes, you most certainly did indeed say that the U.S. government's official position has no basis in fact. But of course, if one is willing to be contradictory, then they can (non-coherently) claim otherwise. As you said, "Conspiracy theories have no basis in fact." And as I pointed out, a conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* it is a conspiracy, even if one completely accepts the U.S. government's official story. Hence, *by definition* the U.S. government's offical account is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

But then, the above assumes logical coherence. I realize this isn't a factor with you, as you have made abundantly clear. But still the fact remains: if you say 1+1 = 2, then 2+2 must = 4 (with 4 here meaning 1+1+1+1). Hence, if you say "Conspiracy theories have no basis in fact," then you are by logical necessity saying that the U.S. government's official position has no basis in fact. But I realize that such things as logical truths hold no meaning for you.--209.208.79.222 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. It is true that Al Qaeda conspired to attack us on 9/11. However, treating that as fact is not a conspiracy theory. And please don't make any personal attacks against me again. I attacked your content, not you. Although, I must admit that it takes a lot of guts to attack me while hiding behind an IP address. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article has failed to provide any reasonable motive on the part of the victim-witnesses to invent their allegations, especially since it has been acknowledged by the Grand Jury that the victim-witnesses really had been abused. The author also fails to provide any evidence for who had crafted that hoax and what his motive would have been.

He also fails to elaborate on the key witness of the case, Paul Bonacci. Charges of perjury against him were dropped, which practically means his testimony could not be disproved. He alone gives so many details that he either should have been in jail, too, or what he says is actually true. Also, why was it that Larry King was unable to provide evidence in his own favour in the civil lawsuit against him? It should have been possible, facing such grave charges, to come up with at least some pieces evidence in his own favour.

Censorship of Things the U.S. Government Would Like to Keep Under Wraps

On the vote page for this article's continuance I posted a very innocuous argument as to why it should be kept that was completely in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Yet a certain person (whose name I cannot mention here lest he delete this post, per his convenient standards) deleted my comment under the obviously false pretext of "[removed per policy on biographic material about living people]" (his words). Only one person had been mentioned regarding unseemly acts in said comment of mine, and that was a person who pled guilty in the government's case against him (available through government and news article records). All the other mentions of names in that comment by me can be verified from the public record (e.g., video-recorded interviews and mainstream major media news articles).

In that comment by me I presented a very concise and cogent argument (given my space limitations) as to why the article should be kept, which involved prodiving evidence that the children's charges are correct. Obviously this P.O.ed (to use a colloquialism) some people to a very great extent. So much so that they attempted to remove my comment under obviously self-invented and fallacious standards. Nowhere on Wikipedia have I ever seen this arbitrary standard applied: not on talk or vote pages, and not even in the articles themselves. The censors who deleted my comments are acting as hypocrites, as they don't dare apply the same standard to the very article in question (which has been taken over by U.S. government apologists). They allow themselves and those they agree with to mention names of living people, but they cynically miscite and misapply Wikipedia standards in an attempt to erase from the record any suasive voice of opposition.

That is to say, one who disagrees with them (at least in a persuasive manner) isn't even allowed to step up to the plate. They'll invent arbitrary and fallacious standards which they (in actual empirical fact) don't apply to themselves or those they agree with. (And I wish I could mention actual names here, but I can't, for the above reasons.)

This is appalling behavior. It's beyond Orwellian. But then, being beyond Orwellian is the standard practice of the ruling elite and their apologists throughout mankind's brutal history. It is sad.--209.208.79.222 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, WP:BLP is not a self-invented and fallacious standard. The users who have reverted your comments, myself included, have been doing it to uphold Wikipedia policy. Pablothegreat85 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Any vandal can cite Wikipedia policy. Merely citing Wikipedia policy doesn't prove anything. There is no cause whatsoever within Wikipedia policy for what you are doing, any more than any vandal. You have never attempted to demonstrate how Wikipedia policy applies to your deletions. And there is a good reason for that. The reason is because nothing I have done violates Wikipedia policy. Have I mentioned names of living people? Of course I have, as you so also have, as have so also those you agree with who you do not delete. Indeed, virtually everyone posting on Wikipedia has. Which is hardly much of a surprise, as it would be next to impossible to conduct a sane and intelligent conversation without mentioning the names of living people.

But as I previously said, only one person had been mentioned regarding unseemly acts in said comment of mine, and that was a person who pled guilty in the government's case against him (available through government and news article records). All the other mentions of names in that comment by me can be verified from the public record (e.g., video-recorded interviews and mainstream major media news articles).

I will here ask you to apply your self-invented standard across Wikipedia. By your standard that you have applied to me, any article on Wikipedia that mentions any living person must be deleted. As well, any mention of any living person on any of the talk pages must be deleted.--209.208.79.222 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear to me from what you are saying that you are not reading the policy correctly. I refuse to continue this discussion until you interpret WP:BLP correctly. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Name Change?

This is just sad. What is happening to this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

this article is still not objective!

"and was believed to be unable to pay for legal representation"

that line alone, regardless of anyone's opinion - should not be in the entry. He was believed to have done a lot of things. Should we just list all of those as well? (Article edited, that line was simply removed). If anyone feels the need to add it again, then it would only seem fair to list everything the man was accused of, and believed to have done.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trioptic (talk • contribs) 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Think article is fair enough, but could use more information..

Hope you do not delete this article. It is the first I have read about the subject. More detail about different opinions would be helpful. I have partly wanted to read the controversial book written on the subject, but in all these years have been unable to bring myself to do so. Honestly, even after all these years, it is painful to read ths article with people arguing back and forth like it is something off E Entertainment. I am not one to believe conspiracy theories or anything like that. I don't buy the whole bit about the prostitutes entering the White House or any involvement by Reagan or Bush. All I have known about the case has been what one of my best friends told me at the time, which was more from a personal, rather than political angle. His sister was involved and because of her my friend also became involved (he believed his sister). Supposably he committed suicide during the trial (he was only 16). We were close. Although I do not buy the whole "satanic ritual" bit, etc, I do know the fear my friend lived with and the frustration as witnesses kept dropping out of the case, etc, leaving his sister later to be called a liar and his family devastated. I don't know what the truth is, but I believe there was definitely some kind of corruption and foul play. I know it is useless, but in my friend's memory, whom I loved and still miss, I hope he did not die in vain. I hope someday justice will be wrought. Mirabean 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This entry is not accurate in regards to Craig Spence and the Washington Times article

The article was about the Henry Vinson homosexual prostitution ring and not the Franklin S & L. This is very misleading and misuse of the redirect on Craig Spence. He was a key figure in the Vinson sex ring, which had nothing to do with the Franklin "hoax", nor did the WT article. From the original WT article

One of the ring’s big spending clients is Craig J. Spence, Washington socialite and international trade consultant, according to documents and interviews with operators and prostitutes who say they engaged in sexual activities with Mr. Spence.

Mr. Spence spent upwards of $20,000 a month for male prostitutes who provided sex to him and his friends, said to include military personnel who also acted as his “bodyguards.” It was Mr. Spence who arranged the nocturnal tour of the Reagan White House. Repeated attempts to reach Mr. Spence by telephone, fax machine and personal visits to his home, were unsuccessful.

...

In addition to credit-card fraud, the investigation is said to be focused on illegal interstate prostitution, abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion, extortion, larceny and related illicit drug trafficking and use by prostitutes and their clients.

One of the chief operators of Professional Services Inc. and a regular client of the service speculated in separate interviews that the investigation would be restricted because “big names” were involved.

Henry Vinson [the operator] said a high level official is going to try to block the investigation and may succeed,” said Mr. Balach, the labor secretary's liaison to the White House. Mr. Vinson said he believes a highly placed federal official, whom he would not name, is working to derail the investigation, but he would not elaborate.

Authorities have been investigation possible credit card fraud by the ring operators since last fall.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/02/06/15709461.php

KARLYN BARKER, WASHINGTON POST, JULY 24, 1990: The alleged leader of what authorities have called the largest male prostitution operation in the Washington area surrendered to federal agents yesterday and pleaded not guilty to racketeering charges that have been filed against him and three alleged accomplices. Henry W. Vinson, 29, of Williamson, W.Va., a coal miner's son accused of setting up the homosexual escort service, was arraigned in U.S. District Court here yesterday afternoon after turning himself in to Secret Service agents . . . At a news conference after the arraignment, [U.S. Attorney Jay] Stephens said the investigation into the alleged prostitution ring "is concluded" and that the indictment, which was unsealed yesterday, focused on those who allegedly set up the ring rather than on clients who reportedly patronized it. Asked about earlier reports that some of those clients included high-level officials in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Stephens said the investigation had not revealed "additional conduct which suggests criminal conduct on behalf of other people." . . . The Vinson case provoked additional notice after The Washington Times published reports last summer suggesting that the alleged prostitution ring had been patronized by government officials. The Times named as clients several low-level government employees and Craig J. Spence, a Washington lobbyist and party-giver who, the paper said, took friends and prostitutes on late-night tours of the White House. Spence was found dead in a Boston hotel room last fall, and authorities ruled his death a suicide.

http://prorev.com/sexindc.htm

Vinson ultimately pled guilty and received a 63-month sentence.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Pedophocracy/child_sexual_abuse_in_US.htm

There was a sex scandal that involved some White House players at the time. It did not get much attention and was pretty much forgotten about when Vinson served his time. It did happen, it was not a hoax, and this entry is innacurate. If you want to read the original WT article go to the indybay link it has captured the entire article. There is no mention of the Franklin S & L angle which appeared later.Mdana 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

john decamp documentary section

i have just added the whole john decamp documentary section - please explain why you keep reverting it. it is unopinionated and cites verifiable facts. there is no good reason to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.108.75.254 (talk • contribs).

I removed it under our policy on biographical material about living people. It is slanted, sourced to some conspiracist material, and uses innuendo. If you keep restoring it, it will be necessary to suspend your editing privileges. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracist = untrue? ALL conspiracies are fake? THAT sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Thats right, even the link to WASHINGTON TIMES ARTICLES are completley made up? RIGHT? I dont get it? There is NO mention of the people who lost thier jobs. There us NO mention of Craig Spence's suicide. The documentary was made by the DISCOVERY CHANNEL - A MAINSTREAM SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Discovery Channel is not cited as a source in your material, and the other citations do not meet our standards under WP:RS and WP:Verify. Please review those provisions.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note too that the policy on biographical material applies on this talk page as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Something Strange About All This

I just learned about this whole thing and it is obvious to me that info has been and is still being suppressed. This kind of opposition to open discussion on the matter gives me the feeling that this was no hoax. So I would watch out. We might all end up in one of those new concentration camps they are putting up all over the country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.111.167.96 (talk • contribs).

Looks like you need to make sure all of us know the TRUTH. Feel free to go over to 911blogspot.com and spread the TRUTH for all to SEE.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of the persistent violations of our policy on biographies of living people, that are partly driven by promotion of someone's video, I have protected the page from anonymous editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the talk page as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Someone Address Why Spence and the Washington Times Article are Involved?

I have listed links that show that the Franklin Hoax does not involve either Craig Spence nor the Washington Times article listed as starting this episode. Could someone please explain why they are still listed in this Franklin Hoax article, along with any links or books that would verify the connection. If you don't want to change this Franklin Hoax article I can understand, I would just like a simple explanation as to what their connection is to the episode. I have never read a newspaper article that linked Spence to the Franklin story. Thanks.Mdana 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... the whole story is basically made up, in any case, with a number of newspaper reporters apparently having been sold a bill of goods involving some supposed child sex and "satanic ritual abuse" ring.

But out there in the conspiracy-theory world, the stories always make reference to both Spence and Franklin and others. Some examples:

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/boystown/

These are not sources we can use in Wikipedia, obviously, and there's a good reason that the stories don't exactly make a lot of sense when put together, which is that they were apparently part of an elaborate hoax created for personal or political purposes. The purpose of this article is to describe the hoax, which was notable and got a lot of press coverage, in a neutral and factual manner. Hope this helps. --MCB 07:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my whole point. There are two stories, the Franklin Hoax and the Vinson prostitution ring. The Washington Times article references Vinson and Spence. Vinson was charged with 63 months for racketering. It is not a reference to the Franklin story which was centered in Nebraska and allegedly involved King. King and that angle are never mentioned. The Franklin story had begun almost a year earlier and it is never mentioned in the actual article. This article on the Franklin hoax is using those internet references and repeating their mistakes. There was a prostitution ring involving Spence that Vinson ran. The story was covered by the Washington Times and Washington Post. Sometimes the Barney Frank scandal is also thrown into this mix by irresponsible internet posters. They were three seperate "stories" seperated by 3 years and none of them ever had any connection.

"In 1990, Vinson vowed that he'd never be convicted, because he said his "call boy" service had been utilized by officials of the Moore administration in Charleston and by officials of the Reagan-Bush White House in Washington. But the next year, he pleaded guilty and got a five-year prison term."

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/sexandcapitol7,18,01.htm#article11

There was a prostitution ring that involved the White House on some level (my personal opinion is that it involved low level staffers). This article gives the impression the Times article was about the Franklin Hoax it was not. The Washington Times article that supposedly created the Franklin hoax never mentions King. Why? Well the Franklin affair started at least a year earlier when the FBI and IRS raided King's Franklin Credit Union.

It is basically similiar to stating Jesse Owens was suspected of being involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping, because both made headlines approximately the same time. If you look up Craig Spence you get redirected to this article and he had nothing to do with the Franklin conspiracy until irresponsible internet conspiracy theorists invented his participation in the hoax.

However, he was a key figure in the Vinson prostitution ring which did exist and this article doesn't seperate the fact from the fiction, it just regurgitates others shoddy "research". It give the impression the allegations in the Washington Times article didn't pan out. They did, Vinson was went to prison. Now some of the more sensational claims may not have been proven in a court of law, but the article wasn't a hoax and it had nothing to do with the Franklin Hoax. From the Wikipedia Franklin Coverup Hoax article:

The article, by Washington Times journalists Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, alleged that key officials of the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations were connected to an elaborate Washington, D.C male prostitution ring, and reported that two of these prostitutes even entered the White House late at night. The allegations included, among other things, "abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion."

The section about "abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion" is not in the Washington Times Article at all.

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/WashingtonTimes.htm

The way this Franklin Hoax article reads, it gives the mistaken impression there was no White House Sex scandal. It also gives the impression that the Washington Times article was part of the Franklin Hoax when it doesn't even mention King or Franklin. There must be some way of describing how Spence and the Washinton Times article were used by Franklin peddlers to sell the conspiracy, but describe who Spence actually was and the actual thrust of the Washington Times article. Thanks again for responding.Mdana 01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Feel free to jump in and make those changes. wikipediatrix 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

On 5.19.1989, did the federal grand jury say it was a hoax, or did the federal grand jury charge Lawrence E. King Jr. with forty felony counts? Wasn't his wife also indicted on twelve counts? Weren't employees of Franklin indicted on tax evasion charges? What's the real hoax? Please cite where the federal grand jury said this was a hoax, or revert the article. Cheers. —Slipgrid 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already cited: Robert Dorr. "Judge Clears 3 More in Bonacci Suit Claims of Sexual Abuse Called Unsubstantiated and Bizarre", Omaha World Herald, The Omaha World-Herald Company, 1997-06-13, p. 26. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How can the Omaha World-Herald be used as a reference when they are a named party? Just cruising around I've found that quite a bit of what they published on the case is contradicted by documents released under FOI so they are definately not a reliable source. Any claims they make that are supported should be available from other media sources so they can be easily replaced. Any not reploaced should be deleted after a reasonable time. Also I'm a bit confused about the claims above that De Camp is not a reliable source. I can only find one libel suit for his book and De Camp won it after proving there were no false claims in it (according to the judgement along with a financial settlement the other party had to publish an apology for saying there were false claims in it). Wayne 08:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-left wing blogs are not reliable sources. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's that got to do with what I asked? The Omaha World-Herald is not a reliable source due to COI and one of the websites I got my info from appears to be a good one as it seems relatively nuetral and up to date with links to other newspaper articles. Wayne 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose to Change the Title of the Page (and other points)

After reading the article and other pages provided under the links of this discussion, I propose that if a Merger does not happen, that the title of the page be changed to "Franklin Cover-up Incident". I have not seen any proof that this is indeed a hoax and that it is inaccurate to label it as such. Further information is needed on the incident as the bias of this article seems to be represented much differently than what the links suggest.

In addition, I would suggest this article be either rewritten with a more neutral POV or it be deleted. The quality isn't up to par, there is obvious bias, and it is incorrectly titled to a neutral POV.

Beyond that, I also would suggest that Lawrence King have his own page as a political figure, not matter what this incident entails. I do not agree that his name should be redirected to this document. Conexion 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're coming into what's been a pretty stable version of the article based upon the current title. Nobody here is going to give you any problems if you make modifications that cite reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards, but if you start straying into blogosphere territory to support your version, and try to assert that there's some grand masterful conspiracy out there and that us Wikipedians are trying to suppress the TRUTH to protect the evil Halliburton-Cheney-Rosicrucian Triumvirate, you will get lots of resistance from editors here. You are welcome to make edits, but please follow WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem. I am no conspiracy theorist but just from what I've read and what news articles I've seen, it does feel that this does have a slight bias without seeing the criticisms of the topic. I personally don't feel qualified to make any major changes, as, to be honest, Wikipedia does intimidate me a little =P . But if I do make some slight changes, will I have to worry about anyone yelling at me? :) Thanks for the quick reply! Conexion 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The title was changed to this one with unanimous support four months ago. Of course, consensus can change, but I doubt you would receive support for a move to another title. As for the intimidation thing, Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I completely agree with Conexion. The current "Hoax" title is disgustingly slanted. "The Franklin Cover-Up Incident" is completely objective and lets the reader decide for him/herself without any preconceived notions. I second Conexion's idea for a new title. Awfultin 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, Wikipedia requires citation to reliable sources -- i.e. some other reputable source would have to say that there was a coverup. No reliable sources say that. What reliable sources do say is that it was a "carefully crafted hoax." We don't rely upon blogs here, and don't allow original research. Crackpot blogdom ideas belong on blogs, not here.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, regarding sources, "official" is not synonymous with "reliable". detractors contest that the "official" source you cite--the court's verdict--was compromised. This case was very high profile, and this article is shamefully devoid of substance. --PopeFauveXXIII 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS for a definition of what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Notice that blogs and self-published books are NOT on the list of acceptable sources. Nor would Alex Jones ever be considered a reliable source.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the entire article ought to be replaced with one that takes a closer look at the testimonies of the witnesses and the supporting information. At least have the title changed to "Incident". Tom1976 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Franklin Coverup Incident" would be a MUCH more appropriate title. It is neutral, unlike "Hoax." I've read this discussion page, and it is my impression that the article as currently written (and defended) is pushing an agenda--namely that this just cannot be true even though there is considerable evidence that it might be. Apostle12 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me having "hoax" in the title is POV. It appears there are points of truth (or Bonacci would not have won his case) and it was only a court opinion that ruled it a hoax without evidence of how much of the scandal it is refering to. Doing a search brings very few results for "hoax", 10x as many for "coverup" and 60x as many for "scandal". "Franklin Scandal" as a title would be more in line with NPOV. Wayne 06:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that your idea of "reliable" Morton, is fatally flawed. Not only that, but you use degrading and bias phrases in your statements in order to counter our arguments, such as "DeCamp's twisted imagination" and "crackpot blogs". This saddens me. What is reliable? The fact of the matter is SOMETHING happened in Franklin. Therefore the title of the aforementioned articled should include "Incident" and not "Hoax". Feel free to place the word "Hoax" anywhere inside the article, but not in the title, since, quite obviously, Lawrence King was indicted on certain charges, and Bonacci has now won a million based on his original testimony. This is what you would call reliable fact, and winning a million dollars on charges such as pedophilia, satanic rituals, prostitution, etc. has been verified by the governing body that awarded him the money. King didn't even contest it. Are you telling me this is not verifiable? The name of this article needs to be changed. Awfultin 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I recommend using sentence case for the article title, for example "Franklin coverup hoax" instead of "Franklin Coverup Hoax". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What the Judge Said in 99', VERIFIABLE

If this quote from Judge Urbom who ruled on the 99' suit isn't "reliable", then I don't know what is. Awfultin 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Source: The Des Moines Register

Date: 02/24/1999

Document Size: Very Short (less than 1 page)

Document ID: BM19990301010044634

Subject(s): LOCAL/REGIONAL

Citation Information: Issue: PSA-2292; Metro Iowa Section

Author(s): Santiago Frank

Copyright Holder: 1999, The Des Moines Register

Document Type: Article

Awfultin 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and provide a PDF of the document for evaluation. Under Wikipedia sourcing rules, the burden is on you.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only buy the text of the article at the archives at desmoinesregister.com. Do you need an image of the actual, physical page? Awfultin 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t suppose your information actually came from: [4] ? And NOT directly from the Des Moines Register archives? Brimba 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WTFranklinpage.gif

Image:WTFranklinpage.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

John DeCamp. "The Franklin Cover-up"

Wikipedia's "Verifiability" guidelines state the following:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

John DeCamp is a practicing attorney in good standing in the State of Nebraska. He also served honorably for several terms as a Nebraska state legislator. DeCamp successfully represented Paul Bonacci, winning a judgement totaling one million dollars in Bonacci's civil suit for sexual abuse against Larry King, one of the primary people involved in the Franklin Cover-up Scandal. In addition DeCamp has represented several other abuse victims in the case.

As such, John DeCamp must be recognized as an established expert on the topic of this article.

Since the Franklin Cover-up Scandal first made news, DeCamp has often been quoted in reliable third-party publications, including The New York Times, several Nebraska papers, and many other publications.

Therefore John DeCamp cannot be dismissed as extremist or fringe, and his recently updated book, The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska, Second Edition. Lincoln: 2006, is an appropriate source in this article.

There seems to be a concerted attempt to eliminate DeCamp's voice from this article, despite his expertise. As written, the article distinctly pushes a certain point of view, which is against Wikipedia standards.

I have no personal stake in this matter, other than a desire that both sides of the story be told. Apparently not every contributor to this article is so even-handed. Apostle12 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The exception which you quote above is not applicable, since DeCamp is a partisan of one side of this very contentious issue. He may be considered a source for the fact that he has made certain claims and allegations which he has made; but as a non-neutral participant in the controversy, his self-published work clearly cannot be cited or quoted as a reliable source for any impartial assertion of fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was using De Camp and his book, The Franklin Coverup, as "a source for the fact that he (De Camp) has made certain claims and allegations," nothing more. Can you not see that this article has been purposely and systematically gutted so that no reader can glean sufficient information to decide for himself or herself what the truth might be? Apostle12 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DeCamp's utterances are particularly encyclopedic, especially a hyperbolic challenge to sue him for defamation. I've watched the article for quite a while, and rather than being "purposely and systematically gutted", it has taken a lot of work by dedicated editors to keep it from becoming a nest of lurid and wild speculation, theories, and allegations., and to make sure that Wikipedia's core policies regarding verifiability, reliable sourcing, and biographies of living persons are adhered to. If you look through the history of the article it has been a constant magnet for fringe and conspiracy theories. A good guideline to take a look at when editing articles like this is Wikipedia:Fringe theories, as well as Wikipedia:Undue weight. --MCB (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While I might agree regarding DeCamp's "hyperbolic challenge" (as you put it) not being particularly encyclopedic, there has been no attempt by various editors to make this article truly informative--rather the opposite trend has prevailed. Your previous statement was that information regarding DeCamp and the viewpoint expressed in his book "does not belong in the lead." Fine. I will be writing a section introducing DeCamp's point of view, and I will be using his book as "a source for the fact that he has made certain claims and allegations" (to quote Orangemike above). Let's see if you and the others let this information remain.

Similarly, the information and links to "Conspiracy of Silence" also should have a place in the article.

And the unencyclopedic pejorative term "conspiracy theory" should be eliminated in favor of simply "theory." Apostle12 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a theory regarding a potential criminal conspiracy and subsequent coverup. The term is valid.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, the neutrality of the term has been progressively compromised over the past forty years. As the Wikipedia article says:

"The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.[5] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms....."

Actually he isn't even technically correct. The meaning of term is the one it has in actual use with all its resonances and associations, not some theoretical version of what it ought to mean. He knows full well that the term is derogatory. ireneshusband (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In contemporary times only elaborately constructed context can prevent 'conspiracy theory' from being pejorative--this article lacks such context.

Apostle12 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made in this section.

Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident" Apostle12 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I support the rename, "incident" is neutral. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I support this name change, it is far more neutral title than the current one. Also open to other suggestions. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: It should be noted that the RFC for the name change to "Hoax" occured 2 days after a failed AFD. The RFC had only 5 comments over 48 hours before being closed and the name changed which was then disputed by other editors who did not know of the RFC in time to take part. Thier complaints were dismissed. "Hoax" is a single source claim and not what the majority of people know the incident as. Wayne (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - the word "coverup" is not neutral. I would suggest that you must first find another term that will not take a stance on whether there was in fact a coverup or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't need to be nuetral as that is the common term and what the world knows it as. The "coverup" gets more media attention than the original scandal. That said, I would not oppose naming the article "Franklin Scandal" as long as mention is made in the lead that it is now commonly refered to as the Franklin coverup scandal. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This might work. Either "Franklin Incident" or "Franklin Scandal" would avoid the apparent endorsement that "Franklin Coverup" infers. Of course would need redirects from "Franklin Coverup" and "Franklin Coverup Scandal."Apostle12 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, whatever we settle on, it's gonna need lots of redirects. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose any move that contains the word "coverup" without serious qualifiers. "Hoax" is one such qualifier that at least shows that this has not been conclusively proven to have been a coverup of a sex ring. If I were to soften the language a bit I might propose "Franklin Alleged Coverup." At any rate I would say "Franklin Incident" is entirely too nondescript and does not accurately identify the event.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

While "alleged" might be viewed as a qualifer for "coverup," "hoax" is far more than a qualifier; it invalidates any serious consideration of the issue. Since the incident is known worldwide as "The Franklin Coverup" (probably due to the sale of more than 100,000 copies of DeCamp's book, "THE FRANKLIN COVERUP: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska") I do believe it would be best to stick to this terminology. The addition of "incident" neither endorses nor invalidates the views of DeCamp and other investigators. Apostle12 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course as noted above, the word "hoax" is introduced by the formal findings of the Grand Jury in this case. --Rosicrucian^Talk 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And that fact, along with other relevant findings of the Grand Jury, should be prominently featured in the article. This should not, however, be the only point of view featured.Apostle12 (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Franklin Child Abuse Allegations? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. You have come up with what I think would be a good solution. And with appropriate redirects from "Franklin Coverup" et al it should work. Various points of view can be accomodated under that rubric. I am opening up a new request for a change in consensus and title change, below. Apostle12 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

• I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• support, the most neutral suggestion yet Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - solidly neutral POV (especially vital when it's this touchy a topic) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support the more neutral wording, with the minor change that it would be rendered in sentence case, i.e. "Franklin child abuse allegations". Presumably all other previous or alternate names will redirect to the article, anyway. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Qualified support (in sentence case as noted by Gyrofrog), so long as the name change is not used as a coatrack to re-introduce the unsourced allegations, opinions, theories, and inappropriate links that plagued earlier versions of this article, raising serious policy issues with respect to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. --MCB (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't understand initially, where "coatrack" came from, even after reading the Wikipedia reference. Finally looked in the dictionary and understood the metaphor--a "coatrack" is a rack with hooks for temporarily holding coats and hats. I share your concern; we will have to be careful to distinguish between using sourced material to explain what happened and becoming a magnet for the promotion of a host of unfounded conspiracy theories, especially those involving living persons.Apostle12 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is an article title that I can support much more readily than prior proposals. It conveys more information, but does not imply that the accusations were proven.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: We need to ask ourselves what would readers type in to find this article. Most would look for "Franklin Scandal" and coming a close second would be "Franklin Coverup". You wont find anyone using "Franklin child abuse allegations" so it is a little outside the box and a borderline "weasel" title. Wayne (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but redirects are a cheap and easy solution to that.--Rosicrucian^Talk 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Wayne. But Rosicrucian is correct regarding the redirects; everyone who types in "Franklin Scandal" or "Franklin Coverup" will arrive at the article, whatever we decide to call it. There may be a limit to what we can achieve here through consensus. Would you reconsider your opposition, please?Apostle12 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Per Apostle12's arguement. Although I prefer a common usage title I can accept this proposal as a NPOV alternative to the current title. Wayne (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne. Apostle12 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I guess we should wait a few days to allow more editors to comment. At the end of that time, provided we have actually achieved consensus, does anyone know how to actually CHANGE the title? Also, this commentary should probably be preserved. Apostle12 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Should be a simple matter of clicking "move" and then some cleanup on the "what links here" page to avoid double redirects.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go here for how to Move a page. Wayne (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I support "Franklin scandal" or some derivative, such as "Franklin coverup scandal"; the term scandal is not only neutral, but can be used to neutralize words that would otherwise be POV. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful proposing a third name is, when we have extensive discussion on two other names already underway. At any rate, "coverup scandal" actually accentuates the coverup aspect in my mind.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This moves away from the carefully constructed neutrality that underpins a developing consensus, PopeFauveXXIII. Have you read the comments submitted by various editors in this, and the preceeding, section?Apostle12 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think Franklin child abuse allegations is ridiculously verbose, so much so that it makes the article a target for deletion. I also think scandal is a perfectly neutral and applicable term--but i'll support just about anything other than the current article title. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns, PopeFauveXXIII. Our hope here is incremental improvement, and I believe removing "hoax" from the title would at least be a step forward. Thanks for your support, however reluctant.Apostle12 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY

If I may summarize:

• Full support is offered by five editors.
• Qualified support is offered by one editor.
• Weak support is offered by one editor.
• Reluctant support is offered by one editor.

Based on this discussion, I believe we have consensus to change the title of this article to "Franklin child abuse allegations," with redirects from Franklin Coverup, Franklin Coverup Hoax, Franklin Coverup Scandal and Franklin Coverup Incident. I'll begin the process of making the change, however I may need some help because I haven't done this before. Could someone please check me and build a box around this, and the previous, "Request for change in consensus." Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made in this section.

Need some help here

Okay, I screwed up. It was late and I was tired, so I mistakenly moved "Help: Moving a page" to "Franklin child abuse allegations". Then I moved the resulting "Franklin child abuse allegations" back to "Help: Moving a page". But that accomplished some kind of redirect, so that now I cannot move "Franklin coverup hoax" to "Franklin child abuse allegations" as originally intended. If someone could please straighten this out, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.Apostle12 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried to fix it, but made it even worse with double redirects of original "Franklin coverup hoax". Sorry. Hope someone can fix this. Apostle12 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done so. Make sure your "favorite" article title directs here now, rather than as a double redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The down side is, now there are some double and treble redirects to this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the help Orangemike. I really made a mess. Need to remember not to try new stuff when tired.Apostle12 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to "Conspiracy of Silence" video

The link to the "Conspiracy of Silence" video is not consistent with Wikipedia policy, and has been repeatedly removed, with edit summaries including citations to policy. Please do not continue to re-insert it.

First of all, Wikipedia copyright policy prohibits linking to copyright infringements, and says specifically: "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States [citation]. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." The "Conspiracy of Silence" video was never released, and there is no assertion of permission for it to be hosted on Google Video or YouTube; the quality of the video also makes it clear that it is a bootleg version.

Secondly, the link violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and policy on external links, the latter of which says, "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies." ("Biographies of living people" includes articles like this one, which covers allegations made against specific people, both living and deceased.) --MCB (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that if Yorkshire had any objections to the video being available for viewing they would have insisted Google remove it by now.

If I write to Yorkshire and get their permission to link to the video Google displays (or perhaps appropriate relinquishment of any known copyright rights), along with their assurances as to the video's authenticity, will that satisfy you?

Have you personally reviewed "Conspiracy of Silence"? If not, it is available here. [5]

As you will see, full disclosure is made that the version shown is a near-final production copy that inadvertantly survived destruction of all other known tapes. The missing frames are not significant, in that they do not compromise the video's message in any way.

I do understand that the video cannot be used for sourcing, which is my reason for including it only as an external link. This seems highly appropriate since the article has a section discussing "Conspiracy of Silence."Apostle12 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How can the video be a copyright infringement when the Discovery Channel would not acknowledge it was ever there? The day wikipedia get's sued for linking to copyright infringement will be the day hell freezes over. This rule does not apply in this situation. Put the link back! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your comment. First of all, what do you mean by "Discovery Channel would not acknowledge it was ever there"? The primary copyright owner is likely to be Yorkshire Television (Discovery Channel may also have proprietary rights in U.S. as well), and I don't know what "acknowledging" the online video means in this context. The policy on linking to infringing copies of copyrighted material is exceptionally clear, and trying to argue that Wikipedia is unlikely to be sued has essentially zero persuasive value.

As for Apostle12's question about permission, sufficient permission from the copyright owners would solve the copyright issue but not the WP:BLP issue. Note that any permission would have to meet the requirements discussed in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --MCB (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Spence was a madman.

I worked for Spence. I would deliver things around the city with the Secret Service for him (Reggie). I was not a 'call boy', I was his sidekick...delivery boy. He was unaware of my family's political connections on Capitol Hill, once he was made aware of this, he looked like someone who had just seen a ghost. He pulled a gun on me, he asked me to get get him 'dope'. And I saw with my own eyes, the stages where he performed his blackmail. My story will be coming soon, and all will be made aware, that the Franklin case and the Spence case were no hoaxs at all. 01rumblefish (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)