Talk:Franklin Coverup Scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Dispute basis

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ?

[edit] 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 [1] 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. [2] - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 DevonshireYo 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Talk%7EFranklin_Coverup_Scandal_a5d6.html"