Talk:Indictment: The McMartin Trial

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have added a plot summary, therefore I am removing the {{WikiProject Film|British-task-force=yes|American-task-force=yes needs synopsis}} template. —Cesar Tort 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some data to the article to balance it. I am willing to compromise on the length of the quote, if editors believe it is too long.

That data should only be in the article about the events (if it were reliable and accurately paraphrased, both of which are questionable), it's not about the film. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree also with your removal of the probably un-encyclopedic list of the film's chapters that I had added before. I don't know how to write a proper encyclopedic film article. If you watch the film perhaps you may add something relevant in the future? —Cesar Tort 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "rm YOUR interpretation of possibly reliable sources." Below please find a previous discussion on a wikipedia talk page where it was decided that Noblitt's book was RS.

....references to Noblitt and Perskin's "Cult and Ritual Abuse"....has already demonstrated that their book has been well-received in the press, and I've posted (above) the glowing review of "Cult and Ritual Abuse" in the Journal of Psychotherapy.

There is now so much chaffe accross this discussion page that I'm reposting the review for your consideration. The review in the "American Journal of Psychotherapy" (Summer 1996; 50(3) p383) stated:

Whether or not one believes in MPD and/or Ritual Abuse, this book provides one with what is probably the most comprehensive and reasonable review of the subject that has appeared up to now. The primary author, James Noblitt, provides us with a personal historical review of his experience with MPD. Starting out as an "unbeliever", he provides case histories of patients that led him to believe in the reality of the syndrome and to develop expertise in its therapy. This in itself would make the book of value. However, even more significant is the manner in which he introduces us to the problem of ritual abuse. Describing himself as a "secular psychologist," and specifically repudiating any belief in Satanism, he describes case after case of sexual abuse of a ritual nature - ritual in the sense that it is surrounded with cultic practices. He documents the similarity of such practices from widely seperated parts of the country; and even on an international basis. because he writes from a non-fundamentalist and non-religious point of view and because he sees riutal abuse in a wider context than Satanism as such, he provides the reader with both important information and a perspectie that is clinically helpful ... They also discuss their negative experience with police agencies and the FBI, pointing out that contrary to generally accepted opinion, the FBI has never published a study stating that there is no evidence of organised cult or ritual activity associated with sexual abuse in the United States ... Of the many books on this subject that I have read, this is perhaps the most helpful and is highly recommended to those who deal with these problems whether or not they believe in ritual abuse."..... --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/7/978 which is copywritten by the APA. "Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association" It concludes: "The authors explore the similarities between the experiences of Noblitt's patients and experiences reported in other cultures around the world. They carefully distinguish between satanic cults and contemporary neopagan and Wicca practices. Also discussed are the challenges presented by the media and skeptical practitioners. Although the writing is uneven at times, anyone who is interested in the topic of cult and ritual abuse will find this book worth the time to read." The author of the article is well-published and reputable. "Dr. Fletcher is assistant professor of psychiatry and director of the behavior sciences research core in the Graduate School of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester."

He (Noblitt) is a professor and even the Director of the Psychology program at Alliant International University -- not a position easily attained.

As for other incredible (if nominally reliable) sources: The Freud section seems OK. Noblitt may be OK, but the claim that there are examples of "ritualistic abuse in substantiated cases of day care sexual abuse" is disputed among reliable sources. The McMartin source is a newspaper, but seems to have been discredited. I wouldn't have deleted to the rest, except for the clear errors in the lead and in McMartin. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to this “That data should only be in the article about the events....it's not about the film.” The article is about the film.

And it isn't a paraphrase, it is a direct quote (see page 184 of the revised edition).

talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The source for your quotation is not a RS for this case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources and Noblitt's book isn't. He and Perskin are fringe conspiracy theorists, as Crot already told you elsewhere. Their book was not published by an academic press. I had already pointed out to you what a genuine RS, the Encyclopædia Britannica, states about McMartin:

To avoid an edit war, I will not revert for the moment your blatant POV entry (but I hope that another editor will do it).

—Cesar Tort 04:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AT's "RS" supports the contention that "several children advocacy groups" contend that the film is biased. The source, itself, does not make that contention. Reverting what the "reliable" source does not contend. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the material, eliminating the quote. The source does state "This has, in fact, proven a correct assumption." Noblitt states that he agrees that "the film might reflect an unbalanced portrait..."

I don't believe that I was "violating the WP standards of good behavior." My original edit was reverted w/o discussion. I don't believe that this is an extraordinary claim. CT would have to prove that the fact that "the movie is biased" is an extreme minority opinion, something I haven't seen yet. Crot may claim Noblitt and Perskin are "fringe conspiracy theorists" but the reviews above from the AJP and the APA appear to disagree. Nor do they decide whether the children were abused or not. They only discuss media bias in the section cited.

talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your original edit was removed with the "edit summary" being that it was not supported by the source. It wasn't. Additions need to be properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that you were "violating the WP standrds of good behavior," on this article, although I believe you were. Reverting without at least adding a justification for your edit that was not refuted by the talk page comments or edit summaries is, at the least, questionable. You were adding material not apparently sourced by your reference, as you frequently do, and Wikipedia policy is that unsourced material should be promptly removed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to CT's statement above. I believe that I have explained my reverts either here or in the summaries. I would strongly disagree that I "frequently" add material not sourced by my reference. I disagree in this case also. The data I presented here is cited in the source.

talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It was never reflected in your quotes. It may be in the source, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a page number. I'm not questioning the credibility of the source (although I do have my doubts), I'm questioning where and whether the source actually says something supporting AT's "paraphrase". All I found on the free trial access to the book was the source stating that "several child advocacy organizations contend ..." (but only mentioning one). Need I say it again: Removing tags without addressing the issue may be considered vandalism. AT's "news" article about the McMartin trial and the film has at least two probable untruths in it: That a child actually reported abuse at the day care center, rather than having it drawn out of the child by (essentially) torture; and that the case ended in a mistrial, as 5 of the 7 defendants were acquitted of all charges. Furthermore, it's difficult to say whether either of the NYT columns is a "news" article, or a column representing only the personal opinion of the columnist. Perhaps both should be removed, pending investigation of the exact nature of the columns. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a page number below. Plus, I will add the number of pages to the reference. I assume that this is enough information to delete the page number request. The paraphrase was originally a quote, which I will supply below. Many children reported abuse at McMartin. Most jurors also believed the children were molested (L.A. Times). There is no evidence of any child being tortured or even close to be tortured by interviewers. If we accept an extremely biased source like Talbot as an RS, then we definitely should accept both of these as RS. Their names are stated in the article and all quotes are from the New York Times.

actual quote from the Noblitt book (2000 edition):

The McMartin Case is also the subject of the cable movie, Indictment, produced by Home Box Office. Several children’s advocacy groups have expressed concerns that the film’s focus appears to be slanted in favor of the accused perpetrators. The newsletter for the organization, Believe the Children, contains an impassioned plea to its readers to relinquish their subscriptions to Home Box Office (HBO) in protest of the film’s airing. An article featured in the newsletter entitled “Sex Abuse, Lies and Videotape”(1995) describes the genesis of the program and voices its concerns that the true victims of the McMartin case, the children, might be damaged by the perspective of the film’s author... According to the article,...and his wife,..., became advocates of the operators and staff of the McMartin preschool during the course of their trial. Because of ...involvement in the case and their relationship to the accused perpetrators, the article expressed the concern that the film might reflect an unbalanced portrait of accused and accusers such that roles might be reversed in the eyes of the viewing public. This has, in fact, been proven to be a correct assumption. Reviews of the cable movie featured in magazines such as Time (Bellafante, 1995) and TV Guide (McDougal, 1995) on the film’s depiction of an overzealous prosecuting attorney, a mentally unbalanced parent of a child victim, and a punitive therapist all lend themselves to the perpetuation of the ideas that the true victims are the alleged perpetrators. Ironically, this film also casts the media in an unfavorable light implying that the media’s over-the-top reporting of the event led to a veritable witch hunt. p. 184

talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

i'm you are aware that no discussion is required for minor, obvious corrections to an article such as the ones i made. as far as the 'mangling' of references, well, they both work for me, and if there's otherwise something wrong with it, you free to fix it.. --emerson7 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]