Talk:Indictment: The McMartin Trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

I have added a plot summary, therefore I am removing the {{film needs synopsis}} template. —Cesar Tort 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] balancing data discussion

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. Abuse truth (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). Abuse truth (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are still reverting without discussion, thus violating the WP standards of good behavior.

Also, your quotation presumes that the defendants were guilty.

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:

“

Also contributing to the perceived increase in the incidence of child abuse was the controversial practice of some psychotherapists of attributing the problems reported by adult patients to repressed memories of sexual abuse suffered during childhood. In fact, however, many of the children who reported sexual and other forms of abuse through the new methods were inventing the stories they told. As critics later pointed out, the methods—which involved repeatedly asking leading and suggestive questions and rewarding children for giving the “right” answers—encouraged children to tell false stories of abuse or to believe, contrary to fact, that abuse had taken place. One significant series of cases involving such reports were the trials beginning in 1984 of Virginia McMartin, founder of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, and others on dozens of counts of child abuse. Most of the charges, which were based on reports of abuse collected in interviews with hundreds of students, were eventually dropped for lack of evidence. In 1990 the last case resulting from the affair ended in a mistrial; thus, no convictions were ever secured. Even so, the careers of the McMartin family, as well as their reputations, were ruined. During the decade after the revelations in the McMartin case, thousands of people worldwide were likewise accused of involvement in ritual abuse (Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica).

”

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)

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)

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. Abuse truth (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Abuse truth (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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 Abuse truth (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)