Talk:Children's Institute Inc.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text removal

In this edit, the content about the McMartin preschool trial was removed as a content fork. I'm sure there's a line between "extra info about the organization" and a content fork. I'm not sure where it is, but I'm willing to discuss. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per edit, move this to talk for discussion

I have deleted a cfork "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."

==McMartin preschool trial==

CII played a major role in the McMartin preschool trial, one of the first and certainly largest criminal trial that was part of the day care sex abuse hysteria and satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Before the trial, CII investigated primarily physical abuse, with a small section that conducted infrequent medical examinations and interviews with children involved in child sexual abuse allegations. Kee MacFarlane, an employee at the center, had the idea to use hand puppets and anatomically correct dolls during interviews with children, believing they would aid disclosure and therapeutic recovery. The initial interviews were taped, and later the sections of the tape in which the children actually made disclosures were shown to parents to convence them their children had been abused. The agency ultimately interviewed more than 350 children who were involved in the trial, Snedeker, Michael R.; Nathan, Debbie (1995). Satan's silence: ritual abuse and the making of a modern American witch hunt. New York: Basic Books. p. 127. ISBN 0-465-07180-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) using techniques that, when tested, were found to be superior to simple suggestion in causing children to make false allegations. Schreiber, Nadja (2006). "Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study". Social Influence. 1 (1). Psychology Press: 16–46. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Garven, S (1998). "More than suggestion: the effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin Preschool case". Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (3): 347–59. PMID 9648524. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Extrabreeze (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language you quote has been taken out of context. It refers to POV forking and not the legitimate and consistant summarizing of relevant information that exists in more detail in a main entry. I'm restoring the text.PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is clearly stated that “A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject.” The entry that was deleted and moved to talk is clearly an unnecessary duplication of information in a separate article.

I will do some minor editing of the section in an attempt to cut down on the forking. Extrabreeze (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without that, the article should probably be deleted as not notable. Although we can't say it, what they're primarily known for is the hysteria. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"remove undue weight" —Extrabreeze in edit summary.

This is not the language a newbie uses in WP. Extrabreeze: you have edited these sorts of articles before. Haven't you? AR: it's time to request IP check even if this user changed IPs. I haven't requested it before however. Is there a requisite to do it? —Cesar Tort 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time for an WP:RFCU, perhaps type F. But, if you really think it's clear it's AT/RE, rather than the "you're a pedophile" editor, WP:SSP should be adequate. I'm just not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biaothanatoi never posted sloppy posts. Biao is an academic and his writing style reflects that. On the other hand, AT/RE/Extrabreeze's style is practically identical. Even arguments are so similar, as well as the spacing between paragraphs in the same (sloppy) post, as he did in talk:SRA, not to mention his many bare URLs. WP:SSP is the right place to start an investigation. —Cesar Tort 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.childrensinstitute.org/about/, http://www.childrensinstitute.org/about/history/, and http://www.childrensinstitute.org/ourwork/programsandservices/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Children's Institute Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]