Talk:Fatal Vision controversy

Where to even begin?

Oh well, let me try.

1st, should anyone who doesn't even understand the concept of paragraphs be considered a credible writer?

2nd, this is not even close to an objective review of either the book or the TV mini-series. Rather this individual is on an agenda to push one view of the events of the MacDonald murders at Ft Bragg.

3rd, there are obvious factual errrors in this review. For example, the claim that McGinniss treats the amphetamine theory as fact in the book. All McGinniss does is offer it as a theory for motive. There were no revelations about this theory during the lawsuit over the book.

I will try to make more time to come back and clean up this review a little.

It's shameful that someone would abuse this Free Encylopedia format the way the author of this entry has done. 05:25, 30 December 2005 24.17.204.233

• I completely agree. I have pretty much rewritten the whole thing, trying to stick to the basics and keeping things on an NPOV. Hope I don't get reverted back to POV. Madman 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fatal Vision movie.PNG

Image:Fatal Vision movie.PNG 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead sent

   The article title "Fatal Vision" invites the current lead

Fatal Vision is a best-selling true crime book ....

but that misleads as to the scope of the article. The description of that book appears almost entirely in the following sentence

Fatal Vision, told in a narrative format that interpolates case events with transcripts of recordings MacDonald sent McGinniss, becomes an investigation and the investigation steadily builds a case against MacDonald.

The rest of the article is better described as about the direct spin-off works and the criticism of McGinniss's authorial ethics.
   I am boldly moving Fatal Vision to Fatal Vision controversy (keeping the current title a Rdr to the new title), and rewriting the lead acccordingly. I'll merge the content of the section Jeffrey_MacDonald#Fatal_Vision with this article, and replace that section with a short 'graph linking it here, since duplication of content interferes with effective updating.
   There is also material here (near the end of the "History" subsection)that is not about the books & miniseries, and probably deserves no mention at all in the article accompanying this talk page (but on the def'dnt's article).
--Jerzy•t 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed material

I discarded for now

"journalistic distortion."

which may be either an established legal term of art or an unorthodox theory of MacD's lawyers; if it is to be useful, more clarity about its definition and legal status is needed.

I reworded

In 1990, The New Yorker writer Janet Malcolm published a widely read article, "The Journalist and the Murderer", the thesis of which was that McGinniss committed a "morally indefensible" act in pretending that he believed MacDonald was innocent, even after he became convinced of his guilt.

bcz it made her out as singling him out as an immoral journalist, whereas i read our coverage of her as saying that journalism is by nature "morally indefensible", and that examination of his actions serves especially well the inherent conflict, rather than being "about him".

I removed

==Cultural references==

Seinfeld's Elaine Benes is seen reading a copy of Fatal Vision in the episode entitled "The Diplomat's Club", giving the mistaken impression that she is interested in killing her boss Mr. Pitt.

bcz our article on the episode (for which is tagged as having too much detail already!) does not mention the book let alone who sees her reading and gets the mistaken impression (nor, actually, whether one sees it, mentions it casually, and another gets the mistaken impression).
Mebbe there's a place for it, but i've seen no evidence that it's worth making a new place for it to sit (say an article on the book itself rather than the book as one piece in the mosaic of attitudes and beliefs about the Fatal Vision guy). In fact, is it a cultural reference to the book or to McD? Sounds like Pitt took it not so much as an interest in the book as an interest in how murder is done.

I left the History section (now 2 'graphs) for the moment; IMO nearly all its content either duplicates, or belongs in, Jeffrey R. MacDonald.
--Jerzy•t 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fatal Vision controversy or MacDonald controversy?

The title and the text of this article do not match. Fatal Vision is the title of a book by J. McGinniss, so the controversy of the title should be taken to refer to the legal case made against McGinniss, and the critisism by Janet Malcolm in "The Journalist and the murder". These events, however, are not even mentioned in the intro to this article, and also in the rest of this article the main subject is the case against MacDonald, not McGinniss. Animus00 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am in agreement. Material focused on the MacDonald murders themselves belongs elsewhere. Will remove material that is extraneous to the discussion of this book and the controversy it generated. ronningt (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fatal Vision controversy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019080638/http://www.biography.com:80/people/jeffrey-macdonald-17171806 to http://www.biography.com/people/jeffrey-macdonald-17171806#synopsis

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) 03:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2024

Fatal Vision controversy → Fatal Vision – In 2013, this was moved by a now-indeffed account, on the grounds that since the content in the article was about the drama the book caused it was more notable. Searching for sources, the controversy does not appear to be notable in an of itself to fulfill WP:NEVENT. While the book is notable, due to both sourcing, reviews, and adaptions, so move it back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 12:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. The article is about a book and the controversy surrounding it. The title of the book suffices to identify the topic without adding extra words that seem to incorrectly imply that only the controversy and not the book itself is notable. Also see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:CSECTION, which says to "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)