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 is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article was nominated for deletion on November 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
In the "Trials" section, the first source cited is "Lizard Tales: People and Events in the Life of a Naturalist". I don't have the ability to check every page but I did preview the book and I highly doubt it contains any information relevant to the article, much less the specific statement about the first trial lasting three years (which I doubt; maybe the case did, but the trial itself?)... Hoping someone with more knowledge about this matter can help verify or fix. Al Begamut (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The continued investigation part of the article contains misinformation on the searches for potential tunnels—misdating items found and how they might have gotten there. There is a fucking FBI paper on this, I understand the worries of people misusing information to support delusions, but putting in information that is easily proven false does not help this case. 50.107.89.49 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "tunnels" did not exist. The FBI paper you're referring to was not produced by the FBI, it was given to them by a man named Gary Stickel. No one was ever able to verify these supposed tunnels, so that paper itself was the misinformation. The FBI just dumped everything they had without comment, they weren't saying any of it was actually credible. This has been discussed before, you can see it in the Archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@50.107.89.49 Just came here to say just this. While reading the FBI file regarding "The Finders" I came across a hand drawn map detailing tunnels under the McMartin school, descriptions of rooms in the tunnels, tunnels connecting to neighboring houses, piles of animal bones found in the tunnel and the files noted a "Plastic plate with a hand drawn pentagram" was found in the tunnels. it's clear this article is intentionally deceptive for unknown reasons, though a cover up of the true events here would be the only thing that would appear to be taking place. The FBI files are accessible through the FBI.gov archive website and are located in the archived file for "The Finders". This is not speculation, these are FBI agents detailing entrances to tunnel, the tunnels themselves and items found in the tunnels. it's very disturbing to see Wiki being used as a cover for despicable allegations. I don't claim to know the guilt of innocence of the McMartins, but you have verifiable false information in this article. Rustydog1013 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong. Those documents were not made by the FBI. They are from Gary Stickel, who is already discussed in the article. – notwally (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Brown University Ross E. Cheit wrote a book called The Witch-Hunt Narrative, published by Oxford University Press, which includes an extensive analysis of the evidence in the McMartin Preschool Trial. As I understand it, his core idea is that while the CII did ask leading questions and conduct the investigation very inappropriately, and the case was severely mishandled by the prosecution, and (even over the span of the trial) experts’ understanding of what constitutes strong medical evidence for sexual abuse changed significantly, the INITIAL reports of abuse, and the medical evidence therein, prior to the case receiving media attention, are actually very compelling.
In Cheit’s view, the “witch-hunt narrative” popularized by journalists like Debbie Nathan is an oversimplification, and while there were no tunnels or Satanic rituals occurring at McMartin, it is highly likely some form of sexual abuse was occurring at the preschool.
There’s a real risk of being so protective of the falsely accused that we deny that level of care to the accusers. The “Legacy” section might do well to describe this phenomenon. 67.224.25.136 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James M. Wood, Debbie Nathan, Richard Beck, and Keith Hampton criticize that Cheit's work "has omitted or mischaracterized important facts or ignored relevant scientific information" and "is often factually inaccurate and tends to make strong assertions without integrating relevant scholarly and scientific information."
.svg)
