Jump to content

Talk:McMartin preschool trial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Goes to show

This just goes to show that if you'll suggest anything to a young child and keep repeating it they're bound to believe you, like what happened here with the social workers and the kids. I don't think that this is a very funny issue, but i doubt that no-one would raise a grin at the 'Chuck Norris child abuser' bit. This a perfect example of the satanic ritual abuse hysteria that was rampant throughout the west in the 80's and 90's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk • contribs)

Comment

I feel obliged to comment that while the article goes into detail about the background and the investigations, it does not refer either to the persistent allegations (still being expanded upon) that a cover-up occurred while nullified the validity of the investiagtions, or to the fact that this case, together with tweo or three less well known, was the seed which provoked international studies of satanic abuse of children, and led, in the case of the UK, to a number of high-level enquiries the repercussions of which are still going on. The truth will never be fully known, but I consider it likely that as the McMartin children grow up and receive objective therapy, we are likely to hear much more about what actually happened. --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, case is closed. I would recommend to watch the film Indictment: The McMartin Trial. —Cesar Tort 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the article: " In addition, she also claimed that people at the daycare had flown and had sexual encounters with giraffes." How does one fly a giraffe? I'd change it if I knew what it was supposed to say. Dismas|(talk) 01:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is syntactically correct, and outlines 2 separate allegations: 1) the daycare staff flew, and 2) the daycare staff had sexual relations with a giraffe. Since giraffes are not mechanical, the meaning you inferred would have to be articulated as " the daycare staff rode, and had sexual encounters with, a giraffe" in any case. In order to avoid confusin however, I've inserted a single comma after "flew".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintersmith (talk • contribs) 19:00, December 24.

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I read it. I guess there's no big problem with that source. —Cesar Tort 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Length and expense

"After seven years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. It is one of the most famous of all the sexual abuse cases and it was the longest and most expensive trial in the history of the United States to date."

I am assuming this means criminal trial and inserting that word, as otherwise this is simply not true. There have been many civil trials spanning decades, including massive cases with discovery and other expenses which surely exceeded the expenses in this case. Someone should check if this is the longest and most expensive criminal trial either, I would not be surprised if this were not the case. NTK 14:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am reverting, I mentally flipped "trial" and "litigation." Still needs verification though. NTK 14:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-mcmartin44oct30,0,7258817.story?coll=la-home-headlines is dead. If this is cached somewhere, please change the link to reflect this 65.29.20.158 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that link anymore. —Cesar Tort 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment removed from article

Ralph Underwager and his partner, Hollida Wakefield, started a group called VOCAL, Victims of Child Abuse Legislation (AKA: FMSF, false memory syndrome foundation, IPT Journal and others). They are the source of all of the allegations that the 1980s child abuse cases were "witch hunts." Starting with the case in their city, Jordan, Minnesota and including McMartin preschool. Even though their reputations and credibility is highly questionable, their ideas and theories are repeated often. I see they have succeeded in taking over Wikipedia in all areas relating to these cases and this issue. You must research the researchers. Please see Paedika Interview with Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager. Please see article A Strange Pair of Experts regarding Paul and Shirley Eberle, the authors of The Abuse of Innocence. As for the tunnels at the McMartin preschool site, proof of a network of tunnels was found by Archaeologist, Dr. Gary Stickel and his crew. Please see "The Dark Tunnels of McMartin" by Dr. Roland Summit. All can be found on Google.—The preceding comment was added by Jackie mcgauley (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If compelling evidence was found it would have been the lead story on the news that night. He found disturbed soil consistent with the sewer line that matched the hole in the concrete where a patch was made into the existing sewer line. A real secret tunnel would be that New York case where a guy kidnapped a little girl and kept her in a concrete bunker he made under his house,and that was the lead story with the FBI digging up the structure. Remember "Katie Beers"?. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Living with a Survivor.

It kills me to hear people call this trial a hoax. My husband is a survivor of the damage that these people wrought. It has touched every aspect of his life, and as I watch him struggle I know in my heart the acusations of abuse were indeed true.

"It wasn't some satanic ritual like these articles keep saying," he told me after reading a case history I was persuing, "It was just a sick man getting drunk and doing terrible things to children. By the time it got to court the media had turned it into such a circus that even if they did do it, they'd never be convicted."

I greatly dislike the way that this article was written to make it seem as if it were just mass hysteria. Isn't this site supposed to be based on just facts and not twisted to fit the author's opinion?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.181.103 (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The article isn't based on anecdotes, like your story. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the creepiest exchange I have yet seen on Wikipedia. And that is saying something. Yeah, the internet is based on anonymity and it is completely possible the original poster is a fraud. But, assuming he/she is not (something I like to call "goodwill), then "Richard Arthur Norton's" quote is nasty and disturbing. Who, in god's name, are the people who fight so hard to try and debunk those of us who come here to try and present evidence and facts about CSA? What in the world is going on? Oh, and here's the irony - mark my words that this post (mine) will get responded to with some sort of nasty smear about hysteria and blah-fucking-blah-fucking-blah. Just watch. I guarantee it. 76.171.42.19 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack redacted. Please use the talk pages for discussing improvements to the article. WLU (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Having read the redacted material, I find it interesting that "personal attack" now extends to raising issues about the neutrality of another editor. I can only assume that, once again, we are in the realm of the Wiki-cabal's Secret Rules of Propriety -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

This article is quite confusing. It seems to discount allegations of sexual abuse of these children out of hand. Yes, there were no convictions. I can think of numerous cases where there were no convictions, but there still appeared to be some wrong-doing. They talk, in depth about the "mass-hysteria" and one child who has recanted his testimony, but do not mention any who have maintained that they were sexually abused. Is that because no individuals like this exist? The comment before this one would contradict that statement. So, surely some ambitious editor can find some source to add some balance to this article. 66.192.126.3 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we are obligated to presume the innocence of the accused. To alter the article to suggest that they are guilty verges on libel.71.63.119.49 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Furthermore, there's ample evidence to show that the accusations had no merit. It's the purpose of an encyclopedia to report the facts, not give equal weight to either side of an argument. ADB 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

removing

I am removing this paragraph—:

New York Times; January 7, 2001; The Lives They Lived: 01-07-01: Peggy McMartin Buckey, b. 1926; The Devil in The Nursery ... Buckey's ordeal began in 1983, when the mother of a 2 1/2-year-old who attended the McMartin preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, called the police to report that her son had been sodomized there. It didn't matter that the woman was eventually found to be a paranoid schizophrenic, and that the accusations she made -- of teachers who took children on airplane rides to Palm Springs and lured them into a labyrinth of underground tunnels where the accused "flew in the air" and others were "all dressed up as witches" -- defied logic. Satanic-abuse experts, therapists and social workers soon descended on the school and, with a barrage of suggestive, not to say coercive, questioning techniques (lavishly praising children who "disclosed," telling those who denied the abuse that they were "dumb," introducing salacious possibilities that children had never mentioned), produced increasingly elaborate and grotesque testimonials from young children at the school.

—since the paranoid schizophrenic woman didn't make those claims (teachers who took children on airplane rides to Palm Springs and lured them into a labyrinth of underground tunnels where the accused "flew in the air" and others were "all dressed up as witches"). The children did under unethical questioning techniques.

And I am also removing the other one—:

New York Times, April 1, 1984. To the children at the Virginia McMartin Preschool, it was The Hollywood Game or Naked Movie Star. Adults use more sophisticated terms to describe the sexual games the children were reported to have played with trusted teachers, such as pedophilia, felony child abuse, child pornography. Despite stricter laws against the sexual abuse of children, three cases pending in Los Angeles alone indicate that trafficking in children for pleasure or profit has not disappeared. Seven defendants, including 76-year-old Virginia McMartin, who founded the school in 1956; her daughter, granddaughter and grandson, are scheduled to be arraigned Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. They face a total of 115 counts of having sexual relations with children as young as 2 years old at the preschool center in suburban Manhattan Beach. Prosecutors say 125 children have told therapists that snapshots and movies were made while they were raped, sodomized, orally copulated or fondled. Mrs. McMartin, in a wheelchair when she surrendered on the March 22 indictments, termed the charges against her a bunch of lies. Attorneys for the others in the case told the judge reviewing their bail amounts that they were upstanding citizens. No pornographic photographs or films have been recovered in the McMartin case, but Deputy District Attorney Eleanor Barrett says she believes some were made because so many children talk about being photographed on so many occasions.

—since it makes no sense to have this long block in this short article. Insted of these NYT articles I will place reference to the best article I know about this case.

—Cesar Tort 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard Arthur Norton for fixing the endnotes and placing the above blocks in the proper place. —Cesar Tort 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Eberles

I am removing this from the article: "The Eberle’s, proponents of the theory that the children at the McMartin School were not ritually abused, were publishers of sexually explicit periodicals, including “Finger,” a Los Angeles tabloid containing pornographic photographs, drawings and stories about children. [1]" It appears to be a reference used to comment on another reference. The Eberle’s don't appear in the main article at all. I had to read it three times, and I am still not sure what it is trying to convey. Eberle appears in a previous reference as an author of one of the books sourcing the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the paragraph and have moved it to External Links. It gives important information on the sources of the McMartin Trial. Abuse truth 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the information again. It is unsourced and potentially libelous. If your going to make claims about living people they MUST be sourced to reliable media outlets. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put the section back in. It is well sourced and an extremely reliable source that is well footnoted. Abuse truth 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For more information, see "Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children" LLOYD DEMAUSE The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 - a peer reviewed journal at http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/whycult.htm "In addition, some of authors of false memory books also turned out to be pedophile advocates. For example, one of the most widely cited books claiming that cult abuse reports were mass hysteria is Paul and Shirley Eberle's The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool trial.(6) Taken quite seriously by reviewers and widely quoted In later maga-zine articles as authoritative, the book makes such claims as that the over 100 McMartin children who reported they had been abused by a cult were all "brainwashed" and the mothers were all "hysterical" and that it was meaningless that physicians found three-quarters of the children bore physical evidence that corroborated their stories. What reviewers didn't mention was that the Eberles had been called "the most prolific publishers of child pornography in the United States" by Sgt. Toby Tyler, a San Bernadino deputy sheriff who is a nationally recognized expert on child pornography.(7) Their kiddie porn material that I have seen and the articles they have published such as "I Was a Sexpot at Five" and "Little Lolitas" Included illustrations of children involved in sodomy and oral copulation and featured pornographic photos of the Eberles.

6. Paul and Shirley Eberle, The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial. New York: Prometheus Books, 1993.

7. The Tampa Tribune-Times, July 25, 1993, p.10."Abuse truth 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

the merit of the 1993 book has to be evaluated as an independent question of pornographical publications by its authors in the 1970s. Fwiiw, Alan Dershowitz has given the book a favourable review. It is idle to speculate on private motivations that may or may not have led the Eberles to write the book. It has to be judged on its own merits, and it appears that reviewers were pleased with it [1]. If you can cite more negative reviews, feel free to do that (needless to say, random geocities.com pages do not count as reviews). I don't know if the Eberles are child pornographers. The question is irrelevant here, anyway, because they are not "proponents of the theory that the children at the McMartin School were not ritually abused" -- this isn't a "theory", since the entire case is recognized as without substance by everyone, never mind the Eberles. Trying to discredit the court findings by trying to point out that it pleased pedophiles is a blatant case of hair-raising association fallacy. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The McMartin case had six years of criminal trials. The entire case must have had a lot of substance to last that long.Abuse truth 01:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
googling around, I find this article which makes clear that the Eberles were bona fide pornographers in a non-commercial libertarian/hippie ideology of free sexuality, and have nothing to do with child pornography whatsoever. It would be correct to identify the Eberles as radical or far left libertarians, but it is perfectly unacceptable to try and smear them over their pornographic publications which have nothing to do with their coverage of the McMartin case. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Dab, the author of the article you quote - John Earle - co-wrote the Eberles book. He worked with the Eberles and he is credited in the book as a researcher. Read Paul and Shirley Eberle for more info - in particular, the Eberles were described as child pornographers by prosecutors in a court of law, and the judge in the case upheld the prosecutions statement when it was challenged by the defense.
In short, neither the Eberles, nor John Earle, are RS. You should actually read their book, in which they talk about "benign paedophilia" e.g. The Eberles make an argument that sex with adults can be beneficial for children.
And yet the Eberles, and Earle, are quoted extensively in this article, and editors have consistently defended them as a source.
This article is mostly False Memory Syndrome Foundation-inspired junk and needs to be rewritten. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The article needs to be rewritten, but it presently gives too much credence to the theory that there was actually abuse at the school or that there was ever credible avidence of abuse at the school. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs more reliable sources. Far too much weight is given to these three sources :
a b c d Talbot, Margaret. "The Lives They Lived: 01-07-01: Peggy McMartin Buckey, b. 1926; The Devil in The Nursery.", New York Times, January 7, 2001. Retrieved on 2008-04-05.
a b c d e f Ramsland, Katherine. "McMartin Daycare Case", Crime Library. Retrieved on 2007-08-26. "From there, reports are conflicting. Some say that there was no evidence of actual sexual abuse, while others say that Matthew admitted that he had seen Ray Buckey's penis and that Ray had photographed him. Judy contacted the police."
a b c d Eberle, Paul (1993). The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758090.
We need someone to go through the L A Times and New York Times articles of the period to find balanced sources that represent the points of view of the period. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with Talbot (apparently an article in the New York Times magazine) or Eberle (a book from a respected publisher)? I have doubts about the "Crime Library", but others apparently don't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Talbot's article is an opinion piece. It would be better if we could find more balanced sources from the NYT and L A Times. The Eberles' bias is fairly obvious and their history as publishers of child pornographers IMO puts their scholarship and fairness of weighing sources in question. IMO, better sources need to be found to provide a more accurate article providing a better view of the journalism of that era. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's an opinion piece, we need better sources. Prometheus Books, however, is a respected publisher, IMHO, and we should consider things published under their imprint as credible even if the authors were obviously biased. I consider the bias claims questionable, however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But how many of the other LA Times or NY Times articles are opinion pieces. If we remove Talbot, we need to remove all newspaper articles which may be opinion pieces. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Good point. Rather than remove it, we should find other NYT and L A Times articles, so these three sources won't have 14 citations, which IMO is definitely undue weight for them. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus books is not a credible source on child sexual abuse. Their "Human Sexuality" section throughout the 80s and 90s was edited by Vern Bullough, who is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch pro-paedophile magazine. Under Bullough's editorship, Prometheus published a range of pro-paedopihlia titles, including the Eberles, as well as the book "Children's sexual encounters with adults" in which a number of contributors espoused pro-paedophile views.
I am astonished at the inconsistency with which certain Wikipeida editors attribute credibility to different sources on child sexual abuse. The Eberles' history with child pornography is in the public domain and it has been for almost twenty years. Now we find editors claiming that the Eberles (and John Earle, a contributor their book) are considered credible sources, whilst all sources (including major newspapers, magazines and a trial judge) indicating that they are child pornographers are not credible sources. This is an example of serious bias from these editors.
My understanding is that Richard Arthur Norton has been, in fact, an acquaintance of the Eberles during the period in which they were distributing child pornography. (See here: "At the time Thralawattle was created, Paul, his wife Shirley, and I were working for the Los Angeles Free Press during those interesting years 1966-1970".) Norton is also an obsessive chronicler of "age disparities in relationships". How interesting. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, Prometheus Books is a credible publisher, and books published by them should be considered reliable sources unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for that book.
The Eberlies history with pornography is clearly estabilished, but their history with child pornography, and your claim that certain people (Wikipedia editors, or not) are pro-paedophilia is probably libelous. Do you really want to continue? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The Eberles history as manufacturers and distributors of child pornography has been a matter of public knowledge for over twenty years. A number of RS citations have been supplied for this fact, including a court judgement. And yet the book continues to be quoted, and defended, here as a reliable source.
I have not claimed that a Wikipedia editor is pro-paedophile. I'm simply pointing out that Norton states that he knew the Eberles during the period in which they published Finger. Neanwhile, his blog documents his interest in intergenerational relationships. These are two facts that are in the public domain. Take from them what you will. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely certain it was you, and I'm having trouble with my Internet connection, so I can't check the relevant notes, but one of the editors here has made claims that certain Wikipedia editors are pro-paedophile. If that wasn't you, I apologize. However, Prometheus Books' credibility as a publisher far exceeds any assertions that a book is not reliable because its author is pro-paedophile, or even involved in child pornography. I don't see sufficient evidence here to protect you from a libel suit from the Eberles or Norton, or to protect this thread against WP:BLP assertions, but I don't feel like redacting the thread under WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced or spam

  • The movie “The Indictment,” produced for Home Box Office, about the McMartin trial, was criticized by several children’s advocacy groups for being slanted in favor of the accused perpetrators. According to an article featured in the newsletter “Sex Abuse, Lies and Videotape,” (1995) the film’s author Abby Mann and his wife Myra became advocates of the operators and staff of the McMartin preschool during the McMartin trial. 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 been proven to be a correct assumption.
  • Cult and Ritual Abuse - It’s History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America - Noblitt and Perskin - Prager (2000)
  • Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children - Lloyd Demause - The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 “Even when "authorities" are cited to disprove the existence of any physical evidence of cult abuse, these usually end up referring to one man, Kenneth Lanning of the FBI, who says he has "been unable to find one murder of anyone by two or more people following typical satanic ritualistic prescriptions." What is never mentioned is that Lanning has done no investigative work on any cult anywhere and ignores all kinds of convictions for cult abuse that are in police and court records, while others who have actually done ritual abuse investigative work for the F.B.I. are ignored by the press....The more I dug into the literature, the "curiouser and curiouser" seemed the claims that cults are only witch hunts.”

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Editor Bias

This was recently placed on my talk page: Are you here to "abuse the truth"? or here to provide "truth about abuse"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect a personal attack of this nature on wikipedia.

I have added the information below back to the McMartin preschool trial page. The first item is from an excellent source on the topic of cult and ritual abuse. The second source is from a peer-reviewed journal. It appears that the data on the McMartin preschool trial page is held up to different standards, depending upon which point of view it supports.

Cult and Ritual Abuse - It’s History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America - Noblitt and Perskin - Prager (2000) The movie “The Indictment,” produced for Home Box Office, about the McMartin trial, was criticized by several children’s advocacy groups for being slanted in favor of the accused perpetrators. According to an article featured in the newsletter “Sex Abuse, Lies and Videotape,” (1995) the film’s author Abby Mann and his wife Myra became advocates of the operators and staff of the McMartin preschool during the McMartin trial. 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 been proven to be a correct assumption.

Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children - Lloyd Demause - The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 “Even when "authorities" are cited to disprove the existence of any physical evidence of cult abuse, these usually end up referring to one man, Kenneth Lanning of the FBI, who says he has "been unable to find one murder of anyone by two or more people following typical satanic ritualistic prescriptions." What is never mentioned is that Lanning has done no investigative work on any cult anywhere and ignores all kinds of convictions for cult abuse that are in police and court records, while others who have actually done ritual abuse investigative work for the F.B.I. are ignored by the press....The more I dug into the literature, the "curiouser and curiouser" seemed the claims that cults are only witch hunts.” Abuse truth 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the first one is really sketchy, and comes nowhere near being properly sourced for Wikipedia. Please acquaint yourself with our verifiability guideline. Further, the last sentence, "This has proven to be a correct assumption" is an unsourced opinion. The second one isn't helpful in any way, as the article does not cite this Lanning person. I'm not sure if Demause's writing in the Journal of Psychohistory can be counted as a reliable source -- he, after all, is the editor of that journal; I'd think that comes quite close to self-published. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Long Talbot quote

I've removed the long Talbot quote. It's interesting, but it's not encyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Gee, would the editor who reverted me consider actually discussing it? Manners, please. And, while at it, take a look at the rest of Wikipedia to notice that we don't run long quotes like that in general? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to revert it, but the quote should either be shortened or User:Abuse truth's edits need to be excised from the article for balance. He/she inserts any plausible content that states or implies that recovered memories are accurate, and removes content that claims they may be inaccurate in all related articles. At least his templated rant is no longer here, but there are more discredited pro-recovered-memory references that need to go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't violate any existing policy and sums up very well the case. The article has been having some problems with undue weight toward the phantasmagoric testimony, from obscure psychological journals published during the trial. The quote is from well after the trial when cooler heads prevailed, and is from the respected New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Find me another article that has quotes that are lengthy philosophical excursions like that one. They don't belong; it would be best to summarize without the flowery language. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How about here: United States Declaration of Independence, where the entire document is reproduced. You can't get any more of a "lengthy philosophical excursion" than that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, then in that case the quote in question would belong in an article about the book it is extracted from. Next example? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that the United States Declaration of Independence was a book too, I cant wait for the movie to come out. Don't spoil the ending. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with jpgordon above. It also makes the section in question POV and unbalanced. As far as Arthur Rubin's continued ad hominem attacks about me and my data above, I will state that any data I have added to articles is appropriate and well-sourced. IMO, the reason Arthur Rubin wants to remove "pro-recovered-memory references" is because of his POV. Any data I may have removed was unsourced and shouldn't have been placed in the article in the first place. Editors need to look more carefully at both sides of the data. Abuse truth 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't consider the AOL hosted "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" as a reliable source for your 5 citations. I haven't seen the articles hosted anywhere else on the Internet. You said you were using the "original" articles. Does that mean that "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" is your website? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I will be providing the links for the sources this weekend. The article urls were distributed to various people on the web. Abuse truth 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Abuse truth 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of secret tunnels

If the claims of secret tunnels were such a revelation, where are the media endorsements? I find very little media coverage, and there are no photos, or videos to examine and make me jump up in outrage and say "look at those tunnels". If you want real tunnels read about Katie Beers. You can be an archaeologist, a Ph.D., and a physician, and still be wrong, all three groups of people are wrong at times. Science is self correcting over time, but individuals are not, even Newton had strong beliefs in the occult and alchemy. Dusenberg still stands by his discredited theory on AIDS, and most other people take their discredited theories to their graves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PS "Richard Arthur Norton", Isaac Newton's theories about the occult and alchemy were absolutely central to his breakthroughs in optics. If Newton had not been an alchemist and had certain ideas about the occult, he would *never* have figured out that light can be split. And if that had never happened, we sure as hell would not have wikipedia or anything that makes use of the ES. 76.171.42.19 (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam

The book your adding to multiple articles is not on topic. The external links are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The book talks about McMartin and other day care cases. Abuse truth (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding identical links to multiple pages, especially when the book in question is not referenced in the article, is considered spam on Wikipedia. Please desist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did not see this before editing. Please cite clause on this. Abuse truth (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
From WP:SPAM:

The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.

Means don't even do it once. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please work this out on the talk page, revert warring is not appropriate. I've protected the page for the time until there's agreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The book I added was not in the References section. It was in the Books section. The book Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools. New York, London: The Guilford Press. 1993. ISBN 0-89862-523-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
has a chapter on the McMartin case called "A Tale of Two Communities" by Jane McCord. It also lists a chronology of the McMartin case events. The rest of the book talks about sexual abuse in pre-school settings. I believe that is a good resource on this topic.Abuse truth (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This edit seems a good choice. Thanks, AT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It is a good quote.Abuse truth 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight to a minority opinion

I removed:

”(She) claimed she noticed blood in her son’s diaper and an irritation around his rectum. A hospital exam confirmed her worst fears her son has been sodomized. Asked who was responsible, the toddler said, “Mr. Ray.” “Mr. Ray” was...a teacher at the McMartin preschool, which the boy had been attending. Later, when the boy was questioned by local police, he named other children whom he claimed also were present during the sexual abuse.”[2]

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In regard to this quote :
Judy Johnson's belief began when her son had painful bowel movements. At that time, he denied her suggestion that his preschool teachers had molested him. [3]
(She) claimed she noticed blood in her son’s diaper and an irritation around his rectum. A hospital exam confirmed her worst fears her son has been sodomized. Asked who was responsible, the toddler said, “Mr. Ray.” “Mr. Ray” was...a teacher at the McMartin preschool, which the boy had been attending. Later, when the boy was questioned by local police, he named other children whom he claimed also were present during the sexual abuse.” Tamarkin, Civia (1994). [http:// "Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part I and Part II"]. Treating Abuse Today. Retrieved December 9, 2007. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
I disagree with its deletion. The Tamarkin article is more NPOV than the Crime Library one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include :Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.
This would make the Tamarkin article a better source than the Crime Library one.
And there is no evidence that the quote below is a minority opinion.
If you can present some, please do.
Even if it is:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases -:what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.”
And
“None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”
and
“An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.”
The quote is a small one. IMO, most of the article leans the other way.
The quote is very important to the article, and I have shown in the edit how it can be added to the article without contradicting it. I am willing to compromise on its size to allow for a different opinion of weight however.Abuse truth (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes are significantly different, so, if both are from WP:RS, we need both or neither. Now, the Tamarkin article has a clear bias in being pro-children's-accurate-memory, while I don't see a clear bias in the Crime Library one. However, I've tried to combine both sources, showing the clear discrepancy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess we disagree on the NPOV-ness of both. Will AGF and wait for a week for sources to be provided for "Most sources state that at that time, he denied her suggestion that his preschool teachers had molested him." If you can't find more sources by that time, I will change it back to "One source stated..." Of course, once sources are provided, this can be changed back.Abuse truth (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, another source was already provided before you wrote that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the version of the part of the section that was recently edited isn't bad. It covers both sides of the media debate somewhat fairly. I do have concerns about the use of the Eberle's book as a source. Even more neutral sources critique them:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879758090
From Library Journal
In August 1983, the owners and teachers of the McMartin PreSchool in California were accused of sexually abusing one of their students. The accusations quickly mushroomed, until almost all of the children who attended were suspected of having been molested. A six-year trial and re-trial followed, with the McMartins eventually found not guilty. An interesting book, worth reading, could doutbless be written about the McMartin trial. This is not it. The Eberles provide an almost word-for-word transcript of the trial. Although the material is explosive, the authors indicate that the jury was often bored by the repetitive, nonresponsive testimony. Unfortunately, so is the reader. In addition, the Eberles are totally one-sided. They believe that the charges were completely trumped up and that the McMartins are "innocent victims." On the other hand, they argue that the prosecution was incompetent. Yet they provide no real documentation to back up their "facts." Somewhere in this horrible story there lies a kernel of truth. Were children molested? Were the McMartins subjected to a modern-day witch hunt? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle? To answer these questions, the material in this book would have to be reduced and summarized and cogent analysis applied. Not recommended.- Sandra K. Lindheimer, Middlesex Law Lib., Cambridge, Mass.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Kirkus Reviews
A zealous denunciation of a bizarre child-abuse ``witch hunt that's undermined by the authors' determination to spin some equally strange conspiracy theories of their own. The McMartin Preschool, for 18 years a popular fixture in the affluent L.A. suburb of Manhattan Beach, rocketed to notoriety following a complaint lodged by an arguably unstable parent whose charges, in addition to sexual abuse, included the beheading of infants and the drinking of their blood. An inflammatory letter sent to parents by local police; interviews with hundreds of children by unlicensed therapists using unproven, possibly manipulative, methods; strategic leaks to the press--all created a frenzy leading to seven years of litigation in which none of the original seven defendants--who lost their assets, reputations, and livelihoods--were found guilty of anything. Trying to pin down what went wrong, the Eberles (Pity the Little Children, 1986--not reviewed) prove to be convincing, if one-sided, defenders of the accused--at least when they stick to court transcripts. But their analysis--ranging from petty cracks about the hairstyles of lawyers to ominous hints of government plots (``an agenda to compel mindless conformity and blind obedience)--repeatedly tips from outrageous and undocumented to what some might consider, at best, transparently alarmist. Important themes--such as the dangers arising from the use of jailhouse informants and from the political considerations of elected law-enforcement officials--are lost in a scattershot barrage of unexplored red herrings (e.g., three sightings of a mysterious ``fat man with a moustache) and dark musings (``persons at the highest levels of power must have guided CBS-TV's decision to show two films on child abuse prior to jury deliberations). The McMartin defendants, evidently treated unfairly by their accusers, have been ill-served once again. (First printing of 30,000)
Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.
Of course, there are the old accusations that the Eberle's participated in child pornography.
During cross examination of an expert witness in the trial of Margaret Kelly Michaels, the prosecution referred to the Eberles as "child pornographers", and the judge dismissed the defence's application for a mistrial on the basis that such a label was based on fact. (Judge denies mistrial in sex-abuse case, The Associated Press, 22 January 1988).
Paul and Shirley Eberle: A Strange Pair of Experts by Maria Laurina
Reprinted in the ICONoclast, WINTER 1988 / VOL. 1, NO. 2 with permission from Ms. Magazine (December 1988) http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Eberle.html
In the 1970's, however, the Eberles were also publishing hard-core pornography. Their publication, Finger, depicted scenes of bondage, S & M, and sexual activities involving urination and defecation. A young girl portrayed with a wide smile on her face sits on top of a man whose penis is inside of her; a woman has oral sex with a young boy in a drawing entitled "Memories of My Boyhood."
The Eberles were featured nude on one cover holding two life-size blow up dolls names "Love Girl" and "Play Guy." No dates appear on the issues and the Eberles rarely attach their names, referring to themselves as "The L.A. Star Family."
The Eberles were the distributors of Finger and several other underground magazines, says Donald Smith, a sergeant with the obscenity section of the Los Angeles Police Department's vice division who followed the couple for years. LAPD was never able to prosecute for child pornography: "There were a lot of photos of people who looked like they were under age but we could never prove it." The pictures of young children in Finger are illustrations, and child pornography laws were less rigid a decade ago than they are today.
"Sexpot at Five," "My First Rape, She Was Only Thirteen," and "What Happens When Niggers Adopt White Children" are some of the articles that appeared in Finger. One letter states: "I think it's really great that your mags have the courage to print articles & pixs [sic] on child sex...Too bad I didn't hear from more women who are into child sex...Since I'm single I'm not getting it on with my children, but I know of a few families that are. If I were married & my wife & kids approved--I'd be having sex with my daughters."
Another entry reads: "I'm a pedophile & I think its [sic] great a man is having sex with his daughter!...Since I didn't get Finger #3, I didn't get to see the stories & pics of family sex. Would like to see pics of nude girls making it with their daddy, but realize its too risky to print."
The Eberle’s, proponents of the theory that the children at the McMartin School were not ritually abused, were publishers of sexually explicit periodicals, including “Finger,” a Los Angeles tabloid containing pornographic photographs, drawings and stories about children. Cult and Ritual Abuse - It’s History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America - Noblitt and Perskin (Prager, 2000)
Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children LLOYD DEMAUSE The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 - at http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/whycult.htm
What reviewers didn't mention was that the Eberles had been called "the most prolific publishers of child pornography in the United States" by Sgt. Toby Tyler, a San Bernadino deputy sheriff who is a nationally recognized expert on child pornography.(7) Their kiddie porn material that I have seen and the articles they have published such as "I Was a Sexpot at Five" and "Little Lolitas" Included illustrations of children involved in sodomy and oral copulation and featured pornographic photos of the Eberles.
7. The Tampa Tribune-Times, July 25, 1993, p.10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
For the sake of the integrity of the article, I believe we should use caution when citing this source, and only cite it when necessary.Abuse truth (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you've got majority and minority reversed again. The majority opinion is that there was never credible evidence of abuse. Whether the child reported the abuse, or didn't do so until sufficient brainwashed by the mother or possibly even by the councilors, is still undetermined. However, if a hospital found evidence of abuse, it should have been produced by the prosecution. If a hospital failed to find evidence of abuse, it should have been presented to the defense and produced by them at the trial.
As for Tyler, wasn't he, personally, convicted of malicious prosecution a few years later? That might tend to discredit his "expertise" in whatever field he was working in at the time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're failing to make a distinction. They believed that the abuse occured, but that no credible evidence was produced. No contradiction there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't seen any evidence that "(t)he majority opinion is that there was never credible evidence of abuse." Even the majority of jurors believed that some abuse occurred.Abuse truth (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the actual quote: "Nine of the 11 jurors who agreed to be interviewed said they believed that some children were abused, but that the prosecution, for the most part, had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Buckeys were responsible."
see http://
"beyond a reasonable doubt - The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced "to a moral certainty." The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict."
This means that the jury did not feel they were certain, not that there wasn't any credible evidence.Abuse truth (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can see that we don't have evidence that the jurors didn't find any credible evidence of abuse, or that they did. The media covering the trial, however, didn't find any credible evidence of abuse.. (Apparently, with the exception of the San Diego Union.) But shall we get back to the question. That there was abuse, though, is clearly a minority opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if someone could get the law text pages of the case. These would be primary sources and more accurate than the media. As far as the occurrence of abuse being a minority opinion, I would need to be shown evidence before accepting this. Abuse truth (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but I would need to be shown evidence there there ever was credible evidence of abuse to believe that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistancy in Abuse truth's comments

He's frequently misquoted articles, and not correcting them until called on it. Now he's uploaded purported scans of a journal article, and referring to it. I'd accept it if someone else confirms the scan as accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I will find someone anyway, though I have not misquoted articles.Abuse truth (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, no inconsistency :
The article that appears on the Internet (http://) is an exact replication of the print editions published in the July/August and September/October 1994 editions of Treating Abuse Today.
Pamela Perskin Noblitt
Managing Editor
Treating Abuse TodayAbuse truth (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My problem is not that the text is misquoted, but that it represents an extreme minority opinion, and is being given undue weight, and is being added without any qualification that it is a minority opinion. The latest quote about owning a horse ranch is tendentious, and added with an introduction and without qualification. Its fringe material being presented in large volume to try and change the tone and conclusions of the article. That is why I prefer relying on newspaper accounts, and not fringe publications. AT has been padding the article with the prosecutor's allegations during the trial without any qualification that its the prosecutor's theory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that the opinion that the text added is an "extreme minority opinion." Journal articles are an important source of information on this topic and IMO Treating Abuse Today is not a fringe publication. I have noticed that much of the article is built on biased sources, the Eberle's book, which I have previously shown on this talk page to be problematic, even by neutral sources, is used as a reference four times. The Ramsland article which I would also consider to be highly biased, is used seven times. The Talbot article, another biased source, is also used four times. One could also say that the bias of the article has been toward the defendants, yet the article itself doesn't state this. My goal has been to bring in reliable sources that would balance the article to truly represent the media and the literature. I am willing to work out a compromise on the quote you discuss above. Abuse truth (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources you listed aren't biased, they just aren't confirming your view. To confirm your view, you have to reach to obscure journals such as "Treating Abuse Today" which appears to support all accusations of abuse, despite the lack of forensic evidence, and don't appear to be peer reviewed. The Eberles, Ramsland, and the New York Times are all notable in themselves. Thats what makes them reliable sources. "Treating Abuse Today" looks like a home made website, and their journal no more than a newsletter. All journals are not equal, just like all colleges are not equal. Colleges range from Harvard to diploma mills. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Treating Abuse Today is a well-known journal in the field of child abuse. Tamarkin was a journalist. I never heard of the Ramsland article until I read this page. Below, I will show why I believe the three sources above are biased.
The first and last paragraph of Talbot's article showing obvious bias.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2001/the_devil_in_the_nursery
The Devil in the Nursery
When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80's -- the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities.
last paragraph
By now, the screaming meemies about day care have settled into a chronic low-level ambivalence -- children get more colds when they're in day care, but then again, they don't get asthma as much; they may be slightly less attached to their mothers, but they may also be more sociable; and so on -- a constant, uneasy seesawing of emotion that we mostly keep at bay. But ambivalence is a difficult state of mind to sustain; the temptation to replace it with a more Manichaean vision is always close at hand.
Views from neutral researchers that the Eberle book is biased.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879758090
From Library Journal
In August 1983, the owners and teachers of the McMartin PreSchool in California were accused of sexually abusing one of their students. The accusations quickly mushroomed, until almost all of the children who attended were suspected of having been molested. A six-year trial and re-trial followed, with the McMartins eventually found not guilty. An interesting book, worth reading, could doutbless be written about the McMartin trial. This is not it. The Eberles provide an almost word-for-word transcript of the trial. Although the material is explosive, the authors indicate that the jury was often bored by the repetitive, nonresponsive testimony. Unfortunately, so is the reader. In addition, the Eberles are totally one-sided. They believe that the charges were completely trumped up and that the McMartins are "innocent victims." On the other hand, they argue that the prosecution was incompetent. Yet they provide no real documentation to back up their "facts." Somewhere in this horrible story there lies a kernel of truth. Were children molested? Were the McMartins subjected to a modern-day witch hunt? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle? To answer these questions, the material in this book would have to be reduced and summarized and cogent analysis applied. Not recommended.- Sandra K. Lindheimer, Middlesex Law Lib., Cambridge, Mass.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Kirkus Reviews
A zealous denunciation of a bizarre child-abuse ``witch hunt that's undermined by the authors' determination to spin some equally strange conspiracy theories of their own. The McMartin Preschool, for 18 years a popular fixture in the affluent L.A. suburb of Manhattan Beach, rocketed to notoriety following a complaint lodged by an arguably unstable parent whose charges, in addition to sexual abuse, included the beheading of infants and the drinking of their blood. An inflammatory letter sent to parents by local police; interviews with hundreds of children by unlicensed therapists using unproven, possibly manipulative, methods; strategic leaks to the press--all created a frenzy leading to seven years of litigation in which none of the original seven defendants--who lost their assets, reputations, and livelihoods--were found guilty of anything. Trying to pin down what went wrong, the Eberles (Pity the Little Children, 1986--not reviewed) prove to be convincing, if one-sided, defenders of the accused--at least when they stick to court transcripts. But their analysis--ranging from petty cracks about the hairstyles of lawyers to ominous hints of government plots (``an agenda to compel mindless conformity and blind obedience)--repeatedly tips from outrageous and undocumented to what some might consider, at best, transparently alarmist. Important themes--such as the dangers arising from the use of jailhouse informants and from the political considerations of elected law-enforcement officials--are lost in a scattershot barrage of unexplored red herrings (e.g., three sightings of a mysterious ``fat man with a moustache) and dark musings (``persons at the highest levels of power must have guided CBS-TV's decision to show two films on child abuse prior to jury deliberations). The McMartin defendants, evidently treated unfairly by their accusers, have been ill-served once again. (First printing of 30,000) -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.


http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mcmartin_daycare/5.html
quotes from the article exhibiting bias:
The so-called solid medical evidence
Thus began the terrible saga that was to be labeled as America's twentieth-century witch-hunt.
Ray, at 28, was a tall, thin, likeable guy with no particular ambition. He enjoyed working with the children and he was shocked to learn that someone had accused him of child abuse.
Unfortunately, many therapists forced their patients to conjure memories of non-existent child abuse.
The hysteria had fed on itself, facts be damned.
IMO, it is important the the article draws from many sources. These three sources are used in 15 different references.Abuse truth (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

verification letter of Tamarkin article

The article that appears on the Internet (http://) is an exact replication of the print editions published in the July/August and September/October 1994 editions of Treating Abuse Today.

Pamela Perskin Noblitt Managing Editor Treating Abuse Today Abuse truth (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Prosecutor and COI

Note that I am no relation to the prosecutor, regardless of us sharing a surname. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd deMause's journal

Since Lloyd deMause's journal has been discussed no less than five times above, let retrieve a comment of mine that I recently wrote about the subject here:

Many people interested in psychohistory as a serious field of inquiry believe that deMause's big blunder was to include credulous articles about SRA in his journal back in the 1990s. It was a colossal mistake. And you are right again: those credulous SRA articles were not peer-reviewed (I subscribe deMause's Journal of Psychohistory by the way).

—Cesar Tort 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica - RS

I am having trouble with "User:Abuse truth" in Indictment: The McMartin Trial, the film about this case. In that article's talk page I just posted a quotation from the article "Child abuse" of the 2007 Encyclopædia Britannica, in which McMartin is mentioned. Maybe other editors of this page can find the quotation useful:


—Cesar Tort 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we (WIkipedia) do not generally consider Encyclopædia Britannica a WP:RS. Not that it's not reliable, but it's a tertiary source, usually without adequate references to check what is an opinion of the article's editor and what is believed to be fact. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for keeping me informed. —Cesar Tort 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

restoring data deleted by anonymous IP address without reason

I have restored data and refs recently deleted by an anonymous IP address without reason. I also question this recent edit. The quote from the article states: “Wayne Satz, later entered into a romantic relationship with Kee MacFarlane, the social worker at the Children's Institute International.” The wiki quote originally was "Satz later entered into a romantic relationship with Kee MacFarlane..." This was later changed to "Satz later became sexually involved with Kee MacFarlane." The source does not back up "sexually involved," so this is OR. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (previously AT)

deleting OR from phrase

As per above, I have deleted the OR from the Satz phrase and replaced it with the NYT article terminology. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of unrelated coatrack on Michele Remembers

I have deleted part of the addition on MR. This article is not a discussion about MR, but McMartin. And the quality of these sources is poor at best and not RS. Skepdic.com is self published, another source is an opinion piece from the Daily Mail with a courtesy link to the Temple of Set. The Fortean Times is a magazine about paranormal phenomena in Britain. I have also moved the new sentence to the trial section, since it is about the children's testimony. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

I have changed two words as per the wiki guideline above. "We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor (talk • contribs)

SRA

WLU: I believe that Frankfurter and others mention this case as paradigmatic of SRA (remember that black mass in a church that some children claimed they were forced to go?). Inclusion of Satanic ritual abuse in the "See also" section is pertinent. —Cesar Tort 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the reason I removed MMPT from the see also is not because of that, it's because it's embeded in the main text per WP:ALSO. I know very little of McMartin so I don't actually remember a black mass. WLU (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that MMPT should be moved from See Also. But a link to SRA too? —Cesar Tort 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what page we're talking about - SRA and McMartin preschool trial both link to each other in the bodies - MMPT once in Trial, SRA once in History. I would argue that if the case is iconic in the SRA debate (and I think it is) the SRA should have been linked much earlier, possibly in the lead, and its association with SRA expanded greatly. However, given how contentious SRA is in the first place it's something to be done cautiously and with excellent sources. But I've not the time or inclination - I've already read several long and boring books on SRA, I'm disinclined to do the same with McMartin considering it's been quite the exercise in frustration. But in theory I think making the SRA link more explicit on this page is a very appropriate idea. The point of WP:ALSO is that links should be embedded appropriately in the text as part of the body rather than a link in the see also section, wehre you have to argue about if it's supposed to be there and how it's related. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question or not, I'm a bit wiki-bonked. WLU (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh: I forgot that SRA is already linked in main text. In your last edit you removed it (accidentally?) from See also section. I guess it only needs to be mentioned once. —Cesar Tort 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm usually pretty careful about removing an appropriate see also (as SRA is here and MMPT is on SRA) from the see also section without there being a link embedded in the main text. WP:ALSO states that the preference is for appropriate linking in the main body; the see also section is a last ditch resort when the link is appropriate enough to be mentioned but either the editor who added it couldn't think of a good place or way to integrate, or didn't manage to get around to it. WLU (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

PMID = 10740955; PMID = 9648524. WLU (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed section by RE

Retrieved from RE's talk page:

Hi Research Editor,

What you wrote in edit summary of McMartin preschool trial, "deleted as per undue weight - this case is already mention under the legacy section", is no valid reason to remove the new section. I've reinserted it again. Go to discuss to talk page if you want but first please read wp:undue. Thanks. —Cesar Tort 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:UNDUE. This is one recanter out of 360 children that were identified as having been abused. It should not have a whole section, as per WP:UNDUE "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's your OR interpretation of UNDUE. Please remember the orthodox interpretation that WLU has called many times to your attention. I won't repeat it here. —Cesar Tort 04:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an accurate interpretation. This was a minor story years later. It does not deserve a full section. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You've got a rather curious interpretation of UNDUE, that I might call the "argument ex silentio": if only one former McMartin child recants, the others, albeit silently, must still believe they were satanically abused. Right? Very strange interpretation of WP policy. —Cesar Tort 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the recanter's story had a much lower level of prominence than the case itself. To give it an entire section violates the principle of undue weight. And you reverted every single one of my edits, even my deletion of a see also that was included as a reference in the article. Please explain. In fairness to all, we should revert the entire article to before your added section and then discuss a compromise (consensus version). ResearchEditor (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The entire case ended up with no convictions and many, many allegations of improper interviewing techniques. I'd say a recanting, particularly his rational of why he made the initial allegations, is worth writing about. WLU (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent} RE: I had to revert even your removal of John Earl's article in the External links section. Earl's is "a 33-part comprehensive article", as stated in the External links section. The main text of the WP article only links to one or two parts of it. The WP readership should know that a very comprehensive skeptical approach to McMartin is avaliable in internet. —Cesar Tort 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proposed compromise (note that I am dropping several edits from my original edit):
1) I will change: By Spring of 1984, it was claimed that 360 children had been abused.
to - By Spring of 1984, it was asserted that 360 children had been abused.
This is milder than my original edit, and makes it more NPOV with a synonym.
2) change : took photos of minute scarring purportedly caused by anal penetration.
to - took photos of minute scarring alleged to have been caused by anal penetration.
This change is as per "let the facts speak for themselves."
I have changed "purported" to "alleged to have been"
definition from answers.com
purported - commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves
"We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately" The use of "alleged to have been" in this case is more neutral than "purported." It is preferable to let the facts speak for themselves and use the more neutral term "alleged to have been."
3) I have moved the recantor section back to the legacy section, but have included parts of the quotes and all of the recantor's rational as per the suggestion by another user above
"In 2005, newspapers reported that Kyle Zirpolo, one of the McMartin's children retracted his story and said he lied."McMartin Preschool Accuser Recants". DailyBreeze. October 30, 2005. Retrieved 2007-08-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)"I'm Sorry; A long-delayed apology from one of the accusers in the notorious McMartin Pre-School molestation case". Los Angeles Times Magazine. October 30,2005. Retrieved 2007-08-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) As a 29 year-old adult, he stated that "anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for" and that "whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do."
Please do not edit war and simply revert my entire edit, but instead suggest a different version as we move toward consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who is reverting before awaiting to our responses here. I agree that there's a definite place for the recantation. To compromise perhaps it could be placed in a section that discusses skepticism? However, the full quotation by Zirpolo is pertinent. —Cesar Tort 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My edit was a suggested edit toward consensus. I made several compromises in this edit. The last two edits before mine were complete reversions of data without consensus, not respecting the consensus process started on this page. The one simply reverting my compromise version was inappropriate. It will be difficult to achieve consensus and AGF unless this process is respected. Please suggest alternate versions via the talk page and do not simply totally revert edits without comment. The entire quote by Zirpolo is unnecessary and undue weight. The quote from Hechler was added to balance the following quote on the page. He did a lot of research on the case and his book is definitely a RS. If that quote goes, then the next one should also, as there are differing opinions on McMartin. Please suggest compromise versions and do not totally revert. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "My edit was a suggested edit toward consensus. I made several compromises..."
If you want to compromise, I'd suggest to do it in talk before reverting once again. I've explained to you that WP:Undue has nothing to do with your above interpretation ("Zirpolo is unnecessary and undue weight"). I'd leave to WLU the discussion of the quote from Hechler. —Cesar Tort 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You added an entire new section without consensus - part of the process is proposing different ideas - you are simply edit warring if you do not do this and only revert everything I propose. I have again proposed new ideas. Do not simply revert, this is edit warring. I have made several compromises, you need to do so also. I will continue to AGF for now and hope you will stop edit warring. Talbot's quote needs to be balanced for the section to be NPOV, since there are different viewpoints on McMartin. I have attempted to compromise on Hechler with an added statement. Statements made during the trial are also important for the article to have. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My statement is simple - Hechler was published in 1988, two years before the trial concluded. It was presumably written in the year previous. Surely there are far better sources for what is ultimately a statement that the children may have been abused. A statement which is rather tepid and more than a little meaningless. They may not have been abused, they may have flown on airplanes, they may have been the victims of coercive investigation techniques, the entire trial may not have been caused by an overly credulous "Believe the Children" campaign. Even now as sources there are a lot of newspaper articles that post-date the trial, some by as much as a decade. Expand the page using sources that have the benefit of hindsight and more extensive investigations. They should also represent the current consensus best, thus reducing the risk of undue weight on credulous accusations. WLU (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And ResearchEditor has added David Hechler once more... If Hechler's views are common wisdom in the 21st century (and not an obsolete opinion among professionals) finding a better source could be easy. But I'll leave the removal of that (or the finding of a better source) to other editors. —Cesar Tort 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a change for compromise to Hechler, attributing it to the time period it was written in. To achieve consensus, both sides need to work, not just one.
And Arthur Rubin's edit simply reverted my entire revamped edits, because "the other changes are just wrong." This is not a policy based edit. Please do not simply revert an edit without an explanation of each edit reverted. Otherwise this is just edit warring. I will revamp again and hopefully we can come to a version we can all agree upon. It would be helpful to have specific suggestions and not just full reverts. ResearchEditor (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Then make your changes one by one, and they'll get judged one by one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am afraid RE that I have to revert you again... Your "compromise" version is povish and makes the reader think that the tunnles might be real after all ("An excavation was undertaken in May 1990 by Gary Stickel, and he presented that he found evidence of tunnels"). Doesn't it occur to you that it's better just to come to talk insted of pushing in mainspace? Rubin has already stated that the old quotation by Hechler needs to be edited in historical context (after all, which 21st century RS can you point out which agrees with your side?). You just posted in "Multiple personality" article's talk that editors should not write "RE loves to push". But that's exactly what you have been doing since you started to edit under the name of "AbuseTruth": pushing unmercifully the UNDUE side of the debate. I would recommend taking a vacation and, if you want to come back, discuss your editing plans in talk pages instead of just pushing your pov in the articles. That would save us lots of time as well as sysop actions such as protecting the pages. Thanks. —Cesar Tort 15:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA. Remember to comment on content and not the contributor.
If my compromise version doesn't work, then suggest another. Don't simply revert several times. Simply reverting w/o comment or an attempt at compromise and consensus is edit warring. Please stop doing it.
And your edits definitely push a POV, one of extreme skepticism, on all the pages I have seen your edits on. I did edit Hechler's statement and put it in context. There is no need for any editor to take a "vacation," nor a reason for one's edit to suggest this. We all have a right to edit these pages. I have provided good reasons based on wikipedia policy for my edits. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Please read WP:NPA. Remember to comment on content and not the contributor."
Today you have posted something almost identical in your discussion with another editor in the "Multiple personality" page. When the contributor violates policies, it's time to comment on him/her, even in the blocking boards. For instance, you say that my edits are POV. This makes me think that, after months and months of wiki editing, you still can't grasp what does it mean NPOV and UNDUE. Dozens of times it has been explained to you that describing the majority view is pure NPOV. The fact that you can't answer my request of providing 21st century RS which back your position re McMartin demonstrates that the skeptical is the majority position today. You will continue to be reverted in bloc in this page until you accept jpgordon's advise: to discuss point by point your edit plans here in talk page instead of doing several mainspace changes at once. Follow jpgordon's advise. Please. —Cesar Tort 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. It is never time to comment on another editor, we need to comment on content. It has not been proven that there is a majority view on this topic. Edits that back the fact that there is a majority view here are incorrect. Jpgordon suggested that I make the edits one by one and not all on one page, which is a good idea. He did not state where I should make them. Likewise, some of the edits you have made have totally reverted mine, not one by one as he suggested. To state that my edits "will continue to be reverted in bloc" yet other edits may not, could be seen as suggesting edit warring. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"(I) did not state where (you) should make them" -- that's because I assumed in good faith that you would interpret my comment as any reasonably intelligent Wikipedia editor would interpret it: that I was referring to editing the article. You can do whatever you want on the talk page -- in fact, you should. It will stop you from getting reverted en bloc when you make multiple changes in single edits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "It has not been proven that there is a majority view on this topic. "
Then please show us 21st century RSs which state that in McMartin sexual abuse, tunnels and so on were real. At least one (keyword: reliable sources)... Cesar Tort 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

edit procedure

CT, you have made at least ten to fifteen edits on the McMartin page, without asking for talk page comments on them. These include eight edits from the IP address : 189.137.251.191 This is shown by these edits : here and and here. Note, I am not accusing you of anything, simply showing they were your edits. Yet, you consistently ask me to bring everything to talk, stating that it is improper for me to edit the page w/o asking others. This is a double standard and of course unfair. I will start making occasional edits to the page, following policy. Hopefully this will increase dialogue on the talk page.

Also, the word "purported" is IMO not something we should use in wikipedia, since it is bias-laden and as per [2] "We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately." The next sentence answers the allegation with a contrary opinion, so there is balance. I suggest we use the word "reported" instead. Please reply here with a response on this. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't have time this night for any discussion. Just want to ask you not post URLs in edit summary as you just did: "moved as per compromise suggested by CT http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McMartin_preschool_trial&diff=227688081&oldid=227554273 no skepticism section moved to most relevant sect." Thanks. —Cesar Tort 05:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
CT is not required to ask for comment before making changes. RE is, per the AT unblock. Nonetheless, CT's changes seem reasonable, and "purported" is a correct word. If you can find a non-biased word which suggests that the statement has been shown incorrect, go ahead. "Reported" is not accurate in this context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. My unblock states that I should continue to abide by all wikipedia guidelines, like any other editor would. There is no double standard in my unblock.
The word "purported" violates the guideline I cited above. Our language usage is supposed to be "dispassionate," like any encyclopedia.
Also, am confused why you don't want a url in an edit summary. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you don't recall the terms of your unblock, namely that you would discuss major changes before making them. Now, you're announcing the change at 1000 and making it at 1001, which doesn't really strike me as discussing, but this change was not discusses at all.
"Reported" is wrong, and is an incorrect summary of the source. "Purported" is probably best, but "allegedly" or "claimed" (also violating WP:WTA) might be acceptable. We are only reporting HER statement that HER photographs are indications of abuse. A neutral statement to that effect would probably be best. I've made an attempt to clarify.
And CT will have comment on why URLs in edit summaries are bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the language.
The terms of my bloc are cited as that "you will continue abiding by all Wikipedia Policies (five pillars)" which is the same for all wiki users. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
URLs in edit summaries are bad because, unlike this talk page, they can't be turned "blue" and it messes up the very limited space for edit summaries. If you want to post long URLs, please do it in talk with brackets, [1], so that not even here the post is confused with them. —Cesar Tort 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamarkin section discussion

This quote was deleted because "Bizarre allegations - treating abuse today is horribly, horribly POV, unreliable, and gives the impression that buckey had access to Lucas Film studios; NMS explained."

I have restored the quote below pending a discussion here. Even if TAT is POV, what would make it different than using the Eberle's book, which is extremely POV. The Eberle's were alleged to have been child pornographers. Yet they are used as a source on the page. The Tamarkin article BTW is not biased and presents both sides of the case.

"What surprised me as an investigative journalist was that nobody looked beyond the seemingly fanciful nature of the disclosures. Nobody tried to interpret what the disclosures might mean through a child's frame of reference and perception. Nobody searched for plausible explanation....children talked about...improbable events like jumping out of airplanes and seeing a horse killed. Yet, investigators did not track reports that Raymond Buckey had a friend who ran a special effects studio or that Virginia McMartin's sister owned a horse ranch."Tamarkin, Civia (1994). [http:// "Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part I and Part II"]. Treating AbuseToday. Retrieved 2007-12-09. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) ResearchEditor (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "Treating Abuse Today" a reliable publisher? Tamarkin clearly doesn't have independent credentials adequate to make him reliable, otherwise. On the other hand, Prometheus Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of Eberle's credentials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
TAT is a reliable publisher. Many respected researchers have published there. See here. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Treating Abuse Today is a news magazine that seems to assume all child abuse took place. It's not peer-reviewed and I would say it is undue weight to give the idea that the charges against Buckey could have had a factual basis so long as he, using his friend's special effects studio and leaving no evidence, faked the murder of a horse. It's hard to hide blood from murdering a person, let alone beating a horse to death.
The Eberles were not alleged to have been child pornographers; at a time when child pornography was not illegal, they produced pornography which had children in it and sold it in a magazine that was legally available. An ad hominem attack on the authors does not discount the reliability of the publisher (which was confirmed here), the fact that pretty much everyone views McMartin as a gross over-reaction based on faulty interviewing and a lynch mob mentality, and that none of the parties involved were convicted despite two trials and seven years of investigations and arguments. The Eberles sat in on the entire 7 years of trials and saw even more evidence than the jury did, and wrote a book about it which was published by a well-regarded publisher. Since the entire contents of the book is about the page we're discussing, and supports the mainstream interpretation that McMartin was a witchhunt, perhaps the page should rely on it quite heavily. In addition, since Judy Johnson was schizophrenic, in the middle of a breakdown and obsessed with her son's anus, and since her son was non-verbal and she did most of the talking for him, it's a bit of a stretch to give credence to the statement "Asked who was responsible, the toddler said "Mr. Ray"." Johnson filtered (more accurately, spoke for) everything her son said, and when asked and sufficiently verbal her son repeatedly accused his father of the abuse, not Ray Buckey. Nobody at Treating Abuse Today seemed to read any of the criticisms of the interviewing techniques, including a peer-reviewed journal article stating that CII's interviewing techniques were "substantially more effective than simple suggestive questions at inducing preschool children to make false allegations against a classroom visitor."
The raw results of a google scholar search proves quite literally nothing, the only conclusion that can be drawn from that search is that the words "treating" "abuse" and "today" appeared in scholarly journals 134,000 times. When the specific phrase "Treating Abuse Today" are searched for, the results are quite different [3], and even then it's only showing that google scholar can find the magazine. It also finds Psychology Today, Scientific American and The New York Times. ResearchEditor, why would our conclusions be different from the first time this was dealt with?
Placing weight on the idea that Ray Buckey was guilty and somehow got away with his crimes is undue weight and this is yet more of an example of ResearchEditor's ongoing POV-push for which s/he is banned on satanic ritual abuse. WLU (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pedo" ad hominem accusations

About the Eberles, may I remind you that one of my wiki-hobbies is to collect pedophile ad hominems and other editors' responses? Like this one:


There's no way that a RS such as Prometheus Books will be out because of these sort of ad hominem accusations. —Cesar Tort 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You got some weird hobbies man :P Since PB is such a reliable publisher and since it's a whole book, basing much of the page in it seems appropriate. I wouldn't mind reading another book, ideally a critical one, that focused on the McMartin trial. Know of any? WLU (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I printed and read this 33-part comprehensive "article" —a book in fact, as you'll see once you get it all printed. If the IPT journal is not a RS however (why not?), we can use the authors' citations/refs. anyway. Cesar Tort 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
IPT is one of those weird cases of perhaps reliable. I'd only venture that it's somewhat reliable because it supports the mainstream interpretation of McMartin, but I'd much rather use other sources if possible. Otherwise it's like the J of PH, one editor and no peer review panel (I think). WLU (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
To grasp emotionally what happened with the poor McMartin family, don't miss non-RS Indictment: The McMartin Trial. —Cesar Tort 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good call, I'm going to add it to my list of movies to watch. WLU (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathan & Snedeker

Hola,

Anyone watching the page can see that I'm dumping a lot of info from N&S on this and the SRA page today - the book needs to go back to the library soon and I'm finally making the time to add the info I've earmarked to the page. I don't mind it being removed, ideally I'd like it moved to the most appropriate spot/page. For the most part I'm pretty sure that it's a valid addition, but for some it's borderline CFORKing. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

tags put in top of article

This article is an unbalanced presentation on the topic. It ignores reliable sources and draws conclusions only from a few. Looking for an expert with a more balanced opinion look at the article. Extrabreeze (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I've removed the tags. There is no such thing as an "expert" on the McMartin trial, and you've given no rational explanation for your neutrality concerns. Explain what the problem is, or the tags should stay off. (IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for tagging, though.) S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here’s the reason. The article is written primarily from the view of two writers, Nathan and Eberle, neither of which are scholars on any topic. Nathan is a reporter and Eberle is an alleged child pornographer. And their bias is well known in the field. There are next to no scholarly references cited in the article. The Tunnel section is a good example of the lack of balance in the article. There is only one sentence about the original tunnel report. The rest of the section attacks the report. There are also several large and verbose quotes giving undue weight creating further imbalances. There must be someone in wikipedia that can look at the data in an unbiased manner and write a more balanced article. I am restoring the tags, since I now clearly explained the problem. Extrabreeze (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no credible scholarly sources on the subject. Eberle is probably among the best, as the publisher is considered reliable.
  • The tunnel issue is a good example of proper weighting. We mention one study found "tunnels", later discredited by another two other studies. We fail to mention that there is expert testimony at the trial that the tunnels could not have been constructed without detection and that the only at-all-credible evidence for the tunnels is the children's testimony. (We do mention that the children's testimony is generally considered not to be credible.)
Again, assuming good faith, if you go through the article history, and come up with a new issue, or believe that the consensus on the old issues has changed, go ahead and bring it up. You haven't yet said anything which hasn't been rejected by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "It ignores reliable sources"

A newbie talking about RS? I had to spend quite a while in WP before grasping the subject!

  • "There must be someone in wikipedia that can look at the data" (my bold-type)

Oh boy!: this is the very word that User:Abuse truth, also known as User:ResearchEditor, used hundreds of times before he was banned for six months. I would recommend an IP check. —Cesar Tort 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just do a search on the word "data" in this very talk page and you will see my point. —Cesar Tort 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the word data means I am someone else. I thought that when someone tagged the article, it was supposed to stay until the dispute is resolved, as the message says. Extrabreeze (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen another editor using the word "data" in such a way in WP. Anyway, your knowledge of WP policies makes it obvious that you have edited under another name before. —Cesar Tort 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
And now we have still another newcomer who uses that word in an edit summary and in his very first edit in WP he, like the more mature wikipedians, uses the edit summary option and even clicks on the "This is a minor edit" square. This "newbie" has started to edit the SRA article—Cesar Tort 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Eberle is used because it is an entire book on the subject, by two individuals who sat in on the entire trial and saw testimony, arguments and evidence that the jurors did not see. They seem to be a good pair of sources. The reliability comes from the book's publisher, not the individual authors - since Prometheus Books is the publisher, and it is a reliable one, it is an appropriate source. Many of the uses of Eberle are to justify basic information for what happened during the trial. Since again it is essentially a first-hand review of the trial by two observers, it seems an appropriate source. Basic Books also seems to be a reliable publisher. Neither preclude the addition of other reliable sources. If there are other reliable sources that can be drawn upon, then that is fine. The expert subject was also inappropriate since the article is not about a psychology topic (it's about a court case). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

This sounds like a non sequitor, since the "manner alleged" isn't mentioned at all in the article. This isn't mentioned in any other source, and for most facts in this article we have two sources, and sometimes three, since it has been so divisive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC) "The allegation ignored the fact that sexual abuse of a three-year-old in the manner alleged would have resulted in fatal injuries."[4]

It's mentioned in the book, and is yet another statement pointing to the dubious nature of the allegations. I'd like to re-integrate it if possible, perhaps as something like "sodomy of a three year old by an adult would have resulted in fatal injuries". WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvard vs. standard citation

I switched one of the Eberle citations to a Harvard type reference. If all are switched it will allow the 8 references to the book to appear as one line in the reference section. Take a peek and comment before I switch more, it cuts out a lot of redundancy and still preserves the page numbers. We will still have two different entries for the book, but it will cut it down from the 9 or so that appear now. Let me know what you think. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Take a look at the handsome way that Mesoamerica editors do it, for instance in this article I heavily edited. Cheers. —Cesar Tort 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jailhouse informants

One of the legacies of Mcmartin was, if I remember correctly, reduced use of jailhouse informants and the creation of restrictions on their testimony. I think I read it in Abuse of Innocence and Satan's silence, but that was a while ago. Ring any bells for anyone else? I don't know if McMartin was the inciting case or it was one of many, but I vaguely recall that there was a big scandal at the time that resulted in the prohibition of testimony from said informants. Apparently prosecution attorneys had networks of informants that were well-known and rewarded for fabricating confessions of inmates. Ring any bells? Worth putting in? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard of it here in Mexico. However, now that you have started to switch to Harvard refs. in SRA article, perhaps you might want to click on here to see a handome approach to those kind of refs. Those Mesoamerican guys have got several FArticles. If one of these SRA articles ever reaches a good or feature state, when You Know Who is back these articles may well be untouchable... Cesar Tort 22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cult and Ritual Abuse - It’s History, Anthropolgy, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America - Noblitt and Perskin Prager, (2000)
  2. ^ Tamarkin, Civia (1994). [http:// "Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part I and Part II"]. Treating Abuse Today. Retrieved December 9, 2007. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference cl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ 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. 73. ISBN 0-465-07180-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McMartin_preschool_trial/Archive_1&oldid=1041466481"