Talk:Country Walk case

}

Copy from Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria

An alternative view on Country Walk can be found at http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-2010fall-s01/files/2010/12/Country_Walk_Myths.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.111.98 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned, although I seem to recall that particular journal has been shown to be sufficiently biased as to be probably unreliable. Still, it is an alternative view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that in the links section. DougHill (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, an eye opener. Zezen (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Dated link list

Some years ago I put together a link list of Country Walk case articles then available on the internet. Perhaps some other editors might also find it useful to researching this case. DougHill (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

@Jpgordon: You removed the infobox, but I don't see why. As I read MOS:INFOBOX, I don't see any reason it should not be included. It lets the reader quickly see find some information about the TV-movie based on this case, which is an important part of the story. But if it violates policy, then it should be removed. So let's follow WP:BRD, so I'll restore it and let's discuss it here. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense that it be there at all. This is an article about a sex abuse hysteria case, not an article about a TV movie that's not even notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article (just the redirect you created to this section). All we need here is a section called "Media representations" and a mention of the book and the movie. Also, infoboxes in general are for the main subject of an article; sometimes, like for songs that have significant recordings from multiple artists, each might have an infobox. But I don't see any infoboxes for things like this in other sorts of articles; for example, McMartin preschool trial simply lists two movies, with a redlink for the one without an article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Unspeakable Acts received significant coverage (as cited on the page), so that it could have its own page. (As the related TV-movie Forgotten Sins does.) If editors do create such a page, then the infobox should move there. Of course the McMartin preschool trial is an apt comparison. Of the movies there, Indictment: The McMartin Trial has its own page with its own infobox, and the page does cite significant coverage of Uncovered: The McMartin Family Trials. DougHill (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

So make the page. There's still no stylistic need for an infobox in this article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And no good reason to remove it. Would any other editors like to weigh in and break this impasse? DougHill (talk)

I don't see a problem with the infobox being here at all, since it is within the section on the movie and the movie doesn't have it's own article. This isn't all that common, but not unique either. MB 03:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish sources?

Miami's Spanish language press must have covered this case, but the only reference I can find online is [1]. (This source apparently once included an interview with Fuster.) There ought to be more, but my Spanish is very limited. Are any other editors able to find more WP:RS in Spanish? DougHill (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)