Jump to content

Talk:Capturing the Friedmans

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

Where are they now?

[edit]

From reading the article, I can't find out whether Friedman, the Friedman who is the brother of Jesse and the son of Arnold, is accused of being a pedophile or not. It's a bad idea to identify one person by last name when he shares it with two other men!158.38.66.123 16:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesse Friedman voluntarily pled guilty to numerous charges of sexual abuse after his father also chose to plead guilty rather than stand trial. Had he chose to go through with a trial, Jesse was facing possibly the rest of his life in prison. He worked out an advantagious plea bargain that included an admission of guilt as well as a confession that his father had molested him. he made these statements under oath. Jesse Friedman served 13 years in State Prison and has since been released. He has now recanted his admission of guilt and is seeking a new hearing of his case based on popular sympathy for his case generated by the film. He is reported to be attending Hunter College and finds having to comply with Meghan's law annoying. He maintains his previous statements under oath as to his guilt were not truthful.
David Friedman, the oldest brother, has changed his name to David Kaye was NOT ever accused of being a pedophile. He works as a child's Birthday Clown called "Silly Billy" in New York City. In light of his family history, some people find his work with children troubling. It should be noted that David had been involved in stage magic since long before his father and brother's cases came about. Still, some people find his hostile clown character disconcerting after seeing the footage of his rages in the film. His business is still thriving and he maintains a website here:

Silly Billy

The middle brother, Seth, was also never accused of any wrongdoing and declined participation in the film. Neither David nor Seth speak to their mother elaine who has since remarried.

172.148.61.130 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Capturing the friedmans dvd cover.jpg

[edit]

Image:Capturing the friedmans dvd cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Life Insurance?"

[edit]
Arnold Friedman committed suicide in 1995, leaving a $250,000 life insurance benefit to his son.

I thought life insurance policies didn't cover suicides, how could this occur? Tyciol 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film doesn't go into specifics (and since it's in the plot section, we probably don't need to worry about it) Begeun (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, at least one of my life insurance policies covers death from any cause, including suicide, after the policy has been in effect for 2 years. It doesn't seem that implausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you pay attention to the movie you'll learn that Arnold's policy allowed payment for suicide if committed AFTER a set number of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the previous comment. I just watched the film again last night (4 Jan 2010) on ABC Channel 2 Tv (Australia). The film explicitly says that the policy excluded suicide in the first 2 years (from memory) but not thereafter. And the film also said that he suicided with an overdose of antidepressants. All this should be in the article IMO. 203.122.223.121 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, life insurance policies become incontestable due to fraud or suicide after two years. As long as the premiums have been paid and the original owner had good insurable interest, the carrier has to pay out. Uucp (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion of ELs to page

[edit]

Recently these three ELs were deleted:

for the reason: "only marginally reliable or relevant"

The Leadership Council is shown to be a reliable source by their board at : http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/about.html This board includes many of the top names in the field. The relevancy is that the site is a large annotated bibliography of articles about the movie.

The second site lists a variety of proven facts about the movie.

The third site lists their board at : http://theawarenesscenter.org/board.html with a number of experts in the field of child abuse. The relevancy of the site is that it lists 60 or more articles on the movie and the case. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leadership Council has been shown to be an unreliable source, both as to being biased, and to misquoting its sources. You've been misinterpreting consensus again.
The AOL "site" is a personal site, showing "facts" about the movie. Its reliability cannot be confirmed (or denied)
The third site is plausible. I'd like to believe that, being Jewish myself, that a Jewish center could put truth above getting the desired result. However, the board, although it may include "many of the top names in field", it also includes people whose qualification is stated as "survivor of clergy abuse". I think more evidence would be required before it could be considered acceptable.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the AOL cite. I am confused about the statement above about consensus. I didn't mention consensus. At WP:ELNO - Links normally to be avoided, there is no statement about bias. And I have not seen an example of the Leadership Council misquoting a source. Please cite one. At the awarenesscenter site 12 of the 19 professionals listed are not survivors of child abuse.
This is what others have said about the Leadership Council on wikipedia:
from Recovered Memory Therapy talk in regard to the Leadership Council:
Hm. The board members does look pretty notable. Was there anywhere you thought the link should be added? We'll have to be careful how it's used but given that level of expertise, it could definitely be used for citing some basic info. WLU (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I support acceptance of the Leadership Council as a reliable source, after reviewing their site. I agree that it's prefereable to cite the original sources when available. In general, I don't see any reason not to cite Leadership Council when their information is relevant. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
from repressed memory talk
My apologies. That suggests reliablility, although still indicates a clear bias in favor of the accusers, rather than the accused, regardless of accuracy. Their name must remain in the site, rather than being an unadorned title, until a full citation template can be added. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will be re-adding the two sites to the article as ELs, deleting the third as a compromise. If this compromise doesn't work, we could look into a WP:3O or a WP:RFC. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should provide a better justification for the Awareness Center. Any board members whose qualifcation is "survivor of clergy abuse" makes the organization clearly non-professional. Without a sign of peer-review, I think it falls below the level of reliablility required for an WP:EL, especially in an article which relates to the real people depicted in the film. Considering that this does refer to real people, unreliable sources in ELs become questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point above about the Awareness Center. There are two criteria from WP:EL that could apply here:
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The first criteria appears to apply to the Awareness Center site, since it is predominately large newspaper articles or court documents. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Read this here 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "recent developments" from intro paragraph

[edit]

More than half of the introductory section concerned later legal developments in the Friedmans' legal case, which is only marginally relevant to this article. That material is better suited to the article about the Friedmans' trial itself, not the article about this documentary. If there is no such article yet (I haven't checked) then feel free to create one. But again, this article is about the film, not the case, so please keep that in mind when making edits here.--Xiaphias (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I would go further and remove the recent developments section altogether - this article should be about the film and matters explicitly dealt with by the film. If there is an article about the case it could be moved there. --81.23.54.142 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capturing the Friedmans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capturing_the_Friedmans&oldid=1199937085"