Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)

Archive 1 (8 May 2006)

Quotes vs Paraphrases

I am under the impression that a quote must be exact, and text within " " must include all original grammar etc. Any editorial changes are by convention indicated within [ ]. There are good reasons for this, not least being the modern practice of pasting strings into search engines. So I will continue reverting any changes I find to quotes. Richard 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis

This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature of the case. Cheers --Midnighttonight 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance at more than a cursory look so far, but the short third paragraph bothers me. If he was not homosexual, would that paragraph be there saying he is heterosexual. No, of course not. Is it able to be interpreted as saying hey, he is homosexual and a lot of the complainants were girls, so........? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)

A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused. It seems to be pushing a POV that Ellis didn't do it. There is little focus on the evidence that convicted him without it being a focus on why that evidence is wrong. The evidence for the defence is, however, given no qualifications and treated as fact. There is a POV being pushed in that article. --210.86.75.96 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

also needs to have more internal links. --210.86.75.96 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put more in, but its not exactly the sort of article that lends itself to this. PageantUpdater 04:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree a lot of the article seems to deny that children were abused. That opinion is widely held throughout NZ, but that point is not developed enough in the article, so it comes across as being the opinion of Wikipedi (which I don't think was the intention). Moriori 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph on his sexuality down into "Early life" and expanded it. I think any biographical article should deal with the subject's acknowledged sexuality. No implication or connection of this paragraph with the Civic Creche case is intended. It's quite possible that some people will have been prejudiced against Ellis due to his sexuality, but this is unprovable.-gadfium 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a potentially controversial article and uses a lot of primary source information, direct quotes should be explicitly referenced. The lead is a bit short, it really should summarise the content of the article, and I don't think that it is necessary to state he is a homosexual in the lead, unless it is placed within some sort of context. Using some ===h3=== to better group together content may be a good idea. And I agree, the article does seem to be skewed toward the innocence POV.--nixie 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused". Really? Please show where. As a matter of fact, nobody except Peter Ellis and God knows if children were abused. The case is ongoing. At the bottom of the article, there is reference to a Privy Council appeal. What if Ellis wins that appeal? Will the whole article need to be re-written? I should hope not. 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

OK, fair enough about "deny", but how about "infers innocence/unfair trial" rather that denial. Here's one example -- "Karen Zelas, testified at trial that there are behavioural factors, which the crèche complainants allegedly exhibited". Allegedly?. I'll eat my hat if Zelas didn't say the children exhibited certain behaviour instead of they allegedly exhibited certain behaviour. There's a subtle distinction. Moriori 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)>

I think you misinterpret that sentence. I'm saying that Zelas testified that there are certain behaviours that are consistent with sexual abuse. I also say that these behaviours were allegedly exhibited by the complainants. I cannot say (and I don't think Zelas did either) that they were exhibited because I (and Zelas) weren't there. None of us were present when these behaviours were allegedly displayed. Only the children and their parents can address this issue and the parents alleged that the behaviours were displayed. We don't know that they were actually exhibited.

I think we'd be better off focusing on the facts rather than getting caught up in inferring innocence or guilt. If there are facts that anyone is unhappy with or simply think are wrong, then say what they are. 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

I concede to meet you half way on the misinterpret bit. But, in the context of that whole paragraph it could most definitely be interpreted to mean Zelas said the complainants exhibited symptoms. It is difficult to see exactly who is making statements. For instance, look at the following -- "Le Page said that in his experience, children and adults who had been abused usually expressed distress when they recounted their experiences of abuse. Apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews. Who said the complainants apparently showed little or no distress? Le Page or Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is saying this, how is the word apparently justified? Moriori 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that apparently shouldn't be used by wikipedia. Are there any other words that you don't think are appropriate? I don't see any problem with apparently. I don't think Le Page said that the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews (if he had, I would've tried to quote him). But from my reading of some of the transcripts, and from my reading of Le Page's testimony, I think it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress. BTW, I don't recall Karen Zelas saying that the kids were distressed. Seeing as she was the prosecution's expert witness, I imagine she would have highlighted any distress from the kids. 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~ User:NZ researcher

The crux. You say you think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is blatant POV opinion. Also, I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV. Moriori 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the use of 'apparently' either. The observation is nevertheless correct, thank you (Moriori) for pointing it out, I shall try to find time to find a cite in Eichelbaum's report or trial record. then it can be categorically said "the children showed little or no distress" I recall Louise Sas tried to expailn away the Bander child's lack of emotion while he detailed horrific satanic abuse, perhaps that will do? Richard 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:NZ researcher has done a lot of edits in the article I see. S/he clearly has a POV and is pushing it. The article is, at the moment, still showing this POV. Neutral language and equal weighting is needed. At the moment, it doesn't have it. Furthermore, these peer reviews are for editors unrelated to the article's creation to discuss it and to recommend changes. User:NZ researcher, people are trying to help the article, don't throw it back into their faces.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.22.18.241 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment is unsigned. The last time another writer made similar comments they went on to vandalise the article. There is a fundamental problem with reporting on the case. Those unfamiliar with its history seem to be asking why was he convicted, implying that sort of evidence isn't highlighted. In reality the conviction wasn't a result of any credible evidence, it was a result of a myriad of social and circumstantial factors that many analysts have since recognised as a describing a witch hunt. So, what was he convicted upon? Good examples have already been supplied - they are in essence children's stories, digging up Jesus, killing all the boys with axes etc. Mingled within were credible allegations 'he did poos in the bath' (scatological content featured prominently) and others that the adult interpreters coaxed out and then sifted (through arguable means) in order to create a case. Allied with that were parental anxieties about behaviours falling within perfectly ordinary range of childhood behaviours, behaviours that would be remarkable if they didn't occur in such a sample size. That's basically it. Let me repeat, the so called 'toddler testimonies' are IT in terms of evidence. The article just records the resultant fall out. Some of the language may be tweaked but the facts are facts. Those who feel something has been left out are welcome to research such and include it. That doesn't make the existent fact POV. Richard 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An unsigned user wants neutral language and equal weighting. Well, who is stopping that person from doing just that if they feel offended by the article? I have tried to use neutral language and to give plenty of weight to both sides. A claim has been made but no evidence is provided to support it. If anyone has a problem with the language used, feel free to say what it is. Vagueness is not helpful. 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Moriori, yes, I do think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is not POV at all. I have explained why it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress, an explanation which you haven't contested. If it is not apparent to you that the kids showed little or no distress, please explain why. But as it currently stands, you seem to want to ban apparently from Wikipedia and I find that truly astonishing. 21:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Once again, YOU say that YOU think something is apparent. That is clearly your POV. Had it been stated in evidence or summing up that it was apparent the children showed little or no distress then of course we could use it, by quoting the person/s who said so. Until we can do that your personal opinion has no place in Wiki. I'm beginning to suspect you are a politician, because they are known to express astonishment at things that exist only in their minds. Like you. For the second time, "I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV". But you already knew that, because it is the exact information you were given a few pars above this one. Moriori 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already quoted Le Page who said that in his experience children would show distress when describing being sexually abused. He implied that the complainansts didn't exhibit any distress. Have you read any of the transcripts? It is apparent to me and probably others, that from reading those transcripts, the children are not distressed. It has got nothing to do with my personal opinion and everything to do with facts. If you can refute these facts, please do so. And where exactly do I attribute apparent to anyone? If Le Page had said apparent, I would've quoted him. He didn't, so I haven't. By all means remove apparent if it bothers you so much, but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by doing this. 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Goodness gracious me! Le Page implied the complainants didn't exhibit distress? What? Here's a quote from the article, attributed to LePage -- ".........there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned. Got that? LePage says they showed distress when questioned. But then, only four sentences further down, Wikipedia states - "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." Has the penny dropped yet? Wikipedia is contradicting a statement made by the defence expert. That whole sentence needs the axe. Moriori 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good gracious is right, you're like a dog with a bone! You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, yet you claim to know what he said and what he meant. Le Page was talking about when the children were being interviewed by their parents. Some parents said their children were uptight or had behavioural problems, but these alleged problems occurred when the kids were questioned by their parents, not before. Despite the fact that children were allegedly being urinated and defecated on, they showed no "evident stress". Le Page said that if the children's behaviour was out of the ordinary (and we don't know that it was), that could be due to a whole lot of reasons. When the children were formally interviewed, which is the only factual record of what the children were asked, they apparently showed no signs of distress when describing horrific acts of abuse. That's why we should use apparently, because although it seems there was no distress, we cannot say it as a matter of fact. 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Please don't debate the issues on this page. Commnents on the article should be directed towards improvement which can be made to it. If you feel a comment is unjustified, then add a very brief reply suggesting the discussion be pursued at Talk:Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.-gadfium 06:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This should be debated elsewhere and I should be ashamed of myself. However, as this is the peer review page where editors will come to review the article, I must point out something they should know about the content of this article. Following my last post above (at 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)), User:NZ researcher removed from the article "there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned". That was a quote of evidence given by Le Page, the defence expert, saying the children were distressed when questioned. It was chopped because it is contradicted by the POV opinion of an editor/s in the article which says "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." The expert's verbatim quoted testimony gets chopped, an editor's POV rules. Sheesh. You gotta fear for Wikipedia. Moriori 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no ojection to the wording Moriori added. In fact I think it highly relevant. Put it back in. Richard 11:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Avenue 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, you are wrong. Le Page didn't say the children were distressed when questioned. If you can show that the complainants showed distress during their formal interviews or at trial, please do so but so far you haven't been able to. You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, so I suggest you don't comment until you've read it. BTW, who was the person who originally inserted the quote that was chopped? Me!!! So much for POV. 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Sexuality

I added the following paragraph, as an expansion of the original one-line para which said "Ellis is openly homosexual", to the "Early life" section. User:NZ researcher removed it with the edit comment "last para removed because I don't think particulary relevant. Ellis' homosexuality is mentioned later in article".

Prior to his imprisonment, Ellis had sexual relationships lasting for periods of two to five years with both men and women. He told Lynley Hood "In a relationship with a woman I was, for want of a better word, bisexual, and with a man I was monogamous". When working for the Civic Creche, Ellis was described by Hood as "blatently homosexual. He had long hair, long fingernails, and rings on almost every finger. He walked with a mincing gait. He had a sharp tongue and an outrageous sense of humour".

As I said in the Peer review, I think the article should be trying to cover more about Ellis' life than just the Civic Creche case, and I think this paragraph is entirely appropriate, although perhaps "Early life" isn't the most appropriate section title. That is currently the only section of the article which isn't about the Civic Creche case.-gadfium 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of Ellis' sexuality and whether he walks with a mincing gait. I doubt we'd see articles talking about heterosexuals in the same way. The fact that he is homosexual, as well as what sexual comments he is alleged to have made, are already mentioned (in context) in the article. I think few readers would want to know Ellis' life story. I understand that since leaving prison, Ellis has had a heart attack. Maybe some details could be added about his time since his release from prison, but I don't think we should devote much space to it. 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

User:NZ researcher deleted gadfium's version; I have restored it pending further discussion here.

Personally, I feel that his behaviour at the Creche is very relevant and should be mentioned before the details of appeals, inquiries etc. Many other commentators (e.g. Hood) seem to think it's relevant too. I'm not so sure about whether we need to cover exactly when he was bisexual and when monogamous. -- Avenue 04:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps NZ researcher sees this as an article primarily about the Christchurch Civic Creche case, whereas I see it as an article about Peter Ellis. A similar debate arose earlier today at the Helen Clark article about whether a photo of her taken long before she became notable was worth including in the article. I said it was, because the article was on the person, not on the current Prime Minister (although I didn't put it in those terms in that debate).

The exact details of the paragraph are open to rewrites. I expanded that paragraph as I did because the bare one line paragraph was criticised in the peer review, and the quotes from Ellis and Hood seemed a reasonable summary.

I was planning to also add a paragraph on Ellis' excess consumption of alcohol in the years leading up to his employment at the creche, and perhaps a paragraph about staff criticism of him for being reluctant to take part in the toileting of children. The purpose of these paragraphs would be to fill out more of a description of him as a person, and not to lead in to the case. If it turned out that he was the Canterbury Chess Club champion, I'd add that too. If others involved in this article think it should largely restrict itself to the case, then I won't bother writing these paragraphs.-gadfium 06:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should cover Ellis' life beyond the case, but personally I wouldn't want to include details of his sex life unless it was potentially relevant to the case or otherwise notable somehow.

There are a few news reports on Ellis' heart attack at the bottom of this page.[1] -- Avenue 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was seeing reports of his heart attack over a year ago that made me write myself a mental note "must get a wikipedia article on him" over a year ago. Eventually I added the article request to Portal:New Zealand/Opentask, and then I looked at that to get ideas for NZCOTF!-gadfium 09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the paragraph. Just don't like it. Don't think it relevant if he was polygamous or monogamous, that's invasion of his privacy. That he was homosexual is OK to mention because it might explain why some singled him out, the rest is simply a tad tabloid. Richard 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is almost entirely quotes from his biography. The bit you're objecting to is a quote from him. How is that invasion of his privacy? Anyway, feel free to suggest a better wording.-gadfium 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the paragraph at all. It is exclusively about Ellis' sexuality. Should we include a similar paragraph about Helen Clark, including comments by some that her marriage is one of convenience? Even though I'm no fan of hers, I would strongly resist inclusion of such material. It is tawdry and serves no real purpose. Would you expect to see such material in an encyclopaedia? 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

As it happens, there is currently a debate at Talk:Helen Clark on precisely that point (whether we should report on comments about her marriage). I personally think it should be reported on there. I don't see covering it as tawdry, but rather as useful background on the compromises she may have made to become a politician, and on how conservative the NZ public was in those days. -- Avenue 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the Clark article and thought it very poor. What does it relate? the bare facts of her career, a sly dig at her sexuality and then the paragraph about so-called "scandals" (give us a break <groan>). Just the sort of thing Kenneth Starr, special prosecutor, would have written. Richard 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced "Early life" with "Personal" and have included mention of his heart attack. I have also excluded paragraph about his sexuality. 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Well, Helen Clark has said that she didn't want to get married and that was a compromise but I fail to see how a person's sexuality is relevant. Anyway, Ellis' sexuality is referred to later in the context of a child who is explaining why she believes Ellis was convicted. I don't think we need to go beyond that. 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Nominations for ministerial inquiry

Avenue has said that Karen Saywitz was selected but refused. Don't you mean she was nominated? Many experts were nominated. Amye Warren, a suggestibility researcher, says she was approached by the Justice Ministry and after giving the ministry a copy of her CV, she didn't receive a reply. Should that be included? 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

No, I didn't mean Saywitz was only nominated. I meant Eichelbaum selected her as an expert ahead of Louise Sas. These two letters [2] [3] show that Eichelbaum was seriously pursuing Saywitz's involvement as an expert, and only turned to Sas in response to Saywitz turning hm down. NZ researcher has twice reverted my version, which said "Only two of the selected experts agreed to provide opinions", to simply say "Two experts were selected". So our article now says that only two experts were selected, Davies and Sas, and criticises Eichelman for not considering others. In light of the above facts, I believe this is misleading. -- Avenue 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's a fact that Eichelbaum selected only two experts, but his terms of reference allowed him to select more than two. Remember the budget for the inquiry was $500,000 but less than a third of that was spent. So Eichelbaum could have selected a dozen experts if he'd wanted two. Why he selected only two, including a child advocate who believed in satanic ritual abuse, can be debated. I'm sure that Eichelbaum did consider other experts but we don't know why some of them were rejected. Debra Ann Poole was second on Val Sim's list of three, but wasn't selected. There is no indication that Poole was unavailable. Do we conclude that Eichelbaum didn't like her "profile" and "research direction"? BTW, the article doesn't criticise Eichelbaum for not considering other experts. It simply says that many of the world's leading experts were overlooked. 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

I agree there isn't a passage directly critising his not considering other experts, but I think there is clearly an implicit criticism. We start the paragraph by saying that "at least two internationally recognised experts (if possible with experience in mass allegation child sexual abuse)" were required, go into Sim's involvement, and later note that one of the two experts selected (Sas) did not have experience with mass allegations. I agree some criticism of the selection of experts is warranted (both of the outcome and the process), and your point about why only two were selected is a good one (although "appointed" would be more accurate than "selected"). However I believe that our current version is too strong, because we emphasise Sas's lack of experience, but the reader would have no idea that Eichelbaum selected someone else ahead of Sas and that Sas was a last-minute substitute. -- Avenue 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact that Sas didn't (and doesn't) have experience in mass allegation creche cases. Given the vast number of experts, especially in North America, that do have experience in mass allegation creche cases, I don't think it would have been difficult for Sim to appoint someone with such experience. However, Sim, in deciding to reject Ceci's nomination, needed a reason (or excuse) and this reason (and others) caused potentially dozens of experts to be ineligible. As for Sas being a last-minute substitute, we don't know that that was the case. We know that other experts were nominated. For example, Kim Oates, Debra Poole, Amye Warren, James Woods were all nominated. Warren says she has no idea why she was rejected. We don't know why the others were rejected. Eichelbaum may have been thinking of appointing Sas for some time. I don't believe anyone was selected ahead of Sas, although Debra Poole was second on Sim's list and we don't know why Poole was rejected. If you're talking about Saywitz, Eichelbaum was simply wanting to know if she was available. She wasn't. 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

I have no argument with the statement about Sas's experience. However the letters clearly indicate that Sas was only approached as a result of Saywitz being unavailable. This seems highly relevant to any judgement about the selection of experts, but our passage says nothing about this. How about this: instead of saying "Two experts were selected: ...", replace this with "Other experts were approached but were not available. Two experts were eventually appointed: ...". -- Avenue 23:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, some where unavailble. Some were available. Not withstanding, the appointment of Sas raises many questions. OI Act requests for illumination as to how her name arose have been fruitless. MOJ state that they don't know where/when her name came into consideration. I hazard a guess from Eichelbaum's general knowledge of subject matter that it didn't arise from him. It is of interest that Loiuse Sas had prior knowledge of case via personal interaction with Wendy Ball, friend of Sally Ruth, who laid the first complaint. No charges arose from that complaint, (Ruth's name is not subject to suppression orders, although writers involved with the case have thus far not named her, her name appears in Appeal Court rulings and in Williamson's oral judgments, possibly elsewhere as well). Ball has also taken on the role of complainant spokesperson (search News reports Ellis site). Ball attended and analysed aspects of the Ellis case at a conference in 1997 in Canada (Second International Conference on Children Exposed to Family Violence, held in London (Ontario)). Sas was on speaker's platform with Ball at very same workshop)

I think the wording ought to be "other experts were approached but not all were available....". Richard 07:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that only two experts were appointed but more could have been appointed if Eichelbaum had wanted. It's also a fact that Sas's selection was inappropriate given that better qualified experts were available. 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

POV tag

I put on the POV tag. The peer review (included above) gives a description of the problem. Do not remove the tag until there is a consensus that the article is no longer POV. --Midnighttonight 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise! You have had clear opportunity to address any POV statements in the article yet you haven't moved at all to do so, not one iota. Instead you unilaterally decide to dispute the article. Your action does not impress.Richard 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some specifics would be good. And those who complain have the opportunity to correct any perceived bias by editing the article, so I really don't see what the problem is. 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) NZ Researcher

---

I've removed a comment about the NPOV tag from the article. We do not need consensus that the article is POV before an editor can place the tag. Midnighttonight has every right to place the tag. Such a tag needs justification, and Midnight (I hope you don't mind me calling you that) has pointed to the peer review discussion, which I agree is adequate justification.

What happens now is that people continue to edit the article, and can from time to time (within reason) ask Midnight if his/her concerns have been met, and if they have not been met, to restate them in light of subsequent edits. It's reasonable to expect him/her to also edit the article to reduce any POV. If there's a strong feeling amongst the majority of editors that the NPOV tag is not warranted but one person insists on keeping it, then there are various dispute procedures that can be used. We certainly do not require such procedures at this point.-gadfium 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

New readers of this discussion ought to know two things about the placement of the NPOV tag. The dispute is not about fact. The ‘disputer’ has yet to specify any errors of fact. So the dispute must be over presentation and perceived imbalance. When considering this dispute it is essential to remember that Wiki guidelines acknowledge that articles do not have to give equal weight to all opinion. Merely because the weight of evidence presented tends toward a certain conclusion does not constitute bias, if it did ALL decisions made on balance of evidence are flawed due to bias.

I am fully in support of removing language that isn’t strictly neutral for example words such as ‘seems to’; ‘apparently’; that 'so and so' is ‘controversial’ (without citation).

I will vigorously oppose excising any material that is citable.

I am also irritated that the tag has been placed without specific reference nor peer consensus. I suspect that the call for peer review was made soley in order to provide excuse for placing the tag. Richard 08:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I think the call for peer review was made at least partly because I suggested it at Wikipedia talk:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight#Peter Ellis. I now think the peer review was premature as the article was and is still under active development. A peer review may be more useful once it has settled down.-gadfium 09:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Do I detect a general pause to collect thoughts? Richard 11:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Peer review process is standard for collaborations. And yes, a cooling off/pause is needed. I can't spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia over the next little while (uni work is burying me in), so if there is a feeling that the article is balanced and the concerns of the peer review are addressed, then remove the tag and I will eventually be able to come back and give my thoughts. Sorry for not replying earlier, but I needed to take a break from the argument and have a lot else on. --Midnighttonight 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm impressed by how far the article's progressed in just a few weeks, I'm not convinced that it is as neutral as it should be. Three reviewers said that the article seemed to favour the innocence viewpoint, and I hope we all agree that we don't want most readers to have that impression of our article. Given the extent of the published material arguing his innocence, it's naturally easier to cover that side of things well. But this could lead to that view being given, or at least appearing to be given, undue weight. I think there's still some way to go before we have an article that is evidently fair to both sides.

I'm currently short of time too, and I only have a couple of specific criticisms at present (one being discussed above, and one which I'll add in a moment). And I can sympathise with people being annoyed when a POV tag is attached without mentioning specific concerns that they can work to address. From my perspective, a {{POV-check}} tag would seem more appropriate than the current {{NPOV}}. -- Avenue 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the comment by Midnighttonight above, I'll remove the POV template.-gadfium 03:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Placement of Satanic ritual abuse section

Why is the section on Satanic ritual abuse placed above the Trial section? It starts by mentioning a seminar that took place months after the trial. Also, placing the litany of unbelievable accounts by the children immediately before our coverage of the trial could give our article the appearance of trying to discredit their testimony. I would be happier if this section was moved further down, e.g. to just above "A mother's story". -- Avenue 02:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points Richard 03:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it down to just before "A mother's story" for now. These two sections are now the only ones out of chronological order, which seems reasonable since they don't quite fit into the broad investigation->trial->appeals->reexaminations flow in their current form.

Another possibility would be to split these sections up, moving the children's claims (which occurred before the trial) into the Children's forensic interviews section, and the ritual abuse info into the Aftermath section. This would maintain the chronological ordering better. -- Avenue 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The material on SRA was placed before the trial because the SRA allegations had obviously been made before the trial. More importantly, many of these allegations were not heard at the trial. It's not trying to discredit the kids' testimony, although if you think the kids' testimony is discredited by these allegations, then maybe the jury would have thought so too. I agree that this section could go in the section on interviews, or it could be mentioned in the trial section with the proviso that the SRA allegations were given little attention at trial. I don't think everything needs to be in chronological order. 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

suggested POV edits

I believe the following needs change -

Section: Forensic Int

“The interviewers generally didn't try to disprove the children's allegations. According to Ceci, it is impossible to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate allegations when children are repeatedly interviewed over a long period of time.”

The term 'disprove' surprises me. Most sources I’ve read refer to ‘challenging’ or exploring the source of allegations as part of ‘source monitoring’. Can the writer of above passage clarify.

Section: Other crèche workers

Re: Rosemary Smart suggests that staff might have covered up abuse at the Civic Creche.

I originally wrote this sentence with wording to the effect that Smart’s report raised the possibility that the workers may have covered up abuse. The sentence has been changed to above, which I think is an overstatement. The report does not directly suggest Civic staff covered up abuse, it critcised workers for not detecting it and raised the spectre of cover-up by including quotes such as the Finkelhor one. I’d like the sentence reverted to my original.

Re: Karen Zelas the following need citation: “She had previously advised judges on how best to prosecute alleged child sexual abuse cases”.

Section: Ministerial Inq

Re “Gail Goodman's career had been controversial, but Goodman was Sim's first choice”

The controversial description demands justification

Re Lyon: “This seems to misrepresent the work of the "new wave".”

This is writer opinion and cannot remain as it is without elaboration.

Re: “ Ceci and Friedman (2000)”

The source needs to be in the refs or footnote:

Re: “Sas agreed with several children who claimed that they had been placed in cages which were hung from the ceiling.”

Better wording needed What does “agreed with” mean exactly?

Richard 10:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ceci refers to "proof by disproof". The interviewers didn't try to prove the allegations by disproving them. I guess it's the equivalent of falsification or maybe verifiability.

Is it an overstatement that Smart "suggests" that staff might have been involved in a cover up? Smart has said that: "[the staff’s] knowledge of the detection and response to sexual abuse was minimal to non-existent". Clearly that would not be a fair comment if there was no sexual abuse to respond to. Smart provides no evidence of sexual abuse. But the clear implication is that there has been abuse and that staff were directly or indirectly involved.

re Smart: yes it is overstatement, not detecting and reporting abuse could be down to many factors, eg incompetence or lack of training. Deliberately covering up is another thing altogether. However what she wrote could certainly have fueled or sown seeds of suspicicion on that score (IMO it did). I see the sentence has been improved.

I don't agree about Zelas and Goodman needing citations. I recall reading that Goodman has said that her career has been controversial, and will link that in due course. Hood can be used for the Zelas citing.

The reader doesn't necc. know that about Goodman's career, if such judgments are not cited the reader may infer they are reading opinion and the article looses cred. Fair enough about Zelas.

Re Lyon: I'll remove "seems to".

Re Sas: she believed those children that talked about cages.

21:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

Re Sas: how do we know she believed this? Can we point to something she said? This needs to be verifiable. -- Avenue 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be in her report to Eichelbaum. It has been over two years since I last read it. It's an amazing essay, so full of bias that it is almost a joke. Read what M Corballis ONZM says about it here

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2003/2003-0906_Listener_MemoryAndTheLaw.htm

Richard 08:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only part of Sas's report that mentioned the cages is where she discussed possible contamination of Child X's testimony. I have reworded our paragraph about this, including a quote from Sas, and cited the report as the source. -- Avenue 09:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regards Gail Goodman, here is a link. You will have to tab down a little to find the biography of Goodman. She was one of only three experts, out of 48, that refused to sign the amicus brief on behalf of Kelly Michaels, presumably because she believes that children never lie about abuse. Ironically, her own research has found that children can and do lie about sexual abuse.

http://www.ap-ls.org/students/Biographies%20from%20Psychology.pdf

00:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

Thanks for the link. I think what we say ("Gail Goodman's career had been controversial, but Goodman was Sim's first choice") seems a little too strong based just on her comments there. Goodman wrote "It has never been my view that either children or adults are unsuggestible, but my students and I have found that many children, by age 4 or 5 years, are typically less suggestible about taboo abuse-related acts than about many other types of information. This was quite controversial at the time." This appears to refer to sometime in the late 1970s or a little after. If this was the only controversial issue in her career (and I currently have no idea whether this is true), it might be better to qualify our statement slightly. For example, we could say "Gail Goodman's early findings were controversial, but ...". I have searched for more about Goodman, but so far haven't found anything bearing on this. -- Avenue 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I think Goodman is not and never has been part of the scientific mainstream in relation to research into child sexual abuse. Even when her research shows that children can and do lie about sexual abuse, she tends to minimise or ignore her own results. So I definitely think she has had a controversial profile. I would say there's more controversy around her than other experts that weren't appointed. Ceci and Friedman (2000) have reviewed some of her work, which is more recent than the 70s. This article is on the internet. 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

Just to be sure, is this the Ceci and Friedman (2000) article you mean? Ceci SJ, Friedman RD. The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications. Cornell Law Review 2000; 86(1): 33-108. [4] I haven't had a chance to read it properly yet, but it looks very relevant.

I have found another article that contrasts Ceci and Goodman's approaches (Myers 1994 - see page 86), which does not seem to cast Goodman as outside the mainstream. However the author is castigated as a revisionist (along with Lyon) by Ceci and Friedman, so I'm not sure that gets us much further. -- Avenue 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How times change, I note Myers cites Roland Summit's Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome, small wonder Ceci castigates him. Richard 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is Ceci SJ, Friedman RD. The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications. Cornell Law Review 2000; 86(1): 33-108.

I suspect that Myers is outside the mainstream judging by his unfounded criticisms of Ceci and others. Ceci and Friedman also refer to Myers in the above mentioned article. But Goodman is discussed in some detail.

Myers is not an expert in suggestibility or mass allegation creche cases. Like Thomas Lyon, he's merely a lawyer and I don't think his opinion should be given much weight. He quotes the work of Snow and Sorenson, who have been heavily criticised by London et al (2005). Myers repeats the myth that few children disclose abuse, thus necessitating suggestive and leading questions. In fact, when children are asked about abuse in a neutral manner, the vast majority tell. 00:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

I was surprised by all the alleged(ly)s. While I'm inclined to agree that this conviction is not very credible, I was under the impression that upon conviction, you're supposed to stop using alleged(ly). Is this not so? It looks somewhat POV to me, but I could be mistaken?24.131.12.228 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph with loosely related points

How does first sentence relate to second- from "Trial" -

"Ellis said that on visits outside the creche, he and the children would walk. He said he didn't know the bus timetables. He later said he been mistaken and that sometimes, when it was raining, he would catch a bus."

He testified to much more than walking - eg buying icecream, playing in the leaves in the gardens, picking up creche mail etc. The bus travel is highly important testimony but needs a better lead. Richard 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this. I think it reads better than it did. 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ Researcher

category NZ people

The only way I found to access Peter Ellis from the main cat. 'NZ people' was through the subcategory 'NZ criminals'. This category defined Mr Ellis' "occupation" as being a criminal. I am of point of view that 'NZ criminals' shouldn't even be defined by using criteria "occupation" unless it can be demonstrably shown that the person has made a career out of criminal behaviour. That can not be justified in Ellis' case, no matter what your position on the case may be. I can't argue against Ellis being technically defined as being a criminal (or at least having a criminal conviction) as long as the conviction stands (which won't be for ever, google 'Bernard Baran' for recent developments in historic day care abuse cases), so yes the NZ criminal category technically stands. But Mr Ellis should be listed in the main list as well. I suggest the cat NZ criminal be severed from the test 'occupation'. Richard 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ellis is known for his criminal conviction. I can't really see an obvious alternative. People like Barry George , Ruben Cantu , Lawrencia Bembenek and other in Category:Disputed convictions are in categorys like Category: American murderers. Suggest an alternative category. - SimonLyall 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is what he is known for. I restate the definition of criminal being an 'occupation' coupled with fact that it is the only route through the main category doesn't allow for much of an alternative viewpoint. I don't object to Ellis remaining in NZ criminal category, but only object to that defn as being his "occupation", I also think he should be listed in NZ people regardless of his inclusion in NZ criminal (is this a problem i.e. are the categories mutually exclusive?). His occupation was actually (fully qualified) child care worker. If cat. criminal can't be severed from definition "by occupation" then yes, I vote for removal from the category. Richard

I'm going to be bold and remove the "occupation" categorisation from Category:New Zealand criminals. We'll see if anyone complains. I note that the broader Category:Criminals is not classed as an occupation. -- Avenue 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats one (bold) solution <smile> solving my concerns above. Further to above I'm saying that in highly disputed cases such as this there should be room for the main viewpoints. Before my rv, cat NZ people offered the only defn of Ellis as being a criminal by occupation. There is no sub category 'NZ disputed convictions', perhaps one could be created and Ellis can sit in both, but to my mind it is simpler if he just resides in cat 'NZ people' only. Richard 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm temped to remove him from the toplivel 'NZ people' cat since he's in the subcategory. - SimonLyall 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can the targets not be included in both? That gives the browser an option, look in entire index or go for sub-category to narrow the search IF ONE KNOWS what sub-category they might be classified under. If I was a browser and I couldn't find someone I was interested in within the general list then I'd assume looking in sub-categories would be a waste of time. I think the article should remain indexed to both. Richard 09:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because then we'll have 10,000 people in the category "New Zealand People" which will take around 50 screens to list. - SimonLyall 11:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept the 10,000 figure and argue that it is quite acceptable, there is facilty for narrowing it down by alphabetical listing etc. There ought to be a complete general index regardless of subcategories.Richard 11:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask that Sir Ed Hillary be removed from general list and appear ONLY under Mountaineers, I want Hotere removed and placed only under Artists. Get my drift? Richard 12:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I would usually be keen to remove redundant categories, I think that the label "criminal" is such a poor fit (at least in some people's minds) that listing him under NZ people aw well is probably justifiable. If the article was listed under more than the current seven categories, that might tip the balance the other way for me. I don't agree with the argument that we should accommodate people who simply don't want or don't know to look in sub-categories.

The only problem with an "NZ disputed convictions" category is its size. I understand that usually at least five members are needed for a sub-category to be considered worthwhile, but I can only think of two potential members; this article and David Bain. (We don't have an article on Arthur Allan Thomas yet, and that would be classed as a wrongful conviction anyway.)

Ed Hillary is not a good example; we don't seem to have an "NZ mountaineers" category. Hotere should just be under NZ painters, yes. There are a lot of unnecessary listings in "NZ people" that should be cleaned up. -- Avenue 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands all entries within NZ people can be put into differing categories depending on what is in essence a subjective evaluation. We argue and debate (needlessly) which category they belong to, and perhaps wait for someone to cleverly notice that "hey, there are five that can go into such and such" category. Currently this is a nonsense system. No wonder after a while we wake up and notice that it needs cleaning up. Well I can only argue that the whole point of subcategories is to make seaching easier. It seems to me logically poor not to have a general index, in this case that is NZ people. Better to have a general and complete index and then have subcategories to allow for targeted browsing. Don't understand the opposition. Richard 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A general index display facility (showing all members of a category and its subcategories) has been requested,[5] but the software doesn't support this yet. I agree Wikipedia's category system isn't ideal, but there are some accepted guidelines on how it should best be used, and removing overly general categories is one of them. (See Wikipedia:Categorization for details.) And yes, the whole system often seems quite subjective and labour-intensive, although I wouldn't describe it as "nonsense". -- Avenue 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yes nonsense is too strong, I must learn to rein in the hyperbole when a tad frustrated.Richard 11:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Eichelbaum report in References

I know this isn't the correct category but I think that the report of Thomas Eichelabum should be included in the references. --User:NZ_Researcher

I agree, it's cited often enough. I'll go ahead and add it. -- Avenue 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ISBN - L Hood 'A City Possessed'

Smackbot requested on 8 Sept 2006 that a check is made of the ISBN for A City Possessed by L Hood. The ISBN in the book reads: ISBN 1 877135 62 3 --RichardJ Christie 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix the typo in our article (too many 8's). -- Avenue 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)