Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis → Peter Ellis (childcare worker) – This person simply isn't known by his middle names, so the current article name does not comply with our naming conventions. Finding a better article name won't necessarily be uncontroversial, though. There's been much discussion back in 2006 what the scope of the article should be (should it be the case or the person linked to the case?) and there was majority support for this to be a biography. Given that the case (and thus the person) is still topical in New Zealand, I suggest that notability of the person is even stronger these days, and it should stay a bio. The article was first set up as Peter Ellis (New Zealand), but we don't dab by country any longer, as it does not describe what the person is. After brief discussion, the article was moved to Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis. It's been discussed before that using his full name might not be appropriate, but it didn't go anywhere. One of the issues considered was whether the word 'former' should form part of the dab, as he no longer is a childcare worker; I believe this is irrelevant, as the point of the dab is to disambiguate a person's name by what he (or she) is known for, and there is no doubt that he is known for having been in that profession. What do others think? Schwede66 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support move.-gadfium 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - on the face of it WP:COMMONNAME applies. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The policy on not putting in countries is silly IMHO, It is usually (not always) something that is fairly NPOV - SimonLyall (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. His common name is not Peter Hugh McGregor Mouthful Ellis. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Biography project assessment of 6 December 2006: No comment or rationale was supplied by unknown person supplying B rating assessment for article. We thank them all the same although we struggle to see how Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment criteria for B class is justified. Perhaps it reflects the assessor's grasp of subject matter rather than article content but as we have no constructive comment contributors are unlikely to ever never know. Not a constructive process. RichardJ Christie 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material

This article contains a lot of unsourced material.It also contains a lot of unnecessary detail which makes it hard to get to the essence of the case.I have started removing as much of this as I can to make it easier to read. I hope other editors OK with this. Friggenfright (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. It is a problem with articles like this. Another issue to be aware of is the subtle, and at times not so subtle, bias that might permeate the text. I think we all need to be careful not to let this article turn into part of the "Peter Ellis is innocent" campaign, which has happened with some other high profile cases. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the article appears to have been written from that perspective. Friggenfright (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted your changes due to some issues that were brought up at WP:BLP/N but I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to go with what you had. This article has a lot of issues and is too long. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If anybody is interested in today's reversal of Friggenfright's recent large scale changes, and the similarly large scale alternative changes, please see this [1]. I have not been reading all the edit changes as they have been taking place so I am not passing any opinion about what is or is not happening, except that I think comments should also be made here rather than exclusively on the BLP noticeboard. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Roger 8 Roger that this discussion should take place on this Talk page.Friggenfright (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with DIYeditor that "it would be better to go with what (I) had". The version you have gone back to has huge issues, most of which I have resolved. Can you please revert your massive reversal to my latest version and then we can discuss the remaining issues - which are minor compared to the problems that permeate the old (and now current) version you have reverted to. Friggenfright (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I had been following Friggenfright's edits closely, and there was some good work in there. It's disappointing to see a reversion undoing all that work, when Friggenfright hadn't finished the job. The original version is unacceptable, with BLP issues involving the policeman, Sidey and Zelas. Motivations are attributed to these people without sourcing. Witch hunt comparisons with American childcare situations are presented without sourcing. The article is far too long and through it all there's an atmosphere of disapproval for the way the authorities brought the case. Wikipedia is not a forum for disapproval. Akld guy (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to someone restoring Friggenfright's version at this time. Please take into account what has been raised in subsequent edits to the article and what was mentioned at BLP/N, for example [2] which violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is a lot of material to wade through here and that which is both unsourced and contentious definitely needs to go. Thanks for working on this. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Akld guy, and your analysis of the original article - with which I fully agree. How does one restore the Friggenfright version? The undo function doesn't work. Friggenfright (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Friggenfright: Well, one way (on desktop version of site anyway) is looking at the history, comparing your version to the one before or after it by selecting both, and then pick "restore this version" at the top. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another way is to click View history, then click on the time and date of the edit that you want to restore, then when the version appears, click Edit, then save it (Publish changes) in the usual way. Akld guy (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Got it thanks. Friggenfright (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No doubt there are still more improvements that can be made, but this article has now been substantially rewritten. Most of the unsourced material has been removed and it is now more objective than it was before. Friggenfright (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a great improvement on what was there Friggenfright. However, I think there is still a lot of work to do. Much of this article is still being structured around, and led by, what is original research and what has been written by advocates. Van Beynen's article (refs 8...), for example, is an opinion piece, no matter that the Press is a reasonably good source nor that he is one of its best journalists. Personally, I think we should try to cut the article size down by at least a quarter, and reduce the reliance on many of the sources used. I also think the article needs to be re-arranged to keep as much of the criticism of the verdict as possible away from what actually has happened in the legal process - his convictions and the appeals. I think re-arranging the article would be preferable to trying to weed out more non-neutral words and phrases within the existing structure, because that won't be possible - the rot is too deep. No doubt there will be others with opinions on this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced?

In the section "The Smart report" this appears: Even though Smart's report was completed nearly 12 months before Ellis' trial, she seems to have assumed he was guilty. Smart even suggested that female staff may have been involved with abuse at the Civic Creche. She quoted 'research' by the New Hampshire sociologist David Finkelhor, whose 1987 book Nursery Crimes became the bible for American believers in ritual abuse occurring in creches.

I have concerns about the claim that Smart assumed Ellis was guilty and her suggestion that female staff may have been involved, but am currently unable (for technical reasons) to access the Mary de Young reference cited at the end of that quote. Perhaps someone can verify that the source is good, otherwise the claims should be tagged "citation needed". Akld guy (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added citations to this section. Friggenfright (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced

In the "Trial" section, none of the following is sourced:

• Psychiatrist Karen Zelas was the prosecution's expert witness. She testified that the complainants were credible and their evidence was plausible. Their behaviour, she said, was consistent with sexual abuse. In a 1992 television interview (Holmes, TVNZ), Zelas said that parents who question their children about sexual abuse "might introduce ideas to the child by the way in which they ask questions... and then...it may be impossible to know whether or not their child actually has been abused." In August 1992, she wrote to the police saying that two of the complainants had undergone "highly leading questioning" from their parents. Her letter was not disclosed to Ellis's defence, and Zelas did not mention any concerns about the two children's credibility at trial.

• Psychiatrist and defence expert Keith Le Page said that none of the behaviours described by Zelas were specific to sexual abuse. Le Page said that in his experience, children and adults who had been abused usually expressed distress when recounting their experiences of abuse. The complainants showed little or no distress when describing acts of abuse during their interviews and when later testifying in court. Le Page also testified that children couldn't remember events experienced at a very young age when there was a long delay between the event and the attempt to recall it. Children couldn't remember events, even traumatic events, that had occurred at two or three years of age when there was a long delay, he claimed. The alleged abuse at the creche had occurred when children were at these ages.

Akld guy (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I will see if I can find where these (and the ones below) come from.Friggenfright (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced

In the section "The interviewing process", the following appears without any sourcing whatsoever:

• Some children were interviewed after they had been mentioned in abuse allegations made by other children. Department of Social Welfare specialist interviewers Lynda Morgan and Sue Sidey testified at the trial that they would then try to elicit the same allegations from the child who had been mentioned. Questions were sometimes repeated when the child had already provided an answer. One complainant told Sue Sidey on 14 occasions that she wanted to leave the interviewing room. Sidey testified at trial that the child appeared to be "very anxious". Children were seldom advised that it was acceptable to say "I don't know" or "I can't remember". Sue Sidey later testified that "don't knows" and "can't remembers" were recorded as "anxious responses".

Akld guy (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This para has now been replaced with different material. Friggenfright (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced

The section "Petition for mercy" contains this in its entirety, with not a single source anywhere:

• In 1999 retired High Court judge Sir Thomas Thorp examined a petition for the royal prerogative of mercy lodged by Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett Kerr. Thorp expressed misgivings with several aspects of the case and recommended a wide-ranging inquiry. His concerns included the lack of corroboration of the children's claims, the sanitising of some of the charges, the testimony of Karen Zelas, and the fact that several experts with reputations in their field had expressed doubts about the accuracy of the children's claims.

• He made several recommendations, among which included employing the services of Stephen J. Ceci. Ceci had commented on the case for a TVNZ Assignment television program. Ceci had been supplied with a limited number of transcripts but had not seen videotapes of the children's interviews. Thorp wrote "Professor Ceci's involvement to date appears to have been as a consultant to TV3 [sic]. His studies of the American mass allegation creche cases suggest that his opinion could be of particular value. There seems no reason why the Ministry, or Crown Law if it preferred, could not seek his opinion."

• He noted the comments of Dr Barry Parsonson, Professor Ceci and Justice Wood, who presided over the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Thorp stated that the central issues had "nearly attained" an evidentiary basis. If the opinions of Parsonson, Ceci and Wood were found to have substantial support, "it would", he said, "be difficult to argue against the existence of a serious doubt about the safety of the Petitioner's convictions."

Akld guy (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Although good sources are critical, I think you need to be careful about what sources you are adding FF, and that what is written in the article accurately reflects what any source says. Source 27 [3] looks good and authoritative but is no more than a personal blog and so should not be used, or at best used with caution. There are other sources used here that are equally questionable. There are lots of opinion pieces coming out of peterellis.org.nz. Anything from that site needs to be treated with care if being used as a reliable source. A way forward would be to remove the questionable sources from the list of references and if they do have a relevance, such as ref 27, putting them into the external links section. Once that is done it would be easier to remove most of the leading and sometimes incorrect comments made throughout this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your logic is hard to follow. Source 27 [4] is not from peterellis.org.nz. It is an appendix from the Eichelbaum report containing the professional opinion of Professor of Psychology, Graham M. Davies, on the case. It also contains a lengthy analysis by Clinical psychologist Dr Louise Sas. This can hardly be referred to as a personal blog. Nothing questionable about that link at all. Friggenfright (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit therefore cannot be justified on the basis of the source. It also cannot be justified on the basis of criticism of Sidey. There is no criticism - just statements of fact - she had no qualifications in child psychology. Wikipedia endorses facts - from reliable sources. Unfortunately, that's what you removed. Friggenfright (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)