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. — ΛΧΣ  21  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?  Schwede 66  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
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)
 * 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 . 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 '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 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)
 * 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.

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


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


 * 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."

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


 * I have removed some material and provided citations for what is left. Friggenfright (talk) 21:18, 10 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 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 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)

Source 27 is a personal critique by Jonathan Harper of the Eichelbaum report. You are referring to the appendices to the Eichelbaum report that contain the commissioned expert comments by Davies and Sas, that are good. I wonder if the reference numbers have changed over the last few edits, which might be causing the confusion? My apologies if I was not clearer or if I caused the ref numbers to change. In the good source on page 30 about Sue Sidey the expert, Louise Sas says: ''In the Ellis investigation the three interviewers had varying amounts of expertise in the area of evidentiary interviews. The interviewer who conducted almost all of the interviews of the trial complainants where the evidence resulted in convictions (except for the three interviews of complainant N, and the first interview of X.) was the most knowledgeable in the area of investigative interviews and child sexual abuse, and had conducted over four hundred evidentiary interviews prior to her involvement in the Ellis matter.'' That is hardly the same as what was written in the article and referenced by the Harper source. IMO what was written here was a clear put down of Sidey and was unjustified by the evidence. It seems to me that 'critcism of the interviewing techniques commonly used at the time' has been twisted to mean 'critisism of the interviewers who were following usual techniques of the time, techniques that have later been seen as not best practice'. Isn't that the line being taken by the lawyers wanting the verdict to be overturned? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

About your second point, noted as a statement of fact. In context the only reason for making that statement of fact was to imply that she was not up to the job, a put down. The paragraph is also linking her lack of formal qualifications with her conduct of the interviews. Where is the link? It is synthesizing two separate referenced statements to draw a conclusion that neither statement draws. This is the sort of problem articles like this face when there is so advocate driven information and heavy media coverage out there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is still not clear to me what you mean by questionable sources. Jonathan Harper has an MA in psychology (and was therefore more qualified than Sidey).  At 173 pages, it is very detailed. In the appendix, he writes that he interviewed Karen Zelas three times and sent a draft of his report to Lynley Hood who is probably considered to be the most authoritative commentator on this case. Harper says he took on board feedback from her and other academics. His report has no connection with the peterellis website you were concerned about. As far as I can see, Harper is a reputable source. Friggenfright (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

See reliable source for what is and what is not a reliable source. He may be qualified and his report looks authoritative, but look at the start of the preface on page 8 - ''On 20 November 1991, only 17 days after the Sunday News newspaper featured an article that claimed that satanic ritual abuse was rampant in New Zealand, a mother of an infant attending the Christchurch Civic Child Care Centre, made to supervisor Gaye Davidson the first complaint of “inappropriate sexual behavior” against Peter Ellis. Ellis, 33, was an experienced, qualified pre-school teacher employed by the childcare centre.'' Neutral? Not starting from a preconceived assumption of Ellis' innocence? Being helped by Lynley Hood, an Ellis advocate, immediately raises alarm bells about his objectivity. His qualifications or the length of his critique do not alone make his comments reliable. Is his 'report' published anywhere by anyone other than him or a pro-Ellis advocate? From what was used here as a reference it seems to be a self-published blog that masquerades as a professional independently published academic work. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Harper's article meets all the criteria for "reliable source" as defined in that link. If you also think Lynley Hood is not reliable, perhaps your own POV is the problem here? Friggenfright (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not given my POV about the Ellis case, only about how I think this article can be improved. City Possessed is IMO an excellent book that is pretty objective, academic and well researched. I accept my comment before about her being an advocate is not quite correct. However, I think we need to use her book with caution, not because it is biased opinion but because it can be used by advocates here trying to re-write history. This article is about Peter Ellis, not about the campaign or about whether he is innocent or guilty, or about the problems of interviewing children. Obviously the controversy is a major factor in any article about him, but that should be kept as separate as possible, perhaps within a subsection. That is where Hood and other references would better fit. I do not think Harper can be used because it is not being reviewed or referred to by a secondary source - it is self published. See PSTS. That Harper critique, from what I can see, is only on CiteSeerX, a online library for articles. I can see only one academic book that makes a passing reference to it. Back to my main point, about the way this article is constructed - can I suggest you look at the Scott Watson article Murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, which is equally controversial, and see how that has managed to keep the controversies fairly separate. That article has also been through a couple of major clear outs of advocate driven edits. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you say Lynley Hood is objective, academic and well researched. If you make statements and then retract them it is hard to know what you're really trying to say.
 * Despite accepting her as a reliable source, you then you say we should use her with caution. As far as I can see there are only three references to her book (out of more than 70 citations) in the entire article. That's already extreme caution. The notion that she is being "used by advocates here trying to re-write history" is therefore hard to swallow and not supported by the facts.
 * Then you say your main point is "about the way the article is constructed". That's even more confusing because you started this conversation by naming this section "Questionable sources". A discussion about the "construction of the article" would probably be about balance and undue weight. That sounds like a different topic altogether, and if you mix these issues together with questionable sources (one of which you now say is reliable - and which supports the one you think is not), it gets even more confusing. Friggenfright (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing the quality of a book and the qualifications of an author with its suitability as a reliable source in a given situation. Just because Hood is a well written and fairly balanced work does not make it a reliable source suitable for use in all situations. We are not here to re-write the court decision and that is what is happening when you use sources to state why the High Court, the appeal court, an eminent High Court judge, several independent experts AND the jury, all got it wrong. This is an encyclopedia and what we put into it must be impeccably neutral and balanced. I am sorry if I am not expressing myself clearly enough. I have just taken another section at random from the article "Prominant support" is the heading. (What?) We then get this statement The Ellis case is highly controversial, with many New Zealanders believing he is innocent. It is supported by an opinion poll of 750 people (with only 51% thinking he is innocent). Opinion polls are not reliable sources to back such a claim, if such a claim can ever be properly referenced. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not confusing anything. The word reliable means "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted". So a source is either reliable - or its not. You can't pick and choose when it is and when it isn't. If it works in one situation but not in another, then its not reliable.


 * Then you wrote: "We are not here to re-write the court decision and that is what is happening when you use sources to state why the High Court, the appeal court, an eminent High Court judge, several independent experts AND the jury, all got it wrong." Where does the article say that? It doesn't. The main source you seem to be concerned about (Harper) certainly didn't say that. Friggenfright (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this discussion FF because I think it has run its course. This article was in need of an overhaul for many reasons and I am glad that you are attempting to do that. I think the route you are taking is not the best but you disagree, and so be it. I might be proved wrong, but if the current approach continues I think it won't be too long before someone else comes along with another major overhaul. It probably would have been better to have raised concerns about the article here on the talk page first before embarking on all your changes, so as to get general consensus on the approach to take. For new editors it never hurts to take it easy at first, test the waters and get to know the ropes before embarking on large scale editorial changes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is taking place on the Talk page, so there is plenty of opportunity for other editors to join in - but only Akld Guy has shown any interest. I have done my best to address his very legitimate concerns. Friggenfright (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, I removed a detail that shouldn't be in the lead. Furthermore, I can't find anywhere in the source where it says that Eichelbaum's report was critiqued in the Law Journal. Friggenfright, please supply a page number. If you don't know how to cite a page number with the ref, post it here and I'll do it. Or did you mean that Part 2 of the source is, in its entirety, a critique. If so, I would suggest that Part 2 is not objective but is an opinion piece. From its beginning to end, it is a discreditation of the process followed in Ellis' conviction. Akld guy (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything ever written about the events in this case is opinion. The children who were interviewed expressed multiple, lurid opinions about what happened. Based on what the children and parents at the Creche alleged, it was the opinion of the interviewers that Ellis abused them. It was the opinion of the police, based on the opinion of the interviewers, that he committed the offences. Based on selective evidence presented at trial, the jury developed the opinion that he was guilty. It was also the opinion of the Court of Appeal that he was guilty. However, it is the opinion of others who have reviewed the case that he is probably not guilty. None of these opinions, on either side of this case, are facts - but that does not prevent them from being cited in the article. Friggenfright (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Scene setting
@Akld Guy You removed a small piece of info from the lead and justified it with a comment in the discussion above alleging questionable sources. Fair enough. However, you have had ample opportunity to express any larger concerns about the article, but have not done so. You also tried to justify your wholesale edit using the term 'scene setting'. I cannot find references to 'scene setting' anywhere in WP rules or policy.

Not only that. You gave me advice on how to restore all the material you have just deleted following a previous deletion by DIYeditor. Why help me restore it and then delete it? Please describe your concerns before making such wholesale changes. Friggenfright (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am impartial and therefore not motivated enough to fight, unlike those who are Ellis supporters. I had hoped, by my reversion of DIYeditor's deletion, that you would continue trying to reach a balanced version of the article. Sadly, that has not been the case. Ellis was not found guilty on the bizarre claims, because they were never heard by the jury. He was ultimately guilty of 13 charges involving seven children, but no detail of these charges is presented in the article and all we have is the following "Conviction" paragraph (in its entirety):
 * In June 1993 Ellis was convicted of 16 counts of sexual offences involving seven children. The following year he was acquitted of three charges involving the oldest complainant, who retracted her allegations and admitted her original statement was what her mother told her to say.
 * So, there were 13 charges for which there were grounds for conviction. It may seem that here, I'm arguing the case for the prosecution, but it's not so. It's simply impossible to discuss the tone of a one-sided crusading article without bringing up the alternative argument. The article is seriously skewed in its present form. Akld guy (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to fight either. Previously you pointed out specific paragraphs which were unsourced, and I found citations for them. I believe I have displayed a cooperative attitude to your concerns.
 * However, up till now, you have not expressed any concerns about balance. It is hard for me, or any other editor, to address your concerns if we don't know what they are. If you feel that there should be more details about the charges on which Ellis was convicted, why don't you add those details, rather than making wholesale deletions of other well-sourced material - without prior explanation and without reference to WP policies. That just provokes frustration and confusion. It's much easier for other editors to cooperate if you explain your point of view. Friggenfright (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In this edit, I added a list of the charges on which Ellis was found guilty. It quotes a source that is used elsewhere in the article. Akld guy (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency in usage of "creche"
Throughout the article, the word "creche" appears in many forms, not limited to "Civic Creche", "Civic creche", "Civic Crèche", "creche", "crèche". This word is not used in my part of the word so I am unaware which usage is the most appropriate, but, regardless, there needs to be much more consistency. (Sebastianbrody (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC))


 * "Creche" is a fancier word for a child care (or day care) center. Capitalized, it's referring to the Civic Creche center where he worked. "Crèche" is the French transliteration of the word that shouldn't be here as New Zealand's primary language (and this article) is in English. —  Wylie pedia  @ 18:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the grave accent apart from one quoted article title as the title uses the accent.  Schwede 66  19:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?
I am concerned that you are quoting verbatim from articles from the NZ Herald and stuff.co.nz. I think this amounts to a copyright violation. These contributions need to be reworded. Marchino61 (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Exoneration update
Peter Ellis has recently been exonerated; this page requires updating to reflect this. Megadyptes antipodes (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that there could be some updates to the article considering Supreme Court's recent decision. I have removed the short description for the time being. Do you have any specific suggestions on what could be updated and what a NPOV short description could be? Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)