Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis/archive1

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