Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)/Archive 1

message: :Nominated on 22 April 2006, needs 2 votes by 30 April 2006
This is the guy who was convicted on child sexual assault charges in 1993. He was released after serving seven years in prison, and has always maintained his innocence. It's topical because he's still pushing for a Privy Council hearing. Many New Zealanders believe he was innocent, and his name is very well known, but we currently have no article at all. To create a good article, we'll need a number of editors from different points of view working together.-gadfium 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that we start this, this Sunday (23 April) (i.e. End voting Sunday, Make this The COTF from Monday) What do you think ? Brian | (Talk) 13:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds grand, although I'm a bit disappointed there have been no other nominations. I'll be away until Monday night (going to a wedding in Queenstown), so I look forward to seeing the start of an article when I get back.-gadfium 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Peter Ellis (New Zealand)]]

message: I have done some quick google searches, and have come up with some links we could use: 
*  Ten or so articles, mostly media items, contains alot of background on the case
* Offical Report - Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's report into the peter ellis case
*  Info, histoty, background.
*  Peter Ellis Org : Seeking Justice for Peter Ellis
Links to thousands of web pages about Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche case
*  Essential preliminary reading about the Ellis case
*   Thousands of news reports (including opinion articles) year by year to 2006
*   Official Documents, letters, petitions etc relating to the Ellis case year by year, Some trial transcripts (more will be coming), The Thorp Report, Eichelbaum report etc.
*    The toddler testimonies - transcripts of the interrogations of the children.
*   lots of info on the case
*  info, media stuff, calls for 1999 inquiry.
*  BSA upholds Nine to Noon complaint
* [ ASAH news letter, has an article on the case (PDF)
*[ info about Drawing Out Children’s False Memories, refers to the case (PDF)
*  intresting little article
* media
* media
* media
*  media
*   blog
*  Book review- but has some basic info
*   Dozens more book reviews
Could someone with abit of know-how remove the quotation marks fromthe following reference: London, Kamala, Maggie Bruck, Stephen J. Ceci, and Daniel W. Shuman (2005). "Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell? Psychology, Public Policy and the Law" 11 (1): 194-226
:I've moved the journal title to its own field in the template. Is that what you wanted? See  for details of how this template works.-gadfium 04:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weblinks

message: :Category:Moral panics might be an a category that some people will place him under, and others would not (depending on whether they think he is innocent or guilty respectively).  I remember my sociology lecturer talking about this case as being part of a moral panic.  But would placing the article in this article compromise the NPOV policy?  What do people think?  --Midnighttonight 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If his is guility it is still part of the hysteria, the fact that he has an article and the hundreds of other child abuse cases in NZ don't shows that. Are we going to cover everything about the case here or is there going to be a seperate article on the Christchurch Civic Crèche abuse case? - SimonLyall 09:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think, for now keep them as one article, if later this gets to big, we split them up, I don't think it warrents it own article yet Brian | (Talk) 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I would like to rename the article Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, as suggested by gadfium above. Does anyone object? -- Avenue 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead :) (I just stared it, as Peter Ellis (New Zealand) untill we came up with a better title)  Brian | (Talk) 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: People might want to have a look at this related article. I'm not sure it is strightly NPOV. - SimonLyall 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved most of the recent additions to that article by Nz researcher into this article, because I think this would be a better place for them. -- Avenue 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thomas Eichelbaum]] 

message: The article has taken shape, well done to everyone who has partook in it so far. Nice to see what can happen when a whole lot of kiwis work together :) Brian | (Talk) 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome Richard. I have put a message on your user talk page, so you should see a "You have new messages" sign near the top of your screen until you click on the sign.-gadfium 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great 

message: Should we add, about that $300,000 was paid out by ACC to the victims before the case went to trial? (NB it was a total payout of $300,000)Brian | (Talk) 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can cite a source for the information, I don't see any great problem with that. It seems arguably relevant. It would be even better if we could cite someone discussing it in connection to the case, so that we are not seen as casting new aspersions on people's motives. -- Avenue 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a site  quote: "Up to $10,000 can be awarded in sexual abuse cases and the Accident Compensation Commission paid $300,000 to crèche parents before the trial" Brian | (Talk) 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add? 

message: This article needs a few pictures.  These will probably have to be found on the net and carefully checked for copyright stuff.  Is there anyone in Christchurch who could take a photo of the creche?  That would be a good start.  Also, the front cover of "A City Possessed", or a pic by Lynley Hood.  And, most importantly, a pic of Peter Ellis himself is key.  --Midnighttonight 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just coming here to post such a request.-gadfium 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask as-well :) Brian | (Talk) 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be able to assist with photos of Creche. Allow me a day or two. Richard 05:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I'm thrilled that people have started this project.   The main information resources for the project should include "A City Possessed" and the thousands of web pages at www.peterellis.org.nz.    Richard Christie has also provided an important link.
The peterellis site should provide all available news reports, opinion pieces, and documents associated with the case.   If an article is NOT on the ellis site, please send me a copy!     While the site has a definite position on the innocence of Peter Ellis, it has not deviated from the policy of including ALL opinion, regardless of what that opinion is.
If you find an article on the ellis site that has been copied from elsewhere, please use the original reference.
This project has the opportunity to re present the information available in a different structured way: The Ellis site for example has collated news reports and opinion articles in a chronological order - the encyclopaedia approach allows subjects to be tackled separately - eg, off the top of my head "The Women's employment Case", "The police investigation", etc etc.    There are certainly quite a few summaries of the case.    Those who get involved studying Ellis invariably get drawn into the wider issues of "What factors caused the case" "The Satanic ritual abuse scare (of the late 80s and early 90s)", "True and false allegations of abuse" etc   (A good example are the introductory chapters of A City Possessed, that Lynley Hood thought to be an essential integral part of the Ellis story.)
(brianr) 18:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information resource 

message: "A young Christchurch man laid a formal complaint with police in January 2001 alleging he was sexually abused by Ellis and others when he attended the Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre."
Police get no help from Ellis on complaint By: VAN BEYNEN Martin THE PRESS, 5 SEP 2002, Edition 2,    Page 4.  --Midnighttonight 08:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, it should be included along with reference to Ellis's employment records that show the complaint had no foundation in reality. Ellis first had contact with the creche a year after the complainant put him there. This paragraph should include how the Police reactivated this "unresolved allegation" each time author L Hood had positive publicity eg winning of Montana Book Awards. Also be sure to include the complainant's debut on Linda Clark's RNZ programme that resulted in the most humiliating censure and fine in RNZ's history. Richard 08:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide references for that?  I'm not doubting you, it would just be handy so that we can have a paragraph on that incident.  this is the problem with doing database searches of news items I suppose, I only hit somethings and miss others.  (PS, can you sign with --~~~~ instead?)  --Midnighttonight 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BSA Ruling:  http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2004/2004-115.htm , Employment history http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1986/index.htm , Nine to Noon transcript: http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/2003-0825_RadioNZ_NineToNoon.htm .
You're welcome :-)_Richard 12:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And another complaint against Ellis - this needs to be mentioned 

message: While the primary focus upon this Collaboration is obviously this article, it is also important that we get other articles linking in to this one.  From a look at the "what links here", the vast bulk are from the Collaboration template or the Community Portal.  Some articles are getting linked in, and we just need to keep them coming.  --Midnighttonight 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link in 

message: Extracts from:THE DOMINION POST,     16 AUG 2003,    Edition 2,    Page 1.
CHRISTCHURCH CIVIC CRECHE CHILDREN SPEAK OUT
By: BONIFACE Linley
:"I would have been happy to never talk about the abuse ever again. I want to forget it. But I'm sick of being called a liar. And if I don't say anything, Peter Ellis will keep going around saying he's innocent and more people will believe him," - 'Tom'
:"How would a five-year-old know about ejaculation? My parents had never talked about that to me. I was able to describe it because of what Peter Ellis did to me, not because anyone had told me about it." - 'Katrina'
:"I stand by everything I said when I was little. I didn't make anything up. But back then I believed everything I was told. Now I can make more sense of it . . . for example, I was told I was put down a trap door. Now I think it was just a laundry chute with cushions at the bottom. But when you're a little kid, you think adults are always telling you the truth." - 'Tom'
The fact that the children still stand by what they said is important.  These qoutes should go somewhere in the article.  --Midnighttonight 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of these children, "Tommy", is the son of Joy Bander (pseudonym) who wrote a book in mid 1990's entitled "A Mother's Story". After the case senior police involved in the investigation (IIRC Hardie and/or Det Jenkins) expressed view that this child's allegations were nonsense, I can dig up cites if required. Both of these children were at centre of Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations set at an "unknown address" (but clearly 404 Hereford St). Crown witness K Zelas had no confidence in his disclosures, nor did his interviewer S Sidey. Even Eichelbaum's expert G Davies has no confidence in the allegations made by thesetwo children set outside the creche. This info should be included with any quotes from above. Go here: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/5.html#C5_1_1_Contamination_by_parents for examples of process "Tommy" was put through as he "recovered" his "vivid" memories of satanic abuse, the quotes are his mother's, BTW her book is still available for a price of less than $20.00- read it and understand how the case came about!
..Richard 09:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Crown's Expert witness, Dr Karen Zelas on the disclosures of Tom and Katrina, also known as the "smoking gun" letter. http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1992/1992-0828_KarenZelas_LetterToPolice.htm
_ Richard 11:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The children still feel as though they've been molested 

message: I am unsure of bander reference in article as it stands. 
1 Is it necc to get so specific? After all there was so much scandal in acse that even Hood had to omit volumes. 
2 Readers won't know who she is .
Richard 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bander 

message: I've gone through the intro and created internal links, but it needs to occur throughout the article. I can literally scroll to parts and not see any internal links on the page.  For those new to Wikipedia place the square brackets around the word you want to link.  Thus link will create link.  It does get more complicated, the main other one is what you want to say, e.g. the 2005 election produces the 2005 election. --Midnighttonight 10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it work automatically? or does one need to supply url? If not, what happens there is no internal target available? Richard 11:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no internal target, then you get a red-link. This is essentially an invitation for someone to start writing that article. Only add red-links when you think it is reasonable that Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, and use another browser window to try a few alternative phrasings to see if we have a suitable article to link to already.-gadfium 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links 

message: Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis (born March 30, 1959) is a former Christchurch, New Zealand child care worker. In June 1993 he was found guilty on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
The Ellis case is highly controversial, with many New Zealanders believing he is innocent of the charges (Ellis has maintained his innocence throughout). The case has been subject to a Ministerial Inquiry, 2 petitions, a book and numerious articles with suppoters of Ellis continuing to press against what they believe to be a miscarrage of justice.
: Include dates Trial 1993, Eichelbaum 2001, two  public petitions 2003 and don't forget two Court of Appeal hearings (1994, 1999) (and what about Thorp's report to secretary of justice - then Phil Goff I pressume? - , how it can be decribed I don't know)
Actually at least four petitions have been lodged, Thorp advised on the second.
: Richard 04:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil Goff was Minister of Justice 1999-2005, not secretary.  If you want the secretary, i can find it out, but I'm suspecting that it would be the Minister.  the current minister of justice is Mark Burton. --Midnighttonight 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, That is how its always been described, Thorp's report for secretary of (may have been "for") justice. I've often wondered when I've read it who it meant but have been too lazy to find out.
Richard 13:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it was the Secretary of Justice then I would be worried.  Unless, it was a report for the Gov-Gen which had to go through the Secretary?  Can you give me a link so I can see if they are using it in the British/American sense, or the New Zealand sense?  Cheers, --Midnighttonight 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bit of digging located this, I guess Goff asked either his secretary or the secretary of Attorney Gen or Solicitor Gen?? Anyway Thorp states in his Terms...[note last sentence then I copy the first lines of the report where the "Ministry is mentioned}
"His Excellency the Governor-General has sought the formal advice of the 
Minister of Justice on an application by Mr Peter Ellis dated 16 November 1998 
for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy.
"The Minister has sought our advice and has approved our instructing you to 
provide an opinion on the question whether the second petition by Mr Ellis 
contains any further issues, which ought to be referred back to the Court of 
Appeal."
"The second petition canvasses a number of issues, which have already been 
considered in the context of the first petition. While I am interested in your 
opinion on these issues I would suggest that the primary focus should be on any 
new issues which are raised in the second petition."
"Finally, I note Mr Ellis has asked in the first instance for a free pardon and 
a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the case. The exercise of the Royal 
prerogative of mercy by the Governor-General to grant a free pardon is extremely 
rare in New Zealand and I have doubts about whether such an exercise is 
appropriate in circumstances where the Court of Appeal is already seized of the 
case. The Ministry is currently considering this question but I would be 
interested in any comment you have on this aspect of the petition and on the 
application for a free pardon itself."
Thorp writes:
Part 2         Background
2.1    Events Leading Up to the Trial
A detailed history of these events is contained in the report furnished by your 
Ministry to the Minister on the First Petition ("the Ministry's Report"). It is 
sufficient for the purposes of this opinion to note from that history the 
following –
Richard 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: okay, so its refering to the Minister of Justice.  Your use of secretary is incorrect.  In New Zealand terms (as opposed to UK and US), the Secretary is the civil servant head of a department (the term Secretary is less used these days, most Chief Executive is used, but in the case of Justice it is still a Secretary due to a number of internal arrangements regarding the election administration and the Solicitor-General's office), the Minister is the politican head of a department.  While the US and UK use Secretary as the political-head of a ministry/department.  The UK uses Permanent Secretary for what we use as Secretary/Chief Executive.  The US has no nonpolitical head of their departments. --Midnighttonight 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt very much you can state that my use of the description is incorrect. But all the same I'll pass on your assessment to Lynley Hood and The Dom Post. Hood cites it as 'Sir Thomas Thorp, 'Opinion for The Secretary of Justice re Petitions for the Exercise of the Royal Perogative of Mercy by Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis' March 1999' P656 A City Possessed. You'd make quite a splash if you managed to be the first to find a factual error in her book <wink> - and did I not say I that presumed it to be Goff? Richard 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Dominion
March 16 2001
Sir Thomas Thorp's report was prepared for the secretary of justice in March 1999 in response to a petition for a pardon and a new Court of Appeal hearing filed by Ellis's lawyer, Judith Ablett Kerr, QC. It has never been made public.
Richard 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft lead section to replace current. 

message: I don't have the time to work on this right now, but looking at this article for the first time gave me a headache because of long sections that desperately need breaking up.  Anyone have any suggestions as to how to do this? PageantUpdater 03:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why not wait until it is more complete? I did advise the topic is expansive, the article as it stands barely scrapes the surface, plenty to come yet. <smile> Richard 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I imagine the best way to break it up would be to have articles about several of the players, which can be linked to in this article. This can be done later. I do find it surprising that this article could give anyone a headache. It is a drop in the ocean compared with Lynley Hood's 600+ pages of A City Possessed. 21:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking this subject up 

message: Although illuminating I don't think they belong in article, especially where they currently sit, they look too much like an attmpt to belittle Tom's press statement. No matter what POV is taken by readers always remember that in one way or another the children were victims. Richard 04:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest Bander additions 

message: Sorry, I was rushing when I put up that new lead, I did not meen to put the "draft" part up :) Brian | (Talk) 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: The paragraphs (Section: 'The Case') beginning below are badly integrated
*"Ellis’ supporters have raised many concerns about how the trial was conducted..."
*"Then recent changes in New Zealand law meant that the complainant children's testimony was provided to the court by two separate means:..."
The second serves as good into to the discussion about problems with the interviews but the first paragraph would benefit at that point by  including the same info about how the kiddies gave their evidence.
I'm a musician not a writer. <smile> Richard 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tom Bander stuff needs to be removed from the "Ongoing Influence" section, it doesn't really fit in there. - SimonLyall 09:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's really out of place there. Perhaps move to "The case" section for now? -- Avenue 11:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have answered this already. It will be moved in due course. How the children gave evidence will also be addressed. 01:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph integration 

message: Concern has been raised, with some merit, that the current name breaches NPOV by prejudicing Peter Ellis.
It should be quite obvious to followers of the article thus far that the issues are wider than Ellis and complainant's  experiences. Also implicated are a large number of other individuals and organisations e.g. the Staff, behaviours of Min Of Justice and Education, health workers, etc etc. The article hardly scratches the surface.
Why cannot the title be broadened rather than defined? say to 
Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche Case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.christie (talk • contribs) 
:I agree with that suggestion.  The title at the moment suggests its a biography, but it is far far more than that. --Midnighttonight 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll endorse that - I think this is a really good idea.  I know the name of the childcare centre did not have the word "creche" in it, but it has long been called that in the last 15 years. _ Brianr at wave 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine to me.-gadfium 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Would we still keep the current structure of the article? Such sections as "Early life" (which I still intend to expand to include his excessive drinking, and his flamboyant sexuality) seem less appropriate if it isn't a biography.-gadfium 09:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could split this info off, to make a relatively short biographical article on Peter Ellis. Of course it would need to link to the article about the case. -- Avenue 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would you call the split off article?-gadfium 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the current title, or maybe Peter H. M. Ellis to avoid any concern that we are implying he is guilty by using his full name. I'd also favour removing his name completely from the name of the wider article; e.g. call it the Christchurch Creche Case, not Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche Case. -- Avenue 00:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't understand your concern. Although your suggestion is more categorically accurate I think that people who search for Peter Ellis (H.M.)would be overwhelmingly interested in Creche case anyway, as Ellis hasn't done much else of note. Does the length matter that much? it is after all an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or compendium. Britannica didn't make its reputation on brevity. I suppose you could have a three sentence entry for Peter Ellis stating date of birth and year of conviction etc and a link to another Creche Case entry but what would you gain?  That said, I haven't any strong objection to the suggestion if you insist upon it. But suggest we wait until the contributions largely cease, then take a look at how it has shaped up, then revisit this. Richard 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support keeping this article with the same name Brian | (Talk) 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If renaming to a more generic name requires a split off of a biographical article, then I oppose the more generic name.-gadfium 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the opposite is proposed. Either keep the current name and split off all the case history etc to another entry say, Christchurch Creche Case, or, use more generic name "Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche Case" and keep it all together". My understanding is that midnight would prefer anything under only Ellis' name to include only basic  details. Upon reflection I'm happy with either, the links will be obvious.
Richard 04:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article name proposal 

message: The Debra A Poole quote [Ministerial Inquiry] should be removed unless a cite is given, as is it may constitute original research. Richard 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite req 

message: In the judgment of Court of Appeal (R v Ellis [2000] 1 NZLR 513) it was stated that Ellis' birth date was 30 March 1958.  In the article it says he was born in 1959.  Can someone clear this up? PageantUpdater 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellis' age 

message: The following is a strong claim 
"Some complainant children started therapy sessions for sexual abuse before the investigation had ceased and before they were cross-examined in court."
I believe that it needs to be cited to page 9 of Eichelbaum's Report.
The claim is situated in last paragraph of "the trial" section. There are urls to MOJ website and Eichelbaum already in notes.
Thanks Richard 09:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shifted this to the interview section and ref it to Williamson oral judgment (No2) but if anyone can further refine the ref by proving a journal ref for the judgment then all the better. Richard 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote needed 

message: Apologies for not being bold but I guess you could say I'm just keeping an eye on things here since I don't have enough information or enough of a grasp of the article to make anything but minor edits myself.  Something else has just come to my attention.
Unrelated to this I was reading the information on headings in the Manual of Style and I realised that the headings in this article do not conform.  I am loathe to change them myself because of the issue of interlinking (i.e. I don't know what, if anything, is interlinked and would need changing).
The relevant bits:
*Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase.
*Avoid "The" in headings; use "Voyage" instead of "The voyage".
*Avoid repeating the article title in headings; use "Voyage" instead of "Voyage of the Mayflower" in an article titled "Mayflower".
*If at all possible, avoid changing spelling of section titles, as other articles may link to a specific section.
At the moment we have the following headings that should probably be edited (and my proposed changes):
*"The case" > "Case"
*"The Children's Forensic Interviews" > "Children's forensic interviews"
*"The Trial" > "Trial"
*"The Appeals" > "Appeals"
*"The Thorp Report" > "Thorp Report"
*"Ongoing Influence" > "Ongoing influence"
I am currently unsure about:
*"A Mother's Story"
*"Ritual Sexual Abuse" (should Sexual Abuse be capitalised?)
*"Ministerial Inquiry " (should Inquiry be capitalised?)
If there is no opposition to this I can change them myself but I wanted to introduce this here first. PageantUpdater 09:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and change them. It's a fairly new article so there shouldn't be too many links to sections in it from elsewhere. I don't think we have any responsibility to preserve section titles just in case someone's linked to them.-gadfium 09:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The manual also says: "If at all possible, avoid changing spelling of section titles, as other articles may link to a specific section. " so I was just being mindful of that. PageantUpdater 10:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with most of these changes, except "The case" > "Case". Neither of these options describe the section well, in my opinion. How about "Investigations"? -- Avenue 09:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with them and I back suggestion of "Investigations" but  I consider the call to "avoid" the use of "the" to be a bit retentive. Richard 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I was thinking of the same thing as PU (even though I wrote some of the headings, I've since noticed that they don't conform). 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Headings 

message: I don't think Ablett Kerr is hyphenated, see
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/2000/EichelbaumSubmissions/jak-01.pdf
Richard 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ablett Kerr 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes vs Paraphrases 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph with loosely related points 

message: : 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)
thread_title: Eichelbaum report in References

message: 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:
--RichardJ Christie 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix the typo in our article (too many 8's). -- Avenue 00:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN - L Hood  'A City Possessed' 

message: This article was recently assessed as B class, the only rationale given (in talk History) was that it needed a photo and infobox. Well, It has two photos already. What is an infobox?
:Class B articles are, supposedly,:
::Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
i.e. article is not comprehensive enough 
:And Class A:
::Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.
It is hard to justify other encyclopedias carrying more comprehensive information on Peter Ellis than this Wiki article. Such articles simply don't exist. Only one book (Lynley Hood's) and one or two magazine articles (dealing in specific phases of the case) exist that surpass the scope of material supplied in this article. The article is well sourced/cited. Maybe the solution is to be less comprehensive, but whoops no - do that and it's back to class B again.
So what's the problem? Is presentation given greater weight than substance in Wiki projects? Pretty pictures etc. I requested the rating but find the result quite bewildering and the rating process highly unhelpful in improving the article. RichardJ Christie 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ratings are a very crude measure of establishing an article's value. However, adding an infobox would not be too difficult. Choose an infobox from :Category:People infobox templates. If there's nothing more specific, then use . Help for filling it out is at Template talk:Infobox Person (almost all fields are optional), and you can see what it should look like from any of the articles from this list. Effectively, the review was saying that the article wasn't in a standard format. Once you've put the infobox in place, try asking for another review. I don't know the etiquette involved, but you may be able to ask the person who did the original review directly if they could review again and give more detailed comments.-gadfium 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note that the requested assessment modifications have been met. I requested the rating and have now removed the obsolete result. IMO it was highly cursory in any event. RichardJ Christie 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  assessment