Talk:Peter Ellis (childcare worker)/Archive 2

Sexuality redux

According to comments above, Ellis is bisexual, at least. Is there any reason that's been entirely omitted from the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussion above. [1] is one of the versions which included a paragraph on his sexuality. I didn't feel strongly enough about the issue to keep fighting over it, but I always thought the article should be about Ellis, and therefore cover his sexuality, not just about the Civic Creche trial.-gadfium 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of going over previous argument I (also) think mention of Ellis' sexual orientation is relevant to article. Not so the information, once included, regarding the frequency of his intimate partners, relationships etc, simply because in my opinion, Ellis's behaviour wasn't outside the limits of normal variance, therefore it is of little relevance. In my opinion Gadfium's description of his gait and demeanor is also justified. RichardJ Christie 11:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic Abuse section

I don't feel this section justifies itself; it's just a list of allegations with a random introduction about an unrelated and unconnected woman and her seminar. It should at least mention what resulted of these allegations during the trials. In the mean time I'm going to change the title so it isn't misleading. Kansaikiwi 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to this article's construction I have no problem with this edit and would welcome this editor's elaboration as to specific outcomes. However, I would object to any perceived lack of elaboration being used to justify the removal of section's content. SRA allegations underpinned much of the allegation in this case, see

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1994/ERA/index.htm

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/RitualAbuse/index.htm

In regard to the claim "it's just a list of allegations with a random introduction about an unrelated and unconnected woman and her seminar." I suggest that Kansaikiwi note that Hudson was invited to speak by ROSEMARY SMART (and if don't know who that is then I suggest you re-read the article.) Also, advocates such as Hudson had significant role in the world wide dissemination of ritual abuse dogma. RichardJ Christie 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an ending to the section. I still don't think it's necessary to have the complete graphic details of the allegations. I also think the section would benefit from some context, is it implying it was a case of satanic abuse hysteria? If it's there only to show that the allegations occurred then why couldn't it be mentioned in the other sections? Particularly the Trial or Other creche workers implicated sections. Kansaikiwi 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case involved satanic ritual abuse allegations, some of which found their way into court. Material relating to possible ontogenesis of the allegaions is therefore relevant and of interest to readers and researchers. During the investigation literature listing supposed SRA practices was disseminated to parents, investigators, employers and staff.

I deleted the ending Kansaikiwi added as it only duplicates information, [it's an expansive subject ].RichardJ Christie 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I don't think you're listening to me. I don't think the section should be deleted. I think it needs context. The fact that you're explaining it to me on this page shows it's incomplete. Do you even understand my point? Right now it seems like that section has been pasted in from somewhere else, it barely refers to what's preceded it. Can you not see this?? Please keep in mind that you are one person who disliked my edit, while many people probably thought it was a good idea. Perhaps you should ask for agreement before such reverts in the future. This is not your page. It's ours.Kansaikiwi 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening (reading) and doing you the the curtesy of answering your question by explaining the reason for the material being relevant. I'll elaborate further: the nature of the allegations are a large part of the reason this case is uncommon - and why it is so well known, at least in New Zealand. The section is justified on that ground and the above. The fact that I'm explaining it here may rather reflect upon your familiarity with the case and/or article as a whole, the later supposition supported by the nature of your last edit. Note that no offence is meant by the observation. The section is in gereral context of article, it provides information about events at time (i.e. the conference - also linked to a principle person involved in the centre's closure) the nature of alleged SRA practices alongside allegations at the creche. These are verifiable events. You might argue that the article should link them more explicitly, but to do more than it does currently may not be strictly NPOV, readers are entitled to decide for themselves. The separate section is justified for reasons I gave in my second sentence so I don't think merging as Gadfium suggests below enhances the article much, although it is possible. I only reverted the edit for obvious reason. I have no objection to you or others providing further elaboration on the ritual abuse material, perhaps including that Daniel Ryder's book "Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse" was circulated amongst parents and investigators, here is a photo of it, taken in the Creche supervisor's office 1992: http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1992/SatanicRitualAbuse/index.htm. RichardJ Christie

Would it help to outline, as you suggest, what happened re some of these ritual abuse allegations? Some (most of the bizarre stuff) were dropped between deposition and trial, the ones that made it to trial were sanitised (e.g. alleged violent anal rape modified to placing penis "against" the anus). The charges specifically relating to the ritual circle incident described by child X (Bander/Dogwood) failed to secure a conviction. Similar stuff from "Julian Yew" was considered by Williamson too contentious, or irrelevant to the carefully selected charges, to be even heard by the jury. Yet Ellis was still convicted of being party to an offence by an unknown male at an unknown address at an unknown date - i.e. an offence committed by a paedophile ring of some description. This has already been broadly summarised in the article. Eichelbaum wrote that he was convinced that the Hereford St address was the site of offences that alleged multiple offenders (Eichelbaum however, never even visted the address). Information pertaining to the charges has already been given in the trial section so I can't quite understand your claim that the section "it barely refers to what's preceded it". How about writing a draft here or in the section providing the information you feel is lacking.RichardJ Christie 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first paragraph of the Satanic ritual abuse section could be folded into the aftermath section. since Hudson was invited by Smart to Christchurch (making it directly connected to the Civic Creche allegations). The second paragraph belongs under the "Investigations" section, and a link to satanic ritual abuse would be appropriate in this section. I agree that the paragraph deleted by R Christie about the outcome was unnecessary as it duplicated existing content but was less accurate.-gadfium 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"self-diagnosed victim of sexual abuse"

What is a "self-diagnosed victim of sexual abuse" (first sentence of "Investigations" section)? Someone punched me once — it would be unusual to describe me as a "self-diagnosed victim of assault". I suspect there was something more in the woman's case — "recovered memories" perhaps. Nurg (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An astute suspicion. In my opinion: a self-diagnosed victim is one who claims such status based soley upon their own testimony, without any corroborating evidence. Author Lynley Hood, in her book a City Possessed p 224 states that Ms Magnolia, [Sally Ruth] "recovered memories of child sexual abuse, abandoned her patriarchal surname and made a suicide attempt. She kept scrapbooks of newspaper items on court prosecutions for sexual offences. 'Collecting these clippings was a politically motivated and laborious obsession' she told a women's conference at the time." RichardJ Christie (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson/SRA

I believe it is semantically incorrect to describe Pamela Hudson as a "proponent of SRA" as that description suggests she champions satanism. She did however champion the notion that SRA is both real and widespread, although of course, well-hidden, thoughout modern society. I have made changes to section on SRA to reflect this viewpoint. RichardJ Christie (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion for all ritual abuse cases

Editors note generalized discussion affecting all ritual abuse cases, at Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Rename_discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]