Talk:George Pell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dolphin's erasure of material with citation

Dolphin at 07:39 hours GMT on the 7th of June removed some text and the supporting citation. His edit summary referred to attribution "to someone named Marr". I intend to address this in proposed restoration of the text by referring to "David Marr, a reporter of the appeal who was quoted by CNN". I disagree with the characterization of the text as miscellaneous and minor. The text is unified by giving points which tend to show that Pell's conviction ought to be overturned on appeal. This same meaning, among others is contained in the source, as well as all of the individual points which I put into my own words. My text corrects the article which gives no indication as to whether the appeal went well for Pell or not. If any editors think the weight of commentary about the appeal favors the expectation that the appeal process will uphold Pell's conviction, those editors can show citations that support that contention. Such a contention based on an editor's feeling is inappropriate. If David Marr is a good enough source for CNN, he is certainly a better source than any Wikipedia editor. I see no reason that information on these points should be withheld from Wikipedia readers. - Fartherred (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia not being a Newspaper and only presenting "a succinct summary of the Appeal", the article already refers to Pell wearing a clerical collar, the proceedings being livestreamed, and three grounds of appeal being lodged. Is this less newspaperish than the material Dolphin removed? Did Dolphin just get terribly concerned about newspaperish content when it tended to show that Pell's appeal is likely to overturn the conviction? - Fartherred (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Fartherred is right about the unwarranted level of detail in comments about Pell wearing a clerical collar at the Appeal hearing; and the three judges being visible in televised proceedings. I have erased these details. Wikipedia’s coverage of the trial, conviction and appeal doesn’t provide this depth of detail. Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper. Dolphin (t) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There is more about David Marr and the Pell appeal here. It refers to Marr's book about Pell, which as you will see has been very controversial. Marr is a prominent journalist and biographer, with a special interest in homosexual clerical abuse (and is gay himself), so "someone called Marr" indicates that Dolphin doesn't know who he is (see also Marr's book The High Price of Heaven). Here is Marr's "train wreck" article. I lean toward including a reference to what Marr says about Pell, but decided not to include a reference to this article, because it discusses the conduct of the appeal (on only the first day of it) rather than the legal issues. Wikiain (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiain You appear to be assuming that everyone who reads our article about George Pell will know who David Marr is. Don’t forget that Wikipedia’s readership is international. Marr may be quite well known in Australia but it would be a mistake to imagine he is equally well known in the northern hemisphere or in countries where English is not the primary language. Dolphin (t) 12:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that why we have wikilinks: David Marr? WWGB (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin51: I made no such assumption, only that you apparently happened not to know. But, since you raise the matter, I agree with WWGB. Perhaps we can leave it there. Wikiain (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiain: I know precisely who David Marr is, and so do you, but those two facts are almost irrelevant because the Wiki article on George Pell was not written for us. It was written for a vast unknown audience around the world. We must assume most of this vast unknown audience has never heard of David Marr. If our article says something like “David Marr said X and Y and Z about the Pell Appeal” that vast unknown audience is entitled to ask “Who is this Marr person, and why is his view noteworthy?” That point was made very powerfully by Vision Insider in his 5 March edit. The article doesn’t mention the opinions of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Paul Kelly or other prominent Australian commentators so mentioning David Marr’s opinion in the way proposed by User:Fartherred is to give undue weight to Marr’s opinion.

I see that you want to leave the matter there. That is your prerogative but this thread was started by Fartherred so the matter should remain active until Fartherred indicates he is finished. The thread is based on a challenge directed at me, and I remain available to respond to questions and challenges for as long as others want to post them here. Dolphin (t) 06:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Fartherred on my Talk page. See User Talk:Dolphin51#The Pell article. (I tried replying here but it came to nothing due to an edit conflict. With only my iPad I can’t deal with edit conflicts.) Dolphin (t) 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The assertion that Cardinal Pell is a "convicted child sex offender" rather than the assertion that he was convicted of child sex abuse is certainly contentious and questionable. Therefore I will remove it. - Fartherred (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

And I restored it, it's a fact unless overturned by the appeal. WWGB (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As an editor, WWGB's opinion as to whether it is a fact that Cardinal Pell is a sex offender is worth nothing for determining what text should be included in Wikipedia. Only assertions backed by citation may be included. The legal status of Cardinal Pell and the fact of whether he is a sex offender or not are two separate considerations. The assertion that Cardinal Pell is a sex offender is certainly contentious and questionable. Maintaining that assertion in Wikipedia is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. I will revert WWGB and restore the well supported text. - Fartherred (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"legal status of Cardinal Pell and the fact of whether he is a sex offender or not are two separate considerations" No, they're not. A convicted sex offender is someone who has been found guilty of committing sex offenses. He's been found guilty. If his appeal is successful, then that status will naturally change. Until and unless that happens, he's a convicted sex offender, and it's appropriate to describe him as such. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To answer WWGB's objection in edit summary, I reduced the mentions of appeal in the lead to one. - Fartherred (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention of the conviction appeal in the lead first sentences.

There are insistent attempts to downplay the fact he is, and is known as, a convicted child sex abuser in the lead. I have reverted this.

There is merit to the discussion as to whether the introduction lead should include the fact an appeal is in process, however this needs to use WP:NPOV language and I can not see any consensus for that in the Article talk page as of yet. Aeonx (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We can continue the discussion [here.] at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. - Fartherred (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion at WP:BLPN. There is consensus that convicted child sex offender should be in the lede. But, there is no consensus which sentence convicted child sex offender should belong to. I suggest holding an RfC here to determine that - version (1) where convicted child sex offender is in the first sentence, and version (2) where convicted child sex offender is in a later sentence in the lede. starship.paint (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Later. The lead seems fine to me. The reason for the article is that he is a Cardinal, so a summary of his career should come before noting any particular incident. Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Wikiain: - as I said earlier, it would be better to give a proposed version of the text with the change. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiain: - The reason a lot of people are looking at his article this year is that he is a Cardinal AND a convicted sex offender. The latter has made him a lot more notable than the average Cardinal HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry: I should have said just that the lead as it is seems fine to me. Wikiain (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made two alternatives, as has been suggested, but mostly because I think it's a bit of a superfluous action. Given the worldwide coverage of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church (among other institutions), the worldwide coverage this matter received and the attention paid to the trial's outcome, it's hard to see a reason you wouldn't begin with his conviction. It's fairly typical to describe one of a larger number by what sets them apart. There are lots of cardinals, for instance, and most aren't known by name to most people. It's probably fair to say (this is supposition, of course) that Pell would be one of the more recognisable cardinals to the public at large, but only because of his conviction. I think we keep the conviction in the first sentence.Vision Insider (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that the status quo should remain until a new consensus is formed. starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating lead section following unsuccessful appeal.

After the discussion here, and at BLPN, the decision was made to keep the lead as it was, pending the outcome of Pell's appeal. With the appellate court having confirmed the conviction, it's time to take a look at the lead again. It's really much too long. I'd propose trimming it to something like the following:

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian convicted child sex offender and prelate of the Catholic Church. Ordained in 1966, he was created a cardinal in 2003 and has served at various times as Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishop of Sydney, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, and as a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers. Pell has maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, arguing for a strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy. His views on the environment, and global warming in particular, however, are inconsistent with scientific consensus.[11] In 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual assault of two young boys in the 1990s,[21] making him the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse.[17] He was sentenced to six years in prison.[22] In August 2019, the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed Pell's appeal.[29][30][31][32]

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you could shorten it even further. Is there need to mention a failed appeal in the lead? Maybe just:

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian convicted child sex offender and prelate of the Catholic Church. Ordained in 1966, he was created a cardinal in 2003 and has served at various times as Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishop of Sydney, Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, and as a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers. Pell has maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, arguing for a strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy. His views on the environment, and global warming in particular, however, are inconsistent with scientific consensus.[11] In 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual assault of two young boys in the 1990s,[21] making him the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse.[17] He was sentenced to six years in prison.[22]

Just what I reckon.Vision Insider (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the below, actually. Also, I agree that his rank should be described as “cardinal” as prelate is too broad. Vision Insider (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I support the exercise to make the lead more concise. After careful thought I recommend the lead retain mention of the failed appeal - for two reasons: the appeal is still highly topical; and Bubbajoe’s proposed version deals with it in a commendably concise manner. Dolphin (t) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 for retaining the appeal outcome, at least while it's in the news. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the lead sentence should remain "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church and convicted child sex offender." not putting child sex offender first. The discussion above says that being a child sex offender should be first as this is what make him more notable than the average cardinal. The reverse is equally true: that being a cardinal is what makes him more notable than the average child sex offender. More to the point, being a cardinal defines him as sufficiently notable to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. Being a child sex offender does not of itself make him notable. A cursory review of lead sentences of articles in Category:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse shows that most of them list priest before offence. The article is about Pell, not just about the recent court proceedings nor the events in the 1990s that led to them. I think this order is consistent with WP:CRIMINAL. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with ScottDavis, particularly his point that being a sex offender does not confer sufficient notability to warrant an article on Wikipedia, but being a Cardinal does. See WP:NCATH. Dolphin (t) 04:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, also his cardinalship preceded his sex offence. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 for cardinalship before sex offence. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Pell is more notable for being a child sex offender than being a cardinal, particularly in the current climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.129.195 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Cardinal should be last. If the conviction is upheld in the high court, he is likely to be stripped of this title.

He is notable for being both Cardinal and sex offender. It's unlikely that he would receive anywhere near as much media coverage if we were only a sex offender, and not the most senior Catholic in the country. If he is stripped of his title, he will be notable for being an ex-Cardinal, who was defrocked for sex offences. There are far fewer of those than other sex offenders. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is Pell currently described as a prelate rather than a cardinal? "Cardinal" is more specific and thus more informative, and is also a greater claim to notability, as prelates include lower-ranked bishops. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it is because someone has edited it to draw attention away from his rank given he has tainted it by being a child sex offender. Not that my supposition is proven by anything. I think change it to Cardinal.Vision Insider (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree (1) that the lead should be shortened - it seems to have become extended as a convenient way to keep up with events (myself included); (2) that “Cardinal” should be specified - his seniority is one of the most important facts; and (3) that the recent appeal should be included - his status in criminal law is also a very important fact. Errantius (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with "cardinal" rather than "prelate". I hadn't clicked through to either article and am not familiar with Catholic titles. I assumed cardinal was a role and prelate was a title. Since it seems I was wrong, cardinal seems to be the right word in the lead. I don't think the recent appeal needs to be mentioned in the lead at all any more - he was convicted before the appeal, and still is. Any High Court appeal would need to be mentioned from when it starts unless/until it affirms the current judgement, or if it overturns the current state. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Scott, I think you'd be right about the appeals in almost any other case - but, as you will know, they have recently been all over Australian media and have attracted considerable attention elsewhere. I would think that they are currently the principal reason for looking at this article. So I'm sure that the Court of Appeal decision should be in the lead for the time being. That time would be at least the next three weeks, until his lawyers lodge an appeal to the High Court - as I expect they will if they reckon they have any chance and the dissenting CA judgement seems to give them that. Errantius (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

TV news is reporting that Pell will appeal to the High Court, relying on the dissenting judgement in the Court of Appeal. Appeal to the HCA requires the HCA’s permission, but to me that seems probable. Thus we can expect that this case will be in the news until the appeal is heard and the decision, normally reserved, is delivered. Therefore sporadically in the news for several weeks, probably some months. Errantius (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think even “some months” is too optimistic. I heard one authoritative commentator suggest mid-2020 is the likely timescale. Dolphin (t) 12:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree - was just being cautious. Errantius (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is now a print media report (seen in the SMH but presumably also in The Age) that Pell's lawyers have decided on an appeal. Looks reliable but only citing "sources", so I wouldn't put it into the article: Le Grand, Chip (25 August 2019). "George Pell to take his case to the High Court". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 26 August 2019. The report ends: "If he is granted special leave to appeal to the High Court, it may be late next year before the court hands down a final judgement on his case." Could be, indeed. Next step for the article: cite a report that an appeal has been lodged. Errantius (talk)

Gag order or suppression order

The majority of reliable sources have referred to Judge Kidd's order as a "gag order" rather than a "suppression order". –Zfish118^⋉talk 02:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The legal and publicly well known name for it in the jurisdiction where it was issued is "suppression order". "Gag order" sounds like American slang to me. And this occurred in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that User:Zfish118 is a resident of the US. It is likely that the sources he has seen make use of American English, including the expression “gag order”. In Australia our media mostly makes use of British English including the expression “suppression order”. Dolphin (t) 10:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I've altered to "Gag order|suppression order", accepting a relation of particular to general where the general category is for an encyclopedia that prefers American English and "suppression order" is in that article as a particular alternative. Wikiain (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Australian texts have used the term suppression order, which is more common in our local lingo. The convention on Wiki is to use the style of the culture the article is about. Vision Insider (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Australian English is specified in a banner at the top of the Talk page, and in hidden text at the top of the article. Dolphin (t) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

First sentence. Child sexual assault vs Abuse

Child abuse and child sex offenders are broad terms which do not convey the scope of the offending. It is important to be accurate and display the seriousness of the offences.

There appears to be some vandalism by wiki users trying to downplay Pell's crimes and vandalising this page, which is of serious concern. Further to this the structure of the sentence is now concise, which was an issue raised earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumSlumy (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence has been recently discussed in the above section. If you have something to say then do so there and stop your repeated disruptive edit warring. Yahboo (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a different conversation relating to order, not specifics of offending. You are going to be blocked if you continue vandalising the page and attempting to downplay the crimes and not be accurate. You also open yourself to libel if you distort facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumSlumy (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@SlumSlumy: You are now at 5RR, even as you accuse other editors of edit warring and vandalism. You must now deal with the report at WP:AN3. The current description of Pell's crimes reflects the wording used by our cited sources, as has been advised now several times. General Ization ^Talk 13:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor blocked indef for EW, WP:NLT, and abuse filter. General Ization ^Talk 13:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've requested a temporary protection, we'll see what happens. It's getting a bit tedious reverting and changing continuous IP edits because some people just don't like the fact he was convicted.Vision Insider (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see a semantic difference between "...is a convicted..." and "...has been convicted of...". For the previous iteration of changes, child sexual abuse is a kind of Sexual assault so keeping the cited Child sex offender redirect is more specific (and what is in the references). --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Bundling of citations

Hi there. Good faith edits made by Bacondrum on 11 July 2019, namely edits here, here, here, and here, use WP:CITEBUNDLE for Early positions and awards; Melbourne Response; Melbourne Response criticism; Child abuse charges; Prison term; and Guilty verdict. The purpose of bundling is to reduce the impact of citations appearing in-line of text. However, the approach adopted in this article is inconsistent. In spite of the edits made to date, in the lede section alone, four consecutive citations are used twice, at the end of paragraph three and midway through paragraph four. In the Royal Commission section, four consecutive citations are used on five occasions. In essence, the concept of bundling citations has been applied inconsistently in this article and I propose unbundling them. Discussion is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You are proposing unbundling in order to eliminate the problem of inconsistency. I suspect the impact of unbundling will be more adverse than the current problem of inconsistency. I am having difficulty visualising which citations are causing the problem; and what the article will look like after your proposed unbundling. I suggest you provide us with a clearer explanation of which citations are the problem. Dolphin (t) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: The differences occurred as a result of these edits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Each of these set of citations appear once only: current reference numbers:

14. Early positions and awards = 2 sources

15. Melbourne Response = 2 sources

17. Melbourne Response criticism = 2 sources

19. Child abuse charges = 3 sources

21. Guilty verdict = 3 sources and, through an earlier edit by me today,

37. Council of Cardinal Advisers term = 3 sources.

I propose that instead of bundling these citations, they would appear once only in the article at the point where these inline citations occur. The benefit in bundling citations is where multiple references occur at multiple places in the article. However, the way this article reads at present is that multiple references appear in one place only in the article. If, say, there was considerable content in the article about the Melbourne Response and its criticism that involved the use of #15 and #17 on multiple occasions, I could see the benefit in WP:CITEBUNDLE; however, in the absence of multiple use of citations, or applying against other citations that may be used on multiple occasions, this tool has no practical use in this article. Hence, the concept of bundling has no significant benefit of reducing its readability. Rangasyd (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful explanation. Another benefit of bundling is that it avoids the appearance of Citation overkill. In the lede there are two places where a sentence is supported by four citations (see citations 24, 25, 26 and 27; see also citations 29, 30, 31 and 32.) I can understand Users choosing bundling in order to avoid the risk of some citations being trimmed away to reduce the appearance of citation overkill.

Two of the examples you have quoted involve bundling of only two citations. I have no objection to these two being unbundled. Another two examples involve bundling of three citations and there is a little benefit in bundling.

In the lede there are two instances of a sentence being supported by four citations. I think the appearance of the article would be improved if one or two of these citations were eliminated to avoid overkill, or if the four were bundled. Dolphin (t) 21:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: Thanks for your thanks. However, citations 24, 25, 26 and 27, if bundled as one citation in the lede, create problems further down the article as 24 and 25 are used in two other places, not located adjacent to each other; and 26 and 27 appear in one other place, located adjacent to each other and adjacent to one other use of 25. So, 25, 26 and 27 could be bundled, but not with 24. And then, regarding citations 29, 30, 31 and 32, with 29 and 31, they appear just once; yet 30 and 32 appear in one other location, adjacent to each other. So, 30 and 32 could be bundled, but not with 29 and 31, that also could be bundled. However, this approach really creates a messy situation with some citations bundled and some not. Hence, I get back to my original point that let's just do away with the bundling and keep it relatively clear. Regarding WP:OVERKILL, I can't see that this article demonstrates this, other than perhaps citation 24 could be reduced from three uses back to two, in the **Conviction** section regarding the suppression of media reports in December 2018. Perhaps WP:CITEMERGE is more appropriate. Rangasyd (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CITEMERGE looks to be a useful tool in this situation. I suggest the article does not need to present the reader with more than two bracketed numbers at the end of a sentence. Where this situation exists at present the citations should either be merged or bundled so there is one, or at the most two, bracketed number(s) at the end of a sentence. Alternatively the third and subsequent citations should be deleted in order to avoid citation overkill. If the bundling you have described is cancelled I have no objection, provided the result is no more than two bracketed numbers at the end of a sentence. Dolphin (t) 13:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead needs enough citations to justify its content, but I'm not sure the summary of the article should need four citations for a sentence. If the claim needs four citations to validate it, then the statement probably shouldn't be in the lead. Rationalising the references, and using newspapers instead of tweets once they are available should improve both the quality and appearance of the citations. Possibly later references will mean that most lead paragraphs only need one reference, rather than multiple earlier sources per sentence. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51 and ScottDavis: Thanks. I've been quite WP:BOLD on making a first attempt at rationalising citations by reducing duplication as much as possible and using WP:CITEMERGE. However, the following references are replicated and need review:

1. Guilty verdict: 5 citations that appear on 4 occasions
2. VCA dismissal: 6 citations that appear on 4 occasions
3. Suppression order: 7 citations that appear on 4 occasions
4. Council of Cardinal Advisers term: 3 citations that appear just once

I'm going to leave it for a while until after the HCA grants leave (or not); and then outcome, if leave is granted. Feedback, as always, is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

At first glance your changes look like a significant improvement. Dolphin (t) 13:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Context within public opinion section

Firstly, it's not that I think that this section is unwarranted. It reflects the public mood well. The part that concerns me is the quoting from Paul Kelly and John Silvester. I can't think of how to contextualise these comments without just referring to the Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse, which is pretty close to doing original research.

At first glance, their views seem okay. However, the RC made it very clear that sexual abuse was extremely common even when it was brazen, even when it carried a high risk of being found out and even when the victims were very close to outside help from unaware adults. The trial summary includes this as well.

The Appeal judges for instance, referred to decisions Rapson v The Queen (‘Rapson’) and WEA v The Queen (‘WEA’), both of which included brazen sexual abuse of children in settings where the chances of getting caught were very high. The appeal decision made it very clear that, despite public perceptions, the idea that a crime would not be committed simply because the perpetrator may be caught is not supported in trial law. While it seems crazy, it's sadly commonplace.

Therefore leaving the comments to stand as they are seems irresponsible, because it gives the impression that the comments are somehow justified, when they actually show a misunderstanding of the way that child sexual abuse is typically performed. It doesn't take away from the fact that the views are common within public discourse, which is why I don't mind the decision, but there should be some sort of context to the comments, explaining why they are not really as insightful as they appear. Vision Insider (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing your point of view. This court case has been the most controversial in Australian history since Lindy Chamberlain, so this section needs to reflect that. Why don't you search for a quote from a reliable source that addresses Silvester and Kelly and Weinberg's doubts on this specific point? It's a little tricky though, as it seems to me that Silvester (and Weinberg etc) aren't actually disputing the general point that "offenders take crazy risks" but rather they are questioning whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that that is what occurred in the very specific circumstances of these people in that place at that time. But I think if you have the quote from a commentator of similar stature to Kelly or Silvester - or the counterpoint to Weinberg's remarks on this specific point given by the Majority judges - then I suggest you add that and it will enhance the section. I'll look too if I have time. Observoz (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from any of the presiding justices don’t really qualify as public opinion on the case. They are the case. There isn’t much point just summarising the opinions of the justices any more than what appears in the conviction and sentencing sections.

Apart from that, it isn’t the publication of opinions themselves that I find concerning, it is that there is no qualifier that both journalists have misrepresented the case. I read the articles linked and they are not disputing just the facts of this one case at all, they are asserting that no one would have done such a thing.

The quote used in the article also says it was based on “uncorroborated evidence” and yet the judgement clearly states that this wasn’t he case. More than 40 witnesses were called in; this doesn’t change the facts of the quotes, I know, it’s just that it lacks context. This is how sex offence cases are dealt with in court, since most of the time they happen in private. There was nothing unusual, as far as is known, about Pell’s case besides his notoriety. It’s not like the journalists quoted provide any proof we can use in this article that would supplant the evidence from the justices’ decisions.

A similar distinction to draw would be to if we had a section on global warming including dissenting journalists’ views that it is all a hoax. That would be misleading without the context that they are misrepresenting the facts at hand. Vision Insider (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The evidence was uncorroborated in as much as the other witnesses all supported Pell`s story. Weinberg stated that this made the case unusual. Usually there are multiple accusers corroborating one another. This description of the evidence or lack thereof is similar to Justice Weinberg`s and it is how many journalists have described it. JohnLogan1600 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This section is discussing the importance of contextualising quotes. As it stands, there is no reason to have them stated without appropriate additional information to prevent misleading readers.

The appeal decision can be read at the VSC website. You will note Wienberg does not state the evidence was uncorroborated, and there were indeed witnesses who testified against Pell's case, rather that he thinks the supporting information it not enough to dismiss reasonable doubt. That is the context I think is needed for the public opinion section. Vision Insider (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your interpretations of the judges' remarks. But still we must rely on reliably sourced information to write this article, not your interpretations. I think the section was originally about divided legal and public opinion. You seem to have narrowed it to focus on public reception, which had the effect of removing discussion of the significant chasm between the Majority and Dissenting judgements. But that can be addressed elsewhere, so I am ok with that change. However, your personal view that there is "nothing unusual" about this case is, frankly, not the view of a great many correspondents learned in law. And there is no comparison here to dissenting journalists on the topic of "climate change", because, for starters, we know that somewhere between 2 and 11 jurors in the first trial felt "reasonable doubt" and at least one of the four judges who heard the trial felt the same (and in fact invoked Lindy Chamberlain). So the reputable legal correspondents and journalists quoted here as questioning aspects of the case against Pell are not way out on a fringe by any stretch of imagination. Observoz (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence of what he said: "In my view, on the whole of the evidence, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt"

The section as written repeated much of the section that preceded it, which already outlines the case details. I removed it partly because of the fact it was repetitious and partly because it felt like it was straying too close to secondary source material - the judgements being the primary sources. It also seemed to treat them all as equally weighted; the dissenting judge's opinion shouldn't be considered to be equal weight as a journalist who wasn't even in the courtroom for the trial. Having them in the same section implies they're the same value. Where you've put it now is pretty good.

The comments on global warming are taken out of context; it's not that I have said that the controversy doesn't belong in the article, rather that there may not be enough supporting rationale behind all of the comments. I was making an analogy, not implying that the two are of equal merit in their reasoning. This is meant to relate specifically to sex offence cases; it's unlikely that a typical Wikipedia reader would be aware of the manner that a sex offence matter is usually brought before a court. So if an opinion on the page suggests that the facts of the case are unusual for any reason, they have no actual way to verify if the statement are misleading or likely. Vision Insider (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking pretty good now. Reading through it all now, I reckon it looks about right. Thanks to @Observoz: for moving the judge's comments into the trial section, it works better there. And @WWGB:, I think that context is enough. So I'm removing the template now, cheers all. :) Vision Insider (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral opening description

The opening should describe what Pell was convicted off, not whether he actually did it or not. The legal status of Pell can change in mere months. This is a highly controversial case which was reflected in the split appeal decision. Neutral wording seems very important here. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Once he has been convicted, we can fairly report that he is guilty of the crime. That is the purpose of a jury trial. Of course, should the appeals court actually overturn the verdict, that's a different story, but the simple fact that the conviction is being appealed doesn't change how we say it. We're not watering it down because of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, and I see you were already told that, and were just waiting for the protection you caused last time to expire. Any more of this, and I'll request handling for disruptive editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Already told this? Where? And no, if a court finds someone guilty this doesn`t always mean they are. Wikipedia is neutral and neither supports nor rejects the notion that any particular justice system is reliable or fair. Until it has been settled whether he is guilty this violates NPOV. Many commentators and legal experts dispute the verdict. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You were already edit warring over this in September, until the page got protected. Not but a day or two after the protection expired, you're back at it. So, no. Once you're convicted by a competent court (which Australia's presumably are), it is acceptable to state that you are indeed guilty of the crime. That is nothing new, that's how we do it in other articles, and it's how we'll do it here as well. We're not going to water it down to kinda-maybe-sorta; he was found guilty, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wasn`t edit warring over it, reverted some vandalism, that was all. The page got protected for different reasons for a while actually from what I remember. Which Australia`s presumably are? That`s POV. This is hotly disputed, the Australian legal system is being highly criticized including by legal experts, specifically regarding this case. Wikipedia requires neutrality, especially regarding living persons and controversial cases. Check the guidelines again please. Stepinac wasn`t stated to be a collaborator even before his conviction was officially overturned. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Also isn`t your talk place the place to discuss your edits? Refusing to recuse yourself when you are clearly biased regarding a living person is highly unprofessional. Do you want to edit Boris Berezovsky`s article to describe his as a convicted criminal btw? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So I request you justify the POV by citing wikipedia rules. Are all controversial verdicts treated as fact? Do you have any personal animus against Pell? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing this article, not either me personally or other ones. And "edits I don't agree with" are not vandalism. Your edits weren't vandalism either; they are just in dispute. The article already notes that some people disagree with various aspects of the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up Seraphimblade's views and connecting them to this article is inappropriate. There is no conflict of interest here — and your claims of bias are tangential, anyway. Not that it would be a factor were they not. El_C 16:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If the case is disputed, and even the appeals judges were split as was the first jury, then the opening sentence should reflect this. Also in response to El C someone who is an open Marxist is hardly neutral on this issue either so your assertion that there is no conflict of interest is very weak when you have clear ideological sympathies for Seraphimblade. Wikipedia is looking less reliable with the day. Maybe this discussion should be archived so others can judge whether wikipedia is still politically neutral. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up my own views is also inappropriate. Please stop doing that. El_C 16:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep opening sentence as it is. There doesn't seem to be any reason to change it. The second wording isn't a good style choice because it is such a roundabout way of getting to the point. I prefer editing for brevity where possible. There's no reason to consider a legal decision not worthwhile evidence, either. As for the matter being under appeal, well, it's not at this stage. Pell hasn't been granted leave to appeal. The legal positions following a conviction are reversed: the onus of proof has changed. The Victorian legal system assumes innocence unless proven otherwise. Now that Pell has been found guilty, this decision stands unless found otherwise. Therefore Pell is a convicted child sex offender. Vision Insider (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This feels like it is the same conversation that we had a month ago. Can we consider the carcass well and truly flogged by now? Vision Insider (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Treating the conviction as reliable is inconsistent with Wikpedia policy and ignores the massive controversy surrounding this case and the Victorian system in general. Wikipedia doesn`t treat political opponents of Putin who have been convicted as guilty either, nor other cardinals who have been convicted in controversial case. In one of three judges believed Pell wasn`t actually guilty the opening shouldn`t pretend it was infallibly he was. This whole debacle is hurting any appearance of neutrality. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it actually isn't inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Pell was convicted of a particular crime, and the article notes that. That conviction was of sexual offenses against children, and the article notes that. That's all there is to it. If the appeals court actually reverses or overturns the conviction, we'll of course update the article to reflect that if that happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So should Wikipedia state that Boris Berezovsky is a convicted embezzler? The opening doesn`t just note that Pell was convicted, it states he is a child sexual offender, thereby asserting he indeed committed the crime, that the verdict was just, that his supporters are wrong, the special leave for appeal isn`t justified, that the Victorian legal system is reliable, those criticizing it wrong and so on. Blatant POV. So should Boris Berezovsky`s article be changed? Describe him as a convicted embezzler? Should Cardinal Mindszenty be described as a convicted traitor? His conviction was never officially overturned was it? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The opening says "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church and convicted child sex offender." (my emphasis). This is not in doubt. Your objection might be valid if the word "convicted" was not in the sentence. If the High Court chooses to hear the case, then overturns the other courts' decisions, this will change. If the High Court either refuses to hear the appeal or determines to uphold the previous decisions, then the sentence will still be true. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Could we PLEASE draw a line under this—leaving the text as it is until more is heard from the High Court? Errantius (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Easily done; just ignore further discussion until (or if) anything new develops. The sources in the article have a timeline somewhere either the end of this year or early next year to know if leave to appeal will be granted. Then such an appeal is a few months after that. The prosecution only submitted their response to the leave request last week, so there won’t be any new developments for a while. Vision Insider (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It may be easily done but that is not how these things happen at Wikipedia. If a User wishes to raise the matter on this Talk page, that User is free to do so; if another User wishes to respond, that User is also free to do so. If @Errantius: does not wish to see it discussed any more it is easy for him to refrain from participating further, possibly also erasing this article from his Watchlist. But neither Vision Insider nor Errantius can stifle further debate on the subject on this Talk page. Talking is what Talk pages are all about. Dolphin (t) 11:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair call; the intention wasn't to stifle debate, just to say we don't have to keep going in circles. The discussion has run its course as we are just repeating the same things again and again. We need to wait a while to see what new developments unfold before doing anything else. I don't mind at all if anyone contributes and I've even done so, I am suggesting leaving things for a while to see what happens. So has Errantius, from how I read it. That's why Errantius has said to leave things until whatever happens next; the consensus seems to be to leave things as they are unless something new comes up.

A user asserting - without proof - that Victoria's legal system is apparently rubbish, or that the judicial process was poor (again without evidence) or that the opening sentence represents an unfair point of view (it's about as factual as it can be worded, which has also been point out) is hard for user-base to engage with because there's nothing to really go on. Those statements are against the current consensus, and lacking proof, require the user to provide at least some proof for there to be any further discussion. At no stage has the user been told to stop, just to wait. Vision Insider (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The opening line I read is "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church and convicted child sex offender.[2]". This statement is factual and neutral. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It is neither factual nor neutral, Pell has been convicted but many question he verdict and view it as a form of religious persecution. Many doubt that he is a sexual offender at all, including justice Weinberg.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/calling-cardinal-pells-prosecution-what-it-is-religious-persecution

The justice system in Victoria has been highly criticized, specifically regarding how it treated Pell.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/why-the-case-against-cardinal-george-pell-doesnt-stand-up/

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/03/george-pell-and-the-jury/

The opening should be changed. JohnLogan1600 (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

JohnLogan1600 : The opening sentence is factual and neutral in a strictly legal sense. He has been convicted and sentenced for that particular crime. Whether he is actually innocent or not is a different issue and one which a Wikipedia article cannot have a view about. Afterwriting (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Providing some sources this time is appreciated. Having read them, as opinion pieces they can't be used for the factual elements of the page. They are suitable for the new section on public opinion, though. That said, welcome to the world of officially registered users. :) It is much better cyber-security than using your IP address. Vision Insider (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Factual and neutral in a legal sense is problematic when the legal system has been highly disputed on this specific case and Victorian law as well as the Victorian justice system are currently being attacked by various groups and individuals. I agree that Wikipedia cannot have a few on whether he is innocent or not. Calling him a martyr, a victim of religious persecution or bigotry or even a victim of a miscarriage of justice would be equally biased if not more so, but the opening line that he has been convicted for child sexual abuse is more neutral on whether the law was correct than that he is a convicted child sexual offender which seems to state he really did it and was rightfully convicted. A statement which cannot be more disputed.

I will attempt to provide some more sources but the most important thing to consider is that since Justice Weinberg had extreme doubts whether Pell actually is a sex offender or not, having an opening sentence which basically refutes him and treats the majority decision of Ferguson and Maxwell, (which is currently being appealed, whether successfully we`ll have to see), is highly problematic. JohnLogan1600 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Stating the current legal position is pretty consistent with Wikipedia policies. The majority decision is treated as more significant because it is the one that matters. You are correct to note that it does not take the minority view into account, because that is how the law works in a common law system. Of course, as has been stated many times, if the legal position changes then the article will be changed, too.

The decision is not being appealed at this stage. We will likely know sometime next year if the High Court will grant leave to appeal or not. Again, this will be reflected in the article if it happens. Vision Insider (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The current intro is prejudicial not neutral, and directly links child sex offenses with the Roman Catholic Church, an unfair slur. Of the 5 opening paragraphs, 4 deal with the conviction, and the only one not to explicitly smear Pell includes an ABC link about Pell being charged. This is ridiculous weighting given the composition of the actual article! The first fifth of the article entails the opening and Pell's career, the next fifth is his views and theology, the middle fifth deals with his handling as archbishop of child sexual abuse cases by clergy, the fourth fifth deals with the accusations and conviction that is the focus of the opening plus the controversy which is ignored, and the final fifth deals with citations. I suggest the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs in the opening be consolidated into a single shorter paragraph, and one which includes the highly controversial nature of the trial and conviction. I would also strongly suggest the first sentence be rewritten, perhaps something along the lines of "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church who was convicted of child sex offenses in a highly controversial second trial." If more info is needed readers can jump to the relevant section of the article. Without that pointer however it seems that Pell's conviction is an open and shut matter. 人族 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The matter of conviction is currently shut. That it is so, is controversial and the article is carefully recording that, including the prospect of it being re-opened on appeal. Errantius (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is a C-Class article, so it is far from perfect. There are lots of areas for improvement. The second paragraph does not refer specifically to Pell's conviction, rather it refers to Pell's creation of the Melbourne Response. He was noteworthy for this, and it was part of the article, before his conviction. It is probably the work that he is best known for as a Cardinal, so it is appropriate to have such prominence for. Similarly, his conviction is noteworthy, too.

That the article could be improved is fair criticism. It's not badly written, just a bit bloated in parts, or includes heaps of details we could condense. How would you prefer to word the opening paragraphs?

Your suggested edit for the opening sentence is not better than what is currently there. It is too wordy, and gives too much weight to a minority opinion. It's also a bit of a truism - it's exceptionally rare that a court case is not controversial, so why bother mentioning that point? The opening also includes that he has requested an appeal, which means that it already asserts that the matter is not concluded. Vision Insider (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Except even the 2nd paragraph isn't immune to the conviction connection. It is the only paragraph which doesn't explicitly refer to it, as if Pell isn't know for anything else, and yet the 18th citation's title is "George Pell, Catholic cardinal, charged with historical sexual assault offences". Thus even that paragraph contains a connection. As for suggested opening, okay I'm open to discussion - I was simply trying to get the ball rolling. No, court cases usually aren't all that controversial. The Pell case has proven highly divisive. Offhand I can't think of a comparable case. 人族 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify: sex offence court cases are almost always controversial. Especially since the victims are usually in positions of vulnerability and perpetrators are often either family members, or noteworthy citizens.

Offhand Jeffrey Epstein would be the person who comes to mind; while he never testified, there are dozens of rich and famous people he is connected to. His arrest and death were controversial. Michael Jackson also comes to mind, whose guilt in a civil court was controversial. Bill Cosby is another, with lots of similarities to this case, given there was such a long time between the events and the eventual trial. Pell's case is one in a long line of famous people convicted of sex offences whose legal cases garnered debate and controversy. Each has their own reasons for it, obviously, and is steeped in their own nuance, but it's fairly ordinary for a sex offence legal case involving a prominent person to be followed by passionate debate.

On the first point, I don't really see how the title of the citation matters, given it is what it has been cited for that is important. It isn't hard to pick another source, though, as there are many. I assume that one was picked because it is very recent, and therefore the most up to date available when it was written. Vision Insider (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of Pell's High Court timeline has been set

Please don't exclude this from article.[1][2] The court dates are scheduled for application submissions.JoeScarce (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's ok. I've tidied the refs - the second one didn't add anything. Errantius (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the veracity of the information. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. Information of temporary significance generally does not belong in an article. As soon as the appeal actually takes place and is ruled on, the exact dates will become irrelevant. They are of very temporary significance, and are news, not encyclopedic significance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted you and will explain. While you are correct as to general principle, this is a very unusual case. It concerns an extremely notable individual and extraordinary circumstances. I'm sure that almost anybody, and surely anybody in Australia (as I am), will have at the front of their mind the timeline of judicial decisions - and most of all for a final decision by the High Court. The article has been tracking the judicial developments and this material (which will eventually become redundant) is the current part of that. Errantius (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This case is not so special. You're just projecting your own opinion onto other people. The current information is overly complicated and unnecessarily detailed.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to get personal. Errantius (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're getting personal if you're saying we need intricate details because you're interested (and so is everyone else).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Errantius: has written “this is a very unusual case.” I agree that from the perspective of day-to-day discourse this is a very unusual case, but here we are talking about the considerations that are peculiar to Wikipedia. Is Errantius able to identify one or more of Wikipedia’s guidelines or essays that tells how we are to do things differently in very unusual cases? Dolphin (t) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: To go back to basics: WP:UIAR, WP:BURO, WP:5P5. It may be possible to condense the criminal matters after the High Court pronounces (the hearing is reportedly to be on 11 March, though it hasn't been formally listed yet), although judgement will probably be weeks if not months later. Errantius (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this very unusual. We should go with the consensus. It doesn't sound like the consensus is to keep this information.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I shall just make the social observation that since Pell's earlier trial was banned from coverage in Australia, many people in that country probably have an escalated interest in this trial. Anything that looks like again hiding information will trigger concerns among Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It feels like a job for later is to massively clean up the entire section on his trials and convictions. It is probably overly detailed.Vision Insider (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think tidying the article will trigger concerns among Australians. If people want the latest news, they can always use Google.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

While you guys were discussing the utility of current information that will change later, I updated the article by removing future dates that have now passed, and summarising what happened on them (with new references). I believe it is useful to have the current state described, even when we expect (or even know) that it will change in the future. As such, I agree with Errantius on that. I also agree with Jack Upland that regular tidying is needed (see how I condensed the info from the 19 Nov 9news ref), but disagree that people should have to use Google to see the current state. News is great for what changed since yesterday, but a reader shouldn't have to track all the changes to be able to get the current picture on a topic. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course we need to record the current state of affairs. My comments about googling the news related to the hypothetical conspiracy theory, where someone is removing information from Wikipedia. Sorry, it was badly expressed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries. It's interesting how often I butt in to conversations where I mostly agree with both sides of opposing arguments. The challenge can be to help all parties recognise where they agree. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronatalist views

Original text of "Pronatalist and 'populate or perish' views" subsection

In July 2008, when Pope Benedict XVI visited Sydney for World Youth Day (shortly after World Population Day) and expressed concern over environmental issues, Pell publicly suggested that Catholics should be at least as concerned about falling populations. He was reported as stating that the "slowing [of] population growth and apathy towards God are the biggest challenges facing the church" and that Western nations faced a population crisis fuelled by "ruthless" commercial forces, such that "No western country is producing enough babies to keep the population stable, no western country." This was contradicted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, whose research showed that Australia had twice as many births per year as deaths and that "2007 saw ... the highest number of births ever registered in Australia". Pell's views were contested by the economist Jeffrey Sachs, who argued that "The planet, everyone can feel, is just right at the limits right now in terms of food, in terms of energy supply, in terms of land use." Sachs also suggested that world population projections "Are already too high at around an extra 2.5 billion people by 2050."

Is this really that important?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is important, because he has not simply expressed views that one would ordinarily expect from a cardinal: (1) this cardinal has apparently disagreed with the Pope; (2) he has not seen world population as a problem, despite environmental concerns as expressed by the Pope; and (3) his concern seems to have been only with the viability of "western" populations, which looks racist—especially since today very many (and perhaps most) Catholics are not "western". Errantius (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The section has problems, and potential original research. In particular, the statement "No Western nation [has a positive growth rate is contradicted by the Australian bureau of statistics. This statement uses the single example of Australia to rebut the a claim about a general trend. The underlying sources need to be investigated to verify a reliable source is rebutting Pell, and not a conclusion made based on the statistics. –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In general terms a single example is logically sufficient to rebut a claim of "No ...". However the ABS population clock clearly demonstrates that Australia is not keeping the population stable - it is growing! Mitch Ames (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The passage reeks of WP:SYNTH and its insertion was to further a WP:POV agenda so I would suggest excluding the whole thing. Elizium23 (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia author is using demographics of a country of 30 million to contradict a statement about the "western world" with a combined population of over 1 Billion. Yes, the statement is logically valid but only in the trivial sense. Does a local population experiencing growth meaningfully contradict the argument if the entire "western" population were declining. I cannot determine from data, because only the raw Australian statistics are cited. It is original research because it uses raw data from one source to draw a conclusion about a statement made by an unrelated party. The author does not cite an external source who makes the argument. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think moving this into "Environmental positions" and taking out the statistics is an improvement. Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, why not "Sexuality, marriage, and bioethics"? This is directly related to the practices of abortion and contraception in society. I think it straddles both topics. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2020

Additional sources about the homily or other statements would be needed. The current article cited only discusses the homily as a response to climate change, and doesn't mention birth control or abortion at all. –Zfish118^⋉talk 06:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it does straddle both topics, and that was another problem with the previous section, in that it took this issue out of context. However, since Pell's views on population have been presented in opposition to environmental concerns, I think here is the best place.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page at ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Conviction quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered

Time for an edit

Seems like his conviction was quashed. WPancake (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes it has been. The opening must be changed right away. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Change "George Pell AC is an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church and convicted child sex offender" to "George Pell AC is an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church" Olivia Gupta (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

George Pell is no longer a convicted sex offender. His conviction was quashed this morning, by the Australian High Court. This article needs to be updated.

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-52183157
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/apr/07/cardinal-george-pell-high-court-decision-appeal-latest-verdict-live-news
• https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/george-pell-wins-high-court-appeal-against-child-sex-abuse-convictions/ar-BB12f3oj?li=AAaeSy5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedresponsibility (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note, Pell's conviction has been quashed. He has not been acquitted. All terminology in the article should use the appropriate legal terms. With thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Read the judgment before editing

ORDER

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3C21:100:20D7:C0F4:CA32:CEE8 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing seems to.have been blocked on the article page.

• https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-07/child-sex-abuse-convictions-against-cardinal-george-pell-quashed/

Already addressed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

My error, Pell's conviction was quashed and the "verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place". Rangasyd (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there is unnecessary detail on this in the lead, focussing on court procedure, which doesn't really matter to the general reader.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please be constructively specific, perhaps with suggestions. Errantius (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This conveys the same information with less words and less technicalities: On 11 December 2018 Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual assault of two 13-year-old boys while Archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s and was sentenced to six years in prison. He lodged an appeal against his conviction to the Victorian Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal by a majority of two to one in August 2019. On 7 April 2020, the High Court of Australia unanimously quashed Pell’s convictions and substituted verdicts of acquittal; the Court's summary of its judgment stated that there was "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes: please substitute, retaining the refs that would remain relevant. Also "judgement" wth "e", since this is a generic and not a judicially technical usage. Errantius (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If we are to give credence to the High Court's decision, then the bit on sexual abuse by the cardinal should not take up more than half the lede. Jzsj (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now done this, with help. I don't understand why we need so many references in the lead for uncontentious facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Restrictions on priestly ministry

The Vatican in February 2019 reaffirmed the restriction on Pell's exercise of his priestly ministry and said they had been put in place by the local Ordinary when Pell returned to Australia [in July 2017]. I’d like to document that action on the part of the Ordinary but can’t find a source. And would that Ordinary be Denis Hart? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"During the course of the discussion, ABC moderator Tony Jones sought to infer anti-Semitism in Pell's remarks"

This seems to be a POV take sourced to an editorial on a Jewish lifestyle blog that stopped updating as a 'magazine' in 2015 and which seems to have been replaced by some generic spam site in the past year, breaking the link. It's been sitting in the article for eight years, and the editor who edited in the POV and link is apparently still around and editing THIS article as of last October. What the heck? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:747D:E47F:2E89:24FE (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the space given to this is undue. One sentence could sum this up.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Vatican investigation mentioned in acquittal section

I don't dispute that there is or was an investigation ongoing by CDF in February 2019, but the placement of the statement at the end of the Acquittal section seems out of place to me. Pell was acquitted in April 2020. References currently numbered 250 and 251 are all from February 2019 (as expected) and are mostly reactions to the contemporaneous initial conviction. I think, for the sake of consistency and keeping the already-dominant chronological organization of the article, the sentence about the ongoing CDF investigation should be moved from the Acquittal section up to the Appeals section... though I'm not particularly happy with that either. It doesn't fit in most places because the entire "Allegations of child sexual abuse, conviction reversed on appeal" section almost exclusively discusses Australian legal proceedings. Even so, I think putting it back in chronological order is preferable to what we have now. It's just strange. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct. And the investigation in ongoing as of now. I’ll make a move. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Innocence hidden in lead

The current lead obscures His Eminence's innocence. There is a long paragraph that starts out with his conviction, without saying it is quashed and void. The quashing, an annulment of the judgement, is hidden at the end. The next paragraph returns to an investigation. His Eminence is innocent and this is misleading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace Bishop (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no such concept as innocence in Australian criminal law. Either the Crown convinces the Court that the defendant is guilty (= Guilty), or they fail to do so (= Not Guilty). Whether they actually did the thing they were charged with is basically irrelevant; if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a Court, it's as if they didn't do it, whether they actually did it or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

His Eminence is not guilty. Reading the present lead one could easily miss that as assume that His Eminence has been found guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace Bishop (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We describe the process, which as you know was long and tortuous, involving three separate courts. If he was found Not Guilty to begin with, that woud be simple to describe, but he wasn't. To start out with the quashing of his conviction would cause readers to wonder "what conviction?". This makes for clumsy writing. People don't just read the first half dozen words of a sentence and then stop reading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have much sympathy with Grace Bishop’s view. As I view the lead on my iPad the longest paragraph is the one about the accusations of Pell’s sexual offending against two 13-year old boys. This is no longer the basis for Pell’s notability as required for there to be an article about him. I think this information should now be removed from the lead and relegated to the details lower down in the body of the article. At the very least, it should no longer be the longest paragraph in the lead. Dolphin (t) 00:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've shortened the discussion in the lead. Errantius (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Errantius, if Australian English uses "judgment" then we use "judgment" in this article. Wikipedia prefers the established English variant in an article, not any one in particular. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

For Australian English the recognised authority (even by the courts) is the Macquarie Dictionary. It prefers the "e" and in its entry for "judgement" states: "Although the general community is roughly divided on the preferred spelling, with a slight tendency towards judgement rather than judgment, there is a convention in the legal community to use the judgment spelling." Thus Australian usage is consistent with WP practice for generic use of the word, including generic use within a legal context (as here, for we are writing as encyclopedists and not as lawyers). I mentioned the matter only in hope of avoiding this becoming an issue. Errantius (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY

WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically prohibits the use of court records and trial transcripts in biographies of living people. We need to use reliable secondary sources (or at least primary news sources reporting on the court cases) and not the court records themselves. They are inadmissible here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You are referring to the first paragraph of WP:BLPPRIMARY while ignoring the second. You have also complained in WP:BLPN#Use of court records in a BLP, alleging "extensive use" of a court record or similar, and I will just reproduce what I have said there:

No case to answer. I am citing a new judgment by the High Court of Australia, which in terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY is to "augment" those media reports. Only the judgment itself is a fully reliable source. There is no "extensive" use. I doubt that this is the sort of "record" or similar that is contemplated by the policy. Moreover, the article concerns a very public figure. Errantius (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Errantius (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The policy in question instructs is not to use court records to "support assertions about a living person". (emphasis added) The court document here is used to document the court's action and its reasoning. There is no assertion about Pell. The fact that the article is about a living person does not mean that every statement in the article is about that living person. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why the High Court's concluding summary is being deleted

User:Errantius has twice deleted the High Court's concluding summation. I am at a loss as to know why the editor would prefer an uncredited and partial interpretation over a verbatim quotation? The following quotation will enhance the acquittal section by giving the precise and succinct reasoning of the court. It also makes the point that the court accepted the Accuser presented as "credible and reliable", so I cannot understand Errantius' objection to including the court's own brief words rather than an uncredited interpretation of them. Here is the High Court's own summary which needs to be brought back into our text:

The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and described: (i) the applicant's practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass. The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents. With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof."

— High Court of Australia High Court of Australia Judgement Summary: Pell v The Queen HCA 12; www.hcourt.gov.au; 7 April 2020

With no objections, I will restore this uncontroversial text. Observoz (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Objections:

1. Please observe the standard advice at the end of the Judgment Summary: "This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons." Thus it is not a "concluding summary". The quotation does not "enhance the acquittal section by giving the precise and succinct reasoning of the court"; it does not form any part of the court's reasoning. As the Court advises, the Judgment Summary must not be substituted for the judgment itself.
2. However, I think that it may be appropriate in WP to quote from a Judgment Summary where its wording is plainer to a general reader, provided that the quotation is referenced to the Summary and a reference to the judgment itself is included.
3. This editor has not sought to "prefer an uncredited and partial interpretation over a verbatim quotation". I am relying upon and seeking to credit the judgment instead of the Summary, for the reason just given.
4. The evidence listed in the quotation concerns only one part of the whole body of evidence, the part relevant to the evidentiary question before the High Court: did the Victorian Court of Appeal decide correctly the question whether "the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence" (High Court judgment, para [4]; see also para [7]). The High Court determined that the jury should have placed more weight upon the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses" that Pell was unlikely to have had an opportunity to do what he was accused of doing. Only that evidence was necessary to the Summary (the High Court attempts to keep these Summaries short, preferably a single page, like media releases).
5. If, however, this article is to consider the whole body of evidence, it will seriously lack balance if it gives this much attention to the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses" but not equivalent attention to the evidence of the accuser (as the judgment itself does). It is very important that, when the High Court places greater weight than the jury did upon the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses", it does not thereby cancel the evidence of the accuser. Both sets of evidence remain in contention. The High Court differed from the Court of Appeal only as to the respective weight. The High Court notes (para [48]) that the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal did not find the accuser's evidence to be simply false. It also notes defects in the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses". The accuser's evidence is never directly contradicted. It is still standing: doubted, but not refuted.
6. Accordingly, if the preferred quotation (or preferably an equivalent drawn from the judgment itself) is to be included, there should be similar attention to the accuser's evidence.
7. But the quotation alone already adds too much detail. The previous point thus constitutes a further argument for a separate article on this case and on other legal proceedings that may follow. The other choirboy's father has said that he will bring a civil case against Pell and/or the Catholic Church, which would be decided not on the criminal burden of proof (absence of reasonable doubt) but on the civil burden (balance of probabilities). Errantius (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for elucidating, however, I am not at all convinced and this is not a place for you to speculate on civil proceedings that neither currently exist nor have been tested in a court of law. This is a limited section of a vast article that explains why the High Court acquitted George Pell of these specific charges. The summary I have quoted was written and published by the High Court itself. It leaves no room for misinterpretation. Your alternative text is unnecessarily ambiguous and interpretive. This section is about the acquittal and the reasons for the acquittal. Other sections deal with the accusations, but in any case, the judges say they accept the complainant appeared "credible", but point out that his evidence was contradicted by other witnesses as outlined. The best I can suggest is that you could peruse the judgement and find the line that you feel "balances" the Courts concluding statements. However, it will not be acceptable to delete this key summary explaining why the court acquitted the Accused on the basis that you don't agree with the seven justices of the highest court in the land. Observoz (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Kindly read more carefully:

1. I am not "speculating" on potential civil proceedings by the other boy's father. It is what he is reported to have said, in a newspaper report that I had already added in the article as source for Pell's comment on his acquittal. The report states:

The Pell matter is still the subject of a civil claim.

The father of the now deceased choirboy is suing the Catholic church and has pledged to continue the case following the quashing of Pell’s conviction.

“We will continue to pursue a civil claim on behalf of our client despite the high court’s ruling,” the man’s lawyer, Lisa Flynn from Shine Lawyers, said. “He has suffered immensely and maintains George Pell was responsible for his son’s sudden downward spiral after he abused his son as a young choirboy.”

I refrained from including that in the article.

2. That civil proceedings would be on the civil burden of proof is not speculation but well known fact.

3. You still seem to suppose that the Summary contains "concluding statements", i.e. is part of the judgment—despite the Court's clear advice to the contrary, which I quoted.

4. You claim that I "don't agree with the seven justices of the highest court in the land". Where have I ever suggested any disagreement with them? Justify your claim. Errantius (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I've misinterpreted re your "agreement" or otherwise with the judges. But your point about prospective civil cases is still not particularly relevant to whether we show verbatim the court's own summary of the reasons for acquittal in this section? What is your concern there? Also, I call these "concluding" remarks because they are the concluding paragraph of the Court's own summary. The alternative wording created by a wikipedian sayingt that the judges "accepted" the complainant's evidence is not accurate. The judges said they accepted he was a credible witness. That is quite a different thing, because they also said the testimony of the other credible witnesses conflicted with his evidence, and the prosecution failed to contest or refute the evidence of the other credible witnesses. Again, I can't quite grasp the substance of your opposition to inclusion of the court's own concluding paragraph from its own summary. Observoz (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK:

1. Thank you for the apology about "agreement" or otherwise with the High Court.
2. My point about prospective civil cases was not connected with whether to cite the Summary, but with extending this article or becoming a further reason for a separate article about Pell and the law.
3. I explained that the accuser's evidence was "accepted" along with that of the "opportunity witnesses". This was what produced a conflict that required a weighing of the two sets of evidence. The High Court determined that the jury had got the weighing wrong.
4. You are still not considering my contention that this article should be based not on the Summary but on the judgment itself. Wikipedians would then have the responsibility of summarising the judgment in a way suitable for the article, which may differ from an appellate court's summary designed to show how that court has agreed or disagreed with the court below.
5. If this is because you may not have sufficient legal background to deal with the judgment (which will be so for most Wikipedians), please acknowledge that some of us do. Errantius (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Divided Opinion and Public Reception?

As it stands we have a lengthy section on the public reaction to the guilty verdict given by the 2nd trial but nothing on the public reaction to Pell's eventual acquittal. Isn't that a mite queer? How about something like: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/08/abc-backs-its-reporting-on-george-pell-after-andrew-bolt-accuses-it-of-a-witch-hunt.

The ABC continues to claim that its reporters' stories including those by Louise Milligan, were accurate and unbiased. By contrast Greg Craven, president and vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, contends that the ABC was part of the cheer squad that sought to ensure a guilty verdict. Political commentator and writer Miranda Devine argued that Pell was "... falsely accused and railroaded through a politically motivated investigation and an unfair trial." She went on to condemn the media lynch mob, the entire Victorian legal system, and every politician, cop, lawyer, journalist, and coward who naively trusted the system and defamed Pell's defenders. Janet Albrechtesen emphasised that while ABC journalists work for the taxpayer they failed to even mention critical relevant facts - like Pell's acquital being 7-0. Renowned social and political commentator Andrew Bolt called the jailing of Pell one of Australia's greatest miscarriages of justice, but contends that the quashing of Pell's conviction for inherently implausible crimes doesn't make things better. Like Devine he contends that the High Court's decision shames the police for hunting for complaints against Pell then failing to ask sufficient questions, the Court of Appeal for rejecting Pell's initial appeal, and the ABC which marched in lockstep to persecute Pell for years on the basis of false claims and never had a single presenter express doubt about their jihad to destroy the man. ABC Reporter Louise Milligan continues to insist she did not collude with police and that no evidence to the contrary will be found.

Don't copy and paste the above - it's more a summary of the Guardian article, but something should be added to the current piece. Milligan and the ABC should definitely be mentioned given their central role in things. As to what and who is quoted\paraphrased to give the pro-Pell\pro-justice side, I'm flexible with that, but the Guardian piece certainly gives some possibilities. 2001:44B8:21A9:ED00:518A:8FD0:E113:C59B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You thought we were going to copy and past the above? I read the article and that's not a summary of the article. You summarized the opinions of the zealots and political hacks that the article quoted. If you really want this in the article, you'll need to find some reliable sources that back up your claims of "jihad", which you'll never be able to find. Cheers. ~ HAL333 04:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HAL, judging by your profile you're a Yank so you probably aren't familiar with the Australian environment. The ABC is funded by government\taxpayers and thus supposed to be neutral - it's not. It's probably unfair to call Milligan and her colleagues zealots and political hacks, but so long as you don't write that in the article you're free to hold that view. As for Devine, Albrechtesen, and Bolt, they're among the best known and most respected commentators in Australia so will hold far more weight than the views of Joe Public. If you don't like the Guardian article then you could try something like: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/george-pell-how-statefunded-bodies-destroyed-in-innocent-man/news-story/ba7a6213da1ee2c323d35107a34f1516. Amongst other things it states the ABC engaged in a witch-hunt, and that it's continuing to go after Cardinal Pell. 人族 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That wins today's award for the craziest, most extreme, right wing post of the day, all the while trying to sound objective. To help inform international readers, I will simply point out that Devine, Albrechtesen, and Bolt all work for News Corporation/Rupert Murdoch. Well known? Yes. Respected. Not by everyone. The linked article is from the Herald Sun, Murdoch's biggest selling tabloid in Australia. 人族, stop being silly. Once people know what I have written, they will see reality more clearly. I find it interesting that right wing commentators now believe their role includes defending the Catholic Church and its most infamous leaders. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you consider that 'crazy extreme right wing' then you're probably part of Bernie's Bolshevik Brigade and we have no hope of finding a neutral balance point. News Corp is one of the main media conglomerates in Australia with newspapers ranging from right-wing through to left-wing tabloids. Its holdings include The Australian which is (the last remaining?) broadsheet and probably the closest thing the country has to a national\flagship paper, with articles by both right and left members of the media. The other main media conglomerates are Fairfax\Nine which is left-wing, and the taxpayer funded ABC which hovers between left-wing and Far Left. (I can track down figures if you like but from memory it's something like 35+% Far Left, 45% Left). Calling the Herald Sun tabloid could be misleading. Yes it's a compact format, but so too are the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and most newspapers in the country. Tabloid doesn't mean British tabloid smut. As for Devine, Albrechtesen, and Bolt not being respected by everyone, of course not. Nobody respects everyone, and those on the Left especially don't respect those considered Conservative or Right. Conversely Milligan for instance might be well respected within ABC circles, but not outside with critics considering her a coward and either a liar or a terrible journalist. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral however not succumbing to pro-Leftist or pro-Rightist bias that shouldn't matter though right? 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lack of balance here, with no public reaction to the acquittal recorded. I think we should add something. I also think the "Divided opinion" section should be cut down as it is now out of date. Or perhaps there could be one section about public reaction to the case in general.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere we should point out that the people who are objecting (to the quashing by the High Court) on the principle that the original verdict was fair and should stand, did not seem to have objected when the Court of Appeal upheld the original verdict 2-1. I wonder if the reaction would have been different if the balance had swung the other way. It seems they adhere to principle only when it favours their position. I'm sure we could find a good source comparing the reaction to the two later trials. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As is mentioned in threads above, the entire section on the criminal trials is fairly unwieldy. Even if we move it to a new article, I agree that this section as it stands has a lot to be desired. It could do with being updated following the High Court.Vision Insider (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Separate Article?

Is the case that just ended at the High Court of sufficient importance to justify a stand alone article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is, and this would have advantages. The article on Pell should just be about the man and should contain a minimum about the failed prosecution. The 3 court cases are notable for their legal significance and justify a stand-alone article. Dolphin (t) 22:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The legal significance being.... Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We would need to include his conviction and appeal here anyway. I don't think the case has great legal significance. It was just a case involving a famous person that was part of a global controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The legal significance is major, as a demonstration of just how high (perhaps too high) the evidentiary bar is for proof of sexual assault. This issue is now prominent in media, including a statement by the (still anonymous) Witness J. Errantius (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are describing potential political significance, in that this case might prompt debate about certain aspects of the Australian judicial system. (I would have thought secrecy and gag orders would be the key issue, but I’m very much an outsider.) But the legal significance of the case seems minimal. I’d think it more useful if someone with knowledge of the proceedings and the Australian legal system edited this excessively detailed account. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"The cardinal’s convictions by unanimous jury verdicts were a landmark event in Australian history. The High Court’s decision will be, too – both for the legal world and for society more broadly." – The Conversation Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a separate article would need to be on the whole case and not just on the High Court's decision. Anglicanus (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A separate article makes sense. The decision's significance is due to:

• a) The High Court heard the arguments "As on Appeal". This means that they sat within their original, rather than appellate, jurisdiction. It is a much stronger precedent to set as it clarifies a specific legal matter at hand with all future sex offence accusations. Essentially, the precedent is now set that if a jury believes the complainant in a historical sex offence case, that is not enough to convict.
• b) The High Court ruled that the Victoria Court of Appeal was incorrect in its reasoning. The majority justices weighed evidence in one way, while the dissent weighed the evidence differently. This decision says that the dissent was the correct weigh to handle evidence, a binding precedent for historical sex offences.
• c) It is too early to tell, but it may be that future historical sex offences are essentially impossible to pursue in criminal court. This may set a de facto statute of limitations on sex offences - but only in the criminal court. Pell is still facing 8-10 civil suits, for instance, where the burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but is instead just a ruling of which party is likely in the legal right.

Vision Insider (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that is vastly exaggerating the issue. The concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not new. Pell is not the first person to be freed on appeal, and he won't be the last. What precedents are set by this remains to be seen. If you want to gaze into crystal balls, do it on a blog. Having said that, I think there is plenty of material to write a separate article, and if someone wants to do that there is absolutely nothing stopping you. You do not need to get consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vision Insider - The points you make are interesting ones, but I doubt we would be able to get well sourced content specifically saying what you wrote, or similar. I'm leaning towards the view of Jack Upland that this is just one of many prosecutions that have been overturned on appeal, and apart from the person involved, is not an extraordinary event. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The first two points come from the judgement itself, only the last is speculation. That said, the judgement is a primary source so I can’t really use it as the article’s basis.

It is different to ordinary appeals because it is an original jurisdiction case. Most appeals are not, they simply overturn that one decision based on earlier precedents. This was deciding the direction for historical sex offences.

But if none of the points are relevant, that is also fine, I won’t gather sources if it is too esoteric to be noteworthy. Although it does make me wonder why we would then need a separate article. (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In any case, we don't have an article for every Australian legal precedent. I think this is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Vision Insider on reasons for a separate article on Pell's prosecution and any civil proceedings. Compare the separate articles O.J. Simpson and O.J. Simpson murder case. WP often uses judgements as primary sources, as with the "Examples" in WP:PRIMARYCARE; otherwise judicial events could hardly be discussed. Errantius (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the failed prosecution takes up about half the article, overshadowing almost everything else about the biographed. I do agree that this article is better off relating the man's life and career, while it'd probably be a wise idea to split the lengthy description of the judicial case in a separate article. WPancake (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Or reduce the absurdly detailed coverage of the legal maneuvers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on that.Vision Insider (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of child sexual abuse

2002 allegation

In June 2002, a Melbourne man accused Pell of sexually abusing him at a Catholic youth camp in 1961, when the accuser was 12 years old and Pell was a young seminarian. Pell denied the accusations and stood aside while the inquiry continued. The complainant agreed to pursue his allegations through the church's own process for dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct, the National Committee for Professional Standards. Retired Victorian Supreme Court Justice Alec Southwell, appointed commissioner by the church to investigate the matter, found that the complainant, despite his long criminal record, had mostly given the impression of "speaking honestly from actual recollection" but concluded as follows: "bearing in mind the forensic difficulties of the defence occasioned by the very long delay, some valid criticism of the complainant's credibility, the lack of corroborative evidence and the sworn denial of the respondent, I find I am not 'satisfied that the complaint has been established'". Pell said he had been exonerated, while the complainant's solicitor said his client had been vindicated.

Charges, trial and acquittal

On 28 July 2016, the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Graham Ashton, announced that there was an investigation into alleged child sexual abuse by Pell following a report by the ABC's 7.30 program the previous day and stated that he was awaiting advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In October 2016, three Victoria Police officers flew to Rome to interview Pell, who voluntarily participated, regarding allegations of sexual assault.

On 29 June 2017, Victoria Police announced they were charging Pell with a series of sexual assault offences with several counts and several victims. At a press conference in Rome, Pell stated that he would return to Australia and was "looking forward, finally, to having my day in court" and claimed "I'm innocent of those charges. They are false". Details of the charges were not made public, however a series of hearings and two trials later dismissed all but one of the cases brought against Pell.

"Cathedral trial"

On 1 May 2018, Pell was committed to stand trial on several historical sexual offence charges. Magistrate Belinda Wallington concluded that there was enough evidence for the case to proceed on about half of the charges. Allegations that Pell committed sexual assault in a Ballarat cinema during the screening of a film were among the charges dismissed. Pell entered pleas of not guilty to the remaining charges. As a bail condition, Pell surrendered his Vatican passport and was not permitted to leave Australia.

On 2 May 2018, Pell appeared in the County Court of Victoria for a directions hearing before Judge Sue Pullen, and it was agreed that he would undergo two separate trials with two separate juries and that the charges would be heard separately for each trial. He was to be tried in relation to allegations of sexual offences taking place at St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne, in 1990 in the first case, and in relation to further allegations taking place at a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s in the second case. The Catholic Weekly, a publication of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, advertised seeking donations for Pell's legal fund and wrote an article promoting the appeal for funding. It is unknown who was responsible for the advertising or the donation drive. Prosecutors sought a media ban on reporting of proceedings until the beginning of a final trial, including suppression of reporting an initial trial and no further reporting on earlier trials until completion of the final one. A suppression order was subsequently issued by Judge Peter Kidd. The purpose of the order was to avoid biasing potential jurors against Pell in a future criminal trial.

Pell's first trial for the allegations of misconduct in St Patrick's Cathedral began in August 2018 under Judge Peter Kidd. However, it ended with the jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict. This necessitated a retrial, with another jury. A retrial was conducted, again under Judge Kidd. On 11 December 2018, Pell was convicted on five counts of child sexual abuse of two boys in the 1990s.

Pell's legal team lodged an appeal against his conviction. His bail was revoked on 27 February 2019, and he was taken into custody at Melbourne Assessment Prison. The sentencing hearing on 13 March 2019 was broadcast live to the public, with Chief Judge Peter Kidd sentencing Pell to serve six years in jail with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. Pell was also registered as a sex offender.

"Pool trial"

At the time of Pell's conviction in the "cathedral trial", a second trial was pending regarding unrelated allegations that he sexually assaulted two boys while throwing them in the air in a Ballarat swimming pool in the late 1970s. These allegations had been raised by the ABC, leading to a Victoria Police investigation; however, Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges after a judge disallowed the prosecution's submission of evidence from complainants on the grounds that each piece of evidence was not sufficient.

Appeals and acquittal

Pell continued to protest his innocence after his conviction in the "cathedral trial". The court heard pleadings for Pell being granted leave to appeal simultaneously with the appeal itself on 5–6 June 2019. On 21 August 2019, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria issued its ruling, which upheld the conviction.

Pell sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, the final court of appeal in Australia.

On 7 April 2020, the High Court unanimously granted leave to appeal, treated the arguments about leave as arguments on an appeal, and allowed the appeal, quashing Pell's convictions and determining that judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. The Court found (as stated in its summary) that the jury, "acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted". The Court agreed with the minority judgment in the Court of Appeal, finding that the majority might have effectively reversed the burden of proof; the majority had been so impressed with the accuser's evidence that it had gone on to ask only whether, despite the testimonies of the "opportunity witnesses", there was a "possibility" that the alleged assaults had taken place and not, as was required by the test of reasonable doubt, whether there was a reasonable "possibility" that they had not.

|}

Vision Insider (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Article clean-up and query about including recent accusations

Firstly, as mentioned in above threads, this article is due for a clean-up. Mostly everyone has put it on hold until it was clear what to include and exclude, but since we have a date for next week, that helps. Unless anyone has objections, I think that the current court-case sections is probably twice as long as it needs to be. It's pretty much a blow-by-blow account and it's probably not necessary in such detail. I propose:

• Reducing the criminal trial and conviction sections to a 2-3 paragraph summary of the entire process
• Removing the dates and timelines - at the moment, much of it is just explaining the dates judgements were made, and when they were set, etc.

Secondly, regardless of what happens, other accusers against Pell have publicly come forward. Similarly, the Royal Commission has, at this stage, redacted all of the accusations against Pell until his legal processes are exhausted. I think that the latter is definitely noteworthy, since it is coming from Australia's highest investigative authority. There's no need to do anything other than just present that these things exist. There doesn't seem to be any consistent approach to this on Wikipedia, though. Some pages don't mention accusations, others devote massive sections to it. In Pell's case, it's fair to say he is noteworthy for accusations of child molestation following him throughout his life, so I think it's fair enough to include it. So I think:

• 1-2 paragraph summary of accusations arising from the Royal Commission

Vision Insider (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, something like "noteworthy for accusations of child molestation following him throughout his life" needs to be stated without suggesting that the accusations were or were not justified. Errantius (talk)

Yeah, that's the intention. Michael Jackson's page could be a model for how is is written. Actually, I didn't like it as much on second reading. I'll find an example of the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Essentially, just a description of what was alleged, without any other commentary, including omitting any media reaction to it.Vision Insider (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You might try Donald Trump#Allegations of sexual misconduct and the main article linked to that. Very tricky stuff. My inclination is not to touch it unless and until it becomes a battleground of allegations with denials. Although any finding about Pell (whether accusation or exoneration) by the Royal Commission should be included for its own importance and in any case the media will home in on it. Errantius (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested entire section Does anyone object to this being the article's new content? I've stripped out most of the legal to and fro.

Thank you. Only minor suggestions: perhaps "wrongful" should go, following discussion in that section; and your ref to the Summary is missing a zero in the year. Errantius (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

How about now? I've changed it to "acquittal" instead. Thanks for picking up the ref. Vision Insider (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Allegations of child sex abuse" subsection rewrite

April 2020 police investigation I’ll simply pose the question alluded to en passant above: Is the current/latest investigation properly handled (a) in the body and (b) in the summary. Two of the 3 citations require subscriptions so there’s little I can say of substance, but the writing is mealy-mouthed: "It was reported... " and the refusal of the Victoria police, if not stated expressly, should at least suggest the word "unconfirmed" by authorities. Have publications other than the Sun Herald backed up its reporting? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Is there a current investigation? The Guardian and The Times references only say that the Herald Sun said there is. The Guardian says a direct question was asked at a police media conference and the answer was “I don’t have any comments to make at all in respect to Cardinal Pell.”. The Telegraph says there is a new investigation. The Herald Sun doesn't seem to be cited in the paragraph but says "Victoria Police has been conducting a secret probe into Cardinal Pell while he appealed against his convictions to the High Court of Australia."[3] There doesn't seem to be any source for this statement about a secret probe, and it explicitly says "Police have not yet approached him[Pell] or his lawyers." I think that we are overemphasising it, especially in the lead. --Scott Davis Talk 23:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC) I have removed the sentence from the lead, and added the Herald Sun report to the references in that section. --Scott Davis Talk 04:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Gag order in lead I've posted about this issue before, but the existence of the gag order is critical in the lead. The fact that a man was convicted in secret due to suppression order from the court, only to have that conviction not only overturned on appeal, but converted to an acquittal. This is a shocking. While the lead should be narrow as possible, this should not be omitted. –Zfish118⋉talk 01:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC) What's shocking about it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)