Talk:George Pell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Wrongfully convicted"?

The opening section currently states that "In 2018, Pell was wrongfully convicted by a jury re-trial in the County Court of Victoria ...". Is this an acceptable statement? I'm no expert on such matters but it seems to me that the recent High Court judgment does not mean that the original jury conviction, in legal terms at least, meant that Pell was "wrongfully convicted". Should we not just say that he "convicted" and then clarify matters? Afterwriting (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that "wrongfully convicted" is accurate. The High Court has decided that the jury got it wrong, but with no suggestion that they acted improperly. Errantius (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is intended to give an overview, a quick summary, of the topic. Details should be relegated to the body of the article. I think “re-trial in the County Court of Victoria” is excessive in the lead. Dolphin (t) 07:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed both points by changing to "Pell was convicted of sexual offences". Errantius (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The University of NSW Law Journal explains that "wrongful convictions" may include findings of both factually innocent and legally innocent defendants here and The Lawyers Weekly is calling the Pell decision a "wrongful conviction" here. Given the emphatic nature of the High Court decision, we should we should adopt the clear language of the Lawyers Weekly.Observoz (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the restoration of "wrongfully", albeit that the rest of the article makes it unnecessary. It has been restored and the explanatory link is helpful. Errantius (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It is imperative the page state clearly that His Eminence was wrongfully convicted if we mention this null, void, and quashed verdict at all.Grace Bishop (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

While ever you refer to Pell as "His Eminence", you clearly have WP:BIAS and should not be editing here. WWGB (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, you have WP:BIAS too. Why should you be allowed to edit here? Elizium23 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Because I am not a sycophant. Pell is just Pell, not someone to fawn over. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, I think you owe @Grace Bishop: an apology. Namecalling is not WP:CIVIL. And you're off-topic from this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, when hell freezes over. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WWGB, if you feel someone shouldn't be editing, report them to an administrator. Do not bully someone on the talk page with a fake wikilawyer attitude. You have failed to assume good faith over and over again here, and it is very unbecoming of you. Now get back to the topic at hand. Elizium23 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to Grace Bishop, Pell's honorific- prefix, according to the infobox, is "His Eminence", so while it may sound formal, referring to him as such is no different to calling someone "Mr Smith". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In fact the lead section currently does say "In 2018, Pell was wrongfully convicted of sexual offences...". @Grace Bishop: is there some specific text in the article that you want to change? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the article's been in such flux that it had been taken out at some point. I know it was even linked to miscarriage of justice which is a bit beyond the pale. Elizium23 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "wrongfully convicted" assumes the High Court of Australia is infallible. All one can say for sure is that his conviction was overturned. Indeed, more smoke has emerged this morning. Nm3d9 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment While we generally do not use honorifics in articles, there is no policy or guideline deprecating their use in talk page discussions, and in fact the practice is not uncommon. No inference of WP:BIAS is automatic because one chooses to use an honorific absent some other supporting evidence. Editors are gently reminded to assume good faith and remain civil when interacting with one another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The article still contains "wrongfully" and a link to "miscarriage of justice".  Nm3d9 seems to be taking "wrongfully", and Elizium23 to be taking "miscarriage of justice", as having moral connotations. As ordinary language, they can of course be understood in that way, although as legal terms they have no moral association and there is no suggestion in this case that the jury and the courts have acted immorally. In that light, I think it would be better for "wrongfully" and the link to "miscarriage of justice" to be removed. Errantius (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The question, as so often is the case with content disputes, should be resolved by appeal to reliable sources. What are RS sources saying? Are they saying he was wrongfully convicted? Has the term "miscarriage of justice" been employed. If yes, then that's fine. If not, then we should likely steer clear of it given the loaded nature of those phrases. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither "wrongful(ly)" nor "miscarrage of justice" appears in the High Court's judgment or in its summary of the judgment, and it is too soon to find any scholarly writing on the decision. Errantius (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be in the judgement or scholarly journals. But it would need to be language used in multiple reliable secondary sources. Absent that I think we should confine ourselves to stating his conviction was quashed and the verdicts amended to acquittal. If there are prominent individuals characterizing this as a miscarriage of justice and/or wrongful conviction, and they are being quoted in reliable sources, then we could state that some people have used that language with appropriate citations. But unless there are multiple RSs using that language in their own right, then we can't use it in wiki-voice. Our job is basically to repeat what is stated in reliable sources. Nothing more and nothing less. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. "Wrongfully convicted" is not NPOV language, and is only being used now in those parts of the media and by people who never accepted the earlier judgement anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - It's a matter of semantics, rather than legality. Wrongfully convicted is an ambiguous term as it doesn't have a legal basis. It is most frequently used to describe someone who either completed their sentence, or otherwise exhausted their judicial process and then, after this, new evidence was uncovered exonerating them. Essentially, if there was something unusual in the manner of the way that the conviction was overturned. But it can be used for those who convictions were overturned on appeal. More commonly, you'd just say "acquitted" since it was done as part of the normal criminal process. I don't really see an issue with using it if it's the language used in credible sources for the article.Vision Insider (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Credible sources" may be problematic here. A lot of people persistently argue that The Australian is a credible source, on almost anything. But on this matter it has aggressively argued that Pell was innocent long before the High Court finding. I think we need to stay close to the wording used by the court. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to go down that route, the ABC has been unremittingly hostile to Pell since forever and practically went into mourning when the High Court decision was announced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pell was initially convicted. The High Court, which all other courts in Australia are under, quashed his convictions. This means his original conviction was not correct, and he was thus wrongfully convicted. This is all it means, it has no deeper implications. Even if Pell were hypothetically to be charged and convicted of other offences, it would still mean he was wrongfully convicted of this particular charge. As it stands, Pell has been acquitted and currently faces no charges. I'd go far enough to say that the reported new investigation is being given undue weight in the lede, since we can't know if it will go anywhere. Beginning a paragraph in the introduction with "Pell was convicted..." raises WP:BLP concerns. We cannot risk giving off the impression that Pell has any current conviction on his person because it is simply untrue. WPancake (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wrongfully convicted" is a specific legal term and is applicable per this article: "Defining Wrongful Conviction". It would be wrongful of us not to use this accurate legal term. Elizium23 (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The High Court chose to not use the term. Nor should we. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use court records to support an assertion about a living person. Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:BLPPRIMARY, I think it's unrealistic to describe a court decision solely using direct quotations from the decision. Nor do I think this standard is observed anywhere else on the site. Aerali (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The logic on display in those two posts is poor. I have argued for neither position. Both posts are straw man arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, you stated that "[t]he High Court chose to not use the term ['wrongfully convicted']. Nor should we." This is not a reasonable standard, nor is it a standard used elsewhere on the site. For example, I am certain that there are court decisions quashing convictions from this list that do not use the specific term "wrongfully convicted", yet I doubt anybody would remove a case from that list on that basis. Aerali (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article being pointed to does not define the term, but merely states that "'wrongful conviction' could encompass situations"; "could encompass" is a very vague usage, and our applying this in this case is POV. And it does not apply the term to this case. In general, as a BLP matter, we should lead with the overturning, and deemphasize the details of the crime in the lead given that he does not stand convicted at this point. I recommend "in 2020, the High Court overturned a 2018 lower court conviction of Pell on charges of sexual offences", and leave the detail to the body of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I support Nat Gertler's wording - a quick skim of the lead presently makes the conviction stand out more than the acquittal. This wording also avoids needing to decide whether to describe the conviction as "wrongful". --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I also think this revised wording would be acceptable. Aerali (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with Nat's suggestion. Errantius (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lead. Again.

The final sentence in the lead says “Pell remains under investigation by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the sexual abuse of minors.” No citation is given in the lead, but in the hidden text visible in Edit mode there is a statement: “See citations below.”

This sentence in the lead reflects the following sentence in the body of the article under the heading “Vatican investigation of sexual abuse charges”, saying “When Pell's convictions were quashed in April 2020, a Vatican spokesperson said that ruling would contribute to the CDF's investigation which would draw its conclusions on the basis of the norms of canon law." This sentence is purportedly supported by citation number 62, an article in Crux by Elise Ann Allen dated 7 April 2020.

I have closely read the article by Elise Ann Allen. That article talks about many things but says little about an active investigation of Pell by a Vatican-appointed body. If anything, it reinforces the notion that nothing is going to come of it any time soon. The article by Elise Ann Allen is certainly not sufficient to justify the current final sentence in the lead.

I suggest that the sentence “Pell remains under investigation by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the sexual abuse of minors” is only of minor relevance and is not strongly supported by the one citation purporting to support it, so it should be erased from the lead. The paragraph in the body of the article, under the heading “Vatican investigation of sexual abuse charges” is more than adequate. Dolphin (t) 14:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason to have that in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The section “Vatican investigation of sexual abuse charges” begins: "Immediately following Pell's initial conviction for sexual abuse in February 2019, the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) initiated its own investigation of the charges against him", followed by this reference: Wooden, Cindy (27 February 2019). "Vatican announces canonical investigation of Cardinal Pell". National Catholic Reporter. Catholic News Service. Retrieved 11 April 2020. This ref itself begins:

The day Australian Cardinal George Pell was jailed in Melbourne after being found guilty of child sexual abuse, the Vatican announced his case would be investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"After the guilty verdict in the first instance concerning Cardinal Pell, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will now handle the case following the procedure and within the time established by canonical norm," Alessandro Gisotti, interim director of the Vatican press office, said Feb. 27.

This ref is clear and forms the main source for the statement in the lead, which therefore is well supported and I think deserves to be retained. Errantius (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC). (BTW "norm" looks like an error for "norms", Italian norme.) Errantius (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Errantius has omitted mention that, in two places, the CDF “would wait” until Pell’s appeal options were exhausted. So this investigation has been “off” much longer than it has been “on”. Now that Pell has been unanimously declared not guilty by the High Court only an eternal optimist would imagine the CDF is likely to turn the tables and declare him guilty. If it is true that the CDF now has Pell’s case in its IN tray it doesn’t warrant an entry in the lead. It looks like it is there to pacify those who can’t bear to see the lead concluding with a statement that Pell was found to be guilty of nothing. the High Court found unanimously in Pell's favour. Dolphin (t) 00:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That goes ridiculously close to declaring Pell an innocent man, something a lot of people obviously brought up as Catholics are saying these days. Sorry, but the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found Pell and his church guilty of many things. Pell may be legally not guilty of the offences he had been formally charged with, but you simply cannot say he is guilty of nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dolphin: "Pell's case" is not the same for the Australian courts and for the PDF. I do not know (and no contributor here looks like they do) the kinds of question that the CDF would ask or the criteria that it would apply, and one should not assume that the questions or criteria would be the same as those of an Australian criminal court. Nor do we know what evidence the CDF would take into account: at least it will probably be different, in that (a) the CDF is unlikely to have access to the accuser's video evidence and (b) presumably it would seek, even compel, testimony from Pell and direct testimony from clerics among the 'opportunity witnesses'. Your final sentence is unfair: this material has been in the lead for a long time.

HiLo48: let's leave the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse out of this unless and until the redacted material relating to Pell is published, likely to be several weeks from now. Errantius (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing adding anything. Simply referring to what we all know it said about Pell and the Catholic Church. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Errantius: I concede that the sentence in question has been in the lead for a long time. However, this sentence does not simply float in isolation in the article. It is currently the second half of a two-sentence paragraph, so it serves to clarify or modify the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence says Pell's appeal to the High Court was successful and he was acquitted of all charges; but the sentence in question modifies that by drawing attention to the relatively minor, ongoing matter of Pell still being under investigation, by a Vatican entity, for sexual offences. To a small number of highly experienced readers like yourself this looks entirely normal but, I suspect, to the great majority of readers who are casual by comparison, it must look very odd; almost as though Wikipedia is not impartial on the matter but instead is determined that no-one should leave the article thinking Pell has truly been acquitted. As you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an anti-Pell web-site. The principles of WP:BLP apply totally to this article. As you know, I have stated several times that the sentiment in the sentence in question is adequately covered in the body of the article but I think it is not significant enough to earn a place in the lead, especially as the source cited in the body of the article (Elise Ann Allen, 7 April) is equally insignificant. Dolphin (t) 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dolphin51:<ec> the High court didnt declare Pell not guilty. No where in the judgement did the High Court say Pell didnt commit the offense it said the defense had demonstrated reasonable grounds for doubt that the jury failed to consider in their verdict. Those grounds were based on protocols, not on actual witness accounts of the day and the Jury wasnt a party to High Court decision yet the High Court assumed it knew better what took place before the jury and in the deliberations. Gnangarra 04:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Gnan, please, you're out of your depth. The High Court's judgment ends with orders that "(a) the appeal be allowed; and (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place"—which means "not guilty". To come to that conclusion, it found that the jury had mistakenly weighed the evidence of the accuser and the "opportunity witnesses". Errantius (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 has confused the sentence about the CDF with something the Royal Commission said. The two entities are entirely different so shouldn't be confused.

The arguments in favour of retaining the sentence "Pell remains under investigation by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the sexual abuse of minors" in the LEAD are so tenuous I suggest this sentence be removed and we just rely on what is said in the body of the article. Dolphin (t) 04:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48 has confused nothing of the sort. Just stick to discussing the topic objectively. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I will try to stick to the topic. The topic of this thread is the sentence “Pell remains under investigation by the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the sexual abuse of minors", whether it is adequately supported by the 7 April article by Elise Ann Allen, and whether it warrants a place in the lead. For those reasons I am of the view that your mention of the Royal Commission is outside the topic of this thread. If you want to write about the Royal Commission you are, of course, welcome to start your own Talk thread. Dolphin (t) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The arguments for retaining this sentence are not "tenuous". As the body of the article makes plain, one of the most senior members of the Catholic Church is under investigation at a high level by the Church itself. We don't know exactly what for: it may be for less than has been claimed in Australia, or it may even be for more; we shouldn't speculate either way. This investigation is a very important fact about Pell, so should be mentioned in the lead. However, for clarification I've broken up the paragraph as before and added "separate". Errantius (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that change. I like the effect you have achieved. Prior to your edit we were giving equal weight to the two sentences as they were both in the same paragraph; when clearly greater weight is due to the High Court decision than to reports that an ON AGAIN/OFF AGAIN enquiry by the Vatican into unknown accusations may be ON AGAIN. By presenting the two items of information, each in its own paragraph, there is no longer the impression that we are giving undue weight to the possibility of a Vatican enquiry. Thanks again. Dolphin (t) 13:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

I hereby request that the title of section 6.3, "Charges, trial and wrongful conviction", be amended to "Charges, trial and conviction", both in the table of contents and in the text of the article.

I gave my reasons in my prior edit request, which was partially fulfilled by Errantius. I have read the discussion that followed this request. Aerali argues that the High Court's decision was that the jury acted unlawfully. However, this is absurd. First, if the jury had acted unlawfully, the natural next step would be to prosecute the jury members for their unlawful behavior. Alternatively, Pell could sue them in civil court.

Clearly, the jury will not be punished in either way. Why? Because its role is to decide guilt vs. innocence. There is no law that states that a jury must must decide "correctly" in the subsequent judgment of a higher court. Jurors are neither criminally nor civilly liable for such "incorrect" decisions.

The High Court's position is not that the jury acted unlawfully, but rather that its decision was irrational and/or unreasonable. And this decision has been highly controversial here in Australia (where I live). Here as elsewhere, judges are traditionally viewed as finders of law while juries are finders of fact. The usurpation by judges of the jury's role began a few decades ago in Australia. Its occurrence in this case is viewed with dismay in the mainstream media.

There thus being no merit to Aerali's argument, I hereby request that the final two occurrences of "wrongful" in connection to Pell's conviction be deleted. (I see now that I forgot to sign this request; I am Nm3d9.)

I am not sure why you created a second edit request merely to request (a subset of?) the changes from the first edit request -- it would have been more straightforward to continue the discussion in the previous section.

I do not believe the edit request was partly fulfilled by Errantius. The change I reverted was by a user called Ironman1104, and I don't believe they were responding to the edit request.

Not every unlawful act incurs criminal or civil liability or penalties. The High Court found that Australian law does not permit Pell to be criminally convicted and imprisoned on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Therefore, the conviction was contrary to the law, or unlawful.

I don't really think we should use the term "unlawful conviction", since it isn't commonly used. I was trying to find alternate wording to satisfy Errantius's concern about moral language. I believe the term "wrongful conviction" is the most appropriate, given that it is used by reliable secondary sources with reference to the Pell case, it is an accurate description in its own right, and it is being used in a manner consistent with other articles on Wikipedia.

I can't comment on how the High Court's decision fits into the broader Australian legal landscape, the appropriate balance between judge and jury, etc. but I don't think it's relevant for the purposes of determining what wording to use here. Aerali (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

For those hypothetical, lazy readers, who apparently won't read more than one sentence of a paragraph, how about we replace the first two sentences of the final paragraph of the lead with "In a judgement that was later overturned by the High Court, Pell was convicted in 2018 of sexual offences against two minors in 1996 and 1997."? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That phrasing is bizarre. The chronology is absolutely tortured. The judgments were "quashed" that is the legal term. Why the circumlocutions to avoid accurate language? Elizium23 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Because this discussion is about avoiding some entirely different, inaccurate wording - "wrongly convicted". Why the straw man argument? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the phrasing is awkward. It makes the original conviction the subject of the sentence rather than the acquittal. As I said in the section above, I think this phrasing is an improvement in some respects over simply saying "Pell was convicted", but my preference is for the current wording (two sentences, with the first stating "wrongfully convicted"). Aerali (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Which means you are not even acknowledging, let alone addressing the arguments that have been presented against using that expression. Your behaviour and motives here are becoming quite questionable and difficult to deal with. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be three or four sections of this talk page concurrently discussing the same thing. Nat Gertler suggested above in 2020, the High Court overturned a 2018 lower court conviction of Pell on charges of sexual offences. This keeps the most recent case as the subject of the sentence, and avoids wording that invites inserting "wrongful" about the original case. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise. There is also the question of whether to use "wrongful conviction" in the title of section 6.3, but I think simply using "conviction" would be acceptable given that it is deep in the body of the article and there is a separate section labelled "acquittal". Aerali (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on the last comment by Aerali, it appears that we have now reached a consensus that it would be appropriate to delete "wrongful" from the title of section 6.3. As I have just now been granted privileges to do so, I have implemented this change. Nm3d9 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the concerns with both "conviction" and "wrongful conviction" here, may I suggest simply "judgement"? That neither paints it as "he did it" or "he really didn't do it", but simply "this is the section of the article where we talk about the result of the original trial." --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Jack Frost (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

I hereby request the following two amendments.

1. That the phrase "wrongfully convicted" in paragraph 3 be altered to "convicted".

2. That the phrase "wrongful conviction" in the title of section 6.3, which is mentioned both at the beginning of that section and in the table of contents, be altered to "conviction".

We cannot know whether the conviction was wrongful. All we can know is that the High Court quashed it. Moreover, the term "wrongful" is nowhere to be found in the High Court's written decision.

I did a Google Search for "George Pell" and "wrongful conviction" to try to find out where the source is for this conclusion. The two top hits were (a) this Wikipedia page and (b) this article on two apologists for Pell. I could find no objective source for this phrase; rather, it seems to be a matter of great controversy. Indeed, the smoke surrounding Pell continues to rise: new accusers have now come forward and the police are currently investigating.

This amendment is also in the interests of the Wikipedia project. The use of "wrongful" will tend to damage the credibility of the page in the eyes of many Australians and cast doubt on Wikipedia's reliability. Wikipedia must remain agnostic regarding guilt or innocence, and restrict attention to objectively provable events. Nm3d9 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree for reasons I have stated above. But, as I have also discussed, please don't confuse the High Court's Judgment Summary (which you call "the High Court's written decision") with the judgment itself; as is stated at the end of the Summary, but your source omits, only the judgment itself has legal force. Errantius (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added to the ref to this Summary: "A Judgment Summary is like a media release; it may be cited for convenience of its wording, but, as it always adds, it 'is not intended to be a substitute for' the judgment itself." Errantius (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. The conviction was wrongful, which is why it was set aside by the High Court. Even assuming that Pell is guilty of the alleged offenses, his conviction was still wrongful because the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. Wikipedia uses the term elsewhere in this manner; see, for example, List of wrongful convictions in the United States, which contains "people who have been legally exonerated, including people whose convictions have been overturned or vacated, and who have not been retried because the charges were dismissed by the states". I also agree with the reasons provided by Observoz (usage by secondary source "Lawyers Weekly") and WPancake (lack of important context in lead sentence of paragraph) in the previous section. I reverted a change that implemented part 1 of this request; if this change is going to be made, it should be done all at once once consensus is reached. Aerali (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that I think there may be other terms that could be substituted for "wrongful" that would have the same meaning without the moral implications that Errantius describes. One example might be "unlawful". But in any event I think it is important to have some kind of qualifier in the first sentence of the paragraph that communicates the fact that that the convictions were overturned. Aerali (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh FFS, the very next sentence says precisely that! And the conviction was NOT unlawful. Completely correct lawful procedures were followed at every stage. The High Court's finding did not use the word "wrongful", so nor should we. That would be making things up. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The conviction was unlawful. If "completely correct lawful procedures were followed at every stage", then the High Court would have denied the appeal. But instead the High Court quashed the conviction, because the jury was not legally allowed to return the verdict that it did given the evidence presented in the trial. Whether the High Court used the precise term "wrongful conviction" in its decision isn't really relevant; it is an accurate description and secondary sources are using the term as mentioned above. I realize that the second sentence states that the convictions were quashed, but I believe it is important that the lead sentence communicate this information, since it is the most important sentence in a paragraph. Aerali (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around legal language where it doesn't belong. And don't treat our readers as dumbasses who won't read more than one sentence. This is not a tabloid newspaper. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to say with respect to whether the conviction was wrongful or unlawful -- I think I have sufficiently made my point. As for the second point, I am not treating readers as "dumbasses", nor am I comparing Wikipedia to a tabloid. But people do skim encyclopedia articles, which is why I believe it is important to put the most relevant information first in an article lead, especially since this is a BLP. Aerali (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, for those lazy readers, how about we replace the first two sentences of the final paragraph of the lead with "In a judgement that was later overturned by the High Court, Pell was convicted in 2018 of sexual offences against two minors in 1996 and 1997."? HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to join this discussion, which resulted from my deletion of the word "wrongfully" in the phrase "wrongfully convicted." I have only one point to make: we must always, in Wikipedia, rely on sources (on reliable sources to boot), and especially when dealing with highly controversial questions and matters. So, we cannot call Pell's original conviction wrongful without a reliable source saying exactly that. And I stress, the source has to be reliable within Wikipedia's definition of that term. That's all, I won't continue to post. Achar Sva (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We do have at least one source using the term (Lawyers Weekly, an Australian law news site) and I believe it is a reliable source. The citation is already present, but I will adjust its position so that it is clear that it applies to the phrase "wrongfully convicted". Aerali (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement in some respects from simply stating "Pell was convicted", but it still seems to place undue emphasis on the initial conviction. My preference is for the current wording. Aerali (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, for those hypothetical, lazy readers, who apparently won't read more than one sentence of a paragraph, how about we replace the first two sentences of the final paragraph of the lead with "In a judgement that was later overturned by the High Court, Pell was convicted in 2018 of sexual offences against two minors in 1996 and 1997."? (I'm strongly thinking now that the fact you ignored this suggestion the first time I made it suggests you may need to read WP:STICK.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment here. My comment just above was a response to this suggestion -- I didn't ignore it. Aerali (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Jack Frost (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why the growing hate section on the ABC?

Today we've had a FOURTH paragraph added telling us how bad the ABC is (in the sub-section Conduct of the ABC and other media), yet again from that bastion of conservatism, Rupert Murdoch's The Australian. This time it's from the paper's Foreign Editor! Huh? What does this have to do with foreign affairs? It's just a pile-on. Despite the name of the sub-section, ALL the criticism is of the ABC. Now, this is an article on George Pell, not the ABC. It should not be a coat rack for haters of the ABC (basically the Liberal Party and all it's supporters) to condemn that outlet. I was first going to come here and criticise today's addition, but looking more closely has led me to think that the whole sub-section doesn't belong in this article. It really should go. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to HiLo48’s deletion of this topic. It is adequately covered at Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Coverage of the Catholic Church. Dolphin (t) 07:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I object to the bias he is expressing. Is it OK to "pile on" Pell, but not on the ABC?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In a way, yes, because the title of this article is George Pell, not The ABC. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to that other WP article, Dolphin. I think it says all that is relevant here. Errantius (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think some editors here are unduly allowing their political persuasions to affect their judgement. Given that George Pell himself has accused the ABC of ‘betraying the national interest’, a section on the ABC's coverage is warranted, even if it is with less direct quotations from News Corp editorials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojotaranios (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I also have no objection to the deletion of this section as per Dolphins and HiLos comments.Hughesdarren (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have just removed part because it violate WP:BLP extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, being behind a paywall makes it impossible for a casual reader to verify what is said. Gnangarra 12:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The Australian appears(agf its behind a paywall) to be the only on name all those people collectively, no alternative sources support claims, the Australian has already been subject to scrutiny about its reliability as a source at WP:AWNB especially in relation to The ABC without further independent sourcing the names should not be reinstated as per WP:BLP. Gnangarra 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Paywalled sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:PAYWALL; having reviewed WP:BLP, I see no exception there. And paying for a paywall'd item is not "impossible" for a casual reader, merely an expense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No other source support the claims, or names those individuals... per WP:BLP we must write neutrally about every person their inclusion in the Pell article is unjustified without further reliable sourcing. Gnangarra 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here’s the policy for sources behind a paywall: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf" (emphasis added). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ALL the criticism of the ABC is from The Australian, which is direct competition with the ABC in Australia for media market share. I don't care how reliable a source some people think that outlet generally is, what we are actually seeing here is one media outlet criticising a competitor. Such comments from The Australian need to be seen for what they are. They are certainly not objective. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is credible to say the issue here is market share.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A negative comment, adding nothing to the discussion. Please discuss the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Admin comment: I have been asked at RFPP to full-protect this page because of edit warring. I am not going to do that. Instead I am going to treat you all like grownups and rely on you to stop doing it. @HiLo48 and Ojotaranios: You are experienced users and know better. You have removed/readded/removed/readded; that's only twice so you are not yet in edit warring territory but be warned; I am sure you are familiar with WP:3RR. Discuss here and do not change the article until consensus is reached. I see that the section under dispute has been in the article for some time; that means it is the default content and should remain unless and until consensus is reached to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If after a few days the discussion seems to have died down, the result may be obvious; if so go ahead and implement it. If you feel the need of outside closure, you can ping me and I will see what I can do. I have never had anything to do with this article and was unfamiliar with the subject, but if you feel that my comments here make me WP:INVOLVED, feel free to ask someone else to close. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN - I think my behaviour here has been completely acceptable, and I object to your suggestion that I should know better. I saw a problem with the article. I wrote it up on the article's Talk page. After well over a day, when other sections on the Talk page had received responses but mine had not, I took action on my concerns. My Edit summary when I did that explicitly mentioned my comment on the Talk page, because I was happy to discuss it and still hoped I could trigger some constructive discussion. Seven minutes, yes, only seven minutes later, Ojotaranios reverted my change, after having STILL made no comment on the Talk page, with an Edit summary saying "...there isn't any consensus on Talk." I was cranky (I think justifiably) at that silly, uncooperative behaviour and comment, so I reverted with an Edit summary saying "There is no lack of consensus on the talk page. There are simply no responses, IN A DAY AND A HALF!!!!! And that includes YOU!!!! Now discuss what I wrote there, objectively." Can you see a problem yet? Ojotaranios later finally made a comment on the Talk page (failing to sign it!), accusing other editors of "...unduly allowing their political persuasions to affect their judgement", and then reverted again! Since then I have not touched the article, because I DON'T edit war. I think any objective observer could easily see who has behaved unacceptably here, and I object to your suggestion that it's me. Admins really need to spend a little more time in scenarios like this discovering the real situation before making sweeping criticisms. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Two common Wikipedia sayings: "It takes two to edit war" and "Do not edit war even if you are sure you are right." In any case, you stopped after two removals, so you are not in trouble. What needs to be done now is to make your case for removing the material, here at the talk page, so that you can get consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a case!!!!!! Nobody commented for well over a day!!!! Ojotaranios effectively made it an edit war, WITHOUT any comment on my case. Yet you criticised me. Nah. You are still implying I have done something wrong with your first comment. Please look at who caused the problem here. AND TAKE ACTION!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In my very first post here, I mentioned WP:COATRACK. That essay perfectly describes the problem here, in better words than I could put together. If you want the content to stay, you really need to read that essay. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• 'ALL the criticism of the ABC is from The Australian, which is direct competition with the ABC in Australia for media market share. I don't care how reliable a source some people think that outlet generally is, what we are actually seeing here is one media outlet criticising a competitor. Such comments from The Australian need to be seen for what they are. They are certainly not objective.'

I think the premise that The Australian's primary motivation is its competition with the ABC is false. Because all ABC content is free, readers of The Australian don't unsubscribe if they want to view ABC content, they just view ABC content in conjunction with their subscription. So, I'm not sure HiLo48's accusation of ulterior motives is plausible.

Even if The Australian is in direct competition with the ABC, that does not diminish its validity as a source. By HiLo48's logic, the Wikipedia article for the ABC could only cite the ABC, because any other Australian media company would be in 'competition' with the ABC, which is absurd.

• 'A negative comment, adding nothing to the discussion. Please discuss the topic.'

I don't think it's productive to be so aggressive and dismissive of fellow Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is about building consensus, and if there isn't consensus, then those edits shouldn't be made.

• 'I see that the section under dispute has been in the article for some time; that means it is the default content and should remain unless and until consensus is reached to remove it.'

I don't think there is any consensus which calls for the removal of this section. Proponents of this page's removal like HiLo48 seem to be playing largely into partisan politics, rather than the interests of good content. I note that in the past HiLo48 has espoused a very pro-ABC attitude, and fellow editors can see this on HiLo48's Contribs. While I agree that the ABC produces valuable content, I do think that many editors will agree that a page on George Pell isn't complete without mention of the ABC in some level of detail, given that he personally described the ABC's coverage of him, which included broadcasting songs that referred to him as 'scum', as a 'betrayal of the national interest'.

Ultimately, had HiLo48's edits and comments been less stand-offish and more focussed on discussing the section removal through the lens of Wikipedia principles, I think that I personally and many other editors would have been more open to HiLo48's recommendation for section removal.

Anyways, for readers who do not view certain sources as credible for partisan political reasons, I think they won't be convinced either way by the content, so it doesn't really make a difference.

I am keen to hear the thoughts of fellow editors on this.Ojotaranios (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojotaranios - My thoughts are that you really need to discuss the topic please, rather than me, and that you need to learn how to indent your posts correctly in order to make them more easily readable and properly comprehensible. Have you read WP:COATRACK yet? Can you see how that describes the problem here? HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo48 that the section is a WP:COATRACK. Not so relevant to Pell, rather an ideological criticism from right wing commentators at the Australian in support of shock jocks having their perennial dig at the ABC. Jschnur (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The space given to Kelly's comments is way over the top. He is merely a commentator, and NOT an expert on law, media or religion, so his words are just personal opinion. It would suffice to limit his opinion to 1-2 sentences, without the bloated quotes. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But per WP:COATRACK, why do they belong at all? The article is called George Pell, not The ABC. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If Pell and senior journalists like Paul Kelly (journalist) believe that Pell has been persecuted by the ABC, then, yes, it belongs here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COATRACK yet? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I read it long ago. It's not very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's see - "...a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else." The nominal subject here is Pell. This content is about the ABC, obviously only tangential to Pell, if even that. It's making a point about how biased the ABC is. I'd say the section in question fits that definition perfectly. Therefore it's completely relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say you're biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a blatant personal attack. I thought about my initial comment here for several days before I made it. I didn't criticise anyone. Please don't do that again. It's obviously unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not the Hi-Lo Country.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Jack, just go away. You're not discussing the topic. Your behaviour is obviously reportable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You're just attacking other people and repeating lines about coatracks etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT attacking other people. I mentioned WP:COATRACK in my initial post here because it's directly relevant to my argument. NOBODY except you has addressed it, and I think I have demonstrated that your comment of "not very relevant" is simply wrong. If you disagree, please discuss my explanation of its relevance, rather than me. (When people insist on discussing me, it simply strengthens my view that I am probably right.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If the article went off on a tangent to discuss other criticisms of the ABC, yes, that would be a coatrack. But, as it stands, every sentence addresses Pell. Who can that be a coatrack?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No Jack, every sentence is a criticism of what the ABC said. That's WP:COATRACK. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not if it sticks to the subject of Pell.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not comprehending WP:COATRACK correctly. The content in question says nothing ABOUT Pell, and it's HIS article, not the ABC's. THAT'S the point. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kelly is one of Australia's most respected poltical journalists. His comments are pertinent. Like it or not, Pell has become a political issue, and The Australian and the ABC have different perspectives, NPOV applies. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Simple question Pete. Have you EVER agreed with me on ANYTHING? Come on, be honest, tell everyone else the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Simple answer. I agree with you on many things. You just don't notice. We both think that as a statesman, Trump makes a good clown, for example, and removing Americanisms from inappropriate locations is something we both approach with new zeal and energy. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Kelly has been a journalist for 50 years. He has worked for various media outlets, including the ABC. He is not a mere Murdoch hack. Sure, you can disagree with him, but we should recognise his opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But this is his opinion on the ABC, not Pell, and it's Pell who is the topic. It doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A quick check, and there are 85 references to the ABC in the article. They seem to be part of the story, at least as we tell it. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I would have thought. This is Pell's article, not the ABC's. That's obviously far too much about the ABC. Thank you for supporting my position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We use the ABC to tell Pell's story. We use the ABC to tell the story of so many Australian personalities and istitutions, simply because they are a well-respected source, and do a good job. However, the ABC is not immune from criticism, and we are constrained by NPOV and BLP here. Simply put, Pell's story is one which has attracted comment and controversy, and the sources we use are not immune. I don't know how we can provide a good, accurate article if we are not likewise even-handed in our sources. --Pete (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course. Even-handed in our sources about Pell. It's his article. But I am talking about a section that's all about condemning the ABC, with effectively only one, highly predictable source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

• Nearly all the quotations should be paraphrased. This would be in keeping with (1) MOS:QUOTE, "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... it is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words", and (2) WP:QUOTE, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful". Direct quotations could be included in the footnotes, if necessary, by adding "quote=" parameters to the reference citations.
• Pell's own response to the acquittal should be included. A possible source is https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-14/cardinal-george-pell-andrew-bolt-sky-news-interview/12146594
• The section should be retitled. Perhaps "Reaction to acquittal"? The contents are no longer confined to criticism of the police and media - the Victorian Government and prosecutors are attacked too. Also, other commentators (e.g Jon Faine, Louise Milligan) are criticising the acquittal itself.
• Regarding WP:COATRACK, I don't think reactions to the acquittal are entirely tangential to the subject of the article.

Meticulo (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reactions to the acquittal, in small quantity, might be fine, although again, they are not about Pell. They are more about his loyal fan base. But four paragraphs of criticism of the ABC is not a reaction to the acquittal. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's too long as it presently stands. Paraphrasing would help cut it down a bit. Meticulo (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think all those suggestions are good.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes reduce it to three sentences and lead the reader to the discussion on the entry for ABC. (Then we could do something similar for the following section about the Victoria police. Also too detailed, long quote, etc.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my original question. What does even the presence of an attack section on the ABC add to an article about George Pell? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pell himself has attacked the ABC. Surely that's notable? Meticulo (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. But The Australian attacking the ABC isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The way in which Pell and his trial served as a flashpoint for other debates is part of his story. I’m not interested in debating you. Life’s too short. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I spent several days thinking about the wording of my initial post here, because I care about the quality of this encyclopaedia and don't want to see it filled with irrelevant crap. If you can't refute what I wrote, or choose not to, I must assume I am right. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the section-

• The Guardian article doesn't claim that ABC reporting had "the effect of prejudicing the jury" it claims that they sought prosecution.
• The 11 April Australian article I would remove "The High Court’s decision reveals that, from the start, there were two sides to this story — a flawed church that Pell represented and a flawed Victorian legal system prejudiced against him. The ABC saw only one side. Its campaigning mentality meant it failed to inform the public about the real nature of this contest and the issues involved". The first part is not about the ABC but the legal system which has a separate section and the second part is repeating "essentially offering a one-sided condemnatory view in a coverage that was extensive, powerful and influential with the public".
• Is the ABC removing a program deserving of inclusion? it is not prior media conduct of the case.
• Is there a source for "In the aftermath of the acquittal, ABC presenters and reporters including Louise Milligan expressed disappointment on social media"?.
• Jon Faine isn't introduced as a former ABC presenter - is there a connection with his personal views now and any prior media conduct of the case?.

--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

After a number of comments in support of my suggestion for paraphrasing, I've made a somewhat bold edit, hoping that this is in keeping with WP:EDITCONSENSUS. It retains more of Paul Kelly's comments than I personally feel are necessary, and adds a couple of extra commentators (from hidden text) who are probably redundant, but at least it's a starting point. Further edits, or even a reversion, fully expected. Meticulo (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. I've decided instead to propose less controversial changes one by one. See new section below, 'Proposal to rename section'. Meticulo (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I DON'T edit war

If someone believes edit warring needs attention, there is a place to request that. This is not that place. Focus on content, not editors. (That, for clarity, applies to everyone in this discussion and the above.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My goodness! Did I really see one of Wikipedia's most renowned edit-warriors claim this? HiLo, may I suggest that you step aside for a moment and evaluate your contributions here? You appear to be emulating a river in Egypt. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) It's a poor reflection on Wikipedia that so many who disagree with me on this matter have so quickly resorted to personal attacks and otherwise talking about me. Though it further convinces me my case is strong. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Disagree or not, personal comments seem to be part and parcel of your edits. I'm by no means immune, but could I just suggest in the nicest possible manner that you make excellent points as an editor, your contributions are valued, and if someone expresses a different opinion, it's not a personal attack? I must apologise, but I just couldn't swallow your claim that you don't edit war. In boldface capitals, no less! When such statements are made, apparently in all seriousness, it gets rather hard to accept anything else you say, and again, I stress that you do make some good points. Why not, when you feel the red mist coming on, just close your eyes, think of something nice, go have a dram of something good, and return to work when feeling a little less tense? We'd all be more productive then. --Pete (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I hope an Admin sees this sub-section, which is entirely about me, and not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Conduct of the Victorian authorities

I would remove the first paragraph:

*Australian journalist Paul Kelly's comments "The High Court’s repeated..." this draws a very long bow claiming that the use of "rational" (rationally) in a Court judgement by High Court judges can be interpreted as "that he must be punished for the church’s crimes in the name of its hundreds of victims" was what jurors were thinking and motivated the jury to reach their decision. The judgement doesn't state that. The judgement refers to jurors which Kelly changes to the "justice system". This has nothing to do Victorian authorities it is about the jury - members of the public - not the police, DPP or Court of Appeal. None of it is worthy of inclusion.

* Kelly's comment "This is how many saw his trial and, in this sense, it was a political trial." Has nothing to Victorian authorities it is commenting on the views of the public and claiming it was a Political trial. The Wikipedia article defines a Political trial as concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government. The trial doesn't meet that definition.

In regards to the trial, Terry Tobin QC in the Australian is quoted "The question is with high-profile people if you have, as we have had here, public opinion saying these people have got to be dealt with," he said. "When that happens there's a great pressure on authorities to prosecute regardless." He said high-profile people in some ways got "less just treatment" because public opinion demanded they be dealt with. Mr Tobin said it was "easier" for prosecutors, magistrates and judges to let high-profile cases pass through the system."

* Brennan's comment "broken-down criminal justice system" is used out of context. It was also largely referring to the current Royal Commission regarding their use of barrister/informer Nicola Gobbo by Victoria Police which hasn't published its final report - Brennan "Let's wait and see". Not worthy of inclusion.

* Brennan's comment "I don’t think Aborigines were treated as prejudicially by even the worst of 19th-century judges" must be a reference to the two Court of Appeal judges is not a neutral point of view. Kelly addresses the issue of the two judges in the second paragraph "The Ferguson-Maxwell majority..."

* There was no criticism of the conduct of "Victorian Daniel Andrews Government" in Kelly's article. Is there a source for this?.

The second paragraph:

* For the introduction I would include Kelly's comments "The force of its judgment raises the inevitable question: if this case had been treated on merit Pell would not have been charged. The evidence was inherently implausible."

* "The Victoria Police have been criticised for failing.." needs a source.

This is worthy of inclusion regarding the police - Terry Tobin QC "The coppers and the Director of Public Prosecutions would be assisted, I think, by doing a root-cause analysis, by figuring out dispassionately ... what happened in this case," and "Mr Tobin said the High Court had spelled out the failings of the case and the police needed to look at why they didn't pick up the holes in the evidence, such as by not interviewing other choristers and co-celebrants who would have been in the procession when the second incident was alleged to have occurred.".

--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Defining this as the conduct of "Victorian authorities" is problematic, because I don't think the Andrews government is implicated at all. I think Brennan is worth quoting in that he was an opponent of Pell. Perhaps this all should be treated as reactions to the judgment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the whole section should be retitled as "Reaction to acquittal" as suggested by Meticulo above in the "Why the growing hate section on the ABC?" discussion. I suggested removing some content of subsection "Conduct of the ABC and other media" above and have this subsection. It would be two paragraphs then without then need for sub headings. Brennan is actually Father Brennan a priest and a Pell supporter who is a lawyer.--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Brennan is a priest, but he was an opponent of Pell within the church.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for feedback on title change. I'll start a section to see if we can reach a consensus on that at least. Meticulo (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

More from the Royal Commission

Parts of the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse were redacted in 2017 so as not to prejudice Pell's trial. Because that's all over, those redacted parts have now been released in full. A link to the ABC coverage is here. A key element of that article seems to be "Cardinal George Pell should have advised senior Catholic authorities to remove a paedophile priest (Father Peter Searson) in 1989". And there's "...by 1973 Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy but that he also had considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it." There's more. Do have a read of the article.

The part of this article about the Royal Commission is pretty clunky in my eyes. I'd like to see these newly released parts of its report somehow covered, but am not going to leap in and just add more to the existing slabs of text. Thoughts from others? HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that today’s release of previously redacted parts of the Report requires expansion of the coverage in our article. You say the relevant part of our article is “pretty clunky”. To my mind, clunky, when applied to prose, means clumsily written and/or poorly organised. Is this what you mean? If not, please clarify what “pretty clunky” means to you. Dolphin (t) 04:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article itself is huge. That section is big. I guess we could just add more sub-sub-headings, but that would seem to be burying this content where nobody is likely to ever read it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There are also these in the Guardian:

• Davey, Melissa (7 May 2020). "Cardinal George Pell: Victoria police to assess unredacted royal commission findings". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
• Davey, Melissa (7 May 2020). "'He should have done more': key findings from the newly released George Pell reports". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 May 2020.

Errantius (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to rename section

I propose we change the section title 'Criticism of police and media conduct' to something else. The current title no longer accurately reflects the content of the section, which has grown beyond that description. The new title could be something like 'Reaction to acquittal', which garnered support from @Jack Upland: and @Melbguy05: in discussions above. Perhaps there's a chance of reaching consensus on less controversial edits such as this, the low-hanging fruit, as it were? Please respond For, Against, or Comment, giving reasons, policy citations, and alternative title suggestions as needed. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am in the middle of researching/reading the ABC criticism and the police/DPP/Court of Appeal judges criticism. I now think there is enough for two sections under a 'Reaction to acquittal' section title. Initially I thought a title for the ABC might be "Claims of 'Trial by media'". Not sure if it fits Trial by media definition. 730 report episode was July 2016 before he was charged. Book was published May 2017 (personal not through ABC) before charged. He already had a high profile before charged from Royal Commission. Maybe 'Claims of biased media coverage'. I haven't read any claims yet about other media outlets so it could include the ABC name. 'Criminal Justice System' describes the Police, DPP, Court of Appeal better than 'Victorian authorities'. A title could be 'Criticism of police, prosecutors and Appeal Court'. Court of Appeal if it is not too long. It was only two judges not full court so add Judges if that fits as well. The paragraph in Acquittal "The Vatican welcomed the.." would be moved into Reaction to acquittal.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How about titling the subsections "Criticism of the ABC" and "Criticism of the Victorian criminal justice system"? We could also do without subsections altogether, which would be my preference, but given the strident opposition to recent edits of the section, perhaps we'd better opt for minimal changes. Meticulo (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The section needs to be a brief summary of the "claims" or opinions, with citations. The fact is that law authorities, media (especially the ABC) and the police acted professionally throughout and will continue to do so in future. The appeal outcome was (for Pell and his supporters) a welcome reversal of the conviction. It was, however, a technical affirmation that the jury conviction was unsafe--and not by any means a verification of innocence in the vernacular sense. Bjenks (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Criticism of the Victorian criminal justice system" is all right and perhaps "Criticism of ABC coverage". My preference would be less of long quotes and opinions replaced by succinct paraphrasing. Frank Brennan has made valid points regarding the police and DPP that I am reading through. The Chief Commissioner made a short reply as there had been "Get Pell" claims. Pell said "certainly extraordinary" regarding the police. The DPP did not reply. The Victorian Bar and Law Institute of Victoria together replied to claims against the judges. The ABC Media Watch program had an episode on claims of ABC bias with the ABC submitting a length reply to Media Watch. Pell replied to a question regarding ABC persecution with a Yes. There is enough for two subsections.--Melbguy05 (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes made. Thanks everyone for feedback. Meticulo (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to paraphrase

I propose we paraphrase most of the quotations in the section 'Reaction to acquittal'. The suggestion has garnered support in discussions above (i.e. Why the growing hate section on the ABC). It would also seem to be in line with MOS:QUOTE. Meticulo (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, following lack of objections or other discussion here in almost a fortnight. Meticulo (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page for Trial

Given the size of the section on the trial, plus the numerous news stories that came out, and the reaction to the final ruling, should a new page be made solely based around the trial with a more brief summary on his bio page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits by 150.101.89.147

I'm not in the mood for an edit war. I'll let someone else handle the slanderous edit this time. Dcheney (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversions

Edit summary of @Errantius: "No, the second source says exactly that, concerning "attacks on the evidence of the complainant""

That is taken out of context. The source says: CONCLUSION This case was always going to be an important test case on when it is reasonable for the jury to convict an accused person based on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. That a jury is ordinarily entitled to convict in such cases is beyond doubt, as many convictions for sexual offences, which are often a matter centred around the word of the complainant against that of the accused, would show. However, in order to convict a defendant in such circumstances, the jury must nevertheless reasonably form the view that the complainant was a highly credible witness, such that there is an absence of reasonable doubt that they are telling the truth. Attacks on the evidence of the complainant can form the basis of a reasonable doubt which a jury should have, and may therefore make a conviction unreasonable.

In the Pell retrial, the complainant’s evidence was robustly challenged and attacked on a number of fronts. The jury nevertheless convicted Pell, and a majority of the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld that conviction. Today, the High Court has determined that a verdict of guilty was not open to the jury in this case. The implications of this case will be enormous for decades to come. (https://sterlinglawqld.com/george-pell-convictions-quashed-on-appeal-to-high-court/ George Pell convictions quashed on appeal to High Court) The article makes no personal attack on the credibility of the particular victim in this case. It states that as a matter of law, witness testimony contradicting a an otherwise credible complainant can be a basis for reasonable doubt requiring acquittal. The source specifically noted majority on the appeals court found the victim was credible, but dismissed his complaint anyways. There is nothing objectionable requiring this citation to be removed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The cited article emphasises the issue of the complainant's credibility and ends with an implication (since no other explanation is given) that the HCA thought that the jury and the CA had been wrong on that issue. It does not say, as you claim and which (it seems we agree) would have been correct: "witness testimony contradicting an otherwise credible complainant can be a basis for reasonable doubt requiring acquittal". It refers solely to the credibility of the complainant. My other reason for reverting is WP:OVERKILL. Errantius (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zfish118: If you no longer disagree, kindly revert the ref. Errantius (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

My objection to removing the sources still stands. I disagree that the sources make inappropriate conclusions about the complainants credibility, and I disagree that it is overkill to provide two sources for such a controversial and technical ruling by the appellate court. The passage I quoted, and the rest of the article, doesn't imply the jury was wrong to find the victim credible; rather it says they needed to find him so credible as to overcome the contradicting witness testimony, to sustain a conviction. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Overkill: there are already adequate refs; what these additional refs say about law on witness credibility is not directly relevanrt. Meaning: the ref concerning the High Court decision states correctly, "The source identified for that reasonable doubt was the evidence of the opportunity witnesses, whose evidence contradicted the complainant’s evidence." But in its Conclusion, which logically overrides that, the focus is switched to credibility of the witness himself: "the jury must nevertheless reasonably form the view that the complainant was a highly credible witness, such that there is an absence of reasonable doubt that they are telling the truth. Attacks on the evidence of the complainant can form the basis of a reasonable doubt which a jury should have, and may therefore make a conviction unreasonable." That is what is misleading. Errantius (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that there is anything misleading in the source, and that it is overkill. We are reading the same material and coming to different conclusions. Without input from others, we're at a standstill. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Input from others would be welcome. Errantius (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to offer some input, providing I can reach a point where I am confident I adequately understand the issue in question. There are likely to be other Users who feel the same way. This thread begins with a challenge regarding “the second source”, and it appears this is at the core of the issue. Please identify which cited source is the one in dispute - this will ensure all Users are addressing the same document. Dolphin (t) 01:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It is here. Errantius (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Errantius: @Zfish118: The issue appears to be whether the article published by Sterling Law and identified in the preceding edit by Errantius ("the article") is appropriate as an in-line citation for the sentence "On 21 August 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling, which upheld the conviction."

In my view, the article is a very good one. I would like to see the George Pell page provide access to it. The article contains a useful summary of the majority decision by the Court of Appeal, but it is primarily about Pell's acquittal by the High Court of Australia. The sentence "On 21 August 2019, ...." is solely about the ruling by the Court of Appeal to uphold Pell's conviction. This sentence is located in the sub-section titled "Appeal" which focuses on the Appeal to the Victorian Court; the sub-section does not acknowledge Pell's subsequent appeal to the High Court of Australia so I find it strange that the article about the High Court's decision should be used as an in-line citation in a sub-section that focuses on a different Court.

The article is a very good one. I am in favour of it being used somewhere in the George Pell page. The sub-section titled "Appeal" is not an appropriate place. Somewhere in the next sub-section (titled "Acquittal") would be appropriate.

I will be happy to discuss my view further. Dolphin (t) 03:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: @Zfish118: Dolphin51, you are raising a different issue: suitability of citing this article (the one linked to in my previous post) in the sub-section "Appeal". I think in fact we all agree that it is not suitable there: Zfish118 originally put there an earlier article from the same source. If Zfish118 wants to restore that earlier article in that place, I won't object. My objection is to citing the later article, about the High Court decision, in the sub-section "Acquittal". Errantius (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I now see the error in my previous edit: Errantius erased citation of the article in question twice; first after it was inserted by Apollo1986 and second after it was inserted by Zfish118.

Wikipedia strives to give due weight to all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources; and to avoid giving undue weight to those viewpoints and viewpoints not published in reliable sources. The viewpoints in the Sterling Law article must be acknowledged as legitimate and significant; therefore we should strive to give them due weight. Erasure of this article on grounds related to "attacks on the evidence of the complainant" appears to me to be an attempt to eliminate a particular viewpoint from the George Pell page. It is not the role of Wikipedia to determine which published viewpoints are legitimate and which are not; Wikipedia's role is to present all significant published viewpoints and to give them due weight while avoiding giving them undue weight.

If Errantius looks at the Sterling Law article and sees an inappropriate "attack on the evidence of the complainant" Errantius should recognise that it is a significant viewpoint published by a reliable source, even though it is not compatible with Errantius's personal preferences. Wikipedia strives to provide coverage of all significant viewpoints, including everything published in the Sterling Law article.

My view is that the Sterling Law article does not give undue weight to any attack on the complainant's evidence, and citing the article does not cause Wikipedia to give undue weight to this aspect, and therefore no harm is done by citing the article in the sub-section titled "Acquittal". Dolphin (t) 14:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: @Zfish118: Dolphin51, this is not about "personal preference"; it is about fact. This Sterling Law article suggests that the complainant's credibility remained in doubt in the High Court judgement, whereas in fact it did not. Errantius (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The law firm quoted and correctly noted the court majority's opinion of the complaintant's credibility. I specifically disagree that it misrepresents this fact. To be clear, these are not my sources, but I object to their removal from the article. I have not yet done so, so that they can be thoughfully added to back the correct part of the article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zfish118: You initiated this discussion following some ping-pong reversions of edits related to the Sterling Law article. (You are to be commended because that is the way Wikipedia works best.) After you initiated this discussion there has been no further ping-pong reversions, and that is a good thing; all subsequent activity has been on this Talk page. After a discussion has commenced on the Talk page the article in question (in this case, George Pell) should remain stable until some resolution has been achieved; it should remain stable in the form advocated by the User who initiated the discussion. This provides an incentive for Users to initiate discussion threads, and it also provides an incentive for other Users to participate in the discussion rather than continuing with ping-pong reversions. It is therefore your prerogative to edit the George Pell article so that it conforms to the standard you are advocating - displaying the Sterling Law article as an in-line citation. This approach to resolving disagreements is generally in agreement with WP:BRD. If you choose to reinstate the standard that you are advocating I will support you, and insist that all others contribute via the Talk page rather than making further ping-pong reversions. Dolphin (t) 12:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Errantius: Thanks for your recent clarification. As you can see, I am having a little difficulty navigating the various discussion points advanced over the past week. There appears to me to be a significant ambiguity that makes things difficult for me. The Sterling Law article refers, in several places, to "the complainant". In at least one place this is intended to refer to the complainant in the Pell case, known only as Witness J. In at least one place it is intended to refer generically to complainants whose evidence is uncorroborated; for example, in the text quoted above by Zfish118 "when it is reasonable for the jury to convict an accused person" this is not referring to the jury in the Pell case, nor is it referring to "an accused person" to mean George Pell. It is referring to juries in general, and accused persons in general. Similarly, the expression "attacks on the evidence of the complainant ..." is referring to complainants generically, it is not referring to Witness J. Conversely, in the text quoted above "In the Pell retrial, the complainant’s evidence was robustly challenged ..." the words the complainant are referring to Witness J.

In your 15 December edit you wrote "This Sterling Law article suggests that the complainant's credibility remained in doubt ..." Are you using the complainant's to refer to Witness J, or to complainants generically? It will help me if you clarify what, for me, is an ambiguity. It will also help me if you demonstrate that when you allude to Witness J it is in relation to something in the Sterling Law article that also alludes to Witness J and not to complainants generically. Alternatively, that when you allude to complainants generically it is in relation to something in the Sterling Law article that also alludes to complainants generically and not to Witness J specifically. Thank you. Dolphin (t) 13:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I said: "This Sterling Law article suggests that the complainant's credibility remained in doubt in the High Court judgement, whereas in fact it did not (emphasis added). That refers plainly, I think, to the complainant in the case - that is, to Witness J. Errantius (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Following is a draft summary of my thoughts regarding the impasse between @Zfish118: and @Errantius:. I am open to suggestions about changing this summary.

An attempt to resolve the impasse could have been made by seeking a third opinion. My involvement here has been essentially what could be expected from an independent User volunteering a third opinion. The terms of the third opinion process apply only to an impasse involving two Users. My involvement means there are now three Users participating so resorting to a third opinion at this late stage would be futile.

An outcome to the impasse, one way or the other, could be challenged by either Zfish118 or Errantius using the Request for Comment process. This is available as a very real likelihood for whichever User is more dissatisfied with the outcome, so my final view on the impasse will be based on my assessment of how the two points of view are likely to be treated by a body of independent Users in a Request for Comment process.

@Apollo1986: and Zfish118 both inserted an in-line citation from Sterling Law into the George Pell article in the sub-section titled “Acquittal”. On both occasions Errantius erased this citation. Zfish118 raised the matter of the reversion for discussion on this Talk page. Wikipedia requires that all statements that are likely to be challenged should be supported by an in-line citation of a reliable published source. Providing an in-line citation is from a reliable published source and is pertinent to the text to which it is appended, the User inserting the citation is not expected to provide written justification or explanation for their action. By implication, a User who removes an in-line citation is expected to provide justification or explanation for their action, or at least be willing to do so if asked.

If Zfish118 is aggrieved by the final outcome of this impasse, and challenges the outcome by the Request for Comment process, it is my assessment that he is likely to be successful as the result of being treated sympathetically by a body of independent Users.

Conversely, if Errantius is aggrieved by the final outcome of this impasse, and challenges the outcome by the Request for Comment process, it is my assessment that he is unlikely to be successful. I think a body of independent Users is unlikely to be sympathetic to his viewpoint. My reasoning is as follows: In this discussion thread Errantius has shown that he believes the Sterling Law article creates an impression, or makes a suggestion, that is misleading. Despite the time I have devoted to this impasse it is not clear in my mind exactly which words, or sentence, or paragraph in the Sterling Law article creates the misleading impression or makes a misleading suggestion; nor is it clear in my mind exactly why the article is misleading. In a Request for Comment, Users who participate and provide their comments, can be expected to spend only a minimum amount of time examining the material put before them. I think a minority, perhaps none, of these independent Users would be willing to invest the time and effort in an attempt to fully understand Errantius’s explanations regarding a misleading impression or a misleading suggestion. Misleading is very much in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, in a Request for Comment I think a majority of independent Users would not be sympathetic to the argument put before them by Errantius.

Consequently, it is my view that this impasse should be resolved by promptly restoring the Sterling Law article, as inserted by Apollo1986 and Zfish118. If any User objects to that restoration, the User should raise a Request for Comment. Dolphin (t) 13:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You say: "it is not clear in my mind exactly which words, or sentence, or paragraph in the Sterling Law article creates the misleading impression or makes a misleading suggestion". I referred, I think perfectly clearly, to the two paragraphs - quoted by Zfish118 - that form the Conclusion to the second Sterling Law article. Errantius (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Apollo1986 and User:Zfish118 each inserted the Sterling Law article as an in-line citation to support the sentence: On 7 April 2020, in a unanimous judgment, the High Court: 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 accuracy of this sentence has not been challenged, and the article does indeed allow independent verification of the contents of the sentence. If the article was incompatible with this sentence I concede it would not be suitable as a supporting citation. If I am correct, the objection raised by Errantius is unrelated to the sentence, or to the compatibility of the article and the sentence.

If I am correct, the objection raised by Errantius is related to the Conclusion to the Sterling Law article and was discovered by Errantius finely analysing the Conclusion using his undoubted legal skills. However, Wikipedia is not a legal journal and its contributors are not a learned society. Standards are determined by the body of Users, none of whom is required to possess relevant experience or qualifications. If removal of the Sterling Law article, as performed twice by Errantius, is put before a body of interested Users, such as in a Request for Comment I seriously doubt a majority of those Users would be willing to explore the fine legal analysis offered by Errantius, and show sympathy for removal of the citation from the sentence I quoted above. Errantius may well have a valid criticism of the Conclusion published in the Sterling Law article but Wikipedia is not the place to prosecute that criticism. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Errantius should perhaps find a more appropriate website or publication in which to expose the problem in the Conclusion to the Sterling Law article.

I remain convinced that the draft summary I posted here yesterday (see immediately above) is a sound approach to take with this impasse. Dolphin (t) 12:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. Errantius (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Apollo1986 and User:Zfish118 each inserted the Sterling Law article as an in-line citation to support a sentence in the sub-section titled "Acquittal". Each of the two insertions was reverted by User:Errantius. User:Zfish118 challenged the reversions by raising this discussion thread. The result was an impasse and I volunteered to provide a Third Opinion.

My opinion on the impasse is that Zfish118 was correct to challenge the reversions. The reasons given by Errantius for making the reversions appear to me to be based solely on his original research and appear to me to be unrelated to the way in which the Sterling Law article allows independent verification of the sentence to which it was appended.

In my opinion the better way for the current impasse to be resolved is for the Sterling Law article to be restored as an in-line citation in the section titled "Acquittal". I will now do that. My reasons for deciding this is the better way to resolve the impasse are evident by reading my previous edits to this discussion thread. If Errantius or any other User wishes to revert my insertion of the Sterling Law article as an in-line citation they should not do so without first obtaining support from some other Users. One way to seek that support, and perhaps the best way, is by making a Request for Comment. Dolphin (t) 13:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't going to post further on this topic and a further reversion would presumably count for me as a third (WP:3RR), but User:Dolphin51 is going too far. He has misquoted me and misrepresented my arguments. Now he accuses me of OR although I have referred solely to material already present. Perhaps by OR he means use of personal expertise, which he disparages on 19 December in the name of any user's freedom to contribute. Those are very different points. WP rejoices in freedom to contribute; it also aims at accuracy and on relatively technical questions (in medicine, for example) accuracy can require expertise. Errantius (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Errantius: Thank you for these concluding remarks. I regret that you feel I have misquoted you and misrepresented your arguments; I was actually at pains to remain objective at all times in the hope that you and other interested Users would feel that my opinion was fair and able to withstand scrutiny.

As you explained your position on the Sterling Law article you made no mention of any person, institution or document that shared your views regarding misleading implications, unsound impressions etc. It seemed to me that these were the conclusions to your own analysis rather than conclusions reached by some other reliable source. For example, in the second of your edits on 15 December you wrote about facts; you used the word twice. You wrote “The SL article suggests ... whereas in fact it did not.” Without identifying the source from which these sentiments came it looks like it qualifies for Wikipedia’s definition of original research (which is very broad.) Saying something is original research doesn’t mean it is incorrect, unsound or posted in bad faith - usually it is the opposite.

It is my understanding of the 3R Rule that it is discouraging three reverts within a 24 hour period. If you reverted my recent edit to the George Pell page it would not have violated the 3R Rule so I thank you for refraining from doing so.

Happy editing and I look forward to seeing you and your expertise around the traps in the future. Dolphin (t) 07:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

First: as to OR, I was referring to what the High Court Court said. The Court's decision is controversial, but the meaning of its judgment is not. Second: the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) is a component of the policy against edit warring and I think a third revert beyond the 24-hour period if made for no additional reason would be likely to be classified as edit warring. Let us stop here. Errantius (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Over-use of quotations

3Kingdoms Amended the article to delete an extensive quotation attributed to author and ABC journalist Louise Milligan. 3Kingdoms did not leave an edit summary; see the diff. HiLo48 reverted it to restore the quotation; summarising the edit as restoring sourced information that was deleted without explanation.

In my view the section devoted to Pell’s trial, appeal and acquittal contains too much text devoted to quotation, within quotation marks, of words actually written or spoken by key figures in the narrative. An encyclopaedia should rely on succinct presentation of the facts and this necessitates paraphrasing of the words written and spoken by key figures which is often verbose. Everything in Wikipedia should qualify under the notability criteria; if a key figure’s disposition is notable it may qualify for inclusion but it must be presented in a suitably economic choice of words. If a quotation is used, it must also be notable and it must be suitably succinct.

The section devoted to Pell’s trial, appeal and acquittal contain some verbose quotations that could be paraphrased or omitted altogether. I think the quotation of Justice Weinberg’s conclusion might, just, qualify as sufficiently notable to retain its current position - it is about 51 words. In contrast the text restored by HiLo48, attributed to Milligan, contains about 80 words. Milligan’s words are of questionable notability. If her disposition is truly notable it can be presented succinctly by paraphrasing. There is also an extensive quotation of words written by John Silvester of The Age; it contains about 112 words. What Silvester thinks could be presented succinctly by paraphrasing.

What appears in Wikipedia must satisfy the notability criteria; merely being sourced from a reliable publication is not sufficient to earn inclusion in the encyclopaedia - millions of words have been written and Wikipedia does not seek to present them all. Inclusion of direct quotations makes an article look a bit like the script for a TV documentary. Encyclopaedias present the facts in a neutral manner and abstain from plagiarism.

I am in favour of removing these lengthy quotations, and insisting that everything in this article qualifies under Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Dolphin (t) 12:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving a reason. Basically as you said I thought it was unneeded due to the eventual outcome of the whole trial. It felt to me that it was too much space given to Milligan especially given the criticism of her and the ABC in the aftermath of the trial. Hope that cleared things up. I also agree that the quotes should be reduced in general. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is on my Watchlist. I don't routinely read the Talk page. An Edit summary was needed. It could have simply referred to the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad. Do you still believe that the quote should remain? 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Six weeks have passed since I started this discussion thread. My proposal to reduce the number of direct quotations has attracted only a couple of comments – from 3Kingdoms and HiLo48. I have worked through the relevant Section – Allegations of child sexual abuse and I am now proposing removing some of the text currently in the article. My proposed version is in my Sandbox and the changes can be seen by looking at my diff.

I am proposing removing many of the direct quotations of what various commentators have published about Pell, the trial, conviction, appeals and acquittal. On Wikipedia we don't insert our original research or personal opinions; nor should we insert other peoples' original research or personal opinions, even if they appear within quotation marks and can be attributed to reliable published sources. As I read these quotations I can't escape the thought that they were inserted by a User as a means of arguing the case for or against the conviction, appeal or acquittal; Wikipedia does not argue cases – Wikipedia publishes facts, and does so from a neutral point of view. Plagiarism should be avoided – the facts should be presented using words chosen by the User who inserts them; not the words chosen by a commentator or journalist who is not a Wikipedia User and therefore not aware of Wikipedia's objectives and guidelines.

Some of the text in the article at present relates to news that has been overtaken by events – for example, the swimmers trial which was once highly anticipated, but then was cancelled and has disappeared almost without trace. And a conspiracy theory, based on some Italian newspapers, that has been abandoned by the Victorian IBAC because it lacks substance. I am proposing these items be removed.

Some of the coverage of the appeals and acquittal is presented in such exquisite detail that it was clearly inserted to keep up with breaking news. Now that these things are more than a year old that exquisite detail is no longer appropriate and should be removed in favour of a more succinct, encyclopaedic presentation, of interest to an audience that includes many who are not lawyers.

There are a couple of examples of Citation overkill. I am proposing removal of some of the citations that are excessive.

A number of words and expressions are presented using quotation marks. This is usually unnecessary in an encyclopaedia and I am proposing these quotation marks be removed. Dolphin (t) 11:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree, with one area of concern. A major criticism of the Catholic Church with paedophilia allegations, and Pell in this case, is that it makes the ultimate effort to delay cases, with the goal of having victims and witnesses unwilling or unable to testify, sometimes even because of death. A case disappearing almost without trace may well be a significant part of the story. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree personally with most of the changes on principle for this page. However I also think that given the nature of this trial there should be a separate wiki page for it, where the additional quotes can be used. Regarding my removal of some of the quotes in question, I simply found it unneeded to include an extended quote by Milligan when Pell's conviction was overturned by the Court Unanimously.3Kingdoms (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

But lower courts were strongly in support of conviction. The danger here is the claims subsequently (and still) made by many Pell supporters that he was found innocent. The legal system obviously had considerable doubt about such claims. This is not a simple case. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want this to get into a debate on this subject, but I disagree with "strongly in support of conviction". The initial jury ruled 10-2 in his favor but could not come to a unanimous verdict resulting in a mistrial. Following his conviction on his first appeal it was 2-1 against him. Given that Judge Weinberg from what I understand is considered one of if not the leading authority on criminal law in Australia, him dissenting is rather serious. Finally as noted before the highest court unanimously overturned his conviction, something that does not happen often as I understand. Finally given the fact that the accusation did not fit the usual pattern of sexual abuse, that it was virtually psychically impossible for Pell to have done the acts in question, and finally one of the accusers recanted shortly before he tragically took his own life, I think this is clear. While it should be written in a neutral manner and certainly, we should mention the other side given how polarizing this case was, but the facts none the less seem quite clear. Pell is about as guilty as Alfred Dreyfus. I hope that clears things up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Church depends on victims and witnesses dying to protect its priests. This is historically obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that this is a sensitive subject, but this comment does not address my points and veers towards conspiracy theory and anti-Catholicism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It veers towards what the Royal Commission on Child Abuse said about the Catholic Church. I regard that as being pro-children rather than as anti-Catholicism. The long term behaviour of the church and approaches to avoiding convictions for priests are well documented. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the argument that that is an accurate reading of the Royal commission. This discussion is not about that or the wider issue of sexual abuse, its only about Pell and his trial. Furthermore you still have not addressed the points raised. While they might not have said it exactly the highest court in the country said that effectively Pell was innocent. I really don't see why then there should be an extended block quote from Milligan about his guilt.

You claiming Pell was innocent was precisely the goal the Catholic Church was trying to achieve with its constant manipulation of the legal process. The highest court in the country DID NOT say he was innocent. That rather proves that quotes such as Milligan's IS needed, in order to prevent our article giving that wrong impression. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The highest court said that there was a strong belief that an innocent man was found guilty. Again you still have not addressed the points I made, instead you claim that the Church constantly manipulated the legal process for which you provide no evidence. Once again a lengthy block quote by Milligan reacting to Pell's rejection by the appeal court is unneeded when about a year later it was reversed unanimously, link to her sure, but the quote is unneeded. I really don't see the point of this discussion, if you are not going to address my points or constantly shifting to the Church at large when this is solely about Pell. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It can never be solely about Pell. The point of this discussion is that we must stop Pell apologists claiming that Pell was found innocent, because that's simply NOT the case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No this discussion is about quotations used nothing more nothing less. Please stop dragging in personal beliefs on this subject. The prosecutors themselves went to great lengths to claim that the case was not supposed to be a trial of the Church, but only Pell. Like it or not the Highest court in the land unanimously overturned a jury trial something that almost never happens. Evidently they found the evidence to the point that an innocent man was found guilty. Once again you have presented no evidence to support your claim. This is for discussion and debate not ax-grinding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 If it is true that there are Pell apologists abroad I doubt they will be dissuaded by seeing a quotation from Louise Milligan dating from the period prior to the High Court decision.

More importantly, Wikipedia is not a place for Miss Milligan to insert her original research or her personal opinions, and it isn’t a place for us to insert her original research or her personal opinions even if we were to include them within quotation marks and attribute them to her publication. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and it contains facts expressed in neutral language. It must use words chosen by us, the Users, not words chosen for us by others.

This discussion thread is intended to canvass views on removing the present unencyclopaedic reliance on quotations by removing all of them, not removing those that promote one prejudice and retaining those that promote the opposite. What are your views on my proposed version of the relevant Section visible in my Sandbox? Dolphin (t) 00:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with the changes, however I still personally feel that this case warrants its own separate page where some of the quotes could be used more freely. However even in then most should probably just summarize their view, with only a few block quotes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A separate page for Pell’s trial and appeals is a separate project. Feel free to make a start on it anytime. This discussion thread is not about such a project. Even if such a separate page comes into existence it must not be a repository for quotations - it must be written by us users, not by others, and must use our words, not words plagiarised from others. Dolphin (t) 00:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It is now two weeks since the most-recent contribution to this Talk thread (by 3Kingdoms). There has been no great objection to my proposal so I will now incorporate my changes - proposed above and visible on my User:Dolphin51/Sandbox. HiLo48 has expressed concerns about removal of material related to the Swimmers trial so I will leave that in the article. Dolphin (t) 12:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

St Patrick's College "from which he matriculated" ??

"Pell attended Loreto Convent and St Patrick's College (from which he matriculated) in Ballarat." This is a confusing use of the verb "to matriculate", which means to enter a college or school. Was is it supposed to mean here? Did he graduate from St Patrick's? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Language evolves. "Matriculate" used to be used by some to describe finishing high school in Victoria by getting your Matriculation Certificate, equivalent to today's VCE. It's sloppy language but that's how people spoke 60 years ago. And in those days NOBODY was described as graduating from secondary school (let alone primary school). I'd recommend just dropping the clause "(from which he matriculated)". HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's what I will do. Melchior2006 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Civil case continuing

Please add, to the '2022 legal action' section, the following: "Following the death of Pell, the case will proceed against the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and Pell's estate."

Thank you. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC) 159.196.100.171 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the update. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Lede section phrasing

@NatGertler: I'm definitely in favor of a chronological order to Pell's story. It reads weirdly to say someone's conviction was quashed without even saying that they were convicted in the first place. Checking List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#Australia for comparison... (Which includes Pell... not so sure about that), David Eastman for example has a chronological order to the lede, although in his case it says outright that he was wrongfully convicted before getting into the appeal. Henry Keogh also says the conviction first, and then the appeal. So this isn't unusual or unique to use a chronological order. If you really want to stress Pell's later fate, I guess you could say he was "controversially" convicted or the like, although I prefer the current plain wording. ("Wrongfully" would go too far when Pell did not get a full exoneration, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Introductions do not need to be all in chronological order, and indeed this one is not; even the opening paragraph has something he was doing from 2014 to 2019 before what he was doing in 2013 to 2018.

When it comes to the biography of a living person, we should be very careful around material that paints them as criminal. Introducing the idea that he was convicted and only later noting that it was overturned goes against that. Plus, the idea that a paragraph opens with a "topic sentence" leads to covering the back-and-forth there, rather than in later paragraphs. The version that you're trying to eliminate leads with his being cleared, but keeps what he had been convicted of in that sentence, so there's no point in reading, no point at which a reader might drop off, that leaves them with the idea that this man is a convict. Pell's conviction was not just "controversial", it was undone, and while we should and do cover the whole matter in depth in the body of the article, as a BLP matter we need be careful what we lead with. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And I will note that the ordering of this was done with the consensus of a previous discussion. As such, I am restoring it as existing consensus; this discussion is open if people want to chime in on a new consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know about the previous discussion. That said, I'm still not sold. I completely agree that the lede needs to be BLP-compliant, but the current paragraph is an awkward backwards-traveling sentence. It's a very unusual and awkward phrasing. I checked some more examples, and this phrasing is (still) very rare. Scottsboro Boys (okay, not a BLP) opens with the accusations, then says it was a miscarriage of justice in the next sentence. I don't think it'd be reasonable to complain about "only reading the first sentence" and getting a misleading impression. If there's a dire need, then maybe have some sort of topic sentence -> conviction -> appeal? I think expecting the reader to read the very next sentence is fair though. SnowFire (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the version we have works. If you want to propose a topic sentence that included that he was cleared of the charges, please do so, but any formulation that establishes conviction and leaves the overturning to a later sentence will be problematic in a BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of what I'm saying is that basic story telling is to tell things in order unless the author is being artsy, which is explicitly not Wikipedia's thing, this isn't a magazine piece. Also, Pell was a convict for 2 years, so it's not even incorrect to state he was for that period of his life - you can think this was a great injustice while also acknowledging that it happened. Anyway, here's my proposal, although my hopes are not high based off what you said:

Pell was the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct in 2002 over activities allegedly committed from 1978–2001 that eventually led to a criminal investigation and court case that was later overturned. Pell was convicted by the [[County Court of Victoria]] in 2018 on charges of sexual offences. In 2020, the [[High Court of Australia]] unanimously overturned this conviction and set aside the orders of the [[Victorian Court of Appeal]] rejecting appeal.

Does that "topic sentence" work? SnowFire (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

OK by me, SnowFire—though I suggest, instead of "investigation and court case that was later overturned", just "criminal prosecution". The ensuing conviction and its overturning are then stated. (I've taken the liberty of clarifying your paragraph formatting.) Errantius (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@SnowFire:The task before us is to mention Pell’s conviction and subsequent acquittal in an accurate and even-handed way that avoids any impression of an underlying non-neutral point of view. I think the current sentence does that well, and I don’t see any need to attempt to improve it. I disagree with SnowFire’s characterization as “an awkward backwards-traveling sentence. It’s a very unusual and awkward phrasing.”

SnowFire acknowledges the relevance of WP:BLP but some of what they have written here suggest they may be motivated by a naïve point of view. SnowFire has included in this thread “… when Pell did not get a full exoneration, IMO.” Perhaps SnowFire imagines that appeal courts sometimes make loquacious judgements that describe things in popular, non-legal language. They don’t. Appeal courts use legal language and are often very brief, simply saying “the appellant’s appeal is upheld” or “the appellant’s appeal is denied.” No significance should be inferred from the brevity of a court’s judgement, or a judgement based on a legal technicality. Criminal courts categorize defendants and appellants as either guilty or not guilty. There is no third category. Perhaps SnowFire imagines a third category called “not guilty but not fully exonerated either.” Such a category does not exist so has no place on Wikipedia’s mainspace or on Talk pages. Dolphin (t) 13:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dolphin51:@SnowFire: Dolphin, I must correct you on two legal points in case what you say may mislead. (1) I don't think I've ever seen an appeal judgement that is as brief as you suggest—unless it be an urgent decision with reasons to be given later, an exception that is not relevant here. (2) A third category of finding does exist, in the Scots verdict of "not proven"—although this option is not available in common-law systems such as that of Australia. On substance: the High Court found Pell "not guilty", but said that its reason for doing so was that the evidence indicating guilt, although not to be rejected, did not exclude reasonable doubt and so was insufficient to require a finding of "guilty". Errantius (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Errantius: Thank you for this clarification. This thread was established to explore the proposition that the relevant sentence in the lead is awkward and backwards-traveling. I see no possible link between the potential awkwardness of the sentence and SnowFire's opinion that "Pell did not get a full exoneration ..." Presumably you see no link either. If you do see a link please let me know what it is. Dolphin (t) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(de-indent) Dolphin, I'm familiar with how courts work, and in so far as Wikipedia covers the appeals court's judgment, sure. However, I must inform you that on Wikipedia, shades of grey do exist outside of what exactly the law said - not merely third categories, but fourth, fifth, and sixth ones. Both my personal views and your personal views are utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does indeed cover distinctions between "a court overturned a guilty verdict" and "the accused was outright exonerated". In fact, these are sometimes separate issues - there are people who have indisputably been convicted yet are also considered by mainstream historians as indisputably innocent. All I was saying is that Pell is, to my knowledge, not in that category of an outright exoneration - again, to historians and reliable sources, which is not necessarily the same as their legal status. (I can't speak directly to Australian law, but I will note that at least in American law, there does exist an "outright exonerated" procedure that tends to entitle the convictee to reimbursement after the fact - see Ricky Jackson, Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Bridgeman for one example.) In any case, if it turned out that Pell had a full clear on him, then I would still support a chronological order of events, but I would support adjectives such as "wrongly convicted" before proceeding to the appeals, because chronological order is how sentences and paragraphs are structured - especially when one event (the appeal) is highly dependent on a previous event (the conviction). SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Thanks for that clarification. You established this thread to explore the proposition that a key sentence in the lead is awkward and backwards traveling. Good move - thanks for doing that. Unfortunately you made the mistake of contaminating your reasoning about the awkwardness and backwards-traveling nature of the sentence with a diversion to reveal your personal view on the outcome of Pell's appeal. I'm sure you won't make that mistake again, and your contributions to Talk pages will be more persuasive as the result. (If you still think there is a link between the potential awkwardness and backwards-traveling nature of the sentence, and your opinion that "Pell did not get a full exoneration ...", please let Errantius and me know what it is.)

I have looked closely at your proposed replacement sentences. I find the syntax in the first sentence to be ambiguous: "Pell was the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct in 2002 ..." What happened in 2002 - was it the allegations, or the sexual misconduct? Dolphin (t) 13:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it was the allegations - but I'm basing that off the body of the current article and trusting that it accurately summarizes the sources. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Prior to 21 July the third paragraph in the lede began with the following sentence:

In 2020, the High Court of Australia unanimously overturned the County Court of Victoria's 2018 conviction of Pell on charges of sexual offences and set aside the orders of the Victorian Court of Appeal rejecting appeal. (36 words)

On 21 July this sentence was amended and supplemented by the addition of two new sentences, as follows: (See the diff.)

Pell was the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct in 2002 over activities allegedly committed from 1978–2001 that eventually led to a court prosecution that was later overturned. Pell was convicted by the County Court of Victoria in 2018 on the charges of sexual offences. In 2020, the High Court of Australia unanimously overturned this conviction and set aside the orders of the Victorian Court of Appeal rejecting appeal. (70 words)

This amendment almost doubled the number of words used to convey this item of information. The edit appears to be intended to present the information in chronological order. There appears to be little justification for doubling the number of words. When Pell was convicted of offences it was highly notable, but when all convictions were overturned and Pell was released from prison it became much less notable. It is possible to present the essential facts in an economic fashion and in chronological order. I suggest alternative wording as follows:

In 2018 Pell was found guilty of various sexual offences. The High Court of Australia subsequently found him not guilty of all charges. (23 words) Dolphin (t) 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No to that -- it has the BLP problem of leading with his guilt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The offending paragraph in the lead has grown in size and complexity. Its accuracy and neutrality have arguably been diminished. The purpose of the lead is to summarise what is to be found in greater detail in the body of the article, rather than to comprehensively present all the notable information. I have amended the paragraph to remove 3 sentences and replace them with one sentence based on the wording I proposed above on 23 July 2021. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I recently made a change that I didn't think would require talk page checking, but for the record, per this diff, Dolphin's simplification also changed the meaning. Shortening it is fine, but saying that the appeals court replaced the verdict is incorrect: they overturned the existing verdict. I just restored the text used in older versions of the lede as well as directly in the sources used ("his convictions overturned" [1] twice, no mention of a new verdict, which would be extremely unusual). SnowFire (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's not theorise about what appeal courts do: what matters here is what this appeal court did. The judgment ends:

For these reasons, there should be the following orders:

1. Special leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter and allowed.

3. Set aside order 2 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 21 August 2019 and, in its place, order that:

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place.

Thus what was replaced (for each conviction) was not the verdict but the original judgment of conviction, which had been based upon the verdict of "guilty". The verdict itself was not changed; it ceased to have effect. The lede is not wrong to say, without technicality: "overturned the verdict". But "quashed the convictions" is more accurate and I have made that change. Errantius (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Turning back to the question of how to be NPOV, the paragraph really does read badly at present (imho). There is a very clear idea expressed in the first few words of the para; then came the semicolon (which maybe should be at most a comma) reinforced by the two references. So I have moved the references to after the acquittal to try to get the sentence to at least run more easily. I may try another minor tweak next (the sentence may need a 'but' or a 'however') but can we have a look at the effect of the reference move first, please? I appreciate that for some the acquittal should come first, and I do in fact tend towards that view myself, but maybe we can polish the current ... ahem ... wording sufficiently to keep us all happy, since there are clearly strong views. A further possibility is that we don't need five references here. Respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

... and I changed a "The" to an "A" for reasons explained in the edit summary (grammar). Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

and further tweak to bring the conviction and the quashing into close proximity with a suitable conjunction “ In 2018 Pell was found guilty of various sexual offences, but the convictions were quashed by the High Court of Australia in 2020”. Springnuts (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

… and now adding the miscarriage of justice as the first thing read; thus retaining chronology but avoiding setting up an impression of one thing which has immediately to be corrected. Springnuts (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be changing 'various sexual offences' in the lede to "child sexual abuse", which is how the body words it (On 11 December 2018, Pell was convicted on five counts of child sexual abuse of two boys in the 1990s. Notable reliable sources refer to the charges in that manner. The term is also already used frequently in the lede and the body of this article. In the below post, I will demonstrate how prominent reliable sources describe his quashed charges similarly. starship.paint (exalt) 14:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Posthumous article by Associated Press [2] "Cardinal George Pell ... spent 404 days in solitary confinement in his native Australia on child sex abuse charges before his convictions were overturned"
2. Posthumous article by Reuters [3] George Pell, a leading Roman Catholic conservative and former top Vatican official who in 2020 was acquitted of child sexual abuse allegations.
3. Posthumous article by Agence France Presse [4] "Cardinal George Pell ... leaves a legacy forever marked by a paedophilia conviction that was later overturned ... served 12 months in jail before a court quashed his conviction on five counts of sexually abusing 13-year-old choirboys in the 1990s.
4. Posthumous article by The Australian [5] in the last decade of his life, the former Catholic archbishop faced multiple child sexual abuse charges that he was later acquitted of
5. Posthumous article by the New York Times [6] Cardinal George Pell ... sent to prison for child sexual abuse, before later being acquitted of all charges
6. Posthumous article by the Washington Post [7] ... who was acquitted after becoming the most senior Catholic cleric to be convicted of sexually assaulting children
7. Posthumous article by the Wall Street Journal Allegations of child sex abuse dogged Cardinal Pell for years, ultimately taking him home to face trial in Australia, where he became the highest-ranking Catholic official to be convicted of such crimes at a time when accusations buffeted the church. But after he had served more than 12 months of a six-year prison sentence, the country’s top court reversed the conviction, and he was released.
8. Posthumous article by The Guardian [8] "... his reputation was fatally damaged by association with the church’s child sexual abuse scandals in his home country. Pell himself became the highest-ranking Catholic to be convicted of such offences, and he spent more than a year in jail before his convictions were overturned by Australia’s high court in 2020."
9. Posthumous article by BBC News [9] But the cleric left his post in 2017, returning to Australia to face trial on child sex abuse charges. A jury in 2018 found he had abused two boys while Archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s. Cardinal Pell, who always maintained his innocence, spent 13 months in prison before the High Court of Australia quashed the verdict in 2020.
10. Posthumous article by ABC News Australia [10] Cardinal Pell ... was jailed in Australia for child sexual abuse in 2019 but vigorously maintained his innocence and had his convictions quashed more than a year later.
11. Posthumous article by CNN [11] Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic official to be convicted of child sex abuse before the ruling was overturned in 2020, has died
12. Posthumous article by Financial Times [12] Cardinal George Pell, the former head of the Vatican’s finances who was jailed for child sexual abuse before being acquitted on appeal
13. Posthumous article by The Age [13] Pell was the first cardinal in the world to be jailed for child sex offences and served a year in prison before the High Court dismissed the charges.
14. Posthumous article by The Daily Telegraph [14] Towards the end of his life, however, he was convicted of sexually abusing two choirboys in 1996, though he strongly denied the charges and immediately lodged an appeal, which was unsuccessful, before he was eventually cleared of the charges by the High Court of Australia.
15. Posthumous article by UPI [15] Cardinal George Pell, whose convictions for sexually abusing a child were overturned

Non-exhaustive list. Does not even cover sources before his death. starship.paint (exalt) 14:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I leave it to editors to decide - version 1: In 2018, Pell was found guilty of child sexual abuse, but on appeal, the convictions were quashed in 2020 by the High Court of Australia, or version 2: Pell was acquitted of child sexual abuse by the High Court of Australia in 2020, which overturned Pell's conviction on these charges in 2018. starship.paint (exalt) 14:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I prefer version 1. Dolphin (t) 02:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: - thank you. Wording of version 1 slightly adjusted above, just to keep you in the loop. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I too prefer version 1: it is chronological; and the primary point is that he was convicted. Errantios (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Keith Windschuttle, a largely discredited and inappropriate source on Wikipedia

The length of concerns about Keith Windschuttle authorship are clearly listed on his own page under critical reception. Windschuttle is not a reliable source on anything. At best he is a paid shill of the far right conservative audience and his views have no business in a credible encyclopaedia. I don't see how the views of a discredited historical revisionist are relevant to ANY article on Wikipedia. Please feel free after reading his article on this very encyclopedia to tell any of us how using him as a source meets the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability and particularly "reliable sources" in relation to the creator. 120.22.208.169 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Discredited by whom? When? The simple word of any editor is not taken without verifiable reliable independent sources to support their statements. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 17:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a full and complete list of concerns at Keith_Windschuttle#Critical_reception — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.208.169 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC) --120.22.208.169 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

To answer your statements, because I feel discourse is important, the criticism of Keith Windschuttle was largely over Aboriginal histories. I would agree that statements made by Mr. Windschuttle in regards to Aboriginal topics should be scrutinized, however, this isn't about Aboriginal history therefore the book is relevant because it discusses this specific case. If there are sources which discredit this specific book and anything stated in it then I think those sources should be reviewed and discussed. --ARoseWolf 17:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The criticism in general is about his authorship, or lack there of, and when you find an author that is willing to compromise his views to sell whatever it is the conservative media wanted at the time it speaks volumes about the lack of credibility about the author in general. Keith Windschuttle is not a reliable source on anything. Credibility applies in general not to any one specific topic. --120.22.208.169 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. I would encourage you to to look at WP:RSN in which we rely on many sources which are credible in some cases but in very specific cases they are to receive additional scrutiny. The fact that Mr. Windschuttle is a conservative or pushes conservative ideas and has received criticism for their ideas on Aboriginal history does not automatically discredit them in other cases but may mean they should receive additional scrutiny. Feel free to open a request for comment if you wish to have the source deprecated by community consensus. --ARoseWolf 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We used to have (maybe still have) a list of all the errors of fact that have been found in Encyclopaedia Britannica. They're on the record. But we still use EB as a reliable source for thousands of our articles, because it's considered generally reliable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

EB is a bad source that is no better in accuracy than Wikipedia. It is not in fact "generally reliable" WP:BRITANNICA explicitly lists its reliability as "no consensus" . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ARoseWolf and Jack of Oz. At Wikipedia we may reject published text, and we may even reject whole documents, based on their merits or lack thereof; but we don’t reject persons. Dolphin (t) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to split. While there was some support for a split based on the article's size, editors noted that the page currently meets readable prose guidelines (see Hawkeye7; thank you!), contrary to my mistaken reasoning in the nomination, not to justify a split on size alone; that the split would be better considered later in time than the immediate aftermath of Pell's death; that the community agrees that the article is of a very high B-class standard, an assessment that could be threatened by a split; and that any attempt to split the article could meet objections of attempting to sanitise the article. _MB190417_ (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

---

The page size currently exceeds 180 kilobytes, well above the recommended WP:SIZESPLIT guidance of 100kB. Therefore, I propose a WP:SPINOFF. Two headings currently offer length and in-depth coverage, which may be too detailed for an encyclopaedic entry on Pell per se. These headings therefore may merit an article in their own right or together: Pell's handling of CSA cases as archbishop and allegations against him of CSA. I'm rather certain a split is advisable, but I'm not convinced where the split should fall (and whether there should be one or two spinoffs), or what any spinoff article should be called, especially from a neutrality point of view. I apologise if this has already been discussed; I have not previously contributed to this page. _MB190417_ (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those two headings should be split off. Though I think that they should be separate from each other. Errantios (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And I agree with HiLo48 and SmokeyJoe below, who seem to be addressing the same point. So: split off two articles, separate from each other, in maybe a month or so from now. This could provide space to tie the Commission's finding about Pell in with the rest of that wide-ranging inquiry. Errantios (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And I'm tending even more toward postpone, given the extra dust kicked up today by publication of Pell's severe criticisms of Pope Francis, which will have to be added to the article when known more fully. Errantios (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per above, as the article is too long. Sahaib (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Pell's death was posted as an In the news item on Wikipedia's Main page. The discussion leading to that included comments that the article size was close to ideal. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: George Pell. Clearly different things are being measured. I do however agree that those suggested additional articles would be desirable anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ambivalent. Not opposed. starship.paint (exalt) 04:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time due to it being an active news event. Revisit in one month. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any attempt to hive off all the sexual abuse material could be interpreted as sanitising the base article. If you want to shorten the article (and I am not sure that is a problem). then put all his "views" in a spin-off article (The views of George Pell). WWGB (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite right, IMHO. I was assuming that this material would not simply be 'hived off' but would be replaced with summaries, which would actually be more likely to be read. Errantios (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I envisage the result of spinning off the CSA sections would be what Errantios is suggesting: summaries in the main article, and then the whole process as it is currently written can be sent to the spun-off articles for those that want the current extended read. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent and there is no precedent, but one example where there has been a spinoff on clerical CSA is Marcial Maciel#Sexual abuse allegations and Sexual abuse cases of Marcial Maciel. _MB190417_ (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support splitting out content re The views of George Pell, replaced by an overall summary of Pell's views; and support retaining content re Pell's handling of CSA cases as archbishop and allegations against him of CSA. However, do not action until, say mid-February 2023 at the earliest. Rangasyd (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Mostly Oppose: The "Views" section is too short to be a distinct article, while leaving an adequate summary in the base article. I am highly cautious of splitting off sexual abuse content for basically the same reason: to leave an adequate summary style section for such a complex case may not leave enough "nitty-gritty" details to make a spin off article distinct. This is a biography of a recently deceased individual, so all content and articles are subject to heightened scrutiny. Details that are acceptable within the context of the base article may have undue weight in a spin off article (or visa-versa). The page size policy has always been highly subjective and partially based on increasingly moot bandwidth concerns, so unless it can be shown there are specifically 80 KB details not of a general interest in the base article (or it can be shown there is significant content that is no currently covered in the base article), I don't see an advantage of a split. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For the 100th time: The article is not 100 KB. We measure WP:article size in readable prose size so the article is only 60 KB (9,947 words), so size alone is insufficient justification for splitting the article. That doesn't mean that mean that it should not be split; but I agree that "views" is too short for its own article, and it is too unfocused too boot - such an article could become a list of unrelated items. Splitting off the sexual abuse allegations could partly be justified under WP:UNDUE, but it is one of his main claims to notability, so we could wind up with two articles being simultaneously maintained, and I fear the danger of a WP:POVFORK hiving off all the embarrassing material into a subarticle. (And, if you want to take a walk with Darth Vader, follow up by nominating the subarticle for deletion.) Per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), let's revisit the issue when the dust has settled a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't buy the argument that it requires splitting. The only legitimate reason would be regarding the size of the article, but as has been rightly put across by others, it hasn't reached that requirement yet. Alssa1 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is fine how it is now, however does border on being WP:TOOBIG, as mentioned earlier, that alone isn't reason for a split. My opinion is that a split will risk a B Class article turning into two low quality articles. At the moment I find it hard to justify splitting what is at present a concise and appropriate article. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

His Eminence remained very close to the University of Oxford and was the Cardinal Patron of the Newman Society until his death. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)