Talk:George Pell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

He has been sacked by the catholic church a treasurer (last entry on his page) 115.70.233.6 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2018 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The original first sentence makes no grammatical sense:

George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church and most senior convicted sex offender of the Catholic Church.

It appears to be written to suggest that one can be a "senior" sex offender in the Catholic Church, which fails WP:Neutrality, among other policies. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

Pell is the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse. In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. The most serious charges were thrown out for "fundamental defects in evidence" and credibility issues over witnesses, but Pell was committed to stand trial on other charges, pleading not guilty. Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. In February 2019, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith initiated its own investigation of the charges against Pell, which could lead to Pell being defrocked.

He has been sentenced to serve six years in prison and will be eligible for parole in 3 years and 8 months. He is also now a registered sex offender Please include these notable facts in the lead section.

Pell is the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse. In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. The most serious charges were thrown out for "fundamental defects in evidence" and credibility issues over witnesses, but Pell was committed to stand trial on other charges, pleading not guilty. Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. In February 2019, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith initiated its own investigation of the charges against Pell, which could lead to Pell being defrocked. On March 13, 2019, Pell was sentenced to six years in prison and cannot be eligible for parole for three years and eight months. He will also now be registered as a sex offender for life as well. 2601:447:4101:5780:F4E7:37BA:F7CD:1D61 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Update infobox to include his conviction for child molestation. 129.127.145.232 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. There are no fields in Template:Infobox Christian leader for criminal convictions. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

His conviction has now been confirmed and I want this to be included.

In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria, Australia with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. The most serious charges were thrown out for "fundamental defects in evidence" and credibility issues over witnesses, but Pell was committed to stand trial on the lesser charges, pleading not guilty. As Vatican Prefect for the Secretariat of the Economy, Pell is reported to be the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to face such charges. On 16 August 2018, Spanish media reported that Pell had been removed from the Council of Cardinal Advisers due to the charges raised against him. On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. He is listed to be sentenced in February 2019 and is expected to appeal the conviction. Pell's conviction was subject to a gag order issued by Judge Peter Kidd, which suppressed coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies. On 12 December 2018, the day after Pell's conviction, the Holy See Press Office announced that Pope Francis had written to Pell at the end of October 2018 to thank him for his work on the Council of Cardinal Advisers since 2013; and terminated his appointment to the council. His conviction was later confirmed by local sources on February 26, 2019.

References

2601:447:4101:5780:414C:1408:94AD:FC44 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Pell's conviction is covered adequately at George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Beating around the bush: Criminal charges and conviction

The latest Reuters news Vatican treasurer convicted of sexually abusing 13-year-old boys is straightforward:

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Vatican treasurer Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty on five charges of child sexual abuse committed more than two decades ago against 13-year-old boys in Australia - the most senior Catholic cleric to be convicted of child sex offences.

then

He was convicted of five sexual offences committed against the 13-year-old choir boys 22 years earlier in the priests’ sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, where Pell was archbishop. One of the two victims died in 2014.

Why his crime description under this section suffers from a large number of words signifying nothing.--93.86.142.92 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Claim of "Catholic orthodoxy" and its contradiction with climate denial

Is the sentence in the lede correct "Since becoming Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, he has maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining a strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy." considering he is an outspoken and proud climate change denier. He has opposed the Encyclical Laudato Si from Pope Francis, hardly adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.

It is hardly surprising that the serious and somewhat blunt message of Laudato si’ has been met with resistance by many conservative Catholics, including those who advocate climate denial, such as Australian Cardinal George Pell.4 Pell’s idea that Pope Francis has no business meddling in either scientific or political matters crept into the conservative press. Such criticisms are false in light of the historical contribution of the Catholic Church to both scientific research and politics more broadly. In contrast with climate change deniers, Pope Francis...

References

Also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/catholicism-environment

Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this is the case. There's no ambiguity in the Vatican's views on climate change. That said, Pell preached orthodox sexual views, if not environmental care views. I can edit to reflect that. Vision Insider (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of?

Could someone please state what the specific charges are that Pell was found guilty of? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:30B0:F075:BE56:77F4 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He was convicted of molesting two choir boys at the cathedral where Pell was bishop in the first trial (the so-called "Cathedral Trial"). A second trial is scheduled, known as the "Swimmers Trial", involves an accusation he molested two boys who were at a pool in Ballarat Victoria, where he was a local priest at the time. ("Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys". The Daily Beast. 11 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.)

How, exactly, did he molest his victims? The article is still too vague. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what happened: the state of Victoria does not allow the release of court proceedings if the matter either involves minors or if the defendant is facing separate charges. Since Pell was being separately trialled for another series of crimes, his offences were not allowed to be released as it could have swayed a jury and prevented a fair trial. That could mean not even holding a trial. It's a losing battle in a digital age (the story obviously leaked anyway) but Australian media weren't allowed to run the story. Overseas media had cryptic clues to go on, though. Vision Insider (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you really need to know which part of his body he used? Why the salacious interest? WWGB (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@WWGB: Wikipedia is not censored. Any information covered by reliable sources may be included. Details of the crime are directly relevant to why the subject of this article is notable. To accuse another editor of mere "salacious interest" by pointing out that critical information is missing is poor faith. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It always amuses me when an uninvolved third editor feels the urge to interject in a discussion between two other editors, particularly to parrot bleeding obvious Wikipedia protocols. I wonder whether they never achieved their childhood dream to become a policeman. Some editors who boldly proclaim they are "retired" from Wikipedia seem incapable of adhering to their own decision. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gag order penalties

Please add to the section on the gag order that in early February, Victoria's DPP, Kerri Judd QC, wrote to around 50 Australian news publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors, accusing them of breaking the gag order. Peter Kidd, the judge who laid the gag order, told a closed court that some of the breaches were serious and editors faced jail.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear to me how the fact that some journalists may have broken a gag order is relevant to George Pell, subject of this article. Granted, the order was relating to his case, but due to the fact that the second case is not going ahead the success of the gag order is immaterial for Pell as the purpose of it was to avoid prejudicing the second trial. I suggest you consider expanding Gag order#Australia. Melmann^(talk) 15:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Melmann, I've done as you suggested and expanded the gag order article.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold. Please consider creating an account and contributing further, Wikipedia needs editors like you. Melmann^(talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Tim Minchin

I found it a bit odd and it stood out for me that Tim Minchin's songs about Pell were mentioned 3 times in the article. Is he notable enough in Australia that his responses to current events need to be mentioned on Wikipedia? RadPaper (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that the article uses the same source three times in three different ways. All of them are reasonable. Minchin would be more recognisable than politicians who have been quoted, such as the accusations from Sharon Knight that he was faking his health problems to avoid coming to Australia.

It's noteworthy to mention that discontent with Pell's position on sexual abuse had reached the mainstream. I'd say Minchin is a good way of avoiding the issue of weasel words. In years to come, when people look at this page and wonder, "How did Australians react to Pell before his conviction?" they'll read, "Musicians made songs about him being a doofus."

Vision Insider (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You might like to compare the mentions here with Tim_Minchin#"Come_Home_(Cardinal_Pell)" - the song was directly responded to by the then Attorney-General, explaining that it was not uncommon for videolink to be used (and thus Pell did not have to "come home"). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not Minchin was "right" is separate to the fact that he was voicing protest at Pell not coming in person. The song was part of a larger campaign that considered it cowardly for Pell not to come in person. This is also what other people quoted are alluding to elsewhere in the article. Vision Insider (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Edited to add:The article has since been updated to have just one reference. I think that the article doesn't lose anything with this change.Vision Insider (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

His Eminence

'His Eminence'? Is this epithet appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

Appropriate? Plausibly not. Standard means of address for a cardinal? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Eminence 71.86.140.226 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Televised sentencing and grounds of appeal

Please add to the end of the criminal charges section that Judge Kidd's sentencing remarks will be broadcast on television, and that Pell's appeal dates are set to be 5 and 6 June. Pell's appeal is understood to be argued on three grounds: that the verdict was unreasonable, that a visual aid was not allowed in the closing address, and that Pell was not allowed to lodge a plea of not guilty in front of the jury.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done

References

Paedophile or child sex offender

Can Pell be described as a paedophile or should we only refer to him as a child sex offender? How about child abuser? Which terms are in scope and which are out? The courts found him guilty of sexual relations with minors and there are lots of terms for that. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a pleasant topic to discuss at great length, obviously. But to answer the question: a paedophile generally refers to someone who sexually assaults very young children (as in, prepubescent). "Child abuse" is a broader term that refers to assault against children, which may be violence, emotional manipulation, neglect and so on. Sexual assault would be a subset of child abuse. Vision Insider (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Paedophilia is not a crime.[1] Putting your penis in a child's mouth is a crime. WWGB (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but also perhaps a callous way of dismissing the question. In general parlance the term refers to the action of child sexual assault rather than the psychiatric condition. Hence why I said "generally refers to" rather than "is defined as." Vision Insider (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

All very helpful. Therefore to describe Pell as a paedophile we'd have to demonstrate that he enjoyed putting his penis in a child's mouth? Without that he's just guilty of child abuse - and we're not certain whether or not he enjoyed the experience. Is that a fair summary? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One cannot be "guilty" of paedophilia just as one cannot be guilty of schizophrenia. I am not aware that any psychiatrist has diagnosed Pell with paedophilia. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes bravo. But of course I didn’t say he was guilty of paedophilia - you used that phrase. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't know whether he has a preference for children, which would be paedophilia. We can only say that he was found guilty of those acts on those occasions, so he is an offender.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

AgreedContaldo80 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Criminal status, jury results, commentary - only include facts!

Edits are cropping up on this page, and others such as more generalised articles on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, regarding questioning Pell's conviction.

Victorian law is that somebody convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime. An appeal can be made if there are grounds for it, and it may overturn a result on one charge or another. At this stage, though, in the eyes of the law Pell is guilty on five counts for various charges. His status is not "probably guilty but maybe will get off on appeal" or anything similar. He is guilty. An appeal has not yet been granted. If one is granted, it may change the outcome, but for the moment he is guilty.

Similarly, an unverified rumour has been spread that the first trial resulted in a 10-2 vote favouring acquittal. This is probably untrue. I say probably because juries in Victoria may not disclose their deliberations under any circumstances. A decision can only be announced if it is unanimous or with a single dissent. Otherwise it is a mistrial. The second trial would not be identical to the first; prosecution and defence teams are allowed to change their arguments if they wish to (and it's advised that they do, since the most likely outcome is another mistrial with neither side convincing a jury).

To summarise:

DO NOT edit this page to include the unproven rumour regarding a 10-2 jury vote. No it wasn't. Juries don't disclose their deliberations. This is a rumour with unclear origins.

DO NOT make this page a flame war between commentators like Bolt and Marr regarding whether the decision was "correct." If Pell is later acquitted on appeal, it may be relevant to include commentary reacting to his initial conviction. Until then, it's all supposition and it doesn't belong here.

Vision Insider (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it premature to call him convicted. The verdict will be appealed. --175.158.233.14 (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not premature. He has, as a matter of law and fact, been convicted of a crime. Yes, he plans to appeal. Should that be successful and his conviction be quashed, then his status would change. But right now, he is convicted, and sentenced, which is why he is in prison tonight. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence of the article reads, "George Pell AC (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church convicted of child sexual abuse." I do not consider that appropriate. It is appropriate for the child sexual abuse conviction to be mentioned in the lead, given its inherent importance and the amount of attention it has attracted. There is no reason for it to be mentioned in the first sentence, however. Pell is notable for his role in the Catholic Church, not for his recent conviction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now, 100% of reliable sources mention Pell in the context of his conviction. It belongs in the first sentence/paragraph until time determines what he is better remembered for. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As the article is about 15 years old, and the conviction was in the last few weeks, it's hard to justify putting the conviction in the first sentence. He was known for his position in the church, and in the last few weeks became known worldwide for the conviction. Certainly it could be in the first paragraph, maybe as the last sentence. I noticed we have a similar outcome with Robert Hughes, a well known person later more widely known for a sex conviction. --Dmol (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose changes. His conviction is worldwide news and notable globally. He is also highest ranked Catholic convicted of child sex abuse and the very fact that he is such prominent Catholic leader makes the sexual abuse he has been found guilty of all the more important and notable. Melmann (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Melmann Pell is notable because of his conviction for child abuse. For some catholics he is notable for his ministry. But Wikipedia is note just aimed at catholic readers. Most readers will not have heard of him before the allegations and convictions. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed with rationale provided by Contaldo80. starship.paint ~ KO 02:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Should Infobox criminal be added in the section titled ***Criminal charges and conviction***?

{{Infobox criminal}} states: Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals...... Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. (the emphasis above comes from the template, not me). Pell has been convicted of a serious crime; serious not just in its penalty, yet also in terms of his standing in the community (both in Australia and within the Curia). The critical issue, as I see it, is this instance rare (my emphasis) enough to warrant use of the Infobox. To assess that, we should look at other examples of where the infobox is used for those that fall outside the usual crowd (of serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals). With over 3,400 uses on Wikipedia, I selected the following as a topical guide, and I'm not condoning that the use of {{Infobox criminal}} is appropriate in these instances: Robert Hughes (Australian actor); Tommy Robinson (activist); Michael Williamson (Australian unionist); Brendan Smyth; and Eddie Obeid, to list just a few. Does Pell fall into the same category that this is a rare instance on when the infobox should be used for those who are not the usual crowd; or, should the infobox only be used for those who are the usual crowd, and hence there needs to discussion and consensus on the Infobox talk page to remove the rarely used phrase. It is my belief that the rarely used phrase is there for instances such as Pell. The criminal infobox should not be in the lede. His prime notability is as a prelate. However, like Obeid, it should be included in the section that relates to Pell's criminal history. In the event that Pell's appeal is quashed, the infobox should be removed; the precedence for this being with Ian Macdonald (New South Wales politician). Thoughts, please. Rangasyd (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This advice is primarily in place to avoid breaching the due weight policy by placing undue emphasis in the lead on matters which might would otherwise be a few sentences in the article body somewhere. If there is an existing substantive section in the article which would benefit from summary by a section infobox, then there is no issue with adding one (bar the usual infobox war arguments). TheDragonFire (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to a simple infobox in George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction which reiterates charges, guilt and sentence. WWGB (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes can occur in the subsection, and given how long that part of it is, I don't see an issue with summarising it. It's not especially easy to find what his convictions were in all of that text. Which probably means it also needs a tidy at some point. Maybe I'll do that when I have more time. Vision Insider (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotations by Pell’s barrister

Much has been said by all the participants in this trial and subsequently by others. How much of this should be quoted, verbatim, in Wikipedia?

Pell’s barrister made a comment about the “plain vanilla” nature of the offence. He subsequently retracted his comment and apologised, explaining that he did not intend to belittle the suffering of victims of sexual abuse. These comments were quoted, with quotation marks, in this article. Why? I erased the paragraph but I see it has been restored with the suggestion that it is important to the article.

Should we start uploading significant amounts of the spoken words from this trial, or just these comments, since retracted, by Richter? What do others think? Dolphin (t) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was the restorer. Richter's comments were widely publicised and roundly condemned, forcing an apology. I don't care whether the issue contains quotes or not, but it should be reported here. Remove the quotes if you wish, and replace with paraphrasing. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support what WWGB has said above, and add that many saw Richter's comment as a statement of guilt, one that could be paraphrased as "Yes, he did it, but it didn't really harm the victim much". They are very important words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff for easy reference. The 'plain vanilla' comment was widely publicised, denounced, and seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence. I think it should be restored, with an explanation of why Richter had to argue as if Pell was guilty (example to follow):

During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so. As part of his argument, Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not volunteering or actively participating". Richter later apologized for this remark, stating: "It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done ... it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse".

References

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to the three Users who have contributed to this thread. Pell was declared guilty on 11 December 2018. In a plea hearing on 27 February 2019 his barrister, Richter, spoke using the context of Pell being guilty of these offences. He could not have done otherwise. In the eyes of the law, Pell had been guilty for 78 days! Following a guilty verdict it would be unacceptable for any member of the bar or any legal professional to continue using euphemisms such as “the alleged offence” or “my client, who denies these charges.” Since l1 December 2018 Richter has been obliged, as a member of the Victorian bar, to acknowledge Pell’s guilt whenever he speaks. The comments on 27 February about “plain vanilla” offences cannot be construed as an admission of his client’s guilt made during the trial (which concluded 78 days earlier.)

Richter apologised for some remarks he made, saying his remarks were “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” I concede this quotation, or a paraphrased version thereof, might warrant inclusion in our article on Robert Richter (lawyer) or even Child sexual abuse in Australia but I see no grounds for including these words in our article on George Pell. I particularly notice that, so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell. Dolphin (t) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"...no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell." What an appalling misrepresentation! Doing that raises serious doubts about your motives here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48: When I wrote "... so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell" I was obviously referring to the words I quoted earlier in the paragraph: “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” If you believe that someone has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article, please post the relevant diff so we can all see what argument you have in mind. (I notice that when WWGB restored some of the text in question, he didn't restore these words. I guess WWGB agrees with me on this point.) Dolphin (t) 03:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the quote belongs due to its significance. To expand upon WWGB's point, the fallout of the trial is significant. Pell is the most senior Catholic ever convicted of a child sexual offence, and therefore it makes sense to go into more detail about it. Its historical importance is large, and warrants some specific quotes about the reaction to this unprecedented occasion. Furthermore, I think it's fair to predict that the quote, and its connection to Pell's lack of contrition, will maintain historical significance over time. Vision Insider (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the "plain vanilla" mention, although less quotey. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: Why did you restore it? The matter is under discussion in this thread. Is it your wish to stifle further discussion? So far, I see only four Users have contributed to the thread. I would like to see more Users join the discussion, and the discussion to go beyond 24 hours. Dolphin (t) 04:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you would, but the current !vote is 4:1 in favour of retention. If the balance swings your way, then we can remove. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: Vote? I see no announcement of a vote. As you well know, Talk pages are not plebiscites. They are places for constructive and collaborative discussion with the objective of improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. There is no urgency on the matter in question so your premature restoration of a part of the paragraph under discussion looks like immature behaviour. Don't imagine the paragraph can't be removed in order to stimulate more comprehensive discussion. Dolphin (t) 11:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin, your arguments to apparently keep any comment on this out of the article are stretching credibility. Are you sure you have no conflict of interest in play here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48: Whether I have a conflict of interest should immediately be obvious to anyone perusing my contributions on Wikipedia. I invite you, and everyone else, to look through my contributions. If you see what looks like evidence of a conflict of interest, let me know.

Part of the text that I have argued should not be included in this article is: "“... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” The reason I believe these 17 words (approximately) have no place in our article on George Pell is because they are unrelated to George Pell. They are not words spoken by Pell; they don't refer to Pell; they weren't spoken during Pell's trial; they weren't even spoken during Pell's plea hearing. So far, no-one has attempted to argue that these 17 words are relevant to the article on George Pell. If you disagree with my views on these 17 words please start the ball rolling by giving us the first explanation as to why they are relevant to the article on Pell (as opposed to the article on Richter.) Dolphin (t) 11:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That part isn't in the article now. The bit restored is much shorter and paraphrases the apology. What's the further issue? (That's not rhetorical, the article is now as you describe).Vision Insider (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your point is well made. The “17 words” are included in the text that is under discussion in this thread, and the discussion is still active. User:WWGB restored part of the text under discussion, but not the “17 words”, suggesting he now agrees that these 17 words aren’t warranted. However, User:HiLo48 appears to be of a very different viewpoint — he has vigorously challenged everything I have written, including my opinion about the relevance of the 17 words. Whether there is a further issue depends on whether HiLo48 now agrees with WWGB and me, or not.

This thread is still active so I regard it as immature behaviour by WWGB to restore part of the text under discussion after only 28 hours. I have told him so, and reminded him that his restoration is only temporary. Seeing he thinks he can see an ideal solution to the issue, he should have tabled his idea at this Talk page, not implemented it in the article. On Wikipedia we treat Talk page discussions seriously and encourage as many Users as possible to join in. Prematurely restoring text that is under active discussion on a Talk page is treating the process with contempt, and that is why we should regard the current state of the paragraph in question as temporary, and ultimately subject to whatever consensus is built during the discussion process. Dolphin (t) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If Richter’s comments about "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case" were reported in neutral, objective language, it would say something like “at a plea hearing on 27 February Pell’s barrister argued against the maximum sentence.” However, that would be trivial and unremarkable; barely worth mentioning. The reason it has received so much derisive coverage in the media is because Richter’s words were notorious, ill-advised, clumsy, offensive, ridiculous, hilarious etc. His words were a gaffe; a case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Wikipedia does not give undue weight to trivial aspects of a matter. In Wikipedia we can find a classic example of not giving undue weight to a gaffe. The following quotation is taken from Political gaffe#Australia:

On August 12, 2013, at a Liberal Party function in Melbourne as part of the 2013 Federal Election campaign, Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, criticising Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, said "No one, however smart, however well-educated, however experienced, is the suppository of all wisdom." The word he meant was "repository". It did not take long for the clip of Mr Abbott's gaffe to be featured on the websites of some of the world's biggest news organisations.

This notorious gaffe is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Kevin Rudd, even though it was Kevin Rudd who was in Abbott’s mind when he said these things. Nor is the gaffe mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Tony Abbott, even though it was Abbott who created it. However, it is described in detail at Political gaffe#Australia.

Reporting Richter's gaffe about plain vanilla offending in the article on George Pell would be like reporting Tony Abbott's gaffe about the "suppository of all wisdom" in the article on Kevin Rudd. If some enthusiasm emerges for Richter’s notorious gaffe to be reported at Political gaffe#Australia I won’t oppose it. Dolphin (t) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that it was the reporting of Richter's comments that was out of proportion. I'm not even sure his original comments qualify as a gaffe. At a sentencing hearing, the conviction is already assumed, and can't be argued against. The the worst were not an admission of guilt, they were a recognition of the court's decision, and seeking to minimise the consequence of that decision. Most of us don't hear sentencing submissions, even less the sentencing submissions in cases where the accused continues to assert his/her innocence and where many people believe him. Richter was not allowed to say "the sentence should be small because he didn't do the crime". That Pell has been convicted of the charges is a given to have a sentencing hearing. Richter's response was to say that the details of the crime as determined by the court were minimal compared to what could have been for a finding of guilty on the same charges, therefore, Richter asserted that Pell's penalty should be proportionately lower than the maximum penalty for the worst crime we can imagine for those charges. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ScottDavis: Thanks for these thoughts. The reason for this discussion thread is that it is proposed the article should contain the following sentences: 'Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.' Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so provides important, factual information in a neutral, objective language. Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to minor matters or trivia, and most certainly does not respond to sensationalism in the media. Wikipedia rarely, if ever, reports verbatim what people say, and so rarely, if ever incorporates quotations (with quotation marks.) The 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" are not routine legal language, regularly used in courts of law; the reason they have been proposed for inclusion here is simply because they are sensational, remarkable, offensive, hilarious etc. During Richter's career as a barrister he has spoken millions of words; almost none of his words can be found on Wikipedia. I suspect you might agree with me that there are no grounds for making an exception in the case of the 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" and incorporating them, with quotation marks, into the article on George Pell. Do you agree? Dolphin (t) 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: I think that paragraph would be essential if this was an article titled "2018-2019 trial of George Pell". However, this is an article about George Pell which has to include the trial, not an article about the trial. As such, that entire paragraph is insignificant to the story. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. It is completely unremarkable that legal counsel for a guilty person should argue that the maximum sentence should not be applied. It was Richter's role to argue for a lesser sentence so it doesn't need to be mentioned. The hidden purpose of the paragraph is to provide an opportunity to mention Richter's blooper about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" (for which he subsequently apologised.) The paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's blooper. Dolphin (t) 23:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Richter's expression was not a "gaffe". Senior counsels appearing in high profile cases and earning thousands of dollars a day don't make "gaffes". Every word that passes their lips is measured, polished and rehearsed. Equating Richter with Tony Abbott is baseless. Abbott was not seeking clemency for another person when he inserted the word "suppository" into a conversation. Richter admitted that he made a "terrible choice of phrase". That's not a "gaffe", that's deliberate. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: During Richter's career as a barrister he has spoken millions of words, all of them deliberate, many of them receiving media coverage. Almost none of his words can be found on Wikipedia. Remind me why you wish to make an exception in the case of the 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" and incorporate them, with quotation marks, into the article on George Pell? Could it be that these 5 words are sensational?

Wikipedia rarely quotes verbatim what people say, putting their words in quotation marks. The only example I have found is Neil Armstrong in which his famous words "That's a small step for a man, and a giant leap for mankind" are quoted in quotation marks. Can you find any other example? Dolphin (t) 12:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Richter's words "plain vanilla sexual penetration" attracted commentary in dozens of media sites, including United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland. That's significant coverage, making the expression notable and publishable. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Wikipedia rarely quotes verbatim what people say" is pure fiction. Here are five quotes in Wikipedia articles that I found in a couple of minutes:

• "I took the guitar, and I watched people, and I learned to play a little bit. But I would never sing in public. I was very shy about it." Elvis Presley
• "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
• "If I do something wrong, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture." Donald Trump
• "I hate myself because of the hurt I have given to others but I also love myself." Tony Walsh (priest)
• " I came here with $35 in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done." Madonna (entertainer)

WWGB (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: I acknowledge that in a couple of minutes you found five examples of quotations. Thank you for doing that research. I would have no objection to the quote about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" being incorporated, with quotation marks, into our article about Robert Richter (lawyer) although, seeing he apologised for his terrible choice of phrase, he can hope it is now all behind him.

Together, we have found half a dozen examples of a quotation by Person X incorporated into the biographical article for Person X, the speaker. However, in this discussion thread we are considering a quotation by Person X (Robert Richter) incorporated into the biographical article for Person Y (George Pell).

The nub of this discussion is a doubtful paragraph that begins "During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so." I'm sure you would agree that it is totally routine and unremarkable that legal counsel for persons convicted of crimes should argue that their clients be given less than the maximum sentence. It happens on a daily basis and doesn't need to be reported in Wikipedia. (What would be remarkable and worthy of mention in Wikipedia is if the legal counsel for a guilty person argued that his client SHOULD receive the maximum sentence!) So why do we have a paragraph reporting this routine, banal, unremarkable development? I think the reason for the opening sentence is somewhat hidden - its purpose is to introduce the quotation of Richter's use of a terrible choice of phrase about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case." The whole paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's terrible choice of phrase, something for which he has now apologised. The first task for us now is to determine whether, or not, the paragraph about Richter arguing for a less-than-maximum sentence is not giving undue weight to something that it so routine it is to be expected. I hope we can agree that the first sentence in the paragraph, in isolation, would give undue weight to something entirely routine. The second task for us is to determine whether, or not, incorporation of Richter's terrible choice of phrase (for which he apologised) changes anything. I am arguing that you want to quote Richter's terrible choice of phrase because of its sensational value, not because it turns a routine plea for a lesser sentence into something which truly warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 00:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead sentence is to provide context: as the source provided describes, Richter's remark caused widespread confusion in the general public. Because of that, and the wide reporting the original remark received, it is good to recontextualise the statement into its legal setting by using the reliable source I provided. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Without doubt, Richter's terrible choice of phrase was seized by the media and reported widely. (You say it caused widespread confusion in the general public - do you know that for a fact?) Richter subsequently apologised for his terrible choice of phrase. Wikipedia is not a vengeful institution. I'm confident the majority of Users at Wikipedia will be willing to accept his apology at face value. If Richter does need to be reminded every day, for the rest of his life, about his terrible choice of phrase (for which he apologised,) Wikipedia is not the institution to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Dolphin (t) 00:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the source I provided? In addition to being debunked by the reliable source I provided, I also saw the idea of "plain vanilla" as an admission of guilt many times in the comments sections of social media. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the source. What do you mean by "admission of guilt"? Pell was declared guilty on 12 December 2018. Who needed evidence in February 2019 (78 days later) that Pell was guilty? Who was admitting guilt 78 days after the whole world had been told Pell was guilty? I am genuinely puzzled by what you mean. Dolphin (t) 02:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

From my first contribution to this thread: "The 'plain vanilla' comment was widely publicised, denounced, and seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence". The gag order was only rescinded in late February, and thus the news of Pell's guilt and Richter's "plain vanilla" comment landed at much the same time for the general public. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

122.108.141.214: You have posted a source on this matter, and given it your title "seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence." When I read this source, I don't see the words you have used in your title. In contrast, I do find the following sentence "This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence." Dolphin (t) 11:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin, it's not "in contrast": and I find it genuinely puzzling that you should consider it as such. As per the source, Richter's comments were confusing and seen as an admission by Richter of Pell's guilt: it would not be in an article written about clearing up the most common questions about the trial if it were not widely confusing. Providing this source allows the Wikipedia article to contextualise Richter's comments. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "an admission", it's "an acceptance", which is how it's characterised in the source FAQ: Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The source also says that the comments may seem to be an admission of guilt. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

When you write “may seem to be an admission of guilt” you are quoting only the first half of the sentence. If you want us to believe you, you should quote the WHOLE sentence, not just the part that suits your purposes. So please try again, and quote the whole sentence. Dolphin (t) 01:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone else has modified that part: is anything else needed? What do you mean by "if you want us to believe you"??? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When someone quotes out of context, or quotes only part of a sentence or paragraph or document, it is often done in order to be tendentious or tricky or to deliberately mislead. The best way to persuade people to believe us in this sort of situation is to quote every word that may be relevant; and not to omit any words. If you truncate a quotation, sceptics like me won't believe you.

Seeing you appear to be reluctant to quote the WHOLE sentence, as I asked you to do, I will do it for you. Here is the full sentence, quoted from the source you supplied: This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence. As everyone who reads this can see, the full sentence does not support the idea that Richter's words constituted an admission of guilt! See how the meaning of the sentence is turned around 180° by the words "but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, …" So there is the reason I don't believe you when you selectively quote a part of the sentence, but assiduously avoid quoting the full sentence! Dolphin (t) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was attempting to get to what I see as the crux of the issue: that there is a misconception that Richter's comments constituted an admission of guilt: and the part that I added did include the idea that Richter needed to accept guilt in that instance diff. It was only ever an attempt to recontextualise Richter's plea deal in terms of the legal setting, and it has since been refined by someone else. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is what you were attempting to get to, I would suggest nobody but you knows that. Persuading others requires careful thinking and careful writing. And if your writing makes use of a quotation, make sure it is perfectly clear what source you are quoting from, and whereabouts in that source is the bit you are quoting. Most importantly, never truncate a quotation, especially if sceptics are likely to assume you are being tricky. If it's not necessary to make use of a quotation, don't give half the quotation. All or nothing, or people won't believe you. Dolphin (t) 03:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So you'd rather not believe that I'm providing drafts of what I think should be in the article in good faith, despite my other contributions to the article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that you are providing drafts of what you think should be in the article. What I'm doubting is whether your drafts, and your ideas, are sound. In this discussion thread there are two points of view: the view I support is that the "plain vanilla" paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's terrible choice of phrase because the phrase, and the reason Richter used it, are of minor significance in Pell's trial and sentencing; the opposite view is that the "plain vanilla" paragraph gives due weight to a highly significant development in Pell's trial because it indicates that Richter, despite arguing for a not guilty verdict, actually believed Pell was guilty all along! It is still not clear to me which view you support. On numerous occasions you have written "The source also says that the comments may seem to be an admission of guilt" or similar wording; your choice of words would seem to indicate you support the view that Richter believed Pell was guilty all along. If this is not your position, it would be beneficial if you clarify exactly where you stand. If I have incorrectly assessed your position or your intentions, I apologise. Dolphin (t) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that my view is not yet clear to you: I have maintained it all along and written plainly. My draft was based on a reliable source, and my draft attempted to recontextualise Richter's terrible - but deliberately spoken - comments into the legal context in which they took place. I doubt you could find any reliable sources which support your interpretation of Richter's comments as a gaffe. Part of the problem is that the May to February gag order meant that Richter's comments hit at roughly the same time as the verification of Pell's verdict, and so the reporting of his comments caused widespread confusion (as per my source). Thus, re-adding the legal context to the comments improves the article. When I have said something along the lines of "seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence", I have been speaking of the confusion in the general public, not specifically commenting on what Richter thinks. I appreciate your apology. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I do apologise for my error. In this edit, User:WWGB counted your vote alongside his own.

You haven't yet made a substantive edit to the "Request for Comment" immediately below this thread. I invite you to do so. Dolphin (t) 22:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is the public perception of the comment. However, I do not think it should be represented as such on this page. Richter is bound, by law, to follow the jury's verdict. He was aiming to minimise the impact of the crime in order to persuade the justice to hand down a lesser sentence. Within the court itself, he is legally obliged to follow the judgement of the jury. In that he must defend from a position of guilt, since that's what the court found, even if he personally does not believe it. Pell still maintains his innocence, as does Richter.Vision Insider (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recontextualising "plain vanilla" into its legal context, as I have attempted to do, does not encourage a perception of Richter admitting Pell's guilt. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph is not about George Pell, the topic of this Wikipedia article. It is about Richter, and the quote also appears in Robert Richter (lawyer)#Notable cases where it may be appropriate. What anyone else thought about what Richter said is even less relevant. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph may not be about Pell, but the quote is. By way of parallel, Donald Trump said about John McCain " I like people who weren't captured". That quote appears in the John McCain article, not the Donald Trump article/. Just as Trump's comment on McCain is relevant to the McCain article, Richter's comment on Pell is relevant to the Pell article. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge the Trump quote that appears in the John McCain article. Thank you for doing that research. Dolphin (t) 11:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotations by Pell’s barrister

Much has been said by all the participants in this trial and subsequently by others. How much of this should be quoted, verbatim, in Wikipedia?

Pell’s barrister made a comment about the “plain vanilla” nature of the offence. He subsequently retracted his comment and apologised, explaining that he did not intend to belittle the suffering of victims of sexual abuse. These comments were quoted, with quotation marks, in this article. Why? I erased the paragraph but I see it has been restored with the suggestion that it is important to the article.

Should we start uploading significant amounts of the spoken words from this trial, or just these comments, since retracted, by Richter? What do others think? Dolphin (t) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was the restorer. Richter's comments were widely publicised and roundly condemned, forcing an apology. I don't care whether the issue contains quotes or not, but it should be reported here. Remove the quotes if you wish, and replace with paraphrasing. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I support what WWGB has said above, and add that many saw Richter's comment as a statement of guilt, one that could be paraphrased as "Yes, he did it, but it didn't really harm the victim much". They are very important words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff for easy reference. The 'plain vanilla' comment was widely publicised, denounced, and seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence. I think it should be restored, with an explanation of why Richter had to argue as if Pell was guilty (example to follow):

During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so. As part of his argument, Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not volunteering or actively participating". Richter later apologized for this remark, stating: "It was not intended to evade the seriousness of what had been done ... it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse".

References

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to the three Users who have contributed to this thread. Pell was declared guilty on 11 December 2018. In a plea hearing on 27 February 2019 his barrister, Richter, spoke using the context of Pell being guilty of these offences. He could not have done otherwise. In the eyes of the law, Pell had been guilty for 78 days! Following a guilty verdict it would be unacceptable for any member of the bar or any legal professional to continue using euphemisms such as “the alleged offence” or “my client, who denies these charges.” Since l1 December 2018 Richter has been obliged, as a member of the Victorian bar, to acknowledge Pell’s guilt whenever he speaks. The comments on 27 February about “plain vanilla” offences cannot be construed as an admission of his client’s guilt made during the trial (which concluded 78 days earlier.)

Richter apologised for some remarks he made, saying his remarks were “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” I concede this quotation, or a paraphrased version thereof, might warrant inclusion in our article on Robert Richter (lawyer) or even Child sexual abuse in Australia but I see no grounds for including these words in our article on George Pell. I particularly notice that, so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell. Dolphin (t) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"...no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell." What an appalling misrepresentation! Doing that raises serious doubts about your motives here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48: When I wrote "... so far, no-one has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article on George Pell" I was obviously referring to the words I quoted earlier in the paragraph: “... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” If you believe that someone has attempted to argue that these words should appear in our article, please post the relevant diff so we can all see what argument you have in mind. (I notice that when WWGB restored some of the text in question, he didn't restore these words. I guess WWGB agrees with me on this point.) Dolphin (t) 03:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the quote belongs due to its significance. To expand upon WWGB's point, the fallout of the trial is significant. Pell is the most senior Catholic ever convicted of a child sexual offence, and therefore it makes sense to go into more detail about it. Its historical importance is large, and warrants some specific quotes about the reaction to this unprecedented occasion. Furthermore, I think it's fair to predict that the quote, and its connection to Pell's lack of contrition, will maintain historical significance over time. Vision Insider (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the "plain vanilla" mention, although less quotey. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: Why did you restore it? The matter is under discussion in this thread. Is it your wish to stifle further discussion? So far, I see only four Users have contributed to the thread. I would like to see more Users join the discussion, and the discussion to go beyond 24 hours. Dolphin (t) 04:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you would, but the current !vote is 4:1 in favour of retention. If the balance swings your way, then we can remove. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: Vote? I see no announcement of a vote. As you well know, Talk pages are not plebiscites. They are places for constructive and collaborative discussion with the objective of improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. There is no urgency on the matter in question so your premature restoration of a part of the paragraph under discussion looks like immature behaviour. Don't imagine the paragraph can't be removed in order to stimulate more comprehensive discussion. Dolphin (t) 11:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin, your arguments to apparently keep any comment on this out of the article are stretching credibility. Are you sure you have no conflict of interest in play here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48: Whether I have a conflict of interest should immediately be obvious to anyone perusing my contributions on Wikipedia. I invite you, and everyone else, to look through my contributions. If you see what looks like evidence of a conflict of interest, let me know.

Part of the text that I have argued should not be included in this article is: "“... in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse.” The reason I believe these 17 words (approximately) have no place in our article on George Pell is because they are unrelated to George Pell. They are not words spoken by Pell; they don't refer to Pell; they weren't spoken during Pell's trial; they weren't even spoken during Pell's plea hearing. So far, no-one has attempted to argue that these 17 words are relevant to the article on George Pell. If you disagree with my views on these 17 words please start the ball rolling by giving us the first explanation as to why they are relevant to the article on Pell (as opposed to the article on Richter.) Dolphin (t) 11:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That part isn't in the article now. The bit restored is much shorter and paraphrases the apology. What's the further issue? (That's not rhetorical, the article is now as you describe).Vision Insider (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your point is well made. The “17 words” are included in the text that is under discussion in this thread, and the discussion is still active. User:WWGB restored part of the text under discussion, but not the “17 words”, suggesting he now agrees that these 17 words aren’t warranted. However, User:HiLo48 appears to be of a very different viewpoint — he has vigorously challenged everything I have written, including my opinion about the relevance of the 17 words. Whether there is a further issue depends on whether HiLo48 now agrees with WWGB and me, or not.

This thread is still active so I regard it as immature behaviour by WWGB to restore part of the text under discussion after only 28 hours. I have told him so, and reminded him that his restoration is only temporary. Seeing he thinks he can see an ideal solution to the issue, he should have tabled his idea at this Talk page, not implemented it in the article. On Wikipedia we treat Talk page discussions seriously and encourage as many Users as possible to join in. Prematurely restoring text that is under active discussion on a Talk page is treating the process with contempt, and that is why we should regard the current state of the paragraph in question as temporary, and ultimately subject to whatever consensus is built during the discussion process. Dolphin (t) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If Richter’s comments about "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case" were reported in neutral, objective language, it would say something like “at a plea hearing on 27 February Pell’s barrister argued against the maximum sentence.” However, that would be trivial and unremarkable; barely worth mentioning. The reason it has received so much derisive coverage in the media is because Richter’s words were notorious, ill-advised, clumsy, offensive, ridiculous, hilarious etc. His words were a gaffe; a case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Wikipedia does not give undue weight to trivial aspects of a matter. In Wikipedia we can find a classic example of not giving undue weight to a gaffe. The following quotation is taken from Political gaffe#Australia:

On August 12, 2013, at a Liberal Party function in Melbourne as part of the 2013 Federal Election campaign, Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, criticising Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, said "No one, however smart, however well-educated, however experienced, is the suppository of all wisdom." The word he meant was "repository". It did not take long for the clip of Mr Abbott's gaffe to be featured on the websites of some of the world's biggest news organisations.

This notorious gaffe is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Kevin Rudd, even though it was Kevin Rudd who was in Abbott’s mind when he said these things. Nor is the gaffe mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Tony Abbott, even though it was Abbott who created it. However, it is described in detail at Political gaffe#Australia.

Reporting Richter's gaffe about plain vanilla offending in the article on George Pell would be like reporting Tony Abbott's gaffe about the "suppository of all wisdom" in the article on Kevin Rudd. If some enthusiasm emerges for Richter’s notorious gaffe to be reported at Political gaffe#Australia I won’t oppose it. Dolphin (t) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that it was the reporting of Richter's comments that was out of proportion. I'm not even sure his original comments qualify as a gaffe. At a sentencing hearing, the conviction is already assumed, and can't be argued against. The the worst were not an admission of guilt, they were a recognition of the court's decision, and seeking to minimise the consequence of that decision. Most of us don't hear sentencing submissions, even less the sentencing submissions in cases where the accused continues to assert his/her innocence and where many people believe him. Richter was not allowed to say "the sentence should be small because he didn't do the crime". That Pell has been convicted of the charges is a given to have a sentencing hearing. Richter's response was to say that the details of the crime as determined by the court were minimal compared to what could have been for a finding of guilty on the same charges, therefore, Richter asserted that Pell's penalty should be proportionately lower than the maximum penalty for the worst crime we can imagine for those charges. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ScottDavis: Thanks for these thoughts. The reason for this discussion thread is that it is proposed the article should contain the following sentences: 'Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.' Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so provides important, factual information in a neutral, objective language. Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to minor matters or trivia, and most certainly does not respond to sensationalism in the media. Wikipedia rarely, if ever, reports verbatim what people say, and so rarely, if ever incorporates quotations (with quotation marks.) The 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" are not routine legal language, regularly used in courts of law; the reason they have been proposed for inclusion here is simply because they are sensational, remarkable, offensive, hilarious etc. During Richter's career as a barrister he has spoken millions of words; almost none of his words can be found on Wikipedia. I suspect you might agree with me that there are no grounds for making an exception in the case of the 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" and incorporating them, with quotation marks, into the article on George Pell. Do you agree? Dolphin (t) 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dolphin51: I think that paragraph would be essential if this was an article titled "2018-2019 trial of George Pell". However, this is an article about George Pell which has to include the trial, not an article about the trial. As such, that entire paragraph is insignificant to the story. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. It is completely unremarkable that legal counsel for a guilty person should argue that the maximum sentence should not be applied. It was Richter's role to argue for a lesser sentence so it doesn't need to be mentioned. The hidden purpose of the paragraph is to provide an opportunity to mention Richter's blooper about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" (for which he subsequently apologised.) The paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's blooper. Dolphin (t) 23:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Richter's expression was not a "gaffe". Senior counsels appearing in high profile cases and earning thousands of dollars a day don't make "gaffes". Every word that passes their lips is measured, polished and rehearsed. Equating Richter with Tony Abbott is baseless. Abbott was not seeking clemency for another person when he inserted the word "suppository" into a conversation. Richter admitted that he made a "terrible choice of phrase". That's not a "gaffe", that's deliberate. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: During Richter's career as a barrister he has spoken millions of words, all of them deliberate, many of them receiving media coverage. Almost none of his words can be found on Wikipedia. Remind me why you wish to make an exception in the case of the 5 words "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" and incorporate them, with quotation marks, into the article on George Pell? Could it be that these 5 words are sensational?

Wikipedia rarely quotes verbatim what people say, putting their words in quotation marks. The only example I have found is Neil Armstrong in which his famous words "That's a small step for a man, and a giant leap for mankind" are quoted in quotation marks. Can you find any other example? Dolphin (t) 12:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Richter's words "plain vanilla sexual penetration" attracted commentary in dozens of media sites, including United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland. That's significant coverage, making the expression notable and publishable. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Wikipedia rarely quotes verbatim what people say" is pure fiction. Here are five quotes in Wikipedia articles that I found in a couple of minutes:

• "I took the guitar, and I watched people, and I learned to play a little bit. But I would never sing in public. I was very shy about it." Elvis Presley
• "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
• "If I do something wrong, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture." Donald Trump
• "I hate myself because of the hurt I have given to others but I also love myself." Tony Walsh (priest)
• " I came here with $35 in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done." Madonna (entertainer)

WWGB (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: I acknowledge that in a couple of minutes you found five examples of quotations. Thank you for doing that research. I would have no objection to the quote about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case" being incorporated, with quotation marks, into our article about Robert Richter (lawyer) although, seeing he apologised for his terrible choice of phrase, he can hope it is now all behind him.

Together, we have found half a dozen examples of a quotation by Person X incorporated into the biographical article for Person X, the speaker. However, in this discussion thread we are considering a quotation by Person X (Robert Richter) incorporated into the biographical article for Person Y (George Pell).

The nub of this discussion is a doubtful paragraph that begins "During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so." I'm sure you would agree that it is totally routine and unremarkable that legal counsel for persons convicted of crimes should argue that their clients be given less than the maximum sentence. It happens on a daily basis and doesn't need to be reported in Wikipedia. (What would be remarkable and worthy of mention in Wikipedia is if the legal counsel for a guilty person argued that his client SHOULD receive the maximum sentence!) So why do we have a paragraph reporting this routine, banal, unremarkable development? I think the reason for the opening sentence is somewhat hidden - its purpose is to introduce the quotation of Richter's use of a terrible choice of phrase about "plain vanilla sexual penetration case." The whole paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's terrible choice of phrase, something for which he has now apologised. The first task for us now is to determine whether, or not, the paragraph about Richter arguing for a less-than-maximum sentence is not giving undue weight to something that it so routine it is to be expected. I hope we can agree that the first sentence in the paragraph, in isolation, would give undue weight to something entirely routine. The second task for us is to determine whether, or not, incorporation of Richter's terrible choice of phrase (for which he apologised) changes anything. I am arguing that you want to quote Richter's terrible choice of phrase because of its sensational value, not because it turns a routine plea for a lesser sentence into something which truly warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 00:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead sentence is to provide context: as the source provided describes, Richter's remark caused widespread confusion in the general public. Because of that, and the wide reporting the original remark received, it is good to recontextualise the statement into its legal setting by using the reliable source I provided. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Without doubt, Richter's terrible choice of phrase was seized by the media and reported widely. (You say it caused widespread confusion in the general public - do you know that for a fact?) Richter subsequently apologised for his terrible choice of phrase. Wikipedia is not a vengeful institution. I'm confident the majority of Users at Wikipedia will be willing to accept his apology at face value. If Richter does need to be reminded every day, for the rest of his life, about his terrible choice of phrase (for which he apologised,) Wikipedia is not the institution to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Dolphin (t) 00:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the source I provided? In addition to being debunked by the reliable source I provided, I also saw the idea of "plain vanilla" as an admission of guilt many times in the comments sections of social media. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the source. What do you mean by "admission of guilt"? Pell was declared guilty on 12 December 2018. Who needed evidence in February 2019 (78 days later) that Pell was guilty? Who was admitting guilt 78 days after the whole world had been told Pell was guilty? I am genuinely puzzled by what you mean. Dolphin (t) 02:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

From my first contribution to this thread: "The 'plain vanilla' comment was widely publicised, denounced, and seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence". The gag order was only rescinded in late February, and thus the news of Pell's guilt and Richter's "plain vanilla" comment landed at much the same time for the general public. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

122.108.141.214: You have posted a source on this matter, and given it your title "seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence." When I read this source, I don't see the words you have used in your title. In contrast, I do find the following sentence "This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence." Dolphin (t) 11:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin, it's not "in contrast": and I find it genuinely puzzling that you should consider it as such. As per the source, Richter's comments were confusing and seen as an admission by Richter of Pell's guilt: it would not be in an article written about clearing up the most common questions about the trial if it were not widely confusing. Providing this source allows the Wikipedia article to contextualise Richter's comments. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "an admission", it's "an acceptance", which is how it's characterised in the source FAQ: Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The source also says that the comments may seem to be an admission of guilt. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

When you write “may seem to be an admission of guilt” you are quoting only the first half of the sentence. If you want us to believe you, you should quote the WHOLE sentence, not just the part that suits your purposes. So please try again, and quote the whole sentence. Dolphin (t) 01:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone else has modified that part: is anything else needed? What do you mean by "if you want us to believe you"??? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When someone quotes out of context, or quotes only part of a sentence or paragraph or document, it is often done in order to be tendentious or tricky or to deliberately mislead. The best way to persuade people to believe us in this sort of situation is to quote every word that may be relevant; and not to omit any words. If you truncate a quotation, sceptics like me won't believe you.

Seeing you appear to be reluctant to quote the WHOLE sentence, as I asked you to do, I will do it for you. Here is the full sentence, quoted from the source you supplied: This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence. As everyone who reads this can see, the full sentence does not support the idea that Richter's words constituted an admission of guilt! See how the meaning of the sentence is turned around 180° by the words "but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, …" So there is the reason I don't believe you when you selectively quote a part of the sentence, but assiduously avoid quoting the full sentence! Dolphin (t) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was attempting to get to what I see as the crux of the issue: that there is a misconception that Richter's comments constituted an admission of guilt: and the part that I added did include the idea that Richter needed to accept guilt in that instance diff. It was only ever an attempt to recontextualise Richter's plea deal in terms of the legal setting, and it has since been refined by someone else. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is what you were attempting to get to, I would suggest nobody but you knows that. Persuading others requires careful thinking and careful writing. And if your writing makes use of a quotation, make sure it is perfectly clear what source you are quoting from, and whereabouts in that source is the bit you are quoting. Most importantly, never truncate a quotation, especially if sceptics are likely to assume you are being tricky. If it's not necessary to make use of a quotation, don't give half the quotation. All or nothing, or people won't believe you. Dolphin (t) 03:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So you'd rather not believe that I'm providing drafts of what I think should be in the article in good faith, despite my other contributions to the article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that you are providing drafts of what you think should be in the article. What I'm doubting is whether your drafts, and your ideas, are sound. In this discussion thread there are two points of view: the view I support is that the "plain vanilla" paragraph gives undue weight to Richter's terrible choice of phrase because the phrase, and the reason Richter used it, are of minor significance in Pell's trial and sentencing; the opposite view is that the "plain vanilla" paragraph gives due weight to a highly significant development in Pell's trial because it indicates that Richter, despite arguing for a not guilty verdict, actually believed Pell was guilty all along! It is still not clear to me which view you support. On numerous occasions you have written "The source also says that the comments may seem to be an admission of guilt" or similar wording; your choice of words would seem to indicate you support the view that Richter believed Pell was guilty all along. If this is not your position, it would be beneficial if you clarify exactly where you stand. If I have incorrectly assessed your position or your intentions, I apologise. Dolphin (t) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that my view is not yet clear to you: I have maintained it all along and written plainly. My draft was based on a reliable source, and my draft attempted to recontextualise Richter's terrible - but deliberately spoken - comments into the legal context in which they took place. I doubt you could find any reliable sources which support your interpretation of Richter's comments as a gaffe. Part of the problem is that the May to February gag order meant that Richter's comments hit at roughly the same time as the verification of Pell's verdict, and so the reporting of his comments caused widespread confusion (as per my source). Thus, re-adding the legal context to the comments improves the article. When I have said something along the lines of "seen as an admission by Pell's own lawyer of his guilt, despite Pell maintaining his innocence", I have been speaking of the confusion in the general public, not specifically commenting on what Richter thinks. I appreciate your apology. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I do apologise for my error. In this edit, User:WWGB counted your vote alongside his own.

You haven't yet made a substantive edit to the "Request for Comment" immediately below this thread. I invite you to do so. Dolphin (t) 22:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is the public perception of the comment. However, I do not think it should be represented as such on this page. Richter is bound, by law, to follow the jury's verdict. He was aiming to minimise the impact of the crime in order to persuade the justice to hand down a lesser sentence. Within the court itself, he is legally obliged to follow the judgement of the jury. In that he must defend from a position of guilt, since that's what the court found, even if he personally does not believe it. Pell still maintains his innocence, as does Richter.Vision Insider (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recontextualising "plain vanilla" into its legal context, as I have attempted to do, does not encourage a perception of Richter admitting Pell's guilt. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The paragraph is not about George Pell, the topic of this Wikipedia article. It is about Richter, and the quote also appears in Robert Richter (lawyer)#Notable cases where it may be appropriate. What anyone else thought about what Richter said is even less relevant. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph may not be about Pell, but the quote is. By way of parallel, Donald Trump said about John McCain " I like people who weren't captured". That quote appears in the John McCain article, not the Donald Trump article/. Just as Trump's comment on McCain is relevant to the McCain article, Richter's comment on Pell is relevant to the Pell article. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge the Trump quote that appears in the John McCain article. Thank you for doing that research. Dolphin (t) 11:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Former prelate" in opening sentence

This matter may have already been discussed, but I notice that someone has recently changed the opening sentence to say that Pell is a "former prelate" of the Catholic Church. In my view this is not factually correct at present. Despite his conviction he has not at present been removed by the church of his clerical status and the church has indicated that no decision about this would be made until the appeal process is concluded. Therefore, regardless of what anyone thinks about Pell's conviction, he still currently retains his clerical status as a prelate and a cardinal and will continue to do so unless the church removes that status or Pell himself chooses to renounce it. I was tempted to remove "former" but I think a discussion and consensus about this is more appropriate. Quizical (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the matter for discussion. I agree that the word “former” should only be used if we can cite a reliable source that confirms the Church has formally stripped Pell of his former status. The fact that he has been convicted of a crime in Australia is not sufficient to allow Wikipedia to assume the Church has taken this action. Dolphin (t) 04:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This has puzzled me, too. He still holds all of his ranks and titles from the Vatican and Australia at this time and will do so unless action is taken otherwise.Vision Insider (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Removed. WWGB (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"convicted paedophile" in opening sentence

Opening sentence used to call him a "convicted child sex offender". Has now been changed to "convicted paedophile". I think the former wording was more accurate. "Paedophile" is a psychological term, "child sexual offender" is a legal term. The legal term is obviously applicable to him, given his criminal conviction. In order to answer the question of whether the psychological term is applicable to him, we'd need evidence about his individual psychology, and I'm not aware of any reliable sources for that. I'm going to revert to the former wording. If anyone disagrees, could I kindly ask that you discuss it here before reverting. SJK (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:AlanS, actually I just realised you'd only just changed this, and I've just changed it back (I thought the wording had been changed for longer, hadn't read the history clearly enough). SJK (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the legal term “child sex offender” is preferable to the psychological term “paedophile”. Dolphin (t) 11:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:George Pell#Paedophile or child sex offender. WWGB (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that this edit is related to the recent vandalism on the page which replace the entire text with the page on paedophilia. Not that it's necessarily the same person, just that I think that it's meant to use a word with more sinister connotations. That sort of edit isn't helpful, so I think we keep it as is, using the legal term. Vision Insider (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see that "paedophile" is anymore or less sinister than "child sex offender". If we're going to make judgements around morality then arguably the latter is more sinister because it suggests someone who acts as opposed to someone who may not necessarily act on their inclination. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"Child sex offender" is entirely accurate. Pell forced oral sex onto a child, against the law. No qualified practitioner has diagnosed that Pell has the psychiatric disorder paedophilia. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe place an editor's note urging people not to confuse the two terms? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi evidence of his individual psychology can be derived from his conviction of the acts. AlanS^talk 01:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense, a conviction is not a psychiatric assessment. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@AlanS: Not everyone who molests children is a "paedophile". There are both preferential and situational offenders, and the term "paedophile" is (in criminological/psychological/psychiatric use, as opposed to colloquial use) reserved for the former not the later. Pell's convictions, by themselves, don't answer the question of whether his offending was preferential or situational in nature. If the article was to venture into this specific question, it would need reliable sources addressing it, but to my knowledge reliable sources addressing this specific question don't exist. Furthermore, when you say "evidence of his individual psychology can be derived from his conviction of the acts", are you saying Wikipedia should carry out such an inference? I think doing so would constitute WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. SJK (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is leaning towards removal. In particular, several editors are making the argument, such as the one put fourth by Adrian J. Hunter, that it may belong on the lawyer's bio article and/or the Pell's criminal case article (if and/or when it is drafted), but that it is tangential to the Pell bio article. Note: Sorry: I meant to close this a while ago, but forgot. El_C 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

---

1. Does the following sentence, found in George Pell#Criminal charges and conviction, give undue weight to the fact that Pell’s barrister, Robert Richter, argued for a more lenient sentence? (This is standard practice in any plea hearing.)

During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so.

2. Does the following sentence give undue weight to the quotation no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case? Richter later described his words as a terrible choice of phrase and apologized.

Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.

Dolphin (t) 11:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Both sentences give undue weight. In any plea hearing, lawyers for the guilty party are required to argue for leniency for their client. It is unremarkable that Richter did so in this case. The hidden purpose for the paragraph, beginning with this sentence, is to quote Richter's sensational description of his client's offending as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter was subsequently embarrassed by his "terrible choice of phrase" and issued a written apology. Wikipedia should not perpetuate this gaffe by reporting it, and quoting it, in the article on George Pell. The gaffe is comprehensively covered in Robert Richter (lawyer)#Notable cases. Dolphin (t) 12:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How can you possibly know the hidden purpose of something you didn't write yourself? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find one reliable source which refers to Richter's "vanilla" comment as a "gaffe" (defined as an unintentional remark). Richter had chosen his words, and was not expecting the backlash. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think this paragraph adds anything to the story of George Pell. It is common to include a note about every court appearance as they are unfolding, then edit the article down to only the key points once subsequent appearances have occurred. The sentencing submissions were important in the week before the sentence was handed down, but now we have the sentence and the full transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks available. Sentencing submissions are no longer significant. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not to you, but a lot of people I know still think that particular one was very significant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note to admin or editor closing this RfC. Please take into consideration the comments in the above section Talk:George Pell#Quotations by Pell’s barrister, where interested editors already commented on the same topic. It is unclear why a "clean slate" section was begun. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude both sentences. Richter's whoopsie is worth mentioning in Richter's biography, and would be worth including in a dedicated article about the Pell case itself. But in a biography about Pell, it's tangential. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep vanilla comment. Richter's comment was made within the context of Pell's sentence hearing, not a standalone reflection. The statement is about Pell, and belongs in his article. The comment attracted dozens of mentions in the media, including United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland. It has received WP:SIGCOV and therefore qualifies for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it belongs IT shows Pell's defender, a highly learned man paid to defend him, declaring him guilty. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• HiLo48, that's just not true. You're misunderstanding how the Australian legal system works. Please see "Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?" in the Guardian article linked several times above. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You missed my implication about how smart Richter is. He knew his words would be read by millions of people without detailed knowledge of how the legal system works. He said Pell was guilty, knowing precisely what his audience was. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times, including in that reference, that Richter did not admit Pell's guilt. He was arguing that despite the guilty verdict (and it is the court of appeal, not the sentencing submissions that is the place to dispute the verdict), he wanted a sentence well below the maximum possible for the named offences. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. It also explains why the lawyer didn’t let the defender take the stand, and couldn’t even advise him to make a statement from the dock. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• (1) The sentence about leniency would be needed only to introduce a paragraph outlining the factors Richter mentioned during his plea in mitigation (but I'm not arguing that such a paragraph should be added). Without that, I agree with Dolphin51 that it is unremarkable. (2) I'm in weak support of the "plain vanilla" comment remaining. I think a new subsection, "6.4 Aftermath", should be created. The comment could be included there, along with others by prominent people who either backpedal on their erstwhile support of Pell or remain staunch supporters who cast doubt on his conviction. Meticulo (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Omit the first sentence, keep the second. The first sentence is misleading; all defence lawyers must accept the court's decision. There's nothing unusual about assuming guilt. The second sentence is notable due to the notoriety it generated and is being echoed frequently as an example of a response that does not treat sexual assault as a serious issue. As mentioned in the earlier comment thread (as an aside, that thread seems unambiguous in its consensus of keeping the second comment), it is likely to remain notable over time.Vision Insider (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely remove 1, or at least the words "accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so". It is close to a BLP violation as it stands, since it is cited to an article that says almost the complete opposite: "Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict". I have gone ahead and changed the words to "and was required to accept the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so" in order to match the source, but I still think it should be removed. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. The source was written to clarify common questions about the case. Perhaps my initial wording may have perpetuated, rather than clarified, the confusion. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely remove #1, preferably remove both. Really no reason to have the first, that there was bargaining is a given, seems not an item of WEIGHT or significance and the phrasing is confusing. The #2 “ plain vanilla” was just a viral blip, which would be some WEIGHT to keep it, but is in need of explanation if kept that “plain vanilla” meant he was framing it to be one of a nature below more egregious precedents and hence not deserving of maximum sentence. But I think for encyclopedic concern we can just skip it all as a side detour. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep all material and quotes. If needed, add some explanation if it is the consensus of secondary sources. People come to Wikipedia for a non-whitewashed version of events. Abductive (reasoning) 06:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep "plain vanilla". The comment was widely reported and discussed. Remove "accepting the jury's guilty verdict": that looks tendentious. Perhaps merge both sentences into:

  While arguing for a more lenient sentence on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter asserted Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove both. I'm persuaded by Pincrete below. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove both, first is clearly misleading (admission of guilt as opposed to admission of having been found guilty) - second would certainly belong in an article about the case/trial, might belong on the lawyer's page, but is inapt for a biog page. Presumably Pell didn't instruct the lawyer to use those words and the lawyer's crass use of them has no relevance to Pell. Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove first, amend/remove second The first statement is insignificant. It would be exceptional for a barrister not to seek a lenient sentence for his client. Certainly a barrister is bound by the jury's verdict, and sentencing comes after conviction. The second statement may have some value, but not in its current form, where it relates to Pell's lawyer's Freudian slip, not his own. It could indicate Pell's defence's position being that despite the media attention and the high-profile convict, the case is similar in essence to other sexual penetration offences and that the punishment should be proportionate with those. But this will require a bit more digging into what Richter was seeking to establish when he made that point. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove first, edit second The first statement doesn't appear to provide much of anything, and at the same time gives almost false information. The second sentence however provides perfect info, but should be phrased clearer with more backup information. StarlightStratosphere (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neither is useful. Barristers invariably "argue" for light sentences, and prosecutors for heavier sentences. Really, this is a "D'oh" type of sentence. As for "accepting the verdict" - that is all one can do before any appeal. Not even near a close call. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both - I agree with Pincrete. If this was an article about the trial the vanilla comments might be notable on there own to warrant inclusion, but this is an article about Pell. As they are Robert Richter's comments and apology, and were notable, they can be mentioned on his article. Richter's submissions concerning sentencing are not really relevant in this article, aside from perhaps the straight factual issue that Pell sought a lesser sentence and what Richter proposed (number of years, community service etc.). Both sentences are problematic because they suggest that by making submissions on sentencing, Pell was accepting the verdict. He is not. He is appealing the conviction itself. If some RS said that something about the way Pell and his lawyer argued his case shows a lack or remorse on Pell's part, that could be appropriate if properly sourced, but I don't see that being argued here. By way of example, some of Ted Bundy's trial behaviour was truly odd. His need to control the defence himself, and refusal to accept a plea deal because he did not want to admit in front of others he did it and wanted to avoid the "the stigma of confession". These were appropriate to note with proper sourcing, as it goes to Bundy's character as demonstrated through his actions. It also, explains why his later confessions started in third person. With Pell, I do not see anything to suggest sources say specific trial actions on Pell/Richter's part speak to his character, motivations, lack of remorse etc. Clear as mud, eh? Alright, I am going to stop writing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both The comments received enough coverage for a mention on Richter's article (and perhaps an article on the trial, if we had one) but it's WP:UNDUE here.LM2000 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both First sentence is not worthy of note – a defendant's barrister almost always argues for a lighter sentence, and they are required to assume (for the sake of the argument) the accused's guilt in doing so. It would only be noteworthy if his barrister did something different instead (such as, make no sentencing submissions, or argue for a harsher sentence.) Second sentence is of zero importance to George Pell's biography (Pell's barrister's poor choice of words can't be attributed to Pell); if it belongs in Wikipedia at all, it belongs in Richter's article not Pell's. SJK (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for closure: Discussion on this topic, including this Request for Comment, has been underway for almost 30 days. After 30 days, automatic archiving begins to take place. It appears to me that a majority of the comments put forward in response to this RfC support the proposal that the current wording gives undue weight, and therefore both sentences should be removed. Is there any disagreement with this proposal? Dolphin (t) 13:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Closure: This Request for Comment has now been open for 30 days. The majority view is that the two sentences, quoted above, give undue weight. One paragraph comprises these two sentences, and a third sentence saying "Richter later apologised for this remark." I will remove the paragraph.

I thank all who participated in this Request for Comment. The process provided some valuable insights into the sentences in question, and helped improve the encyclopaedia. Dolphin (t) 12:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but you need to get an impartial closer. WWGB (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WWGB: You have written “… you need to get an impartial closer” but you have not indicated where you are quoting from. I will assume it is nothing more than your personal desire.

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs we read: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. This sentence is bolded, presumably because it is of special importance in the matter of ending Requests for Comment. Presumably these are words the wise folks who wrote this advisory document didn't want anyone to miss.

The above paragraph then goes on to say: “Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.” These words are directed at us. We are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

In the same paragraph we read: “Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.” That is referring to you. If you want an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion, you should formally request closure by posting on the Admin noticeboard.

Three days before the Legobot removed the RFC template, I posted the following proposal: diff. No-one indicated any disagreement, and no-one indicated a need for outside assistance.

I don’t object to you posting on the Admin noticeboard and requesting an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary, but if you choose that path you should restore my deletion of the offending paragraph, otherwise there is no incentive for you to actually do anything, is there? You could claim you will get around to it some time in 2020. Dolphin (t) 13:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I intend doing nothing, I am happy with the status quo. If you want a change, then arrange an independent closer. And yes, it is contentious. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I agree that the topic ("plain vanilla" offending) is contentious; but all Requests for Comment are based on some element of contention, otherwise the RfC process wouldn't be necessary, would it? What is not contentious is the outcome of the above RfC process: I count 14 responders who eloquently argued for change, but only 4 who argued against change. (I haven't counted User:Meticulo - you can make your own decision as to whether he is in favour of change or not.) So no, the outcome of the RfC process is not contentious, but it is now what we are talking about here.

I (or perhaps someone else) will now implement the majority view expressed in the RfC process by again erasing the paragraph in question. If you are true to your word and you do nothing, all will be well that ends well. But if you choose to again revert that change, I will raise the matter on the appropriate Admin noticeboard. I will allege that the RfC process was conducted strictly in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for comment but that you have reverted attempts to implement the majority view expressed in the RfC, without giving any reason compatible with Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Dolphin (t) 03:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On 18 April, 3-days before the end of the 30-day period of the RfC, I proposed a strategy for closure. See my diff. There was no disagreement with my proposal, and no request for any particular course of action.

On 21 April the Legobot removed the RfC template – see the diff. I then summarised the outcome of the RfC and indicated my intention to implement the majority view by removing the offending paragraph – see my diff. I erased the paragraph – see my diff. Unfortunately, another User reverted my implementation of the majority view in the mistaken belief that only an uninvolved editor can close an RfC. The advisory document Wikipedia:Request for comment#Ending RfCs makes it clear that an uninvolved editor is not an essential participant in an RfC. This document says “Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.”

If a participant in an RfC asks that an uninvolved editor be used to close the process, and makes that request before the Legobot removes the RfC template, I would have no objection to the uninvolved editor being an essential part of the RfC closure. However, once the Legobot removes the RfC template, and the participants implement their majority view, the time has passed for demanding that an uninvolved editor be an essential part of the RfC closure. Once that time has passed, any participant or other User who wishes to appeal against the outcome of the RfC must follow the process described at Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Appeals. There is nothing contained in Wikipedia guidance documents to suggest that an acceptable method of appealing a concluded RfC process is to revert attempts to implement the majority view, or demand that outside assistance be called in.

Three days have passed since the Legobot removed the RfC template. Participants in this RfC are entitled to be asking why their majority view has still not been implemented. They are entitled to demand an explanation for the delay. I will again implement the majority view of the above RfC by erasing the offending paragraph.

I see User:Cunard has requested an uninvolved editor assess the consensus. I don’t have any objection to Cunard’s request. In the unlikely event that the uninvolved editor comes to a conclusion that is different to the majority view of the participants, the offending paragraph can be restored. Dolphin (t) 13:10, 24 April 2019 (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.

Christopher Boyce (prosecutor) coverage

Although developing story, Christopher Boyce who was the prosecutor is reported to have :

Been unable to defend why M Walker said "It was impossible" time and time again

Unable to refute the 13 reasons why Pell was wrongly convicted

As Boyce began to speak, he spoke too quietly and was told to raise his voice

Flustered when asked to explain or justify his points, he accidentally revealed the name of 1 of Pell's 2 victims, the surviving choirboy now in his 30's, whilst it is illegal to publish this information

Boyce coming close to invite the judges to try on robes Pell wore on the day, attempting to prove Pell could have exposed himself despite the many layers he was wearing

David Mar of Guardian also writes Mr Boyce "found himself lost for words"

He himself he says "The point I'm making (I'm) not making extremely well

Eventually, the judges had to bring Boyce back to his own argument

In contrast, Pell's lawyer was "rarely interrupted by three judges overseeing one of the most anticipated appeals in Victorian history"

Rohan Smith from News Ltd reporting it very well 132.234.229.194 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Vast amounts have been said during the trial, and written in comment after the trial, and said during sentencing, and written after the sentencing. However, Wikipedia doesn’t report on any of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. The same principle must apply to Proceedings in the Court of Appeal. Wikipedia will present a succinct summary of the Appeal but it won’t present a detailed coverage of who said what, and when, and what others thought about it all. Dolphin (t) 08:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)