Talk:George Pell

Lede section phrasing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For these reasons, there should be the following orders:

1. Special leave to appeal granted.

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

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

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Apollo1986 and User:Zfish118 each inserted the Sterling Law article as an in-line citation to support the sentence: On 7 April 2020, in a unanimous judgment, the High Court: granted leave to appeal; treated the arguments about leave as arguments on an appeal; and allowed the appeal, quashing Pell's convictions and determining that judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. The accuracy of this sentence has not been challenged, and the article does indeed allow independent verification of the contents of the sentence. If the article was incompatible with this sentence I concede it would not be suitable as a supporting citation. If I am correct, the objection raised by Errantius is unrelated to the sentence, or to the compatibility of the article and the sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-use of quotations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The Wind Shitter (a well known backronym of Keith Windschuttle's name) please feel free to discuss the relevancy of a largely discredited and inappropriate source on Wikipedia.

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

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

Please feel free to read the concerns listed under "critical reception on the page for Keith Windschuttle. The list is too long for me to be bothered to copy and paste over here.