![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
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
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pell is the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse. [1] In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. [6] On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. [7] [8] [9] Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. [10] Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. [10] 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. [10]
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. [11] In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. [12] On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. [13] [14] [15] Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. [10] Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. [10] 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. [10] On March 13, 2019, Pell was sentenced to six years in prison and cannot be eligible for parole for three years and eight months. [16] He will also now be registered as a sex offender for life as well. [17] 2601:447:4101:5780:F4E7:37BA:F7CD:1D61 ( talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Done
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update infobox to include his conviction for child molestation. 129.127.145.232 ( talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] 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. [3] [2] [18] [19] 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. [20] 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. [21] [22] [23] Pell's conviction was subject to a gag order issued by Judge Peter Kidd, which suppressed coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies. [24] [25] [26] [27] 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. [28] [29] His conviction was later confirmed by local sources on February 26, 2019. [30] [31] [32]
References
ABC29-2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
Mr Richter told the court an appeal against the conviction had been lodged on three grounds, including that the jury verdict was unreasonable.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
news remove 2018-12-13
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2601:447:4101:5780:414C:1408:94AD:FC44 ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in |doi=
(
help)
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? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:30B0:F075:BE56:77F4 ( talk) 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1]
Thank you. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
'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. /info/en/?search=His_Eminence 71.86.140.226 ( talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] 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. [1]
Thank you. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done
References
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)
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)
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:
Vision Insider ( talk) 01:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, [1] 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] 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". [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?-- Scott Davis Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, [1] 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] 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". [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?-- Scott Davis Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
Removed.
WWGB (
talk)
10:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
Dolphin ( t) 11:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.
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.
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)
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)
Although developing story, Christopher Boyce who was the prosecutor is reported to have :
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
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
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pell is the Catholic Church's most senior official to be convicted of child sexual abuse. [1] In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. [6] On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. [7] [8] [9] Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. [10] Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. [10] 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. [10]
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. [11] In June 2017, Pell was charged in Victoria with multiple historical sexual assault offences; he denied all charges. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] Due to the charges raised against him, Pope Francis removed Pell from the Council of Cardinal Advisers on 16 August 2018. [12] On 11 December 2018, Pell was found guilty on five charges related to sexual misconduct involving two boys in the 1990s. [13] [14] [15] Pell's bail has been revoked and he is held in custody, with his sentencing scheduled for 13 March 2019. [10] Pell has lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. [10] 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. [10] On March 13, 2019, Pell was sentenced to six years in prison and cannot be eligible for parole for three years and eight months. [16] He will also now be registered as a sex offender for life as well. [17] 2601:447:4101:5780:F4E7:37BA:F7CD:1D61 ( talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Done
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update infobox to include his conviction for child molestation. 129.127.145.232 ( talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5] 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. [3] [2] [18] [19] 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. [20] 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. [21] [22] [23] Pell's conviction was subject to a gag order issued by Judge Peter Kidd, which suppressed coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies. [24] [25] [26] [27] 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. [28] [29] His conviction was later confirmed by local sources on February 26, 2019. [30] [31] [32]
References
ABC29-2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
Mr Richter told the court an appeal against the conviction had been lodged on three grounds, including that the jury verdict was unreasonable.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
news remove 2018-12-13
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2601:447:4101:5780:414C:1408:94AD:FC44 ( talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in |doi=
(
help)
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? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:30B0:F075:BE56:77F4 ( talk) 22:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
George Pell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1]
Thank you. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
'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. /info/en/?search=His_Eminence 71.86.140.226 ( talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] 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. [1]
Thank you. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 00:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done
References
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)
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)
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:
Vision Insider ( talk) 01:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, [1] 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] 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". [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?-- Scott Davis Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, [1] 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] 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". [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why did Richter appear to accept Pell’s guilt at the sentencing hearing?-- Scott Davis Talk 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
Removed.
WWGB (
talk)
10:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
Dolphin ( t) 11:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.
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.
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)
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)
Although developing story, Christopher Boyce who was the prosecutor is reported to have :