Open main menu

Christopher Boyce (prosecutor) coverageEdit

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

Been unable to defend why M Walker said "It was impossible" time and time again
Unable to refute the 13 reasons why Pell was wrongly convicted
As Boyce began to speak, he spoke too quietly and was told to raise his voice
Flustered when asked to explain or justify his points, he accidentally revealed the name of 1 of Pell's 2 victims, the surviving choirboy now in his 30's, whilst it is illegal to publish this information
Boyce coming close to invite the judges to try on robes Pell wore on the day, attempting to prove Pell could have exposed himself despite the many layers he was wearing
David Mar of Guardian also writes Mr Boyce "found himself lost for words"
He himself he says "The point I'm making (I'm) not making extremely well
Eventually, the judges had to bring Boyce back to his own argument
In contrast, Pell's lawyer was "rarely interrupted by three judges overseeing one of the most anticipated appeals in Victorian history"
Rohan Smith from News Ltd reporting it very well (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Vast amounts have been said during the trial, and written in comment after the trial, and said during sentencing, and written after the sentencing. However, Wikipedia doesn’t report on any of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. The same principle must apply to Proceedings in the Court of Appeal. Wikipedia will present a succinct summary of the Appeal but it won’t present a detailed coverage of who said what, and when, and what others thought about it all. Dolphin (t) 08:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Dolphin's erasure of material with citationEdit

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

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

Fartherred is right about the unwarranted level of detail in comments about Pell wearing a clerical collar at the Appeal hearing; and the three judges being visible in televised proceedings. I have erased these details. Wikipedia’s coverage of the trial, conviction and appeal doesn’t provide this depth of detail. Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper. Dolphin (t) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
There is more about David Marr and the Pell appeal here. It refers to Marr's book about Pell, which as you will see has been very controversial. Marr is a prominent journalist and biographer, with a special interest in homosexual clerical abuse (and is gay himself), so "someone called Marr" indicates that Dolphin doesn't know who he is (see also Marr's book The High Price of Heaven). Here is Marr's "train wreck" article. I lean toward including a reference to what Marr says about Pell, but decided not to include a reference to this article, because it discusses the conduct of the appeal (on only the first day of it) rather than the legal issues. Wikiain (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikiain You appear to be assuming that everyone who reads our article about George Pell will know who David Marr is. Don’t forget that Wikipedia’s readership is international. Marr may be quite well known in Australia but it would be a mistake to imagine he is equally well known in the northern hemisphere or in countries where English is not the primary language. Dolphin (t) 12:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that why we have wikilinks: David Marr? WWGB (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Dolphin51: I made no such assumption, only that you apparently happened not to know. But, since you raise the matter, I agree with WWGB. Perhaps we can leave it there. Wikiain (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiain: I know precisely who David Marr is, and so do you, but those two facts are almost irrelevant because the Wiki article on George Pell was not written for us. It was written for a vast unknown audience around the world. We must assume most of this vast unknown audience has never heard of David Marr. If our article says something like “David Marr said X and Y and Z about the Pell Appeal” that vast unknown audience is entitled to ask “Who is this Marr person, and why is his view noteworthy?” That point was made very powerfully by Vision Insider in his 5 March edit. The article doesn’t mention the opinions of Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Paul Kelly or other prominent Australian commentators so mentioning David Marr’s opinion in the way proposed by User:Fartherred is to give undue weight to Marr’s opinion.
I see that you want to leave the matter there. That is your prerogative but this thread was started by Fartherred so the matter should remain active until Fartherred indicates he is finished. The thread is based on a challenge directed at me, and I remain available to respond to questions and challenges for as long as others want to post them here. Dolphin (t) 06:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

And I restored it, it's a fact unless overturned by the appeal. WWGB (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
As an editor, WWGB's opinion as to whether it is a fact that Cardinal Pell is a sex offender is worth nothing for determining what text should be included in Wikipedia. Only assertions backed by citation may be included. The legal status of Cardinal Pell and the fact of whether he is a sex offender or not are two separate considerations. The assertion that Cardinal Pell is a sex offender is certainly contentious and questionable. Maintaining that assertion in Wikipedia is an egregious violation of WP:BLP. I will revert WWGB and restore the well supported text. - Fartherred (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
"legal status of Cardinal Pell and the fact of whether he is a sex offender or not are two separate considerations" No, they're not. A convicted sex offender is someone who has been found guilty of committing sex offenses. He's been found guilty. If his appeal is successful, then that status will naturally change. Until and unless that happens, he's a convicted sex offender, and it's appropriate to describe him as such. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
To answer WWGB's objection in edit summary, I reduced the mentions of appeal in the lead to one. - Fartherred (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention of the conviction appeal in the lead first sentences.Edit

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

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

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

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

  • Later. The lead seems fine to me. The reason for the article is that he is a Cardinal, so a summary of his career should come before noting any particular incident. Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Wikiain: - as I said earlier, it would be better to give a proposed version of the text with the change. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiain: - The reason a lot of people are looking at his article this year is that he is a Cardinal AND a convicted sex offender. The latter has made him a lot more notable than the average Cardinal HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry: I should have said just that the lead as it is seems fine to me. Wikiain (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Return to "George Pell" page.