Talk:Revelation (TV series)

White washing? And prosecution of editors.
Legal Disclaimer: I wish to ask, for discussion, what is happening here? The following is a matter of opinion about how to handle delicate subjects, and questions about what happened, or could have happened? They are not a collection of statements of fact, and should not be taken as such. But are statements of due process for different possible inputs, for educational discussion. They have left the question of guilt or innocence of each party open:

As somebody who watched the third episode, this article is lacking adequate reference to it's content. The fact that a stream of allegations were made by a series of witnesses. Even if there is an injunction about talking about such things, the fact is, that at least a mention of the injunction should be made, and who it's about. Otherwise summary details of the allegations, as needed without getting into sordid extra detail. In balance.

I have heard briefly in the media that a cardinal, not Pell, paid witnesses to make up stories to discredit, due to involvement in prosecuting the fraud charge against the cardinal sort of thing. If that is the people in this episode, that should be covered here. I am not saying it is, but the article is not written sufficiently to let the user know why the lack of summary detail. This is very important, as it is, the article is bolstering the appearance of innocence, rather than if all allegations have been met. This disrupts witnesses from coming forward with clarifying evidence, as it makes them feel alone and powerless, which is how these scandals are perpetuated. But, equally important, is the context that there are other allegations that are under a cloud, so are not reported until resolution is given, is as important as summary of the allegations. In that case, the summary maybe left out until such a time as it becomes apparent if the allegations of witness tampering is true or not. But, in such cases,the reader should know that there are allegations and doubt that is yet to be proven. It is simple, do the minimum required, and don't do nothing.

Wikipedia is an international database beyond the local jurisdictions involved, unless hosted or posted in those jurisdictions. If required, a geoblock can be used to block the article from being served to people in those jurisdictions, but the internet works a bit like somebody going access the border to a newspaper shop and bringing back a paper. It is not the foreign newspaper shop's responsibility to not sell you a paper, it is up to the external border to stop you from importing the newspaper. Which means, government monitoring and block messages stating the court order. Which makes apparent to readers, that there is an issue, rather than blanking an article of mention of eye witness testimony which is under a cloud, or not, which ever is the case, if that is the case here. Free speech is not an absolute, but encyclopedic reference to context of potential true speech, is. We do not run a secret state, and are not part of one. Balanced reporting is the objective.

All editors purposely responsible in a wrong way (as to be determined and ratified by a court of law) should be banned from Wikipedia for life if not prosecuted as well. Such leaving out facts that can lead to potential harm by the omission, or doing so which significantly harms the potential witnesses psyche and or circumstances out there, is something which could be brought to civil law. While the assets of Wikipedia might not be chosen as a target (I do not believe prosecuting organisations for the actions of a few insignificants, but do believe in prosecution of those self motivated to do those actions) the assets of purposeful editors should be. There has been too much dodgy editing over the years. We have to be mindful of a fullness of summary of credible facts, and the amount of that credibility when they are in doubt, as well as a summary of other possibilities that lack comprehensive evidence to dismiss them (which is a higher order of complete evidence than what people regard as comprehensive, which simply gets mixed up with association with dismissal from some other source or evidence that lacks the rigger to prove in no way is it possible, and all the ears being thoroughly tested and checked). Any advanced encyclopaedia, should never be an easy thing, and should be beyond an expert's view (which is limited).

Plus, Andrew Bolt's backflip to virulent support and attack on the ABC, should be examined for any valid reason behind it. This cumulated in attacks on the ABC for pursuing innocent Pell, just after this TV series had aired, with counter testimony to Bolt's claims. Again, it comes to the question of reporting on those counter claims, and if there is any reason to discount them. We can't treat such testimony as guilty until proven innocent, as much as we can do this to the accused. Leaving those claims unaddressed and voiceless, is accusing them of doubt or guilt, which is a significant impact in witnesses. So, what were the motivation and evidence fur Bolt's claims in light of the counter arguments, why did he make them? Is it the case that he knew of the reports and held beliefs against them, or others. When the truth is not known, the facts can be contrasted to. For instance, claims were made after contradictory evidence was made public, which were not or were under whatever doubt. The reader then see's the claims may not or may have some basis, and can access the intent of what was spoken. These are all very evidentiary processes of deduction and reporting. It is not really the editors role to deduct, but the role to report the facts enough that the reader can make their own fair, true and reasonable deductions in some sort of comprehensive way. In newspapers, that might not require such a large comprehensive evidence list to be given, but in an advanced encyclopaedia, it does. An advanced encyclopaedia is comprehensive, approaching an expert overview summary, or over view summary of a documentary or book. Multiple levels of increasing depth of comprehensive detail can be used so the user can choose which level to read at for convenience. Wikipedia is often at 1-1.5 levels, when three levels are required. Hence, Wikipedia needs to be funded to pay professional authors to research and write in this way. Something worthy of governments to fund (a community suggestion to remedy the writing in articles like these).

Re-edit:

Parts accidentally missed:

In context of above possible reason witnesses allegations were not covered. The series was well awarded in reporting circles. I have yet to see a report outlining it, or its reputation, as being bad in relation to the witnesses of the last episode. But why has it, and the allegations, seemingly disappeared, or being subdued.

Similarly in the past, other sensational reports on the ABC requiring further official action, and community reaction, have seemingly been subdued or disappeared. These are the ABC reports on the Fabian Society influx into Australian politics, leading to reports Opus Dei's influx into Australian politics and potential factional control in the Liberal party. The other situation, being the burying of the ABC Catalyst science show after the airing of reports unfavourable to certain parties' interests, then re-emergence with rearranged staff after a poorly reported on process which is hard to find detail on. A pattern of strange cases concerning the ABC which may or may not, point to interference in due process. We might also point out, a slightly similar pattern of interference in reporting pedophilia reports to authorities and the media. These are worthy of their own seperate articles, as they are the details of an advanced encyclopaedia, to know fact, society and significant movement in society, in detail.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.165.190 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is far too long and detailed
The article is already far too long and far too detailed. It doesn't need adding to, it needs quite a lot of reducing. So please don't add anything further to the article without first discussing it. Also the constant repetition of multiple MOS mistakes which need correcting is getting very tedious and time-consuming to deal with. Anglicanus (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)