Talk:Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

Established
This RC was established by the Gillard Government — not the Rudd Government, Abbott Government or Turnbull Government; yes, it has run under those Governments (I don't dispute that) — but it was established by the Gillard Government — that is a matter of fact, not opinion. The sentence specifically says, "established in 2013": Did the other governments, mentioned, establish this RC, Jeffro?

Oh, and might I add: Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption has the same format, ie. "established by the Abbott Government" — yet it was still active under the Turnbull Government. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 08:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that something appears in another article is not a demonstration that it is a good thing. There is of course a difference with the 'trade union' issue, because that royal commission was obviously and quite publically politically motivated and not at all politically neutral, whereas both parties publically have uniform views of child sexual abuse. That said, it is still not neutral for the first sentence of the lead to align either royal commission with a particular party, especially in the run-up to an election (which does not appear to be a coincidence since sentence was previously stable).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is making it a political issue – the revision that currently stands, is factual, in that it was the Gillard Government who established it, not the Abbott Opposition, not the succeeding or preceding governments. Secondly, I'm simply stating what is written in the body of the article - which is actually per WP:LEAD. Lastly, the revision does not say "Gillard Labor Government" which would be playing politics, but nevertheless: before you accuse me of being non-neutral on this matter and of being a supporter of Labor or a detractor of the Liberal's — it would be pertinent for you to drop the boomerang at the door. I'm simply stating facts in black and white, you are making this into a political issue. Best, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 08:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The target article is about the Australian government in general, not a specific government of the day. The first sentence should not introduce elements of controversy, bias etc, which should instead be indicated later, with sources. (That also applies, probably more so, to the article about the 'trade unions' royal commission.) Your personal political motivations are irrelevant, and the problem exists regardless of whether you intend it. At this point, input from other editors is probably required.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You're fudging one way in one instance, and fudging another: you first claimed that "both parties publically have uniform views" now (because you are trying to sway this into a political debate) it's "[the lead should not] introduce elements of controversy, bias etc, which should instead be indicated later" . You can't have it both ways — this is a politically partisan issue, or not.
 * In my view: this isn't a politically partisan issue, though. Why? you said it yourself: both sides agree on it. But also: this isn't an issue about either political side (Labor or Liberal). This is a matter of fact: the Gillard Government formed this RC. No Government before or after – Labor or Liberal – formed it. You're making it into a political discussion, which perhaps says more about your political motivations than any I may or may not have. Yes, this ought to be opened up to the community. —Mel<b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not 'fudge' anything, nor have I tried to 'sway political debate'. I have in fact stated that the opening sentence should be neutral. I correctly stated that both major parties have uniform views about child sexual abuse, and your clipping of that quote is intellectually dishonest; I further stated that naming a specific party in the first sentence was more of a problem at the trade unions RC article (I will allow a little longer for the RFC process, and then will amend the other article if necessary if no one else does). Further, I did not state that the lead should not introduce elements of controversy, but that the first sentence of the lead should not do so. Notable controversies may be quite properly mentioned in the lead, to reflect article content; however, naming a particular political party in itself does not identify (only alludes to) controversies in any meaningful way at all. The article about the government of Australia is not about any particular party or term, and is entierely the best way to present the infomration in a direct non-partisan manner. It is fairly clear from the RFC reponses thus far that my position has better support.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy with accepting the consensus which is apparantly being reached below. That being said, I didn't realise Gillard is a party as you continuously claim. By saying Gillard, I'm specifying the government responsible for establishing this RC, not the political party. In saying Gillard Government, I'm not saying Rudd either?
 * Medicare is widely considered bipartisan... yet oh no! by your logic, the Whitlam Government ought not to be mentioned in the lead, as it's political (despite Whitlam not being a political party either). —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gillard is quite obviously associated with the Labor party, and attempting to split hairs is pointless. The reasons for not identifying a particular party or term in the first sentence have already been provided here and by other RFC respondents.
 * If there are problems with other articles, fix them. Problems in other articles are not a justification for repeating the same problems here.
 * (As an aside, it is bad form to provide your own RFC response in your initial RFC request, as it may be seen as attempting to skew the discussion. The relevant guideline suggests providing additional information as a separate edit, if at all.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And you have again attempted to distort what I said about what should or should not be mentioned in "the lead". I very clearly referred to a problem in the first sentence of the lead of this article. Do not continue to try to misrepresent what I said. The lead of the Medicare article is not analogous to the situation here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault that you see everything politically. I'm just exposing a flaw in your logic, that is all. I'll continue to say what I wish on the matter, because it was you who initially misrepresented one's motives for adding said change to article - not I.
 * Well, you've misunderstood the purpose of an RfC discussion. I clearly did not sign the discussion under my name (hence the absence of my signature) as to allow for me to comment. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 07:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ho hum. If you continue to misrepresent what I've said, or if you breach other policies, you will be reported. Aside from that, do and think whatever you like.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Boomerang, Jeffro. You accused me of violating neutrality without good-faith, and as someone who always tries to achieve neutrality I found that unsubstantiated claim quite offensive. You're in no position to throw stones, thank you very much. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're still here. Saying 'boomerang' doesn't actually give you an upper hand in a dispute. You need to stop misrepresenting what I said. I did not accuse you of 'violating neutrality', nor did I question your 'good faith'. I objectively stated that "it is still not neutral for the first sentence of the lead to align either royal commission with a particular party", and that "the opening sentence should be neutral". Those are objective statements about article content. It is not a claim about your motivations (though it is reasonable to associate the change with the fact that there is a current election campaign). I further explicitly stated that "Your personal political motivations are irrelevant, and the problem exists regardless of whether you intend it". Additionally, the stable version of the article that I endorsed, and which is fully supported by the RFC, refers to the Government of Australia, independent of any party or party-affiliated individual, and could not be more neutral. So as someone who 'always tries to achieve neutrality', you should be quite happy with the original wording. But if you want to think I'm horrible and evil and mean to puppies, go right ahead.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much felt that you insinuated that my edit on this article was non-neutral, hence your edit summary in reversal of my edit. I found it quite odd, considering what we had discussed here: and what has been discussed in the AfC below; no claims have been made on the neutrality of adding Gillard Government -- only you have made that link. I felt, you further insinuated by suggestion that my change was made in response to the upcoming election. And I don't think you're a "horrible and evil" - let's not put words in my mouth, as you were so readily accusing me of doing to you.
 * Considering the RC was established by the Gillard Government, it was a simple matter of fact, not neutrality. 'But, let's agree to disagree.
 * I think we can drop the stick and agree on the issue at hand: I'd be more than happy to withdraw the RfC; I think we've established consensus on the matter, on the basis that "Australian Government" allows for geographical context -- "Gillard Government" does not. What's your view? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I never claimed you were 'violating neutrality' or any such thing, all that needs to happen is you need to stop accusing me of that. (My edit summary simply stated that ascribing to a particular government is less neutral, which is hardly a dramatic accusation about any serious 'violation'.) Aside from that, the RfC respondents did not directly refer to neutrality per se, but some of the comments alluded to the fact that there is no good reason for the more specific term in the first sentence&mdash;particularly the comments by Mitch Ames, Kerry and Kautilya3. Because the more specific term is unnecessary in the first sentence, the presence of the more specific term can very easily carry a non-neutral implication, which depending on the reader could vary from Gillard took the moral high ground to Gillard attacked religious organisations. Any such implications should be avoided. The circumstances of when, why and how the RC was established are instead properly explained within the article, with sources.
 * (And yes, the RfC respondents also provided other good reasons for the original wording.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I felt differently, considering neutrality concerns are very rarely levied against me and I always think before I do (in terms of editing articles); but since you've denied it and explained otherwise, I shall take your word for it and that can be the end of the matter. When things are said online, obviously, not always will one understand you. But I understand, now.
 * Again, this is a back-and-forth issue -- I don't believe that we're going to agree on who said or meant what in their comments; in the RfC, I suggested adding the other Governments that this RC has been active under, which if neutrality were an issue, I believe it would have gone to addressing it.
 * Are there any issues in me withdrawing the RfC, per clause 1 of Requests_for_comment? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to withdrawing the RfC, since the outcome is obvious. It is not important to me that the RfC respondents did not explicitly mention "neutrality", but it remains an underlying reason for why it is not necessary to mention the more specific term.
 * I said that some changed wording was "less neutral" than the previous wording and made other objective statements about article content, and in response I was met with accusations of 'boomerangs', 'glass houses', 'violations', and incorrect statements about what I supposedly said can appear in article leads. It's little wonder that the other editors stayed away from it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall withdraw it then. Yeah, well, It's important to me that the others didn't draw an unfair link between my edits, and neutrality.
 * Maybe if you chose your wording differently, or followed the concerns of the RfC respondents (contextual concerns), I wouldn't have felt attacked and accused you of attacking me. Now, as I've mentioned a few times now, I'll be dropping the stick and agreeing to disagree with you... whether you do that, or not, is your prerogative. All the best, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hardly my fault that you 'felt attacked' because I said your edit was "less neutral" than the previous wording, and I wasn't under any obligation to identify the same issues as other editors. If someone saying that an edit of yours was "less neutral" is the most egregious thing you've ever experienced when editing Wikipedia articles, you've had an easier time than most editors.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Which government established the RC in 2013 - the Australian Government or the Gillard Government?
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Gillard Government" — instead of "Australian Government" — be mentioned in the article's lead as the establisher of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2013? 13:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Current: "The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is a royal commission established in 2013 by the Australian government pursuant.."
 * Proposed: "The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is a royal commission established in 2013 by the Gillard Government pursuant.."
 * Withdrawn: As the individual who initiated this RfC, I'm withdrawing it per clause 1 at Requests_for_comment; consensus in this RfC is quite clear that "Australian Government" is more appropriate, as it adds geographical context to the RC; "Gillard Government" does not. Thanks to all those whom participated. I shall let an univolved editor formally close this RfC. Best, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes – This is a matter of fact. The Gillard Government established this RC — as did the Abbott Government, in establishing Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption. The Governments of Rudd, Howard, Keating, Abbott did not establish this RC – Gillard's did. This isn't political nor is it a matter of Labor versus Liberal (for if it were: the proposal would be "Gillard Labor Government" ). I would consider opening the lead more, in mentioning that the RC has been continued under successive governments. The current revision states that "the Australian Government established" the RC "in 2013" — to which government is this article referring to? The Gillard Government (as it not only created it, but rather, was the only government in power at the time). So, I believe it would be logical to add this fact in the lead. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government. Consider reading this article as a non-Australian. Where is the nation of Gillard? Prime Minister Julia Gillard is mentioned further down in the areas relating to setting it up. --Scott Davis Talk 15:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian per Scott's logic. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian per Scott's logic too. Additionally, legally, the name of the Government of Australia does not include the Prime Minister's name.  It is just referencing Australia.  Depending on the result of this poll, Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption should also be changed match the verdict, as well as any other Royal Commissions. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government - the fact that it was Gillard and not some other PM is not sufficiently significant to the topic of the article (the Royal Commission) that it should be in the lead sentence. Per, the same argument applies to other similar articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government - as per Scott Davis, MOS:INTRO says "the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible" and "Editors should avoid ... over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Obviously anything established by the Australian Government is established by the Government led by a particular prime minister, and if the PM (or anyone else) was particularly prominent in pushing the issue, that can be discussed elsewhere. Kerry (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note neither Julia Gillard nor Gillard Government mention this Royal Commission. Kerry (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government - No need to mention specific Head of Government unless policy changes are being discussed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government, I was about to endorse naming the government, not concurring with many views here, when I realised that without this, there would be no mention of WHERE on the planet this RoyalCom was happening until toward the end of the para. I have no objection in principle to 'naming', which seems perfectly normal 'the Johnson administration', 'the Blair government' etc. there is neither blame nor much credit for being 'at the helm' when this was enacted. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian Government. Both are technically correct I suppose, but as User:ScottDavis points out, "Gillard government" is likely to be unfamiliar jargon to anyone unfamiliar with Australian politics  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Additional Comment Having a bit of a think about this, is it the legislature or the executive that is responsible for the authorisation of a Royal Commission? If it is the legislature, Australian it is.  If the executive, it could conceivably be either, with a preference for Australian.  There is probably a broader discussion happening within the concept of the Westminster system as to whether it is xx government or Australian government to consider too.Jamesbushell.au (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A royal commission is "created by the Head of State (the Sovereign, or his/her representative in the form of a Governor-General or Governor) on the advice of the Government and formally appointed by letters patent." The Queen of Australia/Governor General of Australia is part of the Government of Australia, but not part of the Gillard Government. --Scott Davis Talk 11:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Scott. Interestingly it is on the advice of the Government.  Which would be the -insert leaders name here- government.  Im not yet changing my view but can see another side might exist to this.Jamesbushell.au (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jehovah's Witnesses
I think there should be a section on cases of abuse in Jehovah's Witnesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.161.45.146 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggested such a section at the Talk page for Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse some time ago, but it didn't go anywhere. Agree that a section is suitable here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What if there was a summary of some of the information included there with a link to the article? Clovermoss (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pell - most prominent witness lede worthy?
I wasn't going to have in the lede but because a) his prominence b) he was associated with 3 of the case studies I thought it was easier to have at such a level, you are more experienced so what do you think ? Deleted section below:


 * The Commission called the most prominent Australian catholic ecclesiastical member being George Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, three times to give evidence about the Melbourne Response, handling of abuse in the Ballarat and Melbourne Dioceses, and Case Study 8 regarding the John Ellis complaint.



Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Numerous people were associated with multiple case studies, and numerous prominent people were called. It belongs in a key place in the Catholic section but it's random and out of place in the lede. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Quotes
There's lengthy quotations in this article. Are all of them really nessecary? It seems best to minimize extenstive quotes given the advice here. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the more citations template
I've removed the more citations needed template from this page - there are 201 refs and no mention on here about any statements requiring additional citations. Please comment here if there are unreferenced statements. Newystats (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)