User:Fartherred/Pell

George Pell
Editors at George Pell have been re-adding questionable, contentious material to the article after I removed it. They do not seem to respect WP:BLP. The disagreement started here. There is a group of editors that want to keep defamitory information based upon their own opinions rather than well published sources. - Fartherred (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference from Reuters clearly states that Pell is a convicted child sex offender. The assertion is neither contentious nor questionable, it is a fact. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The expression "convicted child sex offender" is also published by ABC News, news.com.au, 7 News, 9 News, Financial Review and SBS News. It is factual and impeccably sourced. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed this is well-sourced and non-contentious. GiantSnowman 12:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the assertion that George Pell is a sex offender is contentious and questionable is shown by its being contested on appeal as discussed here in the supporting published information I cited in my edit of George Pell. The fact that the prosecutor had nothing to say to some objections and that David Marr is quoted as referring to the proceedings as a trainwreck (sic) indicate that it is questionable from the same source. What Hughesdarren supports by his reference from Reuters is that many people have been convinced by published reports of the conviction. That does not make the conviction any more reliable. It is still based upon the testimony of one man claiming to have been a victim. Bret Walker found 13 reasons why there should have been reasonable of Pell committing the alleged crime. There have been men on death row for years because a jury convicted them of murder and they were freed by the Innocence Project. As Wikipedia records the Innocence Project exonerated 362 people of serious crimes by January 2019. Continuing to point out that many people have been swayed by the testimony of one man, including the jurors does not make that one man's testimony true. It is still questionable and contentious. No matter how many people have been convinced by questionable statements, no matter how many times their being convinced is reported as sensational news the fact of guilt or innocence is still contentious - Fartherred (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing contentious about Pell's guilt, a verdict which remains fact unless overturned on appeal. It seems that you are endeavouring to conduct your own "appeal" on the pages of Wikipedia. That is not how the law works. Pell remains a "convicted child sex offender" unless overturned by due process. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What seems to confuse WWGB is that an innocent man can be wrongly convicted. If an innocent man is found guilty of a sex offence then he is guilty of criminal sex offence but he is not a sex offender and has never been one.  When a man is innocent he remains innocent if he is wrongly convicted.  That is why the innocent people can be freed by the Innocence Project.  If George Pell's conviction were not contentious then there would not be an appeal with Bret Walker contending that George Pell should not have been convicted.  Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn an innocent man into a sex offender?  Did he just make that up?  Hughesdarren and GiantSnowman agreeing with him does not make WWGB any better as a source of information - Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please WP:DROPTHESTICK. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with WWGB, Should Pell be found not guilty on appeal then maybe the lede statement could be edited to reflect this. Until then the statement that a Pell is a convicted child sex offender is a well supported statement of fact. The only person that seems to find it at all questionable and contentious is Fartherred. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, agree with this. We can review wording if and when an appeal is successful. GiantSnowman 12:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman wants me to drop the stick but this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors just agreeing with some absurd notion. Hughesdarren claims that I am the only person that seems to find sex offender status at all questionable or contentious. Bret Walker is a person that finds it questionable and contentious. Until the appeal is settled it is a question that is not settled. How much simpler can I put it that the matter is questionable? The WP:BLP states that "...the possibility of causing harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". There is no exception made for causing harm to Catholic Cardinals. Callous indifference to harming Cardinal Pell is what WP:BLP is trying to prevent. Please consider that policy. - Fartherred (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "this argument is not to be decided by a number of editors" - no, that's precisely how we sort things. WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 14:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion The title of the policy page tells it all. Verifiable facts from reliable sources and statements of policy should matter more than the number of editors.  There should be time to get all of the pertinent considerations aired.  - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a poll, though. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

While certainly a convicted child sex offender is 100% truth, its forced inclusion in the first sentence of the lede is a violation of the impartialness aspect of BLP. Not that this isn't lede material, it's just not lede sentence material if the person was significantly notable for other things as well. Forcing it in to the first sentence creates a tone that this is going to be a "negative sounding" article, which we cannot write as under BLP or NPOV. --M asem (t) 13:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to moving the point of contention out of the lead, but would still object to calling a man definitely guilty while the case is still in appeal. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, frankly, I think it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences. You might not think that is 'fair', or you might think that it is, but it's not really in question that it's true. I don't really see how it fails to be 'impartial' either. -- Begoon 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with putting it in the lede sentence, giving it seemingly equal weight to his past work in the clergy, is that we don't know with hindsight how he will be remembered in the long term. We know prior to the arrest that Pell had some respectable work in the clergy so that is certainly what he was notable for in the long term, but we are far too soon to say that this conviction is as important. --M asem (t) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "it's completely accurate to say that he is best known for being a senior cleric convicted of child-sex offences" is spot-on. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that the long-term view? We have no idea, and we won't know for several years. That's definitely the view this moment, but WP avoids writing for the moment and looks to the long-term coverage per WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. --M asem (t) 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What the REUTERS piece actually documents is not Cardinal Pells guilt but the harm that can be caused by people piling on to a heap of condemnation when an accusation is made. People who knew nothing but news reports about the incident and nothing about Cardinal Pell other than that he is a cardinal suddenly were sure that he deserves to have his name erased. I can understand people thinking that the name Pell is now associated with sexual abuse but people should think if many of the complaints against him came to naught this last one might too and be prepared to restore the name. The CNN article suggests that the complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy indicated his truthfulness but he could have gained that knowledge being there with anyone other than Pell and at thirty years of age you cannot say that he must exhibit childhood truthfullness by being incapable of the mentally difficult task of lying. - Fartherred (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is that he IS a convicted child sex offender. You may believe that the conviction was in error, but at Wikipedia we rely on what's stated in Reliable Sources, and they completely support that characterization.  If his appeal is successful, then the article will clearly need to change to reflect that, but absent that, it's entirely appropriate and accurate to keep it as it is.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @BubbaJoe123456's assertion is neither simple nor factual. The articleCardinal Pell back in prison while judges consider appeal @CNN contains an assertion that Bret Walker SC, representing Cardinal Pell, gave 13 reasons why the jurors should have been reasonably in doubt of the guilt of Cardinal Pell.  These 13 reasons should not have all slipped by the judge, the barrister for the crown and Cardinal Pell's defense.  It is possible that this case never should have gone to trial but three senior appeals judges had to look at the case on appeal.  The 13 reasons were "stated in Reliable" text from CNN.  This text does not "completely support that characterization" that George Pell is a sex offender.  WWGB has still not responded to the question I asked at 13:13 hours above, "Where does WWGB get the absurd notion that simple conviction can turn and innocent man into a sex offender?"  Well, BubbaJoe, do you want to take a stab at describing the source of this notion that your assertion relies upon?  - Fartherred (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with GiantSnowman and BubbaJoe. He is a convicted child sex offender. The fact that he is appealing his case does not change that. And while you didn't ask me, I'll take a stab at answering your question anyway: A "sex offender" is someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. Therefore, by its very definition, being convicted has turned a man into one. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lilipo25 A handy way to win an argument is to make up a definition that makes you right "by its very definition" and then just stick to that definition. The tactic is not very helpful for communication because it results in two opposing sides effectively talking in different languages and not listening to each other.  I define a sex offender as one who violates a sex law.  By my definition it is possible for a person who is not a sex offender to be wrongfully convicted of violating a sex law and still not be a sex offender.  By your sort of definition those wrongfully convicted of murder would have been turned into murderers and when some of those were freed by the Innocence_ Project they would have been transformed again into innocent men.  More people than just Lilipo, WWGB and GiantSnowman use the magical transformation definition but I suggest it is neither helpful nor universal.  It does not seem to come from a dictionary as a source but is saved from being original research by its status as common knowledge.  Even though many elements of common knowledge contradict each other, we cannot communicate without it.  - Fartherred (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Fartherred So you're criticizing me for "making up a definition that makes [me] right" in your first sentence, and then in your third sentence, you make up a definition that does exactly that for yourself, even saying "I define a sex offender as..." and "By my definition...". Interesting tactic.


 * But I'm sorry to tell you that you're wrong: I didn't make it up, and it does indeed "come from a dictionary as a source" - two dictionaries, in fact. I checked both the most widely-used dictionary in the United States, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the most widely-used dictionary in the United Kingdom, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, in order to get it. Here's how the Merriam-Webster defines "sex offender":
 * sex offender noun
 * Definition of sex offender
 * person who has been convicted of a crime involving sex
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex%20offender


 * And here's how the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines it:
 * sex offender noun
 * BrE /ˈseks əfendə(r)/
 * a person who has been found guilty of illegal sexual acts
 * https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sex-offender


 * And there you have it - not a "magical transformation definition" at all. Just a plain old common dictionary definition, I'm afraid.Lilipo25 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well my plain old Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ELEVENTH EDITION (c)2007 contains no definition for sex-offender as a hyphenated pair of words. It defines offend as "to violate a law or rule".  One is forced to add to the definition by adding the meaning of the suffix and the word "sex" if one is to come up with a definition for "sex-offender" by my plain old dictionary.  That is how I came up with the definition for sex-offender as "one who violates a sex law".  I intended it as the tactic of the plain honest truth.  I recognize that the internet dictionary definition for sex-offender has been in use by some people for some time.  That should be how the definition got reported by the internet dictionary.  We must live with the consequences of people using that definition.  I looked up murderer on Merriam-Webster.com and it at least agrees with my plain old paper dictionary.  It is "one who murders".  I had not anticipated that such definitions would be available to me on line without buying the service.  The internet definition of sex-offender might qualify as plain but I doubt that it is old.  We are faced with the prospect of it being possible for someone to be both a sex-offender and perfectly innocent of committing any sex offence at the same time since Innocence Project demonstrated that people can be perfectly innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. - Fartherred (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Firsty, I am confused about why you think that "sex offender" is hyphenated. It isn't, either in common use or in either of the two dictionaries that I just gave the links for (or, I would guess, any other dictionary).And secondly, if you click again on that first link to the Merriam-Webster definition and look at it, you will see this directly below the definition:


 * First Known Use of sex offender
 * 1911, in the meaning defined above


 * So that makes it clear that this definition of "sex offender" is indeed old. I don't know when it was first included in the M-W dictionary, but as I don't have a hard copy of the Eleventh Edition on hand to check, I am unable to verify your statement that it isn't in there one way or the other and will have to take your word for it. At any rate, it was in use under this definition over a hundred years ago, well before the internet was even a glimmer in Al Gore's eye. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I saw sex-offender with the hyphen somewhere while searching for related material. It would not be the first time I misspelled something. Thank you for taking my word that "sex offender" is not in my dictionary. It would be  between "sex object" and "sexology". That's where I looked and it is not there. I do not recall ever seeing "sex offender" in a dictionary. I have not been looking for it until just lately. I do not think we must document just how new or old "sex offender" is to dictionaries. The meaning is important to the article and It seems to me that both meanings are used. When editors wanted to have "convicted" modifying the meaning of "child sex offender" in the article they gave evidence that the meaning of "sex offender" does not always include "convicted". Otherwise there would be no need to add it separately. - Fartherred (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) The portion of child victims that know the offender is greater than 90%. The two share some established relationship. The portion of child abusers that are part of the child's family or closely associated with the family is greater than 70%. Pell was new to his position as archbishop, trying to meet people. It is very unlikely he was well known to the accuser. The headline grabbing news is often about an allegation of clerical abuse of a child or children. There is some reason behind this. Clergy who put forward rules against sexual impropriety are expected to model propriety. Sexual assaults from decades ago occurred in a social climate in which it was usual to hush up such crimes. Whether this was thought to be for the good of the child or not it happened and the Catholic church as part of this social climate hushed up sex offenses. Now they pay for it with clerical crimes being dug up from decades past even for dead priests. This keeps plentiful fodder for sensationalist news. With clerical abuse in the news so often many people get the idea that clerics are the main perpetrators. This sort of attitude could easily contribute to an innocent man being found guilty. If the jury is actually in error in Pell's case, then Wikipedia is contributing to the problem in letting an innocent cleric be presented as a sex offender. I want the article on Pell to hold off on naming Pell a sex offender until the appeal is decided and published to avoid what seems to me as harmfully distorted news. Sorry, I have forgotten how to format references in discussion. - Fartherred (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. this is a combination of original research (see WP:No original research) and personal opinion (see WP:Neutral point of view) and therefore violates two out of three of Wikipedia's core content policies.  It cannot be considered when editing a Wikipedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The assertion that sexual abusers of children are mostly members of their own family or familiar persons is well documented. I gave reference.  The assertion that Pell was not likely well known by the accuser would qualify as "original research" in the Wikipedia jargon.  It can not be published as an article.  Here in discussion it is just a statement that people can find more or less convincing for whatever point might be supported.  The assertion that clerical sexual abuse is more prominently reported in news sources than family member sexual abuse is a fact that I could support with citations if I were to do an extraordinary amount of work but it can be stated here in discussion with the assumption that readers of this material do not need the citations to know that it is a fact.  Discussions on ANI are not limited to statements supported by citation.  We should just be factual and stick to the point.  - Fartherred (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware that the assertion is documented - you misunderstand. You are doing research into percentages of sexual abusers who are related to their victims to try to prove here your assertion that Pell is likely not guilty of the crime of which he has been convicted. That is original research that cannot be used to determine the editing of a Wikipedia article - it does not relate directly to Pell or his case. It isn't up to you to argue his innocence through research and statistics about sexual abuse in general. That violates the WP:No original research core content policy. You have no idea how well-known he was to the accuser, and again, you are trying to prove his innocence with conjecture about the closeness of their relationship. It is never up to Wikipedia editors to try to prove guilt or innocence of those convicted of crimes. That is not being "factual" or "sticking to the point" at all; we are here (and this is the BPL Noticeboard, not ANI, btw) to discuss what can be included in the article, and nothing derived from your personal opinions or from original research can, so it's all pointless to argue it. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Pell’s status as a convicted child sex offender being accurately and impartially explained in the body of the article. I also have no objection to that fact being summarised in the lede. However, I object to it being mentioned in the first sentence in the lede, for two reasons. Firstly, Pell’s notability and his contribution to society are historically and primarily related to his roles in the church so these roles should constitute the first sentence. Secondly, Pell has appealed his conviction on the grounds of unreasonableness; the Appeal has been heard by three judges of the Appeal Court. We wait to hear their verdicts. The appeal process is a legitimate part of the criminal justice process so Wikipedia should give due deference to it by refraining from using the first sentence to proclaim Pell’s guilt while that guilt is being assessed by a Court.
 * If the Appeal Court rejects Pell’s appeal, it may then be appropriate to promote Pell’s conviction to the first sentence of the lede, but that is something we can discuss if, and when, Pell’s appeal is rejected. Dolphin ( t ) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to help the closing admin. If everyone has had their say, write that User:Fartherred is topic banned for two years from articles that deal with sexual assault or the legal response to sexual assault. Warn User:Fartherred that if the behavior is repeated results could be more severe. Take the usual steps to close an ANI and go on with you day. - Fartherred (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise - until the appeal result is announced - is to change the wording to "... an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church who was convicted of child sex offences and is currently appealing that conviction". This is undeniably true (he has been convicted) - and would be true even if the conviction is overturned in future. We can revert to the current wording if the appeal fails, or reword if it is successful. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very many convicted criminals are appealing their sentences, it doesn't mean much and isn't particularly worthy of mention anywhere in the lead. On the other hand I agree with removing this from the very first sentence of the lead. For example Idi Amin is known for his crimes but they are not clearly mentioned until the end of the lead. This may be incorrect in the Idi Amin article (I think it should be in the first paragraph of the lead because it's what he is known for), but there should be some consistency in this sort of thing. In both cases, I think the first few sentences should clearly describe what the person is best known for, flattering or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Idi Amin article and the George Pell article are both biographical Wikipedia articles. So, there is some reason for comparing the two.  However the fit is not perfect.  The Idi Amin article does not qualify for WP:BLP considerations because Idi Amin is dead.  I've seen no evidence of anyone suggesting that Idi Amin shares no guilt for the atrocities in which it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Ugandans died.  Many people are not convinced by the jury conviction of Cardinal Pell and have contributed to his legal defense to reverse what they see as injustice as indicated in THE Catholic Weekly  - Fartherred (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have highlighted there the big problem that must be mentioned, and I'm brave enough to do it. The Catholic Weekly, and most of those questioning Pell's guilt, can never be considered objective observers here. Their support for Pell is going to based on faith and religious love, not logic. So it is irrelevant that those people question the jury conviction. On this matter, that journal can certainly never be considered a reliable, independent source. Please stop wasting our time telling us what religious people believe about someone they have been repeatedly told to obey from the day they were born. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What are your grounds for writing “most of those questioning Pell’s guilt can never be considered objective observers here”? Do you have some objective position or evidence that supports this extraordinary statement? If not, surely it is just vulgar original research. Dolphin ( t ) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My grounds for writing that are simple logic. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Some atheists might maintain that religious people are all biased and only atheists can be objective. Religious people might disagree.  We cannot, on this page, settle the question of whether or not religion is an inescapable cause of bias and we should not try.  The prosecutor and the defense in the case are certainly biased, each for the job they are paid to do.  If the jury has made a mistake, it won't be the first time.  It should be reported that there is disagreement.  - Fartherred (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not argue that Pell is innocent, only that there are people that do argue that case. I do not argue that those questioning Pell's guilt should "be considered objective observers", only that there existence is reported by reliable sources.  The Guardian reported here that advertisements for donations to Cardinal Pell's legal fund are placed by the Sydney archdiocese.  - Fartherred (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * makes an argument that is a distortion of Wikipedia policy. WP:Reliable_sources states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."  So, in order to best represent differing views, including significant non-majority views, the biased publications of opposing organizations can be reliable sources.  They are reliable in reporting their own biased views.  - Fartherred (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your final sentence is true, but does not justify using them in Wikipedia. It would open a humongous, Pandora's box of worms. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course Idi Amin is dead, I was pointing out that the primary reference to the bad things he is known for is left until after a discussion of the rest of the major points - which you could argue bolsters your case because Idi Amin is under looser standards than a BLP. On the other hand if the bulk of primary reliable sources (about either Amin or Pell) are about the crimes I think it is hard to justify leaving it until the very end. Perhaps the second sentence, or just after the main context has been established. And if a person has been convicted of a crime is appealing and there is disagreement about the guilt, there needs to be equal coverage in mainstream reliable sources as of the allegations and conviction to justify including this in the same place of the lead. This is both a WP:DUE and WP:RS issue as well as WP:LEAD. Anyway, if Idi Amin is handled as deferentially or light-handedly as it is due to policy reasons, that only helps your argument. Notwithstanding, I propose the following:
 * George Pell (born 8 June 1941) is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church. He was convicted on 11 December 2018 of sexual offenses against juvenile boys in the 1990s. [...]
 * [...]
 * [...]
 * [...]
 * Pell lodged an appeal against his conviction on three grounds, including a claim that the jury verdict was unreasonable. The appeal was heard on 5–6 June 2019 and judgement has been reserved; meanwhile, Pell remains in prison.
 * With the mention of the conviction being the second sentence, and the appeal of the conviction being the last paragraph of the lead, since it is the most recent and deserves to stand out on its own. If there is significant RS coverage of doubts about his guilt there could be a brief mention in that last paragraph, but only very brief I would say. Any more details discussion can be left for the body of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some coverage of "doubt" about his guilt, but that doubt is not coming from reliable, independent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is considerable cause for doubting Cardinal Pell's guilt in the matter of alleged abuse of choir boys. The first jury could not come to a unanimous decision.  The jury is considered independent.


 * About the appeal, David Marr referred to the prosecutor as often having nothing to say in response to a judge's question. He referred to events in general as a "trainwreck".  Monsignor Charles Portelli had testified to being with Cardinal Pell at the time the crime is supposed to have taken place.  Cardinal Pell's legal defender said that the jury should have accepted Portelli's testimony as cause for reasonable doubt in the face of the sole witness of the alleged victim to the contrary.  Cardinal Pell said that the accusations were merely imagined.  At his sentencing hearing, written character reference from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard referred to Cardinal Pell's "exemplary character".  Altogether Pell's defense led by Bret walker offered 13 reasons for doubting guilt so the jury should not have been beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.  The prosecutors lack of answers for the judge is not a good sign for the prosecution.


 * - Fartherred (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Despite Fartherred‘s lengthy and comprehensive original research I’m convinced that “convicted child sex offender” should be prominently placed at the very top of the article with no mention that he is appealing the judgement, unless the appeal is victorious. This fact of his life is quite surprising given his career as a trusted religious figure, and shouldn’t be hidden in any way. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This has now been talked over extensively, and despite a great deal of original research by Fartherred arguing his innocence, Pell remains a convicted child sex offender and that is most likely at least partly why most people have heard of him. I see no reason to mitigate those facts in the article because of an appeal. Almost all felony convictions are appealed - if it's successful, it can then be added to the article. I would leave the description of him as a convicted child sex offender in the opening paragraph. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The abc.net.au source above did not put forward the idea that the first jury failing to come to a verdict was sign that the appeal might be successful. However the CNN piece definitely did put forward that the performance of Pell's defense was impressive in the appeal and the prosecution was faltering.  That is well documented from a reliable source, not original research.  If you look at the George Pell article talk page, you can see that the reason that it was deleted from the article was that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  - Fartherred (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, Fartherred, enough. You have made your argument about his innocence over and over, using a ton of original research. Multiple editors have told you that none of that can be used to edit the article, and everyone else has reached a consensus that as he is a convicted child sex offender, that should stay in the article and the information about the appeal can be added if he wins it. At some point, you just have to accept it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only is Pell a "convicted child sex offender", he's also a convicted child sex offender who is now in custody having been sentenced to six years in prison. You can't find any dictionary that gives a conclusion quite as clear as that. I'd suggest this thread should be closed now and a new one opened, if necessary, after the decision on his appeal has been announced. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)