Talk:Raelene Sharp (barrister)

Non-encyclopaedic tone

Hi @AusPolSci: Thanks for your hard work on this article. While I can see there's so much great material here, I am concerned that it has crept towards a more Public Relations than WP tone. I wonder, if you read MOS:LEADBIO, WP:Wikivoice, or MOS:WTW, then compare the advice to what you have in the article, whether you might see some areas where you could walk back a little?

This type of phrasing, for example:

Ms. Sharp has over 20 years of experience in both domestic and international legal domains

comes across as promotional (which is why I removed it earlier). Also, we don't use WP:Honorifics or courtesy titles.

Encyclopaedic tone does not always come easily, and encyclopaedia entries can seem very dry and flat to fluent writers, but to my mind, the article is rather like something that would appear on a corporate website. Phrases like "criminal law guru" and even "taking silk" (which amounts to a term of art, and an unfamiliar one for many, even within the Commonwealth – and WP needs to be pitched at a global audience) are too informal; they also veer a little into subjective assessment or opinion stated in Wikivoice. I'm hoping you'll see what I mean and decide to make a few changes. Let me know if I can assist. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@AusPolSci: The out of place tone I refer to is not solely about "taking silk". I gave a couple of examples, but the tone as a whole concerns me.

About that specific example that you raised in your edit summary. It is your opinion that the phrase is common: I agree most – but not all – people in Australia, Britain, and other Commonwealth countries understand what it means: less so elsewhere. Be that as it may, in the context and manner you had it, it is not encyclopaedic in tone.

I appreciate the adjustment you made in reporting the Special Rapporteur's praise of Sharp – that is what I had in mind.

The reintroduction, whether in quotes or not, of "has over 20 years of experience in both domestic and international legal domains" is not encyclopaedic material expressed in this way (i.e., it is telling not showing. We should describe the twenty years and breadth of experience, not state it like this). Could I ask you to read WP:Wikivoice, MOS:WTW and some of the other links I've suggested, if you haven't already? Reading guidance like that is how I aligned my style to be more in line with WP's tone. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed this paragraph

Taking Silk and obtaining the highly prized and coveted title Kings Council/Senior Council, is a process that involves the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Anne Ferguson, consulting the heads of over 15 national and state judicial bodies to determine whether a legal professional whose skill, integrity, independence, and standing in the profession justify an expectation on the part of the public and the judiciary that they will provide outstanding services, as counsel, to the administration of justice. This process validated Raelene Sharp as a barrister of eminence and seniority.

Sorry: I haven't really waited long enough for you to take another run at it ... but it's not really the thing. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @AusPolSci: I was a little surprised that you did not feel it worthwhile to discuss your reversion reinsertion of much of the para that I removed, inclusive of the non-encyclopaedic tone I posted about, the one commencing: "Described as the... "ultimate prize for most barristers" (now with some phrases as quotations), (Special:Diff/1263326377 Special:Diff/1263324336) of my deletion, given I've posted twice here on the talk page with my concerns (and notified you on your talk page). Perhaps I was a little precipitate in my unilateral deletion, but I still hold that the paragraph is out of scope for an article on Raeleen Sharp. I understand you're trying to make it clear how senior she is and how important being appointed KC is, but one does that in the (linked, so readers can follow to those) senior counsel and King's Counsel articles, not here. At most, a very brief mention, along the lines of:

Sharp was appointed KC, the highest level for barristers in Australia, after meeting the stringent requirements of the [entity and position of person who decides, not the name, unless that person is well-known and it's highly relevant].

I probably acted too hastily, being disappointed so many of the (correct per WP:MOS) adjustments to links and citations had been undone, along with the deletion of WP:ALT text for the image (which was done by a bot). If, after reflection, you are unable to see my viewpoint, I can ask for another opinion here. Hope to hear from you in discussion. (Best not to "discuss", in the edit summaries, although I'm sometimes guilty of that myself!)AukusRuckus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) UPDATE: Very embarrassed that I included the wrong diff, now replaced. Nothing was implied or intended to suggest APS did anything against WP policy by my use of "reversion" – have altered to be more accurate. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not revert anything.

I wrote an entirely new paragraph and more references and citations. You may have concerns about the tone,. however I do not see that as justifying a deletion especially as the thing you were concerned about is context specific accurate language. This language was in the original paragraph.

I was stunned that you thought the original version was so bad it warranted immediate deletion. I repeat I did not revert anything and I would appreciate you acknowledge that your accusation is wrong.

Your absence of knowledge shows by your issues, you make a comment that the process of taking silk belongs in another article. This would be inappropriate and misleading as the process for taking silk is different in different jurisdictions. I documented the process as it applied to Raelene. I documented the words an links to the authoritative source as it applied to Raelene.

If the citations I provided aren't enough to give you the understanding required to comment on the article without incorrect assumptions then I am happy to provide more. Beyond that I have zero interest in engaging with someone who falsely claims I simply reverted a change which you recognise was made in haste. AusPolSci (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone. It was not meant as any kind accusation: I was using the term "revert" loosely, because I was engaging in what I had thought – up to this point – was a collegial discussion. There is no need to be so unfriendly. I thought I had commented to you in quite a reasonable manner: my apologies that I did not succeed in that endeavor.

I believe you have misconstrued what I was attempting to advise. Whatever the case, I do not expect to be met with personal attacks. Your characterisation of my knowledge, or lack thereof, is neither here-nor-there and is entirely out of place: it was intended as an explanation, not a fiat. It is entirely your decision if you do not wish to engage. I will ask for another opinion and will edit the article accordingly, in a collaborative way envisaged by WP policy. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No misconstruing, while someone of your expertise should not use the word reversion loosely, it is not relevant that your use was not the Wikipedia version.

To revert is to go backwards. I have only taken the article forwards.

I ask again, please apologise and acknowledge that I did not make any reversion, under any interpretation of the word reversion?

You have not understood the words, then you have said the words are a 'work of art' which they are not and then you say the detail belongs in other articles.

Can you please explain how your lose use of the word reversion applies to me rewriting a paragraph that you admit you should not have deleted and that you also took issue with based on your false claims of what the words mean, there use, appropriateness and context.

When you read what you have written you can see your issues jump all over the place;

Generic & broad  "Needs more work and better refs."

Taking Silk is work of art (Patently Absurd once you know what these words mean)

Taking Silk can be explained elsewhere (Patently Absurd once you know what these words mean)

Taking Silk is just one example (I see no examples of you offering alternative words, but I do see vaguely worded issues coupled with no improvement suggestions).

Can you please explain how me improving & rewriting the paragraph based on your addressing your issues as well as explaining the meaning, context & appropriateness of qualifications you did not know anything about along with adding more references and citations at your request is in anyway going backwards.

Note: do not take my decision not to waste more time replying to your other comments as me agreeing with them. AusPolSci (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@AusPolSci: ... um ... please, click on the link here → term of art (that I also provided above).

• There in no need to be so confrontational. I have done nothing untoward.
  • Now where did this come from?:

    Note: do not take my decision not to waste more time replying to your other comments as me agreeing with them

• I have no intention of doing anything other than following WP policy.

Please do not reply to me unless you can find it within yourself to moderate your tone. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You accused me of reversion. I did not revert.

Will you apologise for accusing me of reversions?

I will not include anything else in this message as I clearly need to break everything down into single point statements. AusPolSci (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No AukusRuckus (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Attempt at mediation

Yes, this has only been going on for only about a day, but you're seven indentation levels deep and nowhere near reaching consensus. Firstly, both of you need to cool down a bit. Saying I clearly need to break everything down into single point statements. or ... um ... please, click on the link here is not going to help anything get done.

Now that that's done, some statements. Please view all linked content (including diffs) before replying. In order of appearance:

1. @AusPolSci: you—although quite possibly unknowingly–did revert @AukusRuckus's removal of Sharp has over 20 years of experience in both domestic and international legal domains, but the diff referenced by @AukusRuckus above is irrelevant to this claim.
2. "Taking silk" would qualify as MOS:JARGON if it was in an article expecting a non-negligible quantity of readers from outside of the commonwealth (see WP:AUDIENCE, but see #3). That seems unlikely, given that Sharp doesn't seem to have been very notable outside of Australia and the one mainspace article linking here (Director of Public Prosecutions (Australia)) has "Australia" in the name. That still doesn't mean, though, that taking silk's meaning should be understated in the article or that a wikilink to King's Council (even though its already linked elsewhere) shouldn't be added to help the small (but extant!) population of readers who may come here and not know what it means to "take silk". But do note that readers will likely not come to this article for a complete description of the process Sharpe underwent to "take silk". Telling them Sharpe underwent something along the lines of "extensive review by national and state judicial officials to determine the quality of her judicial services" will certainly be enough to satisfy most readers. Additional resources can be linked in § Further reading to satisfy those readers who do want to know more. From WP:Purpose: Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a tertiary source and provides overviews of a topic by indicating reliable sources of more extensive information (emphasis added). Please keep that in mind.
3. @AusPolSci: if you believe @AukusRuckus has an absence of knowledge seen in their edits, it may (or may not) be a problem with the article not covering enough information. If @AusPolSci is part of this article's WP:AUDIENCE (I can't tell from their userpage), then "taking silk" is jargon and needs to be better defined here. But again, that's only if the aforementioned possibilities are true; otherwise, again, "taking silk" may only require a wikilink.

I will not argue any points other than these (whether for or against). By the way, I'm American, so to me "taking silk" means "robbing a clothing store", so I'm assuming that the meaning of "taking silk" is known well known to the average Australian. If not, please tell me. Thank you.

     — Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) Please do not ping on reply. 23:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What an absurd waste of time. I did not revert anything & now I am spending more time pointing out patently absurd claims because AukusRukus ??? I will let AukusRukus explain why he is doing this,

1.     I am now trying to decode specialdiff links which do not show reversion or the word 'taking silk'

2.     It is AukusRukus who admitted he should not have deleted the content in haste.

3.     It is AukusRukus who has deleted content he had no idea about and is now trying to reverse engineer a justification for his hasty actions

4.     It is AukusRukus who walked back his reversion claim

5.     The idea that we are now arguing on the use of ‘taking silk’ is a distraction from AukusRukus deleting what he shouldn't have deleted & taking issue with words and topics he knew nothing about. I am confident he knew nothing about the topic as his comments have contradicted each other and lacked basic logic, for example;

a.     AukusRukus said "needs to be pitched at a global audience" but then proceeds to try using the phrase kings council which would not be known anywhere outside the commonwealth.

b.     AukusRukus then says it [taking silk] should be described in another article, this again is illogical as the process is unque to Victoria. Anyone who read the references would know this. taking silk" (which amounts to a term of art

c.     AukusRukus then takes issue with the phrase "legal guru", however this term appears on other wikipedia articles and is clearly linked to a citation to show that the opinion is not mine.

6.     AukusRukus continues to argue about how big the public understanding of taking silk is. Despite it being clear AukusdRukus didn’t know what he was talking about I made further adjustments to satisfy his concerns.

7.     Despite this I did respond and changed the paragraph to both contextualise the award/achievement of 'taking silk' as well as give the reader a view from both the legal profession (Victorian & Australian Bar) and general public (newspaper)

8.     AukusRukus continues to bring new concerns, this time he says 'over 20 years experience' is inappropriate language.

a.     I disagree on whether this is not appropriate wording, however arguing the nuances of language with someone who hasn’t bothered to understand what ‘taking silk’ means would be an exercise in futility.

b.     It is simpler to show that the exact phrasing I am using is already in use on other Wikipedia articles (example Debi Prasad Pal). Perhaps AukusRukus can tell us why his so vehently against the phrase for Raelene, but never bothered to check if other Wikipedia articles also have used this non-compliant language. Example  Banerjee (actor).

9.     AukusRukus makes the admission that he acted with haste and did not know what taking silk is (AukusRukus Exact words "Sorry: I haven't really waited long enough for you to take another run at it ... but it's not really the thing. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] "). Worthwhile asking what could possibly motivate AukusRukus to so urgently delete this paragraph. I would expect that if I swore or vandalised a globally known high profile person then my content would be deleted. What could possibly justify the impulsive and almost allergic intolerance AukusRukus has to Raelene?

10.  AukusRukus then demonstrated a continued ignorance of the topic when he says "but I still hold that the paragraph is out of scope for an article on Raeleen Sharp". It is impossible, ludicrous and downright offensive to say a paragraph on Raelene obtaining the highest level of qualification and recognition in the legal profession is "out of scope".

11.  Checkpoint summary of AukusRukus positions to date on taking silk:

·      Its written in the wrong tone,

·      a work of art,

·      a general award to be linked elsewhere

·      out of scope.

12.  AukusRukus then demonstrated a continued ignorance by saying; "I understand you're trying to make it clear how senior she is and how important being appointed KC is, but one does that in the (linked, so readers can follow to those) senior counsel and King's Counsel articles, not here. At most, a very brief mention, along the lines of Sharp was appointed KC, the highest level for barristers in Australia, after meeting the stringent requirements of the [entity and position of person who decides, not the name, unless that person is well-known and it's highly relevant]."

13.  To start with AukusRukus has attached a motivation to what I am doing which is irrelevant, wrong & offensive. By ascribing this motivation in an attempt to say why what I am doing is motivated not by accuracy, usefulness, reliability etc. but rather an attempt to artificially puff up the article AukusRukus is delegitimising the facts and me. This then leads onto his next display of ignorance and lack of interest in reading the substance of what I had posted. He now thinks taking silk is the same across Australia, I refer to my previous comment explaining how the process if state based and subject to the serving chief justice of the time.

14.  It is not correct to say "stringent requirements" as the requirements are not hurdles for the barrister to meet, it is a process that is crafted by the chief justice in order to achieve confidence the person reflects the high status and reverance that the position holds. This is why I make it clear what the process involves and do diminish the process by referring to them simply as requirements. I did not describe them as requirements because they are not requirements.

15.  At this point it is a farce, AukusRukus is floundering around trying to argue taking silk doesn’t belong, its informal, its unknown, its jargon, all in an attempt to justify his decision to get involved in something he knew nothing about.

16.  It is AukusRukus as you will note who claims he was "using the term "revert" loosely", because I was engaging in what I had thought" Its implausible to think an experienced wikipedian would write something that is structured as; "you reverted after i posted concerns twice." AukusRukus exact sentence is; "I was a little surprised that you did not feel it worthwhile to discuss your reversion (Special:Diff/1263326377) of my deletion, given I've posted twice here on the talk page with my concerns (and notified you on your talk page)."

17.  AukusRukus is literally attaching a link to a difference between two versions and says the word reversion but says his use of reversion is not the wikipedian version of reversion. When I pointed out that I did not revert anything AukusRukus walked back his claim by saying he wasn't using the wikipedia version of the word 'reversion'.

I have lost all energy or interest. Delete whatever you want and be happy knowing that you have used your expertise, experience to kill any enthusiasm newbies might have towards contributing to this platform. AusPolSci (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this being escalated? I do not understand any of this. After the first, I made no further changes and indicated I did not intend to do so, unless general editor opinions endorsed them. I do not believe I have done anything so horrible – being human aside – as to receive this level of opprobrium.

Please, please, I am begging: not a "work of art", a "term of art", which is to say specialised language, professional jargon. Reversions are legitimate. Good editors can and do revert! (So, I used the term wrongly in your eyes: still not an insult nor meant to offend.)

I do not wish to keep engaging. The tone used in discussing all of my myriad faults and offences, my ignorance and illogicality, does not rise to the level WP:PA; nevertheless, it's hard not to feel personally attacked; I made a genuine attempt to discuss, however ill-done. (I am still surprised how much a WP kerfuffle can devastate: I should be immune to feeling this level of upset by now). AukusRuckus (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. (likely tomorrow afternoon) – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 01:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ooh yay! Both major participants in the discussion scared each other off! Before I, too, take leave of this place (there's no one left, after all...) I, too, will make a final statement. Cross that... I'm probably just shouting into the Mariana Trench at this point... – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) Please do ping on reply. 21:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References