This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
George Pell (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 24 August 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A news item involving George Pell was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
George Pell is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
George Pell is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
The summary of this archbishops Paige is seriously lacking. He has been accused of child sex abuse and went through a criminal trial. He’s been accused by more than one person. And he’s also been accused of covering up for other priest committing child sex abuse. This is not mentioned at all. I can’t lie, it makes me suspicious that someone might be removing edits to include this information and then locking the page to prevent it from being done now. There’s pending edits that mention his child sex abuse but how do we get those confirmed?
Matthewi (talk) 6:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The points you are trying to make here appear to be based entirely on your intuition and your impression of how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia has some very important guidelines that are relevant here, but you haven’t mentioned them, so we assume you haven’t taken them into account. If you wish to make your points in a persuasive manner you should study WP:PERPETRATOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Verify and WP:Notability (people) very closely, and explain how the missing information is consistent with these guidelines. Dolphin(t)09:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolphin51 Having read the policies you link to I see no relevancy to the issue of writing an appropriate lead section (assuming @User:Mathewi reference to "summary"), MOS:LEADBIO stipulates that relevant controversies should not be suppressed and that a lead must accurately reflect the content of article in its entirety. Given the content of this article, a neutral, evenly weighted lead section should reduce focus on his career and include substantial details of accusations, response, judgements and cultural legacy. James Bateaux (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
James Bateaux Thanks for your comments. You are at a disadvantage arguing in the abstract. I suggest you use your sandbox or this Talk page to show all interested Users what you have in mind for the lead of this article - write a draft of a revised lead and include the substantial details of accusations, response, judgements and cultural legacy. If you use your sandbox you can then use this Talk page to alert interested Users and invite their comments. If your draft wins the approval of interested Users it can be pasted into the article without amendment; if Users make comments and suggestions you can proceed as you wish. Dolphin(t)06:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming prominent persons in relation to Pell’s funeral service
We have seen a little edit warring over the naming of prominent persons who attended Pell’s funeral service in Sydney, and who did not attend. Hythlodayau and BoldGnome both deleted the information in its entirety, called it trivial and described it as a list of attendees.
If this was a list of attendees it would include Mrs Gladys Briggs of Wollongong. It did not! It is the naming of certain prominent figures who did attend the funeral service, where those figures are notable; and the naming of others who did not attend where one would expect them to have done so, thereby making it all the more notable. This underscores the fact that Pell remains a controversial figure, even after death.
The matter deserves a mature discussion on this Talk page. Users who have a view on the matter are encouraged to record their views here. Dolphin(t)00:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion. Just quickly, there was no edit warring (unless you consider your own edit as edit warring, which it isn't.). The list (no, it does not need to be complete in order to be a list) of attendees to his funeral is trivial. As I said in my edit, the attendance of Prime Ministers (and for that matter Opposition Leaders) probably does cross the line into being important information. Where it gets to Matt Canavan, Dan Tehan, Don Farrell, Alan Jones, Paul Kelly, and Nicholas Moore is where it really crosses into the "Who cares? Will readers in 10 years care? Probably not" territory. And the list of people who didn't attend his funeral, cited to a single sentence in one source.... I don't like the man either, and I get the motivation to include the prominent people who snubbed his funeral, but we're here to build an encylopedia. BoldGnome (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attendees and non-attendees at the funeral should only be mentioned if their actions were different from what would normally be expected. For example, Tony Abbott would have been expected by everybody to attend, and he did. There is nothing exceptional there, so mentioning him is rather pointless. The same goes for other high profile Catholics. If someone didn't attend and gave a reason for non-attending that included criticising Pell, that too would be worth a mention. Otherwise, keep the lists to a minimum. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list is too long: the set of those who attended could stop after Dutton. I'm not sure whether any of those who did not attend gave a reason, but if they did I expect it was, appropriately, very brief. Errantios (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I still feel that Tony Abbott hardly deserves a mention. Being a Catholic himself, and a very loud supporter of Pell, it would have been news if the hadn't attended. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Errantios "And the list of people who didn't attend his funeral, cited to a single sentence in one source.... I don't like the man either, and I get the motivation to include the prominent people who snubbed his funeral, but we're here to build an encylopedia." Do you disagree? "the current Australian Prime Minister"? Be reasonable. BoldGnome (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list might be put the other way around: that almost every one of the most prominent public figures who would have been expected to attend did not, while some other major public figures did. The reason to opt out was presumably Pell's poor showing in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, whose findings had been nationally traumatic. But I guess that this way around would be the reverse of the usual way and so could look biased. However, I would shorten "the current Australian Prime Minister" to "the prime minister" and put him after the GG (who would also be decapitalised). Errantios (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This suggested "expectation" element is original research unless you can find a sources that they were expected to attend but did not. To be clear about "the current Prime Minister" point, if it were to be included (which it shouldn't, based on the currently provided source), it should refer to the actual person who didn't attend (Anthony Albanese). The same goes for whoever the Governor General was at the time.
I wasn't proposing any unsupported assumptions, only offering some explanations relevant to the present purpose. In the same way, I will now add that I think it very doubtful that any of the opters-out would have referred to the quashed conviction as their reason; the presumption of innocence remained. I'm happy to name both opters-in and opters-out. The number of citations doesn't matter if they are reliable and the Sydney Morning Herald is a good source, although I have added the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) report.
The proposal from Errantios looks good to me. I’m in favour of acknowledging that there was a prominent figure or two who might have been expected to attend, but who did not. This is significant as it supports the idea that Pell was a controversial person. Dolphin(t)04:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that in order to include public figures who did not attend, we need a reliable source which verifies that there was an expectation that the public figure would attend (i.e. being invited) and a notable reason for their non-attendance (as opposed to, for example, unavailability). We don't have any reliable sources supporting either, so the inclusion of that list of people to "support the idea that Pell was a controversial person" is original research and in violation of Wikipedia's policies. But I can see that the local consensus here is pretty adamant and I really don't care enough about this matter to take it to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, so I'm withdrawing from this discussion, but this note may be helpful for future editors seeking to improve the article. BoldGnome (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it notable that the Lord Mayor of Sydney didn't attend the funeral? Is it an ex-officio act for her to attend the funerals of previous Catholic Archbishops of Sydney?
Why isn't it notable that the Archbishop Emeritus of Melbourne was absent? Denis Hart and George Pell were classmates, and friends, and close collaborators. Here is a public figure one would expect to be present.
Nothing in this discussion really counters my point that the list is arbitrary and non-encyclopaedic. But honestly, who cares? It's not important. Keep the list. Call me an "edit pacifist." Make tea, not war. Hythlodayau (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's really important that we make readers understand that George Pell was a controversial figure, and apparently "Handling of child sexual abuse cases by clergy while archbishop" and "Allegations of child sexual abuse" doesn't get the message across enough, so identifying that the Lord Mayor of Sydney at the time didn't attend his funeral makes it clear how the public felt about him. BoldGnome (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hythlodayau, the list is not arbitrary: it follows reliable sources. The Sydney Morning Herald report states at its end that the Lord Mayor of Sydney had attended the funeral of Pell's predecessor. One could OR about many people closely associated with Pell. Errantios (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
