Talk:George Pell

Summary of this archbishops Paige

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)