Talk:George Pell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
| WikiProject Australia (Rated Start-Class) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
| WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
Post-rename discussion starts at #6 — Донама 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Piss Christ
Pell's comments in the wake of the smashing of "Piss Christ" in Melbourne need mention under "Controversies". - David Gerard 00:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free. Adam 07:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- Reference to use:
- http://artslaw.com.au/reference/piss974/ - Pell attempting to invoke the law of blasphemy - David Gerard 00:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- So write it already. Adam 01:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I know, I know. Here as a note to myself (or anyone else) to do in Copious Free Time - David Gerard 13:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Combining with George Pell article
Could we combine the histories of thsi and the George Pell articles?
Acegikmo1 03:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strikes me that the tone of this article seems a little off for an encyclopedic piece: "Pell is the most highly educated, sophisticated, articulate and outspoken Catholic prelate Australia has seen since the death of Archbishop Daniel Mannix of Melbourne." That's not a fact, it's an opinion. I admit that it caught my eye because it's not something I agree with, but I think my point is legitimate: statements like this one permeate the article, they are not factual, and need to be recast as objective representations of other people's opinions.
- Fair enough. I don't think there's too much dispute he's the most visible Australian Catholic bishop in decades; he's as big a media junkie as Peter Beattie or Allan Fels. His other merits are debatable and should be attributed. The challenge is to find attributable quotes to make those points. If you're lucky enough to have access, try poking around Lexis-Nexis (or Factiva). If nobody else does, I might see what I can find when I get time. --Robert Merkel 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christian teaching on sexuality
"Christian teaching on sexuality is only one part of the Ten Commandments, of the virtues and vices, but it is essential for human wellbeing [sic] and especially for the proper flourishing of marriages and families, for the continuity of the human race," Pell said upon becoming Archbishop of Sydney.
Is that 'sic' appropriate? By my understanding, the proper use of 'sic' is to clarify that an apparent error in transcribed text was not introduced in transcription - effectively "thus it was in the source". I get the impression the intended meaning here is "of course, Pell is wrong in claiming this", which is not an appropriate use of 'sic' (and would also be POV). There's nothing I can see in that quote that's likely to be mistaken for a transcription error... but maybe I've missed something? --Calair 23:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I belive that it may be simply that "well-being" is considered by some to be two words. I don't know; I've seen "wellbeing" around in some places - anyone care to consult a dictionary, etc? Even if it is an error, it's such a minor one, I don't know if it's worthy of a sic. Slac speak up! 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is clearly a "sarcastic sic" and should be removed. Adam 01:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the passage the anonymous user above objected to has been removed, I don't see any evidence of an ongoing POV dispute about this article, so I have removed the tag. Adam 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to "clerical celibacy" as a topic not open to discussion. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, and thus eminently changeable within the church and legitimately open to debate (though it is unlikely to happen anytime in the near future, I believe). Female ordination, on the other hand, is a settled doctrine taught by the magesterium of the Church, and isn't a matter of debate. Though I still think the notion that it "can't be discussed" is a bit strong, but I know what the original author meant. Dave Walker 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- He has made strong remarks against abandoning clerical celibacy, so I've re-added mention of this but (hopefully) fixed the wording to acknowledge the distinction you've pointed out. --Calair 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you hit just the right note. Though, in an overall sense, I still think the "controversies" section suffers from a non-NPOV problem, insofar as it shouldn't be considered controversial for a Catholic Cardinal to uphold Catholic teachings. I also recognize that the Church's teachings on matters of sexuality are a minority view in the world, so I can see how this POV came about. Dave Walker 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's just the fact that he upholds Catholic teachings that makes him 'controversial' (one of the most overused words in Wikipedia). Both in Sydney and in Melbourne, Pell seemed to be accompanied by a lot more commotion than other archbishops who, AFAIK, upheld the same teachings. IMHO, it has a lot to do with the way he expresses those teachings; his manner might be described as 'forthright', 'blunt', or 'tactless' depending on one's sympathies. --Calair 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can buy that. Bishops can forget that they are to be shepherds, who lead, rather than cowboys, who drive. Dave Walker 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think the page adequately explains this (e.g. mention of his outspoken and hierarchical approach in the 'Church Leader' section), or does it need to be clearer on the fact that it's not just the views but the presentation that makes the difference? --Calair 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sources are needed for the claim that Vatican reaffirmed the Catholic teaching that practising homosexuals were "seriously depraved". This is not my understanding of the stance of the Church; the 'official teaching' is on the Vatican website http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html, and describes homosexual acts as 'intrinsically disordered', but nowhere is the word 'depraved' used. Until this confusion is cleared up, perhaps the allegation shoudl be deleted from the article, as per Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material
- See the 2003 pronouncement on same-sex unions on the same site (emphasis mine):
- "Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition." There is perhaps a fine distinction to be made a judgement on practising homosexuals and a judgement on homosexual acts, and I've tweaked the wording accordingly, but that quote comes straight from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The excerpt from Hingston's letter should not have been tagged as 'citation needed' since the paragraph already gives a source for that letter. --Calair 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Church Leader' section
I'm not very happy with this passage (emphases mine):
He uses the media, particularly television, with great skill.
Pell combines this sophistication with strict adherence to Catholic orthodoxy. As his rapid promotion shows, he had the full confidence of Pope John Paul II and his closest advisers such as Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). Since the 1960s Australia has become one of the most secularised countries in the world, and Australians have become used to Christian leaders whose public utterances are confined to occasional exhortations to peace, love and charity. An Archbishop who strongly and capably expounds Catholic doctrines in matters of personal morality, and who exerts a strong top-down hierarchical discipline within the Church, has come as a shock to Australian Catholics.
Not flagrantly POV, but this seems a little more judgemental than I would like. What do others think? --Calair 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, well if you're going to pick those, I think "rapid", "one of the most secularised", "strong" and "has come as a shock" would be in the same boat. I'm in two minds: I can see what that para is getting at, and think something of that sort is appropriate to say, but I don't know how it can be phrased best. I'm tempted just to remove the bits that I disagree with as opinion, but that's probably not the best approach. Slac speak up! 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I removed them. Terms like that are inherintly unverifiable. Better to just mention the various mediums he has appeared on and let reader judge for themselves. Ashmoo 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name of this article???
Why is this article not named in accordance with Wikipedia policy ie George Pell? George Pell redirects here.--A Y Arktos 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump/January_2004_archive_4#Cardinals, I propose to rename this article in accordance with policy and that discussion. --A Y Arktos 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversies
I added some recent controversy stuff from 2006-05-05 news and also split it into sections because he is so controversial the controversies seemed to need some kind of categorisation! Feel free to reorder or rearrange. — Донама 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legatus Summit speech
At a speech delivered to Catholic Business leaders at the Legatus Summit in February 2006, Pell stated that the Koran is riddled with many invocations to violence that he stopped taking notes of them after about 50 pages. He also stated that in his personal opinion Islam is not a tolerant religion. (Note that the speech was made in February but was only released for general consumption in May.)
I'm no fan of Pell, but this is a good example of why it's better to go to the original source where possible. The ABC story cited as the source for this claim did not in fact say that. What it said was:
[Pell] also says that considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited.
That's accurate as far as it goes, but it only goes halfway. Context, from Pell's original speech:
Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited. To stop at this proposition, however, is to neglect the way these facts are mitigated or exacerbated by the human factor.
He then goes on to describe Indonesia as an example of moderate Islam. Overall, by my reading, the gist of the speech is not 'Islam is an intolerant religion' but 'Islam has a large intolerant element, and productive dialogue with moderate Islam requires acknowledging that fact'. I think reading the original text will make it clear to most editors why I think the current article text is POV, albeit unintentionally so. --Calair 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I rewrote the section and added some of Pell's previous remarks on Islam. I tried to keep as NPOV as possible, but I'm not sure how good a job I did of that. --Calair 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additions on paedophilia...
To the user who recently added some stuff relating to Pell's actions to deal with the problems of paedophilia within the church, I removed much of it as unattributed opinion (I don't think those opinions are universally held). If you can find some appropriate source to attribute them to, I'd be very happy to see them go back in. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relationship with Howard government
This part of the Controversies section really needs a bit more grounding in citeable facts - Pell has agreed with the Howard Government's policies where they agree with his, but describing him as a 'close ally' really needs evidence of a relationship beyond that. Also, cf Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - stuff like "Tony Abbott is considered to be the government's leading anti-abortion campaigner" needs to be sourced to somebody. --Calair 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PET
To the anonymous editor who added the section on 'Life Saving PET Controversy', I have removed your contribution because most of it was unverifiable, either hearsay or innuendo ('who is presumed to be known to Pell', etc). Also, the section made little sense. Please re-draft, including appropriate citations (a press release from a politician is not an appropriate citation for a claim that some technology is or is not 'life saving'), taking care for readability in English, and re-submit. (211.29.117.181 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
- Same problem again by the same anonymous editor (who has also doctored the Tony Abbott article). Failed to respond to talk requests. Section removed again, as per above. Please respond appropriately or you will be reported for vandalism. Also, deleted link to the Rainbow Sash Movement. The page linked had no information on or about Pell.(58.175.49.51 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
-
- Third instance of vandalism from the same ISP 219.73.57.228. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (58.175.49.51 08:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
[edit] World Youth Day
I was wondering if anyone else thinks that the section on World Youth Day is too long? Most of the discussion on World Youth Day is discussing the event rather than Pell himself. I think that it's quite unnecessary as WYD has its own article. Anyone else have thoughts on the issue?
