Talk:George Pell

Mention subject's pedophilia conviction earlier in article

I would propose that the three most famous things about Pell are #A: he was a high-ranking Catholic archbishop, #B: he was convicted of pedophila while in this high position within the Church (a remarkale action almosrt unknown around the world), #C: his actions to discredit victims of Church pedophilia. In constant rewrites of this article, #B and #C have been demoted to around mention #20 and later, after trivial mentions of his various medals (all internal to the Church, and all awarded prior to Pell's pedophilia convinction). This carries a clear indication and perception of bias. The 2nd and 3rd most prominent things about the suject should be restored to para #1, and changes should be protected. Errolhunt (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

"#B: he was convicted of pedophila". And, er, acquitted on appeal. Leave as is. Errantios (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly correct in that we see a “clear indication and perception of bias.” That bias is evident on this Talk thread when we read the initial post by Errolhunt! Yes, Pell was found guilty by a jury, but anomalously, with zero evidence except the accusations of his accuser. No evidence was presented to support the notion that a crime had occurred in the place and the manner described. The narrative presented to the jury was that horrendous offending occurred to two boys a decade earlier but neither boy said anything to anyone at the time. The High Court of Australia saw a miscarriage of justice and quashed all convictions.

At the time of the conviction Pell was not an Archbishop; he was a Cardinal. We always aim to get the facts right.

His actions to discredit victims of church paedophilia? I’m not aware of that and I see nothing about it in our article. Dolphin (t) 22:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Errolhunt I agree that this article treats a person who was found liable for paedophilia by a formal government body with kid gloves. This made sense while the subject was protected by WP:BLP, but given that the subject has been deceased for quite a while, I think there is a case to be made that the article should take the gloves off and treat the subject’s crimes, which he reasonably likely committed, with the gravity they deserve. Melmann 07:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the lead is perhaps a little bit two long. We should reduce it down to 3 paras and the conviction, payout by the redress scheme should be in the first para. That is as long as we also include that he was acquitted by the high court in the first para. I dare say that outside of Australia, he is probably most known for the paedophilia conviction. TarnishedPath^talk 08:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I propose the following to become the new lead:

George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse and served 404 days in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. On appeal the convictions were quashed by the High Court of Australia in the decision Pell v The Queen. In January 2025 it was announced that the Australian National Redress Scheme, a non-judicial program, had accepted that Pell abused two boys in Ballarat in the 1970s, with compensation paid to one of the boys five weeks prior to Pell's death. According to findings released by Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it. Pell said he was "surprised" and that the royal commission's findings "are not supported by evidence."

Pell served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018. Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, he was made a cardinal in 2003. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining an adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.

Pell worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in the 2005 Queen's Birthday Honours. During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism.

This wording is in my view in keeping with MOS:LEAD. How do people feel about that? TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have read the proposal for a new lead, written by Tarnished Path. I don’t see anything to recommend it. One of Wikipedia’s overarching principles is that it should be written from a WP:NPOV. This draft is not neutral - it displays a very clear agenda - present Pell in a way that gives priority to negative aspects of his biography. For example, the proposed first paragraph focuses on “Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse …” This may be true historically but it is untrue legally. Legally speaking, there is no conviction against him for child abuse crimes so Wikipedia must not make a statement to the contrary as proposed in the draft lead.

Wikipedia aims to give appropriate weight to all topics, and to avoid giving undue weight etc. See WP:WEIGHT. The proposed emphasis on mention of Pell in judicial and legal documents constitutes undue weight, and displays a clear agenda that is not consistent with anything written about Wikipedia’s roles and objectives. Dolphin (t) 11:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read those policies before mischaracterising my suggestion as an attempt to push a non-neutral edit. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Tarnished path is proposing making the second sentence in the lead a sentence saying “In 2018 Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse and served 404 days in prison, much of it in solitary confinement.” That is a most significant promotion - from its current position in the lead to the second sentence!

And what does Tarnished path say to explain the proposal for such a significant promotion? On 8 May Tarnished path posted: I think the lead is perhaps a little bit two long. We should reduce it down to 3 paras and the conviction, payout by the redress scheme should be in the first para. Are we being invited to believe that this promotion to the second sentence is because the lead is a little bit too long? If so, I don’t believe it.

We don’t know exactly the motivation, but it looks like a desire to maximise the prominence of Pell’s legal and other misdemeanours. To many critical readers this will look like an agenda that is not consistent with Wikipedia’s goals and guidelines. The biography of Pell is much more than his misdemeanours. Dolphin (t) 14:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

In my initial statement I wrote both that the lead is a bit long and that we should bring the convictions, subsequent acquittal and stuff about the redress scheme to a more prominent placing.

What I've proposed above is 332 words, whareas the current lead is 400 words. So what I propose meets what I stated in reducing words.

Additionally what I propose moves content from the 4th paragraph to the first paragraph. Those things I stated above. This is supported by MOS:FIRSTBIO. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath: You asked me to read MOS:FIRSTBIO. I have done so, but haven’t found anything that it is helpful in the present debate. What sentences or paragraphs do you find relevant?

Further on, at MOS:CONVICTEDFELON it provides helpful guidance regarding the lead in articles about persons whose notability is primarily that they have been convicted of a crime. It states:

The description and its placement should not give undue weight to the crime.

At the end of MOS:CONVICTEDFELON it states:

If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability it may be undue to mention in the lead at all.

Given that Pell does not stand convicted of a crime, how significant is that non-crime to his notability? This quotation suggests it may be undue to mention Pell's wrongful conviction in the lead.

Our article on Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton offers a little assistance in deciding how this subject might be treated, although Chamberlain's notability for Wikipedia’s purposes is entirely due to her wrongful conviction for murder. This article begins:

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton is a New Zealand-born Australian woman who was wrongly convicted in one of Australia's most publicised and notorious trials.

Would you be willing for the first para of your draft lead to describe Pell simply as someone ”who was wrongly convicted in one of Australia's most publicised and notorious trials?” Dolphin (t) 12:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That would involve downplaying the Royal Commission's findings. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

From MOS:FIRSTBIO The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.

The criminal conviction and subsequent jail time very much falls into that given the bulk of coverage. I'm open to something like what you suggest; however, I'm just cognisant of the fact that Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton is not an article that is in very good shape, so I don't think we should take too many ques from that. I'll see if I can draft something up later which has wording sort of like that, but is neutral. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dolphin51, see the following where I have moved facts around to give greater emphasis to the fact that he was later acquitted.

George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal by the High Court of Australia in Pell v The Queen. Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served 404 days in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. In January 2025 it was announced that the Australian National Redress Scheme, a non-judicial program, had accepted that Pell abused two boys in Ballarat in the 1970s, with compensation paid to one of the boys five weeks prior to Pell's death. According to findings released by Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it. Pell said he was "surprised" and that the royal commission's findings "are not supported by evidence."

Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, Pell was made a cardinal in 2003. He worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018.

Pell was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in the 2005 Queen's Birthday Honours. During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism. A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining an adherence to Catholic orthodoxy.

I can't really think of a way to add similar wording to the Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton without veering into editorialising. Ps, I've re-order some stuff from 2nd and 3rd paras from what I proposed above. This mostly maintains the wording from the current lead and could probably do with some work. For now I'm just proposing changing things up and making it slightly shorter. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Some suggestions for tweaks. (1) Change "in Pell v The Queen" to "in 2020". (2) Change "404 days" to "more than a year" (this just a lede). (3) Change '"... evidence."' to '"... evidence".' (4) Change "in the 2005 Queen's Birthday Honours" to "in 2005" and move that sentence to end of paragraph. Errantios (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

FYI, this is what the lead sentence said in March 2025 (this mention in the lead sentence was later shifted to after myriad internal church facts in an edit by user 3Kingdoms on 18 Dec 2025).

George Pell AC (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. He was made a cardinal in 2003. Since 2002, he faced recurring accusations of sexual abuse , although his subsequent sexual abuse conviction was quashed on appeal to the High Court of Australia. Errolhunt (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll write up a draft taking into your suggested tweaks later on tonight @Errantios. TarnishedPath^talk 22:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, here's another draft. Sorry I took a little while.

George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal by the High Court of Australia in 2020. Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served more than a year in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. In January 2025 it was announced that the Australian National Redress Scheme, a non-judicial program, had accepted that Pell abused two boys in Ballarat in the 1970s, with compensation paid to one of the boys five weeks prior to Pell's death. According to findings released by Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it. Pell said he was "surprised" and that the royal commission's findings "are not supported by evidence".

Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, Pell was made a cardinal in 2003. He worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018.

During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism. A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining an adherence to Catholic orthodoxy. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2005.

Pinging @Dolphin51, @Errantios, @Errolhunt, @HiLo48 and @Melmann. TarnishedPath^talk 05:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's fine. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made the change. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like an important difference there is that sources generally agree that she was not guilty (by which I mean that she actually didn't do it, nothing about court findings) which doesn't seem to be the case for Pell.

That said, I do think it's important to get the acquittal as close to the conviction as possible (which this wording seems to achieve). ~2026-24172-29 (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Errolhunt's proposal, as to point #B, IMO is misconceived. It is indeed a fact that Pell "was convicted of pedophila". Moreover, he was imprisoned as a consequence. These are important facts about Pell. Another important fact about him is that the conviction was quashed on appeal. That fact reduces the importance of the others. Their importance remains high, but there is no longer a scandal of a prince of the Church being a convicted pedophile.

There is scandal, of the same kind, in the finding of the National Redress Scheme. However, it is necessary to consider how much weight should be placed on that finding. The Scheme has applied a standard of 'reasonable likelihood'; this, although in the present context presumably high, is not as high as the standard applied by the High Court, the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This is not to disparage the Scheme's finding—it is indeed scandalous. It is just to emphasise that the Scheme's finding should not be understood to supersede entirely the finding of the High Court. It is not true to say simply that Pell "was convicted of pedophila while in this high position within the Church". Thus, regarding point #B, IMO there is no reason to alter the article. Errantios (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The lede in its current form is completely unacceptable and needs to be changed it does not pass NPOV. I concur with what Errantios has said. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms please elabourate on exactly how it doesn't pass NPOV. Please note that the lead was arrived at through the comments of a number of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 21:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead you put had the confirmed support of one person. That is not enough to completely change a long standing article. There is no consensus for the change made on May 17. Until it can be established the article should return to what is was prior to that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. I see support from Hilo, Errolhunt, Errantios, Melmann and myself. I'm restoring the lead as was workshopped/agreed on. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The only case of affirmative support I see for the change is Hilo. That is not consensus. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have only come across this discussion today, can somebody recap why the lead introduces Pell as if he was notable for being an acquitted sex offender rather than as a cardinal? It also has only one sentence on his views and public commentary which does not reflect the level of detail in the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally am not sure. The fact that Pell was such an important/ high ranking official in the Church is part of the reason his trial was so big. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Lead size and ordering

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In evaluating consensus for the two questions posed, I have imputed opinions based not just on explicitly-bolded votes but also on comments writ large and suggestions for lead replacements.

MOS:LEADLENGTH gives suggestions, not rules, as to the said lead length, and as most arguments regarding this question boil down to "it's too long" as opposed to "no, it's fine", we default to !vote-count (7-4, one of the 4 being weak) to determine consensus for the question; it is to shorten the lead. I will note that the replacements discussed all comprised three paragraphs, that some of these replacements saw explicit support, and one !vote explicitly supported a three-paragraph lead.

Discussion regarding the second question is much more evenly split (5-6 against). It revolves around appropriateness of placing his fall from grace owing to accusations, given that he was acquitted by the High Court of Australia. There's also a question of weight; that is, whether he was known mainly for his actions as/being a cardinal or whether he was known for being the target of the aforementioned accusations. I read no consensus here largely per !vote-count, as these arguments seem decent; some others not mentioned are much weaker.

All proposed replacements for the lead then are rendered moot by this lack of consensus, have themselves failed to gain traction and thus consensus, or both. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 08:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the lead:

1. be reduced in length to approximately 350 words and three paragraphs in length, and
2. be reordered such that Pell's conviction for child sex offences and subsequent aquital are in the first paragraph?

See Special:Permalink/1357711572 for example which would achieve the above proposal.

See WP:RFCBEFORE in the above discussion.

Pinging involved editors: @3Kingdoms, @5225C, @Dolphin51, @Errantios, @Errolhunt, @HiLo48, @Melmann TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes to both: The lead size is currently 384 words and 4 paragraphs 400 words (according to MS Word) and 5 paragraphs in length, which is pushing up against the edges of what is suggested at MOS:LONGLEAD. Reducing it down to approximately 350 words will make it easier for our readers to access key facts about Pell. Additionally per MOS:FIRSTBIO, we should reorder the placement of events in the lead to reflect that the accusations of child sexual abuse, conviction and subsequent aquital reflect a lot of the coverage of Pell. I'd put the argument that outside of Australia that it is what he most known for, aside from having been a cardinal. I propose that we adopt the diff that I have linked above as it achieves these aims. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• I agree that the wording of the proposed lead is basically fine, but I disagree with (1) the order and (2) the lack of detail on Pell's other work. I would remove the sentence on the redress scheme (which is not relevant to the lead) and move that paragraph to being the second if not third and final. I would also expand the sentence on his views to note his well-publicised commentary on current affairs. I fundamentally disagree that Pell is primarily notable for being accused and acquitted of child sex offences, he was always and is primarily known as a cardinal and senior Vatican official. As mentioned by 3Kingdoms, the entire affair would not have attracted so much attention if Pell had not been an cardinal. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • So to answer the RfC questions, (1) Yes (2) No. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  In the example wording I linked above, that he was a cardinal is in the first sentence. I don't think anyone could deny that is what he is most notable for; however, given the weight of coverage, it is clear to me that the allegations, conviction and subsequent aquital should follow soon after the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 01:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I'm up for your suggestion of removing the redress scheme from the lead and using the saving to potentially add about his views. At present though the lead has the following in the first para: "He was also an author and columnist. A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues, while retaining an adherence to Catholic orthodoxy". I don't believe that placement is justified by the weight of sourcing, particularly the content on him being an author and columnist. TarnishedPath^talk 01:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  He is NOT most notable for being a cardinal. Most non-Catholic Australians (the majority) probably cannot name another cardinal, but they know about Pell because of his paedophilia. They would not have a clue about his "other work". It's of no significance outside the church. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  That may be more true for non-Australians (most of Wikipedia's readers); however, I haven't suggested or proposed that we remove that he was a cardinal from the first para. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  And rightly so. Although, what's a cardinal to a non-Catholic? HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Quite important. Pell was one of the most well known cardinals in the world. His appointment to handle Vatican finances was a major deal. He received honors from the Australian government. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, he did, but lots of people receive honors from the Australian government. It doesn't automatically make them important to most Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but you could make the same argument about many public intellectuals and college presidents. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I propose the following:

  George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, Pell was made a cardinal in 2003. He worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018.

  In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal by the High Court of Australia in 2020. Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served more than a year in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. According to findings released by Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it, findings Pell disputed. During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism.

  He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018. A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues in Australian current affairs and the Church. He advocated adherence to Catholic orthodoxy and was a critic of Pope Francis. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2005.

  For HiLo48's assertion that Pell wasn't primarily notable as a cardinal and that his work is "of no significance outside the church", I cannot see how that has any merit at all. This article existed before Pell's trial and as far as I'm aware every known cardinal in Catholic history has an article. You don't need public prominence to be notable. The lead is meant to provide a holistic overview of the subject, and Pell did not spontaneously appear as a public figure in 2016 and disappear in 2020. By comparison, most people know of OJ Simpson because of his trial, but his article correctly introduces him as an athlete (even though he, unlike Pell, was actually convicted of a crime). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  You have gravely misrepresented what I wrote and headed off on several off-topic tangents. That makes further sensible discussion very difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  • No, I haven't, you were very specific. He is NOT most notable for being a cardinal, and his "other work" [is] of no significance outside the church. That was your first contribution to the RfC. How did you intend for that to be interpreted? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I support this as a second option as it is an improvement over the current lead. I do however think that my option is preferrable.

  You've made somewhat of an argument supporting my proposal. Although O. J. Simpson was convicted of later crimes, he was acquitted of murder by virtue of his lawyer masterfully utilising the Chewbacca defense. Notably for that article, it has content about the murder charges and acquittal in the first paragraph, exactly as I'm proposing here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  However that is not how Pell was acquitted. The high court unanimously said based on the evidence it was very likely an innocent man was convicted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Acquitted is acquitted. What is relevant for our purposes is the weight of coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  You cited that OJ used the “Chewbacca defense” which is irrelevant to the question of Pell. He was acquitted on the basis the high court thought he was probably innocent. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  My reference to the "Chewbacca defence" was an aside. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm amenable to adding a sentence to the first paragraph along the lines of "Pell came to public prominence after facing accusations of child sex offences" to lead into the second paragraph. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  That would probably work. However, the wording would need tweaking. The word "prominence", by itself, doesn't really work. He was already widely known to the public, at least in Australia. Perhaps something like "Pell gained wider public prominence after facing accusations of child sex offences". TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  • No objections from me. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

    So something like:

    George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, Pell was made a cardinal in 2003. He worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018. Pell gained wider public prominence after facing accusations of child sex offences.

    In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal by the High Court of Australia in 2020. Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served more than a year in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. According to findings released by Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it, findings Pell disputed. During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism.

    He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018. A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues in Australian current affairs and the Church. He advocated adherence to Catholic orthodoxy and was a critic of Pope Francis. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2005.

    As I stated above I'd rather frontload the stuff where there is a weight of coverage, but I wouldn't kick and scream if this was the outcome. Ps, I'd also suggest removing all citations from the lead per MOS:LEAD. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

    • I agree with this draft (and removing citations). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by RfC bot) To the first question: I support reformatting the lead into 3 paragraphs. It currently has a single-sentence paragraph at the start, and a two-sentence paragraph at the end, which can be merged into the others. I don't think it needs to be capped at 350 words, though. This article is very long, and MOS:LEADLENGTH only suggest that FAs have leads of 250 to 400 words. The lead is currently 412 words by my count. So, trimming 12 words is sufficient to bring it in line with the suggestion (not requirement) of LEADLENGTH.
  On the second question, I oppose putting his criminal conviction, which was overturned, in the first paragraph. We need to be very careful when labelling someone as a criminal, especially when he legally is not a criminal. 5225C's version above is in line with my expectations, and I would support using it as the lead. Toadspike [Talk] 08:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose both. I think the current lede length is fine. The longer first paragraph devoted to the abuse allegations makes the lede unbalanced and messes with the chronological order typically used. Pell was widely known in Australia prior to any allegations being made, making frequent media appearances and arguably being Australia's best-known Catholic official. I think the O. J. Simpson article is a good example of how to handle instances where contested allegations (i.e. without a criminal conviction) are made about an already prominent public figure. I would suggest a brief mention in the first paragraph (which should only be a few sentences in total), e.g. "in his final years he was the subject of multiple allegations of child sexual abuse. He served over a year in prison in relation to one allegation, before his convictions were overturned on appeal". Full details then following later in the lede to maintain chronological order. Some mention of the controversy over suppression orders would also seem appropriate. I T B F 📢 07:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by RfC bot) I agree with shortening the lead. I like the draft proposed by Tarnished Path, except that it's not in chronological order, and has some repetition. I appreciate that in some cases we order things in the lead by weight, not chronology, but it reads oddly to me that there is the paragraph about child sexual abuse, and then the final line in the lead section would go back to his Order of Australia; I think a reader doing a quick skim might miss the 2005 date and go "Wait, what?"

How about this version:

George Pell (8 June 1941 – 10 January 2023) was an Australian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Ordained a priest in 1966 and bishop in 1987, Pell was made a cardinal in 2003. He worked as a priest in rural Victoria and in Melbourne and also chaired the aid organisation Caritas Australia from 1988 to 1997. Pell served as the eighth Archbishop of Sydney (2001–2014), the seventh Archbishop of Melbourne (1996–2001) and an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne (1987–1996). He served as the inaugural prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy at the Vatican from 2014 to 2019 and a member of the Council of Cardinal Advisers from 2013 to 2018.

A conservative, Pell maintained a high public profile on a wide range of issues in Australian current affairs and the Church. He advocated adherence to Catholic orthodoxy and was a critic of Pope Francis. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2005.

Pell gained wider public prominence after facing accusations of child sex offences. In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal by the High Court of Australia in 2020. Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served more than a year in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. According to findings released by Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2020, Pell knew of child sexual abuse by clergy by the 1970s but did not take adequate action to address it, findings Pell disputed. During his tenure as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell set up the "Melbourne Response" protocol in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in the archdiocese. The protocol was the first of its kind in the world and was subjected to a variety of criticism.

I would also take out cites from the lead paras. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

But add at end:

In 2025 it was announced that the Australian National Redress Scheme, a non-judicial program, had accepted that Pell had abused two boys, including rape, in the 1970s, with compensation paid to one of the boys in question five weeks prior to Pell's death.

Errantios (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of any reference to the redress scheme in the lead. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A reputable inquiry has found that Pell sexually abused two boys, including rape, and recommended payment of substantial damages. Unless one dismisses this finding - giving a reason to do so - Pell is disgraced. This finding is therefore sufficiently important to be mentioned in the lede. Errantios (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The redress program isn't capable of convicting someone of anything, let alone rape. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

How does that answer my point? Errantios (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The "finding" doesn't carry the weight you think it does, and would only be included in the lead to suggest Pell was guilty of an offence an actual court had acquitted him of. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The inquiring body was not a court, did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt and was not able to imprison. Nevertheless, it is a highly reputable body which found a high probability that Pell, on an occasion completely separate from what he was prosecuted for, had committed rape of a child. That was actually a criminal offence, worse than "an actual court had acquitted him of". He had done something extremely harmful to a child and extremely disgraceful for himself, the disgrace being greater because of his clerical office and all the greater because of his very high office at the time of the finding. To spell it out: the Pope's deputy was found to have anally raped a boy; and he avoided massive scandal just by dying. Unless this finding is in the lede, it can seem in the lede that there is a consensus that Pell was a martyr. The finding has to be mentioned. Errantios (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't actually a criminal offence because "inquiring bodies" can't make findings of criminal guilt unless the "inquiring body" in question is a court. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Pell was found to have done things that can be categorised as criminal. They might have been prosecuted as crime. To my recollection, that was because (as often in sexual assault cases) the evidence was thought not to meet the standard of being beyond reasonable doubt. The inquiry found that it did meet the standard of 'reasonable probability'. That standard is applied by courts in civil cases, including for example civil cases of assault; in the defamation case of Ben Roberts-Smith, the Federal Court applied it to find that he had committed war crimes, although that was not a finding of criminal guilt. This inquiry's finding should be included in the lede. Errantios (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Great example Errantios, the Ben Roberts-Smith finding was in a court. Another compelling reason to leave it out of the lead. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Judicial inquiry is, indeed, one form of reputable inquiry. Errantios (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, Yes, the language proposed by TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) on 6 June 2026, looks fine to me. Appears to be neutral, and is supported by cited sources in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  • (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) - I agree with @RightCowLeftCoast's above logic. TarnishedPath's proposed language from June 6th looks neutral.

  MaximusEditor (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose both. I think the current lead length is fine as of 14 June at 405 words (according to MS Word). It is only five words over MOS:LEADLENGTH. The citations should be removed from the lead per MOS:CITELEAD. Double checking first that they are all in the body. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The fact is that if you look at sources from outside the church itself, they mostly resemble the shorter version; he's primarily notable, to the world at large, for his involvement in the sexual abuse scandal. See eg. Britannica's first paragraph on him as an example. In a quick search I cannot find any non-Catholic sources that don't mention it in the first two paragraphs, and even the Catholic ones are written in what I would call an apologetic style, ie. essentially all such coverage is primarily focused on defending him over it (which supports the idea that that's the most notable thing about him.) The arguments above over what each conviction and acquittal means miss the point; this is a case like OJ Simpson where the sources clearly show that, regardless of how any of us feel about it, the scandal is a conflagration that has thoroughly consumed every other aspect of his life. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes to first No to second A great deal of discussion here appears to focus on whether Pell is primarily known for his career in the church or his criminal convictions. I find this argument sterile. As a UK person I first became aware of Pell as a result of the accusations, but those accusations were only reported on the far side of the globe precisely because he was an illustrious and high-ranking member of the RCC ( a church at that time in crisis in many countries because its actions, and in-actions iro similar scandals involving the clergy). People are convicted or acquitted daily of various kinds of sexual crimes, they are rarely reported outside the local area. Arguing that Pell is primarily known for the accusations against him is like arguing that Icarus is famous for drowning. Pell's spectacular 'fall from grace' only makes sense because of his stature before the accusations were made against him and, as he was later acquitted, we have a double responsibility to contextualise the accusations appropriately.

I broadly support 5225C's suggestion above, however one detail in all proposals that I think is unnecessary and confusing is In 2018, Pell was convicted of child sexual abuse, before the convictions were unanimously quashed on appeal etc. the 'before' appears to have been inadvertently copy-pasted and tells us nothing. We aren't told what his initial sentence was and the appropriate link between the conviction and quashing is more of a 'however' than a 'before'. I don't know the full facts of the sentence, but would have thought that this sentence could be both more clearly and more informatively phrased.Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete the next sentence in 5225C's proposal goes into more detail, i.e. that he spent almost a year in prison prior to the acquittal. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I realised that, but the 'before' doesn't 'carry over' and is anyhow unnecessary as the relevant sentennce begins " Between conviction and acquittal, Pell served etc". The word isn't in the current text, but seems to be in all the proposals I could see, so I suspect inadvertent copy-pasting of an error. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak No for the first. No for the second By and large I agree with @Melbguy05's point but also feel that @Pincrete makes a compelling point on one. Nonetheless, I feel the current wording is accurate and the best.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes to both: Pell's conviction for child sex offences and subsequent aquital should be in the first paragraph. Constant rewrites of this article have forced this key fact lower and lower - deliberately, I would argue. If you put in Pell's various internal (Catholic Church) positions as 1st paragraph, and his pedophilia conviction and aquital in a 2nd paragraph, soon enough that will become the 3rd paragraph after a description of his Church medals and ribbons, then the 4th... Errolhunt (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)@Errolhunt

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.