Talk:George Pell

Reference to Tim Minchin

Hi,

I would like to alter the sentences that reference Tim Minchin. To demonstrate the depth of thinking and consideration I have given towards this small section of this article, I am giving a very detailed explanation of the reasoning for the changes I would like to make. I am deeply aware of the sensitivity surrounding George Pell, and I am enusring I approach this with an abundance of sensitivity to all, as well as being respectful towards Wikipedia processes by providing a lengthy, detailed description of the two items I would like to change and explaining my thinking prior to making any changes.

The current sentences reads:

"The musician Tim Minchin released the song "Come Home (Cardinal Pell)", with all proceeds to go to the GoFundMe campaign. The song described Pell as "scum" and a "coward". Within 24 hours it had over 400,000 views on YouTube and became the number one position on the iTunes song chart in Australia. In the event, Pell's testimony was witnessed by 15 victims of child sexual abuse and their supporters."

The following describe the improvements & alterations I would like to make:

1: Item..."The musician Tim Minchin"

1. Reasoning.. The linked Tim Minchin Wikipedia article accurately describes Tim as far more than a 'musician,' & his role in making the Come Home song included his talents as a composer, writer, comedian, & actor. More importantly and relevant to his Come Home song is his being a "staunch upholder of rationalism, secularism, and scientific scepticism."(quote is attributed to Richard Dawkins)

Tim had written and performed many pieces as far back as 2005 that overtly criticised & critiqued religion. Highly relevant to this matter is Tim Minchin's 2010 song "white wine in the sun". This song was used by the Salvation Army in its Christmas fundraising CD despite Tim's lyrics clearly stating that Tim did not believe in Jesus and dislikes religion's role in the education of children. A quote from that song reads, "I have all of the usual objections to the miseducation of children who, in tax-exempt institutions, are taught to externalise blame and to feel ashamed and to judge things as plain right or wrong".

The reader should be made aware the song was made by a well-known atheist who had written and performed many pieces that detailed his issues with religion, and his highly reasoned explanations have earned him the Richard Dawkins Award.

1. Change.... For the reasons explained above, I feel it is inaccurate to describe Tim Minchin as just a musician.

I would like to change the wording to include the words used in the Wikipedia article on Tim Minchin and draw attention to Minchin's popularity & history, which is what gave the song so much oxygen & fed the controversy. For ease of reading, I have reproduced the whole reference and used the strikethrough to show the text I would remove and italicised text to show what I would add:

The musician Tim Minchin released "Tim Minchin, the highly acclaimed secularist, rationalist, actor, writer, musician, poet, composer, songwriter and comedian, produced the song "Come Home (Cardinal Pell)" with all proceeds to go to the GoFundMe campaign. The song described Pell as "scum" and a "coward". Within 24 hours it had over 400,000 views on YouTube and became the number one position on the iTunes song chart in Australia.[168][169] In the event, Pell's testimony was witnessed by 15 victims of child sexual abuse and their supporters.[170]

2: Item...."The song described Pell as "scum" and a "coward".

2. Reasoning.... The singling out of two of the five hundred words without context is likely to mislead the reader and lose the intent of the song. The article would be better served by describing the song by its genre and intent.

To illustrate the missing context, I've included the opening paragraph, which sets the scene for why Tim is producing the song.

I know what it’s like when you feel a little shitty
You just want to curl up and have an itty bitty doona day
But a lot of people here really miss you Georgie
They really think you oughta just get on a plane
(Just get on a plane)

With this context in mind, I will illustrate the problem the singing out of 'coward' & 'scum'.

-Regarding the word "coward". The use of the word "coward" is Tim saying George's unwillingness to return to Australia makes him a coward in Tim's eye's. The lyrics read;

But your ethical hypocrisy
Your intellectual vacuity
And your arrogance don't bother me as much
As the fact that you have turned out to be such
A goddamn coward

-Regarding the "scum". The use of the word "scum" is Tim comparing the strength of the sexual abuse survivors to tell their stories makes George's choice to prioritise his role as the head of all the Vatican & Holy See's financial activities over returning to Australia is what made him scum in Tim's eyes. The lyrics read;

And years later, when survivors
Stood up to tell their stories
You spent year after year
Working hard to protect the church's assets
I mean, with all due respect, dude
I think you're scum

-What is the song? The song itself is a Protest song which taps into the issue of religion being given special treatment despite the separation of church and state being enshrined in the constitution. The issue of the church having its own Canon law which contradicts the laws and societal norms giving them a sense of entitlement to put themselves above all others has given rise to many forms of protests.

2. Change.. For the reasons explained above, I think the article would be improved by referencing the song in terms of its genre/intent and subsequent contraversy. For ease of reading, I have reproduced the whole reference and used the strikethrough to show the text I would remove and italicised text to show what I would add:

The musician Tim Minchin released "Tim Minchin, the highly acclaimed secularist, rationalist, actor, writer, musician, poet, composer, songwriter and comedian, produced the song "Come Home (Cardinal Pell)" with all proceeds going to the GoFundMe campaign. The song described Pell as "scum" and a "coward".The contraversal protest song was praised by Richard Dawkins saying "quite apart from displaying his musical gifts as composer and pianist, also affirms his commitment to justice" while being lauded as "a prime example of the power music has to project a political message into the public sphere". The songs critics included George Pell who defended his decision to remain in Rome to give evidence. Within 24 hours it had over 400,000 views on YouTube and became the number one position on the iTunes song chart in Australia. In the event, Pell's testimony was witnessed by 15 victims of child sexual abuse and their supporters.

Proposed Change: Here is how the new sentences would read.

Tim Minchin, the highly acclaimed secularist, rationalist, actor, writer, musician, poet, composer, songwriter and comedian, produced the song "Come Home (Cardinal Pell)" with all proceeds to go to the GoFundMe campaign. The contraversal protest song was praised by Richard Dawkins saying "quite apart from displaying his musical gifts as composer and pianist, also affirms his commitment to justice", and lauded as "a prime example of the power music has to project a political message into the public sphere". The songs critics included George Pell who defended his decision to remain in Rome to give evidence. Within 24 hours it had over 400,000 views on YouTube and became the number one position on the iTunes song chart in Australia. In the event, Pell's testimony was witnessed by 15 victims of child sexual abuse and their supporters.

Final note: While this is a small change, I recognise they do overlap with highly sensitive issues, I hope my proposed changes are seen as being respectful to these topics.

Regards

AusPolSci (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) AusPolSci (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: the song is of small significance in the story. This information could be added to articles on Minchin and even on the song itself. Errantios (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I can agree that the song is of small significance. Can I suggest the song be removed? AusPolSci (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the present text. The song's media impact, although brief, was considerable. Errantios (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have erased a sentence that violated Wikipedia's requirement that articles be written from a neutral point of view. See my diff. If it is my view that Pell is scum and a coward, I'm not permitted to insert that view into Wikipedia. The same is true of Tim Minchin - just because he is a celebrity and a famous songwriter doesn't allow his view that Pell is scum and a coward to be inserted into Wikipedia. The words "scum" and "coward" are imprecise, and Minchin's use of them is open to misinterpretation. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it encourages precision and abhors statements that are imprecise. Dolphin (t) 00:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think this addresses the issues with how it was written. AusPolSci (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the phrase, stating: "This is a neutral report of the fact that Minchin expressed that opinion". His expression of that opinion - coupled with a challenge to Pell to "friggin' sue me" - was the reason why the song attracted so much attention. This wording in the article does not commit WP for or against the opinion itself. Errantios (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The song described Pell as "scum" and a "coward"

@Errantios: I see you have restored the statement that the song described Pell as scum and a coward. See your diff.

We have been down this road before on the George Pell article. During sentencing, Pell's defence counsel, Robert Richter (lawyer) famously conceded that Pell's convicting was no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case. This quotation was inserted in the Pell article, possibly in an attempt to have Wikipedia show that even Pell's lawyer conceded Pell was guilty. In March 2019, the matter was put before the Wikipedia community in a Request for Comment. The outcome in May 2019 was that the quotation was removed from the Pell article and moved to the Richter article where it still resides. See the Request for Comment at Talk:George Pell/Archive 2#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister.

Even though Robert Richter was a prominent member of the court that tried Pell, and his statement was factual and supported by reliable published sources, the Wikipedia community decided that the words spoken by Richter did not belong in the article devoted to George Pell. If the Request for Comment in 2019 is considered a precedent for resolution of the question about Minchin's comments that Pell is scum and a coward, then Minchin's comments should reside in a Wikipedia article on Minchin, but not one on Pell.

The Wikipedia community came to a wise conclusion. Any statement that can be considered anti-Pell can be matched by another statement that can be considered pro-Pell. Then there could be another anti-Pell statement, and another that is pro-Pell. The article then becomes the battle of the quotes. As it stands at the moment, the Pell article contains few quotations. Quotations by the trial judge, the court of appeal, and the High Court can be seen in the article and have an obvious legitimacy. Quotations by other individuals are much less valuable. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations; it is written by volunteers who specialise in writing from a neutral point of view, and free of plagiarism.

We can therefore proceed in either of two ways. You could revert your recent edit and remove the comment that Pell is scum and a coward. Nothing more then needs to be done. Alternatively, if you don't remove the comment attributed to Minchin you are likely forcing the Wikipedia community to re-visit the Request for Comment of March 2019, in the hope that you can persuade the community to repudiate its earlier decision and experiment with a battle of the quotes. I initiated the Request for Comment in March 2019 and if necessary I will do so again because I don't want this article to again become the battle of the quotes. Dolphin (t) 07:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The two matters do not seem comparable. Richter's words do not "show that even Pell's lawyer conceded Pell was guilty", for three reasons: (1) they mean only that the allegation of an act had been straightforward, and do not by themselves refer to guilt; (2) they were spoken at the sentencing hearing, after guilt had already been decided; and (3), given that there could have been an appeal (as indeed there would be), Pell's counsel could not have intended an admission of guilt. Errantios (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

National Redress Scheme findings

In January and February 2025, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other outlets reported major findings against Pell by the National Redress Scheme. I added a section to this article, with references to the ABC and The Guardian. Another user has properly removed the section, since both the ABC and The Guardian have deleted their stories. I restored the section, with a reference to a still current story in the Sydney Morning Herald. Curious, however, as to what had happened with the ABC and Guardian stories, I found in The Australian (paywalled, but I accessed it through a library) a report on 7 February that these stories had been withdrawn, although standing by their content, because unexpectedly their publication had become criminally liable owing to an unnamed pending court case. In these circumstances, I have considered it prudent to remove the section again. For one thing, the Sydney Morning Herald story might be withdrawn. No notifications of findings from any inquiry appear on the website of the National Redress Scheme. Errantios (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)