Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Pell v The Queen

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Feminist talk 06:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Pell v The Queen

(
)
Moved to mainspace by MaxnaCarta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

  • Any takers? It's been three weeks since I nominated. My nomination remains valid, but I'm hoping to attract the eyes of someone scrolling past given the length of time it has been since I nominated. Happy for a QPQ from someone. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment about the hook and BLP: George Pell died on 10 January 2023, so he is no longer a living person. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says:

    Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

    It has been over 20 months since the subject's death so I don't think the BLP policy applies to him anymore. If it did apply to him, then WP:DYKHOOKBLP would be applicable. WP:DYKHOOKBLP says:

    Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.

    The hook could be seen as putting focus on negative aspect of the subject's life (in mentioning the conviction even though it also says the conviction was overturned), but as WP:BDP does not apply, I do not think WP:DYKHOOKBLP is violated.

    MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs), thank you for writing this important article on a difficult subject matter. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Reopening this per WT:DYK. WP:DYKHOOKBLP clearly applies this per my explanation there.--Launchballer 09:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months? was approved there.--Launchballer 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pell_v_The_Queen&oldid=1250734504"