Talk:Bill Shorten/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

ALP INFLUENCE It seems to me that there was a whole lot of unsupported stuff re. internal party manouvering in the text which Personpersonperson has objected . Some editor as asserted such as facts which only the initiated would have any idea of veracity. (Is it true there are less than 1000 active ALP members? ) I support the shortened text as it stands. In any case if he gets elected a whole lot of this will be exactly what is is now 'puffery' and of no use to any one. Lentisco 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The text which Personpersonperson deleted read:

During 2005 there was increasing speculation that Shorten intended entering federal politics at the next election. In February 2006 he announced that he would seek endorsement for the safe Labor seat of Maribyrnong, where the sitting Labor member, Robert Sercombe, is not a member of any faction. The AWU has always been a pillar of the right-wing Labor Unity faction of the party, which controls the Victorian Branch of the party.

The political correspondent of The Age, Misha Schubert, wrote: "The ascendancy of the articulate, clever and impressively connected challenger, routinely touted as a future prime minister, seems all but assured." She pointed out that as well as his base in the right-wing unions, Shorten will be supported by some unions normally associated with the left, such as the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union.

Justifying his challenge to a sitting member and serving shadow minister, Shorten said: "We haven't won a federal election since 1993. When your footy team loses four consecutive grand finals, you renew the team."

My question to Lentisco and Personpersonperson is: which statements in this text do they allege to be incorrect? What relevant facts to they allege to have been omitted? They may disagree with Misha Schubert's opinions, but they are free to add different opinions if they have a source to which those opinions can be attributed. They are not entitled simply to delete relevant factual edits for no good reason. Adam 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally i'd ban him/her (one of them is obviously a sockpuppet of the other). PMA 04:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Its the whole tone of the piece-personally I find it slightly nauseating that such ALP puffery go by unnoticed. How do I, or any one else for that matter, know that the 'AWU has been a 'pillar' of the right wing ....' Its just an assertion that only less than a thousand people on the globe could or would want to understand. Same with 'controls the Victorian branch of the party' Says who? What do you mean by 'control'? What this gossip doing on this page?Lentisco 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Those statements are prefectly factual and are well-known by anyone who knows anything about politics in Victoria. I am not responsible for Lentisco's ignorance. In any case, how are these statements "ALP puffery"? I wouldn't have thought that pre-selection brawls reflect very well on the ALP. I have simply reported well-known facts. Adam 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I have been with the 'pedia for almost 5 years and an Administrator for almost 3 - in that time I have had to face nationalist squabbles, the actions of Marxist apologists, right wing Cold Warriors and the multiple sockpuppetry and vandalism of people like User:DW and User:Lir. You may forgive me for my sensitivity. PMA 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the article and blocked User:Personpersonperson for violation of 3RR. It is not obvious to me that there is any sockpuppetry here. Please resolve the issue through reasoned and polite discussion rather than edit warring.--cj | talk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's unprotect

For what my opinion is worth, the article reads more like wikinews than wikipedia - the wording should be a bit more calmer, but the actual content looks OK. There's probably more detail than necessary, but that's a case for editing, not deleting. And if he's on the National Executive, then he's plenty notable, even if he never actually runs for a seat.

I don't think this page needs to be protected any more.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Most articles dealing with currently active political figures have a certain amount of "news" content, which over time gets edited and recast into the "historical past tense." I of course have no objection to my edits being edited. But I strongly object (a) to content being arbitrarily deleted and (b) to being accused of partisan editing. I edit here under my own name (unlike either of my current critics). Everyone knows I am an ALP staffer, because I have said so. For that very reason I am scrupulously careful not to make partisan edits. Adam 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. From my perspective, I see no especial problem with the text in question, although it could perhaps be rephrased. But as Adam says, this is transitional content which will no doubt eventually be rewritten.--cj | talk 08:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pomp and Ceremony

Why is there a montage at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.201.10 (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by parliamentary library IP

Sourced edits re GG's daughter should not be removed with your WP:COI issues, and the image is clearly a copyright violation. Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IR Minister: Jumping the gun

The lead refers to him as the minister for industrial relations. He hasn't been sworn in yet. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.6.120 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In the news

This edit is in the news, despite being swiftly reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that article like 5 minutes ago, and now it's pointed out here. Scary :o -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd. This sort of stuff happens all the time. The conspiracy theorist in me says that the editors in question, and someone at the Herald, are in cahoots. This is what counts for journalism? No wonder the public is more misinformed than ever. Timeshift (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian Opposition Leader

Bill Shorten is now Opposition Party Leader. Elected in an historic ballot with overall 52% support

An excellent article in the Guardian appeared the day he was elected leader of the federal Australian labor Party

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/13/labor-leadership-party-pick-bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.173.213.77 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted my own edit.

I attempted to replace the reference supporting the assertion that Shorten was a member of the Board of Getup, (which was a link to billshorten.com.au and had been flagged as a 'self published source'), with a reference citing the 2005-06 Getup Annual Report. (see below).

When I saved the change I noticed that the previous reference, which also links to billshorten.com.au, was then broken in the references list. I think I know why this is happening, but don't know how to fix it, so I reverted my edit amd left as it was. (I'm guessing it has something to do with a compiled reference list somewhere? But I couldn't find it.)

If anyone wants to have another crack at it, go right ahead. The Getup ref is:

"Getup Annual Report 2005-06, pg 16" http://getup-production.s3.amazonaws.com/145-getup_annualreport_0506.pdf

Wayne 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: having learned a bit more about linking refs. I tried again, apparently succesfully. BUT ... to do so I had move the existing ref link from the Getup spot to replace the <:ref name=> shortcut used in the para above. I'm a tad worried about this as they had both been tagged as 'self-published' as noted above. Am I going to be hunted down by the tagging people and castigated for interfering with a tag? Mea culpa. Wayne 04:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent investigation

According to the Herald Sun [1] Shorten was investigated over a rape allegation. Before we add this, it seems worth asking about due weight - the same source says that the Prosecution decided that there was no reasonable chance of conviction. From the source, then, someone made an allegation, the police investigated, and it was dropped with no charges being laid. Given that it there were no charges laid, and it just comes down to an anonymous allegation, I'm not sure to what extent we should cover this nor how it should be worded, but it seems like something to take care over. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the DPP didn't even think charges should be laid I don't think the investigation can be mentioned at all without giving undue weight. This will be mentioned once in the evening news, once in the daily news papers and never again. The effect of announcing that charges were never even laid, will not be ongoing or covered in any depth. AlanS (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. It's not a big story - unless more come out of the woodwork - and if we mention it at all it's smoke without fire. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a semi for a month might be a good idea as well, because I reckon there is going to be a few IP vandals. AlanS (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning on this, please? --Pete (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you only read the first half of the sentence and not the second? AlanS (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the second part I'd like you to explain, if you can. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a statement Pete, not an invitation to discussion. AlanS (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A statement of your opinion. If you don't want to say what informs your thinking, that's OK. There have been a few edits from IP addresses recently. Not a lot, and all swiftly reverted. I was wondering if you had some sort of advance knowledge to call for protection, but it appears not. I don't think we need to protect this article. --Pete (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, again it was a statement of what I considered to be a possibility. What's happened so far is nothing. If I saw multiple IPs engaging in vandalism I wouldn't worry about discussing it with you. AlanS (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. You needn't be such a bear. I can't see enough vandalism on this article to warrant protection. The regular watchers deal with a small amount just fine, usually within a minute or so. There was one time where it took twenty minutes, but that was early morning and it was nothing much anyway. If you see a sudden massive escalation in vandalism, then by all means ask for protection, but we seem to be handling what we have quite well. --Pete (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus for not including the rape allegations. The comments here are about only one source and in fact there was reports in the Sydney Morning Herald, Hearald Sun, the ABC among others. This should be included within the Personal Life section for sure. As I said there is no consensus reached not to include it either.Birdy1234 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape allegations

Just wanted to ask why there is no reference to the "Rape" allegations which has been widely covered in media. This is an example article - http://www.news.com.au/national/bill-shorten-sexual-assault-allegation-untrue/story-fncynjr2-1227032076696 . I know Bill Shorten said "I just think personal lives and families should be off limits", but this is rape. When a woman says no she means no! 211.26.186.155 (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We aren't covering it because the police investigation found that there was no case to answer. There is little value in repeating unsubstantiated allegations that led nowhere. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

unless it's someone like Abbott or Trump of course... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.233.214 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC) the police haven't charged Don Burke with anything but his allegations are on his page...if the standard is, "if there are no charges laid by police" then these allegations should also be removed from Don Burke's page..after all he denied all allegations just like Bill Shorten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.233.214 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Justin Trudeau's 2000 sexual allegation is included in his page ..no charges have been laid by police....this rape allegation must be included in Bill Shorten's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.233.214 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC) a sexual harassment allegation against Barnaby Joyce is on his wikipedia page but not the rape allegation against Shorten? you have got to be kidding...

Bilby, this is not 'consensus', you cannot keep covering this up when there are multiple reputable sources, including Shorten himself, who have acknowledged the allegations. Wikipedia is meant to be a place for open, reputable sources of information, please cease making light of a very serious issue and attempting to cover it up based on your own viewpoints. As discussed in numerous accounts above, nobody is above alleged scandal on their page: Don Burke, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Luke Foley. Provided the text is fairly written as an allegation (rather than a passing of judgement), it is fact and has no right to be removed, and is in breach of Wikipedia's BLP policies as laid out here with the case study of a politician's alleged affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures

Allegations should be taken very seriously, particularly when they concern people in positions of power - please consider the numerous victims of sexual assault, and the message your actions send them every time you decide to delete reports of this allegation. You are more than welcome to challenge biased wording, and encourage neutral wording, but complete removal is not justified and will be undone each time you attempt it - this is very serious and as a survivor of sexual assault myself, that went uncharged, I find the denial of these allegations to be completely unacceptable.

It hasn't been covered because there is nothing to say - it was investigated, found that there was no case to answer, and dropped. I find it odd that you complain of bias, and yet add text that completely fails to mention that the police found that there was no case to answer and decided not to press charges. You didn't find that point significant? - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. There is a compelling case to include Shorten's rape allegation. Bilby you have not answered to my points raised below either, however you continue to censor this from the article because of? You have made no case. There is consensus here to include it. Sportstir (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You should try reading the article. It is already mentioned there. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Twin brother ?

according to Kitchen Cabinet show, he has a twin brother (!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.91.76 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That fact is already covered in the article (with a reference) in the Personal life section. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Union corruption inquiry

I came here to look for balanced coverage on this matter, but there is nothing here. I think it would be a good idea to have a section on it, including the allegations, information that came to light and a summary of to what degree the inquiry cleared him. Unfortunately I am not well enough educated on this topic to write it, nor am I in a political position where I am independent enough to write it (being involved in politics myself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjansson (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Leader of the Australian Labor Party vs. Leader of the Labor Party

I have noticed that the Bill Shorten page lists him as "Leader of the Australian Labor Party" instead of "Leader of the Labor Party", which is used in the pages of his predecessors. I edited it to "Leader of the Labor Party" a while ago but it was reverted. Why is this? Is the extra information relevant? 60.224.1.215 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

One day.

Should Anthony Albanese be listed as Shorten's first deputy? The leadership and deputy leadership was one package. Shorten became Labor leader on 13 October while Albanese was replaced by Plibersek as Labor deputy leader on 14 October. Timeshift (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bothered but would err towards removal - it was the rest of the changes that were a problem there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Update image

I like the current image, I really do. But it's a bit past its useby date, and I think if Bill shorten is going to become PM, we need a more current image. An example is one from the Adelaide Advertiser, an excellent shot of Bill, bouncy on the campaign trail, ready to discuss his campaign war chest. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do I enable you... such excitement over such banality like moths at a globe... I guess we do get who we vote for! Only you could have the gall to, in good faith, write an intended-to-be-valid non-free use rationale for Shorten's moobs in the 2016 election campaign! As for Shorten's image, good luck finding a newer one of better quality with an appropriate license, I think we already have a winner and the one to beat! :) Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's a great shot of Bill. Apart from the lightbulb at his head. But, you know, we could use one a little more… candid. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish you all the luck in the world :) Timeshift (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've updated an image with one I took of him at their election launch this year :) Rossjcaldwell (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We can do better. Something involving a sausage, maybe?[2] --Pete (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill Shorten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728045354/http://www.awu.net.au/opinions/bill-shorten-people-movement-against-howard-governments-ir-changes to http://www.awu.net.au/opinions/bill-shorten-people-movement-against-howard-governments-ir-changes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125192634/http://www.awu.net.au:80/national/students/personality_shorten.html to http://www.awu.net.au/national/students/personality_shorten.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514234351/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/B_Shorten_MP/ to http://www.aph.gov.au/B_Shorten_MP/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310072127/http://www.billshorten.fahcsia.gov.au:80/internet/billshorten.nsf to http://www.billshorten.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/billshorten.nsf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of rape allegation

The following discussion 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.

---

There has been much debate on this talk page about the inclusion of a rape allegation. Does this proposed addition address it in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, especially WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE?

In 2013 a woman, known as Kathy, accused Shorten of having raped her during a 1986 Young Labor camp in Portarlington when she was 16 and he was 19. Rumours of the allegation proliferated "for some time" in Canberra and online before it became public. Victoria Police interviewed Shorten and various witnesses over a ten month period and decided not to lodge charges when the DPP advised "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" based on the evidence collected. Afterward, Shorten said the allegation was "untrue and abhorrent". According to journalist and Shorten biographer, David Marr, Kathy's "allegation [was] detailed" but he also noted her "confusion and distress". In November 2014, Kathy's lawyer revealed that she had not consulted a lawyer about the rape allegation until after the police closed their investigation.

My view: BLP rules allow for the publication of an alleged event that is based on uncontentious and well sourced material that is cited and easily verified and where no undue weight is placed on it. As such, it was positioned at the bottom of the wiki, it was made clear that it was an allegation, the sources were cited with links, the sources were reputable, the story lasted longer than a week (one year, but also a 2015-16 biography) and the subject (Shorten) himself addressed the allegations, as well as the police, the alleged victim and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Many wiki pages of living persons discuss allegations: Geoffrey Rush, Kevin Spacey, Don Burke and Harvey Weinstein to name a few. User:Jack bulldog 2012 03:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Just the first part -- up to the decision to not lodge charges is about him, after that is OFFTOPIC and pushing UNDUE. The commentary on her confusion or what her lawyer later said about her actions is no longer about his life, so should stop there. Keep the sensational limited to reflect it's actual part of the life and being cautions about the BLP guide that these "must be written conservatively" and not a tabloid or attack page. Note the WP:PUBLICFIGURE example still says to avoid the wording "messy". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Allegations can be included in BLPs, but we need to be really careful so as to avoid problems that may result, where allegations that proved not to be the case cause ongoing harm to a living person. Generally we don't include serious allegations unless they eventuate in charges; have significant ongoing coverage; and/or have a significant impact on the subject's career. The articles listed above meet at least two of these three - this one doesn't really meet any. The DPP found that there was no case to answer due to a lack of evidence and thus no charges were laid; there was no impact on his career; and coverage was very minimal. In regard to the last, I can find no significant ongoing coverage in reliable sources beyond the Marr piece. The media refused to cover it before the investigation was concluded, and when it was concluded it came and went in virtually a single news cycle - the very, very occasional mention since then is mostly along the lines of "it had no impact on his career" or "weren't the media great in showing restraint" (with the one exception of Marr covering it in a short biography). At most, we might be able to justify a single sentence along the lines of "In 2014 an allegation was made against Shorten, but after police investigated it was dropped due to a lack of evidence", but I'm doubtful of even that, and more would be undue. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- Thanks Markbassett for the fresh perspective. I propose a revised addition:

  In 2013 a woman, known as Kathy, accused Shorten of having raped her during a 1986 Young Labor camp in Portarlington when she was 16 and he was 19. Rumours of the allegation proliferated "for some time" in Canberra and online before it became public. Victoria Police interviewed Shorten and various witnesses over a ten month period and decided not to lodge charges after the DPP advised it "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" based on the evidence collected. Afterward, Shorten, alongside his wife Chloe, said the allegation was "untrue and abhorrent".

  User:Jack bulldog 2012 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support if handled correctly. If a serious allegation has been made and heavily reported upon, I think Wikipedia should report the outcome whether it is proved true or proved false. E.g., when Ryan Seacrest was "vindicated" the allegations were not removed from his article, but rather the outcome was just stated reported. Otherwise it might seem as if something has been deliberately omitted to paint someone in a positive/negative light. I would suggest one sentence stating the allegation, one sentence stating Shorten's response, and one sentence stating the police outcome. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether or not it was heavily reported on. My reading was that it was covered by the media, but it wasn't heavily covered, because the media didn't want to cover the rumors, and when the policed finished and it wasn't a rumour any more there was little to say. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It wasn't heavily reported on - that's the whole point, as Bilby notes. The section would be a severe undue weight and BLP violation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Just the first part Summoned by a bot - agree with your rational that "BLP rules allow for the publication of an alleged event that is based on uncontentious and well sourced material that is cited and easily verified and where no undue weight is placed on it" and Markbassett's rational that the commentary is unnecessary. Comatmebro (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Female staff working for Bill Shorten

Employment minister Michaelia Cash made a threat to name female staff working for Bill Shorten during the Senate Estimates Hearing, after being questioned about her own staff movements. "If you want to stat discussing staff matters be very, very careful". "Because I'm happy to sit here and name every young woman in Mr Shorten's office over which rumours in this place abound". "Do you want to start naming them for Mr Shorten to come out and deny any of the rumours that have been circulating in this building for many, many years? Dangerous path to go down". This was responded by Labor senator Doug Cameron telling her to "take a chill pill", and a short time later Penny Wong demanding Cash to withdraw her comments. Wong simply said that it was "outrageous slurs about the character of female staff working for the leader of the opposition" "It think it's disgraceful and sexist and it is impugning of the character of various staff". I also want to emphasise that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of truth. Like Barnaby Joyce the matter should not be censored because it is also produced in the United States. 101.183.21.131 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you are proposing we add to the article? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Img-6cca363f3a9ec7e5d6681f0d2922edb5.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of rape allegations

There is definitely a large enough consensus for Bill Shorten's rape allegation made by Kathy who was a child at the time to be included in his article. Most editors have supported its inclusion. We need to go with the consensus on this one. Sportstir (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, there is not, per the RFC just above. - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How exactly did you arrive at that erroneous conclusion? Did you count votes because more editors appear to be in support of including this allegation. Sportstir (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How can you just say there was a consensus for not including it given the number of votes in support of including it were more than opposing its inclusion? Sportstir (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I read the section titled "Request for comment on inclusion of rape allegation" and the conclusion that was drawn there. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Jack bulldog 2012, Markbassett, Ivar the Boneful and Comatmebro were all in support of its inclusion. Only you and one other editor were opposed. Therefore the incorrect conclusion drawn by Galobtter of the supports having a supermajority obviously needs to be revised based on this number count. Sportstir (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by counting votes. The relevant policy is available here. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason Galobtter gave was "being cautious around BLPs, i.e when the outcome is close to err on the side of not including serious allegations like these" However it is obvious that Jack bulldog 2012 and other editors gave clear examples of other political leaders and similar allegations being included in their articles. This obviously now needs to be given a much wider audience to determine its inclusion. Sportstir (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

By much wider audience, do you mean like running an RFC? I think we tried that one. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sportstir, this was an unusual situation. Normally when such allegations are made the media would cover them, and that coverage would have an impact on the person's career. (For example, the cases listed above). In this one the media chose not to cover the allegations while they were being investigated. Because of this, it wasn't until it was found that Shorten had no case to answer that they became public, and because there was no case to answer they didn't have an impact when they were covered. If the media had jumped on this at the beginning and continued to cover the story in depth, we'd probably be in a position where it would be similar to the other cases, and therefore it would be something we should cover. But as they didn't we don't have much that we can say.

To look at the specific examples raised, Geoffrey Rush lost his position as director of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts and has an ongoing and very public defamation case that provides ongoing coverage. Kevin Spacey was dropped from House of Cards and All the Money in the World, and Gore was cancelled, so it had considerable impact. There is no question that the allegations against Harvey Weinstein had an impact, both on him and the wider community, and I'll be surprised if Don Burke appears on TV again after the reaction to the allegations about him. With Shorten? Nothing happened. - Bilby (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A perfect comparison is obviously Barnaby Joyce and the brief investigation mentioned a lot less in the reliable sources than Bill Shorten's rape allegations. Bill Shorten was actually arrested Bilby. Barnaby Joyce is also a leader of the Nationals, similar to Bill Shorten and the ALP. This brief and unremarkable investigation is included in his article. Nothing came of it either so why is it there Bilby and should it therefore be removed. Specifically "In September 2018, to the dismay of the complainant, it was announced that the National Party's eight-month investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment had been unable to make a determination, and that the report would remain confidential" How do you explain that please? I suggest as other editors have suggested that we just include a brief mention rather than a separate heading which I agree would be giving the story undue weight. However it certainly should be mentioned in Bill Shorten's article as the majority of editors have supported. So far you have not made a strong case for it not being given a brief mention similar to the mention in Barnaby Joyce's article. Sportstir (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Barnaby Joyce is not the leader of the Nationals. He had to step down - hence, it had a significant impact on his career. Shorten was neither arrested nor charged, and did not step down. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As you would be aware Barnaby Joyce stood down over the affair with his co-worker and leaving his wife and having her child. He obviously as you would be well aware did not stand down over the brief and unremarkable investigation of work harassment. So what is the difference here Bilby? The two examples are extremely similar apart from Bill Shorten actually being arrested and the rape allegations receiving much more news coverage over a longer period. You are not making any substantial case here I have to say. Could you please specify exactly what your basis for not including a brief mention similar to the mention in the Barnaby Joyce article over the minor allegation of harassment at work. As I said given how many other editors are supporting an inclusion of this rape allegation and you not producing any credible reasons against including it and a consensus based on being cautious, which we can be, I think it is notable enough to include but in a briefer format as other editors like Jack bulldog 2012, Markbassett, Ivar the Boneful and Comatmebro have also suggested. Would you be open to a briefer mention then? Sportstir (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You might want to look up what happened with Barnaby Joyce, and no reliable source that I'm aware of has claimed that Shorten was arrested. You are welcome to see if consensus has changed, but given that there has been no further events in regard to the allegations, I'd be surprised if it has. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I did look it up and Joyce did not resign because of the harassment allegation in isolation as you know. As far as consensus only you and another editor were opposed and as far as I can see the other editor was mostly opposed because of undue weight given to the rape allegation in the article. I have asked you directly whether you are open to including a briefer mention as other editors like Jack bulldog 2012, Markbassett, Ivar the Boneful and Comatmebro have suggested. Are you? Also of direct relevance here is the fact that the Brett Kavanaugh article includes an extensive section devoted to his historical rape allegations. These allegations went nowhere either and he was made a Judge of the Supreme Court wasn't he. So what is your actual argument against including a briefer mention of Bill Shorten's historical rape allegations? I am beginning to assume you have none which dilutes your input here. Sportstir (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You seriously think the Brett Kavanaugh case is comparable? - Bilby (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as its coverage obviously no although other editors like Jack bulldog 2012 have already provided some reliable sources for Shorten's rape allegations. Both Bill Shorten and Kavanaugh were accused of historical rape and in both cases the allegations were officially investigated by the police and were dropped. Although I am not sure if in the Kavanaugh case this was actually done. Where we stand is that five independent editors have now suggested a brief mention is warranted in the article. Your only argument not to include seems to be that it did not affect Shorten's career. It also did not affect Kavanaugh's career either. I am finding it difficult determining if you have any solid objections to including a briefer mention of this rape allegation in the Shorten article. If you have can you please present them. Sportstir (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I've made my position. I'm happy to see where other people take it. I see this as an event that received almost no coverage and had no significant impact, so covering it in any detail - such as the extensive piece you added - has serious problems with due weight. But we'll see where others stand. - Bilby (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I missed the RFC above due to it being a particularly busy period of life. I am swayed by the near-complete lack of media interest that this doesn't belong in the article. Yet. If there was — or in the future is — anything to be found there's no way this would be left alone! If the media interest changes (hopefully due to new facts) Wikipedia should follow. It is not a matter of censorship, merely of being encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a place to investigate the truth of a matter. Rather, it has to summarise facts and be updated in response to new facts being found by the published investigations of others. Donama (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my point as far as a wider audience compared to the last RFC. Bilby and Donama directly above Jack bulldog 2012 presented multiple major newspapers that published the allegations. I'm not sure if you saw that. Also I just googled Bill Shorten rape allegations and came across at least six pages full of major newspaper and media sources. So obviously you both 'saying' that there was a near-complete lack of media interest is plain wrong given that I just found at least 50 reliable sources within two minutes. I was also looking at what the Wikipedia policy tells us to do with this kind of matter and particularly the section under public figures. It says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported" We can definitely state that Shorten has denied it. All of those other criteria have been met. My understanding is we need to stick to those guidelines. Donama and Bilby would you care to add anything further in relation to this policy we are obliged to follow. Nothing else matters and discussion here should be centred on those criteria. I have suggested instead of it being mentioned under a heading which is what the last RFC was about we now just put a briefer mention of it within his personal life and of course mention that Shorten has denied it. That would solve the issue of the story receiving undue weight in the article as you mentioned Bilby. But your point was in relation to the more extensive write up that Jack bulldog 2012 suggested. Sportstir (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor has recently noted the allegation against Justin Trudeau. So what is the difference I ask? "In August 2000, Justin Trudeau attended the Kokanee Summit in Creston, British Columbia to raise funds in honor of his brother Michel Trudeau and avalanche victims.[75] After the event, an unsigned editorial in the Creston Valley Advance (a local newspaper) accused Trudeau of having groped an unnamed female reporter while at the music festival. The piece stated Trudeau provided a "day-late" apology to the reporter, saying, "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."[76] The editorial eventually resurfaced during his premiership, and in July 2018 he publicly said he didn't recall the incident.[77][78] Several commentators described Trudeau's refusal to act on the allegation as hypocritical given his previous actions against others accused of sexual misconduct" The rape allegation against Shorten is obviously more notable than this incident which has an entire paragraph written about it the Justin Trudeau article. All Justin Trudeau was accused of was groping not actual rape like Shorten has been accused of. Sportstir (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kathy who accused Shorten of raping her during a 1986 Young Labor camp in Portarlington when she was 16 and he was 19 should definitely be included given how much coverage it has received in Australian media. Anything less would be a partisan decision. If you work for Bill Shorten or the ALP’s office you shouldn’t be deciding what’s on his Wikipedia page! 120.29.51.76 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rape allegations included in a bias way without references

Currently, the article says "In 2013, just after Shorten was elected as leader of the Australian Labor Party, a rape accusation was made against Shorten that was alleged to have occurred in the 1980s. Shorten strongly denied the allegations and, after an investigation, police announced that there was no reasonable possibility of a conviction. No charges were laid and the matter was dropped by police at the conclusion of the investigation", and there is only 1 reference - Grattan, Michelle. (24 August 2014). "Shorten outs himself as Labor figure in rape investigation", The Conversation. Retrieved 11 April 2019. This is not enough. The young lady's name (Kathy), the fact it occurred in 1986 during a Young Labor camp in Portarlington when she was 16 and he was 19 is also not included. In short, this seems like something written by the Labor spin kings to just say "1980s" like as if there is no information. There is information but it is just being suppressed right before an election even though Michelle Grattan from the Grattan Institute has written about it as a leading political scholar 120.29.49.177 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think, if anything, this section should be smaller or removed entirely. Certainly there should be no more emphasis on it than there is now, considering the information is based on allegations alone and the police investigation ran its course without charges or possibility of a conviction. Wikipedia's very strict policy on living people means we should be considerate about the impact this would have on the subject and careful to ensure the information is factual, neutral and proportionate. Especially right before an election. The one change that I would be fine with is changing 1980s to 1986; there doesn't seem to be any harm in the extra precision. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are right Tera. Remove an article published by Michelle Grattan from the Grattan Institute published April 11 2019 on The Conversation (extremely reputable peer reviewed journal). Excellent. You are obviously not apart of the Labour media relations team... 132.234.228.48 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt the credibility of the The Conversation (on the contrary, I consider it one of the most reliable media outlets as their authors are academic experts). The fact is it has not treated these as any more than allegations, it notes the police investigation ran its course, and thus this article should give it little weight (remember, it's an encyclopedia article covering all matters related to Shorten in a way that is due and proportional to their significance as determined by reliable sources and sensitive to its effects on living people, not an article documenting all minutiae of the media's coverage). The current couple of lines dedicated to the subject are quite sufficient.

(An aside: Sarcasm is really helpful on Wikipedia, use it as much as you can. And I'm flattered you think I'm competent enough to be part of the ALP's media relations team, but you really do need some evidence before you fling accusations around like that). – Teratix ₵ 06:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)