Talk:Bill Shorten

Bill Shorten's State Parliamentary work experience

The article is missing details of Bill Shortens work experience This should be included

Bill Shorten's Rape Allegations should be included

I believe the rape allegations should be included in the article. The ABC, The Herald Sun and the Sydney Morning Herald all reported on it widely. Why are you opposed to it? Please put my edits back into the article or discuss why you removed very well sourced material.Birdy1234 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to be very objective here. The man was accused of raping a young girl despite him being a politician we therefore need to consider how it is reported in the article not just brush it aside. It is currently in the Personal Life section and given it was a very serious rape allegation was obviously the most significant thing that could happen in his Personal Life. After reading all of the Reliable Sources it seems to me that this rape victim's three witnesses were not even contacted by Victoria Police?Birdy1234 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking a little deeper into this. Since the previous discussion about inclusion there have been many more Reliable Sources that have discussed the rape allegations. These include the Australian, News.com.au, The Daily Mail (UK) and others. It has even been discussed in a new book. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590071/Australia-s-Labor-leader-Bill-Shorten-dismisses-rape-accusations-new-book.html Why the heck would this not be included when so many Reliable Sources ran stories on the rape claims?Birdy1234 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. We need to be very careful in adding sensitive material concerning living people. These claims have not been particularly prominent, and have not led to any legal actions or similar. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree we need to be objective. Your point that these claims have not been prominent however is entirely untrue. They have been consistently the subject of major reputable newspapers and other Reliable Sources since 2013. They have been in the Age, News.com.au, dailymail.co.uk, ABC, The Herald Sun and the Sydney Morning Herald just to mention a few and all have reported on it widely and over an extended period and continued reporting on it after the case was not pursued. Most recently was the book and the 2016 article. Reporting of the incident has continued in the Reliable Sources for four years now. Could you respond to that point please. Also what do you mean not led to any legal action? I mentioned that they were not pursued. That does not mean such a significant even in Shorten's personal life should not be mentioned briefly in the article. Obviously placing this within Shorten's Personal Life section of the article is entirely appropriate as nothing would have been more significant in his personal life. I totally disagree with it not being included. I look forward to your response. I do not believe consensus was reached. However not including this extremely significant issue of rape accusations simply because it reflects poorly on Bill Shorten is not acceptable to me. That's not how living biographies should be written I am afraid. I am very open to discussion of the matter but please provide some actual support of your point of view based on what the many Reliable Sources have reported on. If so many such major newspapers and other reputable Reliable Sources believe it significant enough to report on so should we.Birdy1234 (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I refer to the section covering Public figures which states that "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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." All of those requirements have been met with my edit.Birdy1234 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The claims did not lead to anything and are rarely mentioned in profiles of Shorten. We need to be really careful with this kind of material given its potential to cause harm to multiple people. The material you tried to edit war into the article is clearly biased (nothing about Shorten's public denial, etc - instead the weight is on the claims), which greatly weakens your case here. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No edit war going on here. And I am being very careful. Now, based on the WP:BLP policy section regarding public figures how else is my edit not consistent and why do you believe it should not be included? If I add other sources which mention Shorten's public denial to balance the edit as you rightly suggested and point taken would that be acceptable?Birdy1234 (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

And just because Shorten was not prosecuted for the rape allegations means nothing and is irrelevant here as far as including it in his biography. Many articles include very serious criminal allegations where the person was not actually prosecuted as long as they were consistent with WP:BLP. I look forward to your reply addressing these specific points I am making based on policy.Birdy1234 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D if we add the sentence Shorten publicly dismissed rape claims against him as "untrue and abhorrent" would that be balanced enough. I agree his claim of innocence should be included and is in the 2016 book. I'm open to discussion an d am trying to resolve your concerns.Birdy1234 (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Our normal guide for including these sorts of claims has been whether not the person was charged, otherwise we risk to including any accusation regardless of merit. In this case he was never charged in spite of a full police investigation. As there was no case for him to answer, I don't see any value in adding accusations that made it no further than that. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. BLPs should err on the side of caution. Frickeg (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly comments have all been from Australian editors. In this case I'm thinking we need independent overseas opinions who have no affiliation or preference for or against the ALP and Bill Shorten. We need to keep completely objective, neutral and adhere only to WP:BLP. I respond to Bilby. Bilby you said "our normal guide for including these sorts of claims has been whether not the person was charged, otherwise we risk to including any accusation regardless of merit" I provide Julia Gillard another ALP politician Australian editors all know. Under her Personal Life section of the article is this section AWU affair Gillard was also accused but never charged. Precisely the same as Shorten yet the AWU affair was included in the Julia Gillard article? Please respond to these points. I look forward to logical policy oriented discussion.Birdy1234 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The AWU affair received massive long-term coverage across all media, spawned a Royal Commission, and was a major issue during her time as PM. This was a very minor issue, that was not covered by the mainstream press while the investigation was underway, and was only briefly mentioned after it was over. They aren't really comparable. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby you said "our normal guide for including these sorts of claims has been whether not the person was charged, otherwise we risk to including any accusation regardless of merit" but then we I show you the Julia Gillard article Personal Life section on the AWU affair you mention some other subjective reason Can we stay on track with our discussion. So can you now at least admit that it doesn't matter if charges were laid especially over such serious criminal allegations against Shorten?Birdy1234 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, charges have been our guide. We make exceptions when the accusations are heavily covered and have a significant effect, as was the case with the AWU affair. - Bilby (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please be specific to help focus our discussion. Are you admitting that charges being laid is not necessary? As far as the rape allegation against Shorten not being covered heavily. Absolutely untrue. It has been covered in almost every major Australian Reliable media Source available. The Australian, news.com.au., The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Herald Sun, Yahoo News and the list of reputable sources goes on. It is even part of a new book and was reported on in 2016 three years after it was first reported http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590071/Australia-s-Labor-leader-Bill-Shorten-dismisses-rape-accusations-new-book.htmlBirdy1234 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing being "mentioned in brief" with "covered heavily". It never had extensive coverage in the mainstream media, in part because they - like us - preferred to err on the side of caution when faced with unproven but serious allegations. When it was finally revealed it was covered, but only to a very limited extent. - Bilby (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree based on the many Reliable Sources I've provided above. Your 'opinion' that they erred on the side of caution is not reality. The reality is that entire news stories in all of these Reliable Sources covered these rape allegations from 2013 until now. So is your only justification for not including this in the Personal Life section because you subjectively believe without any proof that it wasn't covered heavily enough. Is that it?Birdy1234 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No. - Bilby (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why else then?Birdy1234 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

So far no objective reasons based on policy or logic have been provided. Reasons that have been provided I have countered through objective means. My addition to Shorten's Personal Life section is very consistent with WP:BLP especially the section relating to notable persons. The only editors who have commented are Australian and given Shorten is the ALP leader this is too close to home. I suggest we open it up to other editors based overseas who have never heard of Shorten and can provide a truly independent and neutral opinion as to whether the rape allegations should be included similar to the AWU matter in the Julia Gillard's Personal Life section. I have now read many other bios of public figures and they too include serious criminal allegations not just charges or prosecutions that were widely covered at the time in reputable Sources. Why not in Shorten's case? As Shorten has admitted in his most recent book about his life these rape allegations deeply affected him. As they would. I have been careful to include Shorten's side and him disputing the allegations so it is not just focusing on the rape allegations from the victim. Would you be open to independent and neutral overseas editors helping to resolve this Bilby?Birdy1234 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact after looking at even more notable persons bios such as John Travolta and so many others contrary to your comment Bilby it seems the norm for articles to include serious criminal allegations regardless of charge or conviction as long as WP:BLP is followed. I see no reason at all to not provide these rape allegations which were covered in nearly every Reliable Source and no valid reasons have been provided not to include it. Any further comment Bilby?Birdy1234 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The above appears similar to the disruptive POV-pushing conduct by Birdy1234 in the Virginia Trioli article. Birdy1234, you really need to read WP:BLP and understand that it is taken very seriously. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D watch the insults and be civil. I could say the same with you wanting to keep Shorten's rape allegations 'out' of the article for some reason. You're another Australian editor too close to this bio. I'm neutral. Are you? Now have you got anything to add or respond to in this civil discussion based on WP:BLP which I certainly have read and understand. Any reasons to keep this out of the article?Birdy1234 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you've read BLP and you are still asking "any reasons to keep this out of the article?", then I'm afraid you haven't understood it well at all. Since we are all apparently disqualified from having opinions on the account of being Australian and actually having heard of the article subject, by all means raise this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different answer there. Frickeg (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction Frickeg. I just did that. It would be similar to asking Australian editors to comment on the Swedish opposition leader whoever that is. I think they may provide a more neutral opinion than Swedish editors who may or may not be planning to vote for this person to lead their country. We're all only human.Birdy1234 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell "no reasonable prospect of conviction" is the same as saying that no substantial evidence of the alleged crime was found by police. As a result, the matter falls under Wikipedia policy regarding "allegations" in general. If no charges are brought, and there is appreciable doubt as to the crime, it does not belong in any BLP. I note further that such material must be left out of the BLP sans a strong consensus for inclusion, which appears not to be a remote possibility from the discussion above. And this would be true of any person from any nation one could conceivable posit. Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment (in response to request at BLP noticeboard) - contrary to Collect's comments above, BLP not only does not proscribe the inclusion of allegations tout court, but, under certain circumstances, almost mandates them. More precisely, if the BLP subject is a public figure, and the allegations are "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented" in a "multitude of reliable published sources", then BLP explicitly underscores that they "belong in the article, even if (...) negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", per WP:WELLKNOWN. Y'all'll need to assess whether or not the coverage of the allegations about Shorten meets the tests above, but there's no BLP escape hatch if they do, since the (WP:NPF) policy track, which contains WP:BLPCRIME, which encourages editors to strongly consider not including information anywhere that someone has committed a crime (or is even so accused) absent a conviction in a court of law, only governs relatively unknown people. Advocata (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the allegations received very limited coverage. There was no coverage except in the most general terms until after the investigation had concluded that there was no possibility of conviction. At that point there was minor coverage acknowledging Shorten's brief statement that he was relived that this had concluded, but little more. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I just read (WP:NPF) WP:BLPCRIME that Advocata mentioned and thank you for being objective and providing a policy based opinion. Bilby how can you say the case received very little coverage? It was covered in every Reliable Source possible from the commencement of this woman's allegations in 2013 through to current with the dailymail.co.uk article about the new bio about Shorten where he denies the claims. If it written in a neutral way it should be included based on what Advocata has said and Advocata has been the only editor who has stuck to policy and remained objective and neutral. I realise there is little consensus to include it so I ask Advocata do we need consensus in this case?Birdy1234 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The little I know about this case is entirely derived from reading this page and quickly googling Shorten out of mild curiosity; I've really no idea as to the quality of the sources, or the aggregate noteworthiness/relevance of the allegations, etc.. To Bilby's comments, I'll flag this case as potentially of use, and also note that WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION still bear upon the inclusion of these allegations (as with everything else). Advocata (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Birdy1234, almost all of the coverage consisted of "Shorten made a statement today to say that he was the senior Labour figure being investigated, and to acknowledge his relief that the investigation is now complete", all over a very short period when he made his brief statement. A couple of other publications ran a bit more, but while it was mentioned, there was virtually no significant or ongoing coverage. This was because the media, as did the police and the DPP, recognized that this was simply an allegation which ended up having no real evidence on which to base it. So they stayed clear. A couple of columnists even went to the point of commenting on how restrained the media had been. It is very different to the AWU affair or other cases which had significant and sustained coverage and a notable impact. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby you giving your personal opinion as to why you personally think media decisions were made is irrelevant here and is surprising. You also just repeated the same points that we disagree on. I could show all of the reliable Sources that covered the story widely. There were so many Sources that it would take a very long time. Now Advocata unlike anyone else who has commented has actually made some objective comments that make sense based on policies and their neutrality in this discussion. I have asked Advocata if we need consensus in this case. I'm giving them time to respond which I'm very interested in. In the meantime what do you think, do we definitely need consensus here in your opinion?Birdy1234 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I based that comment on a search of Newsbank looking at stories that mention the rape allegation. When it was first revealed, though his statement that he was the subject of the investigation, there was coverage in August 2014. All major news sources made mention of his statement, but said little more. In September 2014 the stories disappeared, except for one column by Amanda Vanstone on how little media attention it had and how restrained the media was. In October and November there's a tiny bit of coverage when the accuser made a statement and some police emails appeared, but almost nothing, other than some comments on how this had no impact in the polls. Then nothing. No mention in December, a single passing mention in all of 2015, a similar passing reference in 2016, and one reference in 2017. I'm sure there is a bit more somewhere, as NewsBank doesn't cover everything, but it had very limited coverage in the press. And yes, consensus is always needed. - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you or anyone else should type Bill Shorten Rape into a Google Search. You will find many Sources. As anyone can see from Google results the coverage was completely opposite to your limited search Bilby. I'm wondering if others have been influenced by your opinions rather than a basic Google search.Birdy1234 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While a general google search provides some interesting feedback, the problem is that we need to focus on coverage in reliable sources. Newsbank is good in that it only includes sources that we find reliable and can use in the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Australian, The Age, News.com.au, Dailymail.co.uk, The ABC, Channel 9 News, The Herald Sun, The Guardian, Fox News, and the Sydney Morning Herald to name but a few of the sources all ran major articles on the Shorten rape allegations and police investigations which followed. We can use all of them in the article and these articles more than satisfy WP:BLP policies. Are any of those sources not reliable or reputable Bilby and do you agree with what Advocata said? I believe that the rape allegations should be in the article and as Advocata said we are almost mandated to do that.Birdy1234 (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they all mentioned that he had released a statement saying the he was the one being investigated, and had no case to answer. That was the coverage in August 2014. Not extensive, only brief coverage of his statement, and almost no interest beyond that. - Bilby (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-faces-bid-to-revisit-sex-claim/news-story/6621d8e7906a412d012ca81d4eb21f86Birdy1234 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the coverage I mentioned in November, 2014. The timeline is coverage of his statement in August, then a bit during late October and early November when the accuser talked about a civil suit, followed by virtually nothing, as nothing else ever eventuated. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby is correct: media coverage of this matter has been highly limited. This appears to be a crusade by a SPA for the conservative side of Australian politics given that the editor's history (posting material in the Virginia Trioli article abusing her for being rude to a conservative politician, not much else, and now this). Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Further agreement. Advocata's comment about including it being "mandated" is particularly off-the-mark - the very section quoted says any allegations must be "noteworthy, relevant and well-documented", and the first two at the very least are open to question here. Frickeg (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct. As are my comments about "allegations" which seem not to have any strong basis of notability. By the way, Advocata should be aware that personalizing discussions very rarely works towards a consensus as required by policy. In fact, it tends to change no one's positions at all, as a rule. This material is weak in probity and notability. Collect (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No, my comment about it being almost mandated 'under certain circumstances, which I proceed to then spell out by explicitly quoting policy, was precisely on the mark, as you implicitly concede. I further go on to expressly state that the editors here will have to decide whether or not those circumstances obtain, and then go on to further observe that WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION are always in effect, and to link to the handling of a potentially similar case involving a US politician (Trump) to make my contribution to y'all's article even more precise and 'on the mark', as you'd put it. Reread everything I've written as many times as is necessary to understand how inappropriate your comment is, then strike it. I really dislike being misinterpreted, especially when it's a matter of very straightforward English. Ditto for Collect, whose comments about mine are equally off the mark. Advocata (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CONSENSUS and try WP:RS while you are at it. My comment was and is "dead on" and asking me to strike it when it attacks no one won't wash. As for simple English, I consider myself fairly competent, and suggest another avenue of attack on your part is also unlikely to hit home. Collect (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

yes of course the allegations should be included - the sexual harassment allegation against Barnaby Joyce is on his page (without including his denial!) also allegations against Trump and lots of other...but not Shorten for some strange reason?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.232.210 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we should include it (and not censor it). I think the overwhelming consensus after having read this is that we put it in. The rape allegation has been clearly established, and to not include it is just a flight of fantasy, and denial of the bleeding obvious. 101.183.21.131 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Work on including rape allegations now that consensus has been built

so when will the right thing be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.232.210 (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming majority of respondents have agreed that the Bill Shorten rape allegations should be included (similar to the Barnaby Joyce allegations from WA (see his page) - let's work towards how we will include them 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:4417:FE9B:8238:3C1D (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To this end I propose we put a new subtitle under Personal life that addresses the allegation objectively. This story has been discussed by many reputable news organisations, the police, the alleged victim, a biographer, Shorten and Turnbull. Add to it extensive coverage of less serious (non-rape) allegations on Wikipedia: Joyce MP, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Don Burke, Dustin Hoffman, etc. User:Bilby is wrong to say there is consensus and to delete my contribution. Who made Bilby the arbiter of the truth? Deleted section:

Rape allegation 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.(http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/woman-who-accuses-opposition-leader-bill-shorten-of-rape-says-police-failed-her/news-story/a92bad447392ff36830daa5ef2f8971e; https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) Rumours of the allegation proliferated "for some time" in Canberra and online before it became public. (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2014/08/21/bill-shorten-rape-allegations/; https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) 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.(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/no-charges-for-labor-figure-over-alleged-rape-in-1980s/5685846) Afterward, Shorten said the allegation was "untrue and abhorrent".(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/bill-shorten-says-name-cleared-over-rape-allegation/5687172) According to journalist and Shorten biographer, David Marr, Kathy's "allegation [was] detailed" but he also noted her "confusion and distress". (https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) 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.(https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-faces-bid-to-revisit-sex-claim/news-story/6621d8e7906a412d012ca81d4eb21f86) jackbulldog2012 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no "overwhelming majority" of respondents in support of including this - in fact, there wasn't even a majority. Your proposal would be a colossal violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, with a detailed paragraph for a one-week story (that even acknowledges how weak the claim to inclusion is in its own text) in a long career in public life. I am strongly opposed to this going in unless there are any new developments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

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. 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 (much longer - check the dates) and the subject (Shorten) himself addressed the allegations, as well as the police, the Prime Minister, and the subject's biographer (read the book). Further,l Geoffrey Rush's allegation is on his wiki, it is more prominently placed (higher up the article), it received less attention, hasn't lasted as long and is not nearly as serious as a an alleged rape. jackbulldog2012 09:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bilby continues to sweep this issue under the rug, I'd encourage the vast majority of people who want to see an objective & balanced statement on this very significant and serious issue, to reverse his contributions to bury the already well-known, public, and published accusations. It is well within Wikipedia's guidelines, despite people's objections, as they are published stories from reputable news sources - and the best middle-ground for achieving consensus would be to strive for objectivity by replicating how similar allegations are displayed on other prominent person's pages. Any edits counter to this should be reversed.

What you are currently trying to do is not to include the allegations, as they are already there, but to heavily emphasis them. To put it simply, allegations which received limited coverage, had no significant impact on his position as leader, and which the police investigated and dropped after finding that there was no case to answer, are both personal and minor. A separate subsection highlighting them is clearly undue; at most the current description in the personal life section is more than appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In regard to edit:

• The rape accusation is not buried - it is included in the "personal life" section. Moving it to the "Leader of the Opposition" suggests that the allegation was connected to his role as party leader, as it was alleged to have happened many years ago, well before entering politics, I don't see that connection as viable. Unless you want to argue that the allegations were politically motivated, which seems a stretch.
• There is no need for a subheading for a two-sentence description of an allegation that went nowhere, had no visible impact on his career, and had very little media coverage.
• The claim regarding Shorten's role in removing Julia Gillard and reinstatement of Kevin Rudd is unsourced.
• I don't currently see the significance of calling Bernardi a "homophobe", and this was months before the 2016 election. His stance regarding his opposition to extending discrimination law exemptions is sourced, but I don't see how that relates to the 2016 election, which again was held months after.
• All other additions are unsourced.

The main issue - the rape allegation is already in the article. Given how little effect it had on his career, and how little it was covered by the media, I'm far from convinced that it needed to be included, and any further emphasis would be WP:undue, and a problem under WP:BLP. - Bilby (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bilby is entirely correct. In fact the personal life section is rather crowded with trivia at the moment - I would support the removal of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. Frickeg (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the number of people with particular opinions here has previously been used as an (in my opinion appalling) argument for placing greater emphasis on the rape allegations, I too now feel it necessary to say that Bilby is entirely correct. Including any content anywhere based on allegations alone seems very questionable to me. I also agree with Frickeg about the Personal life section. It is very sloppy, and names non-notable children, something I believe is against Wikipedia policy. I would go as far as proposing removal of everything after the first seven words of the second paragraph. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hilo48 is correct; WP:BLPNAME only recommends including the names of non-notable family members if they are relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the topic, which I don't believe is the case here. – Teratix ₵ 06:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Shorten a “liar”

The ABC (neutral and even left leaning media), reports that Bill Shorten “misheard” questions about his taxes to superannuation, which resulted in ScoMo calling him a “liar”. This is the citation (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-17/federal-election-shorten-clarifies-labor-superannuation-policy/11024002). Can we include this 120.29.51.76 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

End of leadership

We seem to get this every time a leader announces their departure in their concession speech. Announcing you're stepping down is not the same thing as immediately vacating the post. Normally a resignation needs to be formally accepted by a relevant official and arrangements determined for how the post is held in the immediate future (the incumbent might stay in post until the successor is elected, the deputy may step up, an executive may appoint a senior figure who isn't standing for the long term). Until we have definitive sources from those who know what they're talking about, not fast commentary on the night, Shorten should still be listed as leader. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede has been edited accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A mobile editor keeps editing here & at Australian Labor Party that Shorten is no longer leader. Would somebody explain things to him? I'm not interested in an edit war here or there. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

He led the ALP to defeat at the 2016 and 2019 elections sentence deleted. Why?

Why was my edit just reverted by you Bilby? I looked at similar articles like the John Hewson article and they include a sentence which is definitely notable so why not for Bill Shorten. John Robert Hewson AM (born 28 October 1946) is a former Australian politician who served as leader of the Liberal Party from 1990 to 1994. He led the Coalition to defeat at the 1993 federal election. Sportstir (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently, the lead states "Shorten led Labor to gain 14 seats at the 2016 federal election, when the Coalition retained its majority by just one seat" and "Shorten announced his pending resignation after Labor's defeat in the 2019 federal election". You added "[Shorten] led the ALP to defeat at the 2016 and 2019 federal elections". Per my edit summary, that was already mentioned in the lead. I didn't see why we needed the repetition. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you open to compromise here so we can put in the article something notable that many of the reliable sources are actually saying about Shorten? I think it's notable mentioning Bill lost 2 elections straight given many sources are saying that Shorten has led the ALP to 2 losses. Sportstir (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Shorten's alleged rape case re-opened in 2019

There have been multiple sources which tell us that Bill Shorten's alleged rape case of Kathy in the mid 90's is going to be re-opened. Perhaps we should have a separate section in the article about Bill's alleged rape of this woman as it seems not to be going away and is being reported on again in 2019. https://www.xyz.net.au/rape-case-may-reopen-could-metoo-hurt-bill-shorten/ This seems as notable as Julian Assange's alleged rape case being re-opened does it not? Now he is no longer ever going to be PM of Australian can we now actually report this alleged rape case. There seems to be a hell of a lot of reliable sources reporting on it. Sportstir (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning if they reopened the case. But they haven't. A couple of days before the election some people started running around saying that there was possible new evidence and the case might be reopened, and then silence. It has been over a month now and nothing has eventuated. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How is it that there is a huge section of the Julian Assange article devoted to the alleged rape in his case compared to the tiny reference in this article. You say "some people started running around saying that there was possible new evidence and the case might be reopened" Not exactly. It was Kathy Sherriff (the rape victim) and Peter Faris Queens Counsel (QC) who visited Victoria Police who provided new material for Shorten's rape investigation.

"The police told me (in August 2014) that if new witnesses were located or other evidence was found, then they would look at reopening my case," Kathy said in a statement last night. Today Kathy said, "Last night (Peter Faris QC) and I provided (to police) a list of witnesses who could provide further evidence." https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/05/complainant-hands-new-evidence-in-the-shorten-rape-allegation-to-victoria-police.html. I think there is obviously enough sources to at least have a small heading regarding the ongoing rape allegations of this rape victim Kathy Sherriff. Why are we trying to hide all of this. it's obviously not going away. Sportstir (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. So has the case been reopened, now that over a month has passed? - Bilby (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A month is not a long time. Obviously if after the rape victim first came forward in 2014 and now prestigious high level Queens Counsel (QC) is bringing it to the Attorney General and Police Chiefs again 5 years later the case is not going away for Bill. You have not answered my question about having a sub heading about all of this alleged rape over a 5 year period of reporting now. Also can we consider the https://www.xyz.net.au/rape-case-may-reopen-could-metoo-hurt-bill-shorten/ as a reliable source do you think? Sportstir (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in speculation, and should avoid reporting political witch hunts. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't had 5 years of reporting. There was reporting 5 years ago, and virtually nothing since. However no, XYZ is not a reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Put the section back in the article that had been there a long time. Its inclusion has already been discussed and settled on. Many editors seem to think we need a separate sub heading and to expand what has been put in the article. Why would xyz.net.au not be a reliable source? Why has the Julian Assange article got a separate heading about his alleged rape victim but not Shorten? Sportstir (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no real comparison between Shorten and Assange. The allegation against Shorten was investigated, went nowhere and had no significant impact on his career. The allegations against Assange led to an international arrest warrant, arrests and planned extradition, seven years spent in political asylum, being arrested again, and more attempts to seek his extradition. As to XYZ, it doesn't take much to see why - it is an alt-right, anti-Islam website that lacks sufficient distinction between news and opinion. Although it is moot either way.. - Bilby (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully endorse the perspectives of Bilby and HiLo48 – the standard of sourcing must be high in a BLP. The amount of reliable sources could at most justify a couple of neutral sentences, definitely nothing more and certainly no dedicated sub-section. It's also misleading to claim "Its inclusion has already been discussed and settled on." – an inundation of single-issue IPs doesn't constitute a consensus. – Teratix ₵ 09:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You do realise you deleted those 2 neutral sentences that had been in the article for the last couple of months don't you. To be excluding at least a couple of neutral sentences adhering to policy when we have a mass of sources that reported on the alleged rape in 2014/15 is censorship. Straight up censorship. And Wikipedia is not censored. Would you mind replacing those couple of neutral sentences now that you angrily deleted them for no good policy based reason. That would be nice. Thank you. Sportstir (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove the sentences, User:Yeti Hunter did. I merely reverted your attempt to edit-war them back into the article. – Teratix ₵ 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this article; I removed the section on sight as a violation of BLP. The bar is very high for BLP, especially with respect to such potentially damaging claims as this. Assange is a different case, for all the reasons outlined above - the allegation has already had a large impact on his life. In Shorten's case, it has not yet got got to the point of being a significant event in his career. Maybe it will become so as (and if) more information comes to light -but Wikipedia has no place being a part of that process. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

These couple of neutral sentences had been in the article for at least a couple of months. My understanding is removing them is what is called a bold edit. The sentences had reliable sources. So putting them back in is standard practice and the onus is on the editor who deleted to explain why. Hardly edit warring. I will replace them and hope that the editor who angrily deleted them can discuss here before doing it again. Sportstir (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sportstir: I strongly recommend self-reverting per the policy on restoring possibly BLP-infringing content – when content is removed in good-faith on BLP grounds the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes it to appear in the article, and if you wish to restore it unchanged you need to obtain a consensus first. Honestly, it might be time to re-run the 2018 RfC until a definitive agreement can be achieved. – Teratix ₵ 09:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind a few sentences describing what the reliable sources reported about this in 2013/14. For future reference however, Peter Faris is not a prestigious lawyer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the few sentences are "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources" and it "complies with Wikipedia's content policies" and I don't see what grounds it was deleted on which have not been provided. I'm okay leaving it without a subheading after listening to Bilby's points. Sportstir (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sportstir:, quoting BLP, "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material", regardless of how long the existing wording had been in place. The 2018 RFC resulted in "no consensus for inclusion". To now claim its inclusion had "been discussed and settled on" is simply not true. BLPs affect real people's lives, and for that reason just pointing to something that's been reported in a newspaper is rarely sufficient in these cases. I for one would support a second RFC. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rape allegation

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.

The RfC is closed with a consensus for inclusion of the text as amended herein. WP:BLPCRIME carries no additional weight in this instance, and similarly, WP:NOTNEWS. The evidence provided shows that this is more than just breaking news or trivia - though not by a great margin. While WP is not everything, in the absence of compelling reasons to preclude the mention, there is a majority (60%) of comments in support of its inclusion. Noting that this topic has been the subject of several discussions, there is merit in the pragmatic view to include this in a way that neutrally gives minimal weight to the allegation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should this section on a rape allegation be included in the article? – Teratix ₵ 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2013, after being elected as leader of the Australian Labor Party, Shorten publicly identified himself as the senior ALP figure at the centre of an allegation of rape said to have occurred in 1986. Shorten strongly denied the allegations. The Victoria Police investigated, the Office of Public Prosecutions advised there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction and no charges were laid.

Background

Bill Shorten is a prominent Australian politician who led the Labor opposition from 2013 until recently. Whether to include this allegation has been the subject of perennial discussion stretching back to 2014, when it first surfaced in the media, culminating in a 2018 RfC which resulted in no consensus. Both sides agree the allegation has received coverage from reliable sources – the dispute is whether this coverage is enough to show the allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I have opened this RfC in an effort to achieve a definitive consensus. Note the proposed text has changed significantly since the previous RfC. – Teratix ₵ 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

From previous RfC, references that may be useful as citations:

References

Survey

• Support something like this. We should report on this to the extent that there has been widespread news coverage on this. A simple summary that there was an investigation that went nowhere is far more defensible than being completely silent on it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the time of the alleged incident (1986), Shorten was not a public figure. Therefore, he is covered by WP:BLPCRIME and we should not report that he was "accused of having committed a crime". WWGB (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This raises the valid point that we should not be describing the allegation, especially its time or place. This is why the proposal should regard the investigation rather than the allegation, which occurred when he was a public figure, and where WP:BLPCRIME does not cover him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not public figures, but Bill Shorten is a public figure, so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. WP:BLPCRIME does not say that the person has to be a public figure at the time of the alleged offense. Thus, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we can document what reliable sources say. Here's an example: Michael Gove was accused of taking cocaine when he was a journalist and not yet a politician. Those sources provided above are adequate for the short paragraph proposed. starship.paint (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Tentative support. From WT:POLITICS Based on my limited understanding of these events, in 1986 Shorten was not a public figure. However, his admittance being a suspect in that case in 2013 was at a time when he was. Readers would therefore not be served by withholding this information. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - the fact that he publicly identified himself lends weight to the argument for inclusion. The essence of BLP is protecting a person's privacy, but privacy isn't really an issue when he publicly identified himself. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE an allegation, with no charges laid there is no notability to warrant inclusion in the article. A "ten month investigation" implies that 40 hours a week for 10 months police investigated the claim, all it means is that the police had an open file for 10 months, including the time in which the DPP considered what evidence they had obtained. Its inclusion isnt justified under WP:BLP either, the choice of words fails WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 10:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not censored. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so" therefore a few neutral, well sourced sentences are certainly justified. Sportstir (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Onetwothreeip and Starship.paint. There is no basis for argument that WP:PUBLICFIGURE shouldn't apply to events that occurred before the subject became a public figure. When you run for office, you open your past up to public scrutiny. I would just remove the word "strongly," which is unsourced and non-neutral. R2 (bleep) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Struck "strongly". – Teratix ₵ 03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• The source states that he responded by describing the allegation as "untrue and abhorrent" and that "[t]here is absolutely no basis for the claim". That does read like a strong denial. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's our reading as editors and we cannot explicitly draw that conclusion if the source does not. "Denied" is fine. – Teratix ₵ 22:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's not exactly a stretch to say that was a strong denial. But just to get rid of this, "He strongly denies any wrongdoing and will fully co-operate with any investigation".[1] All good now? - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. I don't think it makes too much of a difference. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Onetwothreeip and Mitch Ames, the proposed language is neutrally phrased and adequately summarises the allegation and the investigations. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose - an investigation that went nowhere and may well have been politically motivated. WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't mean that everything that's ever been written about someone must be included. Inclusion entails real ongoing damage to a living person. Even minimalist inclusion as helpfully suggested above would have the same effect, and could serve as an ongoing vandalism magnet.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Although the accusation could be politically motivated, do you have any reason at all to suggest the investigation itself was politically motivated? If it was, that would be very notable indeed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not aware of any evidence or speculation that the investigation, rather than the accusation, was politically motivated. Poor wording on my part above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - similar reasons to Gnagarra above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't report on anything, nor is a catalogue of everything that happened in a person's life. It's an encyclopedia that gives an overview of the important aspects of a person's life, based on what the reliable sources say are important. Yes there are reliable sources about the allegation, but there are also reliable sources as to the name of his dog. If the allegation was so important I would expect to see lots of general articles about Shorten in reliable sources that refer to the allegation. Yes it was touched on in a general article by David Marr in 2016, but that was as about it's affect on Shorten rather than the allegations themselves. If they are out there, you should be able to point to them. Find bruce (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - another one along the same lines as Gnagarra. Plus these articles must always avoid having the look of containing stuff in them that his political opponents want there. He has an article because he is a politician. His political activities must be the primary and almost exclusive content. Rejected allegations simply don't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Other wikipedia pages have included allegations: Donald Trump, Luke Foley, Barnaby Joyce, Bill Clinton, Bob Ellis etc. It is not our job to write or edit wipikedia with it in our mind caring what the subject or their political opponents might think WP:NPOV. To erase information to protect the subject from their opponents is just as biased as to intentionally seek content that opponents would "like". We are not the originators of these events, our job is merely to record them, the good and the bad.Powertothepeople (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Pragmatically if nothing is said in the article, then sooner or later someone will add the allegation because reliable sources exist. I think it is better to say something along the lines proposed, sticking as close to the source wording as we can. Also I note people are suggesting it be removed because the allegation or its addition to the article was or may be politically motivated. Do we have any RS for that? There are plenty of rape victims who never see their rapist taken to court for a range of reasons. It doesn’t automatically make them liars, it doesn’t make them politically motivated if the person they accuse is or later becomes a public figure. Kerry (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

failure to proceed doesnt mean the person is guilty even by innuendo, it is a WP:BLP issue to make an assumption that Bill Shorten is a rapist of victim who hasn't seen justice. WP:UNDUE says we dont give weight to an anything that isnt notable. Adding it to the article is implying it was a significant event related to him, which it wasnt, yes people can search and find it, besides being in a source not one support has given any policy reason as to why its should be included. Gnangarra 12:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That is my point. None of us know whether the rape did or didn’t happen. We do not know if the allegation was politically motivated or not. We don’t know the precise reasons why it didn’t proceed to court. So these are not issues that we can use to decide what to do with the article. We do know (by RS) that there was an allegation, BS outed himself and denied it, and the matter didn’t proceed to a trial. WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems to be directly applicable. I don’t see undue weight in the proposed text (or as amended as Mitch Ames suggests). The allegation is offset by the denial and the decision not to proceed. Kerry (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:NOTNEWS an encyclopedia should not cover every unproven allegation, if it went to court that would be a different matter, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and think Mitch Ames is correct that Shorten's self identification is pretty much a complete answer to the WP:BLPCRIME concerns. That said, I oppose on the same basis as Atlantic306. We are WP:NOTNEWS. There also does not seem to have been significant coverage of this in WP:RS, nearly all of the articles are on 20/21 August 2014. This is not sustained coverage. In all the circumstances, I think we should exclude it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Must Support. Here as a result of Feedback request service. There IS sustained coverage of the allegations, perhaps less so now he has resigned. A lot of Wikipedia policy tagging going on, but really at the end of the day, Wikipedia is exists to provide encyclopaedic information, which despite what some may think, fundamentally includes well reported allegations about people. The same exists for countless historical figures, both living and long ago. Some of the most important (and interesting) stories about historical figures comes from unproven but widely-believed to be true allegations. It would simply be unencyclopedic not to include it. Aeonx (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Had you omitted the words "widely-believed to be true", that would have appeared to be an objective comment. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 I don't think they are speaking specifically about Shorten. Otherwise I would agree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What would be the point of using that expression at all if it wasn't meant to include the Shorten case? HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are WP:RS suggesting that the allegations are "widely believed to be true" that would certainly militate towards inclusion. I have not seen sourcing to establish that though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read that line again, people "Some of the most important (and interesting) stories about historical figures comes from unproven but widely-believed to be true allegations." This is not saying the rape allegations against shorten are widely believed, it is making the argument that history is full of allegations and rumours that were not erased but are part of the official record as being unproven allegations. What is true is that the allegations were made (not whether the allegations were true). Powertothepeople (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The dismissed case has received significant attention from 2014 until present (e.g. [2]) - during which time our subject was a public figure. That the alleged rape took place in 1986 is immaterial as the investigation took place in 2014 and coverage has continued from 2014 to 2019.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Got a more balanced source than The Australian to support that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a national newspaper? In any event - Shorten himself identified himself as the target of the dropped investigation in 2014 - ABC - which was widely covered, as well as in these books - [3][4] (both published by Schwartz Publishing). Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, The Australian is a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. I hope you realise what that means about its political leanings. I don't believe it has formally supported the ALP in it's editorial since the days of Gough Whitlam, i.e. 1972. Secondly, you are changing your position. No-one is debating whether the fuss was about Shorten, but you are arguing that the "case has received significant attention from 2014 until present". No, it hasn't. Maybe in The Australian, but they would condemn a Labor leader for wearing non-matching socks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, HiLo48 you asked for more credible sources, and they have been provided. Secondly, there isn't a single print newspaper in Australia that is free of bias. All publications - The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald/Age, Daily Telegraph, Australian Financial Review, Courier, etc - are guilty of editorialising for and against different political parties and leaders. If we ignored all publications we'd have very little news, very few sources to draw on. In terms of meeting wikipedia's Notability criteria, The Australian would be regarded as one of the more reputable papers (even if you and I think it is often trash). Powertothepeople (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

But we must not kid ourselves. Can you produce an example of The Australian saying something positive about Shorten? HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you produce an example of something positive Shorten has done that should have been covered by The Australian? Powertothepeople (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI I am not a fan of The Australian, but I don't think any of our newspapers are any good. The state of journalism is pretty dire right now. There has been biased reporting in all private media, and neither ABC nor SBS have a print publication. Can sometimes get some content from ABC/SBS online reports or radio & tv transcripts but they only cover a tiny fraction of stuff. As such, we have to make do with what we have access to. And maybe read more books.Powertothepeople (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support To compare this to other wikipedia articles, Donald Trump's entry mentions allegations of rape against him, as does Luke Foley's entry mention sexual harassment claim even though there was no official complaint made, no police investigation, no charges in that instance - so there is precedence. It is a fact that allegations have been made (the rape itself not a proven fact) and reported with multiple sources, including Bill Shorten speaking publicly about it himself, and this makes it worthy of inclusion as long as it is neutrally worded, which the current paragraph suggestion is. For those who are hesitant, perhaps you could further an add sentence along the lines of "In 2014, Senior MPs from both the Coalition and Labor made public statements to the effect that this sexual assault allegation should now be put to rest." [5] For those who claim it is not notable enough to mention, well by that rule you could erase half of this article, and half of wikipedia. What is notable and relevant to one person is not to another. IMHO some detail is better than erasure. Let's put this to bed rather than continuing the argument for another 5 years. Powertothepeople (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I saw your suggestion that we should include words saying the issue "should now be put to rest", when that is precisely the opposite of what you are proposing doing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. 'Putting to rest' doesn't mean erasing the past. It means acknowledging the issue and moving on. If you pretend it never happened, people will keep bringing it back up, the debate will continue. And it was the politicians (on both sides) who said the issue "should now be put to rest," which I imagine would present a fairly neutral & bipartisan POV on the issue (seeing as some, including yourself, have suggested this claim is politically motivated; it doesn't appear to be based on this article). Powertothepeople (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Yeah. Look, just stick the damn stuff in. I simply but accurately described my reaction to those words. Maybe my sense of irony needs reining in sometimes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a cited short neutral description of the allegation (including self-identification, denial and absence of prosecution), such as the above, for the same reasons Kerry gave above. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

denial and absence of prosecution makes it not notable, to use that as an inclusion rationale makes it a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 08:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It had been in the news as "a senior Labor figure" for some time before he made public that it was himself that was being talked about. I imagine that the issue was significant in his mind for much of the duration of the investigation, even if he knew he had done nothing wrong. The police conducted a serious investigation, and didn't just wave it off as political pointscoring. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What we imagine is irrelevant, again if the reason for inclusion is he denied the allegation and there was no prosecution then thats a WP:NPOV violation, his acknowledging of the issue does go someway to negating WP:BLP, but again it went no further than that. He was never charged, every investigation must include anyone who potentially had opportunity otherwise it'll get thrown out of court. Gnangarra 05:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Notified BLP/N, WP Bio's Politics workgroup, WP Politics, WP Aus Politics and the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard. – Teratix ₵ 02:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I support the proposal, I believe the following to be more appropriate, as it doesn't suggest there was some particular event at some particular time, and some minor editing.

In 2013, after being elected as leader of the Labor Party, Shorten publicly identified himself as the senior ALP figure being investigated regarding an alleged historic rape offence. Shorten strongly denied the allegations. After Victoria Police conducted a ten month investigation, the Office of Public Prosecutions advised there was "no reasonable prospect of a conviction" and no charges were laid.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Minor correction: the quote should be "no reasonable prospect of conviction" (not "... a conviction"), to accurately reflect the source. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm struck by how many of the "Supports" above have said some variation of "It's been reported in reliable sources (ie, various newspapers), therefore its inclusion is unassailable". That might be true for Wikinews, but Wikipedia has a higher bar. This article should be an encyclopaedic biography including all notable aspects of that person's life. As many others have said, refuted allegations which did not even result in any public scandal, far less actual charges or a conviction, do not meet this description. Comparisons with Donald Trump or Luke Foley (aside from being an appeal to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) are inapt - those allegations had immediate and ongoing political ramifications, in Clinton's case for well over 20 years. Each case has to be weighed on its own merits; Wikipedia should be more than an unthinking parrot for anything written in the papers - we are NOTNEWS. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2019 (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.

Post-RFC comments

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.

---

Obviously with the case back in the news in 2021, being mentioned in comparison to the Christian Porter allegations, this needs to be in. But even back in 2019 I would have given support. I almost always believe in including these sort of things (true "scandalous" stories about politicians' personal lives), because many people are interested to know about them, and go to Wikipedia for this sort of information. And it is far better for readers to get a neutral and factual mention on Wikipedia, not only because the alternative is to get a biased description of it elsewhere, but also because omitting it leaves WP open to accusations of hiding the truth. And there is very little downside to including it: just one short paragraph in a long article. Adpete (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of Bill Shorten's rape allegation. Obviously. If you look at the Christian Porter article you see how his alleged rape received a significant part of the article space whereas Shorten's alleged rape has received a tiny part of this article. Honestyisbest (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Also when you look at the main objection – that it is allegedly WP:NOTNEWS – it is pretty obvious from a read of WP:NOTNEWS that a police investigation of a rape allegation is not "not news". The examples given in WP:NOTNEWS are "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and "Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.". A rape allegation which has been taken seriously enough to be investigated by police, is miles over that threshold, and clearly deserves a mention. Adpete (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I was just adding to the arguments in favour of inclusion, in case the 2019 argument resurfaces. Adpete (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (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.