Talk:Bill Shorten

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Shorten a “liar” 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  End of leadership 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  He led the ALP to defeat at the 2016 and 2019 elections sentence deleted. Why? 

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

text: *Struck "strongly". – Teratix ₵ 03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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". All good now? - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure. I don't think it makes too much of a difference. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Got a more balanced source than The Australian to support that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 -  (both published by Schwartz Publishing).  Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Minor correction: the quote should be "" (not ""), to accurately reflect the source. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is mentioned. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Rape allegation 

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Background 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Struck "strongly". – Teratix ₵ 03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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". All good now? - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure. I don't think it makes too much of a difference. – Teratix ₵ 12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Got a more balanced source than The Australian to support that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 -  (both published by Schwartz Publishing).  Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: 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)
replies: text: Minor correction: the quote should be "" (not ""), to accurately reflect the source. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is mentioned. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Post-RFC comments