Talk:Bill Shorten

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:^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

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". 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. ) - 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 - (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." 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.^[1]

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)

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)