Talk:Bill Shorten - Knowledge

1072:

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.

1404:

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?

3563:, 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. 4053:'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." 1710:

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. -

3768:. 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 Knowledge policy tagging going on, but really at the end of the day, Knowledge 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. 4340:

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; Knowledge should be more than an unthinking parrot for anything written in the papers - we are NOTNEWS. -

694: 744: 549: 1678:

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. -

232: 2168:

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)

947: 482: 670: 893: 805: 784: 563: 514: 329: 646: 420: 1695:

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?

396: 573: 718: 542: 815: 3500:- 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.-- 365: 3641:

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.

1616:

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?

2326:

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.

3580:- 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. 4401:

information. And it is far better for readers to get a neutral and factual mention on Knowledge, 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.

763: 2172:

within Knowledge'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.

430: 2495:"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." 3969:

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).

4154:

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

2776:

I think the few sentences are "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources" and it "complies with Knowledge'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

2687:

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

2254:

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

1321:

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,

1194:

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

4056:

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

2400:

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 " led the ALP to defeat at the 2016 and

1709:

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

1694:

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

1485:

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

3968:

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

3680:

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

3348:

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

2631:

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

2438:

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

1929:

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

1466:

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

1336:

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

3853:

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

2592:

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

2462:

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. -

2076:

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)

1677:

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

1504:

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

1086:

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

4339:

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 Knowledge has a higher bar. This article should be an encyclopaedic biography

3640:

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

3306:

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

2577:

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

2325:

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

2198:

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

2171:

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

1775:

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

1254:

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

4400:

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 Knowledge for this sort of

4089:

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,"

4011:

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

2167:

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

1592:

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

1108:

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

1071:

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

3949:

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

2255:

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 Knowledge policy. I would go as far as proposing removal of everything after the first seven words of the second paragraph.

2176:

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

3667:

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.

1403:

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

1019:

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

2384:

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.

2208:

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

1034:

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.

1615:

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

1303:

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

1536:, 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. 4164:

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

2481:

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

1144:

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

2415:

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.

2802:". 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. -- 3929: 3927: 2531:(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 4416:

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.

2667:

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

1223:

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

1178:

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

1827:

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. -

1864:

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.

1274:

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

2611:

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. –

1129:

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

1003:

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

1796:

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. -

2672:

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 Knowledge has no place being a part of that process.

1561:, 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 1638:

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

2593:

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.. -

3950:

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.

2713:– 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 1981:

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?...

3622:. 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. 3181:

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

2898:

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

1909:, 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 1728:

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

1087:

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.

2217:

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

3141:

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.

1743:

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. -

2148:, 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. 1960:

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

2061:

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

4230:

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

1304:

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

2447:'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. 2499:. 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. 2861:, 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 2116:) 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.( 1780:

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

4090:

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).

2177:

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. -

1398:

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

1020:

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?

3285:- 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. 4546: 1228:. 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 496: 166: 3330:

Knowledge is not censored. "Knowledge may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so" therefore a few neutral, well sourced sentences are certainly justified.

1269:

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

1427:

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

2632:

censorship. And Knowledge 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.

4075:

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.

4541: 2302:

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 (

2063: 3890:) - 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. 3518:

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.

1573:, 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 4129:

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. --

3685:

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.

3029: 2101: 1528:" is the same as saying that no substantial evidence of the alleged crime was found by police. As a result, the matter falls under Knowledge policy regarding "allegations" in general. If 1644: 1557:'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 2916:

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

1057:. 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. 4226:

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.

3390:

The source states that he responded by describing the allegation as "untrue and abhorrent" and that "here is absolutely no basis for the claim". That does read like a strong denial. -

4521: 2924:

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

491: 406: 2798:, 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 " 3888: 2273:

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. –

1891:

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.

1240:. 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. 4606: 2240:

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.

708: 4551: 3258:

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

1842:

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

3429:

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".

309: 2202:

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.

3113: 2133: 4636: 1811: 4626: 4611: 2761:

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.

2157: 2140:

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

2067: 871: 861: 339:

who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

4012:

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.

3835:

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.--

1423:

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

160: 1565:. 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 ( 2100:

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.(

1289:

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. -

4631: 4104:

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.

2496: 1305: 1036: 4601: 4526: 3226:

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.

2132:) 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.( 541: 314: 2102:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/woman-who-accuses-opposition-leader-bill-shorten-of-rape-says-police-failed-her/news-story/a92bad447392ff36830daa5ef2f8971e

4591: 4566: 837: 684: 626: 297:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 4621: 4576: 4236: 2904: 1337:

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?

660: 636: 92: 4455:". A rape allegation which has been taken seriously enough to be investigated by police, is miles over that threshold, and clearly deserves a mention. 703: 532: 2932:. I have opened this RfC in an effort to achieve a definitive consensus. Note the proposed text has changed significantly since the previous RfC. – 2303: 4616: 4596: 4556: 3751:, 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.-- 1574: 448: 289: 4054: 4581: 3851:"Some of the most important (and interesting) stories about historical figures comes from unproven but widely-believed to be true allegations." 828: 789: 3482:

per Onetwothreeip and Mitch Ames, the proposed language is neutrally phrased and adequately summarises the allegation and the investigations.

2563:

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. -

98: 2607:

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

3233: 2047: 2021: 1989: 452: 57: 3922:

Seems to be a national newspaper? In any event - Shorten himself identified himself as the target of the dropped investigation in 2014 -

2134:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-faces-bid-to-revisit-sex-claim/news-story/6621d8e7906a412d012ca81d4eb21f86

4586: 4561: 4536: 1812:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-faces-bid-to-revisit-sex-claim/news-story/6621d8e7906a412d012ca81d4eb21f86

548: 3618:

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

3070: 2117: 4571: 2307: 927: 456: 4142:

denial and absence of prosecution makes it not notable, to use that as an inclusion rationale makes it a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

3923: 3091: 2121: 2401:

2019 federal elections". Per my edit summary, that was already mentioned in the lead. I didn't see why we needed the repetition. -

447:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3408:

Yes, but that's our reading as editors and we cannot explicitly draw that conclusion if the source does not. "Denied" is fine. –

4300: 2966: 911: 679: 602: 589: 528: 519: 443: 401: 342: 112: 43: 2497:

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/05/complainant-hands-new-evidence-in-the-shorten-rape-allegation-to-victoria-police.html

1306:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590071/Australia-s-Labor-leader-Bill-Shorten-dismisses-rape-accusations-new-book.html

1037:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590071/Australia-s-Labor-leader-Bill-Shorten-dismisses-rape-accusations-new-book.html

2828: 903: 655: 524: 117: 33: 2688:

edit warring. I will replace them and hope that the editor who angrily deleted them can discuss here before doing it again.

2097:

is wrong to say there is consensus and to delete my contribution. Who made Bilby the arbiter of the truth? Deleted section:

4449:

routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia

4391:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

181: 4508:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4358:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4218: 3459: 3417: 3378: 2941: 2889: 2726: 2659: 2621: 2282: 87: 3710:

an encyclopedia should not cover every unproven allegation, if it went to court that would be a different matter, thanks

2527:

A month is not a long time. Obviously if after the rape victim first came forward in 2014 and now prestigious high level

2360:

that Shorten is no longer leader. Would somebody explain things to him? I'm not interested in an edit war here or there.

148: 2153: 376: 4531: 2921: 2917: 2714: 2710: 2199:

connection as viable. Unless you want to argue that the allegations were politically motivated, which seems a stretch.

963: 265: 203: 78: 3983:

But we must not kid ourselves. Can you produce an example of The Australian saying something positive about Shorten?

3050: 2109: 2020:

has been clearly established, and to not include it is just a flight of fantasy, and denial of the bleeding obvious.

4305: 4095: 4062: 4017: 4002: 3997:

Can you produce an example of something positive Shorten has done that should have been covered by The Australian?

3974: 3859: 3627: 2971: 2331: 1232:

another ALP politician Australian editors all know. Under her Personal Life section of the article is this section

198: 3840: 3756: 3013: 2304:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-17/federal-election-shorten-clarifies-labor-superannuation-policy/11024002

269: 975: 212: 3487: 3430: 3239: 3008: 2129: 2113: 2105: 2025: 2051: 1993: 142: 3786:

Had you omitted the words "widely-believed to be true", that would have appeared to be an objective comment.

2532: 2440: 2149: 4422: 4250: 3808: 3690: 3681:

RS) that there was an allegation, BS outed himself and denied it, and the matter didn’t proceed to a trial.

3646: 3523: 3254: 3191: 3147: 2870: 2858: 2766: 2311: 2125: 907: 820: 298: 122: 4165:

investigation must include anyone who potentially had opportunity otherwise it'll get thrown out of court.

3159:. At the time of the alleged incident (1986), Shorten was not a public figure. Therefore, he is covered by 3884: 3728: 3682: 3355: 3219: 2929: 2770: 2456: 2357: 2205:

The claim regarding Shorten's role in removing Julia Gillard and reinstatement of Kevin Rudd is unsourced.

2108:) Rumours of the allegation proliferated "for some time" in Canberra and online before it became public. ( 1790: 1586: 1545: 1460: 1413: 1188: 1013: 921: 693: 138: 4453:

Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

4345: 4091: 4058: 4013: 3998: 3970: 3855: 3817:

What would be the point of using that expression at all if it wasn't meant to include the Shorten case?

3715: 3623: 3541: 3505: 2807: 2678: 2327: 382: 4483:

Sure. I was just adding to the arguments in favour of inclusion, in case the 2019 argument resurfaces.

917: 4276: 3836: 3752: 3568: 3290: 3096: 3075: 2043: 1985: 1922: 1660: 1039:

Why the heck would this not be included when so many Reliable Sources ran stories on the rape claims?

308:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2118:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/no-charges-for-labor-figure-over-alleged-rape-in-1980s/5685846

1814: 1782: 1730: 1696: 1617: 1506: 1472: 1429: 1405: 1366: 1338: 1308: 1276: 1241: 1180: 1150: 1131: 1088: 1073: 1040: 1021: 1005: 743: 364: 188: 4169: 4146: 3932: 3672: 3483: 3336: 3319: 3228: 2782: 2693: 2637: 2583: 2540: 2504: 2452: 2421: 2390: 1953: 1818: 1786: 1734: 1700: 1621: 1562: 1510: 1476: 1433: 1409: 1370: 1342: 1312: 1280: 1245: 1184: 1154: 1135: 1092: 1077: 1044: 1025: 1009: 350: 273: 174: 68: 836:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4418: 4314: 4246: 3804: 3736: 3686: 3642: 3519: 3208: 3187: 3183: 3160: 3143: 2980: 2866: 2846: 2762: 2347: 2122:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/bill-shorten-says-name-cleared-over-rape-allegation/5687172

1949: 1939: 1668: 1612: 1582: 1570: 1103: 981: 598: 346: 312:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 240: 217: 83: 753: 231: 1850:

article abusing her for being rude to a conservative politician, not much else, and now this).

4444: 4440: 4436: 4214: 3940: 3895: 3744: 3707: 3663:

issue to make an assumption that Bill Shorten is a rapist of victim who hasn't seen justice.

3560: 3455: 3413: 3374: 3350: 2937: 2885: 2850: 2722: 2655: 2617: 2365: 2278: 2270: 2245: 1970: 1914: 1896: 1870: 1652: 1541: 1495: 1214: 64: 4488: 4460: 4406: 4397: 4341: 4109: 4080: 3988: 3955: 3913: 3822: 3791: 3740: 3711: 3585: 3537: 3501: 3218:

say that the person has to be a public figure at the time of the alleged offense. Thus, per

2803: 2674: 2647: 2554: 2486:(QC) who visited Victoria Police who provided new material for Shorten's rape investigation. 2260: 2082: 1855: 1456: 1149:. I look forward to your reply addressing these specific points I am making based on policy. 1114: 1062: 977: 946: 578: 435: 214: 4474: 4443:

that a police investigation of a rape allegation is not "not news". The examples given in

4375: 4327: 4272: 4232: 4156: 4130: 3773: 3732: 3664: 3564: 3437: 3395: 3303: 3286: 2993: 2900: 2598: 2568: 2549:

Knowledge does not deal in speculation, and should avoid reporting political witch hunts.

2518: 2468: 2406: 2231: 2219: 2182: 2145: 1918: 1847: 1833: 1802: 1749: 1715: 1683: 1656: 1598: 1444: 1356: 1327: 1294: 1260: 1200: 1109:

denial, etc - instead the weight is on the claims), which greatly weakens your case here.

305: 154: 3536:, rather than the accusation, was politically motivated. Poor wording on my part above.-- 2865:

to include this in a way that neutrally gives minimal weight to the allegation. Regards,

1471:

which I certainly have read and understand. Any reasons to keep this out of the article?

995:

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

4396:

Obviously with the case back in the news in 2021, being mentioned in comparison to the

4166: 4143: 3669: 3619: 3332: 3316: 3312: 3214:, but Bill Shorten is a public figure, so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. WP:BLPCRIME does 3168: 3119: 2793: 2778: 2704: 2689: 2633: 2579: 2536: 2528: 2500: 2483: 2478: 2448: 2444: 2417: 2386: 2090: 1487: 3887:. The dismissed case has received significant attention from 2014 until present (e.g. 3735:

is correct that Shorten's self identification is pretty much a complete answer to the

2578:

Assange article got a separate heading about his alleged rape victim but not Shorten?

2016:. I think the overwhelming consensus after having read this is that we put it in. The 481: 4515: 3803:

I don't think they are speaking specifically about Shorten. Otherwise I would agree.

3660: 3607: 3308: 3269: 3071:"Senior Labor Party figure will not face criminal charges over alleged rape in 1980s" 3055: 2342: 2223: 2141: 1935: 1884: 1777: 1664: 1608: 1578: 1566: 1558: 1468: 1448: 1424: 1420: 1400: 1271: 1229: 1225: 1146: 1126: 1054: 1927:

link to the handling of a potentially similar case involving a US politician (Trump)

1443:

The above appears similar to the disruptive POV-pushing conduct by Birdy1234 in the

4210: 4046: 3936: 3891: 3832: 3748: 3611: 3599: 3451: 3409: 3370: 3223: 2933: 2881: 2718: 2651: 2613: 2361: 2274: 2241: 2078: 1966: 1957: 1931: 1892: 1866: 1554: 1537: 1491: 1210: 734: 37: 2907:

advised there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction and no charges were laid.

2380:

Why was my edit just reverted by you Bilby? I looked at similar articles like the

2128:, Kathy's "allegation detailed" but he also noted her "confusion and distress". ( 2110:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2014/08/21/bill-shorten-rape-allegations/

669: 328: 3030:"Woman who accuses Opposition Leader Bill Shorten of rape says police failed her" 4484: 4456: 4402: 4155:

serious investigation, and didn't just wave it off as political pointscoring. --

4105: 4076: 3984: 3965: 3951: 3909: 3818: 3800: 3787: 3581: 3307:

considered what evidence they had obtained. Its inclusion isnt justified under

2845:

The RfC is closed with a consensus for inclusion of the text as amended herein.

2550: 2381: 2256: 1851: 1452: 1110: 1058: 833: 804: 783: 562: 513: 645: 419: 395: 4470: 4371: 4050: 3769: 3659:

failure to proceed doesnt mean the person is guilty even by innuendo, it is a

3603: 3433: 3391: 3034: 2650:

did. I merely reverted your attempt to edit-war them back into the article. –

2594: 2564: 2514: 2464: 2402: 2376:

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

2227: 2178: 2094: 1829: 1798: 1745: 1711: 1679: 1663:

still bear upon the inclusion of these allegations (as with everything else).

1640: 1594: 1352: 1323: 1290: 1256: 1196: 810: 717: 568: 425: 336: 902:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

3615: 3164: 3163:

and we should not report that he was "accused of having committed a crime".

2130:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html

2114:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html

2106:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html

2086: 1419:

As a matter of fact after looking at even more notable persons bios such as

594: 264:)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 2533:

https://www.xyz.net.au/rape-case-may-reopen-could-metoo-hurt-bill-shorten/

2513:

Great. So has the case been reopened, now that over a month has passed? -

2441:

https://www.xyz.net.au/rape-case-may-reopen-could-metoo-hurt-bill-shorten/

1125:

No edit war going on here. And I am being very careful. Now, based on the

3747:. There also does not seem to have been significant coverage of this in 3264: 3262:

Readers would therefore not be served by withholding this information. –

2857:

breaking news or trivia - though not by a great margin. While WP is not

1879:

Correct. As are my comments about "allegations" which seem not to have

979: 832:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to 814: 216: 2880:

Should this section on a rape allegation be included in the article? –

3908:

Got a more balanced source than The Australian to support that claim?

730: 2120:) Afterward, Shorten said the allegation was "untrue and abhorrent".( 4492: 4478: 4464: 4426: 4410: 4379: 4349: 4280: 4254: 4221: 4172: 4159: 4149: 4133: 4113: 4099: 4084: 4066: 4021: 4006: 3992: 3978: 3959: 3944: 3917: 3899: 3863: 3844: 3826: 3812: 3795: 3777: 3760: 3719: 3694: 3675: 3650: 3631: 3589: 3572: 3545: 3527: 3509: 3491: 3462: 3441: 3420: 3399: 3381: 3360: 3340: 3322: 3294: 3277: 3244: 3195: 3172: 3151: 2944: 2892: 2874: 2811: 2786: 2729: 2697: 2682: 2662: 2641: 2624: 2602: 2587: 2572: 2558: 2544: 2522: 2508: 2472: 2425: 2410: 2394: 2369: 2349: 2335: 2315: 2285: 2264: 2249: 2235: 2186: 2071: 2055: 2036:

Work on including rape allegations now that consensus has been built

2029: 1997: 1974: 1943: 1900: 1874: 1859: 1837: 1822: 1806: 1753: 1738: 1719: 1704: 1687: 1672: 1625: 1602: 1514: 1499: 1480: 1437: 1374: 1360: 1346: 1331: 1316: 1298: 1284: 1264: 1249: 1218: 1204: 1158: 1139: 1118: 1096: 1081: 1066: 1048: 1029: 455:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 3532:

To clarify, I'm not aware of any evidence or speculation that the

3092:"Bill Shorten speaks out after 1980s rape allegation case dropped" 4435:

Also when you look at the main objection – that it is allegedly

3222:, we can document what reliable sources say. Here's an example: 1490:, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a different answer there. 2949:

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

2849:

carries no additional weight in this instance, and similarly,

982: 940: 887: 358: 323: 304:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

281: 226: 218: 28: 15: 4301:"Shorten outs himself as Labor figure in rape investigation" 2967:"Shorten outs himself as Labor figure in rape investigation" 742: 716: 692: 668: 644: 480: 4547:

Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles

4049:'s entry mentions allegations of rape against him, as does 1195:

in adding accusations that made it no further than that. -

1553:(in response to request at BLP noticeboard) - contrary to 3450:

Sure. I don't think it makes too much of a difference. –

1776:

them in the article and these articles more than satisfy

900:

contributor may be personally or professionally connected

3926:- which was widely covered, as well as in these books - 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 2711:

the policy on restoring possibly BLP-infringing content

2192: 1843: 2920:, when it first surfaced in the media, culminating in 1934:, whose comments about mine are equally off the mark. 341:

For that reason, this article is at increased risk of

173: 2853:. The evidence provided shows that this is more than 4542:

C-Class biography (politics and government) articles

3739:

concerns. That said, I oppose on the same basis as

2827:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

1593:

relived that this had concluded, but little more. -

2837:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2433: 2014:

Agree that we should include it (and not censor it)

998: 990: 3559:- similar reasons to Gnagarra above. Knowledge is 3112: 2434:Bill Shorten's alleged rape case re-opened in 2019 2124:) According to journalist and Shorten biographer, 999:Bill Shorten's Rape Allegations should be included 991:Bill Shorten's State Parliamentary work experience 3598:Other wikipedia pages have included allegations: 3212:applies to individuals who are not public figures 2717:until a definitive agreement can be achieved. – 1451:and understand that it is taken very seriously. 1209:Agreed. BLPs should err on the side of caution. 593:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1905:No, my comment about it being almost mandated ' 4522:Knowledge articles that use Australian English 2477:How is it that there is a huge section of the 601:. If you would like to participate, visit the 4239:advised there was "no reasonable prospect of 4228: 4045:To compare this to other wikipedia articles, 3114:"Bill Shorten faces bid to revisit sex claim" 2896: 2840:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2136:) jackbulldog2012 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1488:the biographies of living persons noticeboard 187: 8: 4607:High-importance Australian politics articles 2356:A mobile editor keeps editing here & at 1447:article. Birdy1234, you really need to read 4552:Politics and government work group articles 2341:The lede has been edited accordingly. -- 930:) This user has contributed to the article. 2163:BLP rules allow for the publication of an 2041: 1983: 778: 508: 390: 244:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 4637:Articles edited by connected contributors 4235:conducted a ten month investigation, the 2926:noteworthy, relevant, and well documented 1883:strong basis of notability. By the way, 1724:I suggest you or anyone else should type 4627:Mid-importance organized labour articles 4612:WikiProject Australian politics articles 2709:I strongly recommend self-reverting per 4291: 4259:Minor correction: the quote should be " 2957: 2064:2001:8003:6A23:2C00:4417:FE9B:8238:3C1D 2040:so when will the right thing be done? 1255:over. They aren't really comparable. - 780: 510: 392: 362: 4439:– it is pretty obvious from a read of 4323: 4322:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 4312: 4271:"), to accurately reflect the source. 4264: 4260: 3211: 3009:"Bill Shorten: the man in the machine" 2989: 2988:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 2978: 2925: 846:Knowledge:WikiProject Organized Labour 492:the politics and government work group 4632:WikiProject Organized Labour articles 4243:conviction" and no charges were laid. 1322:but only to a very limited extent. - 849:Template:WikiProject Organized Labour 272:, this should not be changed without 7: 4602:C-Class Australian politics articles 4387:The following discussion is closed. 4299:Grattan, Michelle (24 August 2014). 4261:no reasonable prospect of conviction 2965:Grattan, Michelle (24 August 2014). 2077:allegations on Knowledge: Joyce MP, 1526:no reasonable prospect of conviction 826:This article is within the scope of 441:This article is within the scope of 4527:Biography articles of living people 4207:Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard 2535:as a reliable source do you think? 1930:straightforward English. Ditto for 381:It is of interest to the following 36:for discussing improvements to the 4592:High-importance Melbourne articles 4567:High-importance Australia articles 3311:either, the choice of words fails 3111:Merritt, Chris (2 November 2014). 3090:Griffiths, Emma (21 August 2014). 2212:All other additions are unsourced. 1532:charges are brought, and there is 725:Need help improving this article? 14: 4622:C-Class organized labour articles 4577:High-importance Victoria articles 4370:Discussion is already settled. - 3051:"Shorten's gamble on rape claims" 1534:appreciable doubt as to the crime 4504:The discussion above is closed. 4354:The discussion above is closed. 3028:Hurley, David (1 October 2014). 2646:I did not remove the sentences, 945: 891: 813: 803: 782: 761: 571: 561: 547: 540: 512: 428: 418: 394: 363: 327: 287:This article must adhere to the 230: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 3049:Lewis, Steve (21 August 2014). 1569:) policy track, which contains 866:This article has been rated as 704:WikiProject Australian politics 631:This article has been rated as 611:Knowledge:WikiProject Australia 465:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 4617:WikiProject Australia articles 4597:WikiProject Melbourne articles 4557:WikiProject Biography articles 2875:00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 1913:go on to further observe that 1505:country. We're all only human. 757:can be contacted via email to 614:Template:WikiProject Australia 468:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 4582:WikiProject Victoria articles 4237:Office of Public Prosecutions 3849:Read that line again, people 2905:Office of Public Prosecutions 2030:01:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1998:23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 1925:are always in effect, and to 840:and see a list of open tasks. 769:for non-editorial assistance. 731:National Library of Australia 701:This article is supported by 677:This article is supported by 653:This article is supported by 489:This article is supported by 290:biographies of living persons 55:Put new text under old text. 3854:the allegations were true). 829:WikiProject Organized Labour 453:contribute to the discussion 4195:WP Bio's Politics workgroup 3007:Marr, David (12 May 2016). 1907:under certain circumstances 1651:of use, and also note that 754:Wikimedia Australia chapter 302:must be removed immediately 63:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 4653: 4587:C-Class Melbourne articles 4562:C-Class Australia articles 4537:C-Class biography articles 4427:22:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 4411:22:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 2800:no consensus for inclusion 2316:17:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC) 2187:04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 2158:08:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 2072:13:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 872:project's importance scale 637:project's importance scale 4572:C-Class Victoria articles 4350:00:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 4281:05:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 4255:04:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 4222:02:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 4173:05:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 4160:12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4150:08:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4134:06:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4114:05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4100:05:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4085:04:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4067:00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4022:06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 4007:06:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3993:05:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3979:05:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3864:05:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3720:19:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3695:12:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3676:12:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3651:12:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3632:06:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3590:03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3573:03:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC) 3546:23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3528:23:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3510:23:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3492:18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3463:12:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3442:12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 3421:22:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC) 3400:11:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 3382:03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 3361:17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3341:11:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3323:10:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3295:04:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3278:04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3245:03:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3196:02:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3173:02:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3152:02:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3014:The Sydney Morning Herald 2945:02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2893:02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2812:00:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2787:11:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2771:09:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2730:09:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2698:08:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2683:00:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2663:23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2642:14:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2625:09:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2603:08:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2588:07:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2573:07:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2559:06:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2545:06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2523:05:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2509:05:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2473:05:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2457:04:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 2443:This seems as notable as 2056:05:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 1889:personalizing discussions 1846:(posting material in the 1238:accused but never charged 865: 852:organized labour articles 798: 762: 750: 735:State Library of Victoria 724: 700: 676: 652: 630: 556: 488: 413: 389: 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 4506:Please do not modify it. 4493:02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC) 4479:01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC) 4465:01:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC) 4389:Please do not modify it. 4380:02:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) 4356:Please do not modify it. 3960:23:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3945:12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3918:11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3900:11:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3845:21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3827:11:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3813:11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3796:11:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3778:10:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 3761:02:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2834:Please do not modify it. 2426:09:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC) 2411:07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC) 2395:07:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC) 2370:23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2350:08:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2336:14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) 1975:19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1944:14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1901:14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1875:11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1860:11:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1838:08:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1823:08:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1807:08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1791:08:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1754:07:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1739:03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1720:03:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1705:02:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1688:01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1673:01:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1626:01:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1603:00:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1587:00:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC) 1546:14:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1515:13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1500:12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1481:10:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1461:08:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1438:05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1414:03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 1375:08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1361:05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1347:05:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1332:04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1317:03:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1299:03:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1285:03:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1265:03:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1250:01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 1219:14:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1205:13:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1189:09:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1159:08:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1140:08:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1119:08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1097:08:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1082:08:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1067:06:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1049:02:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1030:01:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 1014:01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 898:The following Knowledge 599:Australia-related topics 21: 2918:stretching back to 2014 2306:). Can we include this 2286:06:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 2265:02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 2250:08:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 2236:08:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 1643:'s comments, I'll flag 821:Organized Labour portal 587:is within the scope of 407:Politics and Government 4245: 2909: 2358:Australian Labor Party 2222:, and a problem under 1524:As far as I can tell " 747: 721: 697: 673: 649: 485: 371:This article is rated 88:avoid personal attacks 3964:Two points. Firstly, 3369:Struck "strongly". – 2298:Bill Shorten a “liar” 1887:should be aware that 912:neutral point of view 746: 720: 696: 680:WikiProject Melbourne 672: 648: 590:WikiProject Australia 484: 444:WikiProject Biography 335:This page is about a 113:Neutral point of view 3186:does not cover him. 2820:RfC: Rape allegation 1486:means raise this at 904:conflict of interest 656:WikiProject Victoria 270:relevant style guide 266:varieties of English 118:No original research 4469:It is mentioned. - 3933:Schwartz Publishing 3931:(both published by 3731:applies, and think 2829:request for comment 2269:Hilo48 is correct; 345:editing, talk-page 268:. According to the 4532:Active politicians 4390: 3250:Tentative support. 2903:investigated, the 1575:relatively unknown 748: 722: 698: 674: 650: 617:Australia articles 486: 471:biography articles 377:content assessment 241:Australian English 99:dispute resolution 60: 4388: 4363:Post-RFC comments 4057:another 5 years. 3359: 3349:and non-neutral. 3257: 3079:. 21 August 2014. 2321:End of leadership 2150:The Drover's Wife 2058: 2046:comment added by 2000: 1988:comment added by 1726:Bill Shorten Rape 1236:Gillard was also 1107: 988: 987: 969: 968: 936: 935: 886: 885: 882: 881: 878: 877: 777: 776: 773: 772: 507: 506: 503: 502: 357: 356: 322: 321: 280: 279: 225: 224: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 4644: 4398:Christian Porter 4332: 4331: 4325: 4320: 4318: 4310: 4306:The Conversation 4296: 4092:Powertothepeople 4059:Powertothepeople 4014:Powertothepeople 3999:Powertothepeople 3971:Powertothepeople 3856:Powertothepeople 3624:Powertothepeople 3432:All good now? - 3353: 3276: 3267: 3252: 3236: 3231: 3125: 3124: 3116: 3108: 3102: 3101: 3087: 3081: 3080: 3067: 3061: 3060: 3046: 3040: 3039: 3025: 3019: 3018: 3004: 2998: 2997: 2991: 2986: 2984: 2976: 2972:The Conversation 2962: 2836: 2797: 2777:Bilby's points. 2708: 2648:User:Yeti Hunter 2345: 2328:Timrollpickering 2083:Harvey Weinstein 1844:editor's history 1101: 983: 960: 959: 949: 941: 895: 894: 888: 854: 853: 850: 847: 844: 843:Organized Labour 834:Organized Labour 823: 818: 817: 807: 800: 799: 794: 790:Organized Labour 786: 779: 768: 767:wikimedia.org.au 766: 765: 764: 619: 618: 615: 612: 609: 581: 579:Australia portal 576: 575: 574: 565: 558: 557: 552: 551: 550: 545: 544: 543: 538: 535: 516: 509: 473: 472: 469: 466: 463: 449:join the project 438: 436:Biography portal 433: 432: 431: 422: 415: 414: 409: 398: 391: 374: 368: 367: 359: 331: 324: 310:this noticeboard 282: 237:This article is 234: 227: 219: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 4652: 4651: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4393: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4365: 4360: 4359: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4321: 4311: 4298: 4297: 4293: 4233:Victoria Police 4203:WP Aus Politics 4187: 3885:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 3837:Darryl Kerrigan 3753:Darryl Kerrigan 3729:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 3727:- I agree that 3683:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 3561:not a newspaper 3265: 3263: 3234: 3229: 3220:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 3135: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3048: 3047: 3043: 3027: 3026: 3022: 3006: 3005: 3001: 2987: 2977: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2930:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 2914: 2901:Victoria Police 2877: 2832: 2822: 2791: 2702: 2436: 2378: 2343: 2323: 2300: 2038: 2018:rape allegation 1848:Virginia Trioli 1445:Virginia Trioli 1001: 993: 984: 978: 954: 892: 851: 848: 845: 842: 841: 819: 812: 792: 760: 758: 727:Ask a Librarian 709:High-importance 685:High-importance 661:High-importance 633:High-importance 616: 613: 610: 607: 606: 577: 572: 570: 546: 539: 537:High‑importance 536: 522: 470: 467: 464: 461: 460: 434: 429: 427: 404: 375:on Knowledge's 372: 274:broad consensus 221: 220: 215: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 4650: 4648: 4640: 4639: 4634: 4629: 4624: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4604: 4599: 4594: 4589: 4584: 4579: 4574: 4569: 4564: 4559: 4554: 4549: 4544: 4539: 4534: 4529: 4524: 4514: 4513: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4430: 4429: 4394: 4385: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4364: 4361: 4353: 4334: 4333: 4290: 4289: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4186: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4137: 4136: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4070: 4069: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 3903: 3902: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3781: 3780: 3763: 3722: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3678: 3654: 3653: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3593: 3592: 3575: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3513: 3512: 3495: 3484:Cavalryman V31 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3445: 3444: 3424: 3423: 3403: 3402: 3385: 3384: 3364: 3363: 3343: 3325: 3297: 3280: 3247: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3176: 3175: 3154: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3120:The Australian 3103: 3082: 3062: 3041: 3020: 2999: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2913: 2910: 2878: 2863:pragmatic view 2844: 2843: 2842: 2823: 2821: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2561: 2529:Queens Counsel 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2484:Queens Counsel 2479:Julian Assange 2445:Julian Assange 2435: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2353: 2352: 2322: 2319: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2200: 2189: 2161: 2160: 2091:Dustin Hoffman 2048:203.91.232.210 2037: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2022:101.183.21.131 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1990:203.91.232.210 1979: 1978: 1977: 1965:to hit home. 1903: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1441: 1440: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1365:Why else then? 1319: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1099: 1000: 997: 992: 989: 986: 985: 980: 976: 974: 971: 970: 967: 966: 956: 955: 950: 944: 938: 934: 933: 932: 931: 896: 884: 883: 880: 879: 876: 875: 868:Mid-importance 864: 858: 857: 855: 838:the discussion 825: 824: 808: 796: 795: 793:Mid‑importance 787: 775: 774: 771: 770: 749: 739: 738: 723: 713: 712: 699: 689: 688: 675: 665: 664: 651: 641: 640: 629: 623: 622: 620: 583: 582: 566: 554: 553: 517: 505: 504: 501: 500: 497:Low-importance 487: 477: 476: 474: 440: 439: 423: 411: 410: 399: 387: 386: 380: 369: 355: 354: 332: 320: 319: 315:this help page 299:poorly sourced 285: 278: 277: 235: 223: 222: 213: 211: 210: 207: 206: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4649: 4638: 4635: 4633: 4630: 4628: 4625: 4623: 4620: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4610: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4600: 4598: 4595: 4593: 4590: 4588: 4585: 4583: 4580: 4578: 4575: 4573: 4570: 4568: 4565: 4563: 4560: 4558: 4555: 4553: 4550: 4548: 4545: 4543: 4540: 4538: 4535: 4533: 4530: 4528: 4525: 4523: 4520: 4519: 4517: 4507: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4419:Honestyisbest 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4399: 4392: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4362: 4357: 4352: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4329: 4316: 4308: 4307: 4302: 4295: 4292: 4288: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4268: 4262: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4247:Onetwothreeip 4244: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4227: 4224: 4223: 4220: 4217: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4184: 4174: 4171: 4168: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4158: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4148: 4145: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4135: 4132: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4055: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4041: 4040: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3886: 3882: 3879: 3878: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3831:If there are 3830: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3805:Onetwothreeip 3802: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3723: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3702: 3701: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3679: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3638: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3608:Barnaby Joyce 3605: 3601: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3555: 3554: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3534:investigation 3531: 3530: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3520:Onetwothreeip 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3477: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3329: 3326: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3305: 3301: 3298: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3275: 3273: 3268: 3261: 3256: 3251: 3248: 3246: 3243: 3241: 3237: 3232: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3202: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3188:Onetwothreeip 3185: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3144:Onetwothreeip 3140: 3137: 3136: 3132: 3122: 3121: 3115: 3107: 3104: 3099: 3098: 3093: 3086: 3083: 3078: 3077: 3072: 3066: 3063: 3058: 3057: 3056:The New Daily 3052: 3045: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3024: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3010: 3003: 3000: 2995: 2982: 2974: 2973: 2968: 2961: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2902: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867:Cinderella157 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2841: 2838: 2835: 2830: 2825: 2824: 2819: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2795: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763:Onetwothreeip 2731: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2485: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2320: 2318: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2297: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2216: 2211: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2194: 2191:In regard to 2190: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2059: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2012: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1924: 1923:WP:PROPORTION 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661:WP:PROPORTION 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1610: 1607:I just read ( 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559:public figure 1556: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1422: 1421:John Travolta 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1402: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1272:Julia Gillard 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230:Julia Gillard 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1105: 1104:edit conflict 1100: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 996: 973: 972: 965: 962: 961: 958: 957: 953: 948: 943: 942: 939: 929: 926: 923: 919: 916: 915: 913: 909: 908:autobiography 905: 901: 897: 890: 889: 873: 869: 863: 860: 859: 856: 839: 835: 831: 830: 822: 816: 811: 809: 806: 802: 801: 797: 791: 788: 785: 781: 756: 755: 745: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 719: 715: 714: 710: 707:(assessed as 706: 705: 695: 691: 690: 686: 683:(assessed as 682: 681: 671: 667: 666: 662: 659:(assessed as 658: 657: 647: 643: 642: 638: 634: 628: 625: 624: 621: 604: 600: 596: 592: 591: 586: 580: 569: 567: 564: 560: 559: 555: 534: 530: 526: 521: 518: 515: 511: 498: 495:(assessed as 494: 493: 483: 479: 478: 475: 458: 457:documentation 454: 450: 446: 445: 437: 426: 424: 421: 417: 416: 412: 408: 403: 400: 397: 393: 388: 384: 378: 370: 366: 361: 360: 352: 349:, and simple 348: 344: 340: 338: 333: 330: 326: 325: 317: 316: 311: 307: 303: 300: 296: 292: 291: 286: 284: 283: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 242: 236: 233: 229: 228: 209: 208: 205: 202: 200: 196: 195: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 4505: 4452: 4448: 4395: 4386: 4355: 4338: 4304: 4294: 4286: 4266: 4240: 4229: 4225: 4213: 4188: 4126: 4047:Donald Trump 4042: 3880: 3850: 3766:Must Support 3765: 3724: 3703: 3612:Bill Clinton 3600:Donald Trump 3577: 3556: 3533: 3497: 3479: 3454: 3412: 3373: 3345: 3327: 3299: 3282: 3271: 3259: 3249: 3227: 3224:Michael Gove 3215: 3204: 3156: 3138: 3118: 3106: 3095: 3085: 3074: 3065: 3054: 3044: 3033: 3023: 3012: 3002: 2970: 2960: 2952: 2948: 2936: 2915: 2897: 2884: 2879: 2862: 2854: 2839: 2833: 2826: 2799: 2760: 2721: 2669: 2654: 2616: 2608: 2437: 2379: 2324: 2308:120.29.51.76 2301: 2277: 2170: 2164: 2162: 2099: 2079:Kevin Spacey 2075: 2060: 2042:— Preceding 2039: 2017: 2013: 1984:— Preceding 1962: 1954:WP:CONSENSUS 1926: 1910: 1906: 1888: 1880: 1774: 1725: 1648: 1563:WP:WELLKNOWN 1550: 1549: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1523: 1442: 1397: 1237: 1233: 1177: 1002: 994: 951: 937: 924: 918:202.14.81.49 899: 867: 827: 751: 726: 702: 678: 654: 632: 603:project page 588: 585:Bill Shorten 584: 490: 442: 383:WikiProjects 334: 313: 301: 294: 288: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 238: 197: 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 38:Bill Shorten 32:This is the 4342:Yeti Hunter 4199:WP Politics 4157:Scott Davis 4131:Scott Davis 3741:Atlantic306 3737:WP:BLPCRIME 3712:Atlantic306 3538:Yeti Hunter 3502:Yeti Hunter 3255:WT:POLITICS 3209:WP:BLPCRIME 3184:WP:BLPCRIME 3161:WP:BLPCRIME 2847:WP:BLPCRIME 2804:Yeti Hunter 2675:Yeti Hunter 2382:John Hewson 1950:WP:BLPCRIME 1649:potentially 1613:WP:BLPCRIME 1571:WP:BLPCRIME 1130:acceptable? 1053:Please see 262:Labor Party 239:written in 161:free images 44:not a forum 4516:Categories 4445:WP:NOTNEWS 4441:WP:NOTNEWS 4437:WP:NOTNEWS 4287:References 4273:Mitch Ames 4269:conviction 4185:Discussion 4051:Luke Foley 3745:WP:NOTNEWS 3743:. We are 3733:Mitch Ames 3708:WP:NOTNEWS 3604:Luke Foley 3565:Find bruce 3287:Mitch Ames 3035:Herald Sun 2953:References 2922:a 2018 RfC 2912:Background 2859:everything 2851:WP:NOTNEWS 2344:Jack of Oz 2271:WP:BLPNAME 2126:David Marr 2095:User:Bilby 1915:WP:NOTNEWS 1653:WP:NOTNEWS 1234:AWU affair 337:politician 4315:cite news 4189:Notified 3616:Bob Ellis 3333:Sportstir 2981:cite news 2794:Sportstir 2779:Sportstir 2705:Sportstir 2690:Sportstir 2634:Sportstir 2580:Sportstir 2537:Sportstir 2501:Sportstir 2449:Sportstir 2418:Sportstir 2387:Sportstir 2087:Don Burke 1815:Birdy1234 1783:Birdy1234 1731:Birdy1234 1697:Birdy1234 1645:this case 1618:Birdy1234 1507:Birdy1234 1473:Birdy1234 1467:based on 1430:Birdy1234 1406:Birdy1234 1367:Birdy1234 1339:Birdy1234 1309:Birdy1234 1277:Birdy1234 1242:Birdy1234 1181:Birdy1234 1179:concerns. 1151:Birdy1234 1132:Birdy1234 1089:Birdy1234 1074:Birdy1234 1041:Birdy1234 1022:Birdy1234 1006:Birdy1234 1004:material. 964:Archive 1 733:, or the 608:Australia 595:Australia 529:Melbourne 520:Australia 462:Biography 402:Biography 351:vandalism 306:libellous 101:if needed 84:Be polite 34:talk page 4451:" and " 4263:" (not " 4205:and the 3665:WP:UNDUE 3304:WP:UNDUE 3230:starship 3097:ABC News 3076:ABC News 2715:2018 RfC 2220:WP:undue 2146:WP:UNDUE 2044:unsigned 1986:unsigned 1963:unlikely 1956:and try 1936:Advocata 1919:WP:UNDUE 1885:Advocata 1665:Advocata 1657:WP:UNDUE 1579:Advocata 1577:people. 1275:Shorten? 952:Archives 928:contribs 533:Politics 525:Victoria 347:trolling 199:Archives 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 4127:Support 4043:Support 3937:Icewhiz 3892:Icewhiz 3881:Support 3620:WP:NPOV 3480:Support 3346:Support 3328:Support 3313:WP:NPOV 3283:Comment 3205:Support 3139:Support 2670:already 2609:at most 2362:GoodDay 2242:Frickeg 2165:alleged 2093:, etc. 1967:Collect 1932:Collect 1893:Collect 1867:Frickeg 1729:search. 1555:Collect 1551:Comment 1538:Collect 1492:Frickeg 1211:Frickeg 870:on the 729:at the 635:on the 373:C-class 254:program 250:realise 167:WP refs 155:scholar 4485:Adpete 4457:Adpete 4403:Adpete 4324:|work= 4106:HiLo48 4077:HiLo48 3985:HiLo48 3966:HiLo48 3952:HiLo48 3910:HiLo48 3883:. Per 3819:HiLo48 3801:HiLo48 3788:HiLo48 3725:Oppose 3704:Oppose 3661:WP:BLP 3582:HiLo48 3578:Oppose 3557:Oppose 3498:Oppose 3309:WP:BLP 3300:Oppose 3235:.paint 3157:Oppose 3133:Survey 2990:|work= 2928:, per 2551:HiLo48 2439:2019. 2257:HiLo48 2224:WP:BLP 2209:after. 2142:WP:BLP 1921:, and 1852:Nick-D 1778:WP:BLP 1659:, and 1609:WP:NPF 1567:WP:NPF 1469:WP:BLP 1453:Nick-D 1449:WP:BLP 1428:Bilby? 1425:WP:BLP 1401:WP:BLP 1351:No. - 1226:WP:BLP 1147:WP:BLP 1127:WP:BLP 1111:Nick-D 1059:Nick-D 1055:WP:BLP 910:, and 379:scale. 343:biased 258:labour 246:colour 139:Google 4471:Bilby 4447:are " 4372:Bilby 4191:BLP/N 4170:garra 4147:garra 3833:WP:RS 3770:Aeonx 3749:WP:RS 3687:Kerry 3673:garra 3643:Kerry 3434:Bilby 3392:Bilby 3356:bleep 3320:garra 3253:From 2595:Bilby 2565:Bilby 2515:Bilby 2465:Bilby 2403:Bilby 2228:Bilby 2179:Bilby 1958:WP:RS 1830:Bilby 1799:Bilby 1781:that. 1746:Bilby 1712:Bilby 1680:Bilby 1641:Bilby 1595:Bilby 1353:Bilby 1324:Bilby 1291:Bilby 1257:Bilby 1197:Bilby 260:(but 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 4489:talk 4475:talk 4461:talk 4423:talk 4407:talk 4376:talk 4346:talk 4328:help 4277:talk 4265:... 4251:talk 4211:Tera 4209:. – 4167:Gnan 4144:Gnan 4110:talk 4096:talk 4081:talk 4063:talk 4018:talk 4003:talk 3989:talk 3975:talk 3956:talk 3941:talk 3935:). 3914:talk 3896:talk 3860:talk 3841:talk 3823:talk 3809:talk 3792:talk 3774:talk 3757:talk 3716:talk 3691:talk 3670:Gnan 3647:talk 3628:talk 3586:talk 3569:talk 3542:talk 3524:talk 3506:talk 3488:talk 3452:Tera 3438:talk 3410:Tera 3396:talk 3371:Tera 3337:talk 3317:Gnan 3302:per 3291:talk 3272:Talk 3260:was. 3240:talk 3192:talk 3169:talk 3165:WWGB 3148:talk 2994:help 2934:Tera 2882:Tera 2871:talk 2855:just 2808:talk 2783:talk 2767:talk 2719:Tera 2694:talk 2679:talk 2652:Tera 2638:talk 2614:Tera 2599:talk 2584:talk 2569:talk 2555:talk 2541:talk 2519:talk 2505:talk 2469:talk 2453:talk 2422:talk 2407:talk 2391:talk 2366:talk 2332:Talk 2312:talk 2275:Tera 2261:talk 2246:talk 2232:talk 2226:. - 2193:edit 2183:talk 2154:talk 2144:and 2068:talk 2052:talk 2026:talk 1994:talk 1971:talk 1952:and 1948:See 1940:talk 1911:then 1897:talk 1871:talk 1856:talk 1834:talk 1819:talk 1803:talk 1787:talk 1750:talk 1735:talk 1716:talk 1701:talk 1684:talk 1669:talk 1622:talk 1599:talk 1583:talk 1542:talk 1511:talk 1496:talk 1477:talk 1457:talk 1434:talk 1410:talk 1371:talk 1357:talk 1343:talk 1328:talk 1313:talk 1295:talk 1281:talk 1261:talk 1246:talk 1215:talk 1201:talk 1185:talk 1155:talk 1136:talk 1115:talk 1093:talk 1078:talk 1063:talk 1045:talk 1026:talk 1010:talk 922:talk 759:help 752:The 627:High 597:and 451:and 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 4215:tix 3924:ABC 3706:as 3456:tix 3414:tix 3375:tix 3266:MJL 3216:not 2938:tix 2886:tix 2723:tix 2656:tix 2618:tix 2279:tix 1881:any 1647:as 914:. 862:Mid 295:BLP 189:TWL 4518:: 4491:) 4477:) 4463:) 4425:) 4409:) 4378:) 4348:) 4319:: 4317:}} 4313:{{ 4303:. 4279:) 4253:) 4201:, 4197:, 4193:, 4112:) 4098:) 4083:) 4065:) 4020:) 4005:) 3991:) 3977:) 3958:) 3943:) 3916:) 3898:) 3862:) 3843:) 3825:) 3811:) 3794:) 3776:) 3759:) 3718:) 3693:) 3649:) 3630:) 3614:, 3610:, 3606:, 3602:, 3588:) 3571:) 3544:) 3526:) 3508:) 3490:) 3440:) 3398:) 3351:R2 3339:) 3315:. 3293:) 3207:- 3194:) 3171:) 3150:) 3117:. 3094:. 3073:. 3053:. 3032:. 3011:. 2985:: 2983:}} 2979:{{ 2969:. 2873:) 2831:. 2810:) 2785:) 2769:) 2696:) 2681:) 2673:-- 2640:) 2601:) 2586:) 2571:) 2557:) 2543:) 2521:) 2507:) 2471:) 2455:) 2424:) 2409:) 2393:) 2368:) 2334:) 2314:) 2263:) 2248:) 2234:) 2195:: 2185:) 2156:) 2112:; 2104:; 2089:, 2085:, 2081:, 2070:) 2054:) 2028:) 1996:) 1973:) 1942:) 1917:, 1899:) 1873:) 1858:) 1836:) 1821:) 1805:) 1789:) 1752:) 1737:) 1718:) 1703:) 1686:) 1671:) 1655:, 1624:) 1611:) 1601:) 1585:) 1544:) 1530:no 1513:) 1498:) 1479:) 1459:) 1436:) 1412:) 1373:) 1359:) 1345:) 1330:) 1315:) 1297:) 1283:) 1263:) 1248:) 1217:) 1203:) 1187:) 1157:) 1138:) 1117:) 1095:) 1080:) 1065:) 1047:) 1028:) 1012:) 906:, 711:). 687:). 663:). 531:/ 527:/ 523:: 499:). 405:: 256:, 252:, 248:, 169:) 67:; 4487:( 4473:( 4459:( 4421:( 4405:( 4374:( 4344:( 4330:) 4326:( 4309:. 4275:( 4267:a 4249:( 4241:a 4219:₵ 4108:( 4094:( 4079:( 4061:( 4016:( 4001:( 3987:( 3973:( 3954:( 3939:( 3912:( 3894:( 3858:( 3839:( 3821:( 3807:( 3790:( 3772:( 3755:( 3714:( 3689:( 3645:( 3626:( 3584:( 3567:( 3540:( 3522:( 3504:( 3494:. 3486:( 3460:₵ 3436:( 3418:₵ 3394:( 3379:₵ 3358:) 3354:( 3335:( 3289:( 3274:‐ 3270:‐ 3242:) 3238:( 3190:( 3167:( 3146:( 3123:. 3100:. 3059:. 3038:. 3017:. 2996:) 2992:( 2975:. 2942:₵ 2890:₵ 2869:( 2806:( 2796:: 2792:@ 2781:( 2765:( 2727:₵ 2707:: 2703:@ 2692:( 2677:( 2660:₵ 2636:( 2622:₵ 2597:( 2582:( 2567:( 2553:( 2539:( 2517:( 2503:( 2467:( 2451:( 2420:( 2405:( 2389:( 2364:( 2330:( 2310:( 2283:₵ 2259:( 2244:( 2230:( 2181:( 2152:( 2066:( 2050:( 2024:( 1992:( 1969:( 1938:( 1895:( 1869:( 1854:( 1832:( 1817:( 1801:( 1785:( 1748:( 1733:( 1714:( 1699:( 1682:( 1667:( 1620:( 1597:( 1581:( 1540:( 1509:( 1494:( 1475:( 1455:( 1432:( 1408:( 1369:( 1355:( 1341:( 1326:( 1311:( 1293:( 1279:( 1259:( 1244:( 1213:( 1199:( 1183:( 1153:( 1134:( 1113:( 1106:) 1102:( 1091:( 1076:( 1061:( 1043:( 1024:( 1008:( 925:· 920:( 874:. 737:. 639:. 605:. 459:. 385:: 353:. 318:. 293:( 276:. 204:1 201:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index