Talk:Bill Shorten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

twin brother ?[edit]

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

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


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

The text which Personpersonperson deleted read:

During 2005 there was increasing speculation that Shorten intended entering federal politics at the next election. In February 2006 he announced that he would seek endorsement for the safe Labor seat of Maribyrnong, where the sitting Labor member, Robert Sercombe, is not a member of any faction. The AWU has always been a pillar of the right-wing Labor Unity faction of the party, which controls the Victorian Branch of the party.
The political correspondent of The Age, Misha Schubert, wrote: "The ascendancy of the articulate, clever and impressively connected challenger, routinely touted as a future prime minister, seems all but assured." She pointed out that as well as his base in the right-wing unions, Shorten will be supported by some unions normally associated with the left, such as the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union.
Justifying his challenge to a sitting member and serving shadow minister, Shorten said: "We haven't won a federal election since 1993. When your footy team loses four consecutive grand finals, you renew the team."

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

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

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

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


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

Page protected[edit]

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

Let's unprotect[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Pomp and Ceremony[edit]

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

Edits by parliamentary library IP[edit]

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

IR Minister: Jumping the gun[edit]

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

In the news[edit]

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

I just saw that article like 5 minutes ago, and now it's pointed out here. Scary :o -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Odd. This sort of stuff happens all the time. The conspiracy theorist in me says that the editors in question, and someone at the Herald, are in cahoots. This is what counts for journalism? No wonder the public is more misinformed than ever. Timeshift (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian Opposition Leader[edit]

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

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

Reverted my own edit.[edit]

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

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

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

"Getup Annual Report 2005-06, pg 16"

Wayne 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Recent investigation[edit]

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

Given that the DPP didn't even think charges should be laid I don't think the investigation can be mentioned at all without giving undue weight. This will be mentioned once in the evening news, once in the daily news papers and never again. The effect of announcing that charges were never even laid, will not be ongoing or covered in any depth. AlanS (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur. It's not a big story - unless more come out of the woodwork - and if we mention it at all it's smoke without fire. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think a semi for a month might be a good idea as well, because I reckon there is going to be a few IP vandals. AlanS (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain your reasoning on this, please? --Pete (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you only read the first half of the sentence and not the second? AlanS (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's the second part I'd like you to explain, if you can. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a statement Pete, not an invitation to discussion. AlanS (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A statement of your opinion. If you don't want to say what informs your thinking, that's OK. There have been a few edits from IP addresses recently. Not a lot, and all swiftly reverted. I was wondering if you had some sort of advance knowledge to call for protection, but it appears not. I don't think we need to protect this article. --Pete (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, again it was a statement of what I considered to be a possibility. What's happened so far is nothing. If I saw multiple IPs engaging in vandalism I wouldn't worry about discussing it with you. AlanS (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Alan. You needn't be such a bear. I can't see enough vandalism on this article to warrant protection. The regular watchers deal with a small amount just fine, usually within a minute or so. There was one time where it took twenty minutes, but that was early morning and it was nothing much anyway. If you see a sudden massive escalation in vandalism, then by all means ask for protection, but we seem to be handling what we have quite well. --Pete (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Union corruption inquiry[edit]

I came here to look for balanced coverage on this matter, but there is nothing here. I think it would be a good idea to have a section on it, including the allegations, information that came to light and a summary of to what degree the inquiry cleared him. Unfortunately I am not well enough educated on this topic to write it, nor am I in a political position where I am independent enough to write it (being involved in politics myself).

Leader of the Australian Labor Party vs. Leader of the Labor Party[edit]

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

One day.[edit]

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

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

Update image[edit]

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

Why do I enable you... such excitement over such banality like moths at a globe... I guess we do get who we vote for! Only you could have the gall to, in good faith, write an intended-to-be-valid non-free use rationale for Shorten's moobs in the 2016 election campaign! As for Shorten's image, good luck finding a newer one of better quality with an appropriate license, I think we already have a winner and the one to beat! :) Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's a great shot of Bill. Apart from the lightbulb at his head. But, you know, we could use one a little more… candid. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I wish you all the luck in the world :) Timeshift (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've updated an image with one I took of him at their election launch this year :) Rossjcaldwell (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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