Jump to content

Talk:2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro Rewrite?

[edit]

Here's the current intro:
In February and March 2021, a number of allegations involving rape and other sexual misconduct against women involving the Australian Parliament and federal politicians were raised, causing controversy especially for the federal Liberal-National Morrison Government. Two separate allegations involve rape, which have also sparked discussions over workplace culture, systemic misogyny and victim blaming within the Morrison Government. Since then, other female politicians and staff working in Canberra have publicly told of their experiences of inappropriate sexual behaviour against them.

IMHO this is not only factually inaccurate, but skewed. I proposed a variant a week ago which got lost in the discussion, but honestly the bones of the above are better.

As far as I can tell the scandal is not restricted to politicians so I suggest "Australian Parliament, as well as federal politicians and staffers". The current intro refers to 2 separate rape allegations, but there are 3. Does the Labor allegation not count? And isn't the misconduct\harassment just as problematic in its own way? How about instead of "Two separate allegations involve rape, which have also sparked" 'The allegations sparked ...'? And how is it Morrison Government exclusive? The article mentions abuse within the Labor party. Surely the Morrison Government is not responsible for that? 人族 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree staffers should be mentioned, but otherwise I don't think it is really skewed. It doesn't directly say the allegations were against LNP members, simply that the problems are mainly (not exclusively - note the word "especially") for the Morrison government. Anyway, feel free to try a rewrite, just be prepared for other editors to change it :) Adpete (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Higgins’ accused

[edit]

Now that his retrial has been abandoned, should we expunge from the article the name of the accused under WP:BLPCRIME? WWGB (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: Yes, in line with the right to be forgotten. Furthermore, that should also be applied to the accuser. The article DOES need to be updated to record the final outcome, but IMO the matter can be covered without naming either. Betterkeks (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their names appear in the titles of cited literature as well, so they too would need to be copy edited. Betterkeks (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to efit names from article text, but don't agree with altering sources as that is akin to censorship. Those sources remain available online anyway. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: I am not suggesting we alter sources ... nor CAN we. Even if we WANT to, we are not ABLE to. Nor should we. Yet if we continue to include the names in the titles that WE have in OUR citations, then there is NO point in removing the names from the article! And your suggestion of removing the names is very good and responsible I think, and the right thing to do. Perhaps we can be guided here by WP:OM and WP:GRATUITOUS. It is US that decide WHAT we put in Wikipedia. We do not HAVE to reproduce harmful material in Wikipedia, because we CAN use WP:ELLIPSIS. That is, replace one with "[...] former complainant" and the other with "[...] former accused". Then it is clear a part of the title has been omitted and replaced. Betterkeks (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Are you OK for my suggestion to proceed? Betterkeks (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removal of their names from article text, but not from source titles. WWGB (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB: Then we have to strip the citations down to bare URLs. Are you OK with that? Betterkeks (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the soutces can remain as is. We are blanking names from article text as a courtesy, That does not need to extend to sources. That would need wider discussion and consensus. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have to remove the citation and any material that then becomes unsupported. A citation is not the same as a source. We can change our citation of a source. We cannot change sources themselves, because they’re not part of Wikipedia. Betterkeks (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We would never include offensive and other such objectionable stuff in main-text nor citations ... why would we not apply the same principle here? Just because someone else uttered or wrote it, doesn’t mean we have to as well. Betterkeks (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:BLP is not enough to justify removal of their names (note that BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia ..., ), and especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, then WP:5P5 certainly gives us the latitude to apply the above to any titles in OUR citations. Betterkeks (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the complainant proceeds with a multi-million lawsuit, this thread is probably moot for the complainant. Betterkeks (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article now reports "both Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann are considering compensation claims". If Higgins and Lehrmann do not want to "disappear" then we should leave their names in the article for now. WWGB (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited sources say lawyers sent a letter declaring intention to pursue, whereas the former accused is merely contemplating. If no sources report the former accused also initiating action by 11 December 2022, then we should commence removing the name of the former accused. Betterkeks (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's really practical given the publicity around the case.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a beginning, and the best doable. I vote for expunging from the article the names of the former accused and the former complainant now. Anything that happens later could possibly be treated as a related but subsequent matter. Betterkeks (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The second he proceeded with the civil lawsuit and sat down to do those Channel 7 interviews he became WP:BLPPUBLIC. I'm surprised someone hasn't done a full-blown article on him yet. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

It looks like the Higgins section is now at the size that it should be split into a separate page called something like 2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins. It looks like the subject will continue to expand with the collapse of the trial and talk of subsequent inquires into the legal proceedings. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The retrial has been aborted and Lehrmann has no case to answer. A standalone article will bring further attention to a man who is not guilty of any crime. If anything, the section should be trimmed of the unproven salacious detail. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this view and the BLP implications but I'm reminded of WP:NCRIME which states If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. (bolding mine) The event is already being referenced in academic publications: [1] [2] Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The passage you have quoted is from a paragraph about "disappearance of a person" which is not relevant hete. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to seeing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O. J. Simpson murder case - just kidding!! If your argument is that this event's coverage should be minimised further rather than split off then we have a more fundamental different interpretation of WP:EVENT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing media coverage - currently Lehrmann's defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson - I think perhaps we should revisit splitting the Higgins section into a separate article. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split as discussed above. Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split, given significance of the Higgins case on Australian politics, and its on-going complexity, I think it should have a separate article. ghouston (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split, given continuing coverage of the ramifications. We should consider what the name and scope of the new article should be, because it's not just about the rape allegation now. A "range of legal matters ... have emerged from [the] allegation" and subsequent abandoned prosecution of Lehrmann.[1] Lehrmann sued various people/entities for defamation.[2][3] Linda Reynolds sued Higgins[4] and her partner,[5] and the ACT government and/or DPP Shane Drumgold.[6] An inquiry into the prosecution of Lehrmann found that Drumgold had lied and made false allegations,[7] forcing him to resign.[8] Drumgold successfully challenged some of the inquiry findings.[9][10] ACT government is committed to implementation recommendations from the inquiry.[1] Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Pinging @Ghouston, @Jack Upland, @LibStar, @Mitch Ames, @Vladimir.copic and @WWGB. Clear consensus has emerged in this for a split. Consideration should now be given to article name to be split to prior to closure of the split discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest an article on Brittany Higgins might be the logical answer for most of the material. What doesn't fit there can stay here. TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree with the above. ITBF (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Brittany Higgins" is necessarily the correct scope. Per my post of 06:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC), the scope extends beyond Higgins: other people sued other people,[11][12][13][14] an enquiry was held into the prosecution,[15] forcing the DPP to resign.[16] Also Higgins is essentially only notable for this allegation and its consequences. WP:PSEUDO and WP:SINGLEEVENT probably apply here. (The "single event" being the allegation, with multiple consequences.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames you may be correct about the whole affair warranting an article in its own right. However, the material in the Higgins section all essentially concerns events surrounding her. Also at this point WP:BLP1E no longer applies to her, given her appearances at the National Press Club, involvement as a witness for the respondents in the defamation trial launched by Lehmann and involvement in the women's Justice rally in front of parliament house. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Brittany Higgins rape allegations", which is already a subheading at Linda_Reynolds#Brittany_Higgins_rape_allegations. I don't think it matters much, it can be renamed at any time in future as required. ghouston (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E may not apply, but WP:PSEUDO probably does. We must ask ourselves the question: are we writing a "full and balanced" biography of Higgins? If not, then "Brittany Higgins" is not the correct title for the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames ok, I see the argument more against "Britanny Higgins" with WP:PSEUDO.
"Brittany Higgins rape allegations" then per Ghouston? TarnishedPathtalk 06:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no view on article name, so am ok with whatever the consensus is. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Brittany Higgins rape allegations" for the reasons given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Brittany Higgins rape allegations" seems reasonable, in the absence of any better suggestions. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, per all of above "Brittany Higgins rape allegations" seems it. Is anyone who's experienced with split closures able to carry it out per WP:SPLITCLOSE. TarnishedPathtalk 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with splitting but am not sure about the proposed title "Brittany Higgins rape allegations".
Firstly, it is ambiguous. Did this person make allegations or was this person alleged to have committed a rape? It could just as easily be titled 'Bruce Lehrmann rape allegation'. (Just to make a point, if an article was titled 'Lee Harvey Oswald assassination allegation' would it be interpreted as Oswald the perpetrator or the murdered person?)
Secondly, it should be singular. There was only one rape allegation. The original article title had "allegations" plural because it covered multiple instances of misconduct in PH. (Likewise on Reynolds's article, "allegations" should probably be made singular?)
Thirdly, as the alleged victim of rape, naming her in the article title seems inappropriate. The story has become far broader than the original allegation.
I would lean to something more like 'Aftermath of the 2021 Parliament House staffer rape allegation' or similar. This would cover the interview fallout, the mistrial, Reynolds, Drumgold, Lehrmann's defamation case, etc., (if that is indeed the intended scope of the new article). JennyOz (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with JennyOz's point "as the alleged victim of rape, naming her in the article title seems inappropriate". LibStar (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2021 Parliament House staffer rape allegation? I feel putting aftermath at the front of the title name is not in keeping with what is going to be actually split and potentially invites WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPathtalk 06:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment of 06:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC), there is much more now than just the allegation. What word other than "aftermath" would you use? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz has some valid points, but...
It is ambiguous — The ambiguity could be resolved by adding an apostrophe to Higgins (who made the allegation, ie whose allegation it is): "Brittany Higgins' rape allegation".
as the alleged victim of rape, naming her in the article title seems inappropriate — It may be appropriate given that she made the allegation. It was the allegation (which definitely happened), not the rape (which is presumed not to have happened) that is presumed to be the initial "cause/trigger" of the subsequent events.
The story has become far broader than the original allegation. — True, but Aftermath of the 2021 Parliament House staffer rape allegation, in particular "staffer", seems to be insufficiently precise, if someone is not already familiar with the story and/or knows the difference between a staffer and an MP (the allegation against Christian Porter was also made in 2021.) Higgins' name is widely published; I don't think its inclusion in the title is a problem - as long as the title is neutral and unambiguous. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Brittany Higgins–Bruce Lehrmann saga? (And I agree that naming Higgins is not a problem.)--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see a policy or guideline based rationale for the omission of Higgins' name from the article title especially given that the article will use Higgins' name extensively and presumable the existing redirect Brittany Higgins will go to that page. Per WP:UCRN we should be using an unambiguous and commonly recognised title which to my mind supports "Brittany Higgins" over "Parliament House staffer". Lehrman was also a Parliament House staffer and has been named as the accused in a separate case so this will create another ambiguity. We would also be using a title that is at odds with how nearly every source discusses the event. When I google "parliament house staffer", I get articles about a different set of allegations and about 4,370 results compared to 324,000 for Higgins' name.

I would go with an amendment of my original proposal (with or without the year): 2021 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It allegedly took place in 2019. It seems that Brittany Higgins accepts that the story is about her, and she may even be disappointed if her name isn't part of the title: [3]. Omitting her name would make the title ambiguous. How about Alleged rape of Brittany Higgins? I don't think that the date should be included unless it becomes ambiguous with a 2nd allegation at some point. ghouston (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem unusual to omit the name of the (alleged) perpetrator of a crime, e.g., we've got Murder of John Lennon which doesn't mention Mark David Chapman. ghouston (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably not a fair comparison. I seem to recall that John Lennon was relatively well known before he was murdered - much more than Chapman, Higgins or Lehrmann were/are. World-wide, Lennon is probably still more well known than any of the others. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original split proposal was for 2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins and I only opened up the article name for discussion because Mitch had suggested perhaps that needed to be discussed as consequence of how things had evolved since this discussion had started in December 2022. Are we back at 2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins? TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Aftermath of rape allegation by Brittany Higgins or similar? I'm not sure about "aftermath", though. [Checks thesaurus...] Perhaps one of: fallout from, sequela, legacy, repercussions, backlash from? "Repercussions of rape allegation by Brittany Higgins" sounds OK. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is volunteering to create the new article, I'd be happy for them to choose the initial name. There are plenty of options. ghouston (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is prepared to create a new article, but is waiting on consensus for a title, there would be merit in creating it as a draft or subpage of this talk page, with almost any (BLP-compliant) working title, and declaring it here. The process of writing and/or the contents of the new article may help decide the article title. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to stick my oar in to be totally against any title with "Aftermath", "Repercussions" or similar. The split article will cover all aspects of the allegation and a title with that qualifier is misleading and unnecessary. I also don't see any consensus for it. The main quesiton for me is if we use 2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins, the year the alleged rape happened, or 2021 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins, the year the allegation was made public. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I'd go with the year the allegation was made. TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the outcome of Lehrmann's defamation case changes things? It's perhaps unfair to describe it as an "allegation" now that a court has found that "on the balance of probabilities" the rape occurred, and there's apparently no defamation in calling Lehrmann a rapist. ghouston (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this discussion has been going on I created a content fork at Draft:Bruce_Lehrmann and as consequence of today's events I've edited it a bunch and submitted it through AfC for creation to mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 06:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion doesn't go anywhere, nothing will happen. TarnishedPathtalk 07:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/act-government-response-shane-drumgold-inquiry-partial-win/103546038
  2. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/lehrmann-says-lisa-wilkinson-higgins-interview-prejudiced-trial/103157760
  3. ^ https://www.smh.com.au/national/bruce-lehrmann-settles-defamation-case-against-news-corp-samantha-maiden-20230530-p5dch6.html
  4. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-03/linda-reynolds-sues-brittany-higgins-defamation/102683768
  5. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-27/linda-reynolds-sues-defamation-action-against-david-sharaz/101901582
  6. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/07/linda-reynolds-sues-act-government-leaked-letter-shane-drumgold-afp
  7. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-03/bruce-lehrmann-board-of-inquiry-report-slams-shane-drumgold/102681448
  8. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-06/dpp-resigns-in-wake-of-lehrmann-inquiry-report/102694904
  9. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/former-act-dpp-shane-drumgold-challenges-inquiry-findings/103542010
  10. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/shane-drumgold-bruce-lehrmann-inquest-findings-challenge/103543860
  11. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/lehrmann-says-lisa-wilkinson-higgins-interview-prejudiced-trial/103157760
  12. ^ https://www.smh.com.au/national/bruce-lehrmann-settles-defamation-case-against-news-corp-samantha-maiden-20230530-p5dch6.html
  13. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-27/linda-reynolds-sues-defamation-action-against-david-sharaz/101901582
  14. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/07/linda-reynolds-sues-act-government-leaked-letter-shane-drumgold-afp
  15. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-03/bruce-lehrmann-board-of-inquiry-report-slams-shane-drumgold/102681448
  16. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-06/dpp-resigns-in-wake-of-lehrmann-inquiry-report/102694904
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Australian_Parliament_House_sexual_misconduct_allegations&oldid=1256972282"