Talk:Christian Porter

Untitled
It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to say that Christian Porter represents Murdoch in the opening sentence, and then say he represents Bateman. I will change it to say he represents Bateman. Syr0 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I think you've just found an article that wasn't fixed after the redistribution took effect in September. :) It's an upcoming project of WP:AUSPOL to sweep through all current state and federal MPs around Australia and update them/fix them from references and sources. Orderinchaos 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple edits, which must relate to the 1988 rape allegation about a member of the current Cabinet
As a current member of the Australian federal Cabinet, Porter is unquestionably on a shortlist of people who might be the subject of the allegation of rape in 1988, see for example https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-26/pm-senators-afp-told-historical-rape-allegation-cabinet-minister/13197248

As a result, his movements and whereabouts during 1988 are being researched. There seems to be some confusion about which debating championships he attended and where they were held. I have added to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection page to say this page may need protection of some kind.

For the record this PDF file in the Wayback machine (see page 130–131) says he was selected for "the 1988 World Intervarsity competition (involving Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale Universities among 157 competing teams) […] as Captain." But that may be a mistake. He would have been 18 in this year and not yet at university. Ambrosechapel (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Starting Uni in the year you turned 18 in Western Australia was standard at the time.141.168.113.142 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that according to Christian Porter's own LinkedIn profile his education history:
 * - Hale School -- 1983 - 1987
 * - The University of Western Australia -- 1988 - 1993


 * So, he would have been in university in 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.129.57 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "World Intervarsity Debating Championship" is a synonym of "World Universities Debating Championship". See, for example, this 2007 Sydney University article which refers to Sydney Uni winning the WIDC in Vancouver in 2007: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1902
 * Wikipedia reference confirms the WUDC was held in Vancouver in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Universities_Debating_Championship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.119.52.96 (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not investigative journalists. Frickeg (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the captain of a national team at a major international event is inappropriate for a biographical page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.119.52.96 (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please. Nobody adding this is interested in the debating event, they're trying to connect him to an alleged crime. WP:NOTATABLOID Ar85ar (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just applied semi-protection to this page. I note that this activity appears to have originated from this tweet - https://twitter.com/BethanyinCBR/status/1365770996238614531  -- Chuq (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Being one of the subjects of a Twitter mob constructing an LNP conspiracy around this article means I've officially made it as a Wikipedia editor. It is quite amusing how their complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia has led to this. Supposedly we are LNP shills 'scrubbing' Porter's article and 'removing evidence', even though this content was initially added only this morning? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anonymous User - Knowledgeable about Schools Debating in Western Australia
 * The confusion stems from the fact that in 1988, both the World University Debating Championships and the inaugural World Schools Debating Championship were held in Sydney as part of the bicentennial. Christian Porter was captain of the Western Australian and Australian Schools Debating Teams (likely earned from competing at the Australian Schools Debating Championship as part of the Western Australian State Team while he was in Year 12 in 1987).
 * Also, rather unhelpfully, WUDC is traditionally run at the very end of the year. So the numbering may be inconsistent.
 * I can't comment on what happened in the 1980s, but the present position now is that attending the World University Debating Championships is done as part of a University team (ie: he would have competed for the UWA Debating Team), whereas schools competitions at that level are done as part of the Australian/Western Australian Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.11.99 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to think neutrally on this, but surely being on the Australian national schools team of something (in this case, debating) warrants a mention? Especially since 4 Corners saw it as an important part of his background. Adpete (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, the Four Corners source was added yesterday morning but didn't actually mention the debating championship. Is there a timestamp for when it is discussed? If so, then I would say it is worthy of a mention. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 07:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4C said "Young Porter was a champion debater who was selected for Australia’s national schools team." and I think that is relevant, both because it was a national team, and because 4C found it interesting. Yes it was only added in the last day or so, but I don't think that is a reason not to add it. The more specific allegations -- that he was at either the the World University Debating Championships (Sydney 1988, not sure what month) or the World Schools Debating Championship (August 1988) -- I think are too oddly specific and don't belong, and in any case I have not seen any source stating he was at them. Adpete (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Porter section of the 4C report begins around 24:40 and the debating stuff is after 27:40. Revoran (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to see why we're so reticent to include the information in the article when the discussion here is is prolonged and blatant. Streisand effect. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's against about a dozen policies. This discussion is about including original research placing the subject of a BLP at a particular event, for no other purpose than to imply that he may be guilty of an alleged crime for which he has not yet even been accused. We can keep the gossip to twitter, at least until he's actually accused of the crime and secondary sources are reporting on it. Ar85ar (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not creating new sources nor making it of more interest. The first part is accurate and notable both in terms of being a National/International level achievement, and also because its an enduring characteristic of the subject. The location and date are the political issues, as yet there isnt sufficient reliable sourcing as per WP:BLP. Gnangarra 09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

until 2004 students were enrolled on a the calendar year this they all finished year 12 in WA in the year they turned 17. This was change by 6 months when WA shifted to the National standard with the starting age now altered to July-June so now half the cohort turns 18 in the year they finish year 12. ref this diff the difference about the debating aspect is that he made a state & national team which is something that would be presented to form part of any persons general notability. Where as the other activities he was just part of the high schools team and thus it doesnt contribute to the subjects notablity. The incident aside if the piece about the debating activity had been presented its notable as part of a national team, this source pages 42,115,116 are an okay source for the fact he was part of the state and national teams of 1986 & 87, that as part of the 87 team he was selected to compete in 1988. The other part of the political equation needs a reliable source to confirm, if, when, and where he competed; making the assumption a source is found the question then is does that part of it warrent inclusion the article along with general or specific location details. In this case with whats available I support inclusion of the selection to state and national teams in 1986 & 87 are notable even to point of noting that he was selected in 1987 team to compete in a event in 1988. What I don't see is a case for the location details so I oppose inclusion of Sydney as the reliable source was published before that took place. Gnangarra 08:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we don't just include facts because they are true. Porter is known for being a politician, not a high school debater, so that he was on a state/national team is not an inherently notable fact about him, it must receive some indpendent coverage. Since Adpete has confirmed this was discussed in Four Corners I don't oppose its inclusion, and I agree with you that the location has not been estalished and should not be included. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions)
 * his debating skills are not indiscriminate, he debating skills were being discussed and even considered a potential PM because of them, all well before today https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-emergence-of-christian-porter-potential-prime-minister-20150921-gjr6kf.html It's also probably an area which doesnt have the amount of coverage it should. Gnangarra 08:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current mention in the article ("Porter was educated at Hale School, and was selected for Australia's national schools debating team") seems perfectly sufficient imo. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the debating materail be included (have been hearing it today) and it be included (here) in the school section. Most detailed biographies would be mentioning items like this in school sections if known. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that he represented Australia is already in there, with the Four Corners article as a reference. I don't think we need the school magazine as a second reference to say the same thing, especially since that is a primary source, and Wikipedia policy is that secondary sources are preferable. Adpete (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't delete this talk section again. The issues discussed above need to be resolved. -- Chuq (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest news reports are that the person is going to identify himself at a news conference within hours - it can all go into the article then. Achar Sva (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the latest news report is only that the accused is likely to make a statement and answer questions. Editors of the Wikipedia articles about cabinet ministers in the Morrison government should be very careful about what they post in those articles or on their talk pages. The subject of this article is said to have been born in July 1970. He was therefore under the age of 18 in January 1988, when the alleged rape is alleged to have occurred. So were some of his cabinet colleagues. You have been warned. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, but I said exactly what you said - the person who is accused of the alleged rape is going to identify himself (by making a statement) in a few hours.Achar Sva (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I denied what you said. The media reports indicate that a statement may be made. That does not necessarily mean that an identity will be revealed. Statements can be made anonymously. Bahnfrend (talk)
 * Bahnfrend Not quite. The announcement from the PM's office is that a statement will be made by the minister at the centre of the allegations within a few hours. That person may or may not be Christian Porter. Achar Sva (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how to contriubte to talk pages, but I think it should be included somewhere a warning to australian readers and editors about how editing a wikipedia page is the same as posting to any public forum as far as the law is concerned and they're liable for anything they say, and in criminal matters it could pervert the course of justice, cause a mistrial even. I think locking the page is wise as it's likely to get edited a lot by people who care strongly about things. Is there a way to add warnings as a public service type thing? also should any investigation go to trial there may be a need to have a notice specifically for australian visitors to the page, perhaps notifying them that by visiting and veiwing they would be unable to serve on a jury in a trail. Wikipedia doesn't fall under australian law, but it can affect the outcome of cases in australia and might have a sort of obligation to mitigate it's influence, If this page was edited in a way that could influence the desciscions of a juror it could be grounds for mistrial in australia, we had laws than can prevent media outlets and journalists from naming the subjects of criminal investigation, recently used in the trial of George Pell for child abuse, (which he was later aquitted). Again Wikipedia doesn't fall under australian law, so theres no reason to censor it, but I think because an australian might visit the page and unknowningly preclude themselves from serving on the jury in a case it could be worth (not now because no such thing has happend yet) to if there was a media gag order, that the page provide a notice to australian veiwers, that them visiting or view the page could be grounds for a mistrial if they serve on a jury in a cse involving the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.199.50.121 (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Apolgies for my poor spelling and articulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.199.50.121 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The police investigation has been dropped and there isn't going to be a trial. Achar Sva (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The alleged offence allegedly occurred in NSW. In that State, private prosecutions can still be brought, and therefore the mere fact that the police do not presently intend to prosecute does not mean that "there isn't going to be a trial". Further, there is nothing to stop the police from changing their mind about bringing a prosecution. In NSW, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prevents the publication on the internet of the name of a person in a manner connecting the person with criminal proceedings if the proceedings relate to the person and the person was a child when the offence to which the proceedings relate was committed, subject to certain exceptions. Although it seems that no criminal proceedings have been brought to date in respect of the alleged rape in 1988, that doesn't make it appropriate or wise for anyone to identify any person who would be protected by the Act if any such criminal proceedings were brought. Indeed, I would have thought that it is even less appropriate to identify such a person if the police have already decided that it is not even appropriate to charge the person. In Australia, the general rule is that the presumption of innocence applies. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much confidence I have in NSW Police given the NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller's personal connection to Scott Morrison and what happened during NSWPol's investigation into the Angus Taylor forged documents scandal. Although at the same time with a deceased victim, it would be extremely hard to build a case. Regardless of NSW Police, there is multiple other investigations that could happen such as (as mentioned above) private prosecution, or a civil case of some kind, or even a judicial or parliamentary inquiry. Also, I believe South Australia is doing a coronial inquest into the the circumstances around the alleged victim's death / apparent suicide.
 * We can quite sure that there isn't going to be a trial, although the question now is whether or not there will be an independent judicial inquiry.Achar Sva (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's now being reported that the accused Minister will probably be coming forward with their identity on 3 March and make a statement, supposedly with a defamation lawyer in tow. If no minister comes forward it's likely media figures who are aware of the accused's identity may decide to name him, or a federal MP/Senator may excercise parliamentary privilege to name him. Yes, it's true there is a lot of evidence that Porter is the minister who has been accused. But I think we shouldn't be changing the page in such a way that it directly states or even indirectly implicates Porter in a crime, until one of those things I mentioned above happens and reliable secondary source identifies him.
 * TL;DR: I say wait, don't change article yet. Revoran (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is mentioned in Christian Porter's statement of claim in his defamation case against the ABC (page 7). 124.186.176.197 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Debating career while a student
Notwithstanding any other discussions about what should be included in this article, it is surely relevant to encyclopedic coverage of Porter that he captained a major university debating team, including representing it at an international intervarsity competition. This is the kind of thing that if included in the 'early life'/'education' sections of an article on any other politician, provided it was sourced, would certainly not be removed, as it's eminently relevant to the career path of someone who later becomes a prominent politician. We can come to this conclusion independently of anything else that's being discussed about Porter's activities at that time. If the fact is supported by a source, what justification do we have for excluding it? Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is it requires a bit of primary sources and wiki sources. The main source is the Hale school magazine 1987 (I believe it's linked here above, although I have it downloaded) which says he was in:
 * He was part of the WA state debate team in 1986, finishing 2nd in the Australian National Schools Debating Championships that year. Then you have to go outside the magazine to an external wiki source to find out this event was held in Adelaide in 1986.
 * Also in 1986 he was selected for the "Australian national team" - its unclear what competition this refers to. The World Schools Debating Championship was first held in 1988 in Sydney according to its Wikipedia page. Perhaps they were already planning the event and doing qualifiers for it, IDK.
 * In 1987 he captained the WA state debate team in the ANSDC again, this time they came 3rd.
 * Also in 1987 he was selected for the Australian team in the 1988 "World Intervarsity Competition" which appears to be the same thing as the World Universities Debating Championship, held in Sydney in Jan 1988 (see also the World Schools Debating Championship page, above).
 * There is also this competition which he may have been in: Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships
 * Under wiki policy we prefer secondary sources and minimal original research.
 * There is the ABC 4Corners "Inside the Canberra Bubble" report from 24:40 onwards however it doesn't go into great detail about exactly which events he competed in and the results. Just that he was a champion debater in both highschool and uni. Revoran (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. Thanks for your research, which reassures me this article is in safe hands as far as thoroughness goes. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to give the timestamp on Four Corners; the site has a transcript. Adpete (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
In the following section, the word “soon” is both inaccurate and unnecessarily misleading. Several police inquiries were underway into the claim for several months, which is not “soon”. Suggest replacing “soon” with more neutral language such as “later” or “eventually”.

Government figures deferred action citing a referral to NSW police, but the police soon announced there was "insufficient admissible evidence" to secure a prosecution. 193.37.32.174 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done (removed in ) —  TG HL ↗  (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Paywall protected article
Citation 36: "Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps". The Australian. Retrieved 20 November 2019. Any idea what the linked article is, its title, author? Josh Parris 05:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume it is reporting on this speech of his from 20-Nov-2019 https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/media/speeches/address-national-press-club-canberra-20-november-2019 . So someone needs to go looking for other news reports on that subject from that day or the next. Adpete (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a corrected reference: Ar85ar (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've updated our article accordingly. BTW, in a case like this you can probably use edit extended-protected to make an edit request for a potentially faster response. (I know this may seem weird when there's an unanswered edit request above, but I suspect others who can fulfill it like me have seen it and haven't touched it because they aren't sure.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's paywalled though. Surely this was reported somewhere accessible like the ABC. Adpete (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Paywall it doesn't really matter a great deal. If you can find a roughly equal quality source that covers all the information sourced, we can probably replace it but otherwise, not worth worrying about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

We're famous! (sort of)
Reporter: So Mr Porter, what do you know about efforts to remove details of your debating trip in 1988 from Wikipedia?

Mr Porter: I have never heard of such a thing. I did not know that debating trips were on Wikipedia.

My comment: Obviously that reporter did their "research" on Twitter instead of checking the facts. Adpete (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Shame there's no way for Wikipedia to rebuke the Twitter conspiracy. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a policy, somewhere but I can't find it, to refrain from writing about Wikipedia coverage/misuse in general articles. And I don't think it meets the threshold for something like List of Wikipedia controversies. Adpete (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of a banner like "This article is the subject of media misinformation". 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't get into "media" bashing here thanks. There's enough of that garbage on the wider internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.37.32.173 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinking of "common terms"
I've reverted delinking of rape and suicide three times today; I'm stopping at that level. The rationale given for delinking these terms is that they are common terms. WP:LINK doesn't suggest that common terms shouldn't be linked; only those of no particular relevance to the source article. The delinking seems to be an attempt to minimize damaging links within this article -- WP:WHITEWASH. Please refute. Josh Parris 08:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to link them. Per MOS:OVERLINK, "Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)" do not need to be linked. The vast majority of English speakers understand what rape and suicide are. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that rape is not understood by at least one of the people involved in this particular episode. Josh Parris 09:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors who unlinked (only once), I'll remind you of WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." Adpete (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? I haven't followed edits today particularly closely. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Adpete was referring to the editors. I was referring to the individuals in the article. Josh Parris 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not following you. Anyway, do you disagree with applying MOS:OVERLINK here? 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Josh is referring to Porter. Anyway, on 2nd thoughts I'll re-link rape because there is not a lot of linkage in that paragraph. Not suicide though, because it's not only very well understood, but not the central issue. Adpete (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull
Malcolm stated in Nov 2020, “ If I had known at the time what was broadcast tonight, I would have made further inquiries before I made him attorney-general. I think that's true” (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-10/malcom-turnbull-christian-porter-denials-q+a-four-corners/12864992). However it’s now been said “ Mr Turnbull, who exchanged correspondence with the woman in 2019 about her allegations, is calling for a coronial inquest into her death.” (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/malcolm-turnbull-leads-calls-for-rape-accused-cabinet-minister-to-out-himself). So Turnbull lied? Should be included as all cited properly 120.29.58.221 (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A few points. We can't engage in WP:OR so regardless whether editors feel that someone's statements are contradictory, we cannot note it unless sources have done so. Also this is the article on Christian Porter, and while what Turnbull has said and did in relation to Porter may get some limited coverage, it needs to be sufficiently relevant to Porter. You should take issues surrounding Turnbull to Talk:Malcolm Turnbull. As an example of the perils of OR, it's not clear to me how someone's correspondence with someone else in 2019 proves anything about what they knew in 2017, unless the contents of that correspondence suggests they did. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If and when Turnbull's response is an issue, there is now 2021 Australian Parliament rape scandals for that sort of thing. Adpete (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no basis in the sources for alleging that Turnbull lied. They indicate, first, that Porter was appointed AG in 2017, and, secondly, that the deceased corresponded with Turnbull in 2019. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations article
I have moved some material on the alleged rape from here to 2021 Australian Parliament rape allegations, with a prominent link to it with the "main" template. My reasoning is that material questioning/attacking the woman's story does not really belong here. Adpete (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The rape claim against Christian Porter relies at least partly (media reports haven't clarified to what extent) on a theory (that "body memories" can be "resurfaced" through therapy) which is considered fringe outside a small group of psychologists. Why doesn't that belong in the Christian Porter article? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it also relies on lots of other things: the alleged victim's diary, memories, and things she said to friends before September 2019. It should be all or none. Adpete (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Shorten's Allegations
Why is Bill Shorten's Rape allegation not receiving identical article coverage? Honestyisbest (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite different. Shorten's accuser was alive and interviewed by police, who found "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction". WWGB (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No different at all. There was just as much coverage of the Bill Shorten rape allegation than the Porter alleged rape. Yet the Bill Shorten article received a one liner buried deep in the article. There was deemed not enough admissible evidence in both rapes. We need more justification here to make such a song and dance about this rape compared to the Australian Labor Party Leader Bill Shorten's rape allegation. Honestyisbest (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Context and timing. When did Shorten's allegations surface? Wasn't it way back in 2013, long before the MeToo movement? Also, the allegations of Porter's offence occurred in a very close time frame to the allegations made by Brittany Higgins against another Lib MP, this might be partly why it's blown up so much, because people can tie it into a culture obviously existing in Australian Parliament. You must also factor in the difference a few years can make. The current social/political climate around sexual harassment, rape, misogyny and victim blaming etc. etc. is very, very different now than it was in 2013. It has advanced rapidly since then, partly due to some very powerful cases. See the Weinstein effect. I'm sure if the allegations against Bill Shorten emerged now, they'd be front and centre of our news. In fact, I've seen this historical claim against him gain a lot of media coverage lately, because of what is happening with Porter. Ashton 29 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's obvious too that the Shorten case is long closed. The Porter case is not. I can guarantee that one police inquiry will not be the end of this story. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the simple answer, this event is as explained far more complex. the Shorten issue was resoled without major impact. Where as this issue has far greater significance with an impact on Porters current career.  Gnangarra 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The rape allegation in this article is one paragraph of 8 sentences, with seven references, including that he has taken leave for mental health. Perhaps once the whole thing is history, it can be summarised further, but at this stage the timeline in this article is still needed. The Bill Shorten article contains one paragraph of two sentences with only one reference, but it was "all over" before Shorten was identified as the person it was about. The current version in that article dates from April 2019 and replaced the immediate earlier version which had a section heading and six sentences. We can't tell yet whether this is a hiccup on the way to Porter becoming a future PM or if it is the event that ends his career in public life, or somewhere between. --Scott Davis Talk 02:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Defamation claim withdrawn
Porter has withdrawn his defamation claim following mediation with the ABC. The broadcaster will cover the costs of mediation but will not pay damages. The article remains online as published, appended with an editors note: "The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard". Porter described the move as a "humiliating backdown" for the ABC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Wikipedian231 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions
Here are just some suggestions. I won't be doing a good article review: Good luck with your good article nomination. Steelkamp (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Without a good reason, the lead shouldn't be more than four paragraphs long.
 * The state politics section is extremely short.
 * Many paragraphs consist of a single sentence. Either expand those paragraphs or merge with adjacent ones.
 * Retirement needs more detail. Apparently he is going back into law.
 * The order of information isn't ideal. This sentence In March 2021, following the allegations against Porter comes before the rape allegation details.


 * I generally agree with this as well, since it's still at GAN. I don't think much of the article is well organised - the ministerial portfolio sections jump around in time quite a lot and (like a lot of articles on government ministers) pick out different issues to focus on pretty randomly and do so with wildly varying levels of quality and neutrality (probably depending on who added it originally). The organisation of the latter stages of his political career is peculiar without mentioning the rape allegations at the point in the timeline at which they occurred, which leads to writing about things like his resignation (and why) before explaining any of the context for these things happening whatsoever. The order of some of the rape allegation material is also quite strange, particularly with regard to Jo Dyer's role - mentioning her after the fact only in the context of the amount of costs she was awarded is weird and (probably unintentionally) doesn't accurately represent the way things played out. (There is also no mention of the litigation over the ABC's defence being published.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)