Talk:Will Fowles

Do we need to add a section titled 2023 rape allegation?

It's possible that we need to add a sub-section to politicial or personal life sections to this article to contain the information related to the 2022 allegations and investigation by police. This would be in line with other sexual assault allegations which have been investigated by police without charges or convictions (Bill Shorten and Christian Porter).

We could make informed deicsions on the content following the decisioms made on those articles and the editors who contributed to them?

Considering the similarities of a living person who is an active politician, Will Fowles rape allegation being more serious than the aforementioned as an arrest for rape was made.

That seems to be the most constructive way forward considering prior discussions on the talk page relating to what facts should or shouldn't be included on this notable information.

@Honestyisbest @Onetwothreeip @Icewhiz @Gnangarra were active in discussions related to content and might be best placed to weigh in on the discussion. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates, you are WP:CANVASSING. This is not acceptable behaviour. Your continued behaviour is unacceptable and will see you the subject of a noticeboard report if you continue. TarnishedPath^talk 06:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am confused by your hostility. I am trying to be constructive and seek consensus as you first suggested. I found similar articles where there had been discussions around the content that should be included and found users who engaged with each other from different perspectives. It would be canvassing if I sought support from biased persons. The editors tagged above are reputable and had differing opinions on the articles that they discussed. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates, you've tagged four editors who have not edited or discussed this material at all. Notably two of the editors are banned sockpuppets. You also did not tag anyone who had edited or discussed this material. If you were to properly tag anyone you should tag ALL involved editors and no one else. Please read the policy which I provided a link for. TarnishedPath^talk 06:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I will tag all the editors and I think we may need to put this on the WP:BLP noticeboard to ensure that there is unbiased collaboration on this article. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I find it amazing that an editor with 2 days of experience knows about the BLP noticeboard. I can make the post if you like. TarnishedPath^talk 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes that would be great if you make the post, honestly seems like you have more interest. I am using this as a learning experience. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at my contributions history, you will see that I have edited many things (not as much as some though). My only interest is ensuring that BLP is maintained across all articles. TarnishedPath^talk 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Given how intense what I thought a simple edit to this MPs page was I will see how this BLP issue pans out before putting time and effort into any other MPs article pages and focus on other parts of my interst until it's resolved SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You could also read WP:BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I definitely have and think that considering this article relates to a public figure the following applies - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you like me to put it on the noticeboard? Or perhaps we can agree on wording for the notice here first, just to check all editors are comforatble with the phrasing. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Already did it after I promised I would yesterday. Refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Will Fowles. Extremely neutrally worded. TarnishedPath^talk 01:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - greatly appreciated - I was looking in the wrong spot. Still learning SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I have captured the editors here: @Ponyshine @Grayfell @Totallynotarandomalt69 @Politicsnerd01 @Timrollpickering SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed @Mr Peepy, @GraziePrego, @Mitch Ames and @Rusty springs who look like they have also edited around or discussed the material. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for capturing those. There were some that I tried to enter but they appeared as IP addresses instead of usernames and turned red, so I thought they might be more sockpuppets like you said the others were. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of a section on the rape allegations. It would be completely WP:UNDUE to expand the material beyond its current state. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates: We could theoretically include almost anything in any article. What words do you propose to include in the article, and what sources do you rely on? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the inclusion should clarify that the accusation was sexual assault of a government employee and that the police had decided to bring no charges after an investigation. These are supported by the existing sources and allowable under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The most important thing to bear in mind here is that ultimately, no charges were laid. We need to consider this when we think about how much WP:WEIGHT to give the material given WP:BLP considerations. To quote BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment”.

Given that no charges were persued and no conviction obtained, it is more than enough to state that there was an accusation and that police choose not pursue it. Anymore would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the events.

Notably the citation given for the material about police announcing that they would not pursue any charges; fully details the whole saga including the allegation, that there was a subsequest arrest and then a decision not to pursue by police. If readers wish to engage in further reading they need only read the references. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think as you sumarise the saga above - allegation, subsequest arrest and then a decision not to pursue charges by police - shows that the arrest is an important piece of information relating to this notable incident.

Also the placement of the existing inclusioin on the incident - two lines of text at the end of a long section, make the incident seem barely worth the reader looking at a citation with further information.

My attention was drawn to the exclusion of this information when I read the article because it is the most notable fact relating to this public figure is that it is so hidden and pared back. It should have it's own section or have more information. As it stands this article is inaccurate. Also, as I stated above, if you compare it to similar rape allegations made to public figures, particularly active politicians, then this allegation is far more serious as an arrest for rape was actually made as part of the investgation. Bill Shorten, Christian Porter - police never made an arrest and there was less media coverage - yet they have entire sections and more detail.

The article as it stands is biased in its lack of information. Also has been guarded from this detail making it in to the article with repeated removal of any detail. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Bill Shorten and Christian Porter are two figures with far greater profiles for whome the respective accussations recieved far greater and sustained reporting. The comparisons are apples and oragnes, night and day. Putting the material in its own section or expansion, simply isn't warranted given WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And again, any reader interested in the allegation or what it was that police choose not the pursue can refer to the inline citations for further reading. Nothing is being hiden, as the references are included. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it warrants a mention in the introduction to the article. The 2019 Canberra hotel incident is mentioned there and led to a policy area of interest in the same way this did.

The last paragraph of the introduction could be edited to say:

During his time in office, Fowles has voiced support for mental health reform after damaging a hotel in Canberra, as well as improving the complaints process against MPs after an allegation of sexual assault by a government employee.

Then perhaps the most neutral way to include the rape allegation in the political career section would be with a sub-section titled 'Resignation from the Parliamentary Labor Party'. It is highly notable that he resigned from the Labor caucus considering he is the only Independent MP who is a member of a political party sitting in the Parliament of Victoria and there were two media statements by two Premier's of Victoria (Andrews and then Allan) on the matter. I agree with @Morbidthoughts that there should be clarification of what the allegation was - sexual assault - and that Fowles was arrested. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument. If anything you only highlight that the Canberra hotel incident doesn't really belong in the lede and probably only deserves space in the body. If you were to google it now for example (without having knowledge of the sources in this article) would you find much? Refer to the ten year test. TarnishedPath^talk 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point, it seems out of place to have the Canberra incident in the lede without the other - maybe having both isn't needed to create balance and neither should be there. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be in the lede. Refer to MOS:BLPLEAD. Given that The Canberra hotel material takes up one paragraph in the body, I don't know that it know that's sufficient weight to have it in the lede given there's a lot of the rest of the body we leave out of the lede. Anyway that's not really what we're discussing and if we really wanted to we can have that discussion some other time. I'm going to leave some space for others to talk for a while because I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion.

I suggest if people are still talking in a day or so and we don't have agreement we can look at an RFC. These things don't need to be rushed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 rape allegation — Please provide reliable sources on this talk page for these allegations. It is not reasonable to expect editors make informed comment on inclusion of material in the absence of those sources. BLP applies to this talk page as well as the article, so I suggest that we are in fact required to including links here to sources for the allegations. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any specific proposals for words to include in this article, or can we close this discussion section? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip, the thread above started after SpringStreetUpdates edited Special:Diff/1218227998 into the article and I reverted. You can see the conversation between Grazie, them and myself. Things have cooled since then. There's no specific proposal here (other than a separate section) however there was previous editing on this. The issue as I see it is that there is not strong sourcing on this because the individual does not have a high profile. They would not be noticed at all if it were not for the fact that they are a minor state politician. 10 years after this person is out of parliament, now one will know who they are (perhaps less) and finding sources on them will likely be hard. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources refer to sexual assault, so that should be reflected in the article. Otherwise, SpringStreetUpdates should propose specific wording for the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with editing 'assault' to 'sexual assault'. Beyond that I don't see a case for further expansion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that edit, from assault to sexual assault.

Reflecting on my issue with how the article stood - it is the amount of content in the article that is effectively fluff on this active politician - such as their favourite sports teams, number of siblings, and other fluff - which drowns out the notable information.

I'll concede that the arrest doesn't need to be included and my original (novice) edit was not how it should stand. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also apologies @Onetwothreeip you asked for sources re the allegation.

The allegation, arrest and outcome of the investigation were reported on quite heavily by state and natinoal news outlets, below are articles regarding the arrest. But as I said above, can see that it might not be nottable for inclusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/24/victorian-mp-will-fowles-arrested-and-released-without-charge-by-sex-squad-detectives

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/ousted-labor-mp-will-fowles-arrested-20231024-p5eenz.html

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/crime/victorian-mp-will-fowles-was-arrested-as-part-of-police-investigation-into-alleged-sexual-assault/news-story/cebafb0c61f92851bcb61927d348bd44 SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay so what words do you propose to enter into the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think something like this in the same positioning on the article would be reasonable, and it is less titular, which I think was the issue with my original edit:

=== Resignation from Labor Party ===

On 5 August 2023, Fowles resigned from the parliamentary Labor Party at the request of Premier Dan Andrews following allegations of sexual assault of a government employee. In January 2024 police announced that they had completed an investigation into the allegations and would not be pursuing charges. Premier Jacinta Allan released a statement on the same day indicating that Fowles would not be returning to the Labor caucus. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpringStreetUpdates, which source would you rely on for the Jacinta Allan statement? TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with this, except for minor copyediting. It should not be a separate subsection though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have a problem with the extra sentence re: Jacinta Allan's statement as long as WP:BLPPRIMARY is not breached and I also don't think it should be separate subsection. We need to see which source supports Allan's statement though because I couldn't find it in any of the three above by doing a ctrl-f. TarnishedPath^talk 08:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

editing 'assault' to 'sexual assault' — such a change requires a citation to support it (hence my reversion). Mitch Ames (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: I included "then-" before Daniel Andrews because the paragraph describes what Premier Daniel Andrews did and then what Premier Jacinta Allen did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip, I've performed some updates at Special:Diff/1218715210. Just copy edits. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames, @Onetwothreeip, @SpringStreetUpdates and @Morbidthoughts, do we have consensus for the wording at Special:Diff/1218721078 which reads:

"On 5 August 2023, Fowles resigned from the parliamentary Labor Party at the request of Premier Daniel Andrews following allegations of sexual assault against a government employee. In January 2024, police announced the completion of their investigation and that they would not be pursuing criminal charges. Premier Jacinta Allan indicated that Fowles would never return to the Labor caucus."

All citations are at the end of the paragraph which ensures that all claims are covered. This is maintained in the current section with no new subsection. If everyone is happy with this I'll close this discussion off and add a banner to the top of this page regarding current consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to add a banner or close the discussion, and I think that would be unproductive. If we are all satisfied with the content, we can simply leave it be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

All good. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I've moved some references to the end of the sentences they support (especially given the difference in dates, Aug 2023 and Jan 2024) but otherwise it's OK. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this looks good. Thanks for input and guidance. SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine and probably the max that should be written about this for now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)