User:TimWilsonMP/Draft

Citation by Citation breakdown

A review of the citations used on Tim Wilson (Australian politician), generally starting from the bottom of the page and working upwards. Please feel free to add comments directly to this list.

• Citation 71 is a broken link to a VIMEO video from a church group (Bible Society Australia) and (while not negative or controversial) is used contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for quotes.
  • Appears to have been correctly removed.
• Citation 66 might be good enough, but it does just briefly mention/quote me and does not infer this statement is a major milestone in my life that belongs in a biography.
• Citation 66 is a primary source to a letter.
• Citation 63 is a column, which usually means opinion/commentary content.[1]
• Citation 65 is a broken link to a political campaign website.
• Citation 64 does not appear to mention me at all.
• Citation 62 is plainly labeled as an op-ed.
• Citation 58 is just a passing mention.
• Citation 56 is cited for comments from another person regarding policies I support, but these comments are not specifically directed directly to me in the cited source.
• "Wilson began pushing this policy harder during the COVID-19 pandemic." <- no citation
• Citation 55 does not appear to mention me at all.
• Citation 54 I am just mentioned in passing and the citation does not say what it's cited for; for example, it says Callghan (not me) inspired a twitter hashtag.
• Citation 53 is from a site called Junkee. Are they considered reliable? The article is written in an op-ed/commentary type tone.
• Citation 52 appears to be a primary source directly to comments made on the house floor.
• Citation 51 says stuff like "independent journalism" on the article, but the about us page makes it clear the publication has an agenda ("covering the rising power of corporations over democracy.") It also accepts contributed articles from the public but does not clearly label who wrote the story or whether that particular article was crowd-sourced.
• Citation 45 is a primary source/original research to a list of voting records.
• Citation 44 is plainly labeled as an opinion piece and it doesn't mention me at all.
• "Wilson has received some criticism for applying the principles of freedom of speech inconsistently." <- no citation at all
• Citation 42 is an interview with me that doesn't appear to support what it's cited for.
• Citation 41 is plainly labeled as an opinion piece.
• Citation 39 is primary source and it's just a link to anti-discrimination legislation
• "The Yes vote was ultimately successful with 61.6% of the vote." <- no citation
• Citation 37 does not appear to even mention me at all.
• Citation 36 mentions I posted a tweet, but does not include what it is cited for in the context of discussing me.
• Citation 35 briefly mentions me in passing and does not appear to say what it is cited for.
• Citation 34 is The Huffington Post. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says there is no consensus on whether this publication can be used for politics.
• Many of the citations(72, 73, 37, 32) are to Crikey articles. Crikey does not clearly label pieces as Columns (which Wikipedia says are typically opinion/commentary content[2]) versus news-section articles. If you read the articles, I think the tone of the articles will give it away that these are columns/opinion. There are other hints as well. For example, if you look at citation 69 you'll see in the URL and browser-tab title it's called "Guy Rundle: on Tim Wilson".
• Citation 31 appears to be some kind of advocacy website to support LGBTQ rights ("Setting Australia's LGBTA agenda since 1979"); while a good cause, I don't think it aligns with what Wikipedia looks for in a citation.
• "Wilson won a second term at the 2019 election, although there was a swing against him of 4.89% even though there was a swing towards the coalition of over 1%." <- no citation
  • This has a citation now courtesy someone else, I changed the numbers to match said source since it rounds, and will edit for a neutral tone (the addition of a source front-loaded the swing against Wilson, which, given the overall negative tone of the article seems fitting to correct). Nic T R (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Citation 28 and Citation 29 appears to be what Wikipedia calls WP:SYNTHESIS, because the Wikipedia editor has made their own analysis by combining information from different sources. I'm also not sure where/if citation 26 says what it is cited for.
• Citation 21 is to the Guardian, which Wikipedia accepts, but it is just one negative article used to support an entire paragraph.
  • I'll add, it's very much cherry-picking from said article. The case involving campaign material includes a reply to the effect of his resignation from the human rights commission. The wikipedia article implies misuse of position; That doesn't look to have happened, or, to the extent that it happened, was literally just misuse of email with clarification of position each time where it became relevant because of the email misuse. The guardian article may likewise aim to coney misuse of position, but with additional details like email forwarding (meaning, this account was not the primary contact in many cases) it makes clear a more limited scope. The wikipedia coverage does not convey those same limits. This seems to not be neutral coverage. So, I'd be in favour of removing the "and to obtain from someone an endorsement in support of his campaign to gain Liberal preselection for Parliament" bit, this "but considered them 'utterly irrelevant' and a 'non-story'" bit and "toy with" bit. Nic T R (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Citations 16 and 17 is a primary source to a letter.
• Citations 9-10 are both primary sources published by me.
• Citations 6, 7, and 8 are all videos/press releases/etc. from the same political advocacy group I used to work for.