Talk:Tim Wilson (Australian politician)

Views on abolishing HREOC

I've removed this quote from the article re the IPA calling for HREOC to be abolished:

"He has not made any personal statements to this effect, but it's widely attributed to him."

This is both WP:WEASEL and a WP:BLP violation. If Wilson has personal views on the abolition of HREOC, they can be included in this article only if cited from a reliable source and directly attributed to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.83.114 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

The section titled Political positions and controversies list a number of controversies that Wilson has been involved with over the years. The question is if the two sections are kept together or split. Personally I am for keeping them together, since even though there are some instances where it clearly fits in one of the categories or the other, there are some sections such as the Franking credits where teasing out the topic into two sections is both close to impossible and counter productive. So I propose keeping the two sections together as they are currently Playlet (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wilson's review

The subject of the article, Tim Wilson, raised concerns about the sources used in this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Wilson (Australian Politician) and conducted a detailed review at User:TimWilsonMP/Draft. Checking a single random observation (about the proposed and abandoned extradition treaty with China) confirms the unsuitability of that source (it doesn't mention Wilson). Interested editors may want to improve the article regarding the suitability of its sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Article about this wiki article

'‘Tim Wilson MP’ banned from editing Wikipedia after trying to get rid of negative news about the MP' by Cam Wilson Skinnytony1 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuing issues

@Horse Eye's Back:, @Michael Bednarek:, and @Nic T R: all made comments that at least some/many of my criticisms of this page are valid. The page relies heavily on op-eds, press releases, cherry-picking, and other issues to put me in a negative light. And since changes have been made to correct the record, they have been reversed with the same problems of new, different sources.

However, it’s been almost two months and very few changes were actually made. According to WP:Balance: “The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”

Since there is an apparent consensus that BLP applies, but nobody willing to cull through it closely, what is the next step? TimWilsonMP (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tim. It’s not true that there have been “very few changes actually made”; simply examining a diff from October 2021 to today shows significant changes. Whole sections have been removed due to lack of sourcing or inadequate sources. Like all articles on Wikipedia, though, undoubtedly there is still work to be done. Wikipedia is a community project, so we are indeed relying on someone, as you say, "willing to cull through it closely". Fortunately such people exist on Wikipedia.

You are right that Biographies of Living Persons have particular requirements outlined in WP:BLP. First, WP:NPOV, where a neutral POV must be adopted. Second, WP:V — quotations and any material likely to be challenged must be properly sourced. Last, WP: NOR states there is to be no original research, only properly-sourced statements of fact. If you identify instances where you believe your current article breaches these requirements (or indeed, any other Wikipedian identifies such instances) please highlight them on the talk page to allow the Wikipedia community to act on them.

As to your sources, I have reviewed the article again and found there have been significant changes. Any other user is of course welcome to adjust the page as they see fit.

Source review

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.

This article verifies that you were opted out of MyHealth and called for them to make it opt-in, which was going against your party’s government at the time. It is of course up to Wikipedia:Consensus whether this belongs on this page.

Citation 66 is a primary source to a letter.

Removed.

Citation 63 is a column, which usually means opinion/commentary content.[1]

Removed.

Citation 65 is a broken link to a political campaign website.

Removed.

Citation 64 does not appear to mention me at all.

Removed.

Citation 62 is plainly labeled as an op-ed.

Removed.

Citation 58 is just a passing mention.

Removed.

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.

The comments do not need to be specifically directed to you, rather they are contextualising the response to the idea that you should use superannuation to buy property.

"Wilson began pushing this policy harder during the COVID-19 pandemic." <- no citation

This has been removed.

Citation 55 does not appear to mention me at all.

This has been removed.

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.

This reference verifies that you used the hashtag on your Twitter account. This is true.

Citation 53 is from a site called Junkee. Are they considered reliable? The article is written in an op-ed/commentary type tone.

This article verifies that you were criticised for your response to the superannuation rate debate. It directly shows you being criticised on Twitter.

Citation 52 appears to be a primary source directly to comments made on the house floor.

I believe this is the Alex McKinnon source? This is verifying the claim that “Opponents of the hearings saw the process as a series of sham hearings aimed at advancing the Coalition’s agenda”, probably by showing direct quotes of those opponents saying it. The article is paywalled so I can’t see it.

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.

Michael West Media has been discussed before on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with an inconclusive result. I believe this section should include better sourcing.

Citation 45 is a primary source/original research to a list of voting records.

This has been removed.

Citation 44 is plainly labeled as an opinion piece and it doesn't mention me at all.

This has been removed.

"Wilson has received some criticism for applying the principles of freedom of speech inconsistently." <- no citation at all

This has been removed.

Citation 42 is an interview with me that doesn't appear to support what it's cited for.

Agree, this is a mischaracterisation of your statements in the interview. It should report direct quotes only. It must be reworded.

Citation 41 is plainly labeled as an opinion piece.

Agree, this and the sentence it verifies should be removed.

Citation 39 is primary source and it's just a link to anti-discrimination legislation

This is a link to the anti-discrimination legislation mentioned in the sentence above.

"The Yes vote was ultimately successful with 61.6% of the vote." <- no citation

This has been removed.

Citation 37 does not appear to even mention me at all.

Agree – this source does not appear to verify the statement. I believe it should be removed.

Citation 36 mentions I posted a tweet, but does not include what it is cited for in the context of discussing me.

This is verifying that other activists thought a conscience vote would be the fastest way to amend the law.

Citation 35 briefly mentions me in passing and does not appear to say what it is cited for.

This has been removed.

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.

No consensus does not mean it cannot be used, it means exactly that – no consensus.

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".

I believe Crikey is seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Despite the colourful language employed by Mr. Rundle, these sources either relay facts of what occurred in Parliament or report on the reception of you by eg. the ACL. You’re welcome to discuss reliable sources on WP:RSN.

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.

This is not “some kind of advocacy website”, but rather is an independent paper written by journalists. It has its own Wikipedia page. This source is used across Wikipedia.

"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

As stated on your page by User: Nic T R, this now has a source.

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.

The SMH source is adequate for indicating that you supported Malcolm Turnbull, but this second sentence should be removed and the Guardian source is irrelevant.

Citation 21 is to the Guardian, which Wikipedia accepts, but it is just one negative article used to support an entire paragraph.

Every claim in the Wikipedia article appears to be reflected in the source, including direct quotes.

Citations 16 and 17 is a primary source to a letter.

Primary sources are not forbidden from BLP articles, although they are discouraged. Specifically, this source verifies that a) you supported the Abbott Government’s attempted changes to Section 18C and b) that you thought it would be ineffective, and that codes of conduct would better bring about change.

Citations 9-10 are both primary sources published by me.

These have been removed.

Citations 6, 7, and 8 are all videos/press releases/etc. from the same political advocacy group I used to work for.

These have been removed, excepting the statement about your membership of the IPA being sourced to the IPA website. They are indeed a reliable primary source for this.

I'd invite you to amend your page at User:TimWilsonMP/Draft to reflect these changes, and better allow other Wikipedia editors to continue to improve the sourcing on your page. Respectfully yours. BeReasonabl (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The claims in the Michael West Media sources have now been adequately verified with other reliable sources. Citation 37 and 41 have been removed. Citation 42 has been reworded to reflect the source. This should clear up most of the source discussion above. If any section of the article appears to violate WP:BLP, I'd encourage any user to bring it to the attention of this talk page immediately — or indeed, make a revision themselves, if there is no conflict of interest in doing so. BeReasonabl (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

signage backfiring

I don't agree with this revert from Vladimir.copic: a) a Tweet is not a reliable source; b) the Guardian article say nothing about "drew national attention".

a) the tweet is by the manager of the funds mentioned - how much more reliable could it be? b) Guardian Australia is a national news organ with a large readership. That looks like national attention. dr_shorthair (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. a) see WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPTWITTER; b) WP:SYNTH. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please indicate the specific violations. There are a lot of policies and guidelines. Which ones were transgressed? dr_shorthair (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The ones I mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed ‘Wikipedia editing’

I removed the section ‘Wikipedia editing’, after seeing it from a discussion at RSN.

Mentioning his wikipedia username and that it got validated is just trivia - it is not biographically significant, having no enduring impact to his life. It is also WP:UNDUE to include as it was not widely covered.

Really, I just cannot see wikipedia articles writing about wikipedia administrative processes as if they are real-world-important. Especially when the admin result was confirming the account as valid.

User:Vladimir.copic - if you still want this 21 Feb 2022 addition, please show additional cites that independently cover it, or some cite showing an effect to his career.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I also came across this article at RSN and my opinion is that most of the article is a veiled form of political point-scoring. Most of the section on his various political positions, for example, is largely irrelevant and in my opinion is cherry-picked to portray a negative view. I've removed to subsections which were entirely trivial. This is an encyclopedia, let's keep it NPOV. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair view in parts and the article is a bit of a mess. However, entirely scrubbing sections that might be slightly negative which are sourced to Australian papers of record calling it "trivia" and replacing with positive information (sourced to a free tabloid) is just as much an WP:NPOV violation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Observations and commentary on how the page could include more substance, less allegation

Apologies, I meant to do this a while ago. As have been raised previously, there has been a long-term effort to construct a Wikipedia page for myself that frames me in a negative light by my political opponents [3] and elevate my political opponents [4].

Considering the constant efforts to do so, I believe that my page should be locked so only credible editors can contribute that have editorial objectivity.

Currently my page is polluted where the trivial is elevated to substance, actual substance is either ignored, removed, or always coupled with the opinions of others to delegitimise, and claims are made with references that do not justify the claim.

A number of times credible editors have reviewed the page and removed malicious content, and some users have been banned as it has been exposed that they are maliciously editing my page and are explicitly connected to my political opponents.

I understand that the subject of a Wikipedia page should not seek to edit their entry, and I have little interest in it being anything other than straight. But as the guidelines outline, I am allowed to make observations. To that end, I offer some observations in sequential order:

My time as Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner does not mention what I did in the role at all, including:

• Working on an inquiry to release children from detention that the previous Labor/Greens/Independent government locked up [5]
• Completing a nationwide consultation on rights and responsibilities [6]
• Completed Australia’s first report consolidating the State and Federal laws that discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity [7]
• Held a national conference on the state of free speech in Australia and the need for reform [8]
• Organising one of the largest gatherings of Australia’s indigenous leadership and driving a reform program to improve utilisation of land for economic development [9]. Following it indigenous leader, Noel Pearson, argued my appointment as a “masterstroke” [10]
• Advancing the push for marriage equality on the basis of equality before the law. [11]

It is not correct to say that I was a “vocal critic” of the Commission. I criticised it once. The page claims I have called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission. I have never called for the abolition of the Commission. There is a deliberate attempt to attribute the views of others to myself. Reference 10 does not have me saying so and is not a justified source to much such a claim. Every time this claim is deleted from my page by credible editors it is reinserted with another spurious reference.

While relevant information is not included, the section includes extensive paragraphs to a media report about incurring legitimate expenses to fulfil the role and a absurdly long paragraph about sending emails. Any reasonable observer would surely conclude that what I did in the role should take precedence over me incurring expenses and emails.

In the section on my parliamentary committee service it does not include reference to my membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in my second term, nor the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

The discussion around the 2022 election is bizarre. The page makes no acknowledgement that the 2022 election saw several Independents defeat Liberal MPs, of which I was merely one [12]. Nor does it make reference that Zoe Daniel spent $1.75 million to defeat me [13].

Instead, the discussion relates to a dispute around signage that was created because Bayside Council told all campaigns that they were not allowed to erect signage before a specific date, and where I respected the ruling others took it to a Court and challenged the Council decision. The idea of “Streisand effect” is pure opinion. As is reference 32. If you read the page you would think the election was fought on signage. It was not. It was fought on the performance of the government.

There is no recognition of what I did as an MP in the section about me being an MP. People will have their own views, but few would have described me as a passenger in my time in Parliament. Some obvious things that could be referenced include:

• In my first year in Parliament I challenged my own Prime Minister with other MPs and stopped an extradition treaty with China [14].
• I was part of the core group that forced the resolution of marriage equality and have been widely acknowledged as one of five who were central to its delivery [15]
• A lot of coverage on the page is given to how people did not like my franking credits campaign, but it is largely given credit as a key factor for the return of the government at the 2019 election [16], [17], [18], so much so that in other debates people now say they need my efficacy [19]
• That I fought within my own government to adopt a policy to support Australians to be able to use their superannuation to buy their own home – and was then credited when they adopted the policy [20], [21].

There is also no mention of what I did as a Minister, including:

• Passing Australia’s first national legislation for offshore electricity infrastructure [22].
• Approving the first zone for assessment for offshore wind in Commonwealth waters [23]

The post-Parliamentary career section does not cover what I have been doing since leaving Parliament – which is a PhD into financial products to promote decarbonisation. [24]

If my attendance at an ANZAC Day service deserves mention, then perhaps the whole hoopla being caused by Zoe Daniel trying to hide that she was at her beach house at the time also justifies a mention [25]

Under political positions:

• Like with the false statement I called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, others argued for the abolition of the Climate Change Authority, the RET and ARENA. These views are held out as mine by association, but were not expressed by me. Reference 38 includes a correction at the bottom of the article saying they got initial claims they were views expressed by me as wrong.
• It alludes that supporting someone’s free speech amounts to pseudo-sanctioning “climate denial”. It is common as an advocate for free speech that you defend people’s right to expression, even when you disagree with what they have to say.
• The LGBTI section implies I have endorsed discrimination against LGBTI people. As Australia’s Human Right Commissioner I had to balance freedom of speech, association, property rights and equality before the law, as well as rights and freedoms of others, including for LGBTI people [26]. Attributing the praise of others as mechanism to make malicious claims is unreasonable.
• The section on same-sex marriage completely ignores that I was one of the five MPs that were the driving force within my own government, forced a debate, a public vote and have been widely recognised as a driving force for delivery of change [27].
• The section on freedom of speech and human rights is malicious. It is Parliamentary procedure for the duty Minister in the House of Representatives to introduce legislation and amendments on behalf of the government during their duty period. Only the Parliament can make amendments. The Amendment was a government amendment. Introducing an amendment or legislation is not the same as “made amendments”. The Amendment was not authored by myself. It had to be introduced for procedural reasons for consideration, it passed without debate or a vote. I was just on duty at the time. Giving this prominence is absurd. If it is to be included, it is therefore reasonable that other legislation outside my Ministerial responsibilities are mentioned which I introduced for procedural reasons which is extensive.
• In the section around 18C, it specifically does not refer to the problems with the law that is makes it unlawful to engage in an act that is “reasonably likely, in all of the circumstances, to offend”. The law has since been reformed to stop this section being abused, as it has many times and led to prominent legal challenges. The version of the law I had concerns with is here [28]. Changes have since been made to stop the abuse of this section of the Act.
• In reference to Charlie Hebdo, when the law defines something as unlawful for being “reasonably likely, in all of the circumstances, to offend” then there is justification for the argument, even if others disagree. I am not sure why my page is populated with other people's opinions on my opinions.
• There is a consistent pattern of editing by malicious editors to include my view and then include the views of people who disagree with me. There is nothing specifically relevant about my opinion about Charlie Hebdo. It was simply a debate at the time in the context of a broader discussion about reforming law.
• In the section on franking credits it is a complete perversion of history. A Parliamentary inquiry was held. The Inquiry was actually supported by the Opposition at the time, until they realised the public did not support their policy. Critics did not like the hearings because hundreds of Australians turned up and voiced their opinion [29]. This is why so many allegations were made to undermine it. It was effective.
• The page implies I improperly used the Commonwealth logo and Liberal Party branding against use guidelines. This is false and was a deliberately misleading allegation. I used the Commonwealth coat of arms and a ‘Tim Wilson’ brand that made reference to me being the “Liberal MP for Goldstein”, and that is consistent with guidelines which states "Senators and Federal Members of Parliament may use the Arms in the course of their duties as Parliamentarians". [30] My taxpayer funded office was branded by the Department of Parliamentary Services along these lines as the photo on the page can attest.
• In the section on “Franking credits”: the page implies I tolerated handing out information political party material at a public hearing. This is false and was a deliberately misleading allegation made. Material was handed outside the venue, which was public land of which I had no control. These are symptomatic of the problem on my page: Reports of political opponents making allegations, without evidence, attributed as though they are fact, or the positions of others are attributed to myself when I did not express them.
• A Federal Member of Parliament can use the coat of arms in their professional duties, so implying there is something wrong is just false, and was part of a campaign to deceive about what was going on because it was so politically effective.
• Again, a lot of discussion about this campaign is written from the perspective of my political opponents, but what is not reference is that it is given credit for being a key factor for the return of the government at the 2019 election [31], [32], [33], so much so that in other debates people now say they need my efficacy [34]
• The section on superannuation starts with an allegation through my denial. Reference 74 does not even make this allegation nor include my denial. It says I want to “reshape superannuation”.
• I have been a long-term critic of corruption in the superannuation system, that is not the same as being opposed to superannuation itself [35].
• I have been a long-term advocate that home ownership should take precedence over superannuation because not owning your own home is the leading indicator of poverty in retirement. [36]
• I am amazed that a tweet hoping women are not homeless in retirement appears on my Wikipedia page. It is certainly true I do not want women to be homeless in retirement. But I don’t really think that is a political position, but one of common sense.
• It is absurd that my opinions are discounted because other people have a different view, especially when there is quote that I have an undefined conflict of interest in debate about superannuation, but strangely the chief executive of Industry Super Australia (Australia’s superannuation lobby group with around $1.3 trillion under management) does not.
• The allegation I gave unlicensed financial advice because I said home ownership is more important than superannuation is absurd, and while it is up to editors its inclusion on my Wikipedia page seems odd.
• In the section on Australian relations with China, I did not “join” the Wolverines, I was a founding member, and proudly so.
• The criticism of poker machines was in the context of the individual the debate related to who was an anti-poker machine Senator who then provides legal support for Huawei, and it is odd that it is referenced.
• It seems odd that my page says I supported anti-government protestors in Hong Kong, but does not acknowledge that I actually protested on the streets of Hong Kong with them [37].
• If it did, it might highlight how ridiculous it is to include a quote from someone else that I am “all talk, no action” on the issue [38].

In the section on Personal life:

• Without wanting to distance myself from him, David Morris is not my step father. He is my mother’s husband, but they were married after I was an adult. We therefore have no legal relationship. I have no issue with the obscure relationship being included, just that it be described accurately.
• After Parliament I started a PhD into financial markets to promote decarbonisation at RMIT’s Blockchain Innovation Hub [39]
• I have also completed a Graduate Studies in Energy and Carbon Studies at Murdoch University, as well as my Bachelor of Arts (Policy Studies) and Master of Diplomacy and Trade (International Trade) from Monash University.

Hopefully this information can help inform the development of my page, as well as highlight explicit and malicious editing. If there is a need for additional references I am happy to assist.

Pinging @BeReasonabl:, who suggested I make contributions to clarify my page.

TimWilsonMP (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)