Talk:Catherine Cusack (politician)

COI editing
The IP address said to originate from Parliament 203.13.67.10 (talk) has made the following edits: 30 January 2018, 28 September 2016, 7 December 2015 and 27 November 2015. , who either is or purports to be the subject of the article, made this edit on 22 September 2019. I have removed the unsourced edit. Find bruce (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparent COI editing
made an edit with an edit summary that included note that my complaint to the Australian Press Council was upheld and I have a 100% record voting which suggest that she is either the subject of the article or is pretending to be her. I have reverted her edits to the article, but will check the Press Council complaint and update the article.--Find bruce (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have included a reference to the Press Council adjudication and her statement to the Legislative Council that the earliest practical date for her resignation is August 2022. --Find bruce (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The information in the SMH is incorrect - do not understand why a discredited article is used as source for Wiki. The focus on this issue where facts are disputed is excessive and lacks context. Katieqs (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am the subject of the Wiki entry. The information I am seeking to remove is not biographical. The source cited is two newspaper articles “planted” by a person with journalists not in attendance intending to damage my reputation. It relates to a short period of questioning on a Committee - the Committee transcript is not cited. The SMH report was appealed to the Press Council - the Star Observer is not covered by the Press Council. The entry omits context for example that I was a member of ACON purged from the organisation. The entry has been placed by a person who doesn’t like me and is wanting to harm me by manipulating my wiki entry. This is true of other parts of the edits. For example “9 page email” is incorrect - it is spin portraying an email (not a letter) as excessively long. The fact the email was leaked is directly reported and relevant information that should be included. Katieqs (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You have a clear conflict of interest. Please do not edit the article. If you wish to changes to be made to the article, you can use the request edit template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~ ). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.
 * In terms of your comments, I will not be responding to your accusations of bad faith in the absence of clear evidence in the form of diffs in relation to editors or reliable sources in relation to journalists. Your assertion that the SMH article is discredited is incorrect for the reasons set out below. The reference to the email being 9 pages is not supported by the source cited and so I have removed it.  Find bruce (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

NSW Parliament's Standing Committee on Social Issues
has repeatedly edited the page to remove referenced material, the second with the edit summary I have deleted the gay committee stuff - it keeps coming back and I have a press council adjudication that repudiates the source so in needs to keep being removed. I also added the time served as CWP Chair and Cusack's work for the Sydney Community Foundation in hosting their annual breakfast.. I have reverted the second edit because the article includes not only the SMH source, but also the Star Observer. The Press Council only concerned the SMH article & did not "repudiate the source" - it made three findings (1) the references to the gay community "looking down" on women and excluding them from efforts to combat AIDS were a reasonable interpretation of Ms Cusack’s questions at the inquiry, even though she may well have intended her comment not to refer to all gay people and may have said so to the journalist. (2) The headline could have been better expressed to ensure that it was not interpreted as referring to slurs by Ms Cusack. & (3) the newspaper failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and fairness of its claim that Ms Cusack had "stunned colleagues" by her questions. There was no evidence to support this claim. The article does not refer to or rely upon the discredited claim of stunned colleagues. It seems to me that a neutral point of view requires the source to be qualified to include the Press Council adjudication & why. --Find bruce (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)