Talk:Lee Rhiannon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is her totalitarian past allowed to be covered up?[edit]

I know Chris Maltby has been deleting things on this and other related pages for a long time. I want to know why a past as a devotee of Stalinism (or an anti-revisionist Communist position or whatever you want to call it)is acceptable in a modern Australian political figure? Surely a former nazi or similar would have to have made very public apologies and articulate explanations for their change of position. Yet LR seems to be proud of her past, and the activities of her parents. I accept the capacity of people to change, but where is Rhiannon's mea culpa - where is her public apology for her former vile political beliefs - where is her articulation of her understanding as to what was wrong with them? Does she accept that her former political affiliation was vile?

I am not going to edit the page - there is no point - the Green goons will just alter the thing again. Do they airbrush people out of pictures too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.126 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your unhelpful edits to the article have been removed. All five views and everything in between here are valid, there is no right or wrong. One of the great things about Australia and liberal democracy more generally is that we can believe in and espouse in anything, as long as we do not break the law. As for content disputes, if someone objects something new being added, then wikipedia policy is that the edits are not to be reinstated until consensus is formed on the talk page of the article. So if you have constructive edits to make and someone disputes them, you come here and engage in discussion. It's pretty simple. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that kind of absolute moral relativism despicable. Not everything legal is right. Not everything right is legal. I note you do not even attempt to make any attempt to defend the attack dogs deployed by the Greens to protect the Greens from historical discussion of their backgrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.160.84 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack dogs? Whatever. If you want something on the article and it is disputed, only consensus discussion here can add it. You're welcome to take part in the process, but if not, so be it. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not a Greens supporter, I have made edits about Rhiannon's past, and those edits have stayed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute raised in parliament and the online press[edit]

The recent flurry of anonymous edits may be related to the use of an adjournment debate in the House of Representatives by the federal Labor MP Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports) on 22 August to make claims of an editing conspiracy in relation to this page - see the Hansard on page 118/119. On 24 August Danby published the adjournment speech on his blog along with a pretty nasty personal attack on myself including a somewhat unflattering photo taken of me at a folk festival and a link to a 2009 political hatchet job piece done on me by Telegraph which the online journal Crikey's Pure Poison columnist thought egregious enough for a response on the journalistic standards.

Danby also sent the same material to Crikey who ran a story which is presently accessible only to subscribers. The News Limited site The Punch also ran Danby's piece. Andrew Crook (Crikey) contacted me for comments, and he quotes me there as follows (the word nemesis is Crook's):

"Maltby, en route from Sydney to Canberra to hear Rhiannon’s [inaugural] speech slammed his nemesis, calling him “unbalanced and crazy” and adding that “he seems to have an unhealthy attitude to the editing of the page.”"

Danby has repeatedly claimed that the editing is a Greens conspiracy led by myself, even though a glance at the page's editing history shows that is a baseless slur and shows a very poor understanding of the Wikipedia processes. This is in spite of the evidence that he has been an active participant in the editing dispute and the talk page discussions. Danby has a long history of animosity to the Greens and Rhiannon in particular, especially in relation to political differences over the Israel/Palestine issue. Readers can draw their own conclusions in relation to the matters raised...

I am not sure if this is the first time a Wikipedia editing dispute has been raised in the Australian Parliament but it seemed important enough to mention here. Chrismaltby (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion, in the lack of any substance, is to simply ignore it. Wikipedia's policies don't change from article to article and they know it. Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mr Maltby, well done, you are now immortalised in Hansard as a suppressor of truth and abetter of Stalinism, I hope you're proud of that. You've also been exposed as the "hungry hubby" who had to be asked to stop attending meetings of Waverley Council (of which your wife is a Greens member) because you were eating all the free food! I hope you enjoy your 15 minutes of fame. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if you read my letter in response that the Telegraph neglected to publish you would have seen that the claims made in the article were baseless. Similar to the claims you make about conspiracies here. And do tell Mr Danby to be careful about remarks he makes about me outside parliament. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's wrong with "maiden speech"?. Rhiannon is welcome to try and bring back Socialism if she wants but last i checked socialist parties got less than 5% of the vote in most Aussie elections. Paul Austin (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that Michael Danby is "careful about remarks" he makes publically. After all, Ms Rhiannon can always bring a legal action if she feels hard done by or somehow defamed. But I would think that her silence on the matter of her Socialist past is just more evidence that the truth is already out there. 121.218.67.123 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Political and Community Involvement[edit]

I think these details should be integrated into the chronology of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDS[edit]

Do we really need this? Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon[edit]

It's provable that Rhiannon has lied about her parents and her own past. Her mother Freda accepted a Lenin Peace Prize from the Brezhnev regime at the height of its' repression in the '70s. but Rhiannon claims that her parents turned against the Soviet Union after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. A person who no longer supported the Soviet Union would not have accepted a Lenin Peace Prize from them. Paul Austin (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable and noteable through WP:RS or is it WP:OR? Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is well-documented that Bill and Freda Brown were leaders of the Soviet-loyal SPA, and Rhiannon was also a member for a time. This is amply covered in the article. It is not Wikipedia's role to expose every lie told by a politician or thrash out every controversy in her or his career.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about events more than 50 years ago. To say that this represents a 66 year old's current point of view is utterly ludicrous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Pell section[edit]

Citations were added in but for some reason have not appeared in the article proper. I believe they are visible in the wiki-code.

So instead of reverting my edit, if someone is going to do that, they can fix the citations please. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

The following passage is problematic:

She edited the Soviet-funded and backed newspaper Survey (the official newspaper of the Soviet-aligned Socialist Party of Australia, a newspaper which her father Bill Brown also had edited some years before) from 1988 until it ceased publication in 1990. One opinion piece by Rhiannon in Survey mourned the fall of the Berlin Wall and expressed fear at the prospect of the disappearance of the German Democratic Republic and the reunification of the two Germanies. This piece received renewed attention from Rhiannon's political opponents during her campaign for the Australian Senate twenty-one years later.

This is not fully supported by the two Kerr articles which are cited. Kerr reports the Soviet funding as an allegation, not a fact. Kerr does not report "an opinion piece" by Rhiannon. He reports an interview with an East German pastor that was published in Survey. He doesn't say that Rhiannon wrote the article, nor that it "mourned" the fall of the Wall, etc. There is no evidence that this particular article was used by Rhiannon's political opponents, apart from the fact that Kerr has published it. This passage is also repetitive. As is the later reference to ASIO.

On a related issue, this page seems to indicate that Pat O'Gorman was a member of the CPA which is strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean strange if he was a member of the CPA while she was a member of the SPA.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery solved. Different person. See below.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by Association (Again)[edit]

I have removed this:

On Monday 1 June 2010, Rhiannon spoke on the steps of Sydney Town Hall, to a rally in response to Israel's military blockade of Gaza. Sheikh Taj el-Din al Hilaly, an Australian Sunni Muslim leader, was another speaker. On Saturday 5 June 2010 Rhiannon and al Hilaly - holding a banner - marched in another response to Israel's blockade. The Australian reported that Rhiannon initially denied, "any association with the controversial Islamic cleric", but then admitted she marched with al Hilaly.

This is a pure case of guilt by association. Many people appear at the same rally. It doesn't mean they have a personal association. Rhiannon's views on Israel are noted elsewhere in the article. This is non-notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious scuttlebutt, and even more obvious editorialising. Whoever wrote that clearly has not concept of NPOV. Frickeg (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, not quite so obvious editorialising, then. (!) Still, the points stands. Frickeg (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 being an election year[edit]

I feel pretty certain that Greens staffers or Greens partisans will try to POV this article in an attempt to maximise Rhiannon's vote at this year's coming election. Keep an eye out for sanitisation of Rhiannon's far left past. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to every other politician up for election this year? Frickeg (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly valid concern given that Rhiannon's office has tried to pull that stunt with this article in the past. I've been here almost 13 years so don't treat me as if I'm a newbie. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that both sides have been guilty of partisan editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but it's really pressing given that the Greens have never re-elected a Senator in NSW and the impression given by their media releases is that they really really want Rhiannon re-elected. At this point, it now becomes appropriate to quote the Fourth Doctor: "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That probably explains why Rhiannon can't go up stairs.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sarcasm's appropriate, Jack. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the painstaking scrutiny of assorted Wikipedians this imminent crisis has apparently been averted. But let eternal vigilance be our watchword, and let no one slumber on their watch or let their sword rust in their sheath.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon's current predicament[edit]

Unrelated to the swarm of partisan edits, I have to say i'm enjoying it, given what she and Bill and Freda have done over the years. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about holding a grudge! Bill Brown was a minor political figure who died in 1992! I don't think you should edit this page because you've lost all sense of proportion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way. Many, many apologies for the inconweenience. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement in the Socialist Party of Australia - section[edit]

Gumsaint insists on this new section as the "only substantive" mention of the SPA:

Following her involvement with the Youth League of the Communist Party of Australia Rhiannon later joined the breakaway, pro-Soviet and Soviet-funded Socialist Party of Australia when it was formed at the end of 1971. She held senior office positions in the youth wing and in 1977 led an SPA delegation to Moscow at the invitation of Leonid Brezhnev.
Rhiannon edited the pro-Soviet and Soviet-supported monthly magazine Survey from 1988 until it ceased publication. Reports suggest she has tried to downplay her involvement, telling the Ten Network she merely "assisted with it to some extent" but some reports have her clearly identified as the editor in the pages.

However, this duplicates what is found in the "Early life" section:

Rhiannon was ... the daughter of Bill and Freda Brown, who were long-term members of ... the Soviet-loyal Socialist Party of Australia (SPA)...She joined the SPA around 1973... In 1977, she studied Marxism at the International Lenin School in Moscow... During the 1970s Rhiannon was arrested during anti-apartheid protests. In the 1980s she helped organise a "peace camp" protest outside the joint US-Australian defence facility at Pine Gap, in central Australia. According to Mark Aarons, she left the SPA in the early 1980s, but she remained active in party-sponsored activities until the late 1980s. She edited the SPA's official newspaper, Survey, from 1988 until it ceased publication in 1990, authoring pro-Soviet articles.

The information is essentially the same. I have no problem with augmenting, renaming, or reorganising the "Early life" section, but there is no point in having duplicate information. Anyway, based on the information we have, the SPA was an important part of her life since the time she was a university student till 1990, so it is wrong to treat this as a separate chapter in her life. It makes no chronological or thematic sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. Frickeg (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving this some thought. I do apologise I can see that I did duplicate some earlier information but I do think this is so significant that the section title 'Early Life' doesn't pay it enough importance. Her involvement with the SPA is arguably her most significant political engagement prior to her parliamentary life, whereas some of the material in 'Early Life' refers to her family and childhood. The entry has had a big boost in traffic this week so of course there is a danger that some editors may want to downplay these references so thanks for addressing this with an open mind. Gumsaint (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she was 39 at the time she was still editing Survey so I'm not sure that comes under the common understanding of 'Early Life'. Gumsaint (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the extract "Rhiannon was ... the daughter of Bill and Freda Brown, who were long-term members of ... the Soviet-loyal Socialist Party of Australia (SPA)" confuses the CPA with the SPA. Gumsaint (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you extracted every sentence related to her involvement with the CPA/SPA out of "Early life" there wouldn't be much left. We don't have any indication what her career was like before parliament, for example. I agree "Early life" might not be the best name for this section. Potentially its scope could stretch to 1999. Essentially it covers all of her life before her parliamentary career. However, she wasn't notable in that period, so it doesn't need extensive coverage. In any case, we don't have enough material to have multiple sections. Perhaps the name could be changed to "Early life and political activism". You could combine those references you have found the existing material. (I can't access those articles because I'm not a subscriber.) I also think that the controversy about her radical past should be placed when it occurred, that is, as part of her parliamentary career.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my grandfather was one of B. A. Santamaria's Groupers, stood twice for the DLP in Flinders and was called "Victoria's Chifley by a suburban newspaper. It's why i have little time for Lee Rhiannon or her parents. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought we were going to move on from family vendettas.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that, unlike Lee, I'm truthful about my family's past. Hey when i was ten , i got a story featured on 774 3LO news because i spotted pamphlets in my home in Deakin saying "Vote Lamb for Jap City" (i.e. *the multifunction polis") Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack. Her years in the SPA are of such interest and of such importance to commentators it's hard to see a case for it being reduced to a couple of sentences under the banner of 'political activism'. Given access to the SPA's records you could arguably write a book about her years with the SPA. These were formative years and you can't conflate them with the quite separate involvement in the CPA. Arguably her socialist foundations are key to understanding her present sidelining in the Greens. The level of public interest surely justifies some prominence. Gumsaint (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually pretty sure it's too prominent in the article right now; any more would be massive undue weight. We also seem to be relying almost entirely on opinion articles from the Australian, which is a bit like writing about Obama using only Fox News. We aren't citing some clearly controversial things like "authoring pro-Soviet articles" (which I've not been able to find in the sources) and a few of the links are dead (what on earth is going on with citation 1?). The "studying Marxism in Russia" thing relies on Gerard frickin' Henderson. Before even thinking about adding anything, we need to fix what's there. Frickeg (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the changes I just reverted exacerbate this issue, relying almost entirely on Henderson. Gerard Henderson's opinion articles are not a reliable source on anything much, let alone the Greens. Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further: the only media source that any of these points rely on is the Oz, most of them Henderson. The current section needs serious reworking. Frickeg (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was active in the SPA for nearly 20 years until she was almost 40. If I could point out respectfully he inadequacy of including that under early years is self-evident. Gumsaint (talk) It's a fair point about the over reliance on one reference though. I'll see what I can find in the historical record. Gumsaint (talk)

For the record: like Jack above, I would be fine with a title change of the section. I like the suggestion of "Early life and political activism". I do not believe there needs to be an entirely separate section on her SPA involvement. Frickeg (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a wealth of material in the national library on the SPA that will substantiate the claims that she was heavily involved. I'll gather some references together. I wouldn't want to be a party to a campaign to downplay this twenty year period of her life. Gumsaint (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, we don't want to downplay it, but it's fairly minor compared to her 15+ years in state and federal politics. She would not have been a notable figure if we were going solely on the SPA stuff. I think the amount we have on it at the moment is about right, although as I've said it needs to be almost completely reworked. Also, those sources are useful but what we really need are secondary sources outside the Oz, preferably news (or scholarly) rather than opinion. Ideally all the Henderson references should be replaced if possible - if they are genuinely news-worthy then someone else will have reported on them, and if not, well, we don't need to mention it either. If Henderson refs were to be included, they would need to be (a) explicitly identified as such ("conservative columnist Gerard Henderson claimed ...") and (b) balanced by people like Wendy Bacon, but I think it's better that we avoid opinion altogether. The Mark Aarons article is a better source for this stuff, but we need to acknowledge he's not exactly a neutral source either. Frickeg (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhiannon has systematically downplayed her and her parents' socialist/communist past out of fear of political and electoral harm. Wikipedia should not assist her in that. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chase up some primary sources through the NLA - I agree that the subject has a long history of downplaying the connection and having sympathetic editors on here wanting to downplay twenty years of her life only raises more question marks about the subject than it answers.Gumsaint (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at least in agreement that the 'Early Life' section heading is inadequate. Who does the onus fall upon to make some changes? I'm more than happy to do them but don't want to invite controversy given the weighted contribution of other editors in this discussion to playing her formative years down. Gumsaint (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I understand people are worried about downplaying here, but it's important not to over-correct. We need to follow the sources, not our own agendas. It may well be true that Rhiannon has often downplayed this part of her past, but it's equally true that many in the conservative media have more than compensated for any reticence on her part. We want to drive a nice middle ground here. Frickeg (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your previous comments that the amount we have on the SPA is about right, but the sources could be improved. The problem is that the only people that have delved into her history are people who wanted to sling mud. She is notable for being an MP, and her earlier activities are not particularly notable. I don't think anyone should go off and hunt for incriminating evidence in primary sources to add here. That's inappropriate. And I don't understand Gumsaint's claim that her involvement with the CPA was "quite separate" from her involvement in the SPA. The SPA was a split from the CPA.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it can be inappropriate to investigate the historical record. It could be that it supports your view Jack that she was an insignificant player in the SPA or it could be otherwise. I'm not sure why you would want to discourage that. The argument that an almost twenty year period was insignificant is yet to be proven. We don't know that her earlier activities were not notable until it is better investigated. You raise suspicions of an agenda when you try and say the only significant part of her life is the period that she held elected office; all sorts of people have minor parts of their lives elevated to importance once they achieve office not the reverse. There are countless examples: Barack Obama's page gives prominence to his time as a community organizer and time spent at Harvard Law School in a dedicated section, but in isolation both mentions are unremarkable. So what, that's normal practice. And yes, the SPA was a a split and for that period a separate entity - I'm not sure what is difficult about that - Democratic Labour Party is a split from Australian Labour but they can hardly be referred to in the same breath as though they're the same. Gumsaint (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some of the content of the talk page and the history here I'm putting up a NPOV Dispute tag for the section in good faith - I hope it can be respected. Some of the claims made here are at the least controversial and most editors would at least identify an agenda by some editors to minimise any mention of her time with the SPA. Readers of the page should be aware that there is a long-standing contest about this issue at the very least. Gumsaint (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gumsaint, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Primary sources need to be used with great caution, especially in BLPs. I know I raised Obama, but in this case the comparison is not really apt. Obama has multiple full biographies and in-depth profiles (i.e. secondary sources) written about him so there is an abundance of reliable, neutral sources about all aspects of his life. The same does not apply here, where almost all of this stuff is from an openly partisan source (I don't think Gerard Henderson would deny that he is clearly conservative and anti-Greens, and his column is at the very least controversial). My only agenda here is to uphold WP:BLP, which is one of our most stringent and important policies. I actually agree with the NPOV tag, but not for the reason you've added it, I suspect. Frickeg (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhiannon has deliberately tried to sanitise her historical record both in public and through members of her party here on Wikipedia. Notice how she says "ASIO was spying on me at seven!"... but leaves out that she was a member of the CPA's Youth League at the time, which makes ASIO's decision somewhat less shocking and more understandable. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly going to have to spell this out: it does not matter whether Rhiannon has been trying to sanitise her historical record or not. All that matters is that we neutrally report what independent, reliable sources say. (I shouldn't have to say this, but for the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any political party.) Frickeg (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Frickeg has said, please read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:OR. We exist to report what independent, reliable sources say in a neutral matter, not to allow a couple editors with strong opinions to push an agenda. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly grant the importance of neutrality but it doesn’t preclude the selection of material in the public interest. Every editor on Wikipedia makes such a judgement everytime they add new material. With respect to primary sources I was referring to editorial material in Rhiannon's own name. Gumsaint (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for granting the validity of the section dispute tag. The level of public interest in this matter is intense and it should be explored more. Gumsaint (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The level of public interest is intense" - what on earth are you basing that on? There's a lot about her at the moment, yes, because of stuff that's happening now. I see no evidence of this repeated assertion, but even if it were true, it has no bearing on our editorial decisions here. The level of "public interest" has no bearing on what we do and do not include - that is not what Wikipedia is for. As for primary sources, we are all talking about the NLA search you linked to - all of that is primary sources and very little of it would be appropriate to use here. Frickeg (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The level of interest as indicated by traffic to the page. All the material on the SPA in the NLA is paralleled by an enormous amount in the state libraries. The key thing is that Rhiannon switched from the SPA to the Greens in the same year. Despite assertions to the contrary this is at the crux of why she is so controversial. Attempts to reduce this to two sentences under the banner of general activism is at odds with the real importance of her role in the history of the Greens and its relationship with socialism. Gumsaint (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than 2 sentences!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of references to her role other than simply stating she was a member it is two sentences. A casual reader of the page would be oblivious to the contention around her role or the history of her defending herself. It's a failing of the page in its current edit. Gumsaint (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose adding to the page? What you tried to add previously was largely a duplication of what we have now. She was a member or sympathesiser of a small, little known political party. She edited a low-circulation journal for a couple of years. Yes, we should note that, but the details are not very notable. I have never said that "she was an insignificant player in the SPA". It's just that, beyond her membership, it's not that notable. The sources we use are part of the "contention", so I don't see how we are ignoring it. If you want to write about the "contention", it really belongs later in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhiannon was in the 1980s a vocal supporter of the Erich Honecker regime in the GDR, hence her stated fear in Survey of German reunification after the Fall of the Wall. This was stated in the mainstream press when she ran for the senate. Just an observation but it's bad optics if we dismiss the mainstream conservative press as unreliable, but treat the unreconstructed Trots of Green Left Weekly as an OK source. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? And where on earth has anyone suggested that Green Left Weekly would be an appropriate source here? We certainly aren't using it, or as far as I can tell anything like it, right now. Frickeg (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar claims were made in 2015 (see above under "Survey"), but not supported by the sources. Interestingly, in her first speech in the Senate, Rhiannon mentioned her parents and her membership of the SPA, so she hasn't exactly hidden it...--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She also claims in that speech that people like her who joined socialist and communist parties (during the Cold War) were "altruists" which a huge porkie. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's your opinion, obviously. Frickeg (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other political and community engagement[edit]

On a related matter re citations surely the section 'Other political and community engagement' requires citations? Gumsaint (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as stated previously, I think the information should be integrated into the rest of the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of anyone prepared to do the work and any citations at all it should be removed. Gumsaint (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Give us some time to work on it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this section. The key information has been integrated into the text in chronological order and with citations. The rest of it was trivial (involvement with the P&C etc) or was covered in some other form (peace activism).--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Lenin School[edit]

The article currently says:

In 1977, she studied Marxism at the International Lenin School in Moscow.

However, according to its Wikipedia article, the International Lenin School closed in 1938. The source, a column by Gerard Henderson, suggests that Rhiannon confessed by giving some vague answers on talkback radio. Here, he suggests that he got the information from another member of the SPA delegation. Perhaps it would be better to simply cite Aarons that she led a delegation to Moscow. It sounds like she did get some kind of training, but I don't think it could have been at the International Lenin School...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes clear that the sourcing in this article needs to really step up a level, and suggests that Henderson isn't a particularly reliable source here. I don't mind it being replaced with the suggestion citing Aarons, although he also has an axe to grind and doesn't go into a lot of detail there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Witch-hunters have a strong confirmation bias. I've removed the sentence. On reflection, I don't think we should say anything about the 1977 trip until we've got something solid.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More information is required yes but the reference to the International Lenin School closing in 1938 is poorly referenced. This is an open matter.Gumsaint (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article lists a number of scholarly articles that refer to the School closing in 1937/1938. It is not poorly referenced at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comment.[edit]

Is it really appropriate to delete other user's comments without discussion on the talk page? Surely this is deserving of a reprimand?--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. What upset me was that you tried to claim that Rhiannon's communist past was half a century ago when it's proven fact that she worked for a pro-Soviet party as recently as 1990. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upset you? This is an encyclopedia. Not a place for you to express your feelings. This is decidedly bad behaviour for an editor, and not a reasonable justification for censorship of debate. If you have a problem with someone criticising you, say as much.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorman, O'Gorman[edit]

More misguided witch-hunting. According to this article:

In 1977, Brown married Pat O'Gorman, editor of the Miners Federation newspaper Common Cause and a member of the Communist Party.

The reference is: Tribune, 19 December 1984. I don't know how anyone found this reference, but I have tracked down hard copies of the newspaper in a library. (I burnt all my own copies of Tribune after reading.) The reference is to an article entitled "The life of Soviet miners" on page 7 of that edition of the CPA's newspaper. In a blurb, the author is described as the editor of the Miners Federation's Common Cause and a CPA member. However, the author is Pat GORMAN, not Pat O'GORMAN. It looks like GORMAN is still editing the Common Cause, though with typical Communist cunning he now calls himself "Paddy".[1] Lest any doubt that Rhiannon's married name was O'GORMAN, see the impeccable source, the Daily Telegraph.[2] However, previously, this article stated her husband's name was GORMAN, so it is a long-running case of mistaken identity. I have removed the false information.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Section Heading Required[edit]

Current media coverage of the ongoing estrangement of Rhiannon and the Australian Greens needs a new section.Gumsaint (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon's estrangement is because the Australian Greens in general are a lot more moderate than Rhiannon's NSW Greens, which are largely a legacy party of the NSW branch of the historical CPA. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking about why she was estranged just that it should be included hereGumsaint (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is mentioned. That's enough. This witch-hunting has been responsible for two major errors creeping into the article, one of which has been around for years. This is not an appropriate forum.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your views are well-known Jack - some other editors need to step in and take a role to combat your obviously partisan position or take it to arbitration. Gumsaint (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. This talk page gets used for repeated soapboxing by two or three editors with very strong opinions enough as it is without it filtering into an article that already has plenty on these topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee Rhiannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Section Heading Required Addressing Controversy about subject's past and present[edit]

The consensus is against adding a controversy section to the article.

Cunard (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The subject of this page is a controversial figure and the contention is that this should be addressed in a separate section. Gumsaint (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Controversy sections are almost always a bad idea, especially in a BLP (WP:STRUCTURE). As has been covered above ad infinitum, this can all be adequately dealt with in the main body of the article, being careful not to give undue weight. Frickeg (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Controversy sections for a BLP are a Bad Thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per the above. There is no benefit in creating separate section just on controversy. Meatsgains (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose . Per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections are usually a bad way to structure articles. Beyond that, you should start by saying what controversies you feel the article should cover that it currently isn't. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: controversies should be noted in the appropriate section. The SPA issue has been flogged to death already.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose(Summoned by bot) per CSECTION. Most controversies can be worked into the article, avoind UNDUE weight. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There seems no compelling reason to create a new page. Surely any legitimate points may be conveyed clearly and simply on the existing page? Cpaaoi (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Summoned by a bot - after reviewing the page I can't see any sort of legitimate justification for adding a separate section for "controversy." Comatmebro (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On very rare occasion, it makes sense to have a section in a BLP for one particularly relevant controversy (if overwhelmingly and clearly considered such by sources), where the topic requires so much discussion that it would otherwise subsume another section. The argument being made here, insofar as I can tell, is that anything deemed "controversial" about this particular public servant should be aggregated into one section. That would be a manifestly non-WP:NEUTRAL and poorly-considered way in which to frame and discuss the positions of a politician and how they fit into the larger political community to which they belong. Virtually every politician above the local level, world round, is "controversial" to someone. In cases where virtually all RS agree on a particular descriptor, that can certainly be used in an article (with caution and clear attribution), but making an implication of extremism by way of selective presentation and a section header that is more or less guaranteed to lead to a biased representation of the subject's position is neither neutral nor consistent with encyclopedic tone. I think I'd say this with regard to virtually any BLP, but looking at the content of this particular article, it's a particularly WP:SNOW instance. Snow let's rap 20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Paul Benjamin Austin and talk page censorship.[edit]

Some time ago, I made a fairly trivial, short comment on this talk page, only to find that it got deleted, without discussion, by user Paul Benjamin Austin. I returned to find that they'd added an explanation and undeleted my comment. Apparently I had upset them. Now, the most recent edit, except for mine, on this page, has the same user deleting other people's edits, and votes on an issue. I believe it may be time to reprimand this user.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forget how I came to be watching this page but the section header caught my attention. I think it would be advisable to forget about this edit which shows three comments being removed. The original comment was extremely unwise and it is best deleted. That makes the two replies problematic and WP:IAR suggests that we should be glad the original problematic post was removed. I totally agree with one of the removed comments which suggested PBA should not be editing or commenting on this topic, and if any further issues arise it would be pretty easy to have the situation resolved at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-deleted the stuff Johnuniq refers to above. As he said, it was an unwise and deeply unpleasant comment and I'm glad Paul saw fit to remove it (he removed, by the way, his own vote only). I certainly have no problem with my comment being removed too; I am 99% sure Jack Upland would feel the same. I concur with John and Jack that it's probably best if Paul stays away from this page, but I do not believe anything has happened to the level of formal sanction. Frickeg (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although having looked at the original edit deleting Senor Freebie's comment, yes, that was wildly out of line, especially given that Paul's edits to this page have been almost all soapboxing. Paul has, I believe, responded quite well when called out on these things, but in view of that edit I would be comfortable with any further behaviour along these lines going to WP:ANI to pursue a formal topic ban. Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for my comment to be deleted along with the comment that it was responding to.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per my agreement with @Johnuniq:, I've removed Lee Rhiannon from my Watchlist and will no longer edit it. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

What are the outstanding issues?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There being no response, I have removed the NPOV tag on the the "Early life and political activism" section. The section has changed considerably since the tag was placed in July, though I'm not saying it's perfect. The debate has withered, like Rhiannon's political career. I don't think a visitor to the article could discern what the continuing neutrality issues are, so maintaining a tag is only misleading. Of course, if someone wants to restore it, that's fine, but we need to explain what is currently in contention.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 2[edit]

As I said above, the "Early life and political activism" section remains imperfect. Currently we say this:

She edited the SPA's official newspaper, Survey, from 1988 until it ceased publication in 1990.

In fact, the SPA's official newspaper was the Guardian,[3] which is still being published.[4] The source is the last witch-hunter standing, Christian Kerr. Kerr calls Survey a "magazine", though he quotes others who call it a newspaper. He states: "In March 1975, a magazine called Survey was launched, 'a monthly digest of trends in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries'. Its editor was Bill Brown. His daughter contributed." He does not say, as far as I can see, that it is an official SPA publication, though it is obviously associated with the SPA. The National Library's catalogue record does not state that the SPA is the publisher. I will amend the text accordingly.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have since located Survey in my trusty library. In case anyone complains this is "original research", I am making this comment in the interest of clarifying and verifying sources, and am not seeking to insert this into the article. As the subtitle suggests, the magazine is a compilation of articles and photos largely from Soviet media such as TASS and Novosti, with some Australian content (John Farnham in Moscow) and some articles by Bill Brown. It is interesting that Kerr doesn't comment that the articles are actually largely Soviet, but instead implies that they have been produced under Lee Rhiannon's editorial guidance. The political line 1988-1990 is pro-Gorbachev and anti-Stalin. In Oct-Nov 1988, the publisher is listed as the International Information and Research Association (with a PO Box in Haymarket, NSW), the editor as Bill Brown, the "Associate Editor" Lee O'Gorman. I have not found any indication of an overt official tie to the SPA. In a farewell note in the July-August 1990 issue, O'Gorman indicates she took over as editor when her father retired due to ill health in 1989. She suggests that the "magazine" was intended to print news "still not accessible through the mainstream media in this country" — though I don't see why they didn't just distribute Sputnik (magazine) which was better produced. The only thing written by O'Gorman that I have seen was the farewell note — which is largely about her father. As far as I can see, the editorial work would largely consist of compiling articles — mainly from Soviet media — and liaising with the printer. There were clearly no journalists employed, and there doesn't seem to have been any editorial comment. According to Kerr, Rhiannon said of her work with Survey, "I assisted with it to some extent". Kerr says this is untrue, but it could be that she stepped in to help her ailing father with his project. Based on the evidence we have to hand, she was involved for less than two years. I think the notability of this is borderline, but I think it is worthy of inclusion because it was brought up by Kerr and others many years later.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the interview with an East German pastor that Kerr mentions was reprinted from Direct Action which I believe was the predecessor to Green Left Weekly. The pastor expresses hope for democratisation and support for the New Forum protest group. In no sense does the article "mourn the fall of the Berlin Wall" as this article said previously. As editor, Rhiannon was responsible for the selection of content presumably, but she didn't write it or endorse it, so I don't think the article should imply she did.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lysenko[edit]

I have removed the assertion that Rhiannon was a "fervent advocate of Lysenkoism". This needs a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it seems like a hoax. It was inserted into the article as a "Minor detail". It seems unlikely that an Australian biology student would support this theory a decade after it was discredited in the USSR, and I can't find any evidence that this was true. It also seems rather irrelevant. We don't normally list the opinions someone had at university, unless they lead to something later.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Senate electoral fraud controversy[edit]

See discussion of similar edits on Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term. Hinch was the other 'victim senator' in the theft of two seats by the major parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither fraud nor theft, and no reliable source calls it either. --Scott Davis Talk 07:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
from Fraud - fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain Oz freediver (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources say anything about deception or unlawful gain, therefore it was not fraud. --Scott Davis Talk 12:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes they do. If you say you will do one thing, then do the opposite, is that deception? Or only if a journalist spells it out for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, I am discussing all four senators involved here: Talk:Derryn_Hinch#3_year_senate_term

The two victim senators: Derryn_Hinch Lee_Rhiannon

The two beneficiary senators: Deborah_O'Neill Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician)

Also, I think we should link the two victims with each beneficiary, so it is clear which seat went from which person and to who, as I do not think this is explicitly stated anywhere. Oz freediver (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism portal[edit]

I'm not sure that Rhiannon belongs in this portal as she wasn't known for socialism, but rather as a Greens politician.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pro-Soviet v loyal[edit]

@Jack Upland: re your reversion - "loyal" is a completely loaded POV term. Pro-Soviet is the common-usage (NB Google Ngram). WP:UCRN is appropriate here, too. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why "loyal" is POV. It seems factual to me. I reason why I used the term "Soviet-loyal" was to sum up the SPA's reason to be. The problem with "pro-Soviet" is that the CPA could be described as "pro-Soviet" as well. Hence we would be saying the Browns left one pro-Soviet party to join another pro-Soviet party. I think that could be puzzling.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: The CPA was pro-Soviet until the split in 1971, when the pro-Soviet minority left to form the SPA and the majority reoriented the CPA towards Eurocommunism. It is not difficult to explain. Using loyal is not encyclopedic voice, it is emotive. Dogs are loyal to their owners, husbands loyal to their husbands or wives (or unfaithful as the case may be). Political parties are for or against particular policies (hence pro- or anti-). Pro-Soviet it is the most common, widespread usage of the term.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CPA could be described as pro-Soviet forever. After all, why else did it collapse in 1991? I think the change is potentially confusing and unnecessary, but if you insist, go ahead.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the CPA collapse in 1991?...well, most of the membership had already joined the ALP by then. :) Joking aside, the Soviet Union in 1971 did not regard the CPA as supportive. Also, just noticed that the link to Danby does not work (even when corrected). I've rearranged the text with a new reference. Have look, feel free to revert if you're not happy, I'm not wedded to the text, just trying to keep it encyclopedic.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the ASIO surveillance photo of Lee and her mother here would probably be in public domain; could be a good photo for the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording is good. I'm not sure what link to Danby you mean. I don't see why the photo would be in the public domain. I would think it would be Crown copyright. In any case, I think it might draw too much attention to Rhiannon's childhood.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The previous citation for her parents' membership in the CPA/SPA contained this incorrect link and indicated the author was Michael Danby. Crown Copyright in Australia is 50 years, so the photograph became PD on 1 January 2017, cf. Copyright Act 1968 section 180. The photograph is very notable; how many Australian politicians were under ASI0 surveillance as children? Certainly, it would be good to have more photographs in the article, but I don't see how this would draw attention to her childhood more than anything else...it's perfectly within community consensus to include an image (or two) from the early life of subjects.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it looks like it's out of copyright. But I think there was a consensus here not to increase the material about her earlier life. I think we only include childhood photos when the person is very famous. I don't think her childhood was notable. She became notable when she entered parliament in 1999. This is a short article, and having two photos seems fine.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Rhiannon&oldid=1210033423"