Talk:Lee Rhiannon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lee Rhiannon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Lee Rhiannon is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Sambauers (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

2016 Senate electoral fraud controversy

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

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

@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]