Talk:Lee Rhiannon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Hard-line pro-Moscow communist"

I have reverted to the 9 may version. Apolgies if this reverts any legitimate edits. Chris Maltby, the facts about Rhiannon's political past are of considerable controversy and will be one of the things many readers will want to know when they access this article. The fact is that Rhiannon was a hard-line pro-Moscow communist for many years. This is well documented, and is a perfectly legitimate subject to be included close to the top of the article. She says she is no longer a communist, and the article notes that. Removing these facts is just political censorship and is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The words "hard-line pro-Moscow communist" are indicative of a certain non-neutrality Mr Toad. But the issue is not with including the relevant aspects of Rhiannon's earlier life, it's with the emphasis on them to the detriment of an understanding of her current importance as a public figure. I cited Michael Costa as an example - he was an active Trotskyist in his early political career, but it doesn't rate a mention on his page. People's views and positions change during their lives and to include words that imply that it's once a "hard-line... communist" always a "hard-line pro-Moscow communist" is WP:OR and definitely not WP:NPOV. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for what's at Michael Costa's article. It certainly should discuss his political past, but that's not relevant to what's in this article. Rhiannon's past has been the subject of major controversy, and must therefore occupy a prominent place in this article. I did not include the expression "Hard-line pro-Moscow communist" in the article, but it's a perfectly accurate description of her parents' views and of hers until she left the SPA. The whole point of the SPA's existence was to be hard-line and pro-Moscow - if was formed in opposition to the Aarons-Taft leadership in the CPA which had broken with Moscow over Czechoslovakia. I repeat that removing this text is not acceptable. If you think it is inaccurate or unbalanced, you are free to edit it and we can debate your edits. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The point about Costa is that his early life political views are not considered relevant to his current career. If I were to add a detailed section there implying that he was still a secret trotskyist it would be removed as NPOV or just irrelevant. The early life section of this page as you would have it implies that disputes over soviet policy in the 1960s when Rhiannon was a teenager are of vital importance to understanding her current views - and you rely on the Sydney Institute's opinions to justify it. I don't say that you can't add things which are relevant to her importance as a political figure, but the stuff you keep adding is overblown. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You are seeing things which aren't there. The article doesn't imply anything about her current views. She says she is no longer a communist and that fact is stated. That doesn't alter the fact that she was a communist, and not just as a passing phase while she was a student, but well into her thirties, and not just in a vague New Lefty way, but as an active member of a hardline pro-Moscow communist party. These are well-known and incontrovertable facts, and since her political past has been a matter of public controversy (most recently during the NSW election and the Marrickville Council dispute), they need to be stated close to the top of the article. As your facebook page shows, you are an active member of the NSW Greens, and your deletion of these facts is just politically motivated vandalism. I've patiently explained this to you several times now. As I said above, if you don't like the tone of the section, you are free to edit it, provided your edits don't delete referenced and relevant facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article makes assertions about the motivations of behaviour by her and family based on a single reference to a self-acknowledged gossip column from a right-wing think tank newsletter. That isn't a reliable source in anyone's understanding. As for my alleged bias, that's on the record. Noting it is not proof that it is relevant to the inclusion of unreliably referenced assertions in this page, or that you yourself are somehow a paragon of neutrality. Chrismaltby (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will find better sources. There's no shortage of them. You will not get away with this kind of suppression. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now provided a more thoroughly sourced section. I note that she denies she was a CPA member, and I have no first-hand source that she was, so that can stand for now. Her activities in the SPA are well documented. Her assertion that her parents were "not Stalinists" is also noted, although it is clearly false. Bill Brown was the editor of Tribune who refused to publish the first-hand account of his own correspondent in Budapest (Eric Lambert) of the Soviet invasion of Hungary. I documented this in my own thesis. He was a Stalinist to the bone, and so was Freda. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I have removed the undone the revised edit, as it gives much more coverage to her political orientation in her youth than is neccessary, and many of the new references are blogs (hers or otherwise) and are not reliable. I agree that the use of the Sydney Institute is unwise here, given that particular think tank's perspective. I would also use this opportunity to advise both of you to continue this dispute here (rather than on the article itself), as you are both close to breaching both the spirit and the letter of the three-revert rule.  -- Lear's Fool 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversy currently running in Australian politics, it can only be referenced from newspapers and blogs. I have given references to both sides of this argument, and you have no business deleting the whole section, which amounts to censorship of the most controversial aspect of her career. This argument about Henderson is circular: he is only an unreliable source for Greens because he is very critical of Greens. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If something can only be referenced to editorials, blogs and newspapers with avowed, non-neutral agendas, then it should probably not be in any Wikipedia article, let alone a biography of a living person. The reliability of a source is about editorial oversight, and for such controversial material in a BLP, the coverage of a conservative pundit published by a conservative think tank is inadequate. I have removed the content again because of these concerns. Because this change has been contested, it should now be discussed before it is re-added, per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Furthermore, another revert on your part and you will find yourself foul of the three-revert rule, and you may end up blocked for edit warring. Please continue the discussion here, preferably without the accusations of bad faith suppression and censorship.  -- Lear's Fool 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Typical Green totalitarian behaviour. You people just cannot bear criticism, and you will resort to any trick to suppress it. Green #1 complains that the section on Rhiannon's communist past is not adequately sourced. So I write a new section with more sources than a French cookbook, and lo! Green #2 complains it's too long and oversourced, and further that the sources are obviously unacceptable because some of them come from (gasp) conservatives! We can't have that, now can we? As I said above, this is circular logic: anyone who tells the truth about the Greens is tagged a conservative, and therefore deemed not an acceptable source. In fact of course Mark Aarons is a leftist and himself a former communist, as is Stuart Macintyre who I also cited - and as indeed am I. I of course knew this is how Greens activists would react to a full account of Rhiannon's past. I will leave this for now, but you haven't heard the end of this by a long shot. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Toad, what makes you think Lear's Fool is part of some Green conspiracy. Use Ockham's Razor and conclude that the problem is your desire to overdo the imputations about someone's early life, not a vicious conspiracy. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "imputations" about it; <comment redacted per below 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)>. As active Greens members, why are you even allowed to edit this article - you have a clear conflict of interest. Paul Austin (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To return to the title of this section, the addition of this stuff is intended to create the defamatory imputation that you can never be an ex-"hard-line pro-moscow communist", even if that status is based entirely on assertions. Statements about Rhiannon's background that are neutral and referenced from reliable sources and which don't give aspects of that background undue weight are fine. Name calling or invective about censorship and conspiracy doesn't add any weight to your case for your proposed inclusions. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted the unnecessary remarks you have made about Rhiannon per WP:BLPTALK, and would strongly encourage you to remain civil and assume good faith of other contributors.  -- Lear's Fool 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth why would I "assume good faith" about people who are engaging in systematic censorship of this article for partisan ends? Paul is right - Chris Maltby should not be editing this article at all, since his sole concern is hiding (apparently) embarrassing facts about one of his party's Senators. Since Lear's Fool is anonymous I can't say with certainty that he/she is also a Green, but since he/she is backing up Chris's suppression of facts I will assume so. He/she is even taking it upon him/herself to suppress Paul's comments on this page! I can imagine how Greens editors would react if I were to edit Jim Bacon's article to remove reference to the fact that he was a student Maoist. Shocking Labor hack behaviour!

My edits did not "give undue weight" about Rhiannon's communist past. They gave a full and clear account of that past, at the appropriate place in the article. The length of that section was the length that it takes to set out those facts in a coherent way. If other editors think that creates an unbalanced article, they are free to add more "positive" content to other parts of the article. They are also, of course, free to edit my text if they think it is in any way deficient, and then we can debate those edits. I already said that to Chris, but his sole response has been repeatedly to delete the whole section - classic partisan vandal and troll behaviour.

My text did not either say or impute "that you can never be an ex-hard-line pro-moscow communist," nor did it say or insinuate that Rhiannon is still a communist. She says she is not, and my text noted that statement. And indeed, I believe she is not. I also believe however she has been evasive and dishonest about her past and her parents' pasts. Her statement that her parents were "not Stalinists" is absurd to anyone familiar with the history of Australian communism, as I am (I did my doctoral thesis on a family of Australian communists). I understand the motives that might lead her to misrepresent the past in this way, but that is not the business of an encyclopaedia. Its business is to present properly-referenced facts and let readers make judgements based on those facts. I am by the way myself an ex-communist, so I fully accept that people can change their views. The quote from Mark Aarons, also an ex-communist, sets out the problem with Rhiannon - it's not that she's an ex-communist, it's that she continues to dissemble about her past.

Tomorrow I will restore my edits to the article. If you have problems with my text or my references, I will happily "assume good faith" and debate these issues with you. If you arbitrarily delete the whole section again, I will take the appropriate steps to report you for vandalism or whatever the correct Wikipedia procedure is these days. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this as a way forward - you add something along the lines of Jim Bacon's entry "At Monash he was a Maoist student leader", perhaps "She shared her parents' political convictions and membership of the CPA, resigning in xxxx". And provide a reference that is somewhat better than the Sydney Institute. I have no issue with neutral encyclopaedic statements of referenced fact. Let the readers draw their own conclusions regarding her political background, as they do with Bacon, Costa, Aarons and any number of people with cold-war era communist links.

On the facile question of bias, you show yourself to have as much or more reason than me to want to "vandalise" this bio page. You should engage with the criticisms being made of your contribution and argument and see if you can do it in a way that can gain consensus rather than by personal attack. Regardless of your opinion of Rhiannon, she is worthy of some respect by virtue of her achievements.

It would help if you tidy up the messes you make when you make changes to the work of others. Have a look at the references section of your archive version of the page and see what I mean. I went to some trouble to fix a very messy set of reference links and you just wilfully broke that and kept doing it, even though alerted to the damage you were doing. Chrismaltby (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(To Intelligent Mr Toad) I must again advise you against re-adding the material unilaterally, and invite you to perhaps review the policies and guidelines pertaining to consensus on Wikipedia. When a change (such as yours) is contested (as it has been here) discussion should take place on the talkpage until a consensus can be formed about its inclusion in some form or another. If want, you should feel free to pursue one of the many options at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, but simply re-adding it notwithstanding the discussion here is not helpful.

My concerns about the addition of this material are about sourcing and due weight, not suppression or censorship. Content (especially controversial content) in a biography of a living person must be referenced to reliable sources, which is a standard that blogs and the Sydney Institute do not meet (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Furthermore, the prominence given to the political convictions of the young Rhiannon and her parents (fully 8 paragraphs in your revision) is proportionate to neither their coverage in reliable sources nor their significance in her life story. It seems to me that the best outcome would be to include perhaps one, well sourced paragraph dealing with these matters. Your implication that I am engaging in partisan vandalism and suppression is flatly incorrect: I support it's inclusion provided it is given due prominence and accurately sourced.  -- Lear's Fool 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Chris confirms by his last comment that his motives here are essentially political - he thinks it is wrong to give a full description of Rhiannon's past because of her achievements. He is entitled to his opinion of Rhiannon's merits, but that cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding what should be in this article. As I have said now several times, this matter requires a full treatment because it has been the cause of major and recent controversy. People who hear that "Rhiannon is a communist" will come to this article to find out if that is true. They are entitled to a full explanation of what is a complicated and contested story.

My motives are not political. For the record, I am an ALP member, but I also a qualified historian (PhD Melbourne Uni) and my concern is that article tells the full truth about Rhiannon's political biography. I am also in favour of telling the truth about Michael Costa, Jim Bacon and anyone else. You may have noticed that my first version said that Rhiannon was a member of the CPA before the 1971 split. She has stated that she was not, and I have withdrawn that assertion, because I don't have any evidence to contradict her. I think this shows that I am editing in good faith. It is my firm view, however, that the evidence shows that (a) her claim that her parents were "not Stalinists" is false, and that she must know it is false, and (b) she has dissembled about the fact that she was an active and committed pro-Moscow communist from childhood until the late 1980s. I believe the article must address those two questions.

As to Lear's complaints about my sources, this is a self-serving argument. The article concerns recent controversy over fairly esoteric matters of Australian left-wing history. These matters are not discussed in text books. They are discussed in newspaper articles and blogs. I agree that these are weak sources for matters of fact. But they are perfectly good sources for "who said what about whom", which is mostly what this story consists of. Mark Aarons's blog is a good source for what Mark Aarons said. Whether what he said was true is a matter for readers to decide. I agree that Henderson's annoyingly flippant tone and obvious political agenda weakens his credibility (and I've told him that before), but I don't believe he is actually a liar, and he does have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Australian political history.

Finally, as to my conduct here. There is a gross bias at Wikipedia against editors who actually research and write things, and in favour of people who summarily delete things. That's why I gave up active editing here (under another name) several years ago. The writer has almost no defence against the deletionist. If I try to stop your arbitrary, politically motivated and unjustified deleting of my content, I break the three-edit rule and I get blocked. If I don't do so, you win by default. This is what usually happens, which is why so many editors leave Wikipedia and why large swathes of it are worthless.

I have a busy day and more important things to worry about, so you can certainly win this edit war by simply deleting whatever I write until I get bored and go away. If, however, you want to demonstrate that you are editing in good faith and not simply supporting Chris's agenda of protecting Rhiannon's political image by suppressing embarrassing facts, you can do so by taking my text and suggesting how it might be improved and/or better sourced. I will wait and see. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't want to understand my comment. Instead you misquote it in an effort to bolster your case of bad faith on my part. I am not saying that it's wrong to reference her political past, but I am saying that you should do it in a neutral way and with no more than the emphasis that stuff at this remove from the present deserves. You may be a "qualified historian" but you're not writing a thesis on the communist backgrounds of assorted public figures here. That's why three paragraphs on the CPA/SPA is just too much detail (even assuming they are reliable and neutral). No matter how important this is to you, remember that about half the readership wasn't born when these events supposedly occurred and that they now excite only a handful of people, and most of them with an axe to grind. I certainly include Henderson and Aarons in that category. Rhiannon's importance to a reader of wikipedia is not that she might have been one kind or another of communist 30-40 years ago, but what she has said and done as a public figure. Why not propose a minimal edit of the type I suggested on this page, and then we'll see if we can agree around that. You might be surprised... Chrismaltby (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand why NSW Greens activists are pushing the line that no-one except elderly obsessives cares about Rhiannon's political past. But this is not true. It has been at the centre of the controversy about her and her actions in the NSW state election and the Marrickville Council conflict. "Rhiannon + communist" gets 260,000 Google hits. This is an issue that people who come to this article will want to read about, and it's my intention that they should read the full story, not a brief paragraph that won't answer their questions. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up Mr Toad. If you do, only the lies will survive us. Paul Austin (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr Toad, did you look at the sites that came up on Google for your search. Besides Wikipedia and Rhiannon's own site we had the vile and the malicious in the vast bulk - neo-Nazis and News Limited all on the first page. That doesn't make it mainstream in my view or any reasonable view. But perhaps you could read Rhiannon's own extensive response on this and use it as a reference to her political background. Chrismaltby (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read all 260,000 Google hits. (*Rolls eyes at stupidity of question*) The point is not the quality or the origins of the hits, the point is that they indictate that this is a subject which is active in public discourse, which is why it must be treated fully here. You don't seem to grasp that a full account of Rhiannon's past actually serves in some ways to protect her - people who want to know whether she is still a communist (as is widely alleged) will learn, if they are allowed to read my text, that she is not. And yes of course I read Rhiannon's own account of her past, as you'd know if you looked at my references - it's one of the blogs which you and Lear have deemed to be unacceptable sources. I see that neither of you has yet made the slightest attempt to engage constructively with my text. I will wait until this evening and then I will restore it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this, Mr Toad: the point is precisely about the quality and origins of the sources, and all blogs are unreliable (except those by Rhiannon herself, and even their use is also restricted). "Reliability" is not a standard that has been applied arbitrarily simply because we don't like the sources, you'll see it if you look at Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources, and especially the policy on self-published sources in biographies of living people. From the latter, I quote:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see Wikipedia:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

From the policy section on balance and weight:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. (emphasis mine)

The fact that this receives limited coverage in what Wikipedia deems to be reliable sources means that it should only receive limited coverage in the article. The fact that it has many hits in blogs and editorials is specifically and explicitly irrelevant under Wikipedia policy.  -- Lear's Fool 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My point about the first page of the Google search was that if the diversity of viewpoints represented in articles with those search terms spanned political positions between Murdoch and neo-Nazis you might assume that it was a non-mainstream issue outside that end of the political spectrum. Maybe all the mainstream bloggers and news outlets are on pages 2-n, but it seems statistically unlikely that a genuinely mainstream concern would not have one other source in the first page of the Google search. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

Most people read News Limited newspapers - you can't get more mainstream than that. Paul Austin (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream, yes, but there are genuine concerns about the neutrality of a publication that has pretty openly declared its anti-Green agenda. There was a discussion on this here, and the consensus was that particular care should be taken in using The Australian (which produces most of the stories of this type for all the News Ltd papers) on Greens related articles, particularly when it comes to deciding what is due weight. I'm not absolutely opposed to using it, but this is a case where it is pretty much the only mainstream publication devoting significant column inches to this topic, which means we should probably not use it in a WP:BLP. If you'd like, we can make a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and ask for more input on whether The Australian should be used here, but there is no way that blogs or the Sydney Institute will ever be appropriate.  -- Lear's Fool 05:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since neither of you have made any effort to negotiate with me about my text, despite several offers, but rather have adhered to your arrogant Stalinist-deletionist position, I will now reinstate my text. No doubt you will delete it again, and I will then refer this matter for arbitration or whatever the procedure is these days. Researching and writing this text has been an interesting exercise, so if I can't get it published here I will publish it elsewhere. Have a nice day. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toad, are you able to find additional sources for the text you are adding? I usually find that putting in multiple refs shuts up the Greenie editors. --Surturz (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have mentioned this discussion at WP:BLP/N.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 04:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Surturz: If I am sufficiently provoked, and if and when I had time, I could go over to the National Library and go through back numbers of Tribune, Communist Review and The Guardian (the SPA paper) and find articles by Bill and Frieda Brown and by Lee Brown / O'Gorman, which would amply demonstrate (a) that the Browns were "Stalinists" within any reasonable definition of that term, and (b) that Rhiannon herself was a committed Moscow-line communist from childhood until some time in the 1980s. I saw many such articles by and about the Browns when I was researching my thesis. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The more references, the better, I always think. You might need to be careful of WP:OR though. Those journals would be entirely valid references for your thesis (where you are doing research), but not for WP, where the preference is for secondary sources. Your thesis, as a secondary source, might be a valid ref, as long as you can fulfil WP:RS and avoid WP:COI - if your thesis was published in a peer reviewed journal, that should address both policy concerns. --Surturz (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable to use contemporary "new media" sources, such as blogs, for matters of contemporary political controversy, AND it is not acceptable to use references to primary sources such as the CPA and SPA newspapers, then clearly any article about matters of current political interest becomes impossible to write and reference. This seems to be very convenient for those people who are trying to suppress the facts about Rhiannon's political biography. Every objection that has been made to what I have written seems to me to be motivated solely by a desire to keep these facts out of Wikipedia, and to prevent people who actually know something about the history of Australian communism editing thid article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Side note - you might prefer this link: The Monthly to your 'kurtrudder' blog link. It's the same article, published as an opinion piece in the reliable source The Monthly. Now, opinion pieces are not normally considered WP:RS by WT:AUSPOL (see here), but an opinion piece in a reputable journal is much better than a blog entry. I think it is hard for others to make the case that info on Rhiannon's official website is not WP:V, the only thing is that in my experience, those websites change a lot and the links often go dead after a time. Much better to get newspaper articles or other references.

I understand your frustration, it's very legalistic around here - it doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove. Ultimately, the only content that survives is content that is either uncontroversial, or backed up by multiple references. --Surturz (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 4

John Nevard has now reinserted the statement that Rhiannon was never a CPA member (which so far as I know is true), but the article now does not mention that she was an SPA member, a fact which is not in dispute, but which the Communist Party of Wikipedia has forbidden mention of. So this article is now not just inadequate but downright - and deliberately - misleading. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It mentions her SPA membership in the first (intro) paragraph. Chrismaltby (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It should probably get a mention in the main article - the lede is meant to summarise content in the main article. --Surturz (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the inclusion, but the style of the Early Life section is really poor now. Maybe that section needs editing to separate the bits intended to illuminate her political background from the stuff about education and early career. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick stab at it, but I'm still not happy with it. No idea what to do about the sentence I deleted about occupations - it seems odd to just quote the parliamentary bio without explaining or verifying. Maybe wait to see what appears in the media/on the official Federal Parliament bio once she takes her seat. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still a whitewash. It doesn't explain that the Socialist Party was in fact a communist party. It doesn't explain why, if she opposed the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as she now asserts, she then joined a party that was formed (by her parents among others) explicitly to support that invasion. It doesn't explain that as an SPA member she must have supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the imposition of martial law in Poland and the persecution of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents, all of which the SPA enthusiatically supported during her time as a member. It doesn't address her false assertion that her parents were "not Stalinists." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

All those claims are nothing more than assertions. The factual parts are included in the referenced pages. It's not a whitewash of any kind.Chrismaltby (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, Chris, since you are nothing but an agent for Rhiannon and the NSW Greens, I have no interest in your contributions to this discussion. The statements in my previous post are all facts well known to anyone familiar with the history of Australian communism. If you're not familiar with that history, you should inform yourself. In the meantime I suggest you butt out, since you cannot contribute anything except partisan spin. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point I am certain that Maltby is under direct orders from Rhiannon to sanitise her Wikipedia page (and that of her mother, Freda Brown). He reminds me of someone else who refused to recuse themselves, despite conflicts of interest. Paul Austin (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Czechoslovakia?

Just out of interest, why is it important to establish her position on the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Because she has said several times she opposed it. At the time she was 17 and living with her parents who fiercely supported the invasion, to the extent of being willing to leave the CPA, the party they had devoted their lives to. Later she joined the SPA, the pro-Soviet, pro-invasion party formed by her parents, among others, as a direct result of the split in the CPA over Czechoslovakia. This account simply doesn't make sense. If she agreed with the Aarons-Taft line of opposition to the invasion, why did she join the SPA? She's never explained this contradiction. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the invasion of Czechoslovakia was important for the CPA/SPA split, and her parents were a part of the split, but why are her views at age 17 (or 22 when she joined the SPA) important? If she changed her mind, who cares? Isn't the likely answer that she was just following her parent's views? it is hard to see why we should cover her specific political views of some quarter of a century before, beyond a statement of her membership of the SPA. The invasion really is the history of the SPA/CPA, not the history of Lee Rhiannon. --Surturz (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the issue is not her political past per se, it's her current honesty or otherwise about that past. It was to make this point that I included the quote from Mark Aarons: "This would be simply history if Rhiannon had admitted her youthful errors and moved on. But, in a lengthy blog posted last August, she defended her parents’ and her own political records... Nowhere does she acknowledge how dreadfully wrong she was about the Soviet Union, nor express regrets for her gullible admiration of this abominable system. In failing to deal with her history honestly, Rhiannon places a question mark over her suitability for any leadership role, especially in a party supposedly built on integrity." It's her current dishonesty and dissembling that is relevant to this article. That of course is why Chris Maltby as a Greens agent is so keen to suppress this text. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Still going on about it

Personal attacks and imputations are hugely unhelpful. This page is for discussing the text of the article, not the subject herself, and not the motives of editors involved. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looks like Paul Howes is keeping the issue alive --Surturz (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) And Gerard Henderson - but then they would say that, wouldn't they... Chrismaltby (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC) You can censor Wikipedia but you can't make this issue go away. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The principles used at Wikipedia can be confusing to people who are used to the "normal" world. As mentioned previously, this is not the place to tell the world what is wrong with a politician: it's not censorship, it's good encyclopedic writing. Advocating a position and revealing hypocrisy are important contributions to society, but please do these good things elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Mr Toad has a PhD in history whereas Maltby is paid by Rhiannon to sanitise her Wikipedia page. Paul Austin (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) And Mr Austin makes it up - how does he know whether the Toad has a PHD or anything else for that matter? Chrismaltby (talk)

CPA/SPA

Without reiterating the above or entering into McCarthyist smears, there are 2 important points to be made:

• The SPA was a pro-Soviet split from the CPA.
• The SPA was formed in reaction against the CPA's condemnation of the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Both these facts are well attested but totally obscured in this article.

And it would be good to give the dates of her involvement with the SPA - apparently from 1973 to somewhere before 1990. That's a bit vague.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

While generally true, there is more to the CPA/SPA split than that. Rhiannon has claimed a personal allegiance to the members in the Maritime branch of the old CPA (through her family) as the reason for her support of the SPA at that time. It's at least as important to this story to include the influence of the Waterside Workers/Seamen's Union SPA stance in the split as it is to discuss responses to 1968 in Czechoslovakia or which side might have received Soviet funds after the split. The efforts of Henderson, Howes, Aarons etc and the Australian needs to be seen in the context of ongoing attempts to discredit her political work by claims of either guilt by association or just pure McCarthyist redbaiting.

The question for this page is the weight that should be assigned to this debate and the rationale for it - remembering the living person guidelines and the absence of reliable sources. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you seem to think communism/socialism is somehow acceptable ("pure McCarthyist redbaiting") Paul Austin (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's wrong (and futile) to suppress her Communist past. The Australian article (if accurate) shows her portraying her parents as disillusioned after Czechoslovakian invasion, while the opposite is the case.

I don't think it's undue weight to mention this in this article. As I said, we should include the years of her Communist allegiance. I suspect that it was at least a decade (to 1983). I don't think it should be the focus of the article, but belongs in an "Early Years" section. If deleted it will reappear anyway. I think the additions I've made should stand and are not made in the spirit of redbaiting.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite feasible that her parents disillusionment with the SPA and Australian/international communism increased as a result of the Czechoslovakian events and for other reasons. Many people are disillusioned with the ALP for example and yet remain members until some comparatively trivial event triggers their resignation. The reportage of this is all based on circumstantial evidence and may turn out to be both wrong and defamatory, which is why the reliable source rules exist. The subject is clearly of urgent importance to some people and Rhiannon herself has dealt with it in her own accounts of this period of her life. So the issue has never been about the inclusion in the entry but about maintaining NPOV and not giving it undue weight. Always remember that people can follow the links to read about the CPA/SPA split, the politics of the time, Czechoslovakia and the rest and draw their own conclusions. They don't need to be led by the inclusion of opinions of people who have a clear political interest in the case. Chrismaltby (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's incredible that someone who was disillusioned with the Soviet Union would join the SPA. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the politics would know that. I take it, however, you accept the changes I have made.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the sequence of events and the individual motivations for choosing one side or other of a split. I think there are still some POV issues with the changes but I will take that up when I have a little more time. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When you get your orders from Rhiannon's office, you mean. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on my re-reading of The Family File it is clear that Bill Brown's support for the USSR post-1968 was based on loyalty, not agreement with the Czechoslovakian invasion as such, which he opposed, initially at least (pp 224-226). Therefore it would be highly misleading for the invasion to be canvassed in this article. However, it would be equally misleading to downplay or ignore Rhiannon's Communist past. Many supporters seem to believe, or would like us to believe, that the attacks on her past are based on her parents' politics and that they became disillusioned with the Communism after they left the CPA in the early 1970s. This is far from the truth. I fail to see how you can find "POV issues" with the bare statement of facts in the article, but please explain it here when you have the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no POV issues with these changes. I think the paragraph added by J Herschel could use a little work as it amounts to obviously biased criticism masquerading as reports of "media controversy". "Following her election to the Senate, Rhiannon was subject to targeted criticism about her past following media reports and an interview on Network Ten's Meet the Press. According to the The Australian, the Liberal opposition, and Paul Howes, criticism was focused on her membership of the Socialist Party of Australia. Howes said Rhiannon "is a hard-core socialist", and Liberal MP Tony Smith said that while Australian political leaders "... were rejoicing at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990", Rhiannon was "... editing a newspaper under her married name of O'Gorman...crying about the demise of communism." Rhiannon stated in response on Meet the Press that she assisted "...in some part" in editing the article in the Soviet–funded newspaper called Survey." The people whose criticisms of Rhiannon are reported are properly described as the usual suspects. Chrismaltby (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I should have fixed that earlier. While there was a (small) controversy and it should be reported here, there's no need to reprint verbatim every minor media figure's opinion on the matter. A simple reporting of the event suffices. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the dates, in Family File Aarons says Rhiannon left the SPA in the early 1980s "together with" the Pat Clancy faction. Clancy left in 1983, but the wording is ambiguous as to whether Rhiannon was part of that faction and left in the same year. It's probably better on reflection to leave it as the early 1980s. Again, it would be best to have precise dates but Rhiannon has not been forthcoming with this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Communist Attacks

All information about Rhiannon's Communist past should be contained in the "Early Life" section, unless there is a major controversy that erupts in the present time. We do not need to get every detail of this, only the major points. It would be good to get something specific about the Maritime Union. It would also be good to get the exact dates of her membership of the SPA to put this issue to rest.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that she was the editor of a soviet funded magazine is worth mentioning. Her recent downplaying of the rôle is possibly worthy of inclusion too. I don't think we need to include the Lib MP's comments though, rival MPs can be assumed to be hostile. --Surturz (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Allowing Maltby - a Greens Convenor - and his allies to edit this article was a major mistake. He continually pushes the Greens POV on this article. Paul Austin (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can stop people editing Wikipedia, and both sides are pushing POV. If you can get something specific about the magazine, and it was a major part of her career, then by all means include it. I think, however, that her membership of the SPA speaks for itself. As for the current controversy, I don't think we need a blow-by-blow account. In my opinion, she is downplaying it (and some of the information in the media is plain wrong), but that's just my opinion and I don't think that should be included here. What about "Throughout her parliamentary career, Rhiannon was dogged by attacks on her Communist background and accusations she was covering it up"?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Are you now, or have you ever been..." - if the continued questioning of her Communist background is significant then it should be mentioned here. If it's just lazy McCarthyist attack then it should not. My opinion is only one of many and I accept it has a bias (unlike some, it seems). Chrismaltby (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Can I just ask everyone to avoid making remarks about contributors rather than content? I understand that this is a contentious issue, and I think everyone involved should be commended for thrashing this out on this talkpage rather than edit warring on the article, but many of the comments from both sides aren't conducive to a healthy editing environment. The whole point of Wikipedia:Assume good faith is that editors need to avoid making implications about others' motives even when they would really like to. Everyone here is contributing in good faith, lets just try to keep the discussion clean while we do.  -- Lear's Fool 04:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Maltby is deliberately trying to minimise mention of Rhiannon's communist past, using claims of "McCarthyism" as an excuse. It's hard to be fair to a man who openly admits to being on Rhiannon's side. Paul Austin (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See what you did there? That's exactly what I'm suggesting we try to avoid. You may believe that Maltby is just trying to minimise mention of her communist past, and it may even be true, but the whole point of WP:AGF is that you put that to one side and comment on the argument, not the contributor.  -- Lear's Fool 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul: As an experienced editor you should be aware that comments about another editor must be at an appropriate noticeboard, and must not be made on an article talk page. This is not an issue for debate—editors who cannot respect WP:CIVIL are blocked. Re the issue: I have not checked what's going on lately, but the last time I looked the proposed mentions of a communist background seemed coatrack attacks which are not appropriate here. Would someone mind proposing some text and a reason why it should be included (or point me to a diff with an explanatory edit summary): it's time to spell out the problem in a form that third parties can understand (or drop the matter). Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that after several months of debate, the opening section of this article is still grossly inadequate and dishonest. Rhiannon is the only person ever elected to federal parliament who was an active and committed Communist, not as a youthful folly in her student days, but into her late 30s. She only left the Communist movement when it ceased to be a viable platform for left-wing activism, and she then shifted to the Greens. She has systematically sought to play down the Communist affiliations of both her parents and herself, and (unlike Costa, Howes etc) has never directly stated that she accepts that her Communist activities were wrong. This is not a trivial or esoteric matter, it is central to her political career, and must be properly described in the opening section of the article. I still think that the text I wrote last month was the best so far proposed to achieve this, but I am happy to consider others. So far, however, Chris Maltby (an active member of Rhiannon's party) has systematically deleted all attempts at an accurate section. I think he should be banned from doing so, but I know Wikipedia won't allow this. I'm happy to "assume good faith", but not when ample evidence of bad faith has been offered, as is the case here. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, and I accept that the situation is frustrating. However, what's needed is a discussion on appropriate text and sources. I'm sorry that as an outsider I have not followed developments here, and I understand that edits and discussions have occurred that I have missed. However, it is clear that agreement between those currently involved is unlikely, so outsiders will be needed and things have to be spelled out for them. If there is a reliable source with an analysis of Rhiannon's career, the article can use due material based on that source. However, it is normal for politicians to have skeletons and more than blogs or opinions by opponents are needed before such material is usable in Wikipedia. It would be helpful if there were a specific proposal for text to be added, with a source. I suggest using a new section with a title like "Proposed addition". Re the parents: there would need to be extraordinary reasons (based on multiple highly reliable sources) before it would be appropriate to label a person with the views of their parents. If a parent is notable, there should be an article on that person which should include their political affiliations. It may be true that a hypothetical individual wholeheartedly embraced some bad views of their parent, but the only reason to mention such a situation in an article would be to point out their bad judgment or intellectual dishonesty, or some other negative characteristic. We don't do that at Wikipedia (it's original research whereby an editor adds what they think is "good" information). Instead, articles have to be based on what independent and reliable sources think is relevant to the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The parent issue is a red herring. She has admitted to being a member of the SPA. I have proposed an addition (see above) which merely acknowledges the controversy. We do not need to document every attack on this issue, but just that there have been several. If we need a source, then perhaps Aarons' book could be used as it is less ephemeral than a newspaper column. If we look for a neutral source, I don't think we'll find one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The "parent issue" is not a red herring, because she has stated "They were not Stalinists." The truth or falsity of this statement, and therefore whether or not she tells the truth (surely an important question about a Senator?) can only be determined by considering her parents' political records. The facts are that they joined the CPA when it was a proudly Stalinist party. When it broke with Stalinism, they left it and joined the SPA, which continued the CPA's Stalinist tradition. My text below deals with this point, without giving it "undue weight." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly the reddest of herrings. This is not a forum for a debate about Rhiannon's integrity. Nor does it seem damning to her career as a Senator if she turns out to have a rosy-tinted recollection of her parents. And anyway, considering the discussion below, your definition of Stalinist is inconsistent. On the one hand, you define support for Stalin as Stalinist (fairly uncontroversial), but on the other hand, you define as Stalinist any repressive or "hardline" Communist action (shooting Polish workers), even though self-proclaimed Stalinists (Maoists) wouldn't necessarily support such an action (they didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan, for example). Basically, "Stalinist" is just a pejorative term in this discussion, and the more it is evoked, the more meaningless it becomes. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia because it has no neutral meaning. Increasingly it has no meaning at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

Is it time some of the older/repetitive stuff on this page was moved to an archive (or just deleted)? Chrismaltby (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've archived the older discussions to Talk:Lee Rhiannon/Archive 1.  -- Lear's Fool 08:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest text

As per requests above, I am posting the text I wrote as an "early political activities" section in May.

Suggestion by User:Intelligent Mr Toad, collapsed to keep talkpage neat

Early political activities Rhiannon was born Lee Brown, the daughter of Bill and Freda Brown, who were both lifelong members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) - Freda joined in 1936 and Bill in 1940. Rhiannon asserts that she was never a party member. She obtained a Bachelor of Science, majoring in botany and zoology, with honours in botany at the University of New South Wales, graduating in 1975. Her parents' membership of the CPA led to documentation of Brown's life by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from an early age. During the 1970s she was arrested during anti-apartheid protestsm and in the 1980s she helped organise the "peace camp" protest outside the joint US-Australian defence facility at Pine Gap, central Australia. In 1971 the CPA split over attitudes to the Soviet Union, and particulary the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Bill and Freda Brown left the CPA and joined the Socialist Party of Australia (SPA), which was loyal to the Soviet Union and supported the invasion. Today Rhiannon asserts of her parents "They were not Stalinists." However, they joined the CPA in the 1930s, at a time when it was totally loyal to the Soviet Union and Stalin's leadership of it. In 1956 Bill Brown was the editor of the CPA newspaper, Tribune, which strongly supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Rhiannon has stated that she did not support the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, which took place when she was 17. Nevertheless, by her own account, she joined the SPA "about five years later", in the early '70s, at a time the SPA was an outspokenly pro-Soviet party. Mark Aarons, at that time himself an active communist, says she joined the SPA at its founding conference in 1971.. He writes: "She became a senior office-bearer of the youth wing, serving on the central committee’s youth subcommittee; attended Australia–Soviet Friendship Society meetings; and developed close relations with Soviet, Czechoslovak and East German communist youth groups. In 1977, Rhiannon led an SPA delegation to Moscow at the invitation of Leonid Brezhnev’s neo-Stalinist regime." In 1972 Brian Aarons, son of the CPA leader Laurie Aarons and a critic of the Soviet Union, had an exchange of letters with Lee Brown in the University of New South Wales student newspaper Tharunka. Aarons wrote: "She [Brown] might like to tell us whether she supports the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the shooting of the Polish workers and the suppression of socialist democracy in the Soviet Union. Then we can have an honest debate about revolutionary principles." In reply, Brown did not answer this question. Instead she wrote: "Socialist countries naturally do make errors and therefore criticism and self-criticism will be forthcoming. However, I feel that Brian uses his criticism of socialist [countries] in an opportunist respectibility-seeking fashion, not for constructive improvement." This exchange has recently been used by Gerard Henderson as evidence that Rhiannon was in fact a defender of the Soviet Union's repressive actions in the 1960s and '70s, something she has denied. Lee Brown married Paddy O'Gorman, from whom she separated in 1987. They had three children. Following her separation, she adopted the surname "Rhiannon", which is the name of a figure from Welsh mythology. In 1980-83 Lee O'Gorman (as she then was) was NSW secretary of the Union of Australian Women, founded in 1950 as a CPA front organisation and controlled by the SPA after the 1971 split. In the late 1970s Bill Brown was editor of the SPA journal Survey and O'Gorman was a regular contributor to it. Her articles frequently praised the Soviet Union (then ruled by Leonid Brezhnev's regime). Mark Aarons (brother of Brian) wrote of Rhiannon's past in May 2011: "This would be simply history if Rhiannon had admitted her youthful errors and moved on. But, in a lengthy blog posted last August, she defended her parents’ and her own political records... Nowhere does she acknowledge how dreadfully wrong she was about the Soviet Union, nor express regrets for her gullible admiration of this abominable system. In failing to deal with her history honestly, Rhiannon places a question mark over her suitability for any leadership role, especially in a party supposedly built on integrity." Rhiannon has accused Henderson, Aarons and other critics of bias against her. She writes of Aarons's article: "He goes on to make a series of other baseless allegations. The best that can be said for this article is that his extreme bias is clearly revealed." It is not known when Rhiannon left the SPA. Gerard Henderson suggests: "Lee Rhiannon (nee Brown) remained a member of the SPA until the eve of the collapse of Soviet communism in the late 1980s," but provides no source for this assertion. Rhiannon joined the Greens in 1990.

I'd like to make several points about this, the first being that it's over-long and over-argumentative. Also:

• Bill and Freda were not "lifelong" members of the CPA. This is a contradiction. By the same token no one seriously questions that Lee was not a member of the CPA. She was a member of the SPA.
• Mark Aarons in his book Family File makes clear that Bill Brown described the invasion of Czechoslovakia as a "mistake" and that he joined the SPA out of general loyalty to the Soviet Union. (Which chimes in with Lee's comments in Tharunka cited above.)
• Aarons also makes clear that Bill Brown was an enthusiastic supporter of Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Hardly a "Stalinist" at that point. (And describing Brezhnev "neo-Stalinist" is just childish name-calling.)
• There is too much discussion of Bill Brown. The fact that Lee's parents were long-term Communists can be mentioned in one sentence.
• Mark Aarons, who is probably better informed than Gerard Henderson, claims that Lee Rhiannon left the SPA in the early, not the late, 1980s, suggesting it was around 1983. This would seem to fit with the dates of her association with SPA-linked activities.

Yes, her past should be mentioned, but we don't need a mock Royal Commission.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• It could be shortened without losing the central points. I will have a go.
• Obviously they weren't literally "lifelong" members. "Longterm" will do.
• Bill Brown was editor of Tribune in 1956. I have read Tribune for the whole of this period. (Can anyone else here claim this?) Brown refused to allow any debate of Khrushchev's speech in Tribune. He published less criticism of Stalin than Pravda did! During the Hungarian revolution, Brown refused to publish the despatches of his own reporter in Budapest, Eric Lambert, and then had Lambert expelled from the party. If he was in any way anti-Soviet or anti-Stalinist at this period, no-one noticed!
• This is relevant because Rhiannon has said that Bill and Freda were "not Stalinists." This is an outright falsehood. The issue is not them, but what she has said about them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the suggested text: This is an article about a person, not their parents, and not what her opponents think. The text "Rhiannon asserts that she was never a party member" is classic "X asserts he never beat his wife" material. I suppose it is introduced in fairness to put Rhiannon's answer to the critics, but that criticism is not appropriate in a biography because it consists merely of personal observations from opponents. The text might be suitable if the article were "Controversy concerning alleged communist affiliations and misguided views of X"—then the views of the bloggers et al could be considered for inclusion (however, blogs generally fail WP:RS). Digging up letters written in 1972 to a student newspaper is known as undue cherry picking—unusable WP:SYNTH here. I was hoping to give a rational exposition on the proposed material, but there is too much wrong with it for proper comment so all I can say is that nothing like this would be considered by any experienced editor. As I mentioned above, articles have to be based on what independent and reliable sources think is relevant to the subject. What independent and reliable source thinks it is important what the subject said about her parents? Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I completely agree with Johnuniq.  -- Lear's Fool 10:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - and for exactly his reasons. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a very convenient interpretation of the rules. If consistently applied (which of course it isn't), it means that no useful article could be written about anyone who has not had a formal academic biography written of them. You know perfectly well that hundreds of political articles at Wkikpedia do not meet this standard. No article about a figure of contemporary controversy could meet it.
• I did indeed add the sentence "Rhiannon asserts that she was never a party member" in an attempt to be scrupulously fair to her, because of course it is widely asserted that she was a CPA member, as I thought myself until I began researching this text. This is one of the questions readers will want this article to answer. Does the question of what will be useful to readers not count for anything?
• Why is it unreasonable in an article about a politician to include critical comments made about her? That's what politics is all about. She makes plenty of critical comments about others, and her supporters here are quite capable of adding material which refutes such attacks. (And I wish they would do so instead of trying to suppress all criticism.)
• The Tharunka letters are relevant because they go directly to her assertion that she was "not a Stalinist." Anyone who supported the massacre of the Polish workers in 1971 is a Stalinist by any reasonable definition of that term.
• I'm not wedded to this text. If someone can come up with a shorter, better referenced, but truthful account of her career as a Communist, I'll happily endorse it. But so far Greens editors have preferred suppression to improvement. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Toad, I'm afraid you may need to step away from the dead horse here. This is not a "very convenient interpretation of the rules", it is the rules, and the existence of other articles that may not meet this standard is an argument for an improvement of those articles and nothing else (compare WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The relationship between coverage in independent, reliable sources and inclusion in Wikipedia has been explained to you a number of times on this page. If you are unable to engage with this argument in any way other than to cast aspersions about a Greens suppression campaign, then I suggest you disengage.  -- Lear's Fool 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the issue of Rhiannon's Communist past could be concluded if we had exact dates of her membership of the SPA. To a lesser extent her involvement with the MUA, the Moscow Olympics etc could be covered if we had some definite info. But really her relevance politically begins when she's an MP. If these attacks become a major feature of her political life, then perhaps we can have a controversy section, but really I think a sentence would suffice. Her membership of the SPA, for good or bad, should speak for itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2