Talk:Lee Rhiannon

Why is her totalitarian past allowed to be covered up?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Editing dispute raised in parliament and the online press

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Michael Danby

Thanks for the links to to