Talk:Isobel Redmond

Redmond's factional (or pseudo-factional) alignment
This is a good and relevant article which describes Redmond as "mobilising behind the right" or conservatives within the SA liberal party: But not sure how to integrate into article. Donama (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other good articles... ... the first one is especially good. I've incorporated your and the first of my refs in to the sentence saying Redmond is from the Evans family faction, but don't know how and if it should be expanded on, especially considering recent unravelling events. Timeshift (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evans Family
Okay, the revert war is not productive, so I think it may be worth having this out on the talk page instead. For those who haven't already been involved (myself,, and ), you may want to check out this discussion.

Essentially the problem is this sentence (referenced by, , : "Redmond is linked to the conservative Evans family faction within the Liberal Party's South Australian division."

I supported the inclusion of the reference to the Evans family initially, but now I'm not entirely comfortable with the sourcing, and per WP:BLP we have to be careful. Thoughts? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what is disputeable about the clear factual history of the SA Libs since the end of Playford and the Playmander. The SA Libs have a 40 year history of bitter factional rivalry between the conservative Evans and moderate Chapman factions, I can't believe anyone could dispute this. It is cited, not to mention correct. I treat removal of this information with great suspicion, because it can only be either wanting to hide the truth, or sheer ignorance of the subject at hand. Timeshift (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My intention is not to hide the truth, and I know for a fact it's true. However, this is a biography of a living person, and neither of the two reliable sources refer explicitly to an Evans-dominated faction on the right.  The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but verifiability. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The conservatives are associated with the Evans clan because of the whole Evans v Chapman dispute in the mid 1980s. This doesn't mean it's an Evans-dominated faction, though Iain does weild a lot of power. Timeshift (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then does it need to be called the Evans' family faction in the article? Why not just the dries or conservatives, at least until we find a reliable source calling them the Evans faction? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying no refs link the conservatives to the Evans clan? Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The conservative faction includes Evans but it doesn't just consist of the 'Evans family'. Broader faction plays occur all the time with no Evans involvement. Think of the ETS and the removal of Turnbull - It was the same factions that were involved! It makes no sense call the conservatives the Evans family faction. — [ Unsigned comment added by 219.90.247.22 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 April 2010.]
 * I'm not saying no link rather that is inaccurate to refer to this faction as the 'Evans family faction' — [ Unsigned comment added by 219.90.247.22 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 April 2010.]


 * (to Timeshift) Sure, the Evans are linked to the dries, but only one of the sources used there actually refer to it as the Evans clan edit: by which I mean a title like "Evans family faction, etc. 14:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) . If a title such as that has only been used in a blog like pollbludger, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.  This is not to say that I wouldn't jump at the chance to add it if a better source was found, but as I say, just 'cause it's right doesn't mean it should be here. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit of a storm in a teacup, isn't it? The sources undeniably confirm that Redmond is affiliated with the conservative faction. To be honest, I can't really see why it's so important to call it the "Evans family faction" - can't we just say "conservative faction mobilised by Iain Evans" or "associated with" or something? (Since the second reliable source makes that perfectly clear.) That way the Evans link is clear, but it also points out that the faction is more than just an Evans family personality cult. Frickeg (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no way of knowing if Ian Evans mobilized anything. Personally I think it was more likely Minchin + Bernardi were behind it one one side and Pyne + Birmingham + Chapman on the other. but good luck getting reliable source on that! I don't see any reason to single out Evans. The only reason he is mentioned in the articles is that he was part of the recent deputy thing. — [ Unsigned comment added by 219.90.247.22 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 April 2010.]


 * Frickeg, the reason why the conservatives are the Evans faction and the moderates are the Chapman faction is because these are the two clans that the factions base themselves around - it's based on personalities. The whole Stan Evans and Ted Chapman mid-1980s by-election scandal was incredibly destructive. MPs as far as factionalism goes are based on two personality groups, the Evans backers (conservatives typically) and the Chapman backers (moderates typically). As for the anon IP comment above, he has his factional allegiances right but misses the point alltogether. This is how it is and why we have the conservative Evans and moderate Chapman factions. Ottre has another good quote here. And, now slightly off topic, it is why there's now furious debate in the SA Libs as to whether they pull their hat out their arse and actually formalise their factions as Labor have done, because until then they'll continue to be a complete and utter infighting rabble not capable of running a chook raffle. Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Virtually every point Timeshift makes here is in line with a recent article about Lib factions by Brad Crouch of the Sunday Mail, who is IMHO one of the best SA political reporters. I quote: While Labor has its formal factions, savage infighting and even the occasional spectacular party split, the SA Liberal tribal warfare is as much based on personalities as politics. To understand it, we need [go] back to the 1960s... Ted Chapman and Stan Evans, from the Left and Right respectively, became bitter factional foes and tribal leaders... Their blood feud continues today with their children, Vickie Chapman and Iain Evans dominant in the Left and Right respectively... More in-fighting will follow, with Ms Redmond now seen as allied to the Evans camp.


 * Source: "Its the Rocky Horror Liberal Show" by Brad Crouch, Sunday Mail, 04 April 2010, Insight section, pages 73, 80


 * I think the term "Evans family faction" is appropriate. Geoff Anderson and Andrew Parkin from Flinders University noted in the June 2006 issue of the Australian Journal of Politics and History that "dynasties" still underlie the divisions in the Liberal Party. One of the sources they cite ("Turmoil of party divided" by Colin James, Sunday Mail, 16 October 2005, Insight section, pages 75, 82) links Iain Evans, Nick Minchin, and Bruce McDonald (former party president) as "senior figures in the Right" working "behind-the-scenes" to destroy Rob Kerin. Another source they cite which might be useful is the Independent Weekly, 16-22 October 2005. I haven't seen it myself. Ottre 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The factions are not organised. They are based around personalities, allegiances, and long-running tribal warfare. I maintain that the conservative Evans family faction is correct and appropriate. Timeshift (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never claimed that this wasn't true: I know for a fact it is. It's just that (until now) there wasn't a reliable source saying something like "Redmond is linked to the Evans clan" etc.  That analysis by Crouch, however, sounds perfect.  I can't find the story on Adelaide Now (which I assume is because it's from the insight section), but if you have it in front of you, feel free to change it back and add it as a source.  Failing that I'll try and check an older copy at the State Library or something. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can confirm the article wasn't published on Adelaide Now. If you're a member of the State Library you can access the article from home (according to this page) on the EBSCO database. Ottre 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have access to eLibrary Austrlia through the Barr Smith Library, so I viewed it that way. I've added the reference and changed it to "Evans family faction".  I hope this is satisfactory. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lear, instead of reverting can you please respond. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I thought I'd made my position clear. I do think some discussion of the factional relationship between the conservative forces that helped make Redmond leader and the Evans family would be helpful. However, I think the title "Evans family faction" is used by a reliable source, so I don't think it should be added. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed the discussion here before I acted. Probably we should revise this to match the source more closely. Can we say something like "Redmond is aligned with a/the conservative faction along with Iain Evans."? Donama (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's more like what I'm thinking. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal candidate, solicitor Isobel Redmond, put there [Heysen] by the number of the Evans family rather than any genuine local support". This goes a step further and says the Evans family actually installed Redmond in Heysen. Is there a better source available for such issues? Timeshift (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt we're gonna get more than the "linked to the Evans family" out of reliable sources. I've just done a quick scan of results from the Adelaide papers on Factiva and eLibrary, and the best results are the article by Brad Crouch we used earlier, and an article called The Key Players from the Sunday Mail in April, which spends some time on the big rivalries in SA Liberal politics (Hall v de Garis, Evans v Chapman 1, Evans v Chapman 2 and Pyne v Minchin), but it has nothing to say on Redmond's relationship with any of them.  -- Lear's Fool 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Evans/Deputy leader
Is this noteable and suitable for reworded inclusion in the article?

"Then came the next ballot, and the result? Eight to Evans, 10 to Hamilton-Smith. Well, that was one result. The other was Redmond’s reaction. It’s difficult to find a single word to describe it. Fury would come close. Rage could be apt, as in a raging volcano. Some of those close to her say they saw a side the public has never seen in the nine months of her leadership. She slammed her glass down, they said, with such fury it sprayed on the desk and that she went to her office in a rage. One claims he heard her threaten resignation, another that she said she’d force a second spill – presumably this time it wouldn’t be a glass of water. For almost two hours she refused to speak with the media or leave her fortified keep ... “I am not prepared to discuss what happens within the party room,' Redmond said icily when asked if she’d “hit the roof”. Frankly and bluntly, she said Hamilton-Smith was not her first choice as deputy. That he was her last choice as deputy was left unsaid. But she promised, twice, on camera, that she would abide by the wishes of the party room. At that moment, Redmond violated her reputation as a person who tells the truth."

Comments appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of Allegations
The allegations alleged in this article against Ms. Redmond (UteGate) has not been proven nor is it relevant to be posted up in the current manner as it suggest that the allegations are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh hage (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It came from a WP:RS and quotes Liberal MPs. Redmond hasn't been able to prove otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the scandal was reported across the South Aussie news outlets. So the allegations, whatever they were, are part of history, regardless of whether or not they're true. So mention of the scandal is admissible, probably mandatory, for this article. Donama (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Redmond/Young Libs
Sources. Is this noteable enough? Should some mention of it be added? I'm erring toward yes. Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth date
Have asked Frickeg for the source in pre-empting the inevitable questioning. Timeshift (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the Who's Who. I never decided how to cite it satisfactorily since the online version (which I can't access at the moment) is password-required, so ended up just including it in the edit summary (far from ideal, I know). We could always just cite the print copy. Either way, the SAEC's election reports should confirm the year. Frickeg (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If/when you do check it is it possible to get the Jay Weatherill one as well? There is discussion on it  here. Philiashasspots (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't give the date for Weatherill. All the dates it gives for current politicians are already on Wiki. I'll check it again when I have access to it but it doesn't seem to have updated the politician entries in a few years for some reason. Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about the so called famous taser incident?
I read on the BBC website that Isobel Redmond, "...once famously volunteered to be tasered by police..." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630). So I came to Wikipedia interested to know exactly what her motives were for volunteering to be tasered only, there's nothing about it here. So, is this so called famous taser incident something worth pointing out? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Redmond labels ECSA head "utterly corrupt"
I've added this with a WP:RS to the article. I was going to add it to ECSA/Kay Mousley articles but decided as it wasn't substantiated that it would be best not to at this stage. But note to Redmond - take a look at your own booths. Bridgewater and Upper Sturt stand out - 8% 2PP swings to Labor. It's a pity that there's no metropolitan 2PP recorded because it's certainly nothing like the statewide result. Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)