Jump to content

Talk:Christine Milne

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

Milne article is totally over-rated

[edit]

Anyone who reads this article will go away thinking Christine Milne is some sort of political marvel. Fact 1. Her vote during the 90's never reached a quota (12%). Her vote fell more markedly than the other Green members during this time, attesting to her unpopularity. Fact 2. When the size of parliament was cut in 1998 she lost her seat because she couldn't convince close to 16% of people to vote for her, eventhough she led the party. 3 other Greens lost their seats, but also 7 Liberal and Labor members. Fact 3. Milne was elected to the Senate in 2004 aswell as 5 other Senators from Tasmania. She came in at 6th place, was unable to get a quota again ( 14%) and had to rely on preferences. She got in by the skin of her teeth. Fact 4. Her role in environmental organisations may be significant for a clique of environmentalists, but they mean nothing to most people. She's probably a nice person, but politically, she finds it hard to bring the people along with her. No doubt my comments will be erased, Greens find it hard to deal with the truth and freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.170.135 (talk • contribs) 1 January 2006

Hi, no-one will be deleting any of your comments here. I think the article is factual about Ms Milne's history. If you would like to include any of the information that you have mentioned, then go ahead and edit the article as long as you present it with a neutral point of view. Christine Milne scored as many votes as people voted for her. No more, no less. Does that make her "unpopular" and irrelevant? Only if you have something against her, I guess. Barrylb 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not. I have nothing against her at all. I just want the people to get the whole story. I am rather amused by the sanctification of her; it's almost cult-like. I think the article reads a bit 'in-house' rather than encyclopedic; but thats wiki for you. I don't bother making major changes anymore becuase the 'in-house' people jump down my throat and cancel all my good changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarked (talk • contribs) 4 January 2006

I've reworked what you contributed the other week so it's a bit more balanced. --Jgritz 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, there is no sanctification of Christine Milne. You removed information about the reduction of numbers 35 to 25 members which many people believe is directly related to the loss of her seat. How are you giving people the "whole story" by removing that? I suspect also that anonymous edits are probably more likely to be reverted, especially ones which appear to want to push a particular point of view. Barrylb 05:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks quite balanced to me. It is not clear what you (anon) think is over-rated. A couple of items of protocol - you should sign your comments with 4 tildes (4 X ~), and you should take into account Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines for both your edits and your comments Peter C Talk! 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milne article is totally facts

[edit]

What's with the anonomous editor, scared people will find out he/she is a Liberal Party/Family First Party tool? :LOL:

Over rated by who? Since when are there ratings in Wiki? :roll: The biz 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks her academic history

[edit]

This article should include her academic history. She appears on news programs discussing scientific information regarding climate change. The public should be made aware of what her academic history is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.88.60 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2009

You are welcome to edit the article to include the information, or someone else might. regards. Barrylb (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocritical policy

[edit]

As leader of the Greens Christine does not seem to be towing the line of the clean green image for Tasmania. The Greens run a “zero waste no junk mail’ campaign and yet do not change appropriate legislation (tas litter act 2007 sect-11) which basically encourages litter i.e. Home care catalogues and other unsolicited mail. They also advertise in “free newspapers” that end up in land fill with in minuets of overriding peoples no junk mail stickers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green leaner (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this matter to the Talk page. Hopefully by now you have read the comments I placed on you personal talk page regarding our neutral point of view policy. The key content there is probably the line that says "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." We cannot include your personal interpretation and analysis of where her and her party's approach fit into the spectrum of "proper" Green behaviour, We must draw on and refer to reputable material written by others and that has appeared in reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Milne&oldid=1207891533"