Talk:Caroline Lucas

Video not playing correctly
The video clip of Caroline speaking is interspersed with regular bursts of loud white noise. Unviewable.

PWR, 2010-05-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.96.115 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Family life
Anything about her family life? Husband? Children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo
She is almost unidentifiable in the current scale of the current photo. Can one of the other photos be used, or this one cropped to focus on the person, rather than the banner behind her? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's really not good enough. In fact, can someone upload the photo of her from that's used on bio page on the European Parliament site? There is a rationale for such use in Bogusław Rogalski's article.--86.149.48.140 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the improvement (other than that it may be slightly more recent) of the photo substituted by Luke2511 today. It is cluttered around the face and shows a less natural expression than the previous by Kaihsu Tai, which is also available in as a portrait cropped version. I haven't interfered, but place this to stimulate consensual treatment of the issue.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rupert_read/3081488429/sizes/o/ dated December 4, 2008, is a quality, high res image by Rupert Read, has a Creative Commons license, could be cropped, and is 2 years more recent than the image just replaced; it's the only large, appropriately licensed image that I can find with google that isn't already on wiki commons (all having some issue).  Trev M   ~   00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (et seq)


 * I agree with you on this, I think the image should be replaced. Luke2511 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is not OK to use, it is licensed under a non-commercial license which is not OK for use on Wikipedia. I've listed it for deletion. Please check more carefully in future. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed "See also" section
I removed the entire "See also" section because it was bloated with things that don't really expand on Lucas. Maybe some can be readmitted, but not too many.--86.149.48.140 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I disagree about the See also section. They led to the page for the Green Party (Lucas's party), the page on MEPs and what they are (as she is one), the article on her South-East European constituency and many of the organisations mentioned in the article that people might like to expand on. I'm not really sure how having the See also section there hurts anyone, and would suggest that it is put back, but will wait to see what anyone else thinks. Aled Dilwyn Fisher 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrest
Could we have a citation for the bit that says Lucas was arrested in a dawn raid - I've not heard anything about this and it sounds wrong. Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.102.176 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications
Is this a Neutral Article? In the interests of fairness, I am going to add a sentence regarding Ms Lucas's qualifications, and say that she has none at all in either science or economics. This is fair, because the Wikipedia article on Christopher Monckton, the prominent global-warming sceptic, includes accusations that he has no scientific qualifications. Those who read his articles or hear him speak in public can have no doubt of his competency in the scientific sphere. Therefore it is fair and logical to include the same observations regarding Ms Lucas.Saldezza (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza


 * As it stands your comments are POV and liable for removal by editors. You are welcome to find criticisms of Lucas from recognised authorities, as Monckton is by George Monbiot in the Wikipedia article you cite, and incorporate them here. Philip Cross (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed an opinion piece inserted into the article by User:Saldezza, which started "The main problem with Lucas's views is that..." Besides the obvious Neutral point of view problems, the piece comprised Original research based on the editor's interpretation of Caroline Lucas's website. --TS 16:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of my two contributions was arrogant and nonsensical. It is not merely my opinion that giving people more money to spend on gas and electicity is in conflict with reducing CO2 emissions. That is a fact and I gave the links to Ms Lucas's own blog which provide evidence :

www.carolinelucas.com/?q=blog/1   Blocked

http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/159 Blocked

http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/161  Blocked

I also added a link to a publication of hers which is full of errors, and I specified one such error:-

"http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/159  page 4 refers to “increased carbon intensity” which is surely an error."

What I did was perfectly correct by scrupulous standards and it made the article more neutral. Why should it be a piece of mindless adulation? My contribution was immediately vandalised by biassed people who refuse to accept that others have a right to be heard on the internet. I AM NOW CALLING FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO BE BLOCKED. They are arrogant bullies. Saldezza (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.

GET THE BULLIES OFF THIS PAGE. They keep removing my perfectly reasonable and factual contributions. Is this is meant to be a reference work, or a party political broadcast? ChrisO is acting as an arrogant censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others who have said that your recent edit is a violation of the neutral point of view policy]. There does not appear to be any purpose for this edit other than negatively biasing readers, since information on Lucas's educational background is already included (in a more neutrally phrased way) in the appropriate section of the article. I'd also like to remind you that accusations like 'biassed people' and 'arrogant censor' are violations of Wikipedia's policy against [[WP:ATTACK|personal attacks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARTICLE

I would like to call for the blocking of FisherQueen and the others who persistently edit-war against me.

I introduced some changes in this article to make it more balanced:- ''"Although she campaigns and writes on Green economics, localisation, alternatives to globalisation, trade justice, animal welfare and food, Lucas has no qualifications in economics or any branch of science.(See Education, below).

The main problem with these policies is that they are blatantly contradictory. In October 2009, the Greens supported a Labour government move to end "fuel poverty" by giving cheap gas and electricity to those on low incomes. They hurriedly withdrew their support when it was pointed out that this would inevitably increase CO2 emissions. The details were placed on Ms Lucas's own blog although some of the links have now been blocked:-
 * www.carolinelucas.com/?q=blog/1 Blocked
 * http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/159 Blocked
 * http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/161 Blocked

Lucas's publications on energy and climate change are prone to major errors, as one would expect from somebody who has no training in this area. For example on page 4 of "http://www.carolinelucas.com/?q=node/159 she refers to “increased carbon intensity” instead of decreased carbon intensity."'' By removing these changes without discussion the other users are imposing a bias.

I have not merely done this as a protest against the bias in the Monckton article.

Both articles need to be changed drastically if Wikipedia has any intention of being remotely fair or unbiassed.

It is absurd to complain that there is no need to say she is unqualified since that is exactly what the Monckton article does. If it is enough to give her qualifications in the paragraph below then why does the Monckton article not conform to the same principles?

Who says she is "noted" for her articles? You are trying to give the impression that she is an expert, when she is nothing of the kind. To Philip Cross: who says George Mopnbiot is a "recognized authority"? Recognized by whom? By some maybe, but certainly not by everybody. Others regard him as very dubious and your description of him does not take into account that we are now living in the post-Climategate era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A neutral article must be balanced and your article is not balanced. It is time to block the people who keep putting these propagandist articles out and pretending they are neutral.Saldezza (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your perceptions of this article are colored by the result of your own original research, which is forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources for the statement that Caroline Lucas is perceived to be advocating public policies she is unqualified to make statements about, then that could be incorporated into the article, but the Neutral point of view policy forbids both you and me from inserting our own personal opinions, however well based in our personal research and grasp of the issues, into Wikipedia articles. --TS 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Saldezza, the reliable sources article Tony Sidaway links to also explains who can be cited as a recognised authority for the purposes of Wikipedia. I would add Verifiability as explanation. Philip Cross (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am at a complete loss as to why a leader of a Political Party would need a degree in science? Nick Clegg's academic qualifications are in Archaeology and Anthropology?! Lucas is the leader of a political party, whose political philosophy predates 'climate change science', although I'm sure Lucas would defer to scientists on these areas in the development of policy, just as I'm sure any other political leader would. The Green Party is a political party, not a pressure group, and the leadership of political parties come from all backgrounds. Long may that continue Twrist (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism
Should it not be mentioned that Lucas is a vegetarian and sympathetic to the vegan ethos? See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/18/interview-caroline-lucas-green-party and: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/Meat-free.pdf I wasn't sure where it would be best to add this. StefanosPavlos (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this article should be included in the WikiProject related to that topic. Could you validate that claim with more than three (3) reputable online (or print) sources?MaynardClark (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Appalling grammar
There's some basic grammatical errors all over this article. It's poorly written. Sometimes full stops are placed before the sentence has ended. Someone please fix as it looks unprofessional and childish.
 * We would welcome your expertise in fixing it.Charles (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Partygate statement
My addition has been removed as per WP:UNDUE and "source of dubious reliability". Just for the record here are additional non-dubious sources, from The Independent, SusssexLive, BBC, YahooNews, HuffPost and The Daily Telegraph. I'm surprised that her contribution, at such a pivotal time for British politics, should go wholly unrecorded here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have anything to do with the Sue Gray report, Johnson, or lockdown parties, as far as I can see. The statement didn't cause the PM to resign. She will not be remembered in history for this statement. It's not at all surprising that a PM widely condemned within his own party would be condemned by a rival party's de facto House of Commons leader. You've now given some reliable sources, but multiple sources reporting on the same rolling news story at the same time do not count for much more than just one source. It's just not due weight. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no idea whether Lucas will be "remembered in history for this statement" or not. It's impossible for me to tell. You must have access to resources that I do not, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)