Talk:Christine Milne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Portal	Christine Milne is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Milne article is totally facts

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)

[edit] Milne article is totally over-rated

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.

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)

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.

I've reworked what you contributed the other week so it's a bit more balanced. --Jgritz 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)