Talk:Caroline Lucas

message: 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)
thread_title: Video not playing correctly 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree with you on this, I think the image should be replaced. Luke2511 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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&Windows 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed "See also" section

message: 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)
thread_title: Arrest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I agree with the others who have said that your recent edit is a violation of the [[WP:NPOV|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 personal attacks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability as explanation. Philip Cross (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Qualifications

message: 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)
thread_title: Vegetarianism

message: 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)
thread_title: Appalling grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Partygate statement