This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Anything about her family life? Husband? Children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 ( talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
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 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 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)
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)
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
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)
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:-
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)
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)
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.
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)