Talk:Bob Brown

Interesting fact - Bob brown had his first brush with the media when announcing to media that Jimi Hendrix had died at the hospital he was working at in London. See here - http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/5991B6D641758862CA256DD000073F7D

Jgritz 16:21, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

What is wrong with wikifying Oberon? The remainder of my edit can be explained at Wikipedia:Manual of style. Please follow it. --Jiang 06:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I dont think its representative to refer to him as Anti American.

The notion that Bob is Anti American is an entirely contested concept. Like much of the Australian population Bob has NOT expressed anti american sentiments, but rather sentiments oposing the behaviour of the US administration. The ideas are quite different, and key to understanding the conceptual modalities of the 'left' ideologies.

Feel free to adapt the text to reflect your conceptual modalities. If I disagree I will conceptually modalify it back again. :) Adam 05:12, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am also not comfortable with this concept, while Brown is certainly anti-Bush and anti-GOP, I would not qualify him as an "anti-American" person. - Aaron Hill 06:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. I wouldn't classify him as anti-America, and I doubt he would either. Ambivalenthysteria 07:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Is it really necessary to put a category "gay" on this page? It's about as relevant as having a Category:straight for John Howard. Jgritz 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Yes, it's necessary. As a queer woman myself, it's nice to be able to see the successes achieved by other queer people, and quite inspiring at that. Thus, the category system is useful for navigating with such things. Anyway, if you disagree with the category: go take it up on the category page itself, and not here. We've had this discussion about fifty times. Ambi 09:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's just that in Tassie this was never an issue in regards to his public image or his popularity, even pre '97 with the notorious 21 years law and a Tassie parliament full of conservative dinosaurs. I could fully understand it with someone like Rodney Croome (this guy needs an article...) Oh well. Jgritz 10:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The category isn't there because he's controversial for being gay. The category is there because he is gay. ;) Ambi 11:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people/archive. Understand the angle now, but still disagree - first paragraph points out what my thoughts are. Jgritz 11:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Greens do have leaders when they are entitled to them

A minor change, I think. Bob was the "unoffical" leader of the Greens because they did not have enough seats to qualify. Now, with the smaller parliament they do, and Peg Putt is the leader. see http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ha/GreensCab.htm and http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/datasheets/MP_State_Federal.htm

Nyet. Peg Putt was the Greens leader when she was the only remaining member left in the Assembly. Brown was the unofficial leader of the Greens firstly because they didn't exist as a party at that time (five "independent Greens" were elected in 1989, who later formed the Tasmanian Greens); he then became leader when the party decided to have one. For the same reason, the federal party doesn't have a leader because the membership have not agreed to it - something which I'm told they're currently consulting about changing. Number of seats held has nothing to do with it. Ambi 23:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nyet, Nyet! Number of seats held has everything to do with it. You don't get a "Party Leader" without having Party Status, and the Greens do not qualify as a parliamentry party in any jurisdiction except Tasmania, where they have only qualified since the size of the Parliament was reduced from 35 to 25 (I believe this is correct, but I have no reference for it - corrections appriecated). Federally, the requirement is five members. The Greens currently have four, and so do not qualify as a parliamentry party. Likewise, the Australian Democrats now only have four members and no longer have a Party Leader.

Your history of the party in the Tasmanian Parliament is a little off as well. Brown was first elected in the seat of Denison in 1983 as an independent. At the next election in 1986, he was re-elected as a Green and joined by 1986 Gerad Bates (Franklin). Christine Milne (Lyons) Lance Armstrong (Bass) and Diane Hollister (Braddon) arrived at the 1989 election to bring the total to five. Browse http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/datasheets/MHAs_since_1909.htm for confirmation - Brown is listed as "IND/GREEN" everyone who follows is simply "GREEN". This indicates that the Tasmanian Greens were registered sometime between 1983 and 1986. The fact that the party was registered does not imply they they had party status in the Parliament.

Finally, you're almost half right about what the party's 'proposed' changes are. The "changes" are not to create the position of leader, but to formalise the establishment of a Party Room and confirm that the elected representatives have the authority to appoint the Party Leader, the Party Whip, allocate portfolios and other procedural matters. (I can't proved an online reference for this, but I got the notification about this in the mail yesterday.)

Ultimately, this is a minor point, but I have provided authorative references to support my edit which have not been rebutted and I have shown that Ambi's justification for reversion contains factual errors. I think I'm justified in reverting (but I'm new here, so what would I know? :^) Darryl.rosin 10:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I may have been off on some of the details, but you're still completely off on the actual point. The Greens have leaders in some states, but do not in others - official parliamentary party status has nothing to do with it. You appear to be forgetting that Peg Putt became leader when she was the only MHA - by your logic, they would have been leaderless after the 1998 election. Ambi 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Browns sexuality is irrelevant

Im supposing my alterations won't stand, knowing how precious many Green party supporters are. I deleted 2 references to Brown's sexuality becuase it is irrelevant. Its already mentioned twice, and thats enough. He never stood as a homosexual campainger, and in his time in the Tasmania parliament it was never an issue. By littering the reference to what his sexual inclination is 4 times takes away from why and what being a Green is, and his broader stance on things. The article is, in my opinion, does him no justice at all. Whoever wrote it is probably gay themselves, as has used their issue to hijack the full story of Browns acheivments. I made reference to what Gunns is. Not everyone knows. Brown also no longer lives in Hobart, but I see that clarrification didnt stand either.

• rolls eyes skyward*

Feel free to make any additions you want, and I'm sure the gay content could be more refined and better worded. That said, censorship doesn't stand here, and you can expect that it will be quickly reverted. Ambi 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Censorship doesn't stand? It does so if I have made sensible suggestions for change, but they are reverted back to what they were! Ignoring the many homosexual references for a minute, I thought clarrifying what Gunns is, and correcting the fact Brown doesn't live in Hobart anymore was a sensible addition. Obviously not hey!

Then clarify them without your political censorship. Ambi 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What you said there didn't make any sense. Do you mean clarify them without my political bias? I did, but you ignored them and wiped out my changes. I have no bias, I am actually a member of the Greens. I won't be attempting to make any further changes but I hope you'll take my opinions on board and maybe do them yourself. I'm sure potential Green voters come to look up at Brown on wikipedia and walk away with the view that his main claim to fame is being a homosexual crusader. Wrong. Not a representative view of who is, or what he stands for. Lastly, change the Hobart residence bit at the end if you want to be accurate. He lives with his partner 50km away now. I also think referring to the fact he will be 69, if he wins his Senate seat at the next election, and if he serves that full term, is irrelevant. Thats all I got to say.

Feel free to fix them - just don't try to censor the article in the process. If you had actually read the article, instead of just expunging anything related to his sexuality on sight, you might actually have noticed that it doesn't portray him as a crusader for gay rights. Ambi 08:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a final comment here 4 days ago but it looks like it has been censored. Why censor my opinions? I have a problem with many Greens restricting the freedom of speech of others. They tend to be that way. What I will again say, in the interest of others, is there is no point in me altering anything, even carefully, because the changes and efforts I make will be reverted back again. I pointed out the big flaws in the article. Fix them if you will Ambi, and please leave this comment in this time without censoring me yet again! My vote relies on it!