Talk:Bob Brown

Jimi Hendrix

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)

Bob Brown the Atheist?

Previously, this ariticle referred to Bob Brown as an Atheist, citing an abc interview where he states the following.

"…And had somebody tell me that the woman in charge – to my direction questioning – that people who hadn’t heard the name of Christ before Captain Cook arrived in the Pacific had all gone down to stoke coal. So I got up then and there and left. And I thought to myself ever since then, I’m amazed for so long I hung on to the mythical side of the old religions. But I’m very obliged to the ethical component which is very much part I think of human dignity and the reaching for a secure future that we have to get back into human affairs." Which cleary implies that he may be an atheist, at the very least he is no longer "religious" in any formal sense. Following on in that interview, however, he states the following "So when you decided to come out and recognise yourself as a gay man, did it mean rejecting God?

Bob Brown: No, it didn’t. It meant reformulating what the lifeforce is, and it is a mystery beyond comprehension. What are we doing here, How did we get here from the big bang and what was before that. Where are we going to? And why do we have this concept of purpose? To me evolution, creativity in the universe isn’t wasteful. So there is this concept of purpose which we as human beings have. And as best I can see it’s up to us to set that purpose." So what's the go? Atheist? New age mystic? The universe is god? Clive Hamilton has elsewhere stated that Bob is an atheist, and he is widely regarded as one. At the same time the only statement I can find from Bob on the matter was "lapsed presbyterian". So this is what I have put in the article. Please someone find a better reference! Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2010 (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)

OK, but why? AFAIC, his being gay is about as important as whether he eats toast for breakfast. Is he included in the category of Toast Eaters? Is there a category for heterosexuals? If not, why not? There's nothing 'special' about being gay, it's just another aspect of nature, and highlighting it only perpetuates the myth that it's abnormal. --Bunzinator (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2012 (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)

"Party status" in Canberra is a discretion granted by the Government. I don't believe there is a fixed protocol in place for according it. Howard gave it to the Democrats because he wanted to. He is not likely to give it to the Greens, whether they have four, five or more members. Irrespective of this, any party can designate their own leader - as demonstrated by Family First giving Stephen Fielding leadership status - even though he is leading only himself. The Greens have recently confirmed the process for electing the parliamentary leader, and have exercised the process to select one (Bob Brown). Peter Campbell 10:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the granting of official "party status" (as in, how your candidates are listed on ballot papers) is the responsibility of the Australian Electoral Commission. The Government/Prime Minister have nothing to do with it. Whether or not a party (officially recognised as such or not) have a leader is up to the party concerned. Keir. 59.167.51.240 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2007 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.169.56 (talk • contribs) .

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! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.165.87 (talk • contribs) .

To anon, I think you have some good points about changes to the article but I would like to suggest you commit to being constructive about resolving the issues rather than using a confrontational tone. Coming in with guns blazing about censorship and Greens being "that way" is a sure fire way of getting your edits reverted. I invite you to sign up with an account also, as it will make communications easier. Barrylb 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the reference that supports "In federal Parliament, however, he became more active on this issue, particularly when a second gay . . . "? Brown has not campaigned on gay issues/rights as far as I know. Michael Organ (Greens, Cunningham) spoke in Parliament on same sex marriage, and campaigned on that issue, not Brown. The phrase "During his parliamentary career in Tasmania, Brown was not particularly outspoken on gay rights issues, although he never concealed the fact that he was gay." is out of place - it should be back with his Tasmanian parliamentary service section. Also , the "never concealed" bit is entirely redundant as it is previously stated that he had "publicly come out". I am considering making some edits to sort this out. Peter Campbell 10:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. You've handled cleaning up these articles really well so far, so I trust you'll do a good job of fixing this sexuality muck. There's definitely way too much on it, but it still does need to be mentioned. Ambi 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The number and prominence of references to Brown's sexuality seems disputed, so I'll just make this suggestion here: it seems to be overly prominent in the intro. There are two references in the first sentence, suggesting that his sexuality is as notable as his party leadership, which doesn't seem to be true given his main political focus: "Dr Robert James Brown (born December 27, 1944), is a homosexual far-left Australian Senator, the inaugural Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Greens and the first openly gay member of the Parliament of Australia." Deleting 'homosexual' would seem to be reasonable. Thayvian 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Age reference

I removed the statement "he would be 69 by the end of his third term" because I suggested it was not neutral point of view. The edit was reverted by Ambi who commented "It's true, and it's quite relevant" but that misses my point. As written on Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute:

Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral

It is conceivable that the reference to his age has been placed there to present a point of view about a weakness in Bob Brown. Should the reference stay or go? Barrylb 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I say lose the age reference. Who cares how old he'll be in 2310? It's not like he's breaking any records or anything. I don't see what it adds to the article. --Jgritz 10:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes clear, for starters, that his next term will almost certainly be his last - indeed, many commentators I read thought that he would retire as early as 2007. I really don't see why this presents an image of weakness on Brown's part, as he's still as active as he was twenty years ago. I think this is being just the slightest bit overzealous. Ambi 10:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And he'd be 75 at the end of a fourth term. So? Even Johnny Howard's got 5 years on Bob. The average age of a legislative council member in Tasmaina is about 165, so it's nothing new down here. And all that bushwalking and healthy living is going to keep him going for a while yet. --Jgritz 10:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking back in the history I see it was first included in the context of speculation whether he would run again, especially given his age. He has announced his intention to run again so there isn't the same need to include a reference to his age which is a remnant from the speculation. Barrylb 10:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is, really, as he's very unlikely to run for another term after this one - it's relevant that he's getting on (heck, if he were in the Labor Party, he'd be forced to retire as he'd be past compulsory retirement age). Personally, I hope he hangs around for as long as he can, but that doesn't make his age any less relevant. I really think you're reading too much into this. Ambi 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked John Howard's page to compare mentions of his age. The last mention of Howards age I can see is "scored a sweeping victory at the 1996 elections over Keating to become Prime Minister of Australia at the age of 56". And there is no mention under the heading "For as long as the party wants me" where his age would be a relevant factor. On Kim Beazley's article, there is no mention of his age, but "By October 2005 he had spent 25 years in the House of Representatives and become the equal fourth longest-serving current member of the House" is mentioned. I agree that the focus on Brown's age is not really appropriate and should be removed. Peter Campbell 11:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less how old Bob Brown is. It's not an issue of POV, bias or whatever. It's just not of any interest or any relevance as a worthwhile point to make. Who cares? Should we go through the whole article and at every point in his career say how old he was at the time? And how would you know if somebody was going to throw in the towel? Donald Rumsfeld is 75 (I think) and Natasha Stott Despoja didn't make it to 40! Having read the previous posts (as well as others that mention confusion as to when he will be 69 since he was born in 1944) I think it can go. Removing it. --Theophilus Thistler 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti war left?

I dont think that the information "and became recognised as the national leader of the anti-war left." is either accurate or NPOV. I think this part of the sentence should be deleted. Who is the "anti war left"? (no reference is provided). I am not aware of any such group that would regard Brown as their national leader. The most that could be said is that Brown became "an unofficial spokesperson for the anti war/peace movement".

Also, I think the anti war (peace) movement transcends "left" and "right". The Federal Cabinet might have fallen lockstep in with Howard's push for war, but a lot of Liberal voters are not happy about it[1]. Also, Kerry Nettle has been equally outspoken (but not as well covered by the media) on opposing the Iraq war. Peter Campbell 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a change. Barrylb 12:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First Green MP

The Greens own page states that Norm Sanders was the first Green MP, even though he was an independent. Jgritz 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Brown was the first Green MP - he was elected as an independent Green, whereas Sanders was elected as a Democrat. However, as Sanders was a prominent member of the Wilderness Society at the time, I can see why Brown mightn't be considered the first green. Ambi 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of referring to him as the first Green, you could refer to him as the longest-serving Green MP. He served 10 years in the Tasmanian Parliament, which only ranks behind Peg Putt, Jim Scott and Ian Cohen for longest term, and once you include his 10 years in the Senate (still counting), he is by far the longest, outstripping his successor in Denison, Peg Putt, who is second with almost 13 years. Braue 03:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. The initial statement wasn't important, which is why I didn't overly object to its removal. Ambi 03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I DONT THINK HE WAS BORN IN 1944, THAT CANT BE RIGHT.

It is right. I just checked it in Gentle Revolutionary by James Norman, his birthdate is definitely 27 December 1944. Braue 07:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. He doesnt look that old.

Sorry about that.

Something is wrong here then. He can't be born in 1944, yet be 69 in 2007.

Biased/Unsupported Portion

Sorry for not clarifying on this earlier (thought it was fairly self explanatory), but I disagree with the opening "Despite his rather dour and humourless public manner, he is widely admired as a man of courage and conviction, even by those who disagree with him. One example of Brown at his most tolerant (as well as an indication of a dry sense of humour) is his welcoming of Fred Nile's intention to run as a Christian Democratic Party of Australia candidate for the Australian Senate in the 2004 federal election. Brown was quoted as saying "He will give the opportunity to highlight the Greens' humanitarian policies which have doubled the vote for the Greens in the last three or four years." Unless this is cited/cleaned up, I don't believe it should be in the article.

I'll re-delete the entry in 2 days unless its cleaned up.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epsoul (talk • contribs) 30 August 2006.

What do you disagree with? Rebecca 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the opening comment here. It is not a fact that Brown is "dour" and "humourless". This is rather obviously an opinion and an unsourced one at that. Claims about him being "widely admired" are also unbacked by any evidence presented here. --Wm 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the example doesn't have a link supporting it. It just seems pretty un-wikipedian, thats why I deleted it. It would be helpful if person who reverted it would like to go more into detail besides "helps understand the person." Otherwise, as I said before, I will delete it.

Epsoul 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture update

Could someone update the picture with his current parliamentary photo? http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=QD4 The current one must be decades out of date. Sad mouse 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lives in Hobart?

Is this a fact? His Memo book and a PDF file on his website state his house is in central Tasmania on the Liffey River, in the shadow of some mountain. It could well be he has a "house" there but not a "home" there, so the Hobart reference may well be right. I'm sure a contributor to the article could straighten this one out. Peter1968 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Brown's policy on coal

I was surprised that there was no mention of Bob's policy to ban coal exports. So I added it myself. I now know why there is no mention of this because a Greens supporter removed it within 15 minutes, claiming that my statement was incorrect (no - I didn't say ban within 3 years I said plan implemented within 3 years - Bob's own article said by the next election) and that my content was POV (no - it was fact. He did attract scorn from the media and major political parties) and that my reference was POV (no - it is in the media and stated the position of major party politician who disagrees, thereby proving my point). You are a self confessed Greens supporter (ie POV). I just thought it was of interest. Does anybody (including the above mentioned propaganda merchant) have anything to add to this debate?--Theophilus Thistler 13:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV the reference you cited does not provide accurate or balanced information. For contentious issues, it is standard practice to provide balanced information and quotations (which I have added). Also please review WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines regarding your criticism above of other editors. Peter Campbell 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey what I said was fair enough. My mistake was saying "media" instead of "sections of" which was corrected. But I have found wikipedia to be awfully disturbing when people protect articles. I am sure there are people out there who want to put their own political influence on articles. But you will note my first correction was the "Nettle" issue (purely editorial). I just want wikipedia to be a respected info source. But the rest of my comments stay. I didn't criticise other editors. I described them. My addition to the article was deleted to protect the reputation of the subject. Without debate. That is bias. I included something that I believed was more important than Bob's age or sexuality and it was deleted within minutes. I suggest you change your tone when you remove FACTUAL INFORMATION. Suggest improvements, or even improve it yourself. But don't just flip me off and say "POV".--Theophilus Thistler 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what you said was fair enough at all. You stridently attacked at least one editor - without actually specifically identifying them - with comments like "self confessed Greens supporter (ie POV)" and "the above mentioned propaganda merchant" and "people out there who want to put their own political influence on articles". You also impugn editors motives when you claim that "My addition to the article was deleted to protect the reputation of the subject." Cloaking POV edits and citations with claims that right wing biased media sources (on their own) are factual and not biased does not cut the mustard. You don't improve Wikipedia as as a respected info source by adding unbalanced biased content (which compromises Wikipedia as a respected source rather than improving it) and can expect that type of content to be reverted. The way around this is to ensure that when content added it is balanced, adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Specifically, a "for" and "against" reference on contentious topics (such as the misreporting of Brown's comments on a strategy coal exit) will usually suffice in this regard (as is now the case for the coal content). I think that the coal policy information good to include - but it must be balanced to be encyclopaedic, or Wikipedia becomes another tabloid. Adhering to WP:CIVIL is also recommended. Peter Campbell 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is better off for me having added what I added and it then being shaped into what it is (a better method would have been DISCUSSION - but we got there). Wikipedia is worse off for us having THIS discussion. You are experienced in the art of being loud in any media (I remember hearing a saying about noisy vessels but darned if I can remember it). Give Bob Brown a Nobel Prize if you want. But adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL is recommended.--Theophilus Thistler 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while so I'm not sure if I can find a reference but Brown's own comment was a challenge to the new parliament to come up with a plan by the end of its 3-year term, not implement the plan in 3 years Philip Machanick (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth name Jack Spooner

Maybe my brain's gone dead, but I have a clear recollection of Bob Brown being interviewed on radio some years ago, when he was asked about his birth name being Jack Spooner. He was quite open about it, he confirmed he had been born Jack Spooner and his name was later changed, but I don't remember the circumstances - for example, whether his mother remarried and he took his new father's name; or whether he changed it himself by deed poll. I checked on Google but nothing came up. Can anyone confirm this? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hendrix

The article states that Brown pronounced Jimi Hendrix dead. The source quoted (see the PDF document) only infers Brown was a medical officer and present in the ward when Hendrix was admitted. Nothing in the source supports the article's speculation that Brown pronounced Hendrix dead. I have not found any other source indicating that Brown pronounced Hendrix dead.

On this basis, and also because its useless trivia anyway, I have deleted the Hendrix reference.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of "de-facto" Parliamentary leader indications.

The idea of a de-facto parliamentary leader (in the position box at the bottom of the page) is quite silly. There were only one or two AG senators during this period including Brown. It is completely contrary to Green principles to award any sort of leadership status without some form of approved process. It is also unprecedented to add a "de-facto" position in such a way for Australian political parties in Wikipedia. No such statement exists for Steve Fielding, or other minor party Senators who sat alone in the Senate (Greens WA, Nuclear Disarmament). Sambauers (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

removal of commentary on Qld floods

Reports on this are sketchy and do not contain specific quotes of Brown saying he wants the coal industry to pay the entire bill for the floods. Media sources that quote a snippet of a politician's statement then claim he said something contentious not backed by a direct quote are a bit suspect especially when the politician concerned is not popular with the media. I would like to see a more authoritative source for this otherwise it's POV. Philip Machanick (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.14.171.241, 31 March 2011

In 2010, Brown was selected by readers of Samesame as one of the 25 most influential gay Australians.

203.14.171.241 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in request edited by me. I think it's a legitimate request. Can someone else review and add or deny. Donama (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Where is this supposed to be placed? – Ajl^talk 05:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Charbono, 17 May 2011

Bob Brown has received the following awards:

• International Merit Award of the IUCN (1984)
• UNEP Global 500 Award (1987)
• Goldman Environmental Prize (1990)
• MAPW Distinguished Physician Award (1990)

• The Australian newspaper ‘Australian of the Year’ (1983)
• BBC Wildlife magazine ‘World's Most Inspiring Politician’ (1996)
• National Trust Australian National Treasure (1998)
• Rainforest Action Network Environmental Hero (2006)

• Australian Peace Prize (2009)

Also, he has since published another book, titled "Earth" (2009)

Finally, the last two paragraphs in "State Politics" should be integrated into the section "Personal life".

Charbono (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Could I also ask an admin to look at giving Charbono auto-confirmed privilege. Cheers, Donama (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

References

"Hate media"

I removed the following paragraph:

"In May 2011, Brown was involved in a dispute at a press conference where he attacked various journalists and described News Limited as the 'hate media'. He was widely condemed for this and was accused of being unable to 'take the pressure'. <ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/media-round-on-brown-over-attack-on-news-limited/story-fn59niix-1226059243419 |title=Media round on Brown over attack on News Ltd |work=The Australian |date=20 May 2011 |accessdate=22 May 2011 |first=James |last=Massola}}</ref>"

for not following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As explained in my edit summary, Brown's position regarding the media is notable, but this should be presented in a comprehensive encyclopaedic format and from a neutral point of view. The above summary relies on an obviously non-neutral source - the alleged "hate media". Furthermore the summary misrepresents the content, when asserting that the cited article would indicate that [Brown] "attacked various journalists", "he was widely condemed" and "was accused of being unable to 'take the pressure'". Please discuss this issue here before attempting to reinsert it into the article. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Elekhh here. That's not neutral the way it's written and I'm not sure whether the whole issue is even significant enough to include. At minimum something other than News Ltd should have reported on this, but I didn't see it anywhere else. Chris Ulman wrote an opinion piece on ABC Drum about how his interview with Brown didn't go so well, but then that's not impartial, being opinion and all, so probably no better as a source. Donama (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased.

This reads like an endorsement, not a Wikipedia article. Facts, not conjecture.

Some choice phrases from the current article: "where he experienced his first taste of civil disobedience – senior medical staff refused to certify young men who didn't wish to fight in the Vietnam War as fit to be conscripted.

Changed. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Brown announced that he had a gay partner[6] expressly in order to prevent discrimination and encourage law reform (homosexuality was a crime in Tasmania at that time)." Notice the use of "EXPRESSLY". Of course we're here to present Bob Brown and his supporter's views on every matter concerning him....

Changed. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In 1976 he fasted for a week on top of Mt Wellington in protest against the arrival at Hobart of the nuclear powered warship USS Enterprise. This is relevant how?

Left alone. After all he's a political activist who ended up leading a party that gets 10% support or so nationally. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

During his first term of office, Brown introduced a wide range of private member's initiatives, including for freedom of information, death with dignity, lowering parliamentary salaries, gay law reform, banning the battery-hen industry and advocation for nuclear free Tasmania. His 1987 bill to ban semi-automatic guns was voted down by both Liberal and Labor members of Tasmania's House of Assembly, nine years before the Port Arthur massacre resulted in a successful federal Liberal bid to achieve the same results.

Don't see the problem yet, but why don't you change this one. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What a wonderful man - no wait, this is meant to be an unbiased Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.177.176 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the article. The first few of extracts are from the "Early life" section and in that context seem appropriate to provide background for his later life. I don't have access to the reference about a gay partner so it is hard for me to know the full facts but you could just remove the word "expressly". I'm not sure about the paragraph concerning first term of office - feel free to change it as you think is appropriate. Barrylb (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made an effort to "encyclopaedise" the worst offencesk, which were all in lead or first section. It was more the lack of objective tone that was a problem than the content itself. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very much improved, and yes, it was more a lack of objective tone than anything else. -OP

(Also the part about His 1987 bill to ban semi-automatic guns was voted down by both Liberal and Labor members of Tasmania's House of Assembly, nine years before the Port :::Arthur massacre resulted in a successful federal Liberal bid to achieve the same results. still smells of a lack of objective tone to me - I'll try to improve it.)

Early Life, Trunkey Creek

Hi, just wondering how/if a link could be put into 'Trunkey Public School' to connect it to the page for Trunkey Creek, but without misnaming the school itself. Wasn't sure how to do this, so I didn't want to act rashly and make a mistake. Cheers. 116.250.91.37 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent move

It seems pretty clear to me that this Bob Brown is the primary topic, as the founder and leader of a highly significant political party. A quick look through the other Bob Browns hasn't convinced me otherwise. In any case this move was made without consensus. Frickeg (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

concur, should have gone through a community process for the move. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. And if there is going to be a move, someone needs to find all the orphan references and fix them as part of the job, not just leave them pointing at the disambiguation page. Chrismaltby (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - not happy with the newbie move. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Move clearly done in ignorance and without discussion. Not acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. This was an idiotic move by an Editor who has been registered for less than a month. The ONLY discussion was an Edit summary that said "LOTS of Bob Browns!" Well, der. This editor's Contribution list shows a dedication to Canadian Football, so I suspect his knowledge of Australian politics and the global significance of the Australian (especially Tasmanian) Greens would be negligible. The move must be reverted. Can this be simply reversed by doing another move? Or will the new redirect page get in the way? (And can this editor please be taught to behave a little better?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get some tutoring for this new editor done at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. --Greenmaven (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and contacted one of them at her Talk Page User talk:SarahStierch. She has experience in contact with new editors. --Greenmaven (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Important point is he (Brown) is in process of retiring/stepping down which means the changed title is in fact immanently redundant and literally incorrect - there would be a need to consider a more appropriate qualifier to his name SatuSuro 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just moved the page back, as there's obviously no consensus to support the move. It appears to have been moved in good faith, however, and Seaeffel (talk · contribs) should be commended for following WP:BOLD. No damage has been done by having this article at a different, but not illogical, name for a few hours and a few of the above comments seem a bit unfair. I know I made some mistakes when I was new here! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I reckon there's a fair bit of difference between well-informed good faith editing, and good faith editing in ignorance. I wouldn't have been that bold when I'd only been here for a month. I assumed then that most people with more experience than me had done what they had done for good reasons HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I did some similar things in my first months of editing - I distinctly remember telling everyone at the Military History Wikiproject that they were wrong, for instance. I'm now apparently an editor in good standing and one of the coordinators of said project ;) Anyway, this is what WP:BRD is for. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My, my, touched a nerve down under, did I? You Australians are certainly a parochial lot. Why is this Bob Brown any more important than, say, professional athletes, who'd I'd venture to say are far more well known than this guy? I can round up lots of secondary party leaders, and openly gay politicians (even those who were the first to come out) that don't deserve to be a primary topic (Canada has loads of them ...) Geez, lighten up. You are proving your (it seems well earned) reputation for thin skin.Seaeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd echo Nick-D's pat on the back for being bold. This Bob Brown obviously meant nothing (or nothing much) to you personally, and we all come to Wikipedia with our own particular world-view. I would also echo the other commentators in asking you to accept that this Bob Brown is the founder and leader of very significant political party in Australia, and it would stand to reason it would be on the watchlists of a large number of editors. In other words, this is not some obscure person who is just some footnote to history that few have ever heard of. From that alone, completely aside from the nationality of those interested editors, a move as significant as a change of article name should not have been done without prior consultation. I hope you can understand this and bear it in mind in your other wiki-activities. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Try typing in John Macdonald. Get lots of them, eh? Well you don't see Canadians jonesing to get the primary link to be John A. Macdonald, who just happens to be our first Prime Minister and one of the towering figures of Canadian history ... do you, mate? Founder of the Green Party, give me a break. Every country has lots of significant political parties led by hacks that will, with time, be consigned to the "dustbin of history." I bet you if 1000 people were searching Bob Brown, 999 would be surprised to end up on a gay Australian Green Politician page. That is for sure. I wasn't being bold, I was being sensible.Seaeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

When you google Bob Brown, who comes up in your first page of results? I'd suggest you tone down your aggressiveness and engage in discussion, even though it appears WP:CONSENSUS is not in your favour. Timeshift (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Even it was a sensible move, it still needed prior discussion. Btw, denying it was done in the name of boldness removed the one saving grace your move had. Your, or anyone's, personal crystal ball opinion about Brown's future dustbinworthiness, or anything else in the future, has no place in a discussion like this and should have played no part in your decision to move the page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps our angry Canadian needs to discover where the Tasmanian Greens stand in the history of Green politics world wide. (Pssst. They were first.) And also note the inappropriateness of his (now temporary) new title for our Bob. In just five and a half hours time he will no longer be a politician. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The title was wrong, but not for this reason. Brown's primary notability, almost certainly, will always be as a politician, and thus that would be where his disambiguation would go, should it be necessary (which, of course, I would argue it isn't). The title was wrong because it should have been at (Australian Greens politician), not (Australian Green politician). Frickeg (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

At least I'm honest. You people need some perspective. Its like being faced with Australian Group Green Think. Are you a cult? Try stepping back and trying to see what others see. We Canadians are particularly good at this, we have to be, our neighbour is USA. Bob Brown and the Tasmanian Green devils live in your belly button. Good luck.Seaeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you taken my advice and googled 'Bob Brown' yet? I didn't think so. Alternatively, i've got an excellent method... Bob Brown is viewed hundreds of times a day, sometimes nearly 1000 times a day. Every other Bob Brown (disambiguation), including the disambiguation page itself, is viewed less than 50 times a day. Now, compare this to other contested and non contested disambiguation disputes. Game, set, and match. No other Bob Brown comes remotely close in WP:NOTEability to this Bob Brown. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@Seaeffel, you made an honest mistake and had the confidence to 'be bold' and do the move of the Bob Brown page. Be reasonable now and accept that you made an error that anyone could have made. Other editors are not being thin skinned; they are providing good reasons why your move was a wrong one. Being rude, defensive and self-righteous is not a good way to begin your editing work here (see above,: I will spell it out if you are not sure what I am referring to). I will agree that some editors have expressed frustration and even anger towards you, and that may have offended you. Let's move on. There's lots of good work to be done. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, you people are so self-serving its see-through. Do you read what you write? Or just drink the same Kool-Aide? Of course Bob Brown (gay Aussie Green version) will have the most hits, its the flipping DEFAULT page! You go there by accident, as I did. How many of those users are surprised to end up on that page? And the good folk of Wikipedia, upon learning of my heinous act of renaming, fulminate, take up their pitch forks, and brand me idiotic. BUT ... I'm supposed to move on? Is this a Wiki thing, or an Australian thing, but maybe an APOLOGY is in order? This ringing a bell? Wait, let me check ... WP:NEVER APOLOGIZE. You are the saddest bunch lemmings I've come across on my 5+ years on wikipedia. At least 5 years. Here is the first article (I remember) I created: Roman Jarymowycz. I have so many discarded user names I honestly can't recall them all.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By that usage it's now clear that you intend the words gay, Aussie and Green to be pejorative. That's unacceptable. It's time for you to move on.

No I didn't. How do you know what I intended? Is he not gay, Aussie and Green? This is what I absolutely hate about wikipedia. Want to talk about self-righteous. You people have to get a life. That is the trouble with this place; half the people live to be judgmental, and the other half can't write. I'm going to finish with my Canadian Football League interests and drop out anyways. Thank you and come again. Have a nice day, eh.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman Jarymowycz led me to User talk:RCHussar, which is most telling. Please continue to lecture us about appropriate behaviour, you're apparently the master of it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, RCHussar. Thanks for the memories. I could care less what you think of me. But, under my previous user name I think I created 200 articles over the past year, everyone scrupulously referenced and with a pithy and parsimonious writing style. I like researching, writing and editing (especially the endless stream of ultra poor prose here.) I have fun.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift wanted a more fulsome reply, which is here: Bob Brown. Seaeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument about Bob Brown being the default page is meaningless considering the same scenario applies to most other disambiguation debates. Still waiting for a valid reply to my disambig argument. And i'm still waiting to hear what Bob Brown you find when you google Bob Brown. :) Timeshift (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You ask for a reply, then delete it ...

Let me give you a little lesson in math and causation. Bob Brown is the default page for all searches on any Bob Brown. Soooo ... logically, we can posit that every search for a Bob Brown will access the gay Aussie Green Bob Brown first. I would then argue that a much more meaningful comparison of numbers would be Bob Brown versus the hits for all other Bob Browns combined, as every other Bob Brown search would, by design, have started with accessing the gay Aussie Green Bob Brown first.

Oh, and then your total for gay Aussie Green Bob should be reduced by whatever total you got for all other totals of the other Bobs combined, because we can deduce that all of these searches/hits had first accessed gay Aussie Green Bob by accident (and did not mean to search him) because, as stated, gay Aussie Green Bob's page is the default ... and now you have a much more meaningful comparison.

Yeah, I know in reality this theory might not be perfect, but its better than your poorly analyzed assertion.

And as far as wikipedia notability goes, this is a standard for inclusion in wikipedia globally, but not a mechanism for making value judgments about articles already in wikipedia. I imagine what you are suggesting is actually determined by consensus. That said, its seems fairly clear to me that those who insist that gay Aussie Green Bob Brown be the default page for Bob Brown have their own agenda at work (the most obvious is that being the default page de facto advertises gay Aussie Green Bob Brown, which supporters of him would want.) I'll be the first to admit that wikipedia has its fair share of altruistic contributors (including a vast majority of those with official wiki status) but I would also argue, with a great deal of confidence, that an overwhelming majority of people who edit wiki do so with an agenda in mind. Its human nature, and intuitive. And some are much more determined to further their agenda than others (political party supporters come immediately to mind.) I recall once I redirected an article away from a fictional character to a real human being, making the mistake of thinking that a real person, having made real contributions, was more important. Someone corrected me by pointing out that the fictional character was better known and more popular, however trivial it may have been.

Yep, so I'd suggest that, for example, any of the Bob Browns that are or were professional athletes are so way more widely known than gay Aussie Green Bob. Come on? No matter what meaningful contributions to Australian political and civil life gay Aussie Green Bob may have made, and I am sure there are many, it will blanch in comparison to the goals or touchdowns some journeyman athlete scored ... however trivial. And unless Australia is different than every other country in the modern democratic world, people don't care about politicians anyways. Trust me, I have a graduate degree in study of political attitudes. And wikipedia shouldn't be the place to remedy this. If people want to eat cake, serve it to them on the fine china.

Have a nice day, eh, mate.

And with that, I take my leave, exit stage left.Seaeffel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it from my talk page as the discussion is here. You didn't answer a single bit, so let me repeat: First, the argument about Bob Brown being the default page is meaningless considering the same scenario applies to most other disambiguation debates, so still waiting for a valid reply. Second, all other wiki Bob Brown (disambiguation) articles have only a handful of views a day, not a single one stands out as having more noteability than another. Third, show me another Bob Brown that isn't a stub or near-stub? Fourth, show me another that has any level of active editing activity on it that Bob Brown does. Fifth, i'm still waiting to hear what Bob Brown you find when you google Bob Brown (use google.com/ncr (no country redirect)). Which Bob Browns do you get on your first page? Second page? What do you get in google images? :) Sixth (and a newie and the clincher!), 69 watchers for Bob Brown. Show me another Bob Brown that even registers a number in the tool. Game, set and match yet? Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You may as well save your metaphorical breath, Timeshift. Our friend's constant reference to "the gay Aussie Green Bob" says everything we need to know about him. If he considers being gay to be inherently more noteworthy than any actual human achievements, he's got a long way to go. Even if he's pro-gay. But I suspect the opposite is the case, and that that is the underlying driving force in his campaign here. What he's really saying is that Brown is gay, and that automatically means that, whatever other strings he may have to his bow are worthless. And worthless people don't get to be the default article when there are other claimants to the title. That's what he's on about. By their fruits ye shall know them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with gay, green, or using the term "mate" (just in case it really needs to be said), but it's clear that Seaeffel user is using them (and others) with intent to insult. For that reason alone, as Jack says, it speaks volumes about Seaeffel, and if it wasn't for WP:CIVIL i'd impolitely tell him where to go. Personally, I'm ambivalent about which Bob Brown is actually the primary page (it's not that important ultimately to improving articles), rather I'm posting to suggest disengaging from people who can only debate with insult. Seaeffle has said however that he has taken his leave. I live in hope.

While for me it would be nice to see the Australian MP as primary topic, I don't think it's worth spending so much time and all these words over. There's more constructive and important editing to do. just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear! Please allow me to indulge in a Canadian trait (and weakness, we say "sorry" a lot) and apologize if I have offended anybody. Mind you, I am at a loss to see why, as gay, Aussie and Green, used either individually or together as I did, are not insults in Canada ... at all. And I chose this description because each term is prominently mentioned in the very first paragraph of this article about gay Aussie Green Bob. You have to get a thicker hide! I'd suggest a more meaningful reply would be to respond to my analysis of this article (and wikipedia generally) but I certainly understand why you wouldn't bother, as its not in your interests. Indeed, that was the point of what I wrote.

I'll give this article one thing, it is fairly well written, which is something you can't say about 90% of the stuff on wikipedia. Again, have a great day, eh, mate.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My point was that you were giving primacy to his gayness, which is inappropriate - and you've now done it again, twice more in your latest post. Sure, he's gay and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of people are gay, but nobody has WP articles about them just because they're gay, or even primarily because they're gay. Yes, the lede does mention that Bob Brown is gay, but by my count not until Word #76. You, on the other hand, are consistently making "gay" Word #1. That is being pointed. You appear to have have some agenda. What is it? Would you differentiate Franklin D Roosevelt from Teddy Roosevelt by calling FDR "the crippled US President" or even "the disabled US President"? I hope not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Jack. This guy is just trolling. I know many Canadians, and have spent a bit of time there. Indeed enough to know that this it is not a Canadian trait to do this. If he was not trying to insult, he'd have changed his tone instead of telling us to get thicker skins. Indeed, "gay", "australian" and "mate" are not insults in themselves - on the contrary (Indeed, my first sentence in my first post said this, but seaffel seems to be pretending i didn't say it). However, the way this guy is using them is clearly intending to troll/insult. I would be happy to discuss if he changed his tone, but it's already been pointed out to him and he didn't change - he continued and said the problem was us not him. He's already said he's finished on this page, and trolls are best ignored, and even administrator assistance could be requested. --Merbabu (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Too bloody right mate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - nice apology: (1) apologise for any offence caused, (2) say it's actually the other party who is overly sensitive and then (3) continue with the actions he just "apologised" for. lol perhaps he's going to tell us that's how Canadians apologise. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud! Is whinging a national sport in Australia? I'm not giving primacy to Bob Brown's gayness, I am primarily concerned with the fact he has a very common NAME but might not be the most well known Bob Brown on this planet! I know a little bit about Australia, but not once I have I heard or read his name (and I know that Amanda Bishop does a pretty good Julia Gillard impersonation.) You people have commented on everything but my central argument, and in my estimation, for good reason, because there is very little other than your parochial self interest (in promoting gay Aussie Green Bob) to support your claim to primary topic. And give me a frigging break ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging a person's sexuality, especially when the person has made a point of advertising it politically. What is wrong is when you discriminate based on the same. Its called the real world. And I'd differentiate between FDR and TR quite simply ... their darn names are different!!! Unlike gay Aussie Green Bob and his many identically named wiki entries. Geez Louise. I need to watch some hockey.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One last time - you've not offended anyone, and you may or may not have a point about the disambig. Rather, it's just your attitude. Whether you are aware of it or not is no longer relevant. --Merbabu (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So wikipedia is all about attitude? God forfend that facts, argument and logic gets in the way. No wonder so few people take it seriously. (But don't get me wrong ... I love it!)70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) But you are definitely being disingenuous when you say "there is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging a person's sexuality". You have gone WAY past merely acknowledging he's gay, and into the territory of pointedly making it the first word of your tiresome slogan "gay Aussie Green Bob", which you still continue to trot out despite being told what's wrong with that. And as for Brown making his sexuality a political issue: he has done so in relation specifically to matters of gay law reform. When he went to the hustings during election campaigns, he did not say "Vote 1 for the gay Bob Brown". You have made FAR more of a point about his sexuality than he himself has ever done. That tells us, as if we needed any more proof, that you are the one with the issue about gayness. Just acknowledge the truth and move on. Or move away from here. Either will do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

People, seriously. Don't feed the trolls. Frickeg (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article should not be moved

Bob Brown Greens leader is the primary noteability of Bob Brown compared to Bob Brown ALP MP. Therefore the article should not be disambiguated. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. This was the starting point of the immediate previous thread up above. The matter should at least have been discussed here. What Do we do with those North Americans who think they know all there is to know about Australian politics? HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about the thread immediately above! I made some good points, didn't I :) Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, it would have been helpful if, before making the move, I had consulted the lengthy discussion above, from June 2012, rather than simply glancing at the Talk:Bob Brown (disambiguation) page, which has (as of this writing) no comments. North Americans had their own discussion of a somewhat similar nature, although quite a bit shorter, regarding the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC positioning of a currently-serving political figure who also bears a commonly-used name, Paul Ryan, at Talk:Paul Ryan/Archive 1#Requested move. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Bob Brown → Bob Brown (Australian Greens politician) – Disambiguation per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no primary topic (and this Austrailian politician is certainly not the primary topic) therefore this term should be the title of a disambiguation page. Addition of parenthetical qualifier will enable subject's proper disambiguation from fellow political figure, Bob Brown (Australian Labor politician). Yarkees (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per established consensus in the two sections above. Is true that since he left the Senate in 2012 the article page views dropped from 5-7,000 per month, to currently ca.3,300 per month, but that also proves that only about half the views were due to current events, the rest being his environmental legacy (both as activist and politician). All the other articles have less than 1K views, many of them even less than 100 views per month. The Labor politician has only ca.230 views per month. Furthermore the other articles are mostly sports people, where the number of views is likely to decrease as they finish their active sport careers. We can't predict the future, but currently I see no reason to move this article.--ELEKHH^T 23:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looking at the disambiguation page, I see no one who even comes close to this Bob Brown, whose significance, both locally and internationally, is substantial. The Labor politician is by comparison quite a minor figure. This has been extensively hashed out above, and I see no additional arguments presented. Frickeg (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is by far the primary topic here. Elekhh and Frickeg point out why having this discussion once again is a waste of time, and I am completely unsurprised to see that the nominator lives in Montana. One of these men is one of the most high-profile Australian politicians of the last thirty years, and you'd be lucky if the majority of the people in his former electorate knew who the other one was. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Here is an opportunity for a Wikipedian to learn something. This Bob Brown IS the primary topic. A little research makes it clear why. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This Bob Brown IS the primary topic. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per "I am completely unsurprised to see that the nominator lives in Montana" ... exactly, this Bob Brown is only WP:PRIMARYAUSTRALIAN, but worldwide and in the course of human history (and Google Book references) this Bob Brown is not more notable than all other Bob Browns added together. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Google Bob Brown and tell me what you get. Timeshift (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Google tends to WP:RECENT, Google Books is more relevant to en.wp, about 15-20% of results refer to this Bob Brown. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet he hasn't been a parliamentarian for two years now... so much for WP:RECENT. And what percentage does the next Bob Brown get on google books? Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9, why are you asking what percentage the next Bob Brown gets? How is that relevant to whether a primary topic exists? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Bob Brown is the primary topic. This has been discussed to death in multiple sections above. Enjoy your futile attempt at convincing otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it seems that several of the participants in this RM don't understand how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works. We aren't here to pick the "top" Bob Brown. It isn't enough to say "Because Bob Brown (gets 15-20% of GBook hits therefore) he is the primary topic", the burden of evidence is to prove that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists at all. On the basis of 15-20% of Google Books results for the strings "Bob Brown was" or "Bob Brown is" or "by Bob Brown" etc. there's no case here for making one Bob Brown sit at the dab baseline. If we did a US-editor poll perhaps the football Bob Brown, or even "Bob Brown" Nixon would be WP:PRIMARYAMERICAN, but that's not how it works. If we are looking at books we'd want to prove that one Bob Brown is over 50% (preferably 66%) of all WP:RS. It seems that no such Bob Brown exists. Given that why should an exception to normal WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tests be made for this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

These are nonsensical searches if one is trying to make the case you're trying to, since it's not the sort of language English speakers would commonly use writing about a politician in a book. If we're looking at Google Books, the top two and four of the top ten hits refer to Brown (and another one of those isn't a reference to a Bob Brown at all). He appears far more commonly in any results, Google Books or otherwise, worldwide or otherwise, than any of the alternatives. No matter what criteria you come up with, Bob Brown is the primary topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means please demonstrate it, as with any other proposal to make one bio the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you believe that "Bob Brown is" "Bob Brown was" "by Bob Brown" are "not the sort of language English speakers would commonly use writing about a politician in a book" (?) then by all means please construct a search which shows "Bob Brown" getting more than 50% of Google Book results and proving that this Bob Brown is the global WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I am ready to be convinced. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing a few things and perhaps should read more carefully WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note that primary topic is defined by the likelihood "to be the topic sought", not the amount of information available on the web about a topic. Note also that Bob Brown (disambiguation) gets less than 5% as many views as Bob Brown gets. Many of those would be arriving there from other pages, such as those of the numerous sportspeople. So by all likelihood ca.98% of readers that access this page do so because are interested in this article. Seems pretty obvious to me that moving this article would cause more harm than good. --ELEKHH^T 12:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You'd agree with me then that to be a Primary Topic this Bob Brown has to be more notable/sought than all other Bob Browns combined, more than 50% yes?

It is difficult to see how someone looking for Bob Brown (Australian Greens politician) could be put off by (Australian Greens politician) and deliberately click on Bob Brown. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic." One aspect is what you mention above. Another aspect is long term significance, as also argued by many editors above. "consensus determines [...] the primary topic".

The difference is when typing Bob Brown in the search box, which currently leads directly to this article, but in the second case lead to the dab page, and requires the readers to identify the "(Australian Greens politician)" within a list and click on it. --ELEKHH^T 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Query whole process - since when does a 4 edit editor with a red (ie nothing on it) talk page link have the capacity to engender such a conversation without being questioned or challenged? Surely the question should be - how do you get to this place and suggestion like this with 3 apparent previous edits in as many years? satusuro 14:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given him a formal welcome, with a lot of pointers to policy. That should help. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

you have to be gullible or kidding - this page has more evidence of socks than a clothing shop cheap socks bin satusuro 08:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikipedia's requirement that we always assume good faith is at times a quite ridiculous and artificial demand, I do try sometimes to pretend. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly the primary topic as he is someone who has been regularly in the news for three decades, has led what is now the third party in Australia from humble origins, and is separately to the above a significant activist not just in Australia but worldwide. No other Bob Brown matches that level of secondary source coverage (including a book about him!). Orderinchaos 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Orderinchaos, above. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bob Brown/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks references in particular. Somebody should read the published biography.--Grahamec 06:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bob Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124062941/http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_what/wcpa_awards/wcpa_packard/wcpa_packardalpha/ to http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_what/wcpa_awards/wcpa_packard/wcpa_packardalpha
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723104807/http://www.global500.org/ViewLaureate.asp?ID=704 to http://www.global500.org/ViewLaureate.asp?ID=704
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123030207/http://goldmanprize.org/node/85 to http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/85
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020003438/http://www.iheu.org/australian-humanist-year-2010-bob-brown-political-activist to http://www.iheu.org/australian-humanist-year-2010-bob-brown-political-activist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

---

• Bob Brown → Bob Brown (Australian Greens politician)
• Bob Brown (disambiguation) → Bob Brown

– Retired political figure [the reason for the proposed extended qualifier is the presence of Bob Brown (Australian Labor politician)]. Even politicians who still hold office and were once WP:PRIMARYTOPICS may no longer be considered as primary [e.g. Scott Walker moved to Scott Walker (politician)]. There are 22 Bob Browns listed at the Bob Brown (disambiguation) page, to say nothing of the 17 Bobby Browns at Bobby Brown (disambiguation), 5 Rob Browns at Rob Brown (disambiguation) and 68 Robert Browns at Robert Brown (disambiguation). The most recent nomination discussion here was over two-and-a-half years ago and the subject should be re-evaluated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Google News results do tend to throw up this person but that may be WP:RECENT, can you provide us with any page view stats? Zarcadia (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm seeing around 90-100 hits per day for this article, and around 8 per day for the Australian Labor politician. If there is some other use of "Bob Brown" that has a significant number of hits I'll reconsider, but I'm certainly not seeing an argument to move in this proposal. --В²C ☎ 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my earlier arguments and 2014 consensus. No significant change since: he's still active environmental activist and his page has a very large number of views. --ELEKHH^T 00:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly the primary topic, still an extremely prominent figure. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nomination seems to be missing a part - it says that some politicians, once retired, may cease to be the primary topic, but provides no argument that that applies here. There is also no suggestion that there is even a token argument for any of the other Bob Browns being the primary topic, which would kind of be the minimum threshold; from my admittedly cursory glance, none of them would seem to come close. The other Australian politician, ironically, is probably the closest, but while not an entirely obscure figure he clearly is entirely eclipsed by this one. Frickeg (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2017

The construction of the (Saint) Bob Brown mythology continues! He was not a foundation of the world´s first Green Party in the world (the United Tasmania Group - UTG, which began in 1972). He became involved three years after UTG was formed. He was not the first Director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society (he was the third). Norm Sanders was the first Green member elected to parliament (in Tasmania). Bob Brown has always been seen himself as charismatic leader, and while he helped to achieve many things he was as much as anything the protected product of an ´inner elite´ (which I covered in my sociology Honours thesis). Also, the Franklin River campaign was never the primary stimulus for the formation of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. I can confirm all of these statement as former State Secretary of the United Tasmania Group and as Assistant Director when the Tasmanian Wilderness Society was first formed (Kevin Kiernan was the Director). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmiento2015 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We need published sources for this stuff. The article doesn't claim he was the first director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, nor does it say the Franklin River campaign was the primary stimulus for the society. Sanders may have been small-g green, but he was a Democrat. Your word, unfortunately, is not a reliable source. Frickeg (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bob Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629153238/http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/greens/07-05-10_bob-brown-biography.pdf to http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/greens/07-05-10_bob-brown-biography.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604214734/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~prsa/history/tascava.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~prsa/history/tascava.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129013824/http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=2190 to http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=2190
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129013820/http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=1831 to http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=1831
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313111933/http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/forestry-tasmania%E2%80%99s-bill-will-be-paid-time-says-brown to http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/forestry-tasmania%E2%80%99s-bill-will-be-paid-time-says-brown
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501072443/http://www.spaceshipnews.com.au/photos-concert-for-the-kimberly-at-fremantle-esplanade/ to http://www.spaceshipnews.com.au/photos-concert-for-the-kimberly-at-fremantle-esplanade/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324000513/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/bob-brown-gives-away-his-house.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/bob-brown-gives-away-his-house.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629153238/http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/greens/07-05-10_bob-brown-biography.pdf to http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/greens/07-05-10_bob-brown-biography.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219023257/http://poa.org.au/admin/?q=node%2F11 to http://poa.org.au/admin/?q=node%2F11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527150618/http://greens.org.au/content/what-did-bob-brown-really-say-about-floods to http://greens.org.au/content/what-did-bob-brown-really-say-about-floods

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Resigns" as Greens leader

The word "Resigns" as the Greens leader appears to be a rude gesture at his resignation - rather than say "Resigned" as the Greens leader as a fact of the past, just wondering why we are using that present active tense 132.234.228.133 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything rude in that wording, but I do see clumsiness. I have changed it. Thanks for raising this here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First openly gay leader of an Australian political party

@The Drover's Wife: The statement in the lead that Brown was the first openly gay leader of an Australian political party is unsourced. While a quick google search shows many sources do actually say that in passing, this one attributes the title to Brian Greig, explicitly stating that although Bob Brown preceded him, "the Greens do not have the required five elected members to let Bob Brown" take the title: [2]. I'm not familiar with how many elected members a party needs to have a formal leader or how that technicality works, I'm just pointing out what the source says. Also apologies; Brown was the first openly gay senator. I conflated my sources on Grieg, who was the first openly gay politician and the first senator to campaign for LGBT rights. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Greig isn't the first openly gay politician (not sure that it's Brown off the top of my head, but it would've been while Greig was still in high school) and the claim that he was the first senator to campaign for LGBT rights is almost certainly wrong too (I find it hard to believe Brown never "campaigned" prior to 1999, especially with Tasmania a flashpoint for much of the '90s). The Star Observer article is basically wrong; although there are funding rules triggered by having a certain number of MPs, that doesn't mean smaller parties don't have leaders. No one would have, for example, argued that Lyn Allison was never leader of the Democrats because the party had hit the skids by the time she took over the leadership.

Greig might be the first party leader by virtue of the fact that the issue of whether the Greens had a formal leader prior to 2005 (when the Greens established more clearly a federal party) is a bit murky. I don't actually know if he was considered, formally, leader of the Greens in the 90s, prior to state parties like WA entering the Australian Greens fold. It's a question that needs thoroughly resolving anyway, because the lead section's claim that he led the AG from his election is very possibly wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing all that out; I wouldn't be surprised if the sources on the matter did indeed get somethign wrong. To clarify, the source used at Greig's article states his maiden senator speech was the first time a federal politician had spoken so strongly in favour of LGBT rights, but I guess what constitutes 'strong' campaigning is subjective. Anyway I'm happy for this article to stay as is at present as it all seems a bit grey, but yes, its probably something the regular editors of this page need to sort out. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: - for the record, AuQA just answered that question about the first out politician. It was Ralph McLean in 1982. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)