Talk:Kerry Nettle

discussion of the article

Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot reportedly told Nettle to "Fuck off and die."

I was curious, and Googled for any sort of reference of this, but couldn't find one. Can someone provide one, please? Otherwise this sentence may not be truthful. Dysprosia 10:17, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's strange, but with a bit of googling, I suspect we're just the only ones being as blunt. People seem to be in agreement that he told her to die, and this would seem to imply that Adam's quote is correct. Ambi 10:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good good. I'm glad we have a reference. Thanks for finding it! Dysprosia 10:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fit this in with the article but I knew Kerry during our time in national student politics, when she was known as "Knitting Nettle", due to her habit of taking her knitting along to meetings. There we'd be discussing a National Day of Action, and there she'd be, sitting in the corner knitting. She was also known for losing every student election she stood for (where there was another candidate). Generally speaking, even her best friends entrusted her with nothing more than making the tea. Of course, she's now a senator while I'm a lowly journalist, so there's probably some moral to that story. --Roisterer 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making tea properly is a very challenging task, which I would only entrust to a responsible comrade. Adam 01:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Roisterer, I don't think the comments add anything to the article. I knew Kerry when involved in local Greens politics back in the late 1990s. She was certainly very active back then. Wasn't quiet at all. Dankru 12:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I know many student pollies (and regular pollies) who knit, often in the middle of meetings. It reflects more on their feelings about meetings (quite justifiably) then any reflection on their capacity. Ben Raue (Talk) 13:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Radical left wing

This label is POV, not helpful and misleading.

For example, some polls show that 70% of Australians opposse the privatisation of Telstra [1] and there is other data that shows that government ownership of certain services is widely desired by the Australian community [2] --Wm 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Misleading how? I somewhat doubt that Nettle herself would dispute that label, and as someone who would vote for her if I was in her state, I certainly wouldn't. Ambi 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Misleading because the word "radical" suggests an extremist position. In reality, as my references suggests, privatisation of certain government services is oppossed by a sizable proportion of the population, not an "radical" minority. Also misleading because the article was suggesting a "far left" position without placing it in context or exploring to what extent the over all balance of Australian politics has shifted to the right. Whether or not, Nettle you or I, regard a position as "left" is not necessarily a very precise or helpful classification and distracts from the facts of her views which are otherwise clearly stated. Misleading also because a lot of views held by some members of "the left" are also held by some members of "the right" and many of those institutions were nutured and supported through the two score odd years of Menzies "conservative" government. The problem is that the term is not precise and there is no indisputable way of providing a measurement as to what extent a certain view is "left". Certainly it may be appropriate to explore those concept of left and right but the use here is too neat by far. I am happy to use these terms in informal converstaion but I often find attempts to formally classify in a encyclopedic way problematic and unconvincing --Wm 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi and have reverted you. PMA 03:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please supply refererences to support your view that Nettle is a "left wing radical" and "probably the most left-wing member of the Australian Parliament". Please explain precisely on what basis you make this claim. "Left wing" is a pejorative label in the eyes of many and largely meaningless. Unless there is some reference that indicates why this label is so important it should be removed --Wm 09:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Why is this a pejorative label? As a Greens voter myself, I've never met a Greens voter who would disagree with the label of Nettle as particularly left-wing; there's certainly no one else to the left of her in Parliament, and this is why people vote for her. Ambi 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends of the opinion of the reader. To me the sub-text of the articler reads: "Nettle is a left wing looney". You have still not supplied any references or specific policy reasons to label her as left wing. I do not disagree that some policies may be traditionally regarded as being toward the left of the political spectrum but this is a much less dogmatic statement than that which which was originally in the article. Equally, on the other hand, taking privatisation of Telstra, the National Party has alos offered some resistance. Are they then also left wing? The Greens have oppossed the government of refugee policy - so has Malcolm Fraser, so has John Valder, both elders of the Liberal Party - are these men also "left wing"? What I am objecting to is the absolutism of the original wording and the truths that the simplistic statements hide. As I have already indicated, I believe the term is imprecise. It is much more useful to say "Nettle opposes the policy of locking up of refugee children" than to say "Nettle is left wing". One is indisputable fact, the other is POV, very relative, imprecise, very open to interpretation, and hides a lot of detail. If we are going to include such a label is should be put in much more relative terms and a much more complete discussion is necessary. The term "radical" seems particularly misleading. --Wm 13:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

page protection

Why is this page protected? Wm made one edit, which was reverted. The edit is being discussed on the talkpage. As an ignorant but opinionated non-admin type, I don't think you should be protecting a page on the off-chance that an edit war may erupt. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The lock is not in compliance with any of the valid reasons listed at Wikipedia:Protection_policy and contravenes the guideline given there that Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved ... or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). The reason given for the lock is based on an opinion about the claims made in the edit. It is an abuse of admin power and should be removed. --Wm 09:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, procedure states that protected pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Protected_page with the reason, but this procedure has not been followed. --Wm 10:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

---

WM if someone was described in an article as a right-wing conservative politician would you remove it? Looking at your edits suggests you have not. Describing Nettle as a left-wing radical is perfectly acccurate - most would consider the Greens to be distinctly left-wing and Nettle to be on the far end of that scale. Yes, i expressed an opinion but it was after Ambi has already challenged you about it. PMA 11:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You revereted my edit without any reference whatsoever to the reasons I had put forward and locked the page in a manner totally against the principles of Wikipedia. Now you continue to assert that the characterisation of Nettle as a left wing radical is true but still have made no effort whatsoever to provide a source for this opinion (which is what it is) or orferred any reasoning to support the claim. I repeat the question: on what basis do you claim that Nettle is a "left wing radical"? As you have entered the debate about the veracity of the content of the page you forfeit the role of arbiter as an admin. Your lock of this page is an abuse of admin privs. --Wm 13:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What I'm disputing is that this is pejorative at all. When did being radically left-wing become a nasty tag? Ambi 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be seen as a nasty tag, because of the implication that the person advocates brutal policies. David.Monniaux 13:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see the connection; what makes you link being radical in ideas and being brutal in actions? Ambi 14:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Radical

I know nothing about this Australian politician, but this article has been brought to my attention because of protection. To me, the word "radical" implies extremism and the proposition of drastic, even brutal, changes. So I'm curious: does this politician advocate a revolution? Does she want to nationalize private industry without compensation? Etc. David.Monniaux 12:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't say for sure, but I don't think she's that far left. Maybe radical is too strong, but I still maintain that it's not a label she'd disagree with, as it's the reason a large amount of her constituents like her. Ambi 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that Nettle proposes nationalisation of previoulsy private industries, but for the most, merely supports the status quo in terms of continued governmnent ownership of some infrastructure that has been traditionally government owned in Australia. To characterise this support of the status quo as "radical" is misleading. Government has traditionally had significant ownership of banks, transport, telecommunications in Australia. --Wm 13:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You've quoted a lot of issues where there is broad agreement among the Australian left, such as locking up refugees. The left, however, ranges from those that are happy with small adjustments to the present system, to those that are uncompromising in their pursuit of social justice on the other extreme. Nettle - at least on every issue I've ever seen her - generally falls into the latter category. You keep casting this as an issue of NPOV, but it really is more one of accuracy: being left-wing and being a radical is not necessarily a bad thing, and to remove any mention of her radicalism makes her policy stance indistinguishable from the Socialist Left faction of the ALP for the uninitiated; something which is just plain factually wrong. Ambi 14:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Does she want to nationalize private industry without compensation?" What if the infrastructure was paid for in the first place by taxpayers? or if the industry has been heavily subsidised by taxpayers for decades?

This sentence, whilst i'm not arguing the words are false, makes some bold statements and requires citations: Nettle is a social radical[citation needed] as well as an environmentalist. She believes in Government ownership of essential services, which include banking, airlines, telecommunications, health and education,[citation needed] and other areas privatised in the last two decades in Australia. She argues that private ownership of these assets is "social theft."[citation needed] Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialism implies many things.. I fear PMA is too quick to label Nettle without adequete reliable sources, and when sources are used they do not back up what is being said. Timeshift (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kerry Nettle. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/assets/200_Senator_Kerry_Nettle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829231148/http://kerrynettle.org.au/500_parliament_sub.php?deptItemID=11 to http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/500_parliament_sub.php?deptItemID=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619000146/http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?deptItemID=46 to http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?deptItemID=46
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830070213/http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?&deptItemID=31 to http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?&deptItemID=31
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719045123/http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/100_home.php to http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/100_home.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)