Talk:Nicola Blackwood

Inclusion of criticism section / info about Evan Harris

Blackwood has been criticised for not attending student hustings during the election campaign - see the source here http://www.oxfordstudent.com/?x=news&z=387 Do people feel this should be included? As the first major criticism she has received, I would say that it should be.

Also, I don't think the information about Evan Harris reads particularly well at the moment (in my opinion it belongs in the Evan Harris article), and to point those particular issues out and imply that that is why Blackwood defeated Harris is speculation. What are people's thoughts? Victor Greenstreet (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur completely - not attending hustings is highly relevant (although I would not object to some info as to why from her or her supporters) and the info about why the seat was won (tiny majority BTW) is total conjecture "I think this, so everyone else must"... much more likely that it was a marginal seat so tory supporters strongly wanted to take it than that people really think his positions are beyond the pale - I'm pretty certain many in the constituency wouldn't even know what his positions on these issues were, as they are rarely an issue in parliament in the UK. I also don't like the implication that the secular society is some sort of nutters group in here... again, it is conjecture and off the point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.212.87 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph is irrelevant and portrays Evan Harris needlessly in a negative light, especially since his views are not compared to Nicola's. The Christian Concern For Our Nation weren't the only people celebrating Nicola's success and since it seems to have no links to Nicola, there is no need to mention it here. 192.76.7.243 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph is utterly pointless. Why exactly are we mentioning a fringe group that 'celebrated' Ms Blackwood's victory, when she is not a member? It is prejudicial, as well as being false. In fact the group did NOT celebrate Ms Blackwood's victory, they barely mentioned her at all in their several articles online, in fact they 'celebrated' the defeat of Evan Harris. How about we mention all the other groups that actually DID celebrate Ms Blackwood winning: local groups concerned about the Northern gateway, seniors homes, and people afraid of losing the NHS? You can find articles from all of them praising Ms Blackwood for her victory with a 10 second google search. Instead, all that is mentioned is one fringe group, of which Ms Blackwood is NOT a member, which barely mentioned her victory at all. If you wish to mention how Nicola missed one or two Hustings, I assume the same editors will also mention all the Husting Evan harris missed, of all the ones he showed up for 2 hours late? hey here is an idea, lets try and stick to actual facts and stop trying to refight the election campaign. When I read a Wiki article on Evan harris, I expect it to be written by Harris supporters, thats the nature of the beast. When I read an article about Nicola Blackwood, I DONT expect it also to have been written by Evan harris supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a travesty of a biography. Firstly, shall I go onto the Wiki bio of John McCain and point out in detail that his run for the presidency of the US was 'celebrated' by the Ku Klux Klan? (Which it was) So the editors, who obviously think very little of Ms Blackwood and a great deal of her defeated opponent, chose to highlight the 'celebration' of her win by a fringe group with which she has no links, and neglected to mention a single other detail about the election results. Sorry, I'm rewriting this to try and eliminate the attempted slander, and include some actual facts. 152.152.95.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

And now, it seems, there is a revision war going on. Firstly, why do people feel the need to talk at such length about Harris in a bio for Nicola Blackwood? Secondly, why do they feel the need to present unevidenced excuses given by harris as fact, or indeed, mention them at all? The campaign was cordial and friendly, until animal rights activists, who have NOTHING to do with Nicola, released a few leaflets before the election. Given that this is a biography of Ms Blackwood, can we please stop trying to add things irrelevant to her, especially if they are trying to make exuses for Harris' defeat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the sources report that. The newspapers don't just say 'Blackwood defeated Harris', they say 'Blackwood defeated Harris after a bitter campaign against him'. It's not irrelevant - Harris' defeat is the only reason Blackwood even has a Wikipedia entry. So sources discussing her victory should be included. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'sources' also say every one of the facts I have stated and you keep trying to delete: the difference being those facts are about Blackwood herself, not about her opponents. Yes, sources discussing her victory should be included, like the three sources you keep deleting that discuss her in a neutral light and present facts and figures, not just the one local source you cling to which, once you reinterpret what it says, tries to cast dispersions on her victory. If you want to make excuses for Harris' defeat, then go edit Harris' entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is hopelessly biased. You wish to say that it was a surprising victory, you insert your own, uncited POV, 'considering the seat was not considered marginal or in contention', and yet you refuse to quote any of the sources discussing the circumstances around her suprising victory. Sumbuddi (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It was a surprising victory, in every single one of the lists of seats in contention, OW/A was never even on the list, the BBC declared it a shocking victory, which i QUOTED in my edit. Did you not even bother reading it before you deleted it? My comments are factual and topical, and actually relevant to the entry, unlike yours. Circumstances surrounding the victory? I'll happily discuss them, what I will not do is blandly accept harris' excuses, in which he directly contradicts himself, after the fact for how he wants to spin his loss. There is NO evidence at all that the animal rights leaflet had anything to do with the loss, and since harris himself at the time said it could 'only help him', thats hardly a good reason. I'm sorry, but if you want to see 'hopelessly biases', then examine your own text: you give ONE reason only, NO evidence for it except Harris' self-contradicting excuses. Thats not even close to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point. If you wish to assert that the victory was surprising, you must be willing to concede that there should be discussion of *why* the surprise happened. Your opinion on that is irrelevant - the sources are what should be used, and they document the controversial campaign. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, YOU missed the point. I'm not 'asserting' the result was surprising, I evidenced this unquestionable fact. Should there be a discussion as to why the surprise happened? Sure, but that 'discussion' is not your obviously POV repition of Harris' excuses without actually referencing or mentioning anything else. You have no interest in 'discussion', you just want to repeat the LibDem excuses for his loss, without any actual analysis or examination of the debate at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.252.108 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, seriously Sumbuddi, what is your problem? Do you honestly believe you hold the divince scepter of unimpeachable opinion here? Your edits are CLEARLY biased and contain misleading and irrelevant information. No matter how many times it is edited out or reviewed, and no matter what format that takes or how well evidenced it is, you do nothing but revert instantly back to your own POV claims. Please KNOCK IT OFF. If you want to try and make excuses for Harris, then go vandalize HIS page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do as much as you do. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you do not. What YOU do is insert irrelevancies about issues that have NOTHING to do with blackwood and repeat the completely unevidenced excuses of Harris as to why he lost. That is ALL you do. I have written unbiased, factual and evidenced, NON-POV entries which are actually ABOUT Miss Blackwood. Your repeated and stubborn efforts to vandalize the page with your flagrantly biased pro-Harris assertions are as tiresome as they are obvious. Please KNOCK IT OFF. Why are you even pretending to be ubiased here? Do you not realize people can actually read your version, and mine, and see how clear your POV vandalism is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, since all you do is just revert any changes or comments made to your personal version, since you refuse to even consider compromise or efforts to reduce your obvious POV, since you have instantly rejected without comment or consideration every single one of my attempts at compromise, I have put this artuicle forward for 'third opinion' moderation according to the rules of Wiki. It is clear that this is the only way to prevent your persistant biased vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any attempt at compromise, you've just reverted the detail about how Blackwood won, which was extensively covered in the media and was one of the highest profile campaigns (mostly in retrospect). The only change you've subsequently made is to add a vacuous pledge about traffic. Sumbuddi (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you are blind as well as biased and unreasonable. Did you even bother reading what had been written before your instant knee-jerk reversions? I have NOT done anything like what you suggest my friend, I have in fact written a far more ACCURATE, sourced and non-POV version of events, not insisting on referencing irrelevancies, nor repeating unsources excuses delivered by harris for his defeat as if they were fact. Why cant you understand this? You claims have NOTHING to do with why Blackwood won, all they are is a repitition of Harris' unevidenced and unfounded excuses for why he lost, excuses (by the way) which DIRCTLY contradict Harris' assertions only a few days earlier. I have attempted to include actual discussion of why she won, and you just instantly revert it to your POV vandalism. You are a hypocrite of the highest calibre. Are you so blind you cannot see this? And by the way, thank you for proving your bias against Blackwood. Vacuous pledge? So you are now the arbiter of the validity of her actions? This is Wikipedia, not 'Sumbuddi's personal blog' my sad little friend. Her pledge was reported in a dozen news sources and was the first of her post-election promises, and is certainly worth reporting. You may think it is vacuous, but if you want to know what that word really means, just look in the mirror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you have also contributed to Evan Harris' entry by questioning his credentials as 'Doctor' Harris, as you put it, it is quite apparent that you have a strong bias on this issue, and I would strongly suggest you steer clear of both articles, as it seems to be getting to you, judging from your rude and intemperate comments. I have nothing more to add - the newspapers reported the 'surprise' victory and these sources are there to be used. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So now you are an outright liar? I NEVER edited the Harris article, I posted a question in the 'discussion', and a valid one at that. How DARE you accuse anyone ELSE of bias? You are so impressed with your own apparent divine infallability you wont even consider compromise whatsoever, nor admit the obvious truth that your version is HOPLESSLY biased against Blackwood. I pray that you are telling the truth and that you have 'nothing more to add', as everything you have added so far has been biased crap. Yes the newspapers supported the surprise victory, I never questioned that. I questioned you presenting Harris' unfounded excuses AND ONLY HIS EXCUSES as your reasons for the 'surprise'. If you consider my comments have become rude, perhaps it is because of your own arrogant, presumptuous and childish behaviour, to which only rudeness is merited. Christ kid, in my most recent edit, I even left in most of your assertions, and just mopped up for accuracy, and STILl you reverted back to the SAME version you have been peddling, unchanging, uncompromising, for weeks. Step back and have a look at your actions, and see who should 'steer clear of both articles' why dont you.

Personal attack warning to both editors (152.152.95.1 and Sumbuddi): Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community, deter users, and violate Wikipedia policy. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you can't come to consensus or compromise, then move forward to get other editors involved in the dispute through an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution, but remain polite and civil. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. I have posted half a dozen different compromises, each time accepting more and more of Sumbuddi's blatantly biased POV edits, and each time he blindly reverts back to the exact same unsubstantiated, biased drivel he has been pushing for weeks now. So please tell me, how does one deal with someone who posts obviously biased claims and utterly refuses to compromise on anything? Someone who contradicts his own aruments? Someone who was WARNED not to revert to his old post anymore, and continues to do it again and again and again? What does one do when one runs into Sumbuddi as obtuse as that?

What part of 'no personal atacks' did you not understand? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of blatantly biased, uncompromising and rude people like you didnt you understand? Fine, you want to discuss the issues? Firstly, You are obviously in flagrant violation of not only the three-reversion rule (as you have conducted at least 12 rweversions to the same text so far), but also in flagrant violation of the warning issued by the third party. You have utterly refused any effort to compromise whatsoever, and have instantly reverted, without even TRYING to justify your absurdity, any changes made, NO MATTER HOW MANY DIFFERENT COMPROMISES you are offered. So please kid, justify yourself. I dare you. YOU are the one who whined about the need for posting reasons for Blackwood's victory (Even though you do not offer reasons, only unevidenced excuses by harris). yet when I also offer reasons, and sources confirming them, you revert instantly with no comment to the same biased crap you have been pushing for weeks. Why delete supported and evidenced FACTS that the boundary changes made almost no difference? Do you think anybody is fooled? You are obviously and plainly biased, in flagrant violation of the rules, utterly refusing to compriomise, and now are an abject liar (not an insult, a fact: you lied above and got caught doing it). So I'm asking others for genuine advice here. What IS one supposed to do when they run into sumbuddi who is so obviously violating the rules and policies of Wiki, sumbuddi who so obviously has no interest in the truth or the facts, just in peddling their own unsubstantiated POV? What does one do when confronted with sumbuiddi like that?

I notice you have taken to just reverting to your original POV opinion (now in your 13th revision to the same text) without even aknowledging or discussion any of the changes I have made, the unimpeachable sources I have provided or any of my half-dozen efforts to compromise. Apparently you feel that your words are so dibvine that you are not bound by common sense, decency, or the rules of Wiki. Even when warned not to keep reverting, you just keep doing so, again and again, the same POV, biased text every time. Sumbuddi should do something about you, you clearly have no interest in rules, compromise, impartiality or reality. I've reported you to a few authorities based on your shabby bahaviour, but I have no doubt that, no matter, you will just pop in here and perform your 14th 'undo', reverting to the same biased text you always do.

Sumbuddi, considering your refusal to even try and argue your points, and your obvious inability to argue against my changes (calling a FACT verified by a BBC news link 'vandalism' ic childish), why are you even pretending to be neutral? Considering all the time you spend removing anything even REMOTELY negative from Evan harris' page, is it any wonder you are here doing your best to smear the woman who defeated him? You would have to be the king of morons not to see what your agenda is, and why you feel so strongly against Blackwood. The real question is, how long do you think you can get away with your obvious, rule-breaking vandalism?

I am not arguing with you because you have been repeatedly grossly obnoxious towards me. I edited Evan Harris' page to make it MORE negative, and if you are incapable of seeing that there is little point in me discussing this with you because you are clearly in a world of your own. Smears? King of morons? What planet are you inhabiting? Sumbuddi (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Nicola Blackwood and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: First a clarification about the effect of this opinion: One editor said that he/she "put this article forward for 'third opinion' moderation according to the rules of Wiki". Please read the disclaimers section, above. A Third Opinion is just that, an opinion, and is not binding in any way. Indeed, it counts even less than would be the case if the person giving the opinion had just come in and joined the discussion, because a Third Opinion cannot even be considered when trying to figure out whether or not consensus has been reached. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." About the dispute: I presume that this dispute is defined by this diff. I further presume, without checking them, that the sources given for the two contending versions of the paragraph are accurate and reliable. This is actually a very close call in my opinion, so close that I'm not at all sure that whether inclusion of the material set out in the diff can be definitively said to be right or wrong. I definitely believe that the material added by the diff does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:COATRACK, however. (Please remember that in considering POV questions we look only at the material, not at the motivations of the editors offering the material.) With Blackwood's victory being by such a slim margin, the question of whether she won because of pro–Blackwood sentiment or because of anti–Harris sentiment (that is, to say it more creatively, whether Blackwood won or whether Harris lost) is relevant to her and thus to the article since that question may bear on both her mandate to govern and her ability to retain the position in the future. I would have considered the suggestion that she won only because of the anti-Harris campaigns to have been improper original research, in light of the fact that she distanced herself from them, had it not been for, first, the inclusion of Harris' opinion that it was at least an element in his defeat and, second, for the narrowness of her winning margin. My "Brooklyn Bridge" opinion is, therefore, that the material added by the diff ought to be in the article. A warning to both editors: What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you both that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. The three revert rule says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting. I will refrain from reporting this edit war for one — and only one — more revert by each disputant, so that they can implement and/or object to any changes they would like to make after, or which are made after, considering this Third Opinion, but I reserve the right to report the edit war if it continues after that.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion can be resolved...:

Frankly, this whole thing can be resolved by only referring to the 'bitter' campaign as a side note in a fashion similar to this:

Blackwood won Oxford West and Abingdon in the 2010 general election by 176 votes on a 6.9% Liberal Democrat-Conservative swing. The campaign between Blackwood and competing candidates was mostly amicable/cordial throughout, however, critical pamphlets distributed by other candidates late in the election campaign and subsequently disavowed by Blackwood are claimed to have influenced undecided voters sufficiently to swing the vote.

This leads to not only Keith Mann and Reverend Rose being eliminated from this article, but also Harris to the point where he is just a simple reference (since the vote in OXWAB was essentially between Blackwood and Harris - I should know, I live here). You can always add the references to Mann, Rose, and Harris' claims as links to "critical pamphlets" and "are claimed to have". Everyone's happy and goes home for tea. 82.152.217.241 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SPaetow, MCIJ

Why? There was a very tight election result with reliable sources extensively documenting the fact that there were severe attacks on Blackwood's opponent. The wording 'subsequently disavowed by Blackwood' is not a good one, because it implies that she didn't originally disavow them, i.e. that she was connected to them. It makes more sense to describe *who* the minor candidates/activists were and what they said - which is what the article does already. Sumbuddi (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you failed to miss the word "similar" in the text above, I'll be happy to quote it to you again:

Frankly, this whole thing can be resolved by only referring to the 'bitter' campaign as a side note in a fashion similar to this.

The word "similar" implies that the text that follows is not prescriptive, but may be seen as a starting point to use text like it, derived from it, or phrased in a fashion that suits all parties. If the word "subsequently" causes you that much anguish, you can always remove it from the text, and it pretty much still states the same. Nicola Blackwood disavowed the pamphlets, and it doesn't matter what the minor candidates said because their comments are not particularly relevant to her; they are more relevant to Dr Harris, and would likely be more appropriate for his own Wikipedia page, since he particularly pointed out that he blamed them for his defeat.

206.57.127.24 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion and debate appears to have calmed down and I don't see any recent discussion here. I'm going to make an attempt to tidy up this section of the article and find a consensus. The personal attacks on Evan Harris do deserve a mention on this page, as they did contribute to Nicola's election but anything more in depth really belongs on the pages for the parties directly involved, or on a page for this particular election. 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd (talk • contribs)

I agree the attacks merit mention, but the previous edit drew conclusions about their impact, presuming a 'critical' effect, totally unsupported by evidence. In fact we have no idea if the leaflets had any positive or negative effect (Harris claimed at the time that the attack leaflets were helping him get votes, after all). All we CAN say is that harris stated after the fact that they may have played a role in his defeat. That is referenced in the article. Any assertions about the effect they had, 'critical' or not, is entirely POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As this is an article about Blackwood not Keith Mann, Lynda Rose, or things that happened during the election campaign that are unrelated to her. Why Harris lost is an issue for elsewhere. Leaving it in suggests a linkage between Blackwood and the leaflets. I thus propose the removal of all the text from 'In the final weeks...' to '...they played a part in his defeat' in the 'Political career' section.

Rsloch (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The photo in the infobox is very misleading - it makes her look about 12. Does anybody have a suitable image showing her more typical appearance? --Ef80 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

She does have some stuff on Flickr which may be suitable: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolablackwood/sets/ --Ef80 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The current photo is a great improvement. --Ef80 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicola Blackwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100501181923/http://www.oxfordconservatives.com:80/blackwood/ to http://www.oxfordconservatives.com/blackwood/

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fox-hunting

@PolarEclipse:

The sentence you are trying to remove says: "She has also been criticised by student activists for her support of fox-hunting and her wish to have the ban on fox-hunting repealed." The first sentence of the cited article says: "Oxford MP Nicola Blackwood has come under fire from student activists this week for her apparent support of legal fox hunting."

You have provided some assertions about Blackwood's current positions: that she doesn't want the ban repealed, and that she's declined support from Vote-OK. You haven't provided any evidence one way or the other. It should be easy to find; why not just scare up some citations and clarify the wording? Something like this:

"In 2015, student activists criticised Blackwood, alleging that she supported legal fox hunting[citation goes here]. Blackwood does not support a repeal of the fox-hunting ban[citation], and declined support in 2017 from the pro-hunting group Vote-OK[citation]."

If anything, that version is more flattering to her. Simply dropping the sentence doesn't seem constructive. If it is indeed misinformation, a version similar to the above will make it much harder for future editors to justify reinserting it.

Finally, while I have no intention of pursuing a case, violating the three-revert rule is playing with fire around here.

NewEnglandYankee (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this NewEnglandYankee. We are heading the direction of a reasonable discussion. It's Friday evening, traffic jams, family to organise so a bit pressed for time. I will get back to you on this tomorrow morning if that is OK. However for now please just take it from me, Blackwood is really not a supporter of fox hunting, will try to get you a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolarEclipse (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@PolarEclipse:, have you made any progress on this? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Having heard nothing further on the subject, I am going to restore a slightly dialed-back version of the sentence in question, with the original citation. Anyone who can improve matters, please do so. I would counsel against simply blanking this info, though. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

sorry NewEnglandYankee; should have got back to you. I do not have a citation just yet; i did speak to Nicola Blackwood who confirmed that she does **not** support fox hunting and would not vote for a repeal of the ban; has never been hunting, would not. The foxhunting lot do support the Conservatives because they know that it is the only possible avenue to a repeal but in reality a repeal is unlikely to get support in the house in a free vote. Nicola declined support from VoteOK this campaign. In the sense you have a citation which says that she was criticised for allegedly supporting hunting, on the specious grounds that the hunting lot may have campaigned for the Tories in Oxfordshire generally, so technically it is OK for now to leave this until we can get a counter citation however I think we both have to agree that the implication is a bit naughty because the suggestion conflicts with reality. Whilst I have no doubt you will present the objective case for factual, sourced based reporting etc., I think we both know that this is a political move to try to discredit Nicola Blackwood in the eyes of the general public. I need to look for a citation to counter this somewhat disingenuous sentence, which i will do in due course. Other more serious things to do right now. Have a very nice day..... ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolarEclipse (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You may believe that you're helping your case by saying "i did speak to Nicola Blackwood", but the opposite is true. Please read the conflict-of-interest policy. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with the rules of editing - but I am a quick learner. I just believe in trying to tell the truth. So here is a question - if you have a citation, which may be flawed [and you have not independently investigated the veracity], but passes the test of the editing rules, thereby permitting you to post something that can discredit someone, even if it happens not to be true, do you think that is ethical to do so? Particularly when you may have a purpose in discrediting that person unfairly. This is just a hypothetical of course - but do you think ethics plays a part in reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolarEclipse (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not reporting. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which operates on the standard of verifiability. Wikipedia also has established procedures for a lot of things, including challenging the contents of an article based on reliability or on defamatory content.

You assert that "we both know that this is a political move." I know nothing of the sort. What I know is that you have, so far:

* Removed cited information in a way that would be considered edit warring under the three revert rule;

* Asserted that the Oxford Student is not a valid source for the opinions of Oxford's student activists, without providing any grounding for that assertion;

* Belatedly disclosed a blatant conflict of interest, which would by itself cause some administrators to block you;

* Claimed that the information that you so dislike (which has been in the article since 27 April 2015) was not written in good faith, but as some kind of smear campaign;

* Failed to provide any evidence to support your characterization of Blackwood's position.

I am still assuming good faith on your part, based on your willingness to engage on this Talk page. If you truly believe that the fox-hunting sentence is defamatory, you can open a case at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you truly believe that the Oxford Student is not a reliable source in this context, you can open a case at the reliable sources noticeboard. You may find the guide to neutrality disputes a useful resource as well. Be aware that your conduct (and mine!) will be subject to scrutiny. Be aware, also, that it is common on Wikipedia for people to try to remove information on articles about themselves, or about their associates, because they don't like seeing it published--and then claim that the removed information is biased or unreliable. I say this not to accuse you, but to suggest that it is in your own best interest to tread cautiously here.

Of course, the best thing you could do would still be to provide reliable citations to the contrary. The solution to bad information is not no information, but good information. Given your conflict of interest, however, I'd advise you to post links to the sources here and let other editors change the article.

NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This spat seems to have developed in the immediate runup to the 2017 General Election, when NB was defeated in a closely fought contest after Theresa May had controversially supported legalizing foxhunting in her election manifesto. NB is on record as supporting legal foxhunting in the past, as are many Conservative MPs, not because they are bloodthirsty sadists but because they think it is somehow defending 'country people' or 'traditional values'. This is a difficult position to defend in a predominantly urban middle class constituency with a huge anti hunting majority. However, NB probably lost the seat because of an intensively fought and highly targetted Liberal Democrat campaign targeting Brexit remainers, of whom there is no shortage in Oxford West. NB was actually a good constituency MP. --Ef80 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Baroness Blackwood"

Regarding the announced life peerage - I do not believe it has yet been announced or bestowed on Nicola Blackwood. It is pre-emptive to state this will be her title (though I agree it is likely as the title has not previously been used). New Progressive (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)