User talk:PolarEclipse

June 2017

Regarding your edits on Nicola Blackwood: I strongly suggest that you raise any concerns you have on the article's Talk page. What you're doing has the appearance tendentious editing, and it's generally not an effective strategy. The sentence you keep removing says that Blackwood was the subject of student protests. The article cited says that she was the subject of student protests. I think that The Oxford Student can be considered a reliable source for the statements of Oxford students.

This statement doesn't assert anything about Ms. Blackwood's actual position; it only asserts that some student activists protested her reported position. If Nicola Blackwood has clarified, altered, or shifted her position on this issue--or if the report was inaccurate--there's a simple solution. Find a source that says so. Then add a sentence to the article to the effect that "Blackwood has since declined support from Vote-OK, as she opposes repealing the ban" . . . and provide your citation. This is much more likely to be accepted than simply removing the information that you dislike.

Alternatively, if you raise the issue on the article's Talk page, and the consensus is that this information should be removed, then absolutely nobody will object to your removing it.

NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm going to hold off on making any further changes to this page, because I don't want to fall foul of the three-revert rule. I leave it up to you to decide whether you want to violate that rule. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The OuStu article talks of Blackwood's "...apparent support...". You then extrapolate this to "...her support of fox-hunting......and her wish to have the ban on fox-hunting repealed." To say that the statement does not assert anything about Ms Blackwood's "actual" position is disingenuous to say the least. It absolutely does create that strong implication. Not even the OuStu article suggests that Blackwood wishes to have the fox-hunting ban repealed, only that she would have been ok with a free vote in 2015, rehashing very old news. The OuStu article suggests that Blackwood is receiving Vote-OK support in 2017, which is factually completely incorrect. Blackwood has declined support from Vote-OK in the current campaign. FACT IS that Blackwood does not support fox-hunting. So it is really your choice whether to try and stretch an inaccurate report from a student mag and try to present unjustified extrapolation as fact, making affirmations by extension or to present the truth.