Talk:Bob Blackman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unwarranted censorship of the Bob Blackman page[edit]

Currently, the Bob Blackman page has been protected by one or more Wikipedia editors, in what appears to be a blatant political act to protect a high profile right wing UK politician who has been accused in the British media of hypocrisy. This level of censorship is both unwarranted and unacceptable. Here below, on 23 December 2012, in response to my edit, is a copy of the response from TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom that tries to justify his or her latest example of censorship of the Bob Blackman page:

Latest revision as of 14:45, 23 December 2012

I have rejected your proposed addition to Bob Blackman (politician). The Mirror is not a sufficiently reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy with regards to claims about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's complete rubbish for TRPoD to claim that in this instance that "The Mirror is not a sufficiently reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy with regards to claims about a living person". Blackman has now had ten days to deny the allegations of hypocrisy made against him in the British media and has chosen not to do so. Further, the very same claim of Blackman's hypocrisy is backed up by the Daily Mail, a right wing newspaper with no love of the Daily Mirror. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that TRPoD likely has a vested interest in protecting the reputation of Bob Blackman. TRPod needs to declare his or her memberships of all political parties. Given the seriousness of the allegations of hypocrisy against Blackman, a career politician with aspirations to high political office, there is currently no justification for trying to protect the reputation of Blackman in this underhand and unwarranted manner123.211.67.135 (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to be exposing hypocrisy. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If you can provide an actual news source and not a tabloid, and have evidence of actual import and not just gossip, it will be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship schmensorship. Please cite more reliable sources--and phrase it more neutrally, please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "an actual news source and not a tabloid"? In the UK, the tabloid format refers merely to the size of the printing papers used, as opposed to broadsheet etc. The Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail are both newspapers. They are both news sources. Unlike in the USA where one has the First Amendment, the laws of defamation in England and Wales are amongst the most pungent in the civilised world. Both the Mirror and the Mail check their facts extensively, albeit not perfectly. Blackman has failed to respond to allegations made in the Mirror and the Mail that between 1989 and 2000 he had a secret, eleven year extramarital affair with a fellow councillor, while currently trumpeting about the sanctity of marriage and proclaiming that marriage is between one man and one woman, in order to justify his opposition to the UK Prime Minister's support for gay marriage. Why are you trying to protect this Tory politician? Are those who have put an edit lock on this page members of the British Conservative Party or a similar or related group? In the interests of transparency, it is my view that you all need to declare this here.123.211.67.135 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and again, your rational appears to be strictly to expose "hypocrisy" - that is not what Wikipedia is here for, and if that is what you want to do, you will need to find somewhere else to do it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On some occasions in the past, the Mirror has printed information that turned out not to be true. This particular information could reflect badly on Blackman, and so I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't publish it unless we are sure that is true. That's why we would like to verify that this is true, by double-checking it in a newspaper that has less often published untrue things. Do any sources from newspapers that are not sensationalist tabloids exist? I can show you a newspaper that verifies that many American presidents have been alien lizard-people, but I haven't added that to Wikipedia yet, because I'm not certain that it's true. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's rationale is neither here nor there. The source cited is a perfectly satisfactory and reliable source - the Mirror is no less a reliable source than (for example) the Times or the Telegraph (or for that matter The Guardian). As the IP editor said above, a tabloid in the UK is simply a newspaper in a format smaller than a broadsheet. All of these papers have made mistakes at one time or another. If the Mirror is not a reliable source, then I'm a banana. And if WP considers the Mirror to not be citeable on this matter, then nor is any other national newspaper. Since quoting the woman in question would be a primary source, and if the woman in question were to edit the article herself that would be considered OR, it seems that RPoD is trying to make it so that this matter cannot be added to the article at all. RPoD is a disgrace, and should stand aside. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MrDemeanour, we're trying to create an encyclopaedia here, the main rule here is to use Reliable sources. The Guardian often corroborates Daily Mirror stories and unlike the Mirror is a UK suggested source. Use that & I'll support any addition you make about any MP, subject to it not being WP:UNDUE. Feel free to use my talk page.JRPG (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UK suggested source is an essay, expressing a point of view, and does not represent WP policy. The list of UK suggested sources therein is prominently disputed on the talk page for the essay, which notes that no sources or evidence are adduced to support that particular list. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings MrDemeanour. I'm well aware of the discussions on the talk page. The fact is we need sources which are encyclopaedic, authoritative and accepted by most well educated people as being wp:npov. This is just about the best list for the UK. You may have noticed from my userpage, I'm a sun hater.
I have to say that as someone reading this and seeking basic information about the MP it does read as being terribly biased against him and written by people who have a deep animosity towards the man. It is not neutral and I think it needs to be re-written to restore neutrality.Aetheling1125 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Pinknews as a source[edit]

I reverted an edit that used Pinknews.com as a source as it was being used to support contentious negative information with specific relevance to the LGBT community. I'm concerned that, due to Blackman's comments regarding same-sex marriage, Pinknews is not a neutral source in this specific instance. Are there any neutral sources meeting reliable sourcing criteria reporting on the allegations? As they are only allegations, should they even be covered at all in the article? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the essence of the reverted content (but using different, neutral, wording) and with four additional sources. The allegations are valid for an article about a politician because they concern the sustainability of that politician's publically stated views and his voting position on certain issues. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sources paid editing and controversy.[edit]

I edit a number of controversial pages and hope to reduce arguments in wp:BLP using only wp:Suggested sources#current news and avoiding wp:undue. Given new rules on Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia I'm monitoring a number of UK politician pages where this has been highlighted as a problem. However, I'm happy to help anyone who believes they have been unfairly treated. JRPG (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of this article as reported by the Telegraph last year[edit]

I have removed the passage. Having discovered this has been become a common revert from the edit history, I offer an explanation, even if I am partly repeating the debate above.

This edit appears to be the one which led to the Telegraph article last year. The main sources, articles in the tabloid Daily Mail and Daily Mirror would not ordinarily be acceptable in isolation, and their deletion would normally be legitimate. (The London Evening Standard source is nothing more than a badly attributed quote.) Any regular Wikipedia editor could have chosen to remove the material. On this basis, it is irrelevant if the edit was made by someone with a conflict of interest, and the inclusion of the Telegraph source referring to this article as subject to an improper practice has got the situation wrong. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, it's good to have an edit reason on this page & I'm sure you expected a response! I have more experience of libel threats than most, have a solicitor's letter to prove it and worked with the Daily Telegraph and their lawyers to help get an article published. FWIW I'm not the slightest bit interested in sex stories per se but I am tired of wp:COI editing and made an effort to highlight it in all the cases reported. I only use wp:Suggested sources but here we have both the Telegraph and the Harrow Times both deemed wp:RS describing the allegations. The Telegraph code of conduct requires a right to reply, I note Blackman didn't deny the claims and the Telegraph wouldn't have intervened if they felt the editing was legitimate. I discussed honourable vandals with User:BrownHairedGirl. We don't know for certain who is doing this but I believe the best approach is to ensure BLP subjects are advised to provide reasonable proof via the noticeboard that the article is inaccurate -thereby stopping others reinserting allegations- and also warn that there is a risk of further publicity. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Blackman (politician). 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:

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) 03:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2018[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bob Blackman (politician) → Bob Blackman – 7 times as many people are looking for the politician as his namesake.[1] The dab page isn't needed - the American football coach and the costume designer can be handled with two hatnotes. Unreal7 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per WP:2DABPRIMARY we can also add Robert Blackman to the hatnote. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Existing title made sense when the article was first created, as at the time he was just a member of the London Assembly and thus not prominent enough to claim primary topic rights over the football player. He now holds much more important roles in Parliament and with the 1922 Committee, however, which increase his prominence significantly. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Birthplace[edit]

The article gives his birthplace as Kensington but the index to the register of births shows his birth registered as occurring in Ealing Registration District which does not contain Kensington. MBRZ48 (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit from HoC IP address[edit]

This edit was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Blackman&diff=1073413036&oldid=1073412755

But who made the original edit? According to whois, that IP address belongs to netname: HOP (Houses of Parliament), org-name: House of Commons. Could it be that Bob or one of his gofers is editing his own wikipage?

Unsurprisingly, the edit history for that IP is all about HoC members. But are all those edits by the same person, or are they all different users of the HoC network? Is it reasonable to allow IP edits to pages about HoC members from a HoC IP address? I believe edits to political pages from this address should only be permitted for logged-in users.

Incidentally, the edit-comment for the original section-blanking said that the article has been "found to be false", without citing that claim or saying which citation is supposed to be false: The National or The Guardian (both are WP:RS).

MrDemeanour (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrDemeanour There's news reporting on this: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bob-blackman-mp-wikipedia-page-azerbaijan-lobbying-parliament/ Apparently Blackman or someone(s) connected to him have edited this WP page on multiple occasions (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Blackman&oldid=1206324713"