Talk:Martin Horwood

message: I have tagged this article as POV, because it reads as a lightly edited version of Martin Horwood Horwood's bio on the LibDem website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I may be mistaken: in its initial version, as added in this edit on 7 January, it more closely tracks the text on Howood's own website.  Either way, though, it's POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I came here after reading this BBC News piece. As far as I can remember, I've never seen this article before, and don't really know anything much about Horwood himself, but from this outsider's point of view it does seem a bit too much like a Lib Dem newsletter in parts. A clear example of this is the paragraph about NHS services, the one which ends:
:After widespread public opposition to their loss, St. Paul's will stay as a midwife-led unit, A&E is still open and Gloucestershire Constabulary survives as a local force.
I'm not questioning the truth of that, but its tone: it just doesn't read like a neutral encyclopedia article. Actually, the way that paragraph is worded feels more like a piece from a local newspaper than anything else, especially with its self-conscious name-checking of wards etc. Loganberry (Talk) 12:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned up. I removed the 'achievements', they're far too local to accurately verify. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still seems a little bit fawning 

message: Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood was alarmed to discover his Wikipedia entry, which in keeping with the conventions of the site was not written by him, had been altered in a way he believed would harm his chances of retaining his seat. 
The Cheltenham MP was wary of altering the page himself, having been warned by Wikipedia administrators in the past that this was considered bad form. 
In the end, he managed, with the help of a tech-literate friend, to find a form of words that passed muster with the administrators and neutralised his concerns about bias. 
With his seat being one of the battleground marginals at the next election he feels cannot afford to have inaccurate information about him presented as impartial fact. 
Mr Horwood's experience is far from unusual and is likely to become even more common as the next general election approaches. 
"An election does place a little bit of responsibility on Wikipedia and its volunteers to take extra care," he says. 
"I think it would be in Wikipedia's own interest to maintain its impartiality and crack down hard on acts of political vandalism. 
"It is a fantastic and impartial source, that is its great value, so it would be a shame if it allowed its pages to become 'point of view' pages." 
Firstly, that the article "had been altered in a way he believed would harm his chances of retaining his seat" is not necessarily a bad thing. The article should be balanced and accurate, neither Lib Dem PR nor hatchet job.
It's a pity the BBC haven't done basic research before publishing this man's claim.
This is clearly the edit made to 'fix' this bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Horwood&diff=255223425&oldid=240761958
(Note that up to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Horwood&diff=prev&oldid=82294890, the article WAS the Lib Dem's PR bio, even calling him 'Martin'.)
This was essentially to revert the previous 3 edits made by User:Mcgljo02, who is most likely a local Conservative supporter at a guess. Prior to Mcgljo02's changes, the article was essentially a copy and paste of the MP's official PR bio.
Mr. Horwood (or the person who reverted the article for him) appears to have simply reverted the changes made by that user, despite his claims that he 'found a form of words that passed muster with the administrators and neutralised his concerns about bias.' I find this claim rather doubtful. Firstly, are there any records of him having contacted any Wikipedia administrator (and I am not sure this is the correct procedure for content disputes), and secondly, given that it was just a revert, he didn't find any form of words at all.
In any case, the edit summary claiming 'These changes were made to remove acts of vandalism on the entry' is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policies, assuming bad faith. The edits he made, while not flattering to Horwood, are a far cry from vandalism. The removed content:
* In 2001 he stood as the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Cities of London & Westminster where he secured third place with 15.4% of the vote . This is fact, and should not have been removed, a pretty pathetic PR job to remove this - most candidates get a no-hope constituency at their first attempt.
*As a child he attended Pate's Junior School.  This is almost certainly true, doesn't look like vandalism - a private prep school in the town where he went on to Cheltenham College, a private senior school.
*(although the Liberal Democrat's share of the vote fell by 6.2%) True. Shouldn't have been removed.
*Reinstated After widespread public opposition to their loss, St. Paul's will stay as a midwife-led unit, A&E is still open and Gloucestershire Constabulary survives as a local force. This is just political puffery with no evidence of causation, and was rightly removed.
*Removed along with the Conservative PPC Mark Coote from a statement about opposing building on the green belt. There's no reason to have done this.
Clearly Mr. Horwood's edits were politically motivated, and fit the definition of vandalism much better than his opponents.
Incidentally it appears that he or one of his minions had no problem in the past in puffing up this page.
The first big edit appears here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Horwood&diff=34267801&oldid=32874087
Unclear who did it, but much personal data from Mr. Horwood is inserted. The same IP (in New York) made favourable edits to other Liberal Democrat pages.
Moving on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Horwood&diff=57292490&oldid=45768231
Made in Parliament between 2:45 and 3:06am on 7 June 2006 by persons unknown. However the odds are extremely strong that it was Mr. Horwood himself, as it seems very unlikely that any of his staff would be in Parliament at such an hour. Adds unverifiable claims such as 'earned millions for the charity nationwide' in breach of Wikipedia policies as well as details of his campaigning (all couched in favourable terms).
More edits were made in Parliament by persons unknown on 30 October 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Horwood&diff=84686808&oldid=84028639 Adds details about the MP's wife's career, and more political puffery 'After widespread public opposition to their loss, St.Paul's will stay as a midwife-led unit, A&E is still open and Gloucestershire Constabulary survives as a local force. ' Almost certainly made by Mr. Horwood himself.
As a final note, the account created to remove the edits to his page is a single purpose account, and one that has made no other edits to the site, rather calling into question the claims that he sought advice on how to edit.
It's a shame Mr. Horwood thinks his page should be a hagiography. The content he removed is 100% factual, and as a result of his complaints, he's drawn attention to this page, which now looks more like a reasonable Wikipedia article and less like Lib Dem PR. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The criticisms by Martin Horwood of Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Horwood. 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/20110429160752/http://www.appg-tribalpeoples.org.uk/ to http://www.appg-tribalpeoples.org.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429160752/http://www.appg-tribalpeoples.org.uk/ to http://www.appg-tribalpeoples.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified