Talk:Independents for Bristol

Point of principle
I propose reverting to my statement: "Jason Budd later defected to the Conservatives". Mr Budd saw fit to change this to "Jason Budd later joined the Conservatives" which might be acceptable if the article was about Mr Budd. It is not: it is about the party from which he defected (the term used in the intro to the press source referenced). Principle: interested parties should not feel free to alter factual entries about themselves which they do not like to something which they prefer. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Altered as proposed as there has been no negative comment. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

He may argue that Independents for Bristol were "not a party" so he could not defect from them. But considering the whole point of the group was that it was NOT one of the major parties, to leave this group, once elected, and join one of the major parties needs to be described for what it was: he defected from the grouping under whose banner he was elected to join a group that he was repudiating before his election. I'm not certain why he objects to this point being made clear. He cites a newspaper article reporting the event which used the word "defected". Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independents for Bristol. 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/20150314231137/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-s-Independent-councillor-joins-Tories/story-26161517-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-s-Independent-councillor-joins-Tories/story-26161517-detail/story.html

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) 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit by Jason Budd re IfB
As the very headline of the news article being referenced puts it itself in the present as 'joins' this change of word is hardly in and of itself contentious. The headline of the news article itself prioritises the alteration of the status in my role as an independent Cllr elected by the campaign vehicle that was IfB as one of 'joins', so describing this subsequently as 'joined' is entirely acceptable.

I am merely making a clarification of the article to better fit the facts as identified and described by local news media at the time, and one which is entirely factual and of a sound basis considering the source material. It is not a matter of my preference but one of the wording actually chosen by the editor or sub-article individual/individuals who wrote the news article itself that is being referenced.

That this Wikipedia page even existed was not something I was previously aware of, so when I did become aware of it I made this change as it more correctly and accurately describes the situation and transition in a way that is acceptable, entirely reasonable and based on the evidence of the reference itself; it is a question of accuracy not one of my personal preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbudd1984 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * [I do apologise. I did not see your response when I wrote my previous comment, above!]

I don't really accept this. The article you quote does use the word 'defect' - The very first line is: "Bristol's only Independent city councillor has defected to the Tories." Headlines are written by sub-editors, not by reporters (maybe 'defect' had too many letters, and 'join' is three ens, 'defect' is five ens?). Since your election was based on the very fact that you were NOT a Conservative, Labour, Liberal or Green it sounds rather cavalier, if I may say so, to suggest that once you were on the council and looked around at the other parties, you felt free to 'join' the Conservatives. It was the fact of abandoning the group on whose behalf you had stood and been elected and joining a party which that group had been set up to oppose that is the point I thought should be made. Judging from some of the comments beneath the article, some people weren't very impressed by the particular action under discussion. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)