Talk:Tom Daley

Key dates 2008

• 18-20 Jan: Madrid Grand Prix
• 19-24 Feb: World Cup, Beijing
• 28-29 Jun: British Olympic trials
• 10-23 Aug: Olympics

British/English Vandalism

We all clearly need to come together and reach a consensus as to weather we call him British of English as both are technically correct and people keep switching them! Highfields (talk) (contribs, review) 11:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw some guidelines on this somewhere, I'll see if I can find them. I would generally say British, because he competes for Britain in the Olympics, and I believe most international competitions, which for a sportsman I would have thought would have been the best indicator. --Ged UK (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I reverted this once back to English after someone changed it to British; not because I had some long thought process for it, but probably because the person changed it without an edit summary. Like the above poster, I don't have the guidelines off hand, but I believe it is common practice to put someone's nationality first in the introduction rather than a sub-national description. Technically this would be British rather than English since people in the UK hold British citizenship. I know that many would argue that English/Scotland/Wales are countries/nations in their own right, but just like the above poster said, he competes for the UK and not for England in the Olympics. I know people try to make the changes from Spanish to Galician/Catalan/Basque in those articles, but if we want to remain consistent with other countries, it should probably be British. We wouldn't see a Canadian be introduced as an Ontarian or an American as a Californian. Kman543210 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Canadian/US example is that helpful, sadly, because they are constituent states (broadly) rather than nations, and sub-nation is a horribly loaded term (though I know where you're coming from) that would probably cause more problems. --Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found it, though it's not actually a guideline, but an essay. Nevertheless, you can read it here. Essentially, there is no clear consensus across WP (unsurprisingly) and the talk pages get rather heated! Of particular relevance is the Changing an existing UK nationality section. This basically says don't change from the consensus without a good reason. So yes, we need to agree the consensus here first, then change (or not) the article as required. --Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) article, and here is what it states: Nationality – In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)...Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

When I go to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page, it does state at the top that there is a consensus (I'm too lazy to read the entire page). Here is part of what it says:
3a. Wherever possible, provide evidence of a person's nationality in a note.
3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
3e. British nationals – The United Kingdom is comprised of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Although persons from these countries hold British nationality, there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or Irish)", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".
3f. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

What I understand from this is that consensus was that British should be used unless there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his nationality should be indicated. So if there is no evidence that Tom Daley prefers to be called English, he should be called British in the introduction. That's what I understood from this, but like I said, I didn't read the entire talk page. Kman543210 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; unless we have verifiable, reliable sources that state Tom is a English nationalist, he should be listed as British. The example given in the essay I linked to above is Sean Connery, who is a well-known Scottish Nationalist, and should be listed as Scottish rather than, or at least before, British. --Ged UK (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is alright to amend biographical articles on the basis of the views of the subject, so as to make them reflect the world as the subject would like it to be, rather than the facts? That sounds like a slippery slope to me. Greg Grahame (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree, I'm glad I brought it up because it's been a very productive debate Highfields (talk) (contribs, review) 12:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has said English for a long time. He will compete for England at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, indeed he would have done so in 2006 if he had been old enough. He has competed in ASA championships, which are English championships, not British championships. Thus not mentioning England looks like bias to me. I think you will struggle to find Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish people who are not identified as such, so treating English people differently reveals systemic bias. At the very least, both English and British should be mentioned in the intro, similar to the way Andy Murray is currently dealt with. Greg Grahame (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes but his legal nationality is British and without any indication from him as to a preferance that's the way it should stay Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the general rule for UK sportsmen and women is whether their particular sport is played at the highest level mainly under the British flag (athletics, swimming, cycling, tennis), or the home nations' flags (such as football, rugby union, golf, snooker) - divers definitely represent Britain more than they represent the home nations. E1tiger (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo - Minbaev

Can't fix this cos page is locked, but in the "2011" section, there's a typo - Victor Minbaev instead of Victor Minibaev.

Tom is in a relationship

we need to recognise this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25183041

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJwJnoB9EKw

Congrats gay guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.81.83 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At no point in his video did Tom mention his was bisexual. The fact he says that he is still attracted to women, but is currently dating a guy, does not go on to mean that he is bisexual. Sexuality is a lot more complicated than this, and as such, I think that until he openly admits that he is bisexual, straight, bicurious or gay, then this page should reflect that accordingly. I myself am bisexual, and I know people who have all their lives been attracted to women, but fell for a guy. They don't identify themselves as bisexual, because they don't look at men the same way as they do women -- just the man they have fallen for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.242.198 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Technically... this guy is right. What the article currently states is not what the subject stated & thus is not accurate. Within his statement, he could also be considered "pansexual", "confused", blah, etc... IMO - it should not be written as factually as it has been so far. Just state what the guy himself has stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.112.234 (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that he's bisexual?

(Redacted) Therefore his female fans will not be entirely disappointed. It's the same reason Elton John pretended to be bisexual in 1976. (92.11.195.240 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

Well add that into the article, along with the reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.165.77 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Daley is the sexuality that he personally identifies (and claims) to be. If he says he still likes girls then he is not homosexual.Martin451 13:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted). (92.11.203.139 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

Care is required not only in the article but here, on the talk page, not to conflict with WP:BLP. The information the gentleman has made public today is simple, uncomplicated and needs to be reflected as such without conjecture here about motives, management or what particular brand of sexuality he has. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Quote from IP)Daley is (Redacted). ((Redacted) copy of original claim above). Therefore his female fans will not be entirely disappointed. It's the same reason Elton John pretended to be bisexual in 1976.(end) - sorry, but we don't acknowledge unsourced conjecture here. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...where is the source that states what his management told him...from a reliable source and a reliable subject within that source? Otherwise stating that his management said such things violates BLP guidelines and should probably be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not say that, I was replying to an IP comment further up. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I knew that. I probably shouldn't have indented that way. it does look like I am replying to you. Sorry. I just meant the overall statement.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I felt like I needed to fully clarify it myself anyway, so no worries - I wasn't sure if you were replying to me or not. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Care is required not only in the article but here, on the talk page, not to conflict with WP:BLP. I've checked the intro to WP:BLP and it appears the violation is (1) to write explicitly that he's homosexual, and (2) to ascribe motives to Elton John's actions - in both cases without a source - and the violation comes because it may be considered harmful gossip. Is that right? Am I interpreting the guidelines correctly? But even so, I was surprised to see that the guidelines restrict even what can be said on a talk page. I would have thought that the talk pages could include speculation or even incorrect or unsourced statements. (It would really gum up the discussion if every statement here had to be sourced.) I'm not trying to defend specific statements on the talk page or get into overly detailed edits here. I'm just interested in understanding the rules. Thanks. Omc (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is ridiculously simple. BLP was put together to seek to minimise the risk of defaming the party spoken about in articles or on talk pages among other excellent motives. That risk of defamation gives rise to the risk of being sued for libel. The talk page is, itself, limited to discussions about the article not so much about the subject of the article, though these are close allies with almost all articles. We may not, therefore, speculate on anything here. We may discuss what sourced material should or should not go into the article, but we may not use the talk page to put forth our own theories, nor may we use it to discuss other people's theories unless those are sourced and are genuinely relevant to the discussion about article content. Freedom of discussion is fine, but freedom to utter any potential libel anywhere on Wikipedia is not. Indeed any editor who utters a libel, which includes republishing a libel elsewhere, can be liable in law for such libel, and this is a personal liability. So BLP is also there to protect us as editors when we work. Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. Speculation on a talk page is permitted with some limitations as to what is being discussed (ways to improve the article, but not speculation on the subject itself) and is considered original research. Oneis indeed allowed to discuss original research in an attempt to try and source the speculation. The BLP guideline on self identification is not a legal matter but one of respect to the individual ad their own self identification in regards to sexuality and gender.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that. I understand the issue and the concern. So I guess in this case someone saw the statement "(Redacted)" on this talk page and deleted it because it might be defamatory. Presumably the redactor was acting with the aim of protecting the commenter from a charge of libel. But is it libelous nowadays to call someone homosexual? Or was the redactor being hyper-cautious?Omc (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is libellous to make any claim that is untrue, or without sufficient reason. That includes calling someone homosexual.Martin451 15:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One must be clear that labelling anyone else's sexuality, 'even' stating that they are heterosexual can be defamatory. We need to cease all discussion of sexualities here until the young gentleman himself self identifies specifically as something. Otherwise he is just a young gentleman in a relationship. Currently that relationship is with a gentleman. While not imputing motives to editors acting in good faith, we must not be prurient about this relationship. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is libellous to make any claim that is untrue. That's not really accurate. "Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation) So in order to be defamatory/libelous, a statement must be harmful to a person's reputation. Some courts have held that it's not defamatory to call someone gay. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyregion/court-rules-calling-someone-gay-is-not-defamatory.html - in which a NY State appeals court ruled that it's not defamatory to falsely say that someone is gay. Of course, Wikipedia has a global reach, and I'm sure there are other jurisdictions where such a statement would be defamatory. To be clear, I'm not arguing for restoring the redacted statement. Just exploring the issue of what's allowable in discussion of BLP issues on talk pages.167.212.7.1 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please explore that on, for example, a BLP policy page. This talk page has gone into the subject far too much, and we have diverged from the purpose of the talk page for this article, which is to discuss what should be in the article itself. While what you say has value this is not the location. I regret that we have had to devote so much space to it already. BLP technicalities have a habit of diverting one form the main task. Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.Omc (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can clearly conclude that Daly has not given enough information to give him a label. He has not said he is bisexual, homosexual, pan sexual or anything else. Any label is conjecture. For a BLP you'd need a rock solid source whereby he gives himself a label. Span (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. He is just human.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Announcement

I don't know if there is a source yet that mentions this but for the talk page such original research may be discussed as this is accurate information and public, but Mr. Daley didn't just make a Youtube video (which can be linked to the article as a primary source by the way, he is the copyright holder who is hosting the video). What it apears he did was to make the video, post it to Youtube and then use his Facebook account to tell his followers that he had something to say and left the direct link to his video. If a source mentions this it might be relevant to mention it in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Press speculation

Several media sources have suggested a name for Mr Daley's beau. It is important that we remember WP:NOTNEWS and avoid tittle tattle, speculation and gossip, not just in the article but here. It is unimportant to be "First With The News!" This is WIkipedia. When and if the other gentleman's name is released there is no rush to be the first to post it. There is no glory here. And it needs to be in a reliable source. Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily important to name the individual here even if Daley confirms who it is. Perhaps unless he's a notable person, which the suggested person is. Perhaps we should keep an eye on that article as well. –anemoneprojectors– 09:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The gentleman named has an article on WIkipedia. Presumably that makes him notable. That article is also under 'well meaning attack' with speculative unsourced edits. I also see little reason to name either in each other's article, but, once the relationship is properly sourced that will end the matter, as usual. Fiddle Faddle 09:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A reference has been added to the page which names the man in its headline, even though Daley has still not named him, so the name appears in the article because of it. I just wanted to check that this was an appropriate reference to use. –anemoneprojectors– 13:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No it really isn't. The information being added has no real encyclopedic value and the article doesn't confirm their own headline. I have removed it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 23:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming out

I have one quetion: why we are avoid to use the locution Coming out in the article? Such as " He made an coming out video" or something like that. According to the Coming out article, it means: is a figure of speech for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people's self-disclosure of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

So I think it would be right to use this figure of speech to describe Tom's video release on 2th of December. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, we try and avoid euphemisms, which is to say, we aim to choose a locution that is neutral, accurate and direct as it can be. Phrases like 'passed away' or 'making love' are not encouraged. See WP:EUPHEMISM for more details. Span (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

He has not (in the terms of the Wikipedia article) self-disclosed his sexual orientation as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person. He's merely said he's in a relationships with a man. In fact, he's said "I still fancy girls". Instead of pushing him toward a premature choice of sexual identity, let's let the young man make up his own mind and "come out" if he wants, when he wants. He hasn't yet. This question has been discussed above, in the section "Tom is in a relationship", starting with "At no point in his video did Tom mention his was bisexual." 69.200.247.11 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. I didn't intend to be anonymous. I was posting from a different browser due to browser problems, and didn't realize I wasn't signed on. Omc (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As IP 69 says, we don't have information regarding what Daley has come out as. Span (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

When he was 15 or so my son came out as heterosexual. As society progresses the image of closeted people is losing its significance. All Mr Daley has dome is told the world he is in a relationship that is meeting his emotional needs. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming out refers only and only to LGBT people, so your example is so weak !! 46.71.153.117 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013 - Dustin Lance Black

Daley's partner is screen-writer Dustin Lance Black and I think his name should be added to this article as he is notable in his own right. Daley spoke at length about this on the Jonathan Ross Show and this was quoted by The Independent: [1]. Thank you. 86.167.235.204 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Daley has never named his partner and the Independent article says "alleged". It also says "However, the Olympic diver, 19, stopped short of confirming – or denying – that the man he is in a relationship with is Black, 39." –anemoneprojectors– 10:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that in the Radio Times dated 4-10 January 2014 there is a two-page spread (pp 34-35) on Tom Daley. Page 34 is an article by film-maker Jane Treays who has known Daley for years and has made two documentaries with him. On page 35 there is a big picture of Daley "on a beach in Cornwall before he went public about his relationship with 39-year-old American screenwriter Dustin Lance Black". I presume that Daley has OK'd this and I see no reason why the information shouldn't appear on his WP page. --GuillaumeTell 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem more likely than not that the two are in a relationship, but for Wikipedia's standard of inclusion to be met there needs to be a reliable source for it. So the real question now is whether or not such a source exists. Up to now, it seems that only unreliable sources have claimed that the relationship exists. as for the Radio Times, if the caption you quote is what you are suggesting is a reliable source for the existence of the relationship, I would say that it does not do that. The caption claims that Daley has previously gone public about who he is in a relationship with, but in fact he has not. There is no place where he has named the person who he is in a relationship with. in fact, when he was on TV talking about his current relationship he had plenty of opportunity to name the person and did not do so. So I think it is still a claim that does not have a reliable source for inclusion. I think it is likely there eventually will be a citatable source, but not yet. 99.192.83.252 (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's coming close to being confirmed, but not yet. [2] –anemoneprojectors– 11:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is like being 'fairly unique' or "a little bit pregnant', and is speculative gossip column tittle tattle. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, AP, I would suggest that when The New York Times becomes confident enough that the two are in a relationship to call it "widely reported" that it is closer to being confirmed than anything Digital Spy might have to say, but I agree that we are not there yet. Not being British I am not really sure what FF means by "tittle tattle", but if he reads the NY Times article he might see that Tom Daley's relationship status actually has a wider cultural significance than he might think. Far from being trivial, it is part of a public debate about the recognition of the very existence of a particular form of sexual orientation. 99.192.89.146 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.83.252)

Use Google and find out of you are not sure. As for the NYT, it is reporting reports of reports that are unreliable. Tabloid journalism. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times knows the difference between unconfirmed claims that are nothing more than rumour and unconfirmed reports for which there is good reason to believe that are likely to be true. To call the Times "tabloid journalism" is absurd. But at least you've stopped censoring talk pages. 99.192.89.146 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Digital Spy are coming close to confirming it, but that Daley is. DS are merely reporting on what Daley has done recently, which is to "publicly acknowledged [his] ties to [Black]" via social networking websites. –anemoneprojectors– 14:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! That makes more sense, AP. I think you are right. Given also that Black recently posted on Instagram a picture of a cake that says "I love Tom", the only real question is which one of them will confirm it first. 99.192.89.146 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that cakes are not WP:RS, and neither is Beef Wellington (whatever that means, tut tut). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)