Jump to content

Talk:Tom Daley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Confused

What is the difference between the British Championships and the ASA National Championships? Is the latter for English competitors only? Tanbace (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems so, they are definitely separate events. I've now tracked down the 2007 British Championships, which confusingly took place in December 2006. The 2008 British Championships are taking place on 4-6 January 2008 in Manchester. Tanbace (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Key dates 2008

Renaming

  • How come this article got renamed from Tom Daley (diver) to Thomas Daley (diver) without any discussion or notification? It appears that an unregistered editor appeared, made 27 edits in 80 minutes, then immediately put an entry on WP:Requested moves as an "uncontroversial move" without mentioning it here, and it was then moved 17 hours later without any regular editors having noticed the request. An examination of Google News shows that he is overwhelmingly referred to in the English-language media as "Tom" - I know there is also a US politician and a poet of the same name, but the current Google News figures, showing duplicates, are Tom Daley: 86, of which 78 refer to this person; Thomas Daley: 4, of which 1 refer to this person. I strongly recommend moving this back. -- Arwel (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have moved it back. The "unregistered editor" is User:141.151.160.87 (Special:Contributions/141.151.160.87). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Good, glad it's back. Every reference I've seen to him he's called 'Tom', and I think that's by far the most likely initial search that people will do. Ged UK (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who owns this page??

Hi, can anybody tell me who edits this page as I have some information that could be useful.

Please let me know by replying to [email protected]

Thanks in advance. 09:26 & 09:27, 4 July 2008 User:213.38.166.131

Nobody 'owns' it, there are several editors who keep an eye on it and update it as appropriate. If you have any info that reliable and sourced, please feel free to add it, or leave it here (moving to bottom of page). Ged UK (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Great, thanks for that. I work for a company called Sodexo and we are Tom's personal sponsor. I'd like to add a line saying:

- Tom signed a personal sponsorship deal with Sodexo, a leading food and facilities management services provider, on 1 June 2008. http://www.sodexo.co.uk/uken/Images/1%20June%20-%20Tom%20Daley_tcm15-145268.pdf

I will try again but I did add last week but it was removed.

Thanks for your help.

Piers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.166.131 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I suspect that it would be removed again. I'm not sure that it's particularly notable, and many editors would see it as advertising. Ged UK (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, though it does typify how far Tom has come recently. I will speak to Tom and his manager to see if there is anything he would like to add.

Best, Piers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersz (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What it really needs is comment on notability from a reliable third party source (eg a newspaper), otherwise it's just Sodexo saying "we're his sponsor". And from a personal point of view, I think what shows how far he's come is that he's been selected for the Olympics, not that he's been sponsored! There are plenty of British Olympians who are notable who don't have sponsorship. --Ged UK (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some links that may be of interest.

http://www.b2bm.biz/news/?groupId=&articleId=28395

http://www.insidethegames.com/show-news.php?id=2509

http://www.999eggbuckland.com/news/story/43081.html

http://www.facilitiesrecruit.co.uk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersz (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Let's see how long it lasts! Ged UK (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngest Olympian status

I know this cox has said that he was younger, but does he count? He didn't actually compete himself in my book. I guess the key question is whether a rowing cox is eligible for a medal. Does anyone know if he is? Luwilt (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Course he counts! He certainly competed, you try rowing a coxed boat without one and see how you get on! No idea if he's eligible for a medal, but he's definitely an Olympian. Ged UK (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Further, I've checked through wikipedia, and Patrick Sweeney (rower) is classed as having won a Bronze, so I think that's that. Ged UK (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that is pretty stupid. It would make more sense to give coaches medals. Try rowing a coxed boat without a boatbuilder, but boatbuilders don't get medals. Tom Daley is an outstanding athlete, but can the same be said of the cox who is supposedly the record holder? I don't think so. His achievement is essentially fake. It was gifted to him by the real Olympians. They might have put an eight year old in the boat, or a baby for that matter, and they could still have reached the end of the course, but a baby couldn't do Tom Daley's dives. Luwilt (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Stupid or not, there it is. Ged UK (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely a rowing cox deserves a medal equally, if not more so, than a "diver." Daley isn't an athlete- he jumps off a platform, anyone with any nerve does that at central park most days- the cox guides a boat, and co-ordinates its movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.242.189 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this discussion. I expect the IOC have message boards somewhere. Coxes get medals, so do divers. Until the IOC change that, there's nothing really to discuss as far as I can see. Ged UK (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get rid of the part that says "and was the youngest competitor at the games in any sport"? It doesn't have a citation, and its mostly believed that the cox was 13 when he competed. Here. Grungedude22 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're contradicting ourselves and the source I think! --Ged UK (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That comment was wrong, but not for the reason you are assuming, as it only referred to the 2008 games. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Full name

Someone keeps adding his full name to the article. The reference doesn't back this up, and isn't relevant in the article. I've removed it, again. how do you turn this on 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference for his full name, as it is customary to include someone's full name in his article. Kman543210 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That's better. That's all that was needed. The person who restored it without a reference referred to my removal as vandalism. We have to be very careful on BLPs, especially those of children with what information to include, and if it isn't referenced, it should go. how do you turn this on 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Full names are about as basic as encyclopedic information gets. The reference to vandalism may not have been polite, but it was understandable. How you can think that disclosing his middle name makes him more vulnerable to perverts boggles the mind. It also boggles the mind that so many people are totally obsessed with the production of footnotes for their own sake, rather than with improving the quality of articles. Greg Grahame (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Youngest at Beijing 2008 status

I have corrected this claim, as he wasn't the youngest athlete at the 2008 games. There were at least three swimmers who were younger, but he was the youngest competitor to make a final.

The official Beijing 2008 site also has a profile for one Indrek Jarvoya, supposedly an Estonian rower, and one day younger than Tom Daley. However, it is inconceivable that a 14 year old could be selected in rowing (a strength sport) except as a cox, and according to both the official Beijing 2008 site and Wikipedia, Estonia didn't participate in any of the coxed events. This is consistent with the fact that young Indrek isn't listed as having participated in any events on his profile. Furthermore, his name gets zero google hits, which is unbelievable for a bona fide 14 year old Olympian. Therefore I have assumed that his profile is invalid, some sort of technical error or joke by someone involved in the official site. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a misspelling. There are hits for Indrek Jarvoja. 91.109.149.132 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

repeat vandals

This is not a approach for editing, but, I've been looking at selected versions of this article, and I am getting annoyed that anonymous IP editors keep saying things like "Tom Daley is (insert name)'s future wife. If you want to leave comments like that, go somewhere else, like MySpace or YouTube. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social site. Matt G (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A noble sentiment, but sadly I suspect that these fangirls (and boys) never look at the discussion page! The article gets protected from time to time, at the moment it's not too bad I think. --Ged UK (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

protection

Just viewed the history of this page, and I think it needs to be semiprotected again. I, personally am getting sick & tired of this vandalism. How many times do these people have to be told, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Vandalizers are not welcome here, its not constructive and its just stupid. Matt G (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No point even requesting it; there's been no IP edits since 29 Ocober, and that edit wasn't vandalism. No admin would protect a page with that history. --Ged UK (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK fair enough sorry Matt G (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no need to apologise! You're not vandalising, only trying to protect the article! --Ged UK (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

question

Ok before I ask my question, its about time there was a picture of Tom Daley, this articles definitley been missing one. My question, not an approach to editing (again) but does anyone know if its possible for the same person to hold the BBC Young Sports Personality Award, because, being British myself, it would be nice if He (Tom) could hold it for another year? can anyone help me with that one Matt G (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt G (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know but I agree, regarding the picture, I've uploaded about 4 but they all got deleted, It's almost impossible to find a free use image of him! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 07:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why he couldn't, theoretically, win BBCYSP again - he's certainly been in the news enough this year and he's definitely a personality(!), I just don't think it's ever happened before. As to pictures, while there are tons of them floating around on YouTube etc, none of them are acceptable by Wikipedia's policies - I suspect the easiest option would be to contact Tom and see if he could provide one with the appropriate releases. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I've just noticed someone's found an acceptable picture on Flickr! Miracles never cease! :) -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To all of the above people thanks for the help, as you all say, finding a free image of Tom is difficult. and to Arwell Parry, he is definitley a personality so who knows! Matt G (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I hope that Eleanor Simmonds wins the Young personality award. Whilst Tom's achievement in getting to the final of an Olympic final is impressive, winning two gold medals aged only 13 is a bigger achievement, in my mind. Anyway, the relevant page on the BBC website ([1]) doesn't say anything about being closed to former winners, so presuming that someone nominates him, he's eligible to enter. --Ged UK (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Tom is shortlisted for Young Sports Personality again this year, together with Eleanor Simmonds and Elizabeth Simmonds. I wonder if there being two swimmers called "E. Simmonds" will confuse the voters. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The ten-person shortlist has now been reduced to three finalists - Tom, Ellie Simmonds and Laura Robson. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Competitive History section

The competitive history section has a table listing events per year. Having a row slot for Olympics and Fina World Championships certainly makes sense... but then listing the location as Beijing or Rome (or "17th Junior event") means it'll only happen once. Either a seperate table for each event if it's so important we don't want to merge all championships into one row, or merge them and just call them Olympics or World Championships.

On a side note, it seems to me based on text in an early section of the page that he finished 2nd in British (Senior) Championships in 2007, yet that isn't in the British championships row in the table of his competitive history, is it just missing or is there a reason it's been left out? Lejman (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to have rows for the Junior World Championships in general, rather than for specific meets, and I've altered the table. I think the main problem comes with the Diving World Series, where there are multiple meets each year, and where they may be held in different locations each year. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the table so that it's in something like order of significance - Olympics / World champs / Junior World champs / European champs / British champs, then I've left the DWS and DGP, and left the ASA (English) titles. In the past we've just added new competitions as he happened to take part in them, so the table's got a bit illogical. Feel free to amend it if you can think of a more logical ordering. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How old was Tom when he first won the British U18 title?

Our article says that he was 10 when he first won the U18 British title. In the BBC preview programme for Sports Personality of the Year, Steve Parry says that he was 9, and in another clip shown on the One Show his mother says so too. Tom's profile on the British Swimming site however says "First sporting success: Becoming the youngest ever under 18 Platform champion in June 2004 at the Nationals." (this is reported as if it's Toms' own words). June 2004 of course would be the month after his 10th birthday. Is there a need to note that there's some uncertainty of his age at his first success? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If the British Swimming site says 10, which seems to be backed up by the actual stats, I'd say go with 10, and add a footnote that it might be 9. GedUK  14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Synchro partner

Does anyone know if Tom's still diving with Max Brick? This report on today's championship in the Plymouth Herald says "Daley amassed 483.60 points for silver, while the latter's former synchro partner Max Brick took bronze with 425.15 points.". I hadn't heard that the pair had been broken up. A disagreement, or just British Swimming trying something else? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

comedian Scott Capurro quotes on Tom

from Sun interview:

"If you could turn any celebrity gay, who would it be and why?
Gorgeous British diver Tom Daley would be a perfect gay. Let's face it, he's preternaturally tan and he never steps out of a Speedo, so he's half way there already. He just needs a push.
Assuming you and Tom went on a weekend city break, where would that be and why?
Iceland would be nice. Tom is average height there and he and I could float around in steaming lakes, wet and buoyant and cleansed. I'd cradle him in my arms, like a delicate (and hot) flower."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/comedycolumnists/3531052/Tommy-Holgate-talks-to-Scott-Capurro-for-Sun-Comedy.html

And? GedUK  06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
add it somewhere in the article? wasnt sure where though as there wasn't a personal life or in media section etc
Seems pretty irrelevant to me. Lots of gay people seem to lust over Tom, but it says more about them and nothing about Tom. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DWS 2011 Guanajuato

If anyone wants to update the Competitive History table, Tom came 2nd in the individual 10m competition and 5th in the synchro - I won't be home until late on Monday and can't update such a large section on my iPad while I'm away!- Arwel Parry (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done have you ever tried 'wikiedit' for the ipad. It's supposed to be able to edit larger sections, but I can't get it to work properly. GedUK  09:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Father's death

Just noting that I have removed a reference to Rob's death from the "2011" subsection of "International success", as it's not the right place for it. It was already documented in the article lede, anyway, so not necessary to repeat it, sad though it is. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Young in the first paragraph

"He credits his superb diving style to Ashley Young, the cheat that plays for the most corrupt football team on the planet, Manchester United." Haha, whoever who wrote this is a genius, but surely that should be edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.50.211 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Needed article

I just can't believe that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Qiu Bo, since we seem to have an article on everything. Only problem is I've not read anything anywhere about his biography, which is weird considering he's the new world champion. Anybody know anything about him? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree we ought to be able to find something. I'll see what I can dig out. GedUK  13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Height

Now I know this is trivia, but is he really this short? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this would of been an old article. Going from previous reports in newspapers he's 5" 1, but with him being at his age he is growing all the time, so it's difficult to be accurate. Only last week one newspaper said 5" 1 , another 5" 2 and another 5" 4. I would say 5" 4 as it is probably the most recent. If anyone finds an accurate result then simply add it into the infobox with appropiate references. Thenthornthing (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Also: I've just added his height as 5" 2 cited from the only source which seems most recent (march 08)from thetimes. I'd sooner go from a British newspaper, which is more reliable than others anyhow. Thenthornthing (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll go with the cited source, be he only looked 5'2" last night. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally remove any mention of height. The Times article is most likely wrong now. Kids are growing all the time, and therefore height will mostly be inaccurate. With different sources saying different things, it's best not to include the info at all, especially as it is pretty trivial. how do you turn this on 23:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, was thinking thta myself, especiall now i've read through the times article completely now. Thenthornthing (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
His biography page on the Beijing2008 website says he's 156cm / 5'1": http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/BIO/Athlete/2/225172.shtml. I would assume that information on those pages is provided by the athletes themselves or some reliable source, but who knows. -213.246.72.23 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was really just asking the question. It is trivia, but then again there's a spot in the infobox for it. We should probably wait until he stops and then enter it in. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He is said to have grown three inches this year, making him 5'4" now. (92.12.87.168 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

"is said' by who, and just as importantly, when? Ged UK (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Do you have a source for that? Actually nevermind; we really shouldn't be adding this to the article anyhow. His height will probably be changing constantly up till about the age of 18, so it would be pointless adding it. how do you turn this on 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
By a BBC commentator in the last 24 hours, but I wouldn't take it as gospel, as he only said that it meant that the height of 5'1" in his media guide was probably wrong. He didn't state what Tom's height was before he added the three inches. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is pointless trying to pin down his height, but it is not entirely trivial, as his height relative to that of his synchro partner is a factor in their performance, albeit a minor one. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the BBC he is now 6'11" tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think yuo might be exagerating, or mistyping. We should be able to pin down a more reliable height now. GedUK  13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture Change?

Would it be time for a picture change? The picture shown is of him when he was 14, and now hes 18. Shouldnt it be kept up to date and current? I dont have an account so Im not going to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.194.160 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite agree. He looks very different now. Both images in the article are from 2008. There must be very many better ones in the public domain by now. I will ask his website if they can recommend any. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree ... he deserves a sexy one of him doing some diving.

Also, it seems a bit weird that there's no mention of the fact that he lost his father to cancer, as that was quite a big news story and is reasonably significant in someone's biography is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.80.18 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Personal life section. But it could perhaps do with more than one supporting references. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics 2012

No entries in the article for 2012 London Olympics yet? I'm surprised! It's been a week since they started and he came 4th in the pair dive. He seems to have disappeared from the media as well. How fickle we all are.82.46.139.31 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I understand now! How stupid of me. Everybody is too scared to say anything at all, lest we be arrested under the malicious communications act, as in here and here. Thank your lucky stars Americans, you have a constitution. My country seems to be rapidly turning into Staziland. Oh no... they can trace my IP. ...- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.139.31 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Change the picture?

That picture of him is dreadful, I didn't recognise him from it at all. One of the reasons he's gained so much public attention is because he's cute, whereas this pic of him is ugly! Gymnophoria (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes can we please change the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttytigger (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 August 2012 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.93.130.49 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Media impact

I think this article should say something about the impact Daley has had in the media, especially in the UK. According to google trends, he was searched for about three times as often during the Olympics as GB's triple gold medallist Chris Hoy or our top female Olympian Rebecca Adlington, but mentioning that would be original research. If anyone has a link to a media piece commenting on how much the other media have taken him up, perhaps that could be quoted. Alex Middleton (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC) he is really really cool and sexy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.166.244 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Filmography?

A new section's been added, but just listing his appearance on last nights' Jonathan Ross Show. Personally I don't think that a filmography section belongs in this article, especially if it's just going to document Toms' appearances on chat shows (what about the two documentaries that have been made about him in the last couple of years, let alone Olympic Dreams and the various SPOTY shows?). Anyway, the IMDB does this sort of thing better anyway. Thoughts? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He must have appeared on countless TV shows over the years. Delete this until he 'makes' a film or appears in one not just a chat show or TV news.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

2008 Picture of Daley

Am I the only person who thinks this is a God awful picture? What is its purpose in the article? Or are we just desperate and displaying anything we can? (If so, I have a picture of his left shin if anyone wants it.) 92.6.152.31 (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your picture might be better than one of his left shin in 2008! I think both pictres need to be replaced. Daley is now an adult. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you find one? It has to be a free image, and those are hard to come by. That's the reason why the current image is outdated. --Peter Talk page 00:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, having said that, I don't think it should be that hard to find an available image if a few editors look for one. I have found a fair few on flickr, however they all have the same questionable source and I wouldn't use them. --Peter Talk page 00:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
(see topic below - suggesting a swap) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture really needs to change

Its been 4 years on Tom does not look like hes 14 anymore. The picture really needs to change so if people come on here, they see what he looks like now, which is more relevant, instead of what he looked like 4 years ago in Beijing. 98.154.194.160 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest dumping the current main image and replacing it with the one newly added of him as a 2012 Olympic medal winner. Any objections? I have no objection to also including a younger picture, e.g. of his participation in the 2008 Olympics, which was notable in itself, but I think it should be more than just a portrait. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This article suffers from a severe shortage of shirtless pictures. I agree that something current is preferable though. Fast Clear (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Article looks 100 times better, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Daley (diver) → Tom Daley – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g. 69057 hits last month compared to less than 200 for the other two Tom Daleys. 82.132.228.222 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The other two are:
I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gay

Daley has now admitted he is exclusively homosexual, and that his lover is Dustin Lance Black: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2595851/Five-months-coming-bisexual-Tom-Daley-declares-I-gay-man-current-relationship-good.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.199.157 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed on Out.com:
http://www.out.com/entertainment/sports/2014/04/03/olympic-diver-tom-daley-proclaims-he-gay-man-now
which referred to
http://uk.eonline.com/news/527991/tom-daley-isn-t-bisexual-i-am-a-gay-man-now
Should we wait until more reputable sources chime in?
Oh, just in: From his very own mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHjti--iDpw :-) -Mardus (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote the update, with source to E!. Someone needs to update/add relevant categories now. -Mardus (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (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: [2]. 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. [3] –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)
Are you sure about that Martin? Does that mean that my mother might not have wished me a happy birthday all those years? Is this message not really a letter of resignation? I guess I will take your word for it about cakes and beef-based meals, but if either posts a picture of a bowl of Alpha-Bits that seems to spell out a message, I might have to reconsider food-based sourcing. 99.192.89.146 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If Frankie & Benny's bring out a "Dustin and Tom Cheesy Deep-crust", then I might reconsider.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
In this "tabloid article" [[4]] Kitchener gives pretty much solid evidence that the two are a couple. Spending Christmas together, selfie, witness from friends, what more evidence do we need? Do we really need to hear them say "I do," before we actually put it down here in the article? "Daley and American screenwriter Dustin Lance Black are dating." How is it not factual enough and neutral enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.163.132 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who gets to wear The Capitol as a hat deserves to be taken seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
98.221.163.132, what we need to have before we can include this (or any other piece of information) in this (or any other) article is a reliable source making the claim. Wikipedia editors are specifically forbidden from drawing conclusions based on what looks like evidence. That's called "original research". All we have right now are unreliable (gossip/tabloid) sources making the definitive claim that they are dating and reliable sources only saying that it has been "rumoured" or "reported" that they are in a relationship. Until a reliable source actually says that they really are dating, the information should not be included on Daley's (or Black's) page.
Despite the sneering way "Span" puts the comment below, "Span" is right. It simply is not a matter of any urgency or importance that this information is not mentioned on Daley's page right now. It's also not (as some editors have claimed) an issue of Wikipedia's "biographies of living persons" policy either. It is simply a matter of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. No reliable sources means so inclusion. It's as simple as that. 99.192.95.185 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.89.146)

Why the desperation to add in a name? Will the sky fall in? Will all the world's bluebirds sing at once? Span (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reputable media is treating it as confirmed now, at least, since Daley posted Instagram pictures of them together.Zythe (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Sneering? Span (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If this was not a male couple I rather doubt there would be such an outcry to suppress the world from this content. i heard about them as couple almost immediately, weeks ago. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been confirmed by Tom Daley now: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/03/tom_daley_comes_out_as_gay_not_bisexual.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonLover79 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

Month in "On 3 March 2014, Tom Daley admitted on UK television panel show Celebrity Juice to host Keith Lemon and other attendants present that he's gay.[84]" is incorrect and should be changed to April. Inversesandwich (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yea, completely missed the month. Someone fixed it already. -Mardus (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Honours and awards

In the table of Honours and awards, what's the "Work" column meant to be showing exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question. CTF83! 21:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is. Never noticed that before.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My guess would be that the format for the table was copied from another article. It's probably safe to remove the column. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was most likely copy/pasted from an actors' article, wherein the "work" column is traditionally where the title of the film/television series is listed. It appears, in this article, the column is being used as the "recipient" column seen in film/television articles, wherein various recipients working in various capacities are nominated/honored, but neither column appears necessary for this particular table. - 209.49.229.160 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity Juice

Why are people so determined to force this kind of crap into the article? This is an encyclopaedia (look it up), not a tabloid newspaper or a gossip website. We should at least aim to be more high-brow. Quite apart from that, the article already mentions that he's gay, so this addition doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No strong view, just trying to make whatever was added here reasonably tidy. But I think this was deemed "significant" as Daley's first public announcement of his sexual orientation? It's appearance here is probably slightly a "told-you-so" backlash from the months of rev-del santisation, when such an "essential fact" was deemed to be only "gossip". Until he made this public announcement, didn't we all have to assume he was bisexual? I think it might be significant (to some) that he chose this kind of high profile show to make such an announcement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, IIRC, at that time, those of us keen to avoid gossip-rag material in a BLP were very specifically avoiding, and I think removing, assumption-based labels like "bisexual". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've lived in the UK for more than twenty years and never even heard of "Celebrity Juice". But then, I don't watch a lot of TV... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
(Gosh, you lucky thing, Demi - you don't know what you've been missing). But yes, for BLP I think it's fair not to label someone unless they have been happy to label themselves. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
you're not missing much, Demiurge; it's the kind of crap that appeals to the kind of people who think "poop" jokes are funny. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
oooh, a bit sharp, aren't we! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But in fact, no, the article doesn't "already mention that he's gay"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was slightly mistaken; it says he's "in a relationship with a man",which isn't quite the same thing, though it can be inferred. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha, it certainly can't be inferred. Or, even if it can, it shouldn't. And especially not here! But it's hardly an audacious strident proclamation, is it:
Lemon: Tom, let's get right to the crunch here.
Daley: Yeah.
Lemon: You're a gay man now.
Daley: (laughing) I am.
Lemon: My brother's gay, so..
Daley: Yeah?
Lemon: .. do you know him? He's called Gregory.
Daley: No.
(um, that's it) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So what's the problem with putting it in? Lots of articles mention when someone is gay. CTF83! 19:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem myself, but some editors seem to think this, or at least the source, is "crap". Maybe we should wait for a more cultured source to arrive (a bit unlikely as it won't be "news")? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Before it was reverted, I linked to The Advocate and Huffington Post, which isn't a gay publication. CTF83! 19:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Huffington Post seems perfectly reliable. Am sure there are plenty of others. Besides, its all over YouTube. Maybe it's the actual TV show that's the problem! But since when have "gay publications" not been treated as WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said that! I'm saying if "straight publications" list it as news, it is obviously notable enough for inclusion here, despite what other users may think. CTF83! 19:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And I never said you did. But some may have interpreted it that way. What you say seems perfectly fair. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets remember that our guidelines prohibit the use of tabloid sources. Celebrity Juice seems to fit that bill very well. As for the Advocate and the Huff post, the advocate must make a clear claim and the Huff post has to be an actual article and not a blog, that originated with their site and is not repeated form another source, which is common for Huff post.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no ban on using blogs as sources. Either way, he admitted to being gay, it's clear cut, not sure why you guys are making a big deal out of this. It's not like someone else said he was gay, if someone says they are, that should be good enough. CTF83! 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Why? Because a man who states he still fancies girls is not gay and until a reliable source (and yes blogs are NOT acceptable sources for living persons or for claims of fact. A news blog is acceptable but not tabloid news) is found and counters that original statement we do have an legitimate issue. It is not our place to call someone gay, straight or bisexual. We only summarize reliable sources and if editors are so desperate to label this subject to satisfy their own agendas or personal views with tabloid references than yeah, it is a big deal.
Is there any chance you are going to change your signature as the current account that is linked to shows it as blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Signature updated. Not sure how it's into question when he says he is gay, it's not just us calling him it. But I've weighed in more on this topic that I care to. CTF83! 20:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
When I look at Celebrity Juice I don't see a "Tabloid TV" category at the bottom, I just see "comedy panel game". In the real world, of course, (i.e. outside wiki) the whole story is just that one word reply "Yes" from Daley. End of. But if HP reports it, I guess that makes it notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC) so are you really this Keith's brother Gregory?? I think we should know!
Then try reading the article you just linked. "The original premise of the show was to see which team knows most about the week's tabloid news stories..". Huffington Post has had issues in the past. As long as it is not a blog. Huff Post started as strictly a blog site but now content from others including readers and others non journalists. You have to be very careful with Huff post as a source.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's the whole premise of the show, yes. But this was the host Lemon asking a personal biographical question of one of the guests. You seem to be suggesting that (a) Daley was joking, or (b) Daley's personal life is "!tabloid news", and/or Huff Post cant tell/doesn't care. Which mainstream media source would convince you? Or is that not possible because of the "unreliable nature" of the show? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As it stands right now, all the sources, "Out", as well as "E News" (which is a tabloid source by the way) and Huff Post are all just repeating the information from Celebrity Juice. The issue with this is that the originating source is not reliable to make the claim that he made the statement, and the only reliable source between the tree references used seems to be "Out". I would support the use of that reference to simply add "balance" without mentioning the exact name of the TV show. For example:

On 2 December 2013, Daley released a YouTube video announcing that he has been in a relationship with a man since early that year. He said: "I still fancy girls, but at the moment I've never been happier."[81][82] However, on April 3 of 2014, Daley stated "I am a gay man now".[1] Daley later said it was a tough decision to speak out about his private life. He said: "I'd never felt the feeling of love, it happened so quickly, I was completely overwhelmed by it to the point I can't get him out of my head all the time."[83]
I could support the simplified version with only the "Out" reference and excluding the mention of the show that seems a tad promotional and not really needed in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. CTF83! 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123, HJ Mitchell, Demiurge1000 what do you guys think?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure you can really mix the chronology up like that, can you? Also I'm a bit unsure about what that source says. Did he actually say those words? It looked to me like Lemon asked those words as a question and Daley just "yes" (just watch the clip). But that's the "power of the press" for you, I guess! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, it doesn't mix up the chronology. It clearly shows Dec 2, 2013 and then April 3 of 2014. Yes, we can add that balance to the original statement. And yes, the "Out" source claims in quotes that Daley made the statement, however, if you are claiming he did not actually make the statement, then we have a problem.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"Love at first sight" was back in December 2013, alongside "still fancying girls". "Gay man now" was April 2014. (.. um, maybe you should look at the clip and decide for yourself what he says). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
What's your point? They are only a few months apart and relate to each other and is not attempting to stich together facts to create a new fact. It is simply balance, but if you don't want to discuss this further I should retract my support as you seem to imply that all these sources (as they all make the same claim) are incorrect. Therefore I retract my support.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My point was the use of the word "later" for something that was earlier. Oh well. Did you watch then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you made it clear the subject did not actually make the statement that all three sources are quoting. Therefore they all have false information and don't qualify as reliable if they are inaccurate and it can be demonstrated.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I made two points. But you needn't take my word for it that the Out headline is wrong - I'm not a WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
They all use the same quote. They are all wrong then. It didn't take much to see your point, but it also means the sources should not be used for making claims of fact if they are using false quotes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
They seem to be wrong, yes. He answered Lemon's question. But did not say those words himself But you need to just look at what actually happened and decide for yourself? Or maybe you can't because that's WP:OR? Lemon's question was an obviously jokey allusion to the "John's a gay man now" character. Probably totally lost on Huff Post. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The editor that wants this content returned has the burden to demonstrate that the sources are accurate and verifiable. They are clearly not verifiable.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, think you're right. We'll see if HJ and Demi have any comments. It's bizarre - Daley's quietly happy with being "gay". But we can't say that here. The gulf between the wiki-world and the real world sometimes looks ever wider. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree but then the most important issue is not the "truth", its about what we can verify. When it comes to someone as young as Daley we have to remember (if you are gay yourself) what it was like when you first came out. At least for me...I did the same thing and told people I was bisexual for over a year. I'm not. I am completely homosexual and do not have any attraction to the opposite sex. What we have here is simply content that is very new and not yet completely clear because the subject may not have been completely forthcoming for various reasons. These issues must be taken into account when we attempt to place the "gay" label on living persons.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't always find labels very useful. Encyclopedias like neat little boxes and categories, don't they. So, Tom's going out with Lance (although, for some very important reason apparently, we can't print his name here). But, so what. Big deal. Why does that put Tom Daley into any particular category? It's up to him to say how he sees himself. The "magnifying glass" of popular media certainly has little to do with truth, and "verifiability" seems a bit of a disappointing consolation prize. Martinevans123 (talk)

We "weren't" adding the name of his boyfriend as there were no reliable sources that made the claim and supported by the subject themselves. Its all about BLP policy and guidelines and how we must treat the subject as fairly as possible. Eventually a source is going to have the information correctly attributed to the subjects but the early contributions were taking leaps.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So when Huff Post says: "The diving champion, who is in a relationship with American screenwriter and activist Dustin Lance Black which he describes as "all good", is that a good enough source to name Black? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
This is like watching a bad rally in a tennis match. The point was scored some time ago. If the HP article is not based upon some tabloid or gossip or blog item, and if Daley stated himself the name of his boyfriend in an attributable manner, then it goes in with that (or other RS) reference. Unless and until that is true, it stays out. Wikipedia is not news media. There is no deadline for the naming of Daley's love interest and there are no prizes at stake.
This seems like very prurient interest in people's lives and loves and is not what an encyclopaedia is made from. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
So who won any points? Who has a "very prurient interest in people's lives and loves" by trying to find some facts amongst the hype? But thanks for the encouragement.. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC) p.s. Is this a reliable source [5]? That site gets 355 mentions on wikipedia at the moment?

The independent [6] which is a reliable source has mentioned this, although briefly. As for using tabloids for BLPs, it depends upon what they say, and the sources. If a paper is report Daley's words verbatim then that should be regarded as reliable. Martin451 23:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure...except that I have removed the Independednt from articles as Tabloid news. And when I have brought this to the attention of Jimbo Wales he said it is always possible that news sources that were at one time considered reliable to be now considered tabloid. I oppose any source using the TV show as a source as so far as I can tell the original program is still considered tabloid itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why regurgitating tabloid style gossip column style ordure is so important to some editors. Wait long enough and their every desire will be fulfilled by a statement on a non tabloid style TV show, or a decent report in a news medium not based upon (eg) celebrity juice. Those who want to write tabloid pap and twaddle may as well get blogs and scribble away. Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You might consider it ordure. Others consider it notable information. The issue of gay men in sports is a significant issue nowadays, and of importance to a lot of people. You might consider a person's sexuality as ordure. Others consider it news (and not just "tabloid gossip"), and as a relevant way of a public figure being in the world. There are very few athletes, especially gay athletes, who have come out. When will we get beyond the point where the speculation that a person might be publicly gay is considered gossip column ordure? Let's grow up about this and realize that there are important issues here.
I'm aware of the issues of WP:BLP and the need to have respectable sources for an encyclopedia, and I'm not suggesting we add information to the article that's not (yet) properly sourced. I'm just responding to your apparent belief that this sort of information is only of interest to non-serious people. The issue of publicly open gay men in sports (or getting beyond the institutional homophobia in sports) is an important issue in society nowadays, and each athlete who takes the step to come out publicly becomes provides an experiment in changing attitudes, and becomes an example to a lot of people. Let's stop suggesting that this sort of information is only of interest to people primarily out of prurience, or an interest in gossip.
People believe that this young athlete has made it clear that he considers himself gay - which, if true, would be significant for the reasons I've mentioned. I agree that we should take care not to publish it prematurely, without proper sources. But let's not denigrate the importance of the issue, or denigrate the motives of the people who take this as a serious issue.
Let's get serious. Let's acknowledge this as a serious, legitimate issue. Omc (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It is the tabloid material that is ordure. I made that abundantly clear. Please re-read the words I used. When he is quoted directly in reliable sources, then, and then only, does it become suitable for this article. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I re-read the words you used. For example, this: This seems like very prurient interest in people's lives and loves and is not what an encyclopaedia is made from. Prurient means "unusually or morbidly interested in sexual thoughts or practices." Where's the prurient interest here? We're not talking about sex; we're talking about whether he's gay - which is a different thing - and who his partner might be. We're not looking into his bedroom (which would be prurient). We're listening to the statements he makes on the question of whether he considers himself gay.
These issues are of interest to people for reasons far beyond prurience, for the reasons I offered in my earlier comment.
And even the tabloid material... how is it ordure? You might not like the tone of the tabloid discussions, and you might question their reliability, and you might not be interested in the issues they address or their emphasis. Though tabloids may not be suitable sources for Wikipedia, a tabloid style treatment does not in itself invalidate the information in the article. Omc (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not advocating for the inclusion of the "Celebrity Juice" interview. I'm just posting here to say that I think the confusion was based on the various other news sources incorrectly quoting what Daley said. Several of the articles I'd seen linked to the "Celebrity Juice" interview, but for some reason the video wouldn't play for me, so I was only left with the (mis)quotes from echo-chamber sources. I came here to see if I could find more information on exactly what he said, context, etc, and then checked this talk page when I noticed it wasn't included. I'm sure others (like me) come to Wikipedia to try and get a story straight when we can't verify it ourselves (like when a video won't play for us, for example). It doesn't mean we're looking for "tabloid gossip". In fact, Wikipedia is full of "personal life" details about heterosexual celebrities' romantic lives with much less in the way of verifiable sources, so it's just a little insulting when the trivial "gossip" label seems to be disproportionately applied to non-heteroseuxal subjects. Again, I'm not arguing to have the information added here now that I know what the actual quote was. I'm just pointing out that there is a legitimate basis for the misunderstanding of exactly what was said. - 209.49.229.160 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in after all the screaming has stopped (or has it?), but in actual fact, he didn't say anything of the sort. As the below-cited article explores, people can hear pretty much what they want to hear. " I er- " isn't really an admission of anything. And perhaps that's exactly what he wanted to say.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2014/04/04/tom-daley-didnt-just-call-himself-a-gay-man/
Nuttyskin (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Nutty, that's precisely right. He said "I-- er" and the tabloid media decided "er" was close enough to "am" to make some juicy gossip out of it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Current affiliations

I've just been updating the article to reflect the changes this year, i.e. change of coach from Andy Banks to Jane Figueredo, the move to London, partnership with James Denny instead of Peter Waterfield. I'm wondering, is he still a member of Plymouth Diving Club now he's moved to London? His profile on the British Swimming site is showing both PDC and the London High Performance Centre, which is how I've left the infobox, but it feels a bit odd. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tom Daley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Career best ranking

"In 2009, Daley reached a career-best ranking of number one..."

Who wrote this nonsense? How can a number one ranking not be a career best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.183.200 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tom Daley. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

FATHERHOOD

It is not possible for Daly and his husband both to be the father of the forthcoming child. Article should make clear whether father is (i) Daly (ii)husband or (iii) not known yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.104.95 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They'll both be fathers. Just not biologically. GedUK  14:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The BBC source says "They have not revealed any more details about the pregnancy." So we'll just have to wait and see if he or she comes out wearing speedos. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Change link to 'Swimming at the 2018 Commonwealth Games' to 'Diving at the 2018 Commonwealth Games' under section 'International competitions', subsection '2018'. Reason: Tom Daley competed in diving at this competition, not swimming. Smixoe1 (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request Unreliably sourced information in Personal Life section

Regarding Daley's sexuality, there are a couple sources which are not reliable and should be removed.

Currently there is a section that reads "However, in an interview with The Guardian, when asked the question whether or not he was identifying as being a gay man now, Daley replied in the affirmative.", Citing a Huffington post article entitled Tom Daley: ‘I Am A Gay Man Now’.

There are multiple problem here. First of all, the Huffington post article contains no mention of any interview with The Guardian, so this sentence is misattributed.

Secondly, the Guardian article that is cited in this section contains no mention of the interviewer asking a direct question as to how Daley identifies, nor any affirmative response.

It seems perhaps this sentence was misattributed. The Huffington post article quotes Daley as stating "I Am A Gay Man Now", citing an E!-News article entitled " Tom Daley Isn't Bisexual: "I Am a Gay Man Now". It attributes this statement to his appearance on Keith Lemon's Celebrity Juice, not a Guardian interview.

This is where things get interesting.

His appearance on the show is viewable here. The quote attributed to him by E!-News ("I Am a Gay Man Now") is not present anywhere in the segment, nor is any evidence of their assertion that he is "Isn't Bisexual". Rather, the host kicks off the segment by addressing Daley with the statement "You're a gay man now". It could be interpreted as a question by some measure, but it seems more reasonable to assume it was simply to establish the subject of the interview. Tom does respond affirmatively, saying "I am" without saying anything further. He never stated "I Am a Gay Man Now" nor "I'm not bisexual". He simply responded affirmatively to a clarifying question at the very start of a casual interview. The fact the E!-News completely synthesized these two assertions and placed them directly in the title of their piece is extremely irresponsible and that article, nor the Huffington post article which borrowed that false quote, should be considered a reliable source for this reason. The current text of this article fortunately does better reflect the reality of this interview than the E!-News article, saying "However, in an interview with The Guardian, when asked the question whether or not he was identifying as being a gay man now, Daley replied in the affirmative.", but this is still very misleading. He was not asked whether or not he identifies as a gay man in any serious journalistic sense. The host said to him, with no previous context, "You're a gay man now" and Daley responded in the affirmative. We have no reason to believe that his response was a statement of his personal identity or a statement that he was not bisexual. Given that the interview occurred shortly after his marriage, one could argue that his affirmative response simply signified that he now lives as a gay man due to his monogamous relationship, while not necessarily offering insight into his true sexual orientation.

Both the E!-News and Huffington post articles draw from these 2 seconds of a casual talk-show segment as the only source for their claims. The 2 seconds in question in no way support the claims made nor quotes attributed to Daley mentioned in these two articles.

I propose we remove the Huffington Post article as a source, and entirely remove the sentence in question, such that this section reads:

In the video, he did not use the words "gay" or "bisexual", but did say "Of course I still fancy girls." When asked about his sexual orientation in a July 2015 interview with The Guardian, Daley said: "I don't put a particular label on any of it because right now I'm in a relationship with a guy, but I still have sexual feelings towards girls."[112] When asked about his coming to terms with his same-sex attraction and his relationship with Black, he said: "I'd been in relationships with girls where I'd had sexual feelings, but it became so much more intense when I met Lance."[114]

Does anyone have an issue with this proposed change? --Thefoxyfox (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is well-researched, and I think it's important to treat something as personal as this with the most care possible. I support the change. 2620:0:E50:1441:A1B1:F4D8:C89F:E618 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Thefoxyfox: Thanks for the careful analysis; I've made the change that you suggest. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

2021 Olympics, Gold Medal 🥇, men's synchro platform

Just wrote up a very brief addition regarding his win of the Men's Synchro Platforms Event during thr 2021 Tokyo Olympics on Sun, July 25th. However, I may have misunderstood the time difference and it could have been on Mon the 26th instead. I have only my phone right now so my addition absolutely needs to be expanded upon. Thanks! Ev 07:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.out.com/entertainment/sports/2014/04/03/olympic-diver-tom-daley-proclaims-he-gay-man-now
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Daley/Archive_1&oldid=1136227538"