Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23ce9cc2864ddf0

Jump to content

Talk:Tom Utley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Slatersteven in topic Daily Mail

Criticism

[edit]

This subsection does not represent the neutral point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to have. The Davenport-Hines "criticism" is dated 1998 and the "apology" is 2005 (the Hari criticism, dated 2004, is a dead link), so only tenuously connected. I propose deleting the subsection, but will leave for a while in case there are any comments. If the subsection is to stay, it should be written in a more balanced way. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Deleting sourced material does not seem the way to go. I am probably being dim, but could you please spell out in which direction you think the lack of neutrality lies? SovalValtos (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Being accused of something (in this case homophobia, but that's by the way) and then being contrite about it some years later is not encyclopaedic, in my view. Utley writes about almost everything under the sun, and for this instance to be highlighted doesn't seem particularly balanced in the context of the whole article. I have noticed a tendency throughout WP to add a "Criticism" section to BLPs; to do so without some other information about the person makes it look as though WP is being used as a soapbox. I have no problem with the section being left as it is, as I do not take a position on the criticism, but just because it is sourced it doesn't mean it should be there. Hope that makes sense! Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Your explanation makes sense. I am removing the section. SovalValtos (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Daily Mail

[edit]

So is Mr Utgley reliable for information about himself if published in the DM (to be more precise is the DM an RS for what Mr Utley says?)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply