Talk:Toby Young/Archive 1

Images
Two images exist for this article; there was some brief confusion because both displayed the same. Image:TobywIanFergus.jpg and Image:Me at Stage Door.jpg. Tyoung8 uploaded the second image over the first, which may have cause some editors to see the image with a non-matching description due to page caching issues. I have reverted the image upload; the images should display as before. Unfortunately Image:Me at Stage Door.jpg does not have its source described correctly, so it might be deleted soon unless its copyright status can be clarified. Kusma (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's true that I've made frequent changes to this page, it's not for reasons of self-aggrandisement, honest! I'm just seeking to create a simple and accurate Wikipedia entry for myself.
 * Admittedly, I prefer the picture I'm trying to put up here to the previous one of me with Ian Osborne and F. Gwynplaine McIntyre for reasons of vanity. By all means revert to the previous one if you must, but bear in mind that that one was attached to my page for reasons of self-promotion by F. Gwynplaine McIntyre. The photograph I'm trying to add was taken by Oliver Lim, but he has transferred all the rights in it to me and I'm happy for it to be reproduced anywhere. You can check that with him by emailing him on oliver.lim@btopenworld.com. What happens now? Do I make the changes I'm seeking to make or wait for a Wikipedia administrator to make them? Email me on tyoung@infohouse.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyoung8 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The instructions are at Donating copyrighted materials. Probably GFDL-self or PD-self are appropriate choices if you have all the image rights. Kusma (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume the abreiviation PPE is Philosophy, Politics and economics but can someone confirm and add the unabreiviated version as its not 100% obvious 3tmx 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Education
I'm sure that Toby was at Dartington Hall School in the late'70's early 80's when I was! Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Radio 4 programme, "The house I grew up in" which was on today. Apparently Young was given the option of attending Dartington but turned it down to go to the local comprehensive school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.70.110 (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Toby Young → Toby Young (journalist) – Disambiguation with Toby Young (composer). Tny20 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:TWODABS the journalist is clearly the primary topic and there is no need to create a dab page for two articles, as the existing hatnote suffices. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite above. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus Toby Young (composer) has various problems, involved edits, TOOSOON, hence BGWhite having prod-ded for deletion, which I would say looks likely. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:TWODABS.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 13 June 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brasenose admission
There used to be an edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toby_Young&diff=396470154&oldid=390939802 asserting (without a citation) that Toby was given a favourable offer of a place as part of a program designed to encourage applicants from state schools, which indeed was so. About a year later this was replaced with a somewhat misleading and scurrilous edit to the effect that the place was the resultof his father pulling strings for him. Subsequently this was removed and replaced by Toby with "... and managed to obtain a place at Brasenose College, Oxford after he was sent an acceptance letter by mistake", but the original edit was lost as a result. I've added "He had been offered a low BBB place under a scheme to give access to comprehensive pupils and retained the place after his father intervened to clarify the situation.", providing two impeccable citations: one from Toby himself and the other from Times Higher Education recording a fairly celebrated Oxford Union debate where the issue arose.

There used to be available on the net a rather amusing (after-dinner?) speech by Toby recounting the whole adventure, but I can't find this now. If anyone can supply a citation that would be be splendid. Coelia Concordia (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Toby subsequently deleted the edit on the grounds that it implied he was the beneficiary of nepotism ("nowt to do with my dad"). I've reinserted the part about his gaining admission under a scheme to give access to comprehensive pupils, which is multiply documented and was the original edit unchallenenged by Toby. The  THE  piece cited contains:


 * "Mr Young had begun his speech against the motion by describing his own entry into Oxford. He was given a low BBB offer to study philosophy, politics and economics at Brasenose College under a scheme to give access to comprehensive pupils, he said.


 * Mr Young missed his offer but received a letter appearing to confirm his place, followed by one rejecting him.


 * He was admitted after his father, Lord Young of Dartington, spoke to an admissions tutor to clarify the confusion, and went on to gain a first-class degree."


 * Coelia Concordia (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Join Labour, support Corbyn"
I am relativising the claim in the Career section that Toby Young joined Labour and supported Jeremy Corbyn in a party leadership election, and I am removing a similar claim from the lead section. The source does not support the original claim; it is an article by Young himself that mischievously encourages conservatives to take part in the Labour party leadership election and support the candidate Young thought the weakest. --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about his political activism?
I'm a bit surprised that this article focuses so much on Young's writing career, and has basically nothing about his political one. These days he's arguably better known as a political activist than as a journalist, but this article doesn't even mention his political views. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems that is what The Hon Toby Young wants to add. Very poor to edit your own page. I wonder if Toby would allow me edit rights to his articles? Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Huh? Cambridge? I read his semi-autobiography and he says a lot about Oxford and Harvard but when did he go to Cambridge? He already had two degrees and as far as I know he's not Dr Young! ZephyrAnycon 16:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed material from this talk page that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. --Nanite (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I query the claim 'he was fired for "hacking the computer system and circulating senior executives' salaries round the office"'. Is there any corroboration of this from the Times? It seems to be hearsay promoted by Mr. Young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.246.130 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Drug use
Per diff, Young's use of cocaine, and buying it for others, has been part of his profile in national newspapers, based on his own statements in his autobiography, and was a significant factor in people forming views about him. I believe it meets normal BLP requirements and has become notable enough for inclusion. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. It has generally been included in the articles about people who have admitted the use of illicit drugs. Philip Cross (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise agree. It is very significant. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, include. Significant and notable.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of changes by Tyoung8
You've asked me to explain the changes I've sought to make to my Wikipedia entry.

To begin with, I'm not making up the fact that I was a student at Trinity College, Cambridge. I was a graduate student there from 1988-90 and, during the same period, I was a teaching assistant in the Social and Political Sciences Faculty. Anyone wishing to check these facts can do so by calling both Trinity College and the SPS Faculty. The reason I didn't get a degree from Cambridge is because I was a PhD student -- first in the Philosophy Faculty, then in the SPS Faculty -- but didn't complete.

The changes I'm seeking to make to my page are as follows:

1. I want to delete "The Hon" from the beginning of my name. I style myself "Toby Young" and do not use the title.

2. I want to delete the summaries of both of my books in the first paragraph because, to my eye, it scans better without them. It's also too much information to be included about the books of a minor journalist such as myself.

3. I want to change "Conde Nast Publications' Vanity Fair" to Vanity Fair (magazine) for reasons of brevity. Again, I think it scans better as well as conforming to colloquial usage. No one refers to Vanity Fair as Conde Nast Publications' Vanity Fair. They just call it Vanity Fair.

4. I want to delete the final sentence of the first paragraph. Again, I do not use the title "Hon" so the fact that I'm entitled to use it is irrelevant.

5. I want to delete the sentence "At Oxford he started a magazine named The Danube, discovering his interest in journalism." Again, it's too much details for such a minor figure as myself.

6. I want to change this sentence "He then left for Harvard as a Fulbright scholar where he became a teaching fellow in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and discovered Spy, the satirical magazine co-edited by Graydon Carter." to "He then left for Harvard as a Fulbright scholar where he worked as a teaching fellow in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and became a devoted reader of Spy, the satirical magazine co-edited by Graydon Carter." My only reason is because that sounds better to me. To say I "discovered" Spy is a bit odd, as you don't really "discover" magazines. You read them.

7. While it's true that Charlotte Raven did compare me to Hitler -- she told the Independent on Sunday I had gone to ground "like Hitler in his bunker" because I would not return her telephone calls -- I'd like to exclude that because Wikipedia is so widely used as a reference source and, as a result, I've often been described, both in print and on television, as having been compared to Hitler. My concern is that, out of context, people may think it means I'm anti-Semitic. I find that upsetting for a number of reasons, one of which is that my father-in-law is Jewish and lost a number of close relatives in the Holocaust.

8. I'd like to change the reference to "The Modern Review" to the "Modern Review (London)" since that brings up the actual publication I edited, as opposed to a page with search results on it.

9. I'd like to change "The Evening Standard" to the "Evening Standard" since that brings up the paper I work for, ie, links to another page on Wikipedia.

10. I'd like to change "He has performed in the West End in a stage adaptation of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People and, in 2005, cowrote (with fellow Spectator journalist Lloyd Evans) a sex farce about the David Blunkett/Kimberley Fortier scandal and the 'Sextator' affairs of Boris Johnson and Rod Liddle called Who's the Daddy?[5][6]." to "He has performed in the West End in a stage adaptation of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People and, in 2005, cowrote (with fellow Spectator journalist Lloyd Evans) a sex farce about the David Blunkett/Kimberley Quinn scandal called Who's the Daddy?.[5][6]" My reasons: "Kimberly Fortier" has become known as "Kimberly Quinn", I think it's excessive to list all the characters in my play and makes the sentence somewhat unwieldy, and I think the fullstop should come after the footnotes, not before them.

11. I'd like to change the two sentences "Young is married to Caroline Bondy. They have two children." to "Young is married to Caroline Bondy with whom he has two children." Again, I think it scans better.

12. Finally, in the first paragraph I'd like to place the fullstop after Capote before the footnote, rather than after it. This is just standard correct punctuation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyoung8 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.148.150 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Redacted by Fences  &amp;  Windows  08:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - couldn't disagree more, these are exemplary edits, displaying [NPOV] and linguistic verve, despite the fact it's an autobiography. I think the movie character says "I'm a great editor" - I can believe it from this example--Moloch09 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. I've made most of those changes (leaving a reference to the fact that you could be the Hon. but choose not to style yourself as such). I've also left in the info that you figure too obscure to be included - if someone's important enough to have a Wikipedia article, they're important enough to have it be complete. Sorry for the reversion difficulty. Geoff NoNick 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The correct grammar is "too many details", not "too much details". So much for being a journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.144.171 (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Teaching assistant; did this role exist back in the 90s? Is this another way of saying supervisor? Currently within the University there are graduate teaching assistants (contracted for a certain number of hours per week, allowed to give lectures and run seminars, and a bit like poorly-paid lecturers); there are teaching associates for particular papers who run admin around that course and do fewer hours (getting lecture notes online, finding enough supervisors to teach the paper); and supervisors (who do a vital job of actually TEACHING the content covered in lectures within their area of expertise, in small groups, on a weekly or fortnightly basis). I would assume T Young was the latter of those categories and if so it would be useful is teaching assistant had [supervisor] or similar after it, as the different in higher education teaching and administration experience you get from the three roles is very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.80.167 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotion of eugenics for low income and low IQ parents
Young's article in September 2015 on "Progressive Eugenics" includes his proposal to provide free embryo screening to poor people and those with low intelligence: "why not offer it free of charge to parents on low incomes with below-average IQs?". Sources:
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20180103192352/https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/ archive of Young's article on "Progressive Eugenics" in The Quadrant
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/toby-young-university-regulator-resignation-office-for-students-what-like-before-appointment-erase-a8149476.html reference to Young's article on Eugenics
 * http://londonstudent.coop/news/2018/01/10/exposed-london-eugenics-conferences-neo-nazi-links/
 * Tweet by Young (recently deleted) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2tvEu6jG4q0J:https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/699336901820551170
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070d28w Radio 4 Analysis interview on Inheritance.17'48" onwards "Progressive Eugenics" for "just the bottom 10%"

I'm raising this as being encyclopaedic and relevant for the article, yet a mention of it was recently removed. diff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue is clearly relevant for the article, but not yet suitable for the summary which is not intended to include material absent from the main article. Nor do sources suggest Young's recent resignation from the OfS board is linked with the clandestinely held eugenics conference at UCL, as was suggested in the additions I removed. While Young was present, sources so far are not suggesting he played an active role. Adding it to the summary was presumptive. As I say, it should be in the main article first before it is covered in the summary. Philip Cross (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad we agree it's relevant. In the context of someone with some control over how schools are managed, Young's views on how we should use eugenics to possibly give the bottom 10% of society more intelligent children is enlightening. Equating being "in the bottom 10%" with having a genetic low IQ, is pretty informative of how Young thinks about children. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Mr Cross. You removed the additions? Could I ask why specifically and what was the problem?Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I state the issue above. Another source. Incidentally, he was actively involved in the related conference in Toronto, which it would be best to concentrate on here, a few months after the University College London event, as well as the coverage of Young's Quadrant article. The UCL article does not yet have a passage on the the secret conference controversy. Philip Cross (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the information has been added to the lede again, I thought I'd mention that I think there should be a section on this within the article. It does seem odd to include this content in the lede and not the main text. This controversy is definitely notable enough for it to merit mention within the article text and ought not to be removed. J.M.Ike (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There are three other sources about the racist Eugenics conference in London., and . All three of these articles point out that a pedo called Emil O. W. Kirkegaard who has neo-Nazi views had attended this conference. WoodChopper (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Other recent news articles that mention Toby Young and Emil Kirkegaard., WoodChopper (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The UCL has responded with an official statement, the eugenics conferences have now been suspended. WoodChopper (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First in PPE and Fulbright
Apart from claims by Young being repeated by journalists, is there convincing evidence that Young did achieve a First in PPE and was awarded a Fulbright grant? I'm wondering if the award is on a public list or whether there are reliable sources from the time about getting a first class degree. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect to the claim of a Fulbright grant, https://libraries.uark.edu/SpecialCollections/FulbrightDirectories/ seems the best way to confirm without implicitly relying on Young's own statements. I have searched 1983 through to 1987 for Visiting Scholars (rather than U.S. Scholars) and have been unable to find him under "Toby" or "Young". The online versions do not appear to cover 1969-1982, but he would not have finished his undergraduate degree until after then.

I've sent out a tweet, Young may want to confirm the year himself. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing the data a second time, with the help of a knowledgeable academic, it remains logical that Young would not have received a Fulbright award until after 1983, based on his age, though we do not have a confirmed date for his undergrad completion. If anything, considering problems with his earlier education from his autobiography (A level) he may have started an undergraduate course a year later than normal. The Fulbright grant lists linked above at uark.edu, may not be the full story. It is unclear to me if the lists of grantees are complete, or whether there are other types of small grant that could be called "Fulbright" that are for other types of study. It may also be the case that Young was offered a grant, started studying something at Harvard and dropped out without taking the grant money and just paid his own expenses. Should these latter cases apply, it would be bending the facts to continue using the term "Fulbright Scholar" to describe Young.

There is a second issue, that I have yet to find published any statement saying what course he was on at Harvard. My understanding is that Fulbright grantees must be studying an accredited course at a USA university, such as to gain a doctorate or some other post-graduate qualification. It seems highly likely that Young never finished a course, simply from the fact that no post-grad qualification is claimed anywhere. Unfortunately the events remain muddy, and the repeated claims that Young was a Fulbright scholar are not confirmed by any independent source, such as Harvard or the Fulbright Commission. For these reasons, I believe that claim should remain out of the article. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues
The policy WP:BLPPRIVACY says that all people named in articles should be assumed to have the right to privacy unless they can be proved to be public figures. The coatrack policy says not to turn an article on one subject into an article on another subject - BLP is a special case against NPOV information being added on a named person. -- Callinus (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Open an issue on WP:BLPN if outside mediation on BLP issues is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY applies to date of birth, home addresses and phone numbers. Nothing to do with citing assertions about people with verifiable controversial opinions being associated with Toby Young. Philip Cross (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:BLPNAME "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Unless you can prove that a blogger has been notable for anything other than one event. The BLP policy explicitly says "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". I recommend you open an issue on WP:BLPN arguing for the inclusion of controversial child sex remarks by an unknown blogger with no media profile to the BLP article on a living person - tell BLPN how this is does not violate the spirit of "guilt by association" -- Callinus (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems cryptic. Please add a link or diff to the evidence. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * . Philip Cross (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

2008 Scotsman reference has material cut & paste from Wikipedia
The Scotsman article used as a source in the article should probably be removed completely as a source. Examining the version of the Wikipedia article here which immediately predates publication in the Scotsman shows matching words were cut & paste:
 * and Sasha Moorsom, the novelist, sculptor and painter
 * ''was the novelist, sculptor and painter Sasha Moorsom
 * Oxford, where he started a magazine named the Danube
 * ''Oxford he started a magazine named The Danube
 * In 1991, he founded and edited the Modern Review with Julie Burchill and her then husband, Cosmo Landesman
 * ''In 1991, Young founded and edited the Modern Review with Julie Burchill and her then husband Cosmo Landesman

Per WP:Circular do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Toby Young (2006).jpg

Poor/Incorrect reference regarding "A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered"
The citation "Theresa May refuses to sack Toby Young over misogynistic and homophobic tweets" was published prior to Young's resignation so does not specifically relate to reasons attributed to his resignation therefore it is a poor reference. This citation should be removed and by removing this there is no citation to support the statement "He resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter" therefore this statement should also be removed. It is not encyclopaedic for poorly cited information to be contained within this wiki page. Please be aware that this is not a privacy issue, this is simply about using correct citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We can re-write it so that there are proper citations to support each element -- but the phrasing won't change... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this today, there seems to be zero changes needed as the existing Rawlinson Guardian reference next to the same text was published 2 hours after Young published his resignation and connects the dots perfectly well. It would be ridiculous to claim that Young's resignation within days of the offensive twitter history scandal were not connected, or that May's original, and later demonstrably unwise, defense of Young's appointment might not have been a political act due to the same scandal. If I have misunderstood the point being made, fine, but it needs to be spelled out with a timeline as to why this could be a misleading or non-encyclopaedic statement in the article lede.
 * Certainly after the intense and extended lobbying against including "misogynist" or "homophobic" in the lede (in an article that has been directly manipulated by Toby Young for his benefit) resulting in this sentence twice being discussed at BLP/N, reversing it would require significant evidence and probably be worth going for a third time to BLP/N before taking any action to change it.
 * Dear anonymous IP user, your concerns about the article would be taken more credibly if you simply stuck to a named account and requested changes on this talk page, rather than thinking that this disconnects you from your past Wikipedia editing history. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already clearly stated, the citation "Theresa May refuses to sack Toby Young over misogynistic and homophobic tweets" was published prior to Young's resignation, it was published on the 7th and Toby Young resigned on the 9th and therefore does not support the statement "He resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered". The Guardian article which you have referred to in your above comment does not mention "misogynist" or "homophobic" therefore it does not support the statement "He resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered". The statement is poorly/ incorrectly cited.
 * You commented above "It would be ridiculous to claim that Young's resignation within days of the offensive twitter history scandal were not connected" I don't know where you think this claim is being made, in fact if you were to refer to my edits of the lead you could see that I make it absolutely clear that Young's resignation was connected to his Twitter comments "A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week later after Twitter comments were uncovered that were deemed by some to be offensive including comments directed at women and comments made in a Spectator column about working class students and remarks aimed at gay people." It seems you have misunderstood the point being made.
 * In summary the statement "Theresa May refuses to sack Toby Young over misogynistic and homophobic tweets" is poorly/incorrectly referenced, it suggests that the reasons for his resignation were, misogynistic and homophobic tweets, for which we do not have a citation to support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you are disagreeing with The Independent, not this Wikipedia article. It is not up to Wikipedia to get newspapers to make their headlines literal. The encyclopaedic fact is that the given citation has the published headline, it's not our remit to rewrite it. It is also obvious that Young's resignation was never going to be a full confession of his faults, and it is also an obvious fact that had Young's misogynistic and homophobic tweets never come to public attention, Theresa May would have never been asked any questions and specifically would never have said "When he was appointed I was not aware of these comments that he had made. Frankly I’m not at all impressed by those comments."
 * I remain unclear what exactly you expect as an outcome here, the Wikipedia article represents the facts and the current text in the article of "Theresa May also defended the appointment on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, but said she was previously unaware of the comments he had made on Twitter and "he would no longer be in public office" if he continued his previous use of language." is a neutral factual representation. --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am not disagreeing with The Independent, as I have already made clear, I disagree with the way the lead of this article is written. The statement "A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered." is not supported by the citations. This is because the reference to The Independent was published on the 7th, 2 days prior to Young's resignation, and so cannot be cited as it is currently cited.
 * Perhaps the lead could be re-written as follows. Young resigned over a week later after Twitter comments were uncovered that were deemed offensive including comments directed at women and comments made in a Spectator column about working class students and remarks aimed at gay people. These comments were deemed by some to be misogynistic and homophobic.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what the problem is. His appointment was controverial according to sources. Multiple sources describe his past writing as offensive for various reasons. This was brought to everyone's attention, and he resigned as a consequence of this. A successful lead should summarize succinctly. This is a good summary which hits all the important points with no wasted words. The proposed replacement doesn't seem like an improvement. The Guardian articles cites their own prior article which specifically calls it a "misogyny row". Explaining a slightly complicated series of events in simple terms is exactly what the lead of an encyclopedia article should attempt to do. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in opening paragraph
There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality in the opening paragraph, especially the end of it. I am restoring a reference and link to Young's defence of his tweets in Quillette (if Young being an assistant editor for Quillette disqualifies that as a source, perhaps we could have a volunteer to remove all other references to articles that assistant editors of magazines wrote). The contention that we don't have statements made by subjects of bios in the first paragraph is false; see, for just one example, the article on Theresa May. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike May's own statement regarding her political views which are directly relevant to understanding her identity as a politician, the blog post from Young is simply his views that his blatantly misogynistic posts were somehow not misogynistic, despite the overwhelming evidence that everyone else that has been in print states they are. Self-service blog posts that are measurably and objectively lies, are not encyclopaedic, they are misleading in every sense of the word.
 * I shall raise this at BLPN yet again, however at this point, based on the history of the article, you appear to be a POV warrior who is acting disruptively to add political spin to the article.
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Fæ (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fæ, we shouldn't put his defence of his comments in the lead when the secondary sources are so overwhelmingly the other way. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Censorship
Sadly, the article is under an active process of censorship, with repeated attempts to remove or politically massage the objective fact that Toby Young's tweets that lead to him being removed from office, were both blatantly homophobic and misogynistic (diff). There have been two recent discussions at BLPN:
 * 11 July the consensus was to keep "after homophobic and misogynistic Twitter comments were uncovered" in the lede text.
 * 31 July the consensus was to allow Toby Young's self-serving blog (23 July) post in Quillette as a response to the allegations, but in a later section.

It is clear that Toby Young's rambling and slightly bizarre post in Quillette is not a reliable source, though it may be included as Young's response to the incident. Young is named as the Associate Editor of Quillette. In the piece he claims he is now so poor that he has difficulty clothing his children, and paints himself as a victim by describing being factually exposed as writing a huge number of misogynistic and homophobic tweets over several years, and therefore entirely unsuitable for his public position, as a "trial by media".

Yet again, having done everything I can to avoid a revert war, I am restoring the facts to the lede text. The multiple attempts at non neutral changes to the lede by User:Cleisthenes2 now appears to be a long running program of censorship of the facts in Young's favour, against the vast number of reliable sources.

Again, Young's own post may be included as his personal rebutal later in the article, specifically under Toby_Young, but it is neither factual nor a reliable source that can be considered suitable for the lede. In no way is it neutral or encyclopaedic to have Young's self-serving article replace the facts of his offensive tweets. --Fæ (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't need to take sides on whether Young's tweets were misogynistic or homophobic in order to present the relevant facts. Just presenting them in neutral language allows us to maintain a neutral point of view on a controversial political figure. That's why I and the majority of others in the July 31st discussion that you cite were in favour of a different lede than the one you have repeatedly restored. You say the consensus was for your view, but if you look at that discussion all 3 of the other contributors were in favour of a more balanced presentation. Also, what you personally think about Young's piece in Quillette isn't relevant: the point is that we need to present the facts about him in a neutral manner. I will try to restore some balance again now. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources support the language you are trying to eliminate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Going to have to agree with Cleisthenes2, the only way to make the article neutral is to include some or all of the tweets and let readers make up their own mind on whether they are indeed homophobic and misogynist. As a compromise, after including the tweets in question, the aforementioned labels applied by the referred media outlets can also be listed and in the spirit of two sides to every story should be counterbalanced by Toby Young's explanation of them. This would offer the reader a representation of divergent thought on the situation and allow them to form their own personal opinion instead of forcing one on them. In my opinion the current introduction is breaking both the Neutral Point of View and the Contentious Labels guidelines as well as giving the impression of partisan politics. Imrelaxed (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a faux framing of neutrality. Neutrality is not represented by giving equal representation to Toby Young's views about Toby Young against all independent journalists. Wikipedia is not a free blog host for Toby Young to defend his history of bigoted attacks or to use Wikipedia as a way to find his next job. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are at least a few people that disagree with you, why not attempt to offer a compromise? Imrelaxed (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked for arbitration on this issue but haven't seen any results from this. In the meantime, there seem to be two people on each side, with a majority (including the last poster) for some sort of compromise. (I also note clear majorities in favour of changing the language in past discussions.) In the meantime, I don't understand why Fæ feels entitled to unilaterally revert all edits to the language in support of her one-sided POV. If this happens again I will be forced once again to refer the matter to administrators. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an admin has already warned you about edit warring on this article, I have asked them to take another look for you here. --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fæ. I must say that that particular administrator doesn't seem to be very neutral to me. In any case, I've now lodged a complaint about you for your edit-warring and failure to work with any of my repeated offers to reach compromise. (Apparently I'm meant to inform you, so this is what I'm doing here.) Cheers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Notification is supposed to happen on user pages.
 * Forcing editors to ignore all the reliable sources about Toby Young, apart from articles about Toby Young by Toby Young, is not "compromise". The reality is that that would be "censorship". We may as well just let Toby Young continue editing the article like it was his own press release, exactly as he has done in the past when he was, rather than whatever account he is using today. --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the notification slip-up; I wasn't aware of that. But it looks like you know what's up now after I let you know here. I never argued that we should ignore all other sources about Toby Young apart from articles by Toby Young (though I did add a link to a piece by him in addition to the many others that are cited). I also never tried to 'force' anyone to do so, unless buy 'force' you mean 'make an edit' (in which case you've bene trying to force me to do things you want). I don't agree that adding balance and abiding by NPOV is tantamount to letting Young write his own article. I don't know what you're insinuating in the last bit, but we've been through the conspiracy theory that I'm Toby Young or a friend of his, and seen that it's not true. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleisthenes2
Considering how many times Cleisthenes2 has reverted this article to remove the reliably sourced words "mysogynistic" and "homophobic" to describe the notorious tweets by Toby Young, or rephrase them to look like hearsay, it is easy to lose track. This has been a bit of a campaign, as well as ignoring existing consensus on this talk page and two rounds of consensus on BLP/N, Cleisthenes2 has tried complaining about me on ANI, then DRN (where they failed to follow up) and most recently on AN/3. Here is a summary for future reference, in the likely prospect that this long revert war and forum shopping continues:


 * 1) 2019-03-21 02:44 Toby Young Restoring NPOV without too much added verbiage
 * 2) 2019-03-17 05:07 Toby Young diff
 * 3) 2019-03-17 05:00 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring /* Edit warring about Toby Young lede */ new section
 * 4) 2019-03-09 05:36 Toby Young Restored NPOV in line with balance of opinion in community
 * 5) 2019-03-09 01:44 Toby Young Removed politically one-sided language in the lede to restore NPOV
 * 6) 2018-09-23 11:24 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard /* Talk:Toby Young */ new section
 * 7) 2018-09-23 10:15 Toby Young Undid revision 860830194 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)
 * 8) 2018-09-23 10:10 Toby Young Restoring neutrality in line with consensus on the talk page
 * 9) 2018-09-23 10:05 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents /* Request for mediation in a dispute over the article on Toby Young */
 * 10) 2018-09-23 10:04 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Request fo mediation
 * 11) 2018-09-23 09:50 Toby Young Restored some neutrality to last sentence of the opening paragraph
 * 12) 2018-09-23 09:47 Talk:Toby Young /* Censorship */
 * 13) 2018-08-16 04:44 Toby Young Restored neutrality to opening para in accordance with majority view reached on BLPs page
 * 14) 2018-08-04 05:51 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard /* Toby Young */
 * 15) 2018-08-04 05:50 Toby Young diff
 * 16) 2018-08-04 05:49 Toby Young Restored reference to Quillette piece
 * 17) 2018-08-04 05:46 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard /* Toby Young */
 * 18) 2018-07-31 03:49 Toby Young Restored link to Young statement's on accusations against him
 * 19) 2018-07-27 02:25 Toby Young Added reference to Young's denial that his tweets were misogynistic etc.
 * 20) 2018-07-22 10:32 Toby Young diff
 * 21) 2018-07-22 10:31 User talk:Black Kite diff
 * 22) 2018-07-22 07:18 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Undid revision 851430796 by Politrukki (talk) Sorry, I was trying to reply to something Fae had written about the Toby Young article. (That's what you reverted, right?)
 * 23) 2018-07-22 07:09 Toby Young Undid revision 851429026 by Fæ (talk) Sorry, I don't see where consensus was established. All I can see are your arguments (which I have responded to). Please avoid edit-warring without engaging in dialogue
 * 24) 2018-07-22 06:09 Toby Young re-wrote last sentence of first para to make it politically neutral
 * 25) 2018-07-22 06:05 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard diff

Archive noticeboard links:
 * 2019-03 AN/3 Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive386
 * 2018-10 DRN Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_169
 * 2018-09 ANI Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive992
 * 2018-08 BLPN Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive272
 * 2018-07 BLPN Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added today's revert to the top of the list. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. As this record shows, I have tried repeatedly to restore some neutrality to one sentence in the opening paragraph, reaching out repeatedly to Fae for a compromise version: for example 'many held his tweets to be homophobic' rather than 'homophobic tweets,' the latter of which forces us to take a stand on a controversial issue, thus violating our key policy of neutrality. The record also shows that I've been reasonable throughout, and that Fae has repeatedly doubted my good faith and attacked me as an ideologue (ironically, since she's the one who can't seem to stand any sort of compromise to her own hard-line position). Finally, the record shows pretty clearly that Fae has repeatedly failed to establish consensus for her hard-line position, with a number of fellow Wikipedians' very civil requests that she consider compromise being rudely rebuffed or ignored. I remain willing to reach a reasonable compromise on the sentence in question with Fae. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence is the exact opposite of these claims. You are edit warring against both all reliable sources and multiple consensus. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019-03-22 Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006
 * --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes
I don't think there should be multiple quotes in the body. They fail WP:10YT in my opinion. Considering WP:NOTNEWS, the coverage has mostly died off, and the remaining coverage doesn't quote the tweets. I agree that it would be hard to decide on a single tweet to include, but removing all of them does not hurt the article. Saying that the tweets were homophobic, that Young admitted that, (that he was condemned and everyone moved on), seems to sufficiently cover the whole incident, without engaging in sensationalistic gossip. A similar consensus has been obtained on many other BLPs with similar controversies, see e.g. Sarah Jeong. w umbolo  ^^^  22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to appreciate how much intense lobbying there has been in order to remove Toby Young's most notable tweets from this Wikipedia article. It is a bizarre parody to in any way compare the harassment of Sarah Jeong, to the deliberate self-promotional harassment of others and defamation of minorities by Toby Young over many years. A better comparison is to Boris Johnson, where even after more than a decade his revealingly homophobic "tank-topped bumboys" comment is still published and will always be relevant to his political life.
 * No, there is no reason to censor these famously misogynistic and homophobic examples of Toby Young's approach to self promotion from public view on Wikipedia. They are so notable as to have documented career defining impact, and are clearly of encyclopaedic long term value. NOTNEWS does not exist to purge or soft-soap this type of career defining hatefulness, just because the biographical subject has been lobbying over the past year to remove it all mention of it on a ridiculous self victimization drive that no respectable journalist has given credence to (e.g. I can't afford shoes for my children), including from this Wikipedia article that they have extensively edited using their own account. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that he's still at it. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Young is absolutely desperate to appear controversial, when any real analysis shows he's just a sad troll that confuses right wing politics with hating all minorities. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is a BLP (and this talk page also falls under BLP). Op-eds are unacceptable even for consideration. If you want to ignore WP:AVOIDVICTIM, you need journalists and the BLP subject rejecting victimhood claims. In this case, there is a dispute and it must be properly covered per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Furthermore, if the BLP subject removes something controversial from their article, the WP:ONUS is heavily on those putting it back. I don't disagree with anything you said about NOTNEWS, but your claim of "career defining hatefulness" needs a citation, preferably not sensationalistic news. It is beyond parody that you refer to Young's "deliberate self-promotional harassment" yet you want to include it in the article. Since it's not self-promotional because he removed it from the biography, by your logic it ought to be removed? w umbolo ]]  ^^^  14:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Try reading the past threads on this talk page, along with the mountain of reliable sources, rather than repeating the same old boring nonsense that the community has wasted enough time on, or patronizingly pointing out that BLP exists. Cleisthenes2 has already fought a full scale war over this, including five different noticeboard threads, against the reliable sources and, well, facts. Try wading through that before starting your own campaign to defend the poor innocent right wing extremist subject of this BLP from the evidence of their own publications. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of the five threads were at BLPN, and you started both of them. Ironically, in neither of them did you agree to a BLP-compliant compromise. That's why I'm pointing out WP:BLP. As for edit warring, you're more or less just as responsible for it as Cleisthenes2. Since this has been at multiple noticeboards, you should expect multiple admins having this on their watchlist and seeing your insults directed at the BLP subject. The other editor might have been needlessly disruptive, but at least they were following WP:BLP. You keep giving your own personal opinion and analysis while vaguely referring to "the mountain of reliable sources" without citing a single one. w umbolo   ^^^  14:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is ironic is that you are demanding that others have the burden of "proving" things which have already been well covered. Do the research before flinging mud around. The burden of reading through the past discussions and wealth of reliable sources that show in spades that Young is an over privileged liar and hate speech promoter, is your burden, not everyone else's. The Wikipedia article simply reflects the reality that the evidence is highly negative, rather than Young's victimhood fantasy. Wikipedia policies do not support creating a fake neutrality where on one side is the subject of the article saying how saintly he is, and on the other is literally every other writer in the world saying the opposite. That would be called vanity fiction, not encyclopaedic. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the quotations present any sort of BLP problem (or indeed another type of problem) in this article. This is a matter of judgement, and I'm content with the idea that the article is currently compliant with policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (Coming from BLP/N) Has there been any significant impact on his career as a result of these quotes? If it's just journalists that keep point out their opinions on these tweets and other quotes but no one else is doing anything about this, this far out from the event, that's just criticism of journalists, and should be a sentence or two at most. Its not WP's place to keep what appears to be a small, slow-moving controversy that has little impact covered in any significant detail, particularly if we're only getting this via opinions and not through news articles. --M asem  (t) 18:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As this has been raised at BLPN for a third time on the exact same point, I am making a comment there. Using BLPN rather than bothering to discuss this article here, is clearly forum shopping and looks like gaming the system. Poor show.
 * The link to the third BLPN thread is Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I have suggested there that if people are excited enough about the the highly notable twitter quotes to try to blank them from the article, this should go to a more substantial RFC for wider community opinions, rather than just using the same process over and over until you get the result you want.
 * read the sources, check Lexis, these twitter posts have had a massive and sustained affect on Young's career. He no longer holds any Government post or official executive charity positions. The reason is that he now fails any good governance test, because of his published offensive views about women, queers, race/eugenics and white supremacy. It would be extreme sophistry to claim that the collapse of Young's career immediately after the tweets were publicised, and with days deleted from Twitter, was all coincidence when there is quite literally no other reason that has ever been given by anyone, including Young. --Fæ (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do now ewe the career impact so some mention is clearly needed, BUT I see no sign of any specific Twitter post made affecting him. The body of his Twitter did cause the resignation to happen, but not any single specific one, and since you've identified that 10,000s of Twitters were made, focusing only on a few makes little sense for a summary article. You can describe the general sentiment that his critics have of his Twitter quotes, to explain the issues with his resignation, but I see no need to necessary to keep any specific quote, of thousands that had been made. Otherwise, this can been seems as OR and POV in cherry picking the worst of the worst by WP editors. To compare, I would fully expect that Elon Musk's article mentions his tweet that called one of the Thai cave rescuers as a "pedo guy" that led to a huge amount of controversy: we can narrow in on that one specific message. Here, none of the tweets mentioned have led to any significant drama, outside of adding to the general resentment of his body of tweets. --M asem (t) 19:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources more carefully. These quotes were the critical tweets quoted in the press and questioned in Parliament that underpinned the PR damage. These were the tweets that were widely used as evidence, rather than insisting that everyone read 10,000 tweets before they were allowed to have a view. Wikipedia does not insist that we never quote Shakespeare in articles about Shakespeare, because we would be selecting quotes. Representative quotes and representative tweets are perfectly fine to illustrate case history.
 * By the way "ewe" only means a sheep to me, I have no idea why you are using the word. --Fæ (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "ewe" was a typo from about several ce's I had in trying to reply. Mean "know".
 * If the tweets are central to his dismissal then put them right there in that section. Eg the ones mentioned in the Independent article. A separately to then coatrack other problematic tweets outside that incident that had no other impact are still a problem. --M asem (t) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we must be talking past each other in some way. I agree that the section on dismissal should mention the tweets, and it does. It seems cosmetic as to whether we should have a section that talks about twitter where the actual tweets that were the foundation of all of the career ending controversy are included, or massage the same material into other places. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the choice of layout. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are in some type of agreement, details are less a problem. I just don't like the idea of a section about his general social media usage that draws in a laundry list of petty complaints -- nlike a figure like Trump whose social media usage itself is nearly a notable topic. Given the "Journalism, writing" section is before these career shifts, a small paragraph in the former section along the lines "Prior to his appointment to the Board, Young frequently used Twitter, with his comments seen by journalists as (something, something, and something). He had deleted 40,000 tweet prior to his Board appointment.". And then in the section about the Board, mention that Young's past Twitter usage raised questions, particularly tweets about George Michael, etc. etc." At that point, you don't need the Twitter section at the very end, even the claims he edited WP. It is absolutely okay under BLP to mention the wide-spread opinion about his Twitter account, and the specific tweets in question related to the Board. Everything else is a potential BLP minefield and best omitted until there is clear long-term incidents that we should know about. But as I said, I think I am in general agreement with your assessment. More simply, its about avoid mentioning every document-able social media faux pas that has not had any enduring coverage. --M asem  (t) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Couple of corrections/facts:
 * Young is very notable for their tweets, just like Trump. His tweets remain a major component of his continued notability, the examples this past week being his twitter spat with previous journalist colleague Raynor, and his twitter attack on the 16 year old Thunberg.
 * Young was reported in the national press as appointed by the Government on 1 January 2018. The press later were reporting his mass deleting 50,000 tweets as occurring on 3 January 2019, days after the Government appointment and days after it became a PR disaster for Young and the Government.
 * On 7th January, Theresa May stated in press interview that she was previously unaware of Young's offensive tweets, but supported Young remaining in post.
 * On 9th January, BBC reporter Nick Robinson confirmed that Young had resigned because his "past has caught up with him" and referred to a public petition which already had 200,000 support votes to remove Young from the new public position.
 * Please take care to stick to the evidence as presented in the sources, Young did not delete tweets prior to his appointment. You are mixing up cause and effect and if a rationale built on misunderstanding the facts ends up changing the content of the article, that may damage its integrity.
 * P.s. I was going to correct the mention of George Michael to George Clooney, but the mix up is understandable as it appears that some journalists at the time confused the "queer as a coot" tweet. The original much quoted homophobic tweet was an attack on George Clooney. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Which Independent article? Is it this one which cites an article on a political blog written by an intern? w umbolo   ^^^  22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that one, its this one, which seems to be written as a news piece and not opinion. --M asem (t) 23:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And WP:NOTNEWS. See e.g. this news article which is equally reliable but does not quote the tweets because it is not Recentist. w umbolo   ^^^  09:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are using the New Statesman, November 2018, as a reliable source on Toby Young, where Toby Young has been published multiple times. If you are going to put forward sources as evidence for your views, please ensure they are actually independent rather than dubious due to their direct connections to Toby Young.
 * More independent and equally not "recentist" would be:
 * Mirror, October 2018, [...] Toby Young, who quit a universities watchdog after it emerged he'd joked about "hard-core dykes" and appeared to say of a woman: "I had my d*** up her a***." Screenshots of tweets in Mr Young's name from 2009-10 depict him telling one person "f*** you, penis breath", calling George Clooney "queer as a coot" and joking of the Emmys: "There should be an award for Best Baps."
 * Observer, September 2018, Local martyr Toby Young, for example, was quick to reattribute Buruma's departure to "sexual McCarthyism". By which he means, presumably, the politically orchestrated persecution of the entirely blameless, on trumped-up charges. Back to De Profundis. "I can sympathise with Buruma," Young volunteers. "I felt obliged to stand down from various charities at the beginning of the year after a social media outrage mob called for my head." To save yet another anti-#MeToo activist the trouble of denouncing the sexual McCarthyism that robbed our universities of Young's mentoring, it's probably worth quoting - since he doesn't - one of the many tweets for which the educationalist "unreservedly apologised" last year: "The women here are smoking hot. There should be an award for best baps."
 * Demonstrably you are wrong when you claim that these tweets deleted in January 2018 are not quoted in reliable sources, by independent journalists, many months after the event. Reliable sources show that the tweets remain a career defining event for Young and have high encyclopaedic value for Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These are tabloid magazines. Completely inappropriate for BLPs. w umbolo   ^^^  11:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, what? So your source is a magazine piece (with an obvious connection to Toby Young) about the right wing extremist Roger Scruton, which contains a throw away comment about the right wing extremist Toby Young from November 2018. Somehow you think that the tabloid format magazine you cherry pick as evidence because it mentions Young's resignation in a total of 15 words without quoting any tweets, is more reliable than the highly respected Observer (which has no obvious connection to Toby Young) which you do not accept because "tabloid magazine" and it does go into far more accurate detail. Did you even try reading the other sources, or are you only interested in defending your viewpoint regardless of what any other sources have published? --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad. I mixed up the Observer with the Spectator (because Toby wrote for the Spectator). But New Statesman is far more reliable than the Daily Mirror. w umbolo   ^^^  18:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)