Talk:Tom Harwood

Council Election 2018

I think it's editorialising to delete context surrounding the 2018 council election. It's clear from his Twitter at the time of the campaign that he did not campaign in the ward, and from council records that it not a competitive seat for the Conservatives. Deleting context around this presents a clearly misleading, editorialised narrative. PlumSlice (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Tatler

Apparently The Tatler, which as far as I understand its raison d'etre , is to be a kind of gossip magazine for posh people, made a little list of people it admires. As it is a right wing piece of frippery, it put this person , whom it presumably wants to promote for his right wing-ness, into its little list. I suggest that this is of no biographical weight for a wikipedia article, and its insertion here is in effect, an unbalancing of the striving for NEUTRALITY and is a sin against WP:WEIGHT. The article is in danger of looking like a piece of PUFF for this man, written by idiotic admirers , rather than clear eyed, objective editors. This is how I see it anyhow. 86.160.24.210 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Including a notable listing is not a sin against WP:WEIGHT. User:PJPutt998 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPut988 (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tom Harwood Headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not Telegraph columnist

Tom Harwood was an online contributor to the Daily Telegraph rather than a columnist. The impression given is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.162.12.14 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The current source does not describe him as columnist and I couldn't find him on the columnist page of the Telegraph website in 2020 either, so he seems to be just a (very regular) contributor. 15 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

@Gliplog9: @Hippo43:.

I notice this edit war has been going on for a week now; no 3RR violations from what I can see, but also no attempts at discussion and no sight of resolution. What I do see are dishonest accusations of vandalism from Gliplog9. I was going to take this to WP:EWN but I thought it best to open a thread here first to try to force a dialogue. — Czello 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the language and descriptions do enter the realms of PoV ("successful" is simply untrue -- he lost; "that gained national attention" appears PoV, not sure it's necessary to mention him as a "regular" contributor to the Telegraph, etc). However, I think the "list of top 100 most influential Conservatives of 2019" and the "the youngest panellist on the topical debate programme" additions seem reasonable; I'd be interested in hearing the argument against their inclusion. — Czello 10:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gliplog9 is not a real editor, so I didn't see any point in discussing it with them. They have only edited a handful of related articles, have made dishonest edit summaries and appear to have a conflict of interest. The text was similar to what appears on Harwood's website.

I removed the mentions of LBC and Tatler lists because they are opinion pieces and do not appear in independent sources. If these were significant they would be reported in secondary sources.

Re "the youngest panelist on Question Time", this has been disputed before - [1]. Harwood himself has tweeted that he wasn't [2], and the BBC reported that Michael Heaver appeared aged 18 [3]. It simply isn't true. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: @Hippo43:

1. "Successful satyrical campaign" is true - he won. [4][5] Gained national attention in print and on TV is key to the article, leads reader to follow path to later career.

2. Discussion on this talk page agreed he was a "very regular" contributor to the Telegraph.

3. LBC and Tatler lists are reliable sources and clearly worthy of inclusion. Removing them weakens the article and its notability.

4. Harwood was the youngest panelist on BBC Question Time. BBC Schools Question Time is a different programme.

Removing these pieces of notable information that have stood the test of many editors fundamentally undermines the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliplog9 (talk • contribs)

@Gliplog9: You haven't addressed the POV nature of your edits, your connection to the subject, or why you want to promote him, at all, but to answer each point:

1 We don't need to describe it as successful. Success can be defined in many ways. The section already says he won. "Gained national attention" is not sourced. We have to use judgment here about what to include - a gimmick campaign in a student election that managed to attract some media coverage is not significant.

2 Whether he was a "regular" or "frequent" or whatever contributor is not sourced or important. He was a contributor between those dates, that's enough to include. There was no agreement on this talk page at all. One user expressed a view. Your statement is dishonest.

3 LBC and Tatler may be reliable sources for matters of fact. These are promotional, opinion pieces, not matters of fact. Being part of these lists is being used to promote notability for Harwood, but secondary sources have not published his inclusion, because it's not note-worthy. If these lists were well-known and respected, other sources would report them. The only place they are publicised is on Harwood's website.

4 The BBC source is absolutely clear that the schools' programme was Question Time, not a different programme. [6]

Your edits have not been honest. Please give it up. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: point 1: My mistake, I was getting confused with his run for president a year later. — Czello 06:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not changed the page. Just restored it to the previous consensus that existed before partisan

1 A campaign is successful if it wins. Would be odd to leave out the fact that the campaign won from that sentence. Especially given the language of the media coverage.

2 No one challenged the view on this talk page, rightly, as looking at the archive it is clearly regular. Notable to include.

3 LBC and Tatler are reliable sources for matters of fact. These lists are not promotional pieces. LBC list is also included in the pages of Michael Gove and Tim Montgomerie without controversy. Also reported in secondary sources.[7][8]

4 The BBC source is clear that the schools programme is a "special programme", "made by the normal Question Time production team with the help of eight students who were nominated as winners of the 2008 Schools Question Time challenge." With an "audience was made up of young people aged 16-19."[9]

I have not made new edits, instead have just undone your edits to restore the well balanced page as it previously existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliplog9 (talk • contribs)

You are wrong on all four points. But you still haven't addressed what you are doing here. Why have almost all your edits been of one article, and all to paint the subject in a more flattering way?? // Hippo43 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

My points are evidenced and correct. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. I have not painted the subject in a more flattering way, I have restored the article to wp:npov after your edits did the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliplog9 (talk • contribs)

You are a single purpose account making obvious POV edits. You have made dishonest or misleading edit summaries and statements here. Another editor has suggested (at your talk page) that you may have a conflict of interest. What are you doing here exactly? // Hippo43 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You made obvious POV edits to a settled article. I restored the consensus. You have not responded to any evidence here on this talk page. Including lists that appear on other articles and secondary sources but you have inexplicably removed from this one. Restoring the page to how it was before your POV edits is the opposite of making POV edits myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gliplog9 (talk • contribs)

@Gliplog9: Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). — Czello 10:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: What are your thoughts on the issue of content? // Hippo43 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tom Harwood Headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Self promotion

The constant edits, deletions and reverts to this entry by one user plus anonymous account appear to be maintaining this article as a PR self-promotion tool with only positive and career highlights. Any news articles around criticism are being removed. The profile picture is identical to the one Tom Harwood uses on his website and social media. All this doesn't serve the purpose of a balanced encyclopaedic Wikipedia entry. HelloHanSolo (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The freeman of the city is not notable. Virtually anyone can pay £150 and get it. The source given (which is also his employer and of dubious reliability) does not claim it was an honorary award. It should be removed. Jonknight73 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is pretty obvious it is Harwood doing this as the edits are only ever in his favour including using a picture that is his preference on social media. The language used on this page very much reflects the distinct speaking style Harwood has too. This means the article does not fairly represent Harwood who, as recent social media coverage of his performance on BBC Question Time shows, is a far more contentious figure than this reflects with his views being widely disputed. 137.22.173.220 (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)