Talk:Captain Tom Moore

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that more than £27 million has been raised for NHS Charities Together by Tom Moore? Source: "Moore has raised more than £27.5m for NHS Charities Together and the fight against Covid-19 by walking lengths of his garden."
  • ALT1:... that Captain Tom Moore has raised more than £27 million for NHS Charities Together by walking around his garden?
  • ALT1a:... that 99-years-old Captain Tom Moore has raised more than £28.7 million for NHS Charities Together by walking laps of his garden?

• Reviewed: Please

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Tabletop123 (Tabletop123). Expanded by Pigsonthewing (talk). Nominated by Whizz40 (talk) at 15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

• I would suggest using the second one, but amending it to say "99-year-old Captain Tom Moore" and would suggest that "walking laps of his garden" would be more accurate than "walking around his garden". The latter implies that he just walked around a bit. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Added an Alt. It is going to need adjustment as he may be 100 by the time it goes live and the total is changing daily. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• It would be good to schedule this for 30 April, his 100th birthday, and re-word accordingly. We could also mention his UK number one single; and in any case should update the sum raised, which is still climbing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Very interesting man, with a life worth mentioning on this encyclopedia. I've updated the amount raised to over £28.7 million, per the current stats in his article. Whomever adds this to a queue and whomever adds this to the main page should feel free to update it again if seen fit. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since this has just been moved to the special occasions section to run on April 30, Moore's impending hundredth birthday, I'm revising the hook accordingly:
  • ALT1b: ... that Captain Tom Moore, who turns 100 today, has raised more than £28.7 million for NHS Charities Together by walking laps of his garden? —BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    • ALT1b hook looks good to go; birthday is verifiable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Can we rescue the original picture of him in uniform which was deleted on Commons because expired Crown copyright was not proven? The only image in the article at the moment is fair use. Perhaps we can get the uniformed picture released if the expired copyright can't be proved? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Who was the photographer? Who holds the copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• What about appending "...and is No 1 in the UK singles charts" [also, that figure in the hook is already out of date; please check the latest figure before posting]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)?
  • ALT1c: ... that Captain Tom Moore, who turns 100 today, has raised £28 million for NHS Charities Together and is No 1 in the UK singles charts? Whizz40 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT1b (ALT1c is rapidly losing hookiness as more info is being tacked on), but the article is tagged with a move request. Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Alt1c, as suggested by Andy, remains interesting, I think, and is quite incredible for a 100 year old, and also meets criteria. What do others think? The move request is ongoing but a consensus appears to be forming. I asked that it be closed before the article goes on the Main page; if not I would just suggest we remove the tag for that day as it is not an orange or red tag. Does that work? Whizz40 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1c is just a bunch of information about someone who's 100 years old. It tells you everything you need to know and there's no need to click on the article. ALT1b, with the words by walking laps of his garden adds some hookiness interest and would make me want to click on it to find out more. Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree Alt1b as updated for the exact total. And Captain Tom Moore in the hook even if they haven't agreed to move it back yet (which they should notwithstandng policy arguments). The idea of raising money by walking laps is what he is know for. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I don't think this nomination should risk missing its special occasion date—a hundredth birthday, about as special as you can get—because of a move discussion. Let's get it into prep now. If the article is moved before April 30 (I'm assuming we're going for the 00:00 UTC set), we change the bold link in the hook and the first parameter of the DYKmake and DYKnom templates for it. If it hasn't as of 24 hours before, we request in the move discussion that the move not happen right before or while the article is on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• OK. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

referencing re 6.1 million gift aid / tax rebates amount

User:Martinevans123 in this diff added "citation needed" tag with edit summary "latter figures not mentioned or sourced in article main body". I am removing that citation needed tag from the lede, now. Note the dollar amount is mentioned in reference now numbered 30, this justgiving.com webpage about tomswalk, in a "Donation summary" section giving direct amount of £32,796,354.73 and "+ £6,173,753.31 Gift Aid". Right, it is not covered in sentences, in main text of the source.[i incorrectly thot the complaint was about lack of clarity within the reference somehow.--Doncram (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)] So the number is sourced, below in the article, not in the lede.

If there needs to be better referencing and/or more explanation about how real is this 6.173 million, [i.e. if it was questioning the source, which the complaint was not--Doncram (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)] that should be discussed here on Talk. I am not myself familiar enough with the gift aid system to develop more about it, if any more development is in fact needed. And there possibly could be a negative tag placed into the article, but I think that should only be late in the article where the amount is given currently with reference to the justgiving.com webpage. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was and is that nothing should appear in the lede that doesn't appear in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, the reference was and is in the main body of the article. So don't add citation needed about it in the lede. Okay, i guess we are done, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see the figures of "£30 million" and "£32.79 million" in the article main body. And I'm sure both are fully sourced. I still can't see any mention of "almost £39 million". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The main body has "The JustGiving page for his campaign closed at the end of that day; the final amount raised subsequently being stated there as £32,796,475 (plus another £6,173,663.31 expected in tax rebates under the Gift Aid scheme)[30]". --Doncram (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has. But it doesn't mention "almost £39 million". I guess it's left up to the reader to mentally add £32,796,475 to £6,173,663.31 and to get a sum of "£38,969,138.31" and to then realise that this is indeed the "almost £39 million" mentioned in the lede? Even that ref [30], to the GiftAid page here, doesn't add the two sums together and doesn't say "almost £39 million". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Sexless first marriage"

Although we can't use it as a source, the story behind Moore's first marriage to "Billie" (not her real name) and the eventual divorce, is given by an article in the Daily Mail here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputation is bad enough already, without using the Daily Mail as a reference; especially for something as irrelevant to this article as the subject's long-past sex life with a former wife. Such salacious information may be of interest to Daily Mail readers, (it may even be relevant information in articles about other people on Wikipedia) but this man's fame, celebrity status, point of interest etc etc, is to do with his charity work; his past sex life with a former wife, is just not relevant information... Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of whitewashing articles, or leaving out salacious (or even morally objectionable) material if it's relevant, but this man's past marital sex life, is simply not relevant. Why would it be? I really can't believe how bad Wikipedia is becoming! -- M R G WIKI999 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, I started with "we can't use it as a source" (fully in line with WP:DAILYMAIL)? I think the fact that he's written about his first marriage in his autobiography, in such candid detail, (apart from the real name of "Billie", it seems), that this makes all of this perfectly suitable as candidate material for this article. Obviously, we wouldn't want to go to such a fine level of detail. Sorry if my use of the DM headline may have put you off a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that that article is in the Daily Mail is almost irrelevant as the material purports to be an extract from Moore's book (whether it is such is easily verifiable). However the underlying point is that that book is not an acceptable source per WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:AUTO, and we have no basis for verifying the claims, nor for determining whether Moore is being candid or not. I conclude that this material is completely unsuitable for inclusion in this article, regardless of who publishes it. Davidships (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I can't imagine the approbrium you heap upon yourself here by not believing Captain Tom. But "rulez-is-rulez", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind the source. The nature of that content itself falls under gossip/trivia. Not at all encyclopaedic. When editing Wikipedia one of the best things to ask yourself is "would I find this written in a hard copy encyclopaedia?". If the answer is no then more than often it does not belong here either. That's my take anyway. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the fact that Pamela conceived Moore's child, while he was still married to Billie, as "gossip/trivia." If this was some kind of scurrilous exclusive expose by the News of the World I'd not want to include it. If it was only in the Daily Mail we couldn't add it. But the fact it's included in his official autobiography, published in his lifetime... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd maintain that the reasons and processes by which couples divorce may be completely encyclopaedic, especially in cases where there is a need to link to staged adultery. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a handbook for the prurient. There is a need not to link to "staged adultery", since it is entirely without any RS, and probably always will be. And there is nothing to link to, since it is not mentioned in the target - indeed the only use of that expression in the whole of enWP is the one in this article - or was. Davidships (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you're saying there's no such thing as "staged adultery". It doesn't (and it didn't) exist? And to suggest that it does (or did) is in some way "prurient"? Or are you just saying it should never be mentioned in a "proper encyclopaedia"? I can understand your point that most material in autobiographies can never be verified. But I hardly realised they were completely banned as sources for articles. I've removed the name "Billie" from the infobox, as we know that name was invented by Moore. And of course we currently have no source for the divorce anyway. Perhaps he imagined it all? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 That's putting words in my mouth. Certainly staged adultery existed, and may even have been common, but there is at present no reference to it by that name in WP; and no mention of it even by synonym in the article you keep linking to. Neither is autobiographical material banned per se (again, see guidelines at WP:AUTO) but this material fails at least two of the five tests in WP:ABOUTSELF - and here is not the place to challenge WP Policy. Davidships (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

David, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to clarify what you mean. I have only linked that term, here on the Talk page, for the purpose of clarity, to match what was in the article. I didn't originally invent that term and I would have no problem with re-phrasing it (although it does seem wholly understandable to me). I quite agree that this is not the place to challenge WP Policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

p.s. which "two of the five tests" did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

p.p.s. is the Daily Mirror really considered to be a good source? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidships, I totally agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Piers Morgan and Unverifiable References

I've noticed that Piers Morgan's Life Stories, 13 September 2020 (Ref number 6 at time of writing) is used no less than six times as a cited source of reference within this article. This reference provides absolutely no verifiable information, and merely contains the program's date and a link to the TV program's Wikipedia page. No link is provided that users can follow to verify any of the information being referenced... If a book were being referenced, it may just cite the chapter or page number etc, but does this mean you can just cite a TV broadcast's date of transmission in the same way as a reliable source? You could literally claim anything to be true just by citing a TV program's broadcast date as the reference... a reference that can not be checked or verified by users (you can't walk into a library and verify the information in the same way you could with a book reference). Personally, I think this reference, and any like it, should be deleted as unreliable/unverifiable, and any claims or information within the body of the article be left as unreferenced information, and therefore left open to question or requests for valid references by users. To be clear, I'm not claiming Piers Morgan is an unreliable source of reference (you must make your own mind up about that) no, what I am saying, is that unverifiable references are unreliable! Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy about unverifiable references? -- M R G WIKI999 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid point. I'm not even sure I'd want to use a book written by Morgan, for that matter, but that's another story. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. In four cases the reference is probably superfluous, but in the two where it is the only source, the content should be deleted - expecially the sentence about his first marriage, which can have come only from Moore himself (as a taster for his book - see previous section). So even if the programme was accessible, or a transcript published, some content will fail WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:AUTO. Davidships (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)