Jump to content

Talk:Captain Tom Moore

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Therofr (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 16 February 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Captain Tom, who turns 100 today, has raised more than £32 million for NHS Charities Together by walking laps of his garden?
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 2, 2021.

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
p.s. which "two of the five tests" did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. is the Daily Mirror really considered to be a good source? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davidships, I totally agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the Evening Standard, [1], which is not a perennial source. Therefore, as it is published in a reliable source, I think the name of who he was married to should be included. That it was a "sexless marriage" is not encyclopedic content. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree that such a description is certainly not encyclopaedic. The name "Billie" was his invention. What about the psychiatrist? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The autobiography "Tomorrow Will be a Good Day" at GoogleBooks here Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Martin for holding out for so long. To say that because something is sexual it can't be included is the non-encyclopedic opposite of prurience, prudery. Spicemix (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that a marriage that took up 15 years of Moore's life can be glossed over so neatly in the space of 15 words. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* In view of today's news, I would prefer to come back to this topic on another day Davidships (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His Guardian obituary just refers to an unhappy first marriage, maybe we should just leave it at that. PatGallacher (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should. But that single dull word doesn't really do it justice. It seems to have been a 15-year sentence of misery. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


My last word on this (and applies to the para just below as well as to Piers Morgan below that). I am glad that some restraint has been maintained in the actual editing. And for the record, I never said that anything cannot be included because it is sexual, but because the proposed material was unverified. Adherance to WP:V isn't negotiable and we all know that believing, or even knowing, something to be true doesn't pass muster without WP:RS. The application of verifiablity to self-published sources (and that applies equally to books, speeches, interviews, tweets etc) is subject to clear criteria. Of the five tests:

  • the claim of a 15-year sexless marriage (and maybe also of a staged divorce) is exceptional, and therefore requires multiple high-quality sources, not just one primary one;
  • it involves a claim about a third party (or presumably more than one in the case of the divorce);
  • there can be reasonable doubts about its authenticity - not, I hasten to add, to particularly doubt the good faith of Moore in telling the story he wished to tell, or to suggest that the whole thing was made up. But we cannot know how selective it is, consciously or unconsciously, about events that took place over 55 years ago (or why he chose to talk about it).

(And, finally, the lack of verifiability is not overcome by the nature of the media if the words are his own, about himself - note that the Evening Standard's obit is careful to add "according to his autobiography" just the once - when touching on the divorce). Davidships (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Davidships, and thanks for clarifying which three of the five tests you believe the claims fail. I'm very sorry if is your "last word" on this, as it would leave some of my questions unanswered, as follows:
  • looking at WP:EXCEPTIONAL, it would seem the relevant criterion is "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Or has the exceptionality here been decided using some other criterion/ criteria?
  • presumably the "third party" in the divorce proceedings would have been the woman involved in the staged adultery. It seems unlikely that her identity would have ever been published in the public domain. And it seems equally unlikely she would ever have made any public comment about it.
  • with regard to reasonable doubts about authenticity - yes, I guess memory starts to fail someone at the age of 100. But either one believes the content of an autobiography or one doesn't. Is someone more likely to get muddled about "exceptional" circumstances? I'm not sure. But this was not a one-off singular event, in Moore's distant past, it was something that happened to him over a period of 15 years.

If the Evening Standard can add "according to his autobiography" when touching on the divorce, why can't we do the same? I'm guessing you would argue it's because having an "unhappy marriage" is not an "exceptional claim"? I'm sure there are other details about the divorce, e.g. the date and the grounds presented in court, that would not be considered exceptional and thus could added on the basis of what's in the autobiography. Lastly, does Andy's point below. about the admission on national television, really not make any difference at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you tempt me. (1) Yes, 15 years of sexless marriage is, I believe, exceptional (when it is the first 15) on that basis; as for whether it is "important" is a matter of judgment - you and I may differ. Those 15 years were not a black hole that needs to filled in with this as, during that time, he seems to have built a successful business career as well as enjoying extended involvement in competitive motor sport. Those are the areas I would look at for material that is more likely to be verifiable, and where appropriate use of self-published material could be acceptable.
(2) Third parties. Yes, I agree. Though reliable sources may become available on the basis of further research in the future (to take the simplest example, the identity of Billie will be in plain view in a marriage register - (in fact I am surprised that it has not already been reliably published, or perhaps I have missed it) - and for a biographical researcher one thing leads to another.
(3) Authenticity. Well before 100, from my own experience. Having an unhappy marriage is not an exceptional claim and I see no problem about attributing that to him (as with the ES it should not appear as WP's words) - his unhappiness was a state of his mind - but what he said about its causes cannot be relied upon.
Lastly (?!), my view is that generally-accepted RS media helps only to the extent that it verifies that he did say what he said (in contrast to an interview in the Daily Mail, which cannot be used even for that), but beware the edited TV interview or, even more so, the sound-bite. Interviews do not verify the content of what is said, - as an extreme example I remember with a shudder the November 2014 BBC TV top-of-the-bulletin interview with "Nick". Davidships (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering and clarifying. I think any comparison between Moore and Carl Beech is somewhat wide of the mark. And I fail to see the logic in your claim that "what he said about its causes cannot be relied upon." There also seems to be a problematic circularity in the treatment of "exceptional claims": the reason the claim is exceptional is that it's not verified by multiple reliable sources, but the only way of allowing it is to find multiple reliable sources to verify it. If this is not the case then, as you say, it's just your personal belief that it's exceptional. And I don't see how the "successful business career and competitive motor sport" in some way eclipse or replace the 15 years of sexless marriage and the hurried staged divorce. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not circular. It is not because it is unverified that it is exceptional, it is the content of claims. If you don't find them exceptional (ie not the norm), then I give up.
And no, no, no. I did not compare Moore and Beech. That is unthinkable. I was responding to your question (and to Pigsonthewing) about whether something is reliable if said in an interview on a RS national television. It's not. The broadcaster is only a RS for what is said when speaking in its own voice or otherwise exercising editorial control. Davidships (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for explaining that it's the principle of an "interview on a RS national television". I still think your choice of an example was an unfortunate one. And thanks for clarifying about a claim being "exceptional". I don't really find it helpful to try and classify things in a dichotomy between either "exceptional" or "unexceptional". I think there are degrees of normality. Adding a statement to the article such as "according to his autobiography he had an unhappy marriage" seems so bland and uninteresting that it's hardly worth the effort. It's the unusual things that make a person's life at all notable or interesting. I'd guess that this is what Moore himself must have thought when he wrote his life story. It need not be salacious or sensational in any way. Plain facts can be thoroughly interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Helpful" for what? WP policy requires precisely that dichotomy. Perhaps you might wish to raise that at WT:V. Davidships (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not helpful" in the sense that your personal subjective opinion of what is "exceptional" may well differ from mine. Yes, I might raise it there, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. the "third party" was, of course Pamela who, although pregnant at the time, insisted they "make a night of it" and go to a hotel in London for the obligatory photos. Well, that's if one can believe what Captain Tom says in his book?[reply]

Staged adultery

Moore admitted to staging adultery, in order to obtain a divorce, on national television; this is (or at least was) cited to a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) Now easily verified on YouTube (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
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)[reply]
Please provide a link to a Wikipedia policy that says we cannot cite nationally-broadcast television programmes. Content must be verifiable; it does not need to be easily verifiable, nor verifiable by you (nor any other specific individual). It is verifiable to anyone who accesses a recording of the programme - which, among others, many academics may do. Furthermore, I saw the programme, twice, and I verified that it said what my edits said it did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the interview is available on ITV's Youtube channel in sections, I'm not sure if this includes the parts that are being discussed here:
John Cummings (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "irresponsible"

Currently Sir Captain Tom Moore's trip to Barbados is described as irresponsible however I thin that the word controversial would be better as the irresponsible such suggest the authors personal views, and is therefore biased against Sir Captain Tom Moore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofGlamorgan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the flight listed as "irresponsible". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has since been edited. 80.44.173.251 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by the IP user, those edits have been removed. I don't think they belonged on this article. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 February 2021

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.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Tom → Captain Tom Moore – Just “Captain Tom” is absolutely NOT his common name. Twitter name is Captain Tom Moore. Any use of his name in the articles about his passing is either Captain Tom Moore or Captain Sir Tom Moore. Essentially all result comes back with his last name. Needs to be moved to reflect his full name at least. Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: The page title should reflect the way he is mostly recognizable as per WP:CRITERIA. — Mr White 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BBC News at Six has tonight referred to him (in its main story) as Captain Sir Tom Moore. But that form simply wouldn't be allowed here, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His JustGiving page calls him Captain Tom Moore. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JustGiving doesn't have the !rules against titles that Wikipedia does. I'm just trying to follow precedent. For example, Sir Tom Jones' page is titled Tom Jones (singer); Captain Cook's is James Cook. jamacfarlane (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. I was focussing on JustGiving as that was one of the central places from which Moore's notability arose. Yes, Wikipedia has plenty of !rules, even for fictional captains. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous discussions on this matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really consider that a strong enough reason. Regardless if he’s not the definitive Tom Moore, referring to him simply as Captain Tom is misleading in my opinion. Disambiguate the name if needbe but it’s irresponsible to have the page at what’s frankly just some cute nickname, as opposed to his real, common name. Rusted AutoParts 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really just a cute nickname. He was promoted to captain on 11 October 1944? There are others e.g. Captain John Scott? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the point I was making. He was likely called Captain Moore upon promotion no? Point is “Captain Tom” sounds like a cute nickname, as opposed to “Captain Tom Moore”. And that Captain Tom by itself is not his common name. Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a nickname, but permitted as it's the name he is known by the public. Most people wouldn't know his surname. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I thought you meant a nickname like "Captain Bob". It's not that cute, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we move him to just Tom then? How is Captain Tom right and the common name but Captain Tom Moore is wrong, not the common name AND in violation of HONORIFIC? Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Captain Tom Moore is incorrect, then obviously so is Captain Tom. This is nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think there are some very petty arguments being used above. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A honorific is fine if it's part of a nickname. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if you want to use his full name, but will have to drop "Captain" and use "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" or similar. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your problem with his family name being in the article title? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to it, I'm just saying it has to be either "Captain Tom" or "Tom Moore" but not "Captain Tom Moore" per MOS. I'm not even sure if "Captain" is accurate given that he was made a Hon. Colonel last year. jamacfarlane (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Using his full name, and the one he's most often referred to as by the Media, would be best to minimize confusion. I'd be strongly against dropping 'Captain', however, although I know that's not on the table right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpicula (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, the discussion could result in consensus for a title other than the one originally proposed. jamacfarlane (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He can’t be Captain Tom though per that argument. It’s not appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 05:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that rule doesn't apply to nicknames (if we're going to call it that). He's either "Captain Tom" or "Tom Moore". See WP:TITLESINTITLES and compare "Mother Teresa" but not "Mother Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu". jamacfarlane (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknames are only appropriate if that’s how they are commonly referred to. It’s akin to stage names. We don’t know Jim Hellwig, we know The Ultimate Warrior. I have never heard Moore just be called Captain Tom in any news article about it, it always includes his last name. So to me it’s just not true that just Captain Tom is his common name. Rusted AutoParts 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was the name he used on the cover of his book but I agree it's not clear cut. jamacfarlane (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What’s funny about that link though is that Amazon at the top of the page refers to him as Captain Tom Moore. Rusted AutoParts 14:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Captain Tom' was the name I've heard in a few news tidbits I've seen/heard. It seems to be a common name for some, it's the one I used to look for him on here, I was mildly surprised to see this discussion. :) Halbared (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I don't necessarily agree with including the prefix "Captain" because that's not common practice here on Wikipedia, but at least the suggested title is less vague than the current one. Keivan.fTalk 07:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Agree with above, prefer title to be less vague than the current one. If general public knows him by the title "Captain", then that's cool, and I feel we should keep that. But prefer to be specific. Ben 11:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case using Tom Moore is what we should use, or simply change the Wikipedia consensus, it's not something which has to remain fixed. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where possible, we try to be an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing to try searching for the topic at the Encyclopedia Britannica. Their top hit for "Captain Tom" is Another Cricket Quiz while for "Tom Moore" it's Tom Jones!. Their search links are so bad that they are actually blacklisted here. That encyclopedia is useless so readers come to Wikipedia because it actually works. Yesterday, we had over 400,000 readers for Captain Tom. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with Britannica? Quite common. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose per previous discussions on this matter.Halbared (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give an actual reason for your opposition, rather than just citing previous discussions, which were probably held a long time ago and aren't even visible on this page?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a chance that some of the previous discussions may also have been invalidated by what we have discussed in this thread, although of course I have no read them so wouldn't know. In any way it is a very poor line of argument used by the user above. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the news just, I see it's more just Captain Tom, and the big sign on the fence (outside his house I suppose) says Captain Tom and his website is captaintom.org.Halbared (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The website. https://captaintom.org/. Halbared (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, do you think Tom himself would refer to himself with his full name. What's important is how he's referred to on a common level. His last name has always been included. Captain Tom could literally mean any Tom thnat's a Captain. Rusted AutoParts 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in formal occasions he'd use his full title. In the news snippets I've been watching in the last few days it is mostly as Captain Tom he is referred to as, and he has been in some of the snippets I watched. He seemed to enjoy it, the moniker that is.Halbared (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not sure that "Captain Tom Moore" is ideal, but it is more encyclopedic than just "Captain Tom". We should avoid nicknames unless they are unavoidable or overwhelmingly someone's best known name. PatGallacher (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Captain Tom" is tabloid headline language, like Arnie, Fergie, Princess Di etc.. It also sounds a bit like a made-up title like Lady Gaga or King Oliver, he really was a captain in the British Army, saw active service. PatGallacher (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though 'Captain Tom' should be a redirect to the new page. --The Right 'Orrible (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He is by no means overwhelmingly known as 'Captain Tom'. Media usually use 'Captain Tom Moore' or 'Captain Sir Tom Moore', but the former is more suitable as a title. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Captain Tom Moore is the name his song was released under. And if Captain Tom redirects here, there can't be any issue with trouble finding the article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move but it's still not perfect Wikipedia policy and precedent is clear that he should be "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" or similar: we have James Cook not Captain Cook, Robert Falcon Scott not Captain Scott, despite both being commonly referred to by their title. Boris Johnson is normally referred to by first name alone in popular media, but there's no question of what his name article should be under. WP:COMMONNAME excludes non-reliable sources like tabloid news, social media, etc, in favour of official, academic, and scientific sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to be a permanent reference, and it's more important to have consistent naming rather than use cute diminutives from sources we wouldn't accept to prove anything else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Both his single and autobiography are published under the name Captain Tom Moore. As mentioned by ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia, if the article redirects from "Captain Tom", then there should be no issues with finding the article. BillyDee (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article name should stay exactly as it is per WP:COMMONNAME, and with RS support in worldwide obituaries as follows:
    • The Guardian: "Universally known as Captain Tom...".[4]
    • The Telegraph: "... he was known to the whole country and much of the rest of the world as "Captain Tom"...".[5]
    • The Times: "Step forward once more "Captain Tom" to do his bit...".[6]
    • The New York Times: "Nicknamed "Captain Tom"...".[7]
    • The Washington Post: "She [the queen] also promoted Capt. Moore to the rank of honorary colonel, but the nation continued to call him simply "Captain Tom.""[8]
    • CBC: "Captain Tom, as he became known in newspaper headlines and TV interviews...".[9]
    • The New Zealand Herald: "... widely known as Captain Tom."[10]
    • The Australian: "Sir Tom, affectionately known as "Captain Tom"...".[11]
-- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Nicknamed"? "Affectionately"?? I also hadn't realised how far the readership of the The Guardian extends. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources above call the subject "Captain Tom", they all refer to him as variants of "Captain Tom Moore" or "Captain Sir Tom Moore", so they support the proposed move. The fact that someone is "widely known" by a particular nickname doesn't mean that the nickname is actually their encyclopedic common name. For example, Paul Gascoigne was/is widely known as "Gazza", particularly during his heyday in the 1990s, but nobody would propose moving the article to that title. The question is not whether the term is widely used, the question is whether that name is how the subject is introduced in reliable sources. For someone like Lady Gaga, they are always introduced with that nickname even in headlines;[12][13] so it is correct for us to use that nickname rather than her legal name. But with Tom Moore, the sources don't introduce him in the headline as "Captain Tom", they always include his surname, and neither should we.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta that's a stage name and Moore certainly never had one of those. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I think the major point stands. How is the subject commonly known? Take Sophie (musician) as another example, who also sadly died recently. Her case is similar to "Captain Tom" in that the debate is over whether to include her surname or not. But the headlines in that case simply call her "Sophie": "'Visionary' music producer Sophie dies aged 34", whereas the headlines for Captain Tom spell it out in full, e.g. "Captain Tom Moore: Record-breaking NHS fundraiser dies aged 100". That in my mind is the crucial difference.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as British news stations referring to him as 'Captain Tom.'Halbared (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People aren’t going to keep using a full name when talking about someone. In obituaries for Christopher Plummer they didn’t keep going “Christopher Plummer” at a certain point they shortened to “Plummer”. People may call Jennifer Lopez “JLo”, that doesn’t make JLo her common name. Rusted AutoParts 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case though, they don't shorten it to "Moore", they shorten it to "Captain Tom."Halbared (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Captain Tom Moore (best), Captain Sir Tom Moore (2nd best), Tom Moore (fundraiser) (3rd best). "Captain Tom" when used is a term of respectful endearment but suffers from being easily confused with the many other Captain Toms in the world. As time goes on, this problem is only likely to increase. I'm not sure if even the extensive bureaucracy in these parts spells out if WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over MOS:HONORIFIC but it ought to. Captain Tom Moore appears to be the most common name in reputable (non-tabloid) sources even if sources say tat he is widely known as Captain Tom. Greenshed (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Greenshed: do have any RSs specifically stating that "Captain Tom Moore" is the most common name (to compare with those stating that "Captain Tom" is, which we do have above) or is that just your personal opinion? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, his song was released under Captain Tom Moore; that's not controlling, but it does show what his 'official' name was.. (and while less convincing, the British cancellation stamp used "Captain Thomas Moore"). If you do a news search (with quotes) on Google for "captain tom moore", NYT, Forbes, People, CNN International, Reuters, and the AP all use Captain Tom Moore or Tom Moore in their headlines. (If you want me to link to each I will but it's kind of daunting to format all those links). The point is, yes, he is called Captain Tom, but he is also called Captain Tom Moore by other RS; sometimes the same RS calls him by both names. I just think at this point, where either name is supported by RS, we should go with the one that is less ambiguous, especially over time. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: El Cid has essentially answered the question. I would add that when the WP:RS that you have dug out say that he is commonly called Captain Tom, what I take them to mean is that in colloquial, common or affectionate parlance, people often called him Captain Tom (which I think is probably true and, more importantly for our purposes, verifiable). Nonetheless, all but one of the sources introduce him more formally. I.e. going through the refs above we get the following titles: "Captain Sir Tom Moore obituary", "Captain Sir Tom Moore, 1920 - 2021", "Captain Sir Tom Moore obituary", "Tom Moore, Who Inspired Covid-Ravaged U.K. With Charity Walks, Dies at 100", "Capt. Sir Tom Moore, who raised millions to fight pandemic, dead at 100 after positive COVID-19 test", "British WWII veteran Sir Tom Moore hospitalised with Covid-19" and the exception "Lockdown hero Captain Tom battles Covid". My interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME is that we should follow the example of WP:RS and that common parlance (or for that matter usage in unreliable sources etc) is not determinative. Effectively, do what they do, not what they say. It's a subtle point I know. Greenshed (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "subtle". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose - I understand the reasons for wanting this, but the fact is that the suggested new title doesn't abide by Wikipedia article naming guidelines. If he's known for being a captain, then we call him Tom Moore (captain) or Tom Moore (military officer) or whatever - and there's an argument for that. If we can't decide what he's best known for, we call him by his common name, but we don't incorporate ranks into the name. The reasoning behind the present name is that people immediately recognise that this is the common name, not an error. Deb (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Colonel Tom Parker? There will always be exceptions to every "guideline". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeedy. And that article is finger-lickin' good! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"we call him by his common name, but we don't incorporate ranks into the name" – so why is "Captain Tom" somehow exempt from this, yet "Captain Tom Moore" is not? "Captain" is a rank, however you swing it. Also, clearly people do not "immediately recognise" that this is the common name, or we wouldn't be here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't particularly his common name though, as has been amply demonstrated. Reliable sources almost always include his surname. And although he may be in the news right now, the current title isn't going to stay recognisable for very long. I have no objection to Tom Moore (fundraiser) etc, but between the present title and the proposed title, it's really a no-brainer.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Captain Tom Moore" is a plain combination of his rank and name, which clearly invokes the honorific rule, but "Captain Tom" is a nickname and the word "Captain" is just part of this, so the rank isn't being used as an honorific per se. It's like how Dr. Seuss is acceptable but "Dr Theodore Geisel" wouldn't be. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Although you opposed the move from Captain Tom, I presume from your comments above that you are no more in favour of Captain Tom than Captain Tom Moore etc? The reason why Moore should be an exception is that unlike the far more senior military officers you mention, Moore became well-known for his fundraising as a retired captain not for his service as a junior officer in the Army. That said, even though my preference is for Captain Tom Moore, I still think Tom Moore (fundraiser) would be better than Captain Tom. Greenshed (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I favour Tom Moore (fundraiser), as I did in the last RM. I oppose any use of ranks in article titles, despite what the public commonly call them. Otherwise we'd be moving another famous gentleman to Field Marshal Montgomery, easily his commonest name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find the current article title really jarringly informal, verging on disrespectful. No news articles that I have seen ever referred to him as "Captain Tom" without introducing him via his proper name first. I think this article title is an extreme overinterpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, according to which we should not call him "Thomas Moore", but rather "Tom Moore". Nowhere does that guideline say that informal nicknames should be used. See for example in the news right now, Man charged in Lanark over Captain Sir Tom Moore tweet. That refers to him as Captain Sir Tom Moore, Sir Captain Tom Moore, Sir Tom, but not "Captain Tom". Or this, which refers to him as Capt Sir Tom Moore, later Moore and Sir Tom but again not "Captain Tom". The first sentence of this article itself does not even start by referring to him as "Captain Tom". I see no possible reason for the article title not to be simply "Tom Moore". Andesitic (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As thoroughly explained by many, his surname is part of his common name, as recognized by reliable sources. I'm neutral on the inclusion of "Captain", but I think we can save that discussion for later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Photograph

I'm wondering if the photograph from his military service is most appropriate, considering he only gained broad notability in the past year. Would a photograph from the time of his fundraiser be more appropriate to his primary claim to Wikipedia notability? BlackholeWA (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe the reason there is no modern photo is that it is proving hard to find one that is creative commons or similar. However, seeing as the article subject has now passed, use of an image might be justifiable under WP:NFC. Although I am not too familiar with the specific guidelines, a biographic photograph of a deceased individual that has previously been published and of which there is no free (modern, colour) substitute readily available seems to fit. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a non-free photo of a person can be justified when there exist a few version of that person, even if it was from 1940. -- KTC (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a black-and-white photograph of a person from 80 years ago isn't equivalent to a modern colour photo concerning his recent fame, and the non-free requirement is "no close equivalent" I think? BlackholeWA (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the photo from 1940 is relevant to what made him notable. So I think a more modern photo should be used. Fangfufu (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about getting an action shot of a notable event the person was involved in. We're simply hopping for a more recent photo of the person (from the last year). My opinion is that such a photo wouldn't pass the contextual significance requirement. -- KTC (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would at least have a shot - especially given that part of Sir Tom's relevance was due to his living to be 100 when he did his fundraiser. In addition to being more relevant to the time period of his notability, arguably an image of Tom Moore last year would be illustrating a key part of his story. Is there some sort of procedure for establishing whether a use of an image meets WP:NFC? Do we just try and see if it is challenged? BlackholeWA (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. If anyeone disagree, they can nominate the image to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. -- KTC (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat hesitant to do so myself as I am unfamiliar with the precise sourcing criteria for NFC, but if it still needs doing later I'll look over the guidelines and see what I can do. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackholeWA: would this be OK? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that is perfect, assuming the NFC rationale holds up. Was that always there? Was it just restored? Regardless, I am going to integrate with article. BlackholeWA (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looks like it was originally removed due to it being a NFC photo in BLP, which considering his passing no longer applies. Hopefully should now stick. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't the article look cooler with him in his military uniform (doubt this counts as a real argument)? Alfred the Lesser (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your opinion about how it looks "cooler" and personally think the current photo should be kept or at least stay somewhere on the page. But also agree that a more modern photograph should also be somewhere in the article if at all possible.— Collinanderson (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is cooler, but strongly suggests that his notability arose from his military/wartime service, which it certainly did not. In my opinion, the best image would be of him doing his 100 lengths. That's the single event that made him famous. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

A recent (ie. 2020/2021) photo of this person would be a good idea to add. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(discussed in the thread directly above, thanks) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti

The image of the mural of Moore and Vera Lynn in Abergavenny was removed here with the edit summary: "Bot: Removing c:File:Mural of Captain Tom and Vera Lynn, Baker Street, Abergavenny, May 2020.jpg , deleted by Túrelio (Copyright violation: No FoP for painted murals, in the UK - sadly)." The one in Ponyefract File:Captain Tom mural on North Baileygate, Pontefract (21st June 2020).jpg has also now been nominated for deletion, so I have removed it. There are not many at Commons Category:Tom Moore (fundraiser), but they do include some of the foot painting by Nathan Wyburn, uploaded by User:Mthowells200130. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image of the Pontefract graffiti as it's deletion is still being discussed (since March 2020) here. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Martinevans123: for restoring the graffiti image pending the outcome of consensus on Commons. I have taken the liberty of changing the heading of this section, as I firmly believe the image in question is graffiti as so should be kept as per that specific Commons policy; 'murals' are subject to deletion - ref my comments previously posted there some time ago. This distinction is the crux of the issue so best not give further cause for deletion, although I in no way want to impinge on your own interpretation. Based on the length of time to resolve that, and similar DR's, the distinction may be a close-run thing. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. A sensible move. Thanks. As I have posted over at the Commons page: "A closer image of the work, located at "2’s Company Hair Salon", in Pontefract, appears at the website of the local artist, Rachel List, here. The photographer seems to be Tim Hill who, I assume, has retained copyright." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 vaccination

The Daily Express has today reported: "He did not receive his vaccine, despite being in the age bracket which permits him to have before the wider population, due to treatment for pneumonia in recent weeks. A spokeswoman for the family said: “Because of the medication he was taking for his pneumonia he couldn’t have the Covid jab”." Should this be added somewhere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They also report that he ".. tested positive for coronavirus after his stay in hospital, not on his return from a family holiday in Barbados." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday and Covid

I think these dates should be added to clarify that he didn't catch Covid until quite a while after his return from Barbados (and almost certainly got it while in hospital): "They arrived back into the UK from their holiday on January 6. Captain Tom’s family released information which revealed he tested positive for coronavirus on January 22 after returning home from hospital where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. The family added he was tested regularly for the virus between December 9 and January 12 and each test returned a negative result. He was admitted to hospital via ambulance on Sunday January 31 after suffering breathing difficulties." https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1392458/tom-moore-barbados-holiday-trip-captain-tom-moore-dead-latest

"After returning to the UK he was admitted to Bedford Hospital on January 12 where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. As is standard for patients, he was tested on entry for coronavirus and throughout his stay and results all came back showing he was negative for Covid-19. He was unable to get a vaccine jab because of the treatment. But by the time he was discharged from the hospital on January 22 tests showed he had now caught the disease." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9218431/Captain-Sir-Tom-Moore-tested-negative-coronavirus-testing-positive-stay-hospital.html 51.6.235.58 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources (Express and Daily Mail) are depreciated and not reliable sources. And we're not currently saying anything other than he travelled in December and was ill in January- we aren't linking the two together. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a deprecated source re WP:DAILYMAIL and is "generally prohibited" per RFC and "should not be used or trusted for any claim or purpose." I don't think the Daily Express is considered quite as bad, but it shouldn't be used if other sources are available. I think the BBC may have reported some of these claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ramree Island

The BBC Obituary here, says this: "Slowly, the 14th army turned the tide in Britain's favour. Over the next two years, Captain Sir Tom's team helped cut Japanese supply lines along the Burmese coast. ... One notable occasion was the battle for Ramree Island in 1945. More than 1,000 Japanese infantrymen were forced into a mangrove swamp infested by salt-water crocodiles. Only a handful emerged." So I think this should be mentioned in the main article and then restored in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, the infobox summarises the article, so discussion of Ramree needs to be added to the prose really, and referenced there. Then it should be added to the info box without the cluttersome references. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just thought this would be at least a start? Please be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That BBC obituary is so hagiographical and at odds with what we see in other sources (moving his motorcycle team training from India to Malaysia, remaining in the army until 15 years after the war, meeting Pamela a few years after his divorce from Billie) that I really don't think it can be trusted as stating that he, rather than the 14th Army in general, was involved in the battle. Indeed, it doesn't explicitly state that he was at all: there were a million men in the 14th army, and they weren't all at that battle. We have him as returning to the UK in February 1945: this battle was 14 January – 22 February 1945, and if there was some recovery from dengue before evacuation, that at least bites a long way into this time. And ITV did a half hour documentary about his war career without mentioning Ramree Island: surely the opportunity to refer to crocodiles eating Japanese soldiers would not have passed by the producers. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that current source, ITV's Captain Tom's War from 8 May 2020, makes no mention at all of Ramree. The Burma narrative ends with Moore being posted back to Blighty to "teach another set of recruits how to drive tanks". In the light of that, the BBC piece looks a bit general. So I'm removing it from the box. Perhaps a better source can be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of the Battle of Ramree, in which only elements of 'A' Squadron of 146 RAC took part, Captain Tom was actually back in the UK, in Bovington learning about a new tank. Regrettably an unknown journalist heard or read something, fed on it then regenerated it as fact, rather than ascertaining the truth, which was then regenerated by other hungry journalists. The correct detail of Tom's service is in his regimental documents and stated on a properly researched article about him on his regiments veterans website:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/ The regiment is quite happy to provide information to anybody, as stated on their website's Family History and Research page:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/regimental-family-history-research/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between #Millitary service section and British army

Related to the above section, this version and this article from British army have same writing about Capt Tom's millitary career. Did wikipedia reproduce from British army or Did British army violate Wikipedia's right? If it's latter, there may be very large-scale citogenesis incident, and we may not be able to trust alomst all of the websites published after 15,April 2020 because Wikipedia's contents have become a official statement of British army without any critical inspection. (Of course I think a writer of #Millitary service's work is reliable, but we wikipedian take mistakes on articles once in a while.) --Sasuyan (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more-so a general response to the basic question. I've found some government departments do copy and paste from Wikipedia. I've had content I've put on wiki copied word for word onto the Royal Australian Navy website.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Years of Army Service - when did he leave?

I can't find any citation that he left the army in 1946. The BBC obituary article says he spend the 50s as a tank trainer, not leaving until 1960. It's not clear whether this was army or TE. Regardless, the years of service should be amended to be 1940-1960 I think.

Yes, the BBC source plainly says: "Moore left military service in 1960, and took a job as a sales manager for a roofing company in his native Yorkshire. In 1967 his marriage to Billie ended after 18 years - they never had children." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, I couldn't see that ref in the article, so tagged it. Also, the assertion that he left the army in 1946 is still in the prose, but not supported by any of the cited references, so I tagged that too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this Telegraph ref, already cited in the article, which suggests he was still at Bovington (they call it Borvington) in 1962 - at the time of the Cuba Crisis. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. Many thanks for that. I should have put "this BBC source plainly says". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (p.s. "they never had children." I wonder why.)[reply]
Perhaps I can help you with information about Tom's service from his conscription, in 1940, until his demob in 1946, not from 1939 until 1960, as the BBC erroneously stated. Take a look at Tom's former Regimental Website page about him:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/ where the details have been compiled from his offical archived documents. Also note that the Army Lists (Annual list of serving Officers and units), as Tom was no longer listed in them after 1946. Also note a few other errors, which news media have published and thus found it's way into the article. Not least that Tom was back in the UK, at Bovington, when the 9th Battalion's A Squadron was involved at Ramree Island (The only squadron to go there). I also note, in other sections above regarding News Media articles appearing to be like the Wiki article, so wondering who copied who. Well that is easy. The Army website initially copied an early version of the current Duke of Wellington's Regiment Website articles. You will also find the information on the DWR Website is stated in Wendy Holdens 'Official Biography of him, which the family and the Regimental archives provided details for:- http://www.wendyholden.com/tomorrow-will-be-a-good-day.php
Yes, the DWR soucre is very clear. It says: "Although his name appeared on the demob list in June 1946 it was not until 5th October 1946 that he became once again a civilian. By the end of February 1947 the 146 Regiment RAC had been disbanded and the Battalion once again reverted to 9DWR.". So I have corrected the "Years of service" in the info box. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, is this a reliable source and does it trump the BBC and Telegraph? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes and yes. But, if you think there are particular BBC and The Daily Telegraph articles that contradict it, by all means feel free to remove the "Years of service" dates while a discussion ensures here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, you quote from a BBC obit above, and I give a link to the Telegraph article above. Perhaps we should say there is disagreement amongst the sources, until we can establish the actuality. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although it seems the BBC Obit is no longer used in the article. I'm afraid my subscription to the Torygraph has expired. Do you know what it says? Yes, I think a note about "disagreement amongst the sources" would be a good idea, I just can't believe that the DWR site would get details like that wrong. And the IP who has recently brought this information here seems to be competent and very well informed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, the BBC source still exists though. The Telegraph says: "After the war, Moore moved to Borvington [sic], Dorset, to teach soldiers how to use armoured vehicles. He was there in 1953, at the coronation of Elizabeth II, and still there in 1962, when a dispute in Cuba took the United States to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union." -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I won't deny it exits, although I see no one has put their name to it. Thanks for the extract from The Telegraph, which is used in the article, but only to support the claim that his mother was a head teacher? So those two sources don't even agree for how long he was at Bovington. Is it possible he was employed at Bovington as a civilian? I would be tempted to take the autobiography as the most reliable source (as it's not "an exceptional claim", I hope). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His Who's Who entry states this in relation to his military service: conscripted 8th Bn Duke of Wellington’s Regt, 1940; commnd 9th Bn, 1941; served in India and Burma campaign; demobbed, 1946. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that tip, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, it's now used as a source in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2021

Captain Tom Moore → Tom Moore (fundraiser) – My suggestion of "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" was made at exactly the same time BD2412 moved the page to "Captain Tom Moore". I was going to suggest that as the discussion produced strong opposition to both "Captain Tom" and "Captain Tom Moore", the page was moved to "Tom Moore (fundraiser)". This compromise would avoid using a "cute nickname" and would follow the !rule against using titles/honorifics in article titles. I don't agree the previous discussion resulted in clear consensus. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Doesn't it is a primary topic for all Tom Moore articles? Assuming that his long name is (Sir) "Thomas Moore", which has similar name to Irish poet born in 1779. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My major qualm was of the page being located where it was (Captain Tom), but I worry this discussion might be too early. It only just got moved. Rusted AutoParts 02:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about your part of the world, but where I'm from, a "fundraiser" is an event which is intended to raise funds for a cause. The title "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" looks wrong and confusing. 2001:8000:1588:B800:34A4:F032:E70E:463B (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several Tom Moore's on Wikipedia. To call him a Fundraiser would not be correct, it was not his occupation, but a byeproduct of a retired and proud army veteran going out to raise a small amount of cash for the NHS, whereas he raised many millions more than professional Fundraisers. Whilst doing it he also raised the moral and pride of people all over the world. On his own Regiments Veterans website he is titled quite simply as 'Captain Sir Tom Moore', which is a singularly specific to him and him alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proper policy per MOS:HONORIFIC. The inclusion of "Captain" was from a WP:COMMONNAME argument for the "Captain Tom" title; given the page move to his full name (and general agreement that the "captain" inclusion isn't a universal inclusion with his name, as is the MOS:HONORIFIC requirement), this article should be titled in accordance with the established naming scheme for those with military ranks, which is not to include the rank in the article title. See for instance . The fact that the press like to popularly refer to him as "Captain" doesn't mean that we should make an exception to standard naming policy. As someone in the last RM mentioned, even James Cook's article does not include the title "Captain" in his article title, despite that being one of his most common epithets. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He is known as Captain Tom. When people search for him they will expect to see his name as Captain Tom. Tom Moore will likely only serve to confuse. StoneKommittii (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he's known as "Captain Tom" then that's where this page should be, not "Captain Tom Moore". jamacfarlane (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That chat was had though, and the 'Captain Tom' lot did not have the votes.Halbared (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - common name is "Captain Tom": as per WP:TITLESINTITLES, Honorifics and other titles [..] are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known. He is best known with the title of captain, not by his full name (its almost a stage name). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside Strictly speaking, I guess the current title should be Captain Tom Moore (Ret’d), as per his entry at dwr.org.uk, since he left the army in 1946. But I'm pretty sure WP:MOS would never allow such a format. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title provides natural disambiguation. We should not try to force article titles into unnatural disambiguation, simply to fit our own internal guidelines. This is a sui generis case, and we should use an article title by which he is commonly known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per Agrippa. This seems exactly the kind of case that the wriggle-room was created for. Davidships (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. User:Jamacfarlane, if you disagree with a RM closure, you can use WP:MR. I don't see what yet another discussion will serve. The points have already been made above, particularly Gaia's points above. The Honorific is what is used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly known. There isn't a news article that doesn't describe him as Captain Tom or Captain Tom Moore. I would also suggest that the closer of this RM puts in a 1 year moratorium on further page move requests. 5 in 12 months is enough. Woody (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I stated in the previous RM. We don't use ranks for much more senior military personnel who are commonly known by their ranks, so why are we making an exception here? As an example, Bernard Montgomery is invariably known as Field Marshal Montgomery, not by his name. But what do we use for the title of his article? His name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is disrespectful to change the title of the article as he has achieved a lot more than just the fundraiser and he is commonly known as “Captain Tom Moore”. I find no reason to change it. ABigBeast05 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is disrespectful, naming decisions are decided by sources, policy and consensus, and not by how people would personally like others to be styled. The article name should stem from sources and claim to notability BlackholeWA (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just concluded an RM on this topic, and there's no need to be revisiting the name again immediately. I also concur with those above saying that calling him a "fundraiser" misrepresents who he is. His notability arose from a unique combination of his status as a decorated veteran, his very advanced age, and his exploits in walking around his garden to raise money during the COVID pandemic. Every reliable source calls him a variant of Captain Tom Moore, so an exception to MOS:HONORIFICS applies here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with many of the above arguments, especially with the one that "fundraiser" misrepresents who he is", his notoriety came about in part thanks to the title Captain and it is intrinsic to the public recognition, it is simply what he is best known by.Halbared (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current title is clearly the common name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We've just finished one renaming and it's, ideally, too soon to discuss renaming again. However, as it has come up then I will enter in to the lines. While we don't generally preface names with ranks in article names, the reason why Moore should be an exception is that unlike almost all notable military personnel, Moore became well-known for his fundraising as a retired captain. He was not known for his service as a junior officer in the Army but if he had been then I would suggest that we might use Tom Moore (British Army officer). Finally, the much cited MOS:HONORIFIC states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." Moore is certainly on the cusp of this and anyway I don't think we should get bent out of shape when the odd exception to the general pattern comes up. Greenshed (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is a distinct lack of policy-based voting in many of the comments above and I'd urge people to read WP:NOTAVOTE. Personally speaking, I am willing to buy the idea that "Captain Tom" might be a viable WP:COMMONNAME but that is not what is under discussion here and WP:TITLESINTITLES is pretty clear on the subject. The fact is that military people are invariably referred to by their rank and that we have historically avoided this - for example, in Marshal Smuts, Marshal Foch, Marshal Pétain or even Dr Livingstone for example. It is bizarre, as seems to be implied by some above, that "fundraiser" is patronising or inaccurate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To copy from WP:TITLESINTITLES, "Honorifics and other titles ... are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Mahatma Gandhi)." What we're arguing here is that Captain Tom Moore's rank is used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is best known. He is certainly way better known as Captain Tom Moore than Tom Moore the fundraiser. I submit that WP:TITLESINTITLES does not support the proposed renaming. Greenshed (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the most ridiculous move suggestions I've heard. Just Tom Moore would also work but it's best to leave it.Prins van Oranje (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death and tributes

Could somebody please clarify the inclusion of the image of the Church, in Wetherby, with a flag at half mast ? It does not appear to bear any relation to the article entry or even the article as a whole, seeming to be nothing more than a plug for the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's showing the half-mast flag tribute after his death. I would say that's notable. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So were many other churches, Neither Wetherby nor the Church had any specific connection to Captain Tom, or at least none is given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. The relative sizes of the church tower and the flag mean it's not a very strong image anyway. Given that the text mentions only the flags above Downing Street, and given the fact that Moore had no connection with Wetherby (as far as we know), I'd respectfully suggest that the image should be removed. If there's a copyright free image of the Downing Street flags I guess that could be substituted. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be no copy-free images the flags above Downing Street available on-line. In any case, such photographs are hardly very expressive or informative. If there are no objections, I'll remove that image from the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military service

Why does this section state that Tom was stationed in Cornwall ? When conscripted he was stationed with 8DWR, at Weston Park, in Otley, West Yorkshire. See his article on his regiments veterans website. See Paragraph three:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/

Thanks for spotting that. The ref is marked as "unreliable", but even Metro doesn't mention Cornwall. Without looking back and checking I'd suspect unnoticed vandalism. I've corrected it and added the new source. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Tom_Moore&oldid=1007161993"