Talk:Tom Holland

Notable

No, not yet - ten months in Billy Elliot, a few promotional TV performances. This does not satisfy the notability guideline of WP:ENTERTAINER, which states:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles.

Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable? - Yes, and very much so. There is enough evidence to conclude that the notability guideline of WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied:

• Tom Holland had been playing the title role in the major award-winning West End show for almost two years (not "ten months" - please do your research; although ten months is long enough) with great success acknowledged not just by thousands of spectators but also by some famous figures of theatre and entertainment world (Elton John, etc.). That role is considered by some experts as "the most difficult role ever created for child" and this fact alone should be enough to give young performers of that unique role a credit of being "notable" - actually, more notable than some adult actors who were not lucky (or talented) enough to get a role of a similar calibre during their long careers (a lot of them are happily present in Wiki, though). The very fact that first boys who had performed that very role both in West End and Broadway received the highest theatre awards (Laurence Olivier and Tony) as best performers (in adult categories!) speaks for itself.

• He does have a decent fan base - e.g., there are hundreds of messages in special threads devoted to him and his performances on two Billy Elliot the Musical fan forums, quite a few videos at YouTube, etc.

• At this very moment he is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon.

Overall, Tom Holland is without doubt one of the most talented young British actors with a great future, and I do not understand why the article about him (written according to the guidelines with all the appropriate references) does not deserve to be in Wiki. In fact, I find the very fact of this discussion rather strange. So I object the deletion of the article very strongly.

Kind regards, AdVal (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, please note I have tagged two references to user submitted YouTube videos. These are clear copyright violations and should not be linked to, please see WP:YOUTUBE. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and prompt reply. If you are definitely certain that the references to two YouTube videos "are clear copyright violations" then why you tagged them instead of plain removing? It is difficult to argue with it and I am not going to. Although, the guideline from WP:YOUTUBE states: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube... Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis." There are thousands and thousands videos owned by TV channels like BBC, ITV and FIVE at YouTube. If these copyright holders really want to remove them from YouTube then there is a very simple way to do it altogether (one proper letter to YouTube administration would be enough. There are quite a few precedents). However, they don't care - perhaps because they see clear benefits of that "clear copyright violations" for themselves. So why do you care about their copyright more than the holders do? By the way, there is a lot of Wiki articles with similar links. Anyway, this is just a remark.

Let me make another remark - about the very notion of "the notability". This is a very principal and difficult matter. Creative personalities (authors, performers, etc.) from Art and Entertainment world cannot be judged on the basis of "numbers": sometimes one role (book, song, etc.) can be more significant contribution "to a field of entertainment" (and to culture as a whole) than hundred of others - this is a nature of the field. One should be especially careful with "child actors". They by definition very rarely have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances". Tom Holland is a simple case: he is so exceptional that "multiple significant roles" are just a matter of time. Many of child performers will not even become professionals. However, these prodigies are a modern reality and as such the most outstanding of them should be present in Wiki - otherwise it is not "encyclopaedia" reflecting this reality! Whether or not a child performer deserves to figure in Wiki should depend on significance of his/her role (even if it was just one and only role). The potential to become an outstanding performer in future is also a factor: knowledge about prospective talents is important part of the encyclopaedic knowledge. For instance, the title role in Billy Elliot the Musical at Broaday and West End is so big and difficult that no additional evidence is needed. The patronising remarks like "Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles" in relation to those who already proved that potential are unfortunate and can be perceived as unjust and offensive.

Sorry for such a long note from non-native speaker. Thanks again!

Best wishes, AdVal (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions, but what matters here at Wikipedia are policies and guidelines established by the consensus of editors. WP:ENTERTAINER is clear enough. You cite that currently the subject "is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon." Per WP:CRYSTAL that information, whih appears to be research is of no relevance to establing notability. Criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly not addressed. The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role. As I noted before, when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied. Meanwhile much of the article verges on WP:FANCRUFT. I shall remove the copyvio Youtube links, I tagged them so that you could source other reliable sources, if you cared, but you have indicated that you do not. Suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, if you disagree with them start threads on the relative talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier if removing links to YouTube videos is dictated by the policies then I was not going to argue. I do not know whether these two videos are available elsewhere, so the point is not that I don't care; I just cannot immediately find other links instead those removed. These videos are not that important in the article context, though. So I suggest to leave this article as it is now after your editing for a while.

Concrete minor remarks.

"The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role." Once again, "60+" is not exact number - please do your research before jumping to conclusions. It's 45 for the entire world (UK, USA, Australia, S. Korea). 23 performers in West End from UK, USA and Ireland during 5.5 years - not big number. In addition, what this number has to do with the essence of our discussion? Some roles (e.g., take Hamlet) have been performed by hundreds actors and many of them who are the most outstanding are in Wiki.

"Criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly not addressed." This is your subjective opinion. In my opinion "unique ...or innovative contributions" are present, and this is confirmed by some references to the sources citing some prominent experts.

"when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied." This means that actually no child actor (who by definition cannot demonstrate "lasting abilities" until they grow up) can be subject of Wiki article which contradicts the current practice.

On a more general note: you are consistently refusing to discuss matters per se. Instead you time and again refer to the "policies" assuming they provide exact receipt for everything. Of course the policies should be followed; however we are discussing here not exact sciences but human personalities and their "notability" in the context of the art and entertainment. The judgements in this context are quite subjective by definition, including your judgements, and the criteria you were referring are just guidelines, not exact laws, and writing articles (even those focusing on the facts) is a creative process, not mechanical one. The policies and criteria are subject of a gradual elaboration and should be applied carefully and thoughtfully. This is common sense, and a great deal of Wiki articles are written according to this common sense. I probably will follow your piece of advice and will try to initiate discussion on how to make the notability criteria more perfect (if I manage to understand how to do it). Thanks for your time.

AdVal (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole article is written by daddy... More than bright and not a bit balanced or neutral. All interviews (first interview in a news broadcast, The Impossible interviews), other promotional TV performances, reviews for "leading" appearances in the B.E. musical (he was not the only lead actor) and so on are mentioned. And a lot of advertising for dad's e-book. This is more a press kit than an article. my two cents... RIMOLA (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable WP:OR

Some Familytreemaker page on a genealogy website is hardly reliable proof of Holland's personal info, for example date of birth and full birth name. Private pages on Ancestry are always littered with mistakes! Neither are the birth registration indexes proof of place of birth (they only give registration district). This sort of stuff should be zapped on sight, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

I'm responding to AdVal, the original author of this article, who left a long post on my Talk page today. Firstly I'd like to point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia. It is a bit rich to ask why I "pay so much attention" to the Tom Holland article (in fact, I rarely edit here) when it is AdVal's exclusive activity! I would turn the question around and ask why they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollands.

But the general problem I addressed yesterday was the excessive quoting from (1) a blog interview of Naomi Watts (2) a Hitfix review of the Palm Springs Film Festival. There is a duty on Wikipedia to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article. In these instances, everything that Watts said about Holland in the (unattributed) blog interview was repeated; everything said by the Hitfix article was pasted into Wikipedia. This is giving undue weight to these sources and, for that reason I shorted the quotes significantly to give the essence of what was said. Generally you should summarise, in your own words, what others have said. It gives more credence if well-known, reliable sources are used too. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sionk, the title "Excessive quotes" is misleasing. You may be right regarding particular fragments or (as I think) not that right - but the point I am trying to make is not about that; it's about the manner in which you do your editing that - it seems to me - does not respect your fellow editors' efforts. Sorry if my input is too long but I want to present my arguments, not just declarations. I start from some general points.

1. Of course, anybody can edit Wikipedia. No need to caricature opponent’s arguments refering to "exclusive activity". As I already pointed out on your Talk page, I did find some your interventions helpful. If you see a factual error, inappropriate stuff, an invalid link or you can provide a new properly attributed content – then do it! Who can object? Certainly, not I. But what I meant was something different: a number of times you removed an existing content on the ground of your subjective views. The pattern has been alarming: you needed just a minute or two to make a decision and then without any doubt or discussion removed a portion of content. I would say (to me it's common sense) that such cavalier actions are only possible if you are an expert in the subject. I have no doubt there are many subjects in which you are an expert, and I am not. But in this particular case you are not, even if you have a greater experience in Wiki than I. I am the expert because of a very simple reason: I know about the subject more than you – just because I have been gathering information about him for a number of years. It is reflected in this article which was created by me and almost all its content was written by me too. I think I know why a particular fact or a view is there. Given that I believe that when somebody removes a good chunk of content he should have a clear reason to do so, and needs to present that reason before that heavy editing. And the obvious rule: do not compromise a factual correctness of the article. I will give in due course some examples to show the results of some your edits which were at odds with that rule.

2. Your words: “why they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollands”? Strange question. As any contributing editor, I have the subjects interesting to me, so I do pay attention to them doing a proper research (as a scientist I know how it should be done - it takes much more than a minute). I am interested in prodigies and have written (and published) a number of articles (not in Wiki – in Russian press, if you are interested) about them. “Promoting”? This word has an exact meaning that is not applicable here. Well, it’s not “promoting”, it’s reflection of the reality. Or you mean that the article contains only positive material and for some reason you are not happy with that? Well, if you think there is shortage of negative stuff about Holland, then find a properly attributed source with negative or critical views and cite it! No problem. For the record: I don’t know personally Tom Holland – although I saw him in theatre and – recently – in cinema. However, his father (whom I never met in person) is a celebrity in his own right, so one can easily reach him – e.g. through his site. Two times – first, at the time of creating the article about Tom 3 years ago, and then at the time of premiere of “The Impossible” I asked him to look at the article and check the facts. I also asked him whether the family objects to publishing any personal information that already was there. I didn’t ask about approving or disapproving any views, and he didn’t ask about any additions. Of course, I wanted the article to be detailed enough to let readers get a truthful (ideally – comprehensive that is to say - encyclopedic) image of the subject. Is it “promoting”? I think it’s Wikipedia mission.

3. More about your declaration “There is a duty on Wikipedia to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article.” Yes, this is a general rule. But “balanced” cannot mean that if there is absence of negative views on the subject (just because they do not exist), then one cannot publish positive views. I can only repeat that “overview” should be truthful - this is paramount. If you can find the sources that can provide negative opinions, then add them to the article. I also believe that citations have to be exact rather than described using “your own words”. Readers are not that interested in my or your words – they prefer original words by known authorities. And in this particular case Naomi Watts is such an authority.

These were my general points. Next time I will present my arguments regarding some your concrete edits to illustrate what I am talking about.

AdVal (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)