Talk:Kim Thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
WikiProject Women (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Add references[edit]

I was trying to add a reference from the third external link. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Birth year[edit]

I am not sure why we are deferring to an editor who has been socking over this issue for over two years. Their first post was here [1] in Sept of 2008. They next appeared adding a specific but unsupported date here [2]. The editor appeared here [3] claiming to be Kim. They return as this user Lynnanne5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in January of this year. The user name is accurate as it is the fifth time that they used a variation on the name Lynne in their username. Then they have appeared as Realfacts2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in February and today as KTLT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

  1. There has, as yet, been no evidence presented that The Daily Record used Wikipedia as a source.
  2. If this is Ms Thompson there is a conflict of interest in their editing this article and there is the discrepancy in the different birth years that they have entered.
  3. Legal threats such as those made more than once by KTLT1 should fall under WP:NLT and we should not be removing the info in question because of them.
  4. Rather than address their objection over this info here on the talk page they have been WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

In the long run the info may not be that important to the article but a bad precedence is set when info is removed due to socking and legal threats. MarnetteD | Talk 15:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kim Thomson I won't ask for reinstatement of the info - at least until we can get better sourcing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Perhaps its a good precedence to set - the claim is weak indeed - even if you attribute the claim needed a note to support it. .. what about attribution - According to Steve Hendry writing in the Daily Record reporting an interview with Thompson in October 2008 stated that Thompson was forty nine at the time of the interview (although this was not confirmed by Thompson in the interview}, according to this claim from Hendry, Thompson was born in 1959 or 1960. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Off2 the Hendry interview was Oct 2009 not 08. Just put together the fact that the Lynnannet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) edit changing the birthday to 1962 was made Sept 29, 2009. Since this would have been days before the Hendry interview I just want to say - To the many Lynne's and other socks - If you really are Kim you are not the first performer to alter their age to seem younger. As someone who has appreciated your work since Cover Her Face in 1985 don't let the age thing bother you. You are excellent at your craft and the age doesn't matter. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me if I got the interview year wrong. I am in full agreement with Marnette's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not use "(born circa 1960)". That way the reader knows she was not born circa 1940 or 1980, and understands it may be plus or minus 3 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
For one thing, your phrase is against consensus (even though I'm not part of that consensus). See the discussion on BLPN for my objections. For another thing, why not say circa 1959 inasmuch as according to the one source, she would have been born in one of those two years? Finally, before the article was removed to eliminate the birth year, there was a note explaining how 1959 or 1969 was determined - your change doesn't have any source at all for the "circa 1960".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. :-) (visions of Debbie Reynolds doing the I Told You So dance on Will and Grace).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Rounding off the the nearest 5 year point and using "circa" is standard practice in reliable sources including Encyclopedia Britannica. Leaving no birth estimate does no one any good. If you think it should be "circa 1955" or "circa 1965" make your point and change it to what you think is more correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whom you're addressing, but I'm not going against consensus here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "circa" in many articles, especially where the only source is the age at death. Looking at her tired face in Google Images I would guess she was ten years older, so the reader is aided by the best possible reliable estimate to know she was not born circa 1940 or circa 1950.
"circa 1958-1962" is also fine by me. Having no estimate makes me think she was born in 1950 when I see photos of her, so the reader is aided by the best possible estimate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that approach, as outlined, is that there clearly isn't any kind of reliable source — an encyclopedia really can't include information based on guesstimates and whether faces look tired or not. So I think this has to be reverted. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dude, pay attention. The source says she was 50 in 2010 and has always said that, an interview from 2008 gave the same age when you do the math involved. That means she was born in 1960. We are arguing about whether it should read "1960" or "circa 1960". Me saying her face looks tired and that she looks like she was born in 1950 has no bearing on her actual birth year. The other absurd argument was that the newspapers were getting their information from Wikipedia and not the other way around. If that is so, when they print a retraction, we can make a correction. That is the difference between truth and verifiability. Some people feel in their hearts that she is younger, but we have to use reliable, verifiable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Dude? But you make my point, "reliable, verifiable sources". To rely on "Steve Hendry writing in the Daily Record reporting an interview with Thompson... although this was not confirmed by Thompson" and suchlike sources is as hit-or-miss as it gets. Even if Thompson had stated an age herself (which she has specifically refused to do), that would still not be a "reliable, verifiable source", for obvious reasons, so a newspaper, apparently relying on an interview, isn't one either. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source, unless they print a retraction. Wikipedia has no requirement that all data must come from autobiographies. If you have a conflicting date from another reliable source, then by all means add it and the two can be side-by-side. I still think she looks like she was born in 1950 and she should be glad a print source said 1960. And please try and keep up with the research. The Hendry interview was in 2008, the source I added was from 2010. If you are going to argue, take some time to actually read the article first. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
But a "reliable source" needs to be peer-reviewed, and failing that you need to decide whether an encyclopedia can rely on it. In these cases we plainly can't. I see no harm in quoting the neswaper in the text, so long as it is clear it is only a newspaper story. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Saw this on the BLP noticeboard. Hate to throw another monkeywrench in here, but I just found a source that says she was born in 1966:

"Kim Thomson." Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Vol. 76. Gale, 2007. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 3 Apr. 2011.

For those unfamiliar with Gale databases, they are the related print volumes are subscribed to by thousands of public and academic libraries and they meet all WP:RS criteria. Is this date correct? Has it been supplied to Gale by Thomson's camp? I don't know and I don't know how we can say, but the fact is that we've got an RS now that contradicts another RS. Sigh. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My original minority position was that we had a good enough source to put in a birth year of 1959 or 1960 (with an explanatory note). Based on what you've found, I would favor removing the year entirely, particularly because the subject herself has created such a fuss (but not because of her legal threat). The only other alternative would be to give to give different years with different sources. Frankly, I don't believe the information is so important it justifies that kind of tortured Wikipedian explanations. Put bluntly, who cares?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the plot thickens. I dug a little deeper. In the database Biography and Genealogy Master Index I found two citations for Thomson. One of them is the same Gale book that I cited above, but the Index says the Gale book lists the birthdate as 1960. The other says that she is in the following book:
Who's Who in Hollywood. The largest cast of international film personalities ever assembled. Two volumes. By David Ragan. New York: Facts on File, 1992.
but does not cite the birthdate, if any, from that book. I think to settle this definitively someone's going to have to find these books. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If she was 50 in 2010 she could have been born in 1959 or 1960 (or depending on how she gives her age 1961). How did the source find out her age at the time of the interview? I think that any mention of birthdate should be left out untill an RS can be found that actualy gives it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that the 1966 was an error, since I just found an e-book version of Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television which states that the date is 1960. I'll try to get my hands on a scan of the original book by tomorrow to settle this. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Another point, we know when the interview was published, when was it written?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The 1959 or 1960 birth year is now supported by two sources, the 2010 source and the 2009 source (which said she was 49). It's true we don't know the interview dates, but, generally, articles about interviews are published soon after the interview takes place - otherwise, what's the point? I'm willing to wait until Gamaliel comes up with more, but I still maintain that all this hoopla about her birth year is a bit much, not that it matches the melodrama/farce about the day Wales was born. Unfortunately, I think Wikipedians - present company excepted, of course :-) - love this sort of thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Rob, one of the editors in the original, infamous consensus, removed the birth year from the article. How can we argue this ad nauseam if editors remove not-so-well-sourced material? The nerve. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It’s a guess, not a mathematical calculations (we do not know all the values). Also I am unable to view the 2009 source, can we have the quote please.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a very reasonable inference plus a mathematical calculation. Don't know why you can't view the source, but : "While welcoming the offer of steady work in a harsh economic climate, Kim, 49, who is single, was also keen to stay in the UK to finish her studies."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
But an inferance is OR, not verifiable (I may not come to the saem conclusion as you). It could be one of three year's (thought onoe of two is the most likely). She was 49 in October and 50 in September, placing her birthday before September , thus making her 50 at the time of the last inteview (unless of course her age is worked as being from last birthday (thus she was 50 in 2010)). It could be she judges her age as being that of the next Birthday (which if she was born in January would mean her birthday could have been in 1961). Of course it could be worked out by taking her birth year and then subtacting it form the year of publication (thus making it 1959) or...wel, you work it out. This is not maths, its pick a random assumpion and make it the integere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In this instance, a reasonable inference is not necessarily WP:OR ("This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources."). So, here it would require the calculation plus consensus. We don't have consensus, so it should stay out absent further developments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree becasue this is not a routine calcualtion, because not all the variables are known with accuracy. Thus we end up with a range, not a definative answer. A routine calcualtion prodces a definative answer.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
But the arithmetic is based on sources which themselves are only guessing. As Thomson has stated categorically that she is not going to reveal her age or her date of birth, we can be sure she didn't give either to any of these interviewers, so where any of them suggests an age, it can only be a guess, and we really can't rely on that. If this were a biography of someone dead, and if (as with many historical figures) there were little or no chance of establishing the truth, then a guesstimate would be harmless. As this is the biography of a living person who objects to the pseudo-information being included, I say leave it out of the lead, although (as I said above) I see no harm in mentioning in the text that a particular newspaper has published something on the matter. People are rightly sceptical of what newspapers say and can work out for themselves whether to believe it. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


New subsection because this isn't about the Daily Record debate.

I now have a pdf containing scanned pages from the following reference work:

"Kim Thomson." Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Vol. 76. Gale, 2007, pages 333-335.

This print work states the birthdate as 1960. As I noted above, one database citing this work says the birthdate is 1966, the other says it is 1960. I assume the former date is in error and since it is citing the print work, I believe we should use what the print work says. I'm going to be bold and cite the print work in the article. If anyone has any issues/objections, we can discuss that here.

There is also another print reference work which contains an entry for Thomson but I haven't tracked down yet:

Who's Who in Hollywood. The largest cast of international film personalities ever assembled. Two volumes. By David Ragan. New York: Facts on File, 1992.

If someone could find this it could be useful in shoring up the case for the 1960 date. Gamaliel (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


5 days of edit warring and endless drama, and all it did was confirm what we already knew. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about editors being conscientious and painstaking, you should be thanking Gamaliel for his efforts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Needless drama only serves the egos of those creating it. There was no reason to remove "circa 1960" and go through 3RR multiple times just to arrive at "1960" 5 days later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Pithy. Do you have a source? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone who was caught red handed forum shopping [4], at AN/I no less, over this is hardly in a position to chastise any other editors for anything. As pointed out by others we don't guess at birthdates per BLP. I will certainly thank Gamaliel for their efforts and research. The Lynne's or one of their other socks will return one day no doubt but the page is now on several watchlists. MarnetteD | Talk 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the drama, but thanks are always welcome! :) Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)