Talk:Amanda Holden

Tattoos
Seriously? She has no tattoos on her arms is worthy of inclusion? You'd better start putting that snippet on thousands upon thousands of other bios. Bizarre! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.129.138 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read through this article for a while, but you are welcome to remove this. Like you, I don't see what significance this information has to her biography. This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Topless
I was reading FHM's 100 Sexiest Women (or something similar) in 2000, and I remember it saying that she got them out in some show. I think it would be worth mentioning which one it was. Also, the article says she lives in "Richmond, Surrey". Richmond-upon-Thames is a London borough, despite what the Post Office says. :) 37.130.224.202 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment is incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.23.121 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious edits regarding her autobiography
Reverted several unsourced edits this evening regarding claims she is writing her autobiography with "esteemed" Irish writer Kenneth D. Dolan (see this) for an example. Googling for "Amanda Holden Kenneth D. Dolan" produces nothing to support the claims. There was also some nonesense date of birth changes. Just thought I should mention it here for future reference. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some professioanlly based comments about her acting technique on this page. But some busybody removed them because they were 'unflattering' Miletus (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that was me, but I don't recall if it was now. I tend to revert spurious stuff on this page from time to time, usually if it's unsourced or violates WP:NEUTRAL or whatever. Comments on her acting technique should only be included if they've appeared in reliable sources. It's ok if a reviewer has made some comment on a role she's played or something along those lines, but for someone to just add their own opinion about her isn't helpful, and that sort of thing would be removed. What exactly did you add? I might be able to tell you whether it's ok ro include it or not. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Stillborn child
Removed entry for news about sad death of her child. Whilst factual feel it is too soon to be published in this manor as news broke less thasn an hour ago. Please respect the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.177.185 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is important biographical info. As such, it should be in the article as soon as reported by reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot se how enumerating her misscarriages can be of any value in the article as it stands. No conclusions are drawn about its effects omn her artistic or even personal life. Its just gossipmongering for a crowd desensitized by the British yellow press. Hence, I am removing it. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Her miscarriage and stillbirth are included because they were significant events in her life; they are not gossip. Jim Michael (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Image
Could someone find an image please? --92.17.21.56 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Current picture has her holding her pet dog. Nice smile! -- AstroU (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thoroughly Modern Millie
This page states that she had the title role... Odd considering she was not even born at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.241.110 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Globalise
Please rewrite so the article is understood by those of us who are not perusing the British tabloids. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What bit don't you understand? I don't see any way of writing about Holden from a global perspective when she is largely unknown outside the UK. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How she recovered from her stillborn child IS important
We've seen a couple of people try to create entries for her now widely publicized (BY HER) rape-by-deception of her husband in order to have another child. That is, she told him she was still taking birth control and she had stopped. She has noted this in her autobiography which will be more widely available (and we'll have the ISBN number shortly).

The references to this event show up across the trade mags after her interview with OK!, which at least one Wikipedia author has tried to point to before an editor removed the entry.

I believe that this event is important, as this event is stirring up a huge amount of anger in the men's reproductive rights community: Not that a woman would trick her husband into having a baby (which, alas, is old news), but that she would then turn around and publish it.

Considering the increasing importantance of the men's rights advocacy, removing this event is, I think, removing history.

On the other hand, I think it is appropriate to wait for information regarding the actual autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.195.193 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is important, but it was not adequately sourced according to the needs of WP:BLP. It should also not contain the editorialising regarding the "men's reproductive rights community" unless there is a very good reliable source discussing it in relation to Holden.  And whatever the story here, it is not "rape" in any form.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Late to the party, I know, but I felt that I should add, as objectively as I can, a comment here on the topic of whether or not the action described is actually a form of "rape". (I won't bother commenting on the supposed importance of this "news").
 * Putting the specific relationship of Amanda and her husband to one side, consider the above described form of sex-related "deception" in comparison with the following two alternative situations. Firstly, consider a situation whereby two individuals are engaging in sex, both consenting, though one does so only upon the condition that a condom is used, but unbeknownst to that person the other person does not actually end up using one. Secondly, consider a situation whereby someone wearing a blindfold consents to having sex with another person, but the other person is not who they believe them to be. In both of these situations, depending upon what precisely each of them understood and were thinking (allowing for the possibility of genuine misunderstandings), one person may fairly be described as having "knowingly deceived" the other in some specific and important detail as to what was taking place between them. My understanding is that in such situations of intentional "deception", any consent that was given is widely considered nullified to some degree. This seems reasonable to me, since, after all, the act(s) that took place did not (entirely) match what the person who gave that consent understood that they were consenting to. In such a case of intentional deception, since the consent given does not actually cover what took place and thus there is somewhat of a lack of consent, use of the term "rape" or "sexual assault" (which one depends upon the specific nature of the act) may therefore be considered correct, at least in terms of "common understanding" of such concepts. This actually brings to mind a recent case in the news whereby a woman had sex with someone they thought was a man but turned out to be another woman with strap-on, who ended up being prosecuted for rape because, as just described, the deception invalidated the consent given.
 * It is worth adding that I believe that it is also commonly accepted, at least in the UK today, that sex between married individuals can indeed constitute rape (or sexual assault) if the partner refuses/withholds consent on some particular occasion, or, as just discussed, the consent is not considered meaningful due to deception.
 * "But is it a crime?" It is important to recognize that "common understanding" can sometimes be somewhat out of step with the actual law. To the best of my experience and understanding (having no formal legal training), laws, such as those concerning things like consent, tend to have very detailed requirements for what specifically does (or does not) constitute a crime. This sets out some qualifiers for determining whether or not a complaint may be permitted court time for a lawsuit/prosecution to take place. Court time is valuable and limited; not every complaint one person may want to make against another is worthy of it. A complaint can only be taken to court if there's a relevant law and the complaint meets the requirements specified in that law. Laws like those regarding consent should be viewed as granting permission, under certain conditions, for a specific type of complaint to be heard at court. So although the acts previously described seem to meet what I believe to be the "common understanding" of what constitute a certain form of rape, not being a lawyer and not being willing to spend time researching the actual law on this, I cannot say with certainty whether or not it constitutes an actual crime, which is an important distinction.
 * Furthermore, whilst there may possibly be rules/laws forcing certain authorities to prosecute in certain situations, as a private citizen, per the above, the correct way to view laws such as those on consent are that they simply grant you the opportunity to take your complaint to court (or have it taken to court on your behalf). If you experience something that meets the requirements laid out in a relevant law (and thus it qualifies for court time), you of course have the choice to not go to court over it. You have to make a judgement call as to whether or not it is truly justified and worthwhile. Although that is somewhat obvious, I'm uncertain how many people nowadays give this enough clarity of thought.
 * If we circle back to the described situation with Amanda and her husband, what is described does seem to fit the concept of "rape by deception". However what about the law? A common form of question that may be asked in a situation like this might be "did she commit a crime?". I'd argue that such a question is flawed. As I've been discussing, the right way to look at this is that the law may perhaps grant her husband opportunity to take the matter to court, however as far as I know he has chosen not to, which does not surprise me. If that is correct, then it seems that he has simply chosen to forgive her instead. The only way to sensibly look at this is that she did something that may be considered somewhat wrong towards her husband, though if we consider the circumstances, particularly if it relates to the miscarriage, we might possibly find ourselves being somewhat sympathetic, and it should be entirely a personal matter for her husband how he feels about it and what he chooses to do about it. In the grand scheme of their marriage it could be said to be a relatively minor wrong to have done against him, and easy to understand him forgiving her. There would certainly be no justification in blowing this out of proportion by branding her a rapist, or a criminal. However it is equally unhelpful to just outright dismiss the idea that such an act qualifies as a form of rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.254.123 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "But is it a crime?" It is important to recognize that "common understanding" can sometimes be somewhat out of step with the actual law. To the best of my experience and understanding (having no formal legal training), laws, such as those concerning things like consent, tend to have very detailed requirements for what specifically does (or does not) constitute a crime. This sets out some qualifiers for determining whether or not a complaint may be permitted court time for a lawsuit/prosecution to take place. Court time is valuable and limited; not every complaint one person may want to make against another is worthy of it. A complaint can only be taken to court if there's a relevant law and the complaint meets the requirements specified in that law. Laws like those regarding consent should be viewed as granting permission, under certain conditions, for a specific type of complaint to be heard at court. So although the acts previously described seem to meet what I believe to be the "common understanding" of what constitute a certain form of rape, not being a lawyer and not being willing to spend time researching the actual law on this, I cannot say with certainty whether or not it constitutes an actual crime, which is an important distinction.
 * Furthermore, whilst there may possibly be rules/laws forcing certain authorities to prosecute in certain situations, as a private citizen, per the above, the correct way to view laws such as those on consent are that they simply grant you the opportunity to take your complaint to court (or have it taken to court on your behalf). If you experience something that meets the requirements laid out in a relevant law (and thus it qualifies for court time), you of course have the choice to not go to court over it. You have to make a judgement call as to whether or not it is truly justified and worthwhile. Although that is somewhat obvious, I'm uncertain how many people nowadays give this enough clarity of thought.
 * If we circle back to the described situation with Amanda and her husband, what is described does seem to fit the concept of "rape by deception". However what about the law? A common form of question that may be asked in a situation like this might be "did she commit a crime?". I'd argue that such a question is flawed. As I've been discussing, the right way to look at this is that the law may perhaps grant her husband opportunity to take the matter to court, however as far as I know he has chosen not to, which does not surprise me. If that is correct, then it seems that he has simply chosen to forgive her instead. The only way to sensibly look at this is that she did something that may be considered somewhat wrong towards her husband, though if we consider the circumstances, particularly if it relates to the miscarriage, we might possibly find ourselves being somewhat sympathetic, and it should be entirely a personal matter for her husband how he feels about it and what he chooses to do about it. In the grand scheme of their marriage it could be said to be a relatively minor wrong to have done against him, and easy to understand him forgiving her. There would certainly be no justification in blowing this out of proportion by branding her a rapist, or a criminal. However it is equally unhelpful to just outright dismiss the idea that such an act qualifies as a form of rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.254.123 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we circle back to the described situation with Amanda and her husband, what is described does seem to fit the concept of "rape by deception". However what about the law? A common form of question that may be asked in a situation like this might be "did she commit a crime?". I'd argue that such a question is flawed. As I've been discussing, the right way to look at this is that the law may perhaps grant her husband opportunity to take the matter to court, however as far as I know he has chosen not to, which does not surprise me. If that is correct, then it seems that he has simply chosen to forgive her instead. The only way to sensibly look at this is that she did something that may be considered somewhat wrong towards her husband, though if we consider the circumstances, particularly if it relates to the miscarriage, we might possibly find ourselves being somewhat sympathetic, and it should be entirely a personal matter for her husband how he feels about it and what he chooses to do about it. In the grand scheme of their marriage it could be said to be a relatively minor wrong to have done against him, and easy to understand him forgiving her. There would certainly be no justification in blowing this out of proportion by branding her a rapist, or a criminal. However it is equally unhelpful to just outright dismiss the idea that such an act qualifies as a form of rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.254.123 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we circle back to the described situation with Amanda and her husband, what is described does seem to fit the concept of "rape by deception". However what about the law? A common form of question that may be asked in a situation like this might be "did she commit a crime?". I'd argue that such a question is flawed. As I've been discussing, the right way to look at this is that the law may perhaps grant her husband opportunity to take the matter to court, however as far as I know he has chosen not to, which does not surprise me. If that is correct, then it seems that he has simply chosen to forgive her instead. The only way to sensibly look at this is that she did something that may be considered somewhat wrong towards her husband, though if we consider the circumstances, particularly if it relates to the miscarriage, we might possibly find ourselves being somewhat sympathetic, and it should be entirely a personal matter for her husband how he feels about it and what he chooses to do about it. In the grand scheme of their marriage it could be said to be a relatively minor wrong to have done against him, and easy to understand him forgiving her. There would certainly be no justification in blowing this out of proportion by branding her a rapist, or a criminal. However it is equally unhelpful to just outright dismiss the idea that such an act qualifies as a form of rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.254.123 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

She is big in the news
In British and American news, her comment on This Morning (TV) and appearance at Britain's Got Talent, in her green dress without a bra, she is the talk of both continents:
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3018195/Amanda-Holden-reveals-wear-nipple-covers-daytime-TV.html -- AstroU (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: You can Google it.
 * This is Tabloid gossip, and covered in no quality sources. This is Paul (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pudsey: The Movie?
What exactly did Amanda Holden do in this film? She does not appear and it is not clear that she voiced any of the characters. There is no reference to her on the otherwise compendious IMDB cast page.

However her contribution to the film is all over the internet, including her role as Pudsey's "dog pal Sally", who so far as I can tell does not appear either (watched the film last night).

I will remove the reference pending more information. Testbed (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This reference has reappeared, so I will delete again, pending some proper information. Testbed (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth
I have removed 'first quarter 1971' as her date of birth. It looks amateurish and we don't do this anywhere else, so let's not set a precedent here. If we can't verify a date of birth the usual procedure is to just cite a year. The year can be cited here so there's no problem with it being included. Feel free to discuss this but please don't restore the previous version without consensus. This is Paul (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMDb says she was born on 16 February. Did they copy that from here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say that was possible. This is Paul (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way to check? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I guess someone could email her agent. I don't know if that sort of thing works. Meanwhile, I checked the article history - a date of birth was added in the first edit in August 2003 so I guess IMDB would have copied it from here, as probably a lot of sources have. This is Paul (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be right. I'll let someone else email James Grant, as I'm not that big a fan. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think I'll pass on it too, for the same reason. This is Paul (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is Paul, Wikipedia does not allow IMDb to be used as a reference citation, particularly for biographical data. Also, Wikipedia does not establish precedents (WP:OTHERSTUFF). So neither of those arguments are valid for changing the status-quo version, which is more accurate than the year alone. There also is no Wikipedia guideline for WP:IDONTLIKEIT personal opinion over "sloppiness". Unless a consensus reason based on policy can be established to change the status quote, protocol is to retain it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I need to take you to task here. As you've just pointed out yourself, Unless a consensus reason based on policy can be established to change the status quote, protocol is to retain it. Thus, Protocol here is not to add things like "first quarter" to dates of birth. You can elaborate on something like that in the reference (for example, stating that the source is from the GRO, along with a timespan), but it looks very unprofessional to include it in the lede and the infobox in the way it was. Also, I've read a lot of biographies in the ten years I've been editing on here, and I think I can say with reasonable certainty that I've never seen a date of birth expressed in the way you added it. You don't have consensus to do something like that, and you would need to seek consensus if you feel it is something we should be doing. This is Paul (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Paul 100%. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't find the agreement of someone who thinks IMDb is a valid source for WP:BLP to have any weight whatsoever. And despite the edit-summary claim, WP:MOS says nothing about not using "first quarter." "I've never seen a date of birth expressed in the way you added it" — with all respect, so what? Just because you, personally, have never seen it, that makes it wrong? It's more precise — what do you have against precision?
 * And no one needs a consensus to add an accurate, cited birth date. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that it was a "valid source"? I called it into question. I was more interested in where they got it from. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is though it's not accurate information, is it? It's not providing a specific date of birth. We either use a specific date or a year, not a guestimate of when in a particular year someone's birth date falls. Also, where did he say imdb was a valid source for BLPs? I didn't get the impression he had said that myself. If you feel strongly about this you need to suggest it at somewhere like WP:BLP noticeboard instead of trying to railroad something through, seemingly without a willingness to listen to or compromise with others. If you continue to revert these edits I'm going to open a discussion at WP:DRN and they can sort it out. This is Paul (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I misinterpreted "IMDb says she was born on 16 February", then I apologize. Given that IMDb is irrelevant to WP:BLP, I'm unsure, then, of why it was brought up.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm actually all for opening a discussion at WP:DRN. You've made uncivil, unnecessarily personal claims ("railroad something through" "[unwilling] to listen to or compromise with others") when I have not touched the article since your last edit, and have instead been listening and responding on the talk page. As for compromise, what suggestion of compromise has there been? The only thing I've seen is, ironically, you railroading your edit.
 * The cited source, a UK birth registry, isn't "guessing" — some municipalities simply issue quarterly reports. I'm sure her birth certificate states an exact date, but if the most precise thing the registry can cite is a quarterly report, then that's the most accurate thing we can cite. I find it remarkable that you're willing to trade accuracy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims of "sloppiness" that has no basis in guideline or MOS. I'm happy to let you open dispute resolution, or equally happy to do it myself.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not being uncivil, but this edit seemed to suggest an unwillingness to discuss this matter. You've also cited a lot of policies but appear to be doing so as a means to justify what you want to do when the truth of the matter is we simply don't display birth date information in the way you want it to be displayed in this article. I've tried to help you by suggesting to you how this kind of information is usually presented, and I've even advised you to open a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, where you could make suggestions as to how to make policy changes. You don't appear to be interested though, and instead just want to accuse people of not liking your edits. It's late now and I need to sign off for the night. It'll probably be tomorrow evening before I can think about filing a dispute resolution, so if you want to do it in the meantime then go ahead. This is Paul (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it is simply your opinion that "we simply don't display birth date information in the way you want it to be displayed in this article" (i.e., "first quarter 1971"). The discussion Martinevans123 cites below has no issue with that whatsoever. So you'll forgive if I find your statement hubristic, to say the least.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No (with all due respect) I also have an issue - yes it may be the best accuracy we seem to have, but to me it looks pants. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the relatively civil tone we're all keeping, so let me say that out front. And it looks as if despite our differences we're investigating and digging through policies and talk pages and articles in an attempt at making things better, so I'm happy to be collaborating with you on that. I just, in all honesty, as an author, biographer and journalist for decades, find it perplexing that the two words "first quarter" look so devastatingly bad that we're willing to make something less accurate, specific and useful. I just don't get it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've asked a question at BLP Talk. Thanks for also restoring the working source for James Grant. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The question has now been answered, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes some sensible thoughts there, and this looks like it would be a WP:MOS issue. Thanks for posting. This is Paul (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Except we're allowed to use WP:PRIMARY for objective facts that don't require interpretation. WP:PRIMARY states: "[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." This is a straightforward, descriptive statements of fact without interpretation.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, but not in this one, where we're talking about biographical information. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it FindMyPast isn't regarded as an encyclopedic source. This is Paul (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything definitive about FindMyPast so far. This discussion is from 2011 and involves only a small number of editors, which seems as if it falls short of conclusive policy. I'll keep looking. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After 11 years of editing here I'm still a bit confused about what is a Primary source and what isn't, as far as birth date and birth names are concerned. Isn't the GRO record the primary source and all the various parasitic genealogy sites just Secondary sources? Another enquiry at WP:RS seems to be looming. I don't like "first quarter" either, as I think it looks amateurish. But that is just a stylistic choice, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I always thought the GRO was usable, and it would make sense that any website using those records would be a secondary source. Also, a few years back myself and another editor cited a marriage certificate in this article as it was the only record we could find of her first marriage. I've also just found FindMyPast, which is quite interesting. It seems to suggest using it as a source is fine, but comes with the following caution: Editors should be mindful that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Much of the information in the database is primary sources, thus should be assessed per Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Analysis and interpretation of original, unpublished documents may constitute original research. Editors should be particularly mindful of using original research to uncover information for WP:BLPs, personal information from unpublished sources can infringe on privacy (see further WP:BLPPRIVACY). Alas, more confusion, and I tend to agree another WP:RS enquiry looms. This is Paul (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, kudos, This is Paul, for finding the article and resource FindMyPast. Geez, I've been here almost 13 years and there are still nooks and crannies I've never seen!
 * I can't imagine that birth dates are anything but non-analytic and non-interpretive. And I would imagine that while privacy issues are of concern to notable but non-public figures, like a university president, say, that it's less an issue with public figures, including celebrities. In the U.S., certainly, biographical details of prominent public figures are normal, legal snd ethical ("biographical details" being different from "personal details" like home address and Social Security number). --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I must admit I didn't know it was there myself till I typed WP:FINDMYPAST in on the offchance I might find something that could help. It all appears to be very ambiguous so hopefully we can all work out a solution. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you joking!? (don't worry, I know you're not) Slebs and luvvies of all kinds are notoriously vain and protective of birth year. You can be sure that if James Grant doesn't publish year of birth, Ms Holden does not want it in the public domain. As regards GRO records, they are are prone to transcriber error. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very true. Even Bob Brolly (a BBC radio personality in the Midlands) doesn't like to tell people his year of birth, although if you know where to look... This is Paul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, whether Holden wants it or doesn't want it public is unknown; it not being in her press bio is not unusual. Virtually no celebrity puts their birth date in their press bio, and the vast majority of them have their birth dates out there and noted by "On This Day" Associated Press editors, Entertainment Weekly's "Monitor" section, etc. I think we need to be careful about making assumptions. Also, Wikipedia is not her press bio and she doesn't get veto power so that we only print what she wants.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's perfectly fair comment. But we just have less scope for sources, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * It seems very clear that we have reputation management people here that are trying to conceal Amanda Holden's age. There are sources for her DOB all over the internet. e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/may/01/furthereducation.uk2 JimmyPorter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No we just need a reliable source. If this reference had been added in the first place, instead of all the silliness that's been going on, then I'm sure this issue would have been resolved ages ago. This is Paul (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Would someone please fix the birth date which is showing an error after the partial revert of an IP by Martinevans123. Either restore  if that has consensus or remove the template. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I see him, I'll let him know. A third option, and probably a better one, is to replace the IMDB source and the misplaced IP commentary with The Guardian source. Although one wonders where they got their information, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well where does any source get its info from? I doubt they all consult the birth and death registry for dates, they accept what they're given.  While it's not unusual for a media star to be creative about their age, we ultimately have to trust the sources, and have nothing to suggest that Holden has been misleading people.  But take consolation that, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if she's a year or two older than claimed. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Don't worry I'm fully consoled, thanks. I don't care if she's actually 84. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If she was 84, that would be unusual, notable, and worth pursuing further :) -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I'd be happy to pursue her, if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Menace to Society
This idiotic menace to society needs a "Criticism" section to document the lies and conspiracy theories and scaremongering she's willfully spreading during this time of Coronavirus crisis, which has resulted in people threatening telecom engineers, arson attacks on critical infrastructure (that's TERRORISM), and endangering people's lives.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/03/broadband-engineers-threatened-due-to-5g-coronavirus-conspiracies

Broadband engineers threatened due to 5G coronavirus conspiracies

EE suspects telephone mast engulfed by fire in Birmingham was an arson attack as celebrities claim Covid-19 caused by new network

Telecoms engineers are facing verbal and physical threats during the lockdown, as baseless conspiracy theories linking coronavirus to the roll-out of 5G technology spread by celebrities such as Amanda Holden prompt members of the public to abuse those maintaining vital mobile phone and broadband networks.

Facebook has removed one anti-5G group in which users were being encouraged to supply footage of them destroying mobile phone equipment, with some contributors seemingly under the pretence that it may stop the spread of coronavirus and some running leaderboards of where equipment had been targeted.

Video footage of a 70ft (20 metre) telephone mast on fire in Birmingham this week has also circulated widely alongside claims it was targeted by anti-5G protesters. Network operator EE told the Guardian that its engineers were still on site assessing the cause of the fire but it “looks likely at this time” that it was an arson attack.

The company said it would be working with the police to find the culprits. It said: “To deliberately take away mobile connectivity at a time when people need it more than ever to stay connected to each other, is a reckless, harmful and dangerous thing to do. We will try to restore full coverage as quickly as possible, but the damage caused by the fire is significant.”

[...] Social media posts from celebrities such as singer Anne Marie have helped spread the theory, while Holden, a judge on Britain’s Got Talent, shared a link to a popular Change.org petition promoting the rumour that the symptoms of coronavirus are in reality due to residing near a 5G mast. The petition was subsequently removed following inquiries from the Guardian.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/amanda-holden-slated-scaremongering-amid-21811164

Amanda Holden slated for 'scaremongering' amid 'disrespectful' coronavirus claim

Amanda Holden tweeted and quickly deleted a link to a petition calling for 5G to stay out of the country, claiming that the network would take oxygen out of the air and change DNA

Britain's Got Talent babe Amanda Holden has been slammed by her Twitter followers and other users after she shared a link to a Change.Org petition, calling for the government to keep 5G out of the UK.

The 49-year-old trended on Twitter on Friday after her tweet, with people accusing her of being "disrespectful" and "scaremongering" her followers.

The tweet, which was quickly deleted, read: "The government: No to 5G! Sign the petition!"

The petition reportedly claimed that the new 5G network is causing the coronavirus, would strip the air of oxygen and also change DNA.

However the petition has since been deleted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.153.60 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is the following paragraph included with the other meaningless puffery in the "Charity" section: is she her own favorite charity that she bought and renovated a cottage in the Cotswolds for? Does she divert money from her charitable work to pay for all the renovation? What is the point of even mentioning her cottage, let alone listing it in the "Charity" section?

"Holden and Hughes live in Surrey.[42] Holden also owns a cottage in the Cotswolds which she has been renovating since 2017.[43]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.153.60 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/amanda-holden-slammed-scaremongering-shares-21810620

Amanda Holden slammed for 'scaremongering' as she shares 'no to 5G' petition

Amanda Holden shared a petition calling to stop the introduction of 5G in the UK as some conspiracy theorists believe it can actually cause coronavirus

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-theory-uk-towers-radiation-dangers-phone-china-a9445906.html

5G AND CORONAVIRUS: BASELESS CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT RADIATION AND COVID-19 SPARKS ONLINE PANIC

False claims amplified by celebrities and hugely popular petition

TV personality Amanda Holden was among those pushing the scare-mongering petition, posting it to Twitter where she has close to 2 million followers.

https://www.joemygod.com/2020/04/conspiracy-nuts-latch-onto-5g-as-cause-of-virus/

Conspiracy Nuts Latch Onto 5G As Cause Of Virus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.153.60 (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.fidar.rw/idiots-burning-5g-masts-after-conspiracy-that-radiation-sparked-coronavirus-is-spread-by-amanda-holden-celebs/

Idiots ‘BURNING 5G masts’ after conspiracy that ‘radiation sparked coronavirus’ is spread by Amanda Holden & celebs

CONSPIRACY nuts are reportedly setting phone masts alight and targeting engineers after a bizarre claim 5G “radiation” caused the deadly coronavirus spread.

The myth was quickly debunked after the World Health Organisation confirmed there were thousands of Covid-19 cases in Africa.

And BGT host Amanda Holden has been slammed for sharing the conspiracy theory, as well as Jason Gardiner and Callum Best, who posted similar claims that 5G can impact the immune system.

But the claims have still been doing the rounds on WhatsApp via a lengthy voice note – with phone masts now being set alight in the UK.

Engineers are now also being targeted with social media users encouraging each other to destroy the masts in a Stop 5G Facebook group.

Here are some Twitter tweets she inspired, which resulted in actual cases of arson (photos of the burning and ruined telecommunication equipment on the web page):

Martin McCaffrey: It is time to act now. Any 5g tower in your area burn it down! Collect people and stand and fight this. Act now before it's too late!

Muhammad Saqib: That is great. I support the destruction of such weapons of mass killings.

Steven Cataldi: Good needs to be done everywhere evil domination is coming

Police and fire crews were scrambled to one inferno in Birmingham last night when a 70ft mast erupted in flames.

The cause of the fire is still being investigated but both emergency service was able to confirm the fire was deliberate at this stage.

Hundreds of people have commented on shocking videos of the blaze posted on the Facebook group.

One person wrote: “Good needs to be done everywhere evil domination is coming”.

Another said: “It is time to act now. Any 5g tower in your area burn it down! Collect people and stand and fight this. Act now before it’s too late!”

Others have posted pictures of masts near their homes, with users urging them to “destroy” it.

While one person in a separate group is keeping a “league” table for cities setting the masts on fire.

The group has now been forced to warn users not to attack engineers.

A post at the top of the site reads: “We have been notified by certain members of the public that some individuals in this group have decided to target telecoms workers, as they believe and claim them to be ‘criminals and genocidists’.

“You know who you are. If you continue to conduct yourselves like this you will be banned from this group.”

The 5G coronavirus theory thought to have gained popularity last month when a YouTube video supporting the claims was heavily criticised for spreading bogus information during a very real crisis.

Those working in the sector say there is “quite a big collective” trying to stop 5G from being rolled out across the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.153.60 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Section created. I think there's been quite a bit of press coverage over this, lots of credible refs Jw2036 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

5G
Hi, the bit about 5G is still in there, it's just in the "Charity" section. I didn't see a need for it to have its own dedicated "Controversy" section *AND* be duplicated. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not charity, and your use of WP:CHILDPROTECT to remove the entire section was entirely inappropriateJw2036 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reason I cited WP:CHILDPROTECT is because I removed the full dates of birth of non-notable minor children. I also mentioned what I was doing with the 5G section. The two modifications were unrelated, that's why I mentioned both separately in the edit summary. Elizium23 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

16-21?
She seems to have left school at 16 and suddenly appears aged 20 in 1991 on Blind Date. Is there not even a line to be said about those missing four years and ideally how she got a job on Blind Date? Rustygecko (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that provide the missing information? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculously unflattering photo
The photo under the "Career" section go Holden in 2012 is ridiculously unflattering, potentially purposely so. It should be changed or removed if no appropriate substitute is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:5ED8:DB00:C9:BAB9:DC3D:C83 (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:People from Portsmouth
What's the time limit for giving people who were born in Portsmouth this Category? I see that Boris Johnson has Category:People from the Upper East Side. He left there at the age of three months. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of children
The info box states 3, yet it appears, from both external pictures and the description in this article, that she arguably has just two - the two daughters.

Perhaps I'm touching upon a sensitive subject here, but the only other mention of a child I'm aware of is the miscarriage. Is that being counted as the third child? If so is that to be considered correct? Personally, without meaning any offense to this particular family nor any other who has suffered such a tragedy, in my mind that doesn't count, or at least doing so creates confusion. I mean personally I was aware of the two daughters and then got confused by the page saying 3, and went off on a search to figure out who the 3rd was.

If you google "how many children does amanda holden have" the answer 2 pops up, and scrolling through the results, "two", "two", "two"...

I think it is reasonable to change the info box to say 2 to avoid confusion. 92.11.254.123 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)