Talk:Captain Tom Moore/Archive 2

Recent revert undone
I can't make sense of User:Lilipo25's revert, whose edit summary was "Wikilinks may not be used as sources for Wikipedia articles under WP:UGC", but I note that no source used was called "Wikilinks"; the edit removed statements using multiple sources, including a newspaper and television documentary. I have accordingly undone their revert. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing I was typing a comment on your Talk Page about this when you reverted again and accused me of "vandalism" in the edit notes. Don't do that again, please. I am exasperated and will try to do the sourcing myself since you have done it improperly. There is no access date, and no link to the interview itself, both of which are required with the template you have used. Frankly, it shouldn't be up to me to go looking for the appropriate information for templates you have added, but I can see you'll just revert again instead of doing it properly and I don't have time to edit war with you. And the first time I reverted it, the information about his first wife linked to an article in Metro UK - an unreliable source - that didn't even mention anything at all about him ever having a first wife. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are sorely mistaken about the circumstances. The claim that I accused you of vandalism is false. The "Metro UK" source was nothing to do with me, and I addressed that in my edit summaries, wherein I removed it (and subsequently restored the correct source). The claim that I cited my edit "by linking to the Piers Morgan Wikipedia page" (which you made on, and, my talk page) is false; as is your claim that I used an incorrect citation template - the template I used to cite the television programme, Cite episode is the correct one. Your claim that an access date and link to the interview are both required is bogus; neither are. The edit you reverted also included other material, cited - correctly - to a newspaper. To edit Wikipedia, a basic level of competence is required; you can be blocked from editing if you fail to display such competence, continue to make false allegations, or if you otherwise persist in such egregious behaviour. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask why you are unable to see the Cite Error pasted on your source in red letters (perhaps you need to use an additional tool on your account to see them? I do have one on mine), but I see that in the last few minutes, another user, DeFacto, has stepped in and fixed your citation to get rid of the error. You cannot use a template that calls for a url and then not include a url or an access date, as it generates a Cite Error. I didn't say you put the link to Metro UK in, but it's the reason I removed the information - it said nothing about it. And I removed the message from your page, as I said, because you had written to me here while I was typing there, and I was trying to consolidate our conversation on one page instead of two different ones. Please don't make aspersions or threats about having me blocked from editing, as that's not going to happen. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are making further false claims about the circumstances; you removed good content because of a minor fomatting issue which you left in situ; and that is not a threat: it is a statement of fact. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there have been good faith misunderstandings from both parties here. Cite episode is the correct template, but with no url available for the episode itself, the only link given in the reference is the one to the programme series article (a Wikilink). Also the reference had an error warning in it, which did not mean it needed an access-date, clicking the help link in the message says it meant that without a url, the access-date parameter should be ommitted (which I fixed). So, , what we have is a reference to a TV programme episode, not to the Wikipedia article about the series, it's just that there is no webpage available to see the episode or a transcript of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which part of "you accused me of 'vandalism'", or of the other false allegations highlighted above, exhibit good faith? What do you think I misunderstood? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks to me as though you misunderstood what meant by Wikilinks may not be used as sources for Wikipedia articles under WP:UGC. I think that they mistakenly, but in good faith, thought the link in the rendered reference should have taken them to the video of the episode, or a transcript of it, and not be just a Wikilink to the Wikipedia article about the series in general. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that they also said - with no basis whatsoever in fact - that I cited my edit "by linking to the Piers Morgan Wikipedia page", it is clear that, while they were indeed mistaken, I did not misunderstand the edit summary that you quote. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, the cite rendered as '"Captain Sir Tom Moore". Piers Morgan's Life Stories. 13 September 2020. ITV', and I believe that they thought the big blue link to Piers Morgan's Life Stories was supposed to be the source. That was an easy mistake to make, as the first link usually is the source. The rest of this, I think, hinges on your reaction, based on your misunderstanding of that mistake. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "misunderstanding"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the one I think is evidenced by your opening post in this topic where you wrote: 'I can't make sense of User:Lilipo25's revert, whose edit summary was "Wikilinks may not be used as sources for Wikipedia articles under WP:UGC", but I note that no source used was called "Wikilinks"'. To me that is a clear misunderstanding of the word "Wikilinks" in the context in which it was used. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside all the above, we are left with a non-reference and a WP:BLP problem. That CT was interviewed by Piers Morgan can be cited, and I have done so. The problem is that that interview has been used as as a source for six other statements (some can probably be dispensed with, particularly where it provides the seventh reference for a sentence of 23 words), but it is the sole reference for two statements about his private life, particularly that concerning his first marriage and divorce. I doubt whether that material can remain in the article unless it can be referenced properly, and probably by two RS. Davidships (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is referenced. It is referenced to a reliable source. It is referenced properly. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we need to head back to the content and not the contributor at the moment. I do think there are wider issues with the sourcing at the moment. Metro is deemed generally unreliable at WP:RSP and shouldn't be used, particularly when other sources are available. The article certainly doesn't need double sourcing on a number of sentences. To the matter at hand here: This interview is a primary source and it is being used to discuss third parties which is potentially problematic. As such we need to be very careful how we phrase it. It isn't an issue under WP:BLPSPS as it is the subject and it has gone through (presumably) an editorial process on the Piers Morgan show. I do think it might be worth phrasing it as "Moore stated in an interview that first marriage was unconsumated etc. Woody (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. How can we verify that he said that? The only sources for the alleged content of the interview that I can find are The Sun and the Daily Mail (and there is apparently Metro). Surely we cannot rely on those sources for personal material of this sort. In the absence of access to the interview itself, we need another, if also primary, source. Maybe it is referred to in his autobiography - another primary source, but has been subject to editorial control by a reputable ghost-writer and publisher. Davidships (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That you don't have access to the interview isn't an argument for not including it. It is very similar to you not having a book or any other offline source at hand, it is still sourced. I agree that we definitely shouldn't be sourcing this to the Sun/Mail or any other tabloid. The issue here is well explained at Interviews in that there is a tension between primary and secondary sources here. Do we take what he has said as a primary source or is the editorial process from Piers Morgan's producers make it a secondary source. Woody (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this case it's not quite the same as not having a book though. Books can be consulted in libraries or by asking around for someone with the book to check it. In this case there is no apparent way for readers to be able to verify what was said in the interview. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is unusual I accept, but offline sources are still acceptable sources. There is an element of good faith here but the press release does say "Tom reveals the untold story of his first marriage etc so we know it is discussed there. As with other offline sources there will be ways of accessing it. Someone could get a transcript from ITV or a copy of it in the same way that one could gain access to historic documents in national archives etc. Im sure it will be on the ITV Hub at some point in the same way that this documentary is. Of course, having easily accessible sources is ideal, but not always possible. Woody (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the Daily Telegraph article about the book be a better source than the Piers Morgan interview, since readers can verify the Telegraph article? In its synopsis of the book, it states: "Billie, his first wife, refused to consummate their 18-year marriage and eventually left him for a sex counsellor." I would agree that it should be worded as "Moore stated in his autobiography that...".Lilipo25 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, as I said above, if they are available and reliable they should be the first choice. That should be an ok source and sentence for the article. Woody (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book review is much better - both the review and the book are verifiable. If an RS had reviewed the TV programme, that might have been acceptable (and availability in the future would provide a primary source - but that is crystal ball at the moment).  Given the subject matter above, I still believe that a second RS is desirable.  We still need a reference for Capt T not being full recovered from his 2018 fall when he started his Walk - then the previous PM interview is superfluous. Davidships (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on the No. 1 hook of 2020!
The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for Captain Tom generated more total DYK views (179,256) and more DYK views per hour (14,938) than any other hook during the year. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on being at the top of the list, and keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination (2020)
15:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

referencing re 6.1 million gift aid / tax rebates amount
User:Martinevans123 in this diff added "citation needed" tag with edit summary "latter figures not mentioned or sourced in article main body". I am removing that citation needed tag from the lede, now. Note the dollar amount is mentioned in reference now numbered 30, this justgiving.com webpage about tomswalk, in a "Donation summary" section giving direct amount of £32,796,354.73 and "+ £6,173,753.31 Gift Aid". Right, it is not covered in sentences, in main text of the source. [i incorrectly thot the complaint was about lack of clarity within the reference somehow.--Doncram (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)] So the number is sourced, below in the article, not in the lede.

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


 * My understanding was and is that nothing should appear in the lede that doesn't appear in the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, the reference was and is in the main body of the article. So don't add citation needed about it in the lede.  Okay, i guess we are done, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the figures of "£30 million" and "£32.79 million" in the article main body. And I'm sure both are fully sourced. I still can't see any mention of "almost £39 million". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The main body has "The JustGiving page for his campaign closed at the end of that day; the final amount raised subsequently being stated there as £32,796,475 (plus another £6,173,663.31 expected in tax rebates under the Gift Aid scheme)[30]". --Doncram (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has. But it doesn't mention "almost £39 million". I guess it's left up to the reader to mentally add £32,796,475 to £6,173,663.31 and to get a sum of "£38,969,138.31" and to then realise that this is indeed the "almost £39 million" mentioned in the lede? Even that ref [30], to the GiftAid page here, doesn't add the two sums together and doesn't say "almost £39 million". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Piers Morgan and Unverifiable References
I've noticed that Piers Morgan's Life Stories, 13 September 2020 (Ref number 6 at time of writing) is used no less than six times as a cited source of reference within this article. This reference provides absolutely no verifiable information, and merely contains the program's date and a link to the TV program's Wikipedia page. No link is provided that users can follow to verify any of the information being referenced... If a book were being referenced, it may just cite the chapter or page number etc, but does this mean you can just cite a TV broadcast's date of transmission in the same way as a reliable source? You could literally claim anything to be true just by citing a TV program's broadcast date as the reference... a reference that can not be checked or verified by users (you can't walk into a library and verify the information in the same way you could with a book reference). Personally, I think this reference, and any like it, should be deleted as unreliable/unverifiable, and any claims or information within the body of the article be left as unreferenced information, and therefore left open to question or requests for valid references by users. To be clear, I'm not claiming Piers Morgan is an unreliable source of reference (you must make your own mind up about that) no, what I am saying, is that unverifiable references are unreliable! Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy about unverifiable references? -- M R G WIKI999 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very valid point. I'm not even sure I'd want to use a book written by Morgan, for that matter, but that's another story. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Now easily verified on YouTube (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. In four cases the reference is probably superfluous, but in the two where it is the only source, the content should be deleted - expecially the sentence about his first marriage, which can have come only from Moore himself (as a taster for his book - see previous section).  So even if the programme was accessible, or a transcript published, some content will fail WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:AUTO. Davidships (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkZZgqskKSE
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtYrQZuOfI8
 * John Cummings (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * We don't have the flight listed as "irresponsible". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has since been edited. 80.44.173.251 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"Sexless first marriage"
Although we can't use it as a source, the story behind Moore's first marriage to "Billie" (not her real name) and the eventual divorce, is given by an article in the Daily Mail here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's reputation is bad enough already, without using the Daily Mail as a reference; especially for something as irrelevant to this article as the subject's long-past sex life with a former wife. Such salacious information may be of interest to Daily Mail readers, (it may even be relevant information in articles about other people on Wikipedia) but this man's fame, celebrity status, point of interest etc etc, is to do with his charity work; his past sex life with a former wife, is just not relevant information... Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of whitewashing articles, or leaving out salacious (or even morally objectionable) material if it's relevant, but this man's past marital sex life, is simply not relevant. Why would it be? I really can't believe how bad Wikipedia is becoming! -- M R G WIKI999 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, I started with "we can't use it as a source" (fully in line with WP:DAILYMAIL)? I think the fact that he's written about his first marriage in his autobiography, in such candid detail, (apart from the real name of "Billie", it seems), that this makes all of this perfectly suitable as candidate material for this article. Obviously, we wouldn't want to go to such a fine level of detail. Sorry if my use of the DM headline may have put you off a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that that article is in the Daily Mail is almost irrelevant as the material purports to be an extract from Moore's book (whether it is such is easily verifiable). However the underlying point is that that book is not an acceptable source per WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:AUTO, and we have no basis for verifying the claims, nor for determining whether Moore is being candid or not.  I conclude that this material is completely unsuitable for inclusion in this article, regardless of who publishes it. Davidships (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I can't imagine the approbrium you heap upon yourself here by not believing Captain Tom. But "rulez-is-rulez", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind the source. The nature of that content itself falls under gossip/trivia. Not at all encyclopaedic. When editing Wikipedia one of the best things to ask yourself is "would I find this written in a hard copy encyclopaedia?". If the answer is no then more than often it does not belong here either. That's my take anyway. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the fact that Pamela conceived Moore's child, while he was still married to Billie, as "gossip/trivia." If this was some kind of scurrilous exclusive expose by the News of the World I'd not want to include it. If it was only in the Daily Mail we couldn't add it. But the fact it's included in his official autobiography, published in his lifetime... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd maintain that the reasons and processes by which couples divorce may be completely encyclopaedic, especially in cases where there is a need to link to staged adultery. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a handbook for the prurient. There is a need not to link to "staged adultery", since it is entirely without any RS, and probably always will be. And there is nothing to link to, since it is not mentioned in the target - indeed the only use of that expression in the whole of enWP is the one in this article - or was. Davidships (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're saying there's no such thing as "staged adultery". It doesn't (and it didn't) exist? And to suggest that it does (or did) is in some way "prurient"? Or are you just saying it should never be mentioned in a "proper encyclopaedia"? I can understand your point that most material in autobiographies can never be verified. But I hardly realised they were completely banned as sources for articles. I've removed the name "Billie" from the infobox, as we know that name was invented by Moore. And of course we currently have no source for the divorce anyway. Perhaps he imagined it all? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's putting words in my mouth. Certainly staged adultery existed, and may even have been common, but there is at present no reference to it by that name in WP; and no mention of it even by synonym in the article you keep linking to. Neither is autobiographical material banned per se (again, see guidelines at WP:AUTO) but this material fails at least two of the five tests in WP:ABOUTSELF - and here is not the place to challenge WP Policy. Davidships (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * David, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to clarify what you mean. I have only linked that term, here on the Talk page, for the purpose of clarity, to match what was in the article. I didn't originally invent that term and I would have no problem with re-phrasing it (although it does seem wholly understandable to me). I quite agree that this is not the place to challenge WP Policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. which "two of the five tests" did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. is the Daily Mirror really considered to be a good source? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I totally agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Now in the Evening Standard,, 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)
 * 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)
 * The autobiography "Tomorrow Will be a Good Day" at GoogleBooks here Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

* 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)

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)
 * 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)

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: (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)
 * 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).


 * 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:

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)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 ) 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)


 * 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)
 * "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)
 * "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?

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Just do it. If anyeone disagree, they can nominate the image to Files for discussion. -- KTC (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * would this be OK? &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)