Talk:Stanley Holloway

Source citations?

What's with all the primary sources cited in the "Family background" section? A lot of it seems to be original research, which is cracked down on mighty hard elsewhere on Wikipedia.78.144.75.151 (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I see this has previously been queried... frankly, the first section of the article is a mess of primary sources and disturbing lack of reliable secondary/ published sources, and for no discernible reason. The main thing is, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , citation of primary sources- lacking corroboration, as the guidelines state, from reliable published secondary treatments of said primary sources- is deprecated. This level of detail on family is virtually never accepted here, so I'm quite bewildered to see it in this article, particularly, as I say, so very poorly sourced. I've added not-dissimilar paragraphs on family origins/ recent history here and there in the past, directly citing an autobiography or memoir, and had the information immediately removed for being "irrelevant". One of the very great problems with Wikipedia is the differing standards upheld by different fiefdoms that have built up over the years- no real consistency, so no solid precedent to follow!

The "Family background and early life" section has far too much original research and synthesis of primary sources going on. For the first paragraph, the published sources cited are sufficient- the only thing that cites a primary source is Holloway's birth at Manor Park, London, which is covered in his ODNB entry, already cited.

The section on his grandfather, however, entirely relies upon original research, and is at any rate superfluous; the only relevant facts, covered by the ODNB entry and by Holloway & Richards, are that the grandfather was a fairly successful brush-maker thanks to whom Holloway's own family was comfortably off. His wife's name and other children are irrelevant and again represent original research/ synthesis.

The next section begins by mentioning the grandparents' relocation to Poplar, London, citing a probate record. This is totally original research, predicated upon the user who added it having identified the correct individual. A reliable published source would be required. At any rate, this is surplus to requirements in an article on Stanley Holloway, the only possible relevance to whom deriving from the statement that on the grandfather's death, Holloway's father relocated to Manor Park (one rarely encounters such a detailed account of exactly why an individual was born in the place that he was born, so here too it seems superfluous- and at any rate is original research). The details of George Holloway's occupation, marriage to his employer's daughter, and children are all in Holloway & Richards; the Ancestry.com 1901 census return is unnecessary (and specifically deprecated per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). That George Holloway left his family is, as shown, covered by Holloway & Richards; the probate record citation is, again, original research and the information scarcely relevant.

You neglected to sign your comment. You misunderstand what "original research" means. There is nothing wrong with using official, accessible sources for factoids like names and dates. The sources discussion that you cite merely says of census, probate and similar materials: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." I agree with that, and I am happy to delete such sources to the extent that they are redundant with Holloway and Richards or ODNB, if that is the case. I reduced the info about Holloway's grandfather, but it was all accepted at FAC, so I don't think it is warranted to cut it as much as you did. I will defer to User:Tim riley, when he has a moment to consider this, as he has done a lot of work on this article and has all the book sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You know, I had typed up a far-too-long dissection of exactly why I made the initial edit, but in the event I think I shall spare you having to either read it or roll your eyes at its length and contrariness and NOT read it, and spare myself the bother of being disdained for it and having my reasoning dismissed out of hand. I hope you can make this article better than it currently is, in any case- "Meliora sperans", and such. Best regards 88.109.215.181 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware of deleting anything other than an added citation to the GRO that didn't in fact support the statement attributed to it, viz. that Woodford is now in London rather than Essex. If I deleted anything else it was in error, for which apols. My edit summary explains what I was seeking to do. Tim riley talk 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"We do not falsify quotations"

Hi.

In the edition I checked before making the edit, the phrases "Shakespearian roles" and "Shakespearian connections" do not occur. I've since traced the origin of the chapter descriptions in the footnote to a series of IP edits made in 2010, starting here.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• User:Jean-de-Nivelle, That's not an IP. It's a renamed user, as the account name makes clear. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. What of it? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything of it, just correcting an error on the identity of the editor, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

By the time you edited those descriptions into a footnote in 2011 perhaps it was no longer clear that the chapter descriptions did not originate in Holloway's text, but were added by a Wikipedia editor.Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if one of the acceptable spellings has been in place since 2011, does it really need changing? I think the status quo is okay to remain. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

O, reason not the need! I've no strong objection to the use of the less common spelling, although I do object quite strongly to the inappropriate use of the word "falsify" in the edit summary. On the other hand, what purpose do these chapter summaries serve? Do they need to be there at all?Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

For those who don’t have access to the book, I suspect the summaries are quite useful, particularly as the work isn’t available on Google Books, in Kindle form or currently in print. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As to deleting chunks of the agreed text of a featured article, agreement would need to be sought on the article talk page. That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective. On the last point, this is what Fowler said in the original Modern English Usage:

Shakspere, Shakespear(e), -erian, -earian, -ean, &c. The forms preferred by the OED are Shakspere, Shaksperian. It is a matter on which unanimity is desirable, & on which, in view of the concerting arguments, it will never be reached unless an authoritative decision is accepted as such. Shakspere, Shaksperian, are therefore recommended.

That may have been a tenable position in 1926, but even the OED has given up on "Shakspere" and spells it as everyone else does. In the latest edition of Fowler, Butterfield says:

Shakespeare. Now universally spelt as shown, but in the early decades of the 20c. Shakspere was the more usual form, and was recommended by the OED (1913) and by Fowler (1926). The corresponding adjective (and noun) may be written as Shakespearian, the older but less frequent form, or Shakespearean.

Chambers gives both forms, but puts Shakespearian first. The Guardian Style Guide prescribes "Shakespearean, not Shakespearian". The Times Style Guide specifies Shakespearean but a quick comb through the paper's online archive finds that 181 Shakespearians have slipped through since 2000. The Cambridge University Press can't make up its mind: in The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (2010) it's "Shakespearian" throughout the text, but a spin-off volume from three years later is The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy. The Internet Archive has any number of books called Shakespearian This or Shakespearean That – so many of each, in fact, that I think one must conclude that both are equally correct, and that Fowler was right to say there will never be unanimity on the matter. Tim riley talk 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have drifted rather far from the point. I don't object to Tim riley's revertion of my edit, although I think his arguments for doing so are not convincing. I object quite strongly to Tim riley's suggestion in his edit summary that I falsified a quotation. That's why I moved this discussion to Tim riley's talk page. Tim?

Also: "That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective."

The first two points are humbug. No quotation was tampered with. Neither was any part of what I edited passed off as a quotation. Tim riley may have wrongly assumed that the material I edited formed part of a quotation, but that's not my mistake. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• As you yourself said "Ah yes, you're right. What of it?" Does it matter? Aren't there better things to do? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It matters to me. I've no idea why it would matter to you, or why you chose to become involved. If you have better things to do, please go about your business. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't tell me which threads I can or cannot comment upon. I became involved to correct an error you made: no-one is perfect and if Tim riley made a mistake, so have you, so I'm not sure why the extended humbug on something so trivial. WP:DROPTHESTICK maybe? Just a suggestion which you are free to consider or ignore. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't told you which threads you can or cannot comment upon, nor would I ever presume to. You corrected a trivial error, which I acknowledged. I'm only pointing out that if you feel this discussion has become a waste of your time, nothing compels you to prolong your involvement in it. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

J-de-N, please try to be civil. Describing others' contributions as humbug, or telling them to go about their business is not helpful. Glad to know you were not tampering with a quotation. Your quotation marks in your edit summary gave the contrary impression, but you were merely altering the agreed FA text. In what sense were you "standardising" the spelling, by the way? For your future guidance, discussions of this kind should be on the article talk page, where all interested editors can see them, rather than on one editor's talk page where they will be seen by few.Tim riley talk 08:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Humbug is humbug! I began this discussion here because I thought it possible that some other edition of Holloway's autobiography might contain the chapter summaries I'd edited. Once it was clear that those summaries were the work of a Wikipedia editor I moved the discussion to your Talk page, since my objection was not to your reversion of my edit, but to your mistaken suggestion that I'd falsified a quotation. A simple apology for that error would conclude this matter to my satisfaction. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No summary box?

I was surprised this article does not have a summary box like most biographies on Wikipedia do. Please can someone who knows how to do so please add one so the article is more complete. I was just looking to see whether he had children and that is harder without the box. Thank you. 82.132.184.235 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No infobox is desired for this article, as the WP:LEAD section covers all the key information about Holloway and is more nuanced than a box would be. It does say how many children he had. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment because it does not seem relevant? Why do you say that a summary box is not desired when I have just expressed a desire for one?

Boxes are standard on most Wikipedia biographies, I presume because I am not the only person to find that they make finding information easier. What nuance is needed for things like when he was born and died and how many children he had? This information is in the article but it is hard to find, because there is no summary box.

I just ask someone to make the article better in this simple way but you seem to say that this is not desired? Do you get to speak for all Wikipedia people? 82.132.184.235 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length: see earlier exchanges. Some articles benefit from an info-box and some don't. The consensus is that this is one of the latter. Tim riley talk 22:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Seeing if Holloway had children would be faster to find in an infobox than having navigate through the lead. Quicker access to information is a perfectly good reason for there to be an infobox; it'd be much easier to see how old he was when he died in an infobox than for the reader to have to do the mental math in their head. And indeed, the presence of the infobox on the overwhelming majority of biographical articles makes the absence of one here feel jarring for many readers. History has shown that consensus can change, and that is not a bad thing. Songwaters (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you didn’t quite read Ssilvers’s post either (or even look at the article): it’s in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) (replied to this version before edits were made). - SchroCat (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. Songwaters (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem - and thank you. Just a little note for the future: you may want to have a look at WP:TALK#REPLIED - once a comment has been replied to, you shouldn't change it too much, as responses look out of context - striking the text is more appropriate. It's not a problem for now, but just for the future. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Rfc re: i-box

Contrary to Tim Riley above this has not been “discussed at length”; it appears to have been discussed once, briefly, in 2014/15. Additionally the subject was in the military, and military personnel generally have infoboxes since there’s a lot of rote, but important information to be covered like rank, branch etc. which an I-box is extremely well suited to. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:RFCBEFORE, this is supposed to be discussed with editors on the talk page before the RfC is opened. Are we not bothering with the basic steps of WP interaction now? I suggest this malformed attempt is closed and a discussion started first, as it is supposed to be. SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that this seems some way prior to an RfC, better discussed on this Talk page. Here is a link to a May 2023 Village Pump discussion on Infoboxes which (although unresolved) may provide some lines of thinking on relative roles of textual intro vs Infobox. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I too am surprised this went straight to RFC, but I do fully support an infobox on this article per Dronebogus, the thoroughly-bitten reader and potential new editor above (I'm slightly surprised I didn't respond pointing out the fallacy of the obviously false "discussed at length" claim when I first saw it, but this was several days later so the reader had probably gone already) and my comments in 2014 (where again arguments weren't actually addressed but infoboxes as a concept rather ridiculed and insulted). Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to be blunt: discussing before RfC is a waste of time. If you just say “can I put in an infobox” or something, the infobox is going to be aggressively blocked by the same people who systematically blocked i-boxes at similar articles. WP:NOTBURO applies. In any case you answered your osn question: it was just discussed, and shot down ruthlessly. Dronebogus (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not benefit from an infobox. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this WP:Featured Article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the excellent WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. Do people really think that one of the 3 or 4 most important facts about this famous actor is the number of children that he had? Nevertheless this is already in the lead section and in in the body of the article. (2) Since the information that would be in the box is already discussed in his comprehensive Featured Article (and also its Lead) and is again seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 4th mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format at the top of the article would discourage people from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (5) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, editors usually spend time arguing over what to include in the box. (6) The numerous reviewers at this article's peer review, GA review and FAC did not think an infobox would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, you say this every single time. It’s meta-WP:BLUDGEONING. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus he’s not even just a liberal arts person, he was in the military like I said in the rationale! Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

He is not notable for his army service during WWI. You misunderstand Bludgeoning. It is where you comment on everyone else's comments in the same discussion, as you are doing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I commented three times, and one was an addition to an existing comment. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Are humans considered "liberal arts fields", in the context of that 10-year-old Signpost article? (The editor who wrote it was banned by ArbCom, so we can't ask the author.) When I read that, I hear "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to articles like Music and Rhetoric", not "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to biographies about musicians, authors, and actors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have pulled the RfC tag, not just because others have pointed out that there was no WP:RFCBEFORE (Dronebogus please note, RfC is intended to be used when other methods have failed, it is not an instrument of first resort) but also because of the big red error message that has gone ignored for well over 24 hours. Please read WP:RFCST and consider carefully if you really need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for what is a normal everyday matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64 I'm convinced by @Dronebogus' arguments that the prior discussion does constitute an RFC-before, and for the need for an RFC given the hostility with which attempts at rational discussion are shot down. I can't comment on the error message. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above thread was so short it doesn't really constitute a discussion, so the attempt to open an RFC here failed WP:RFCBEFORE; there was zero hostility in the thread, so I am not sure why you claimed there was. There were people who disagreed with the opening comment, but that isn't "hostility", no matter how much anyone may claim it to be. Because of the way it was opened it was malformed and in breach of other aspects of the way an RFC should be run. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is a discussion, and politely biting newbies (by aggressively shooting down good faith proposals dishonestly framing a single 7+ years old discussion as “discussed at length”) is still biting. Or do I need to open a new discussion, which will immediately get shot down by you, Ssilvers, Tim et al? Or do I need to open another, proper rfc that will get shot down by you etc for being too close to the last one (this one) which according to you wasn’t even a legitimate rfc? Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What you need to do is read WP:AGF and stop personalising debates: that would be a great start. It wasn't a legitimate RFC - and it wasn't just me that said so. Several others concurred and it was an admin, Redrose64 that closed of the RFC - not me. If you want to have an RFC, then after there has been a proper discussion, read the instructions and do it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And what, in your opinion, constitutes “proper discussion”? Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE and follow the guidelines. I am sure you don't need me to explain what is already given in the guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at some other RFCs and see why mine was deformed. However I do not see the value in an extended discussion that we know will end in an RfC anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Crap rationale from the nom in any case. The article is over 4000 words long. Less than 300 of them discuss his military service: that's about six per cent of the article. By extension, either the nom has not read the article before making this proposal, or they are making knowingly misleading statements. SN54129 12:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t care if it’s only 6%; Prince Harry was no Douglas MacArthur but his military career is covered in his infobox. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Major Barbara a war film?

This article (lead section, paragraph 3) includes Major Barbara in a list of "war films". It's actually a Shavian social satire, and Barbara is, of course, a major in the Salvation Army. Have I missed a joke? Was "wartime films" intended? Does anyone object if I delete Major Barbara from that list? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If Major Barbara was one of his most important films, it should be mentioned in the Lead section. Of course, it should be described correctly. Since it is a rather chronological presentation, your thought of calling it "wartime" sounds good, and I have done so. On the other hand, if you don't think it was important to his career, please say why you don't think so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Major Barbara was only added to the lead in 2011 in order to make the lead longer in line with the suggestions of a Good Article reviewer - something it achieved admirably. It's gone on performing that function for nearly twelve years without complaint. I've no strong opinion about whether or not it belongs in the lead, only about whether or not it belongs in a list of "war films". It's no longer in that list, so in that sense, my objection is satisfied.

On the other hand, changing the list from "war films" to "wartime films" seems rather arbitrary. If, by "wartime films", we mean that these films were made during the war (and Major Barbara is not a wartime film in any other sense) we seem to be stating the obvious: that during the war, Holloway acted in films that were made during the war. We might as well delete the adjective.

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten that Holloway was in the film of Major Barbara, but it, and the play, are about war to some extent – arms dealer and all that – though not what most people think of as a "war film" or "war play", it seems to me. On the whole I think it sensible to delete the adjective. Tim riley talk 16:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed "wartime", though it might characterize the list as "films with wartime themes"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Again though, Major Barbara really isn't a film "with wartime themes", and sticks out like a sore thumb in the company of the other films in that list. It's a typically Shavian sermon about the morality of poverty, charity, and industry. Yes, Undershaft is an arms manufacturer, but I really think it's hard to argue that the film is about war. You can watch a very high quality reproduction of it here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems to me a succinct and accurate summary of the play. Tim riley talk 22:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is the possible explanation for not including a standard format infobox on the page? Keystone18 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no WP:CONSENSUS to add an infobox to this article. This has been discussed here before. See the Archived Talk discussion. I would certainly oppose it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Keystone seems not to understand Wikipedia's rules: there is no "standard" i-box. The agreed policy is that whether or not to have an i-box is a matter for consensus at every article. I agree with the consensus here that an i-box would not be of much use to the reader. Tim riley talk 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.