Jump to content

Talk:Tom Baker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Some questions from an American

Out of curiosity, do you guys happen to know why Tom Baker has decided, with few exceptions, not to play the Doctor anymore? I'd love to know this, and I would imagine that lots of other Doctor Who fans on this side of the pond would love to know, as well. Also, I found this line on the page under the Voice Acting section: He is also the narrator of the new children's computer animation series The Beeps which is shown on Channel 5's Milkshake. What is Channel 5? 71.136.252.19 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that Tom Baker is too old to play the doctor, and there have been several new incarnations - why would he come back. He's also fairly busy with other things now. Five (channel) is a UK terrestrial TV channel. Pontificake 08:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Baker thought it was too soon to come back for the 20th. anniversary. I don't think he's been asked after that except for Dimensions in Time where he did appear. Davhorn 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Would that be why he turned down The Five Doctors too? Also, thanks for that info on Channel 5. Is there a link in the article? 71.136.252.19 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I edited the article when I replied to your question :) Pontificake 11:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The 20th. anniversary was The Five Doctors. I should have specified that. :) Davhorn 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question, he did do it continually for seven years and probably wanted to do other things. Also, he himself says he was getting more stubborn and difficult in the last few seasons and thought he should move on and things seemed especially bad with John Nathan Turner who wanted less humour in the show. Type 40 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio

Is there anything on why Baker hasn't done more audio adventures? Type 40 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Baker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment ==

WikiProject Biography Assessment

I've rated this a B, narrowly, but---- it needs more citations and much more of his work outside Doctor Who and his latest, Little Britain. Especially his many many film roles.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Baker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Baker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Question? A help request is open: goes to a 404 message. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

False Alarm

Rest assured my dear friends that the best ever Doctor is alive and well, 71 now and somewhat heavier than his days of saving planets but far from dead! Anyhow, I just wanted to explain my edit. Minor though it may be, the filming sessions of Logopolis took place in December 1980 and so I stated that this was when Tom Baker completed his stint as the Doctor; apart from that, it is correct that the first episode of the story went out in February 1981. Inacuracy leads to imprecision and we can't have that on an encyclopaedia! Ragusan 11 October 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Location filming for Logopolis ran from December 16 and December 18, 1980, with an extra day on December 22. Studio work commenced on January 8, 1981 (the regeneration itself being filmed on January 9) and continued from January 22 to January 24, with a gallery-only filming in TC6 on January 28. Source: The Television Companion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I must have based the thought on the location filming. Still, it’s a bit close to 1980 wouldn't you say? :) Ragusan 13 October 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.247.77 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Father inventor of steel beverage can

I couldn't find a source for the above claim, so I've removed it. If someone can find a source, please feel free to add it back again. WLD 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Death reports

If anyone has any references for the incorrectly published reports of his death in the 1980s, please let me know or simply add them to his entry in the List of premature obituaries. Thanks! Ben Finn 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

I've rated this a B, narrowly, but---- it needs more citations and much more of his work outside Doctor Who and his latest, Little Britain. Especially his many many film roles.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

years active?

GusF (talk · contribs) changed the initial year in the "years active" variable from 1971 to 1968. I put in 1971 from the article "In 1971, Baker got his first big break..."; but I can't verify the 1968 addition per the article. Is the 1968 incorrect, or is the article incomplete and this is just unsourced as stands? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDB says he was in Z Cars, Dixon of Dock Green, and The Winters' Tale, among other things, in 1968... -- Arwel (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Belligerence on Dr Who

Some details about Baker's frequent clashes and temper tantrums on the set of Dr Who would be worth mentioning in the article since they seem to be well discussed (and therefore quotable) on the various DVD extras for the episodes from his era and were, after all, the reason why John Nathan Turner decided to regenerate him. I've just been watching the documentary on The Ribos Operation, and it didn't paint a pretty picture.79.66.86.27 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody killed Tom on september, 2nd ;-)

On http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_de_septiembre Tom baker is said to have died in 1986, is there any other actor called Tom Baker that may be meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.44.109 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so. This is probably derived from the rumour that Tom died of a drug overdose in 1982 (mentioned in the article, by the way). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Gary Gillatt, former editor of Doctor Who Magazine, wrote an amusing little tale in one of his editorials for the magazine back in about 1998. Apparently, just a short while after HarperCollins' massive publicity drive for Baker's 1997 autobiography, he was phoned up by a journalist on a national newspaper who wanted to know in what year Baker had died. :-) Angmering 10:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I remember the erronous report of Baker's death. I actually read about it in a reference book for doll collectors, of all things, under a listing for a Tom Baker Doctor Who doll or action figure. This was about 1985-ish and I remember being quite depressed because I had just gotten into Doctor Who. As it happened I actually remained under the impression that Baker was dead until Reeltime Pictures put out a Myth Makers interview video with him a number of years later. The funny thing is I had obviously forgotten that I had seen Tom Baker in an episode of Remington Steele (at the time my favorie show) in 1984... 23skidoo 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It was an American actor of the same name. Type 40 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Britain

I thought also that he did the voiceovers for the television series Little Britain Ericmakesthree 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, re this quote "On 2006-11-17, to mark the start of Series 3 of Little Britain, Baker read the continuity announcements on BBC One from 1900 to 2130 UTC." This looks unlikely. That date hasn't even happened yet. Was this 2005, perhaps? (I am not a Little Britain watcher, so I have no idea.) Telsa (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I heard about this but don't know when it happened. Type 40 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor categorisation?

I think that the classification of Tom Baker as an "atheist" is overly simplistic, as from what I've heard, he embraces what might better be called a holistic worldview (closer to Deepak Chopra or Joseph Campbell than to Richard Dawkins). For this reason, I am removing his placement in that category for now. 71.168.205.168 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though, to a certain extent, Wikipedia exhibits a tendency to class everyone as either religious or atheist; for instance, the "Category:English atheists" page also includes H.G. Wells, who was a humanist, and Lord Byron, who was agnostic. 71.168.205.168 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, Wells was a Unitarian. 71.168.205.168 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
He's clearly described as an atheist in several sources, as I recall. Type 40 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2 removed pop culture items

  • Female fans are known as "The Sisterhood"
  • Member of the WIN organization.

I've removed these from the pop culture section of the article. They are unsourced, and don't have enough context to make them comprehensible to those who aren't familiar with them. In what contexts is "The Sisterhood" used? Is it for any female fans whatsoever, a specific fan website's term, or what? What is the WIN organization? Without some additional information, for all I know it could be a variation on the "made of win" or "full of win" internet meme and simply means that he's awesome, lol. More importantly, without some sort of context and sourcing, it's impossible to tell if these are worth noting, or simply fancruft. As they may have more significance to British fans who can expand upon them, however, I'm moving them here to the talk page instead of deleting them outright. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did he live?

I had a friend (now deceased) who used to commute frm Ashford, in Kent, to London every weekday. She says that Tom Baker often got on the train at Headcorn in Kent, and we presume this is where he lived? This would be about 2003-4. My friend also says that his dress sense drew a lot to be desired, as he sometime wore a loud pink shirt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.148.119 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Little Britain

In the little Britain section it say "pop one out". What exactly does that mean? --Camaeron (t/c) 15:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be polite, defecate. Ged UK (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, thank you...--Camaeron (t/c) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fairly safe to say if there's a phrase in Little Britain you're not sure of, it's almost certainly to do with a bodily function of some sort! --Ged UK (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pop one out" also means to expose one's breast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.148.119 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Baker ...

Perhaps an interested person would like to rewrite a considerable number of sentences to avoid so many starting "Baker is/was/has"? --Candy (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-Doctor Who TV works

Tom Baker also made a great role in tv series Swiss Toni as eccentric film director who directs an advert for Swiss Toni's Cars, which contains a nun, goat and midget, as his every film did. I wonder if the highly eccentric role is a spoof of Baker's own real-life antics or even a homage. Eps 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Baker also played Sherlock Holmes in a 1982 Hound of the Baskervilles. Can someone update the bio to reflect this? Thanks. (JT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.8.57.2 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing him in that although it took some time to realise because of how much weight he had put on by then. couldn't quite believe it untill I saw his name on the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.93.3 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I'm a wiki newbie, would anyone be able to add a note regarding his time on the childrens TV Show 'The Book Tower'? (JC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unverbosing

There are many sentences in the article that really just need to be pulled down to the "Works" section. I've done a few - feel free to do more. Luminifer (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted repeated odd edits about Baker's family having "no jewish connection"

have reverted several repeated odd edits on this - there's no sources on the web to confirm that ( save two reproductions of this page on derivative sites ) whereas there are multiple sources on other sites confirming that his family did. Why would a census someone found with ancestors from Scotland and Wales preclude some of those being jewish too ? The page may be a candidate for semi-protection if that goes on.

Roto5 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those sources aren't really reliable (IMDB isn't). I think this whole story is somewhat suspicious. It ought to be left out of the article until something definitive comes up. What does Baker say on the matter in his autobiography? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations removed

The "Doctor Who" section includes unsourced statements regarding Baker's opinion of certain Doctor Who-related individuals that are unacceptable under WP:BLP. Since I've encountered cases where edits made by me as an anonymous IP are removed without review or consideration if by chance the statements regarding Baker's alleged opinion of Nathan-Turner, Waterhouse and Fielding are reverted, they must be removed unless someone is able to add a (credible) source. I am often critical of Wikipedia's ever-changing rules (a reason why as a protest I edit as an IP despite being close to 9 years involved with the project), but I am in 100% agreement with the BLP rules. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did he quit Doctor Who? The article says he was infuriated by a change in his wadrobe

When John Nathan-Turner took over as producer of Doctor Who in 1981, Tom Baker was infuriated by the changes made to his wardrobe

Fan-Interview says 15 months away for the Gandalf role.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gtrbS7dAZY He doesn't say much more about it, except he would have missed family & friends too much to do it. Just a random ip user that saw this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.128.92 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Can we find a better picture of the man. He looks like a deer caught in headlights in the current pic. 74.4.193.38 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Biographical details clarified

I have clarified the biographical details for his parents' background with a more recent source, as the earlier dispute from three years ago centred on reliable sources. The British Film Institute biographies are unquestionably a reliable source, particularly when it comes to the details of key figures in British TV and film. As for why these details may have been obscure, I think it's very possible that with his devoutly Catholic upbringing and early work, his backgrounds would hardly be an easy fit, and one half would be more likely to be less emphasised ; Catholic-Jewish relations, particularly in the early 1970s and earlier, were hardly smooth.

217.44.53.114 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the main sections a central points of the entire article, like a mini-article on its own. That the same points are expanded on in detail in the body does not mean they should be removed from the lead. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead mentions the notable points of the article. It doesn't discuss the subject's family, unless they are notable in themselves. Nor is one episode of a programme important enough for the lead. I had condensed the various mentions of Dr Who in the lead. That he doesn't have strong religious feeling or party political allegiance is hardly very noteworthy. Span (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead recaps all the main points of the article, which include the career elements that have been removed. I have no problem condensing the family issues and removing the political comments. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Audio book recordings and marriages have no place in the lead. These are not main points. The fourth most distinctive voice poll? It's debatable whether that should be mentioned in the article at all, let alone in the lead. Span (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be applying some sort of elitist criteria of exclusion here. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and it's certainly notable that he's the fourth most recognized voice of Britain after the Queen and two PM's. Referring to that poll is much better than simply editorializing without support that his voice is notable. Again I simply refer you to WP:LEAD which says the lead should cover all the main salient points, summarize the entire article, and read as a mini-article. If you think other points are more important, you should add them to the lead. For such a large article, the current lead is quite small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Death rumours on Facebook

On Saturday (December 20) the actor's reps officially confirmed that Tom Baker is not dead. “He joins the long list of celebrities who have been victimized by this hoax. He's still alive and well, stop believing what you see on the Internet,” they said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

This dispute was started by a block-evading WP:LTA user. As I don't see anyone agreeing with them there is no need to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The idea of an encyclopaedia is to report the facts, and not to guess what some unspecified demographic might think of them. The idea is also to write concisely: saying something using 7 or 8 words where one will do is bad writing. Bearing this in mind, I changed "is best known for his role as" to "played" in the first sentence [1]. The former expresses an assumption that contains no information; the latter is concise, objective and verifiable. It complies with the core policies of the encyclopaedia where the first one doesn't.

Unfortunately User:Vyselink undid this for no good reason [2]. Their edit summary said ""best known for" is a common thing on wikipedia, appropriate when someone is particularly known for a certain character/part". Incorrect spellings, bad grammar and other violations of core policy are also rife on wikipedia, but this doesn't legitimise them. And if someone is known for a certain thing, we simply mention the thing. We do not need to attempt to guess what people might think of the thing.

Most likely, the user wasn't really thinking about improving the encyclopaedia, but just felt like reverting something and decided to revert an anonymous edit. That is another thing that is rife on wikipedia. So how about User:Vyselink rethinks their action, remembering that a revert is mostly appropriate for vandalism and that you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time, and restores my edit to make the article comply with core policies of wikipedia? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I take exceptional umbrage to the idea that a person who has been editing since Monday, and hasn't even registered a name but is using an IP address, accuses me of reverting something just because I "felt like it", and then quotes to me WP regulations/guidelines. I have been editing since 2007, I know them. I have never reverted simply for the sake of reverting, and have never had any complaints lodged against me. While I do not ask for an apology for the borderline slander, nor do I expect one, I respectfully remind 200.83.136.145 that if he believes my revert is wrong that is one thing, but to question my motives and to assert that I did them in any other way than GOOD FAITH is both irresponsible and a borderline personal attack. The PROPER thing to do would have been to revert my revert, start a talk about why we disagree, allow others to join in, and settle it like responsible Wikipedia editors should. Not to imply that I did the original revert out of malice ("felt like it") idiocy ("So how about Vyselink rethinks their action") or ignorance (I am fully aware of Wikipedia guidelines). The condescending tone and nature of your post violates WP:Civility. Vyselink (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been editing since 2004. I know that reverting IP edits without a reason is the norm and not an unusual thing, and I doubt you would have reverted if the edit was made by a username. You tell me I should have started a discussion on the talk page; what page are you reading this on? You haven't bothered to respond to the points I raised. This only enhances the impression that you had no good reason for reverting. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Your doubts are irrelevant, as I would have made the same revert regardless of whether a username was given or not. You still do not seem to understand the idea of civility, and your posts at User:Peter Gulutzan's talk page shows this. My problem is not so much with your change (though I disagree), nor with your bringing up the matter here (as here is the appropriate place to do so). My issue is with your condescending and uncivil comments. Your latest comment only further shows that you have no desire or ability to argue as an adult.
As for your claim that your change makes it more encyclopedic, my argument is that "best known for" (or "best known as" or "known for", etc...) is particularly appropriate when someone is in fact best known for a particular thing, in this case Tom Baker is best known for portraying the Fourth Doctor. Were you to do a search on Wikipedia for "best known for", you would find that over 64,000 articles contain that phrase. Your argument that the mere appearance of this phrase in so many articles does not make it correct seems possible, so I went with a "true" encyclopedia to see if I was completely in the wrong here. The Encyclopedia Britannica, I'm sure hoping you will admit, is a real encyclopedia.
See this entry where they describe John Heartfield as being "best known for his agitprop photomontages"
or this entry on Don Rickles where he is described as being "known for a cheerfully belligerent brand of humour..."
or this article where they describe an entire country no less, in this case Austria, as being "known for its contribution to music..."
or this one where Donald C. Johanson is described as being an "American paleoanthropologist best known for his discovery of “Lucy,”"
or this one on Franciabigio
There are quite a bit more, but I think these five make my case for "best known for" as being appropriate in an encyclopedia when discussing certain people. And just to head off any thoughts of "this is the online version, its not correct", I originally did a look through of my physical copies of old EB's, and found the phrase used there as well, but seeing as how I can't physically show you those, I figured the online version would be appropriate as evidence. Vyselink (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Brittanica style is irrelevant. Wikipedia defined its own style, a long time ago, and encoded it in the core policies. These say that we write with a neutral point of view, we do not report opinions as if they are facts, and we do not write for any particular demographic, social group or nationality. You claim that Tom Baker is "best known" for something, as if that's a fact. But it is an opinion, which might be held by certain science fiction fans who live in a certain archipelago in the north west of a certain continent. It is not a fact, it is not verifiable, and it is not useful to the majority of the world's population. It doesn't contain any useful information. What exactly do you imagine is lacking in the objective and verifiable statement "Tom Baker played the fourth Doctor"? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Then please inform me as to the relevant WP Policies that state that "best known for" etc. are a violation of said policies for, as stated above, a quick search shows over 64,000 WP articles that make use of that exact phrase, which undermines your statement that it is a "core policy". As for your assertion that only science fiction fans who live in England know of Tom Baker as the 4th Doctor, I am American, and not even from the north-west of my own country. As for it being an "opinion", do a quick Google search for Tom Baker, and anything that has to do with this Tom Baker mentions "Doctor Who", and rarely any other work that he has done. Even his IMDB page, which lists virtually everything he has ever acted in, says "best known for". I do not understand this annoyance with the FACT that, yes, certain people can be BEST KNOWN FOR certain things, such as the already given examples above show. Vyselink (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I already told you the policies, and if violations of a given policy exist, that does not, in fact, mean that the policy can be ignored wherever you like. Doctor Who may well be the most widely viewed thing he's done, but to say that he's "best known" for anything is to report an opinion as if it is fact, which is to violate core policies. Now, for the second time, what exactly do you imagine is lacking in the objective and verifiable statement "Tom Baker played the fourth Doctor"? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My problems with changing it to "Tom Baker played the Fourth Doctor" (by the by, THIS is what I meant by show me the policies):

It ignores WP:COMMONSENSE (relevant quote from that page: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.")

I believe that WP:SUBJECTIVE also applies here (relevant quote: "Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language.") While it would be BETTER to have a source, it is not a requirement.

WP:FATRAT also applies (quotes: "In building consensus, everyone will argue that such or such change breaks their preferred rule and thus simply *can't* be made. It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the article better regardless of what the rules say....Just don't argue that a change should be made or prevented just because the rule says so, because that's not the nature of rules. Policies and guidelines are collections of principles that many editors agree to be good ways to make the encyclopedia better; but they are of general nature, and must be evaluated for each particular situation to assess if they apply, and if they indeed make it better or not.")

Your main argument amounts to WP:JUSTAPOLICY.

Simply stating that he "played" the Fourth Doctor contributes to making the article a "mere compilation of published data" described in WP:EDITDISC, which is especially relevant here: (quote: "The policy on original research is sometimes misconstrued as a blanket prohibition on any application of judgement or critical thinking by editors. The intent of that policy was never to turn editing into an unthinking task, and our articles into mere compilations of published data.") Vyselink (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You say policies, and then you quote irrelevant essays. The only policy you quoted was WP:SUBJECTIVE, which doesn't apply because "best known for" is not an aesthetic opinion. In any case, it would suggest that we should write "widely considered to be best known for", which would at least be objective, but on the downside, would be ridiculous.
WP:JUSTAPOLICY does not apply because this is not a deletion discussion.
Simply stating that he played the fourth Doctor is all the information that is necessary. It is simple good writing. Adding a guess as to what some unspecified but apparently Anglophone demographic might think of him is unnecessary, verbose and contrary to the policy of not reporting opinions as if they are facts. Is London best known for being the capital of the United Kingdom? Is War and Peace best known for being a book written by Tolstoy? Is Doctor Who best known for being a science fiction series? 200.83.101.199 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A) I was not stating that what I was about to say WERE policies, merely stating that when I asked for what your policy arguments were, this was what I was meant, i.e. giving a list of specifics. You also do not seem to grasp the point of WP:EDITDISC, which, yes, while an essay, is at the heart of the matter.

B) I would also point you to this statement on the WP:POLICY page "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." That "best-known" is unsourced and the opinion of whoever wrote it. Going to change it?

C) Your examples are specious at best. Inanimate objects ARE best known for being what they are, but saying so would make no sense. Adding "London is best known for being the capital city of England" would be verbose (although accurate), as that's what it IS, period. War and Peace is best known for being a book written by Tolstoy, because that's what it IS. Those examples can not change, they are immutable, and therefore adding "best known" to them would be redundant, like saying an apple is best known for being an apple.

Musicians, actors, people and even corporations/businesses however can be best known for certain things that they have done/do. In some cases it would be pointless to say "best known for". For example, it would be verbose to say that Home Run Baker was best known for being a baseball player, because that's the ONLY thing he is known for. Therefore "Home Run Baker was a baseball player" is fine. For someone who has had other roles/careers, such as Tom Baker, where one of them is far and away the one that they are most famous for, it is appropriate.

D) You and I are not going to agree on this. So I say we see what other editors have to say and then go with the consensus. Vyselink (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidently, you can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. And you don't appear to comprehend that there is a world outside your own narrow demographic, where people haven't heard of Doctor Who, let alone Tom Baker, and he is not known for anything at all. Policy says we cannot report opinions as if they are facts, and therefore I will remove this policy violation, again. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This post is to inform you that I have posted a neutral request for more editors to give their opinions on this subject in accordance with WP:Canvassing, which I have posted at WP:DOCTORWHO (here to go directly to post). Vyselink (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think something is lost by not mentioning the impact the role had on how he was perceived. Baker was as well known as the Doctor as Nimoy was as Spock, and that perception similarly affected his career. It seems well worth mentioning in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If his role as the Doctor affected his career, then that should be mentioned in the article. A mere expression of an opinion about what he might have been "best known" for, with it left unstated by whom, does not suffice. 186.9.129.40 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good.l If you would like to expand on this issue, feel free to do so - it would improve the article. It doesn't deny that this is what he is best known for. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and given that the IP has (again) been blocked, I'm going to change it back. The talk can continue until a consensus is reached. Vyselink (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to have a policy-based reason for reverting. Doing so just because you don't like a particular editor is highly disruptive behaviour. 186.9.129.40 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Current consensus is to retain the sourced statement. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
And I am not removing the claim. You just need to phrase it properly. See WP:ASSERT - presenting opinions as if they are facts is not acceptable. 200.83.115.216 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The source does not present this as an opinion. It makes a clear factual statement, "The 72-year-old actor is best known for playing Doctor Who and providing the voice-over for the BBC’s Little Britain." It is possible for someone to be best known for a role - I agree that can be an opinion, but it can also be a factual statement. In this case it is not being presented as a personal opinion, and does seem fully in keeping with what we understand about his career. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It cannot ever be a factual statement, unless someone actually asked a representative proportion of the world's population what they think of Tom Baker. Did they? If you know what everyone thinks of him, then I'm curious: what do they think of Tom Baker in Ethiopia? What do they think of him in Chile? What about in Russia? What do people who never watched Doctor Who think of him? What about people in countries where Little Britain was never broadcast? What about people who've never heard of Tom Baker, what do they "best know" him for? In short, exactly who is doing the knowing, and how do you know what they know? 200.83.115.216 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy philosophy, you've stumbled into the problem of induction, and we don't really need to solve it in order to make a statement in an article - otherwise we would find it almost impossible to write any general statement. :) For WP, it is sufficient that it was presented in a reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope, this has nothing to do with induction. It has to do with the difference between opinions and facts. I can find you plenty of sources that say he's the best doctor, and that present it as if it is a fact. Can you understand that that is not a fact, can never be a fact, and should not be presented as if it is a fact? 200.83.115.216 (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, it's just obvious and straightforward. We say "Tom Baker played Doctor Who, and narrated Little Britain". Job done. Nothing else to say. Why do you want to insert a guess as to what an unspecified demographic thinks about that? What do you imagine you're adding? 200.83.115.216 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
As raised previously, as these were the two roles of which he has been most strongly identified, his career and life have been affected by them. It makes sense to note what he is best known for when we have clear, unambiguous reliable sources saying as much. We would have ambiguity in regards to who was the best doctor, and accordingly we wouldn't be able to make describe him as such. They are two different claims. - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So we discuss the effect it had on his career and life. Claiming that he is "best known" for anything is not the same as discussing the impact of the roles on his career and life. We don't know and can never know what he is "best known for". It's just a guess. It's pointless to make the guess and stupid to report it as if it is fact. There is no reliable source that can turn a guess into a fact. 200.83.115.216 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We have reliable sources stating it. That's what we need in order to justify the inclusion. If sources countering it, or if this was clearly false, I'd agree that it was a concern, but neither is the case here. If you wish to add how this influenced his career, you are very welcome to do so, and I'll assist where I can. I think that would be a good addition, and I would fully support your efforts to develop the article in that way. - Bilby (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We do not report opinions as if they are facts, even when other people report them as if they are facts. You can tell that it's not a fact if you actually look at the claims people make. Most, in fact, just say Doctor Who. Few claim anything about Little Britain. And yet you somehow imagine that it's objectively true that he is "best known" for those two roles? 200.83.115.216 (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Also don't be claiming that you'd "fully support" anything when you're falsely accusing me of vandalism behind my back and using an attack page in the evident hope that I'll be blocked. 200.83.115.216 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
First off, I'm not aware that I've accused you of vandalism, and if my intent was to block you I would have done so. At any rate, I'm just going by the sources. If you have a problem with the sources, you'll need to find a reliable source that argues differently. - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You're editing a page that falsely accuses me of vandalism. Why pretend otherwise? And obviously, I don't have a problem with the sources. I just have a problem with your inability to distinguish opinion from fact, and your ensuing misrepresentation of opinions as if they are fact, in contravention of the core policies of the encyclopaedia. 200.83.115.216 (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll let this sit for a while, as it seems we're just going to argue in circles. At this stage, the consensus has been to include the content. If that changes we can revisit the issue. - Bilby (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. WP:NPOV will always mean that opinions can't be reported as facts, no matter how much you want them to be. 200.83.115.216 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We really are arguing in circles, aren't we? You seem very unwilling to listen, but I guess there's nothing to be done about that. - Bilby (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My preference is for this version, which avoids the above dispute entirely. Anyone agree? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather retain the statement, in that I feel acknowledging that these roles are what he is predominately known for is important to provide context regarding his career. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Understand that, but it's clear the two of you aren't going to see eye to eye on this, so it's best to find some alternative wording that you can both be comfortable with - "described as being best known for" is a real mouthful for an introduction, and we need to fix that. My advice - 1) @Drmies: is always right, 2) When Drmies is in fact wrong, refer to rule 1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I also believe that "best-known for/as" is appropriate here, especially as an RS is provided to that effect. The wording that you would have replaced, "described as being best known for", is the IP's version, as they cannot seem to stop themselves from changing it from simply "is best known as", despite ample information/examples given previously by me to support the idea of being "best-known for" one or two particular things. The previous IP advanced no real argument in reply other than it doesn't agree based on what their ideas of what a fact are (surprisingly similar to the current IP), despite the RS provided proving them wrong. I also agree with Bilby about how the fact that when he is known, which contrary to the other IP's assertion it matters not if EVERYONE knows him, he is best known as portraying the Doctor and his work on Little Britain. Vyselink (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel acknowledging that these roles are what he is predominately known for is important to provide context regarding his career. - Mentioning them in the first sentence of the lead section shows that these roles are the main reason he is notable. But we don't ever say "X is notable for Y", or "X is famous for Y". We have core policies and we have a style guide. We don't need to do anything except say "X is Y". Reliable source may use certain words to describe things; this never, ever obliges us to use the same words. Citations are there to verify facts, not to copy sentences from. We can state facts as facts. We cannot state opinions as facts. The current wording is an abomination but at least it complies with core policy.
The lengths people will go to to degrade article quality and to argue against improvements always astonish me. Any editor with an account who made this change would have had no problem at all. Your problem here has nothing to do with how to describe Tom Baker and everything to do with feeling threatened by people you perceive as outsiders. Note the two faced Bilby saying "I would fully support your efforts to develop the article in that way" while simultaneously working to get me blocked, using Ritchie333's attack page. 186.9.135.143 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing is you seem like an intelligent person, who could almost certainly be a good contributor to WP. But your bad attitude, incivility, unwillingness to listen to arguments and inability to not edit war is what has led to your MANY blocks, not editors who have a personal vendetta against you. You may not have noticed, but on your last IP (USER:200.83.136.145) I supported your change and even added a RS. I revert you here not because you are an IP, nor is it because I dislike you (although to be honest at this point I do). I believe they are wrong, have provided ample evidence that others have agreed with, and which no one but yourself has disagreed with, and invited you to talk. However, after looking at your "Best known for IP" page, which I was unaware even existed until today, it is obvious that you have no intention of ever becoming a valued, civil, effective editor but will continue to be disruptive. I consider it a loss for WP that you choose to do so. Vyselink (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Any editor with an account who made this change would have had no problem at all" I'm an editor with an account, and I don't seem to be getting my way. Consensus is not favouring my change which does not mention the phrase "best known for" at all but uses an indisputable fact (that he has had the longest tenure of the role as the Doctor) instead. I'm glad you agree that the current wording is an abomination, and that readers shouldn't have to suffer that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Vyselink, I don't care if you made good edits elsewhere. I care about the edits you're making here, which contravene core policy. And given the number of times I've made uncontroversial changes and been attacked and harassed for it, only to see exactly the same change made later on by someone with a username without problem, the anti-IP bias is extremely clear. You can pretend you have other reasons for attacking me but it's not very convincing. I'm sure you enjoyed reading Ritchie333's attack page though. 186.9.135.143 (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That's just what I'm talking about IP. I had nothing to do with any of those other "attacks", and I could care less about you being an IP. There are so many times that I have NOT reverted an IP on pages that I watch that I quite literally can't count them. I did not enjoy reading the Best-known for IP page, because it saddens me that someone who claims to have the best interests of making WP a great encyclopedia, and who could very easily make a fine editor, not only chooses not to do so, but instead appears to actively seek out confrontation, making it harder for others to do work as well, thereby causing even more damage to something they claim to want to be better. Vyselink (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we all want to welcome and accept contributions from good-faith IP users. However, this' particular IP user is a long term abuser of Wikipedia and I suggest that WP:RBI is the best course of action here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2015 (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.
  • Ritchie333, I see that in the above discussion you mentioned you preferred this version. What a coincidence--so do I! I suppose Bilby doesn't, given this revert, though I fail to see the easy "per talk" agreement. (I kinda like your rule, though.) All I see above is a rehashing of things we already knew, and someone claiming incorrectly that our policies somehow dictate the clumsy phrasing that was just restored. Ah well--so it goes. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: - I think my version is easier to read, and I also believe that David Tennant did a superb job of stopping everybody and their pet dog comparing all Doctors after Tom Baker to him, so his "best known for" is a little bit less than it once was, in my view. However, putting all that to one side, and I really can't emphasise this enough, is that we should be looking at improving the entire article, rather than debating back and forth over the opening three sentences. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is not that Tom Baker is the best known Doctor, in which case you would be correct that Tennant has reduced this. The issue is that Tom Baker has been strongly identified by two roles which he has performed, and that it makes sense (per sources) to mention this. An actor being heavily identified with one or two roles in their career seems like something worth mentioning, given that it is sourced and not likely to be in much doubt. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bilby. Tom Baker is most probably NOT the "best known Doctor". He is personally, however, best known AS the Doctor. And I agree with Ritchie333 that the entire article needs a makeover, so why don't we stop arguing with the Best-known for IP, get Drmies to add more insight (if it exists and he's not just knee jerk agreeing with the IP) to why "best known for" isn't appropriate here, and get started doing so? The best known identification is currently RS sourced, we've had no one other than myself, Ritchie, Bilby, and the IP talking about it (Drmies only contribution to this was to deny my semi-protection request and post his concurrence with the IP, without actually stating why my interpretation of the policies are "incorrect"), so lets keep it as a reliably sourced statement (which it is), get more opinions on it, and in the meantime start in on the rest of the article. Vyselink (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Vyselink, please play nice(r). My insight does exist, pace what my household will tell you. I patrol RFPP, I protect or not according to my judgment, you'll just have to accept that. Others may disagree, but if they're not patrolling RFPP then, hey, it's my call. I don't "knee-jerk" agree with the IP. If you want "knee-jerk" check the log, where you'll see that the IP's mortal foe, Kww, saw fit to make RD5 apply to a bunch of rather meaningless edits--Kww is going to get carpal tunnel syndrome if he wants to apply that consistently. The NYT link wasn't useful at all (and should be cut, AFAIK), but I see now that the Sunday Times link does confirm "best known for" (if someone had added that link, that would have been easier). I still think that in general the phrase is awful, though. (BTW, is that really him, in that article, of which I can only see part, saying "After a few days of furious sh**ging..."?)

    Not to rehash the whole thing, but when you reverted the IP the Sunday Times reference wasn't there, and your argument "it's used elsewhere" is simply irrelevant. Bilby's most recent comment makes sense, now that there is a reference, but early on in this discussion (January etc.) you weren't on the right side of it. There is no policy against the specific phrase (your straw man), but the IP was correct in pointing out that there was no proper source for it, and that's something that policy has something to say on. Arguing with the IP is really not a bad idea at all, pace my friend Beeblebrox, but it has to be done with the proper arguments (and neither "you're just an IP" nor "you're just a longtime disruptive IP" are valid arguments). Now, given the Sunday Times link, I find for the "best known for" advocates, in this particular case. Sorry IP, I'm not with you on this one, now that I've seen a reliable source--yes, for now it's only one, but it's a very decent one. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, my apologies if I was rude towards you, as it was not my intention. It just seemed to me that you want to protect this IP for some reason, despite their blatant disregard for the normal process of WP (i.e. civil discussion), evasion of multiple blocks, lying about reforming, and incredible rudeness, which it is obvious they have no intention of stopping. Regardless of the IP's doubts about my sincerity, I do believe they could be a valued contributor, as I've seen other edits that make sense, and I imagine that it was you must see as well. However, this "best-known for" thing with this IP is borderline SPA from what I've seen, and I have no doubt will eventually continue. But at some point, intransigence must be recognized and dealt with, or it just becomes enabling. But toward you yourself as an editor, I apologize.
While I disagree that my earlier arguments were straw man, I have have always attempted to discuss in a reasonable way and with what I believed to be the correct interpretation of WP guidelines, and about which I will admit I could be wrong. And other than after the IP had been blocked (for what I believed was the first time) I never used the "you're just an IP" argument against the change he made. In fact, the only time before that that I even brought up the IP point was when I thought that an IP editor who had been editing for a few days was posting that initial rude comment about my editing. Wrong or not (which again, I could have been) I have always argued in good faith. But when someone, IP or not, is ridiculously rude, violating WP:CIVIL, accuses me of being an idiot, malicious or both, and then I found out they have done so numerous times, yeah, I'll admit, that gets my gander up. But the source Bilby added has been there since early March, and as you can see from the IP's continuous disruption since then, which I place at 8 times in two months, from several IP's all evading blocks (which is why I disagree with the non-protection, but it's not my call) it doesn't matter to them.
As an aside, the NYT link is there as a source for the date range of Baker's tenure on the show, but I am unsure if that's strictly necessary. Vyselink (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, that is really him talking about shagging a woman after leaving the monastery lol. If you see any Tom Baker stuff, he's often like that. Vyselink (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vyselink, I disagree with your assessment of the IP's methods, but that's not really so important. Thanks for your note. As a sidenote, I have found that typically decent talk page discussion, with a brief examination of sources and a decent consensus (whichever way), satisfies the IP editor. No doubt some will throw out some diffs etc. that they claim prove otherwise; I'm speaking from my limited experience. Happy shagging to everyone, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Ah, the usual slurs and bizarre claims that go with editing anonymously. SPA? If you ignore the vast majority of my edits, then maybe.

Anyway. This is such a simple thing. But the resistance to simple improvements at Wikipedia is phenomenal, as you can see from Kww's serial policy violating deletions that Drmies alluded to. Here is a simple summary of the situation.

  1. What someone did is objective and verifiable.
  2. What people generally think of what someone did is objective but generally unverifiable, unless you happened to have polled a statistically meaningful sample of people to find out.
  3. What a newspaper thinks people think of what someone did is subjective. It is verifiable only in the sense that we can verify that the newspaper holds that opinion.

Wikipedia has to be neutral and verifiable. So, a statement of either axiom #1 or #3 could be acceptable in Wikipedia, but a statement of axiom #2 can never satisfy those policies. Here are the options, then, for this article, and more generally:

Sentence Acceptability Reason (policy) Reason (other)
He played the fourth incarnation of the Doctor Acceptable Neutral, verifiable Concise
He is best known as the fourth incarnation of the Doctor Not acceptable Describes an opinion as if it is fact, contravening WP:NPOV; not verifiable, contravening WP:V Verbose
He has been described as being best known as the fourth incarnation of the Doctor Not acceptable Neutral, verifiable Disgustingly bad writing

The first option is obviously the best. The second option is obviously unacceptable, in every single case, except where an opinion poll has actually been carried out. If, for some reason, you feel that the article cannot survive without including a guess as to what people think of what Tom Baker did, then option #3 must be chosen. It complies with the policies. The disadvantage is that it's disgustingly bad writing, and part of the reason it's disgustingly bad is because it makes explicit the problems with version #2. It also adds no meaningful information compared to option #1. So someone thinks that some other people think a particular thing about Tom Baker. So what?

Arguments that people have put forward for including subjective and unverifiable claims in the encyclopaedia:

let's stick with the version we've had for years
The length of time a piece of text has been in the encyclopaedia is uncorrelated with its quality.
"best known for" is a common thing on wikipedia, appropriate when someone is particularly known for a certain character/part
Spelling mistakes and errors of grammar are also a common thing on Wikipedia. The "appropriate" claim is not an argument but merely a restatement of the opinion.
"best known for" (or "best known as" or "known for", etc...) is particularly appropriate when someone is in fact best known for a particular thing
Merely a restatement of the opinion
Encyclopaedia Brittanica uses these words"
Encyclopaedia Brittanica is irrelevant. They do not, surprisingly enough, have to comply with Wikipedia's policies, but Wikipedia, surprisingly enough, does.
Personally, I think something is lost by not mentioning the impact the role had on how he was perceived
Then the impact the role had on how he was perceived should be mentioned. This is not done by reproducing as if fact an opinion about what people might think of what he did.
Current consensus is to retain the sourced statement.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale
The source does not present this as an opinion
This does not mean that it is not an opinion.
It makes sense to note what he is best known for when we have clear, unambiguous reliable sources saying as much
With the so-called "reliable sources", we can verify than a journalist held a certain opinion about what a certain unspecified demographic might think about what Tom Baker did. We cannot verify that the unspecified demographic actually held that view.
This dispute was started by a block-evading WP:LTA user
Ritchie333's beloved attack page is dishonest and has been highly damaging, leading weaker minded editors to believe that everything I do must be deleted. It has no relevance to situations in which core content policies are being violated.
given the Sunday Times link, I find for the "best known for" advocates, in this particular case'
The Sunday Times link proves that the Sunday Times journalist believes that an unspecified demographic thinks a particular thing of Tom Baker. It doesn't prove that this demographic actually thinks that. So you'd have to present it in the style of option #2 above. I believe we both agree that's appalling. But if you want to include "best known", that is the only way to do it that is objective and verifiable.

Note that in the lead section we already have an example of how to describe subjective claims: "In a 2005 poll, his voice was found to be the fourth most recognisable in Britain". If the article said "He has the fourth most recognisable voice in Britain", I think you could understand that this would be unacceptable. If there had never been such a poll, then I think you could understand that it would be even more unacceptable. So why can't you understand the problem with claiming that he's "best known" for something? 186.9.133.87 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a very nice graph: I love the colors though (see the color pickers and tools at WP:COLOR they are probably too dark for the black font. And I agree with you mostly except where you disagree with me. I am of the opinion that a neutrally formed "opinion" (what you'd call an opinion) in a reliable source is more than a personal opinion. I do not believe that such papers (and books, and magazines) really print journalists' (writers') opinions. If we press that point, for instance, we could hardly have a parameter for "genre" in the infoboxes for all these bands. If we didn't, it wouldn't bother me personally, but it's an accepted way of doing the business of music categorization, on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

And what we could discuss here also are the semantics of "best known for", of what we mean with that elliptic phrase. But I don't really feel like doing that right now. I am, however, still going to disagree with you in this particular case and hope you won't think that much less of me for it. Thanks for taking the time. To the others I'd like to point out that some pretty valid points are made above. No reply necessary since it probably won't make a difference. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So, Tom Baker uniquely on Wikipedia needs to be described in a way that is verbose, subjective and unverifiable? Or you're in favour of this form of words generally? Your reasoning here seems to be basically "just because", which I'm afraid I find unpersuasive. Perhaps try imagining if you'd like to replace "best known" with "famous". 186.9.134.120 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, you mentioned something about there only being one RS. Well here's a few more (I won't add them, as I think they'd be redundant, but just in case.) From Liverpool Echo 1 says 'most famous' role but is the same thing, Polygon.com 2, and Folkstone Herald 3. Just in case we need more RS's. Vyselink (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Baker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Involvement with "Elite Dangerous"

Removed reference to Mr. Baker having done voice work for the game "Elite: Dangerous". Mr. Baker did some voice work that can be used with the 3rd-party program "Voice Attack". While Mr. Baker's voice pack is targeted for players of "Elite: Dangerous" it is not part of the game itself and can, in fact, be used with other programs/games not just with Elite: Dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Chronicles of Narnia

Baker appeared in a British TV production of "The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe" as Tumus the satyr, back around 1991. Would be nice if someone would add that to his TV credits. Truddick (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He was Puddleglum in the production of The Silver Chair. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lancashire not Merseyside

A note's been added that it is an anachronism to describe someone born in Liverpool before 1 April, 1974 as being born in "Merseyside". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PBA's information is accurate. To any IPs or named editors please be aware that things like this can and do change over the years. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Move

The page was moved from Tom Baker to Tom Baker (English actor) in April, but Tom Baker still redirects here, resulting in a situation that isn't in-line with the WP:Disambiguation guideline. If the actor is the primary topic for the article title Tom Baker, then this article should be located at Tom Baker. If the actor is not the primary topic for that title, then Tom Baker should redirect to the disambiguation page at Thomas Baker. The first option would involve moving this article back to its previous title over the redirect, and the second would involve updating the redirect target of Tom Baker, as well as fixing the ~460 incoming links to point to Tom Baker (English actor) instead. What are people's views on whether this is the primary topic or not?--Trystan (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly the primary topic: has vastly more page views than any of the other Toms. I don't think any of the others have had a similar level of cultural impact. It should be moved back to Tom Baker. Jellyman (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you both. Trystan if you have any concerns that the move would be controversial you can always file a WP:REQMOVE. Otherwise I would think letting this thread run for a few more days and see what others have to say before any move would be appropriate. MarnetteD|Talk 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that it was moved by Sj (talk · contribs) with the summary "depth of name-disambig suggests none should be whout a (qualifying descriptor)". Is there a policy or guideline that says this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Trystan's reasoning is impeccable; I believe the actor should be the primary topic for the article Tom Baker. Sprite96 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen that wording Redrose64. If it is out there somewhere that is gonna lead to a huge amount of page moves ;-P MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The American actor and the Medal of Honor recipient together get ~1/8 the pageviews that the English actor does. That's enough for me to prefer to see disambiguation in the article title (the dab guideline is after all only a guideline), but I won't oppose switching it back. – SJ + 23:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sj: Is there a policy or guideline that says something equivalent (or similar to) "depth of name-disambig suggests none should be whout a (qualifying descriptor)"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
rved the move, based on the original mover's comment about not opposing it. Note that the alternative would have been to move the disambiguation page to the base title, not leave the base title as a redirect to a qualified title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone.--Trystan (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
JHunterJ, I see that would have been a better alternative. Redrose, no; just different views on the depth of similar names beyond which there's no longer a single "primary". – SJ + 19:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
What does "depth of name" mean? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

First US appearance of Doctor Who

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that some of these sources are long on writers' first recollections and short on facts. As it happens, Third Doctor eps were syndicated (through Time-Life) in the US as early as 1972: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I trust it won't be necessary to post links to TV viewing grids from mid-70s newspapers. Ravenswing 08:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Club life

Baker is frequently mentioned as a member of the coterie of heavy drinkers etc who were habitues of Soho venues such as The Colony Room Club, The French House, Soho and The Coach and Horses, Soho. I have just been editing articles such as those but adding cites on mobile is particularly tedious and I have had enough of it. Someone perhaps should add something in the Personal life section here, though.~ Sitush (talk) 08:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Was John Stewart Baker Jewish?

Here's a bit of a puzzle. The biography at Tom Baker's official website refers to his father, John Stewart Baker, as "a Jewish sailor". So does the rather extensive family history on this fan site. However, the genaeology provided at the same fan site lists ancestors of John Stewart Baker with the surnames Baker, Stewart, Grieves, Burnell, none of which sound at all Jewish. Furthermore, there's a pattern of naming sons after relatives that, according to Vulturell, is highly uncommon in European Jewry. Vulturell has emailed the author of the fan site, who says that it's well-known that John Baker was Jewish, but did not provide a specific citation.

Does anyone have any more concrete information about this? I'd normally say that the official site's biography would be sufficient, but Vulturell's concerns are worth investigating further. (There's been discussion about this here, here and here, and I thought it would be better to consolidate it here.)

If we're looking for a Jewish ancestor for John Stewart Baker, I think the best candidate is his paternal grandmother (Tom's great-grandmother), a notable lacuna in the genaeology page. We're told that John Stewart Baker's paternal grandfather was a farmer named John Baker — improbable as it may sound, it's not impossible that John Baker might have married a Jewish woman. That would have made Thomas Victor Baker Jewish according to the traditional definition, which means that his son John Stewart Baker might well have considered himself Jewish. (Who knows whether any of them were observant or not, but the discussion here is of ancestry.) Of course, all this is supposition, but I don't think we should dismiss the official site biography out of hand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Baker does not mention any Jewish ancestry in his autobiography book, and says his mother was anti-Semitic (he could have brought up the fact that his father was Jewish in the same paragraph, but didn't). Vulturell 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a photo of Tom Baker's parents here (you might want to turn off your sound before clicking). Arniep 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken out all the family background info for his father as there is clearly conflicting info between various sources so until one or the other is disproven we should leave it out. Arniep 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What conflict? The family tree does not mention religion or specific ethnicity. We can thus say he was of "English and Scottish" descent without specifying that he was also Jewish, if that was the case. What is your reason to dispute the family tree? Surely, again, a site that has wedding photos of his parents did their research. Vulturell 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said on your own page, without actually talking to a family, if you rely on official documents only it may not give the true picture of someone's ancestry. Arniep 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm taking that as a statement of admission that those ARE official documents. Those documents state that some of his ancestors were born in Scotland. Can we say that his father was a "sailor of part Scottish descent"? And for the record, throughout our discussions, you've used family trees and lastnames as reliable sources. Check your work on Marlon Brando and the Tyrone Power scenario. In Brando's case, you even told me that maybe he said he was part French because it was "fashionable", but disputed this ancestry because of a family tree you had. Vulturell 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Update:

The webmaster of the geneology web site sent me a link to this article, located on her site. It's from an article in Look Magazine - it says "Tom was brought up by his mother as a Catholic zealot, though his father was Jewish ("A contradiction in sperms," he says). He volunteered at 16 for a monastery and a life of virtue, because among the people he knew in Liverpool, a priest was a hero." [8], which leads me to believe that either:

  • A. The article is completely in error, and could be the initial source (i.e. the patient zero) of all the other online errors
  • B. That Baker's father was referred to as "Jewish", while he was really half-Jewish or (as Josiah suggested) had a Jewish grandmother, who was thus hard to track down geneologically
  • Because
  • C. if we trust the article, we also have to trust the site's geneology, which is distinctly non-Jewish on his paternal grandmother's side.
  • Here's the thing - I looked through the other articles. Almost every one spends several paragraphs on his strong Catholic background. None even hint at a Jewish background or a mixture of faiths. One says that he was "was packed off by his parents to a monastery." [9]. Another says - in a direct quote - ""I'm very grateful for my entire past," he smiles. "I'm grateful to the Germans for having bombed Liverpool and relieved the tedium of my childhood. I'm grateful for the bigoted upbringing that passed for being a passionate Christian, like the hatred of the Jews or the hatred of Protestants." [10].
  • So - in summation - what we had before was one vaguely reliable-looking source saying that his father was Jewish, and everything else saying a deafening "no". This is what I think we still have. Either his father had some Jewish roots - but was not fully or even half Jewish, or the article made an error for whatever reason, and it's been copied around ever since. But I think there is really no way, based on the geneology and the complete lack of acknowledgement of the subject in any of the full-length mentions of Baker's background, including his autobiography, that his father was "fully Jewish". I haven't gotten a reply from the official site yet. Vulturell 06:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall (but can't cite, sorry) Tom Baker saying that his father was Jewish. The reference wasn't made ostentatiously, or even discreetly, just as a statement of passing interest. It doesn't seem to be a big deal to Tom, and probably should not concern us greatly in his biography page, as things like his Roman Catholic upbringing have had more effect on him. There seems to be a desire among a certain section of Wikipedia to classify everyone as Jewish or non-Jewish. This is problematic because it isn't really possible to define what a Jew is and is not (or the definition is subjective). DavidFarmbrough 08:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is not important. However, I think we should not include the other info about him having Scottish ancestry as his father's ancestry seems to be uncertain at the moment. Arniep 14:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Arniep. At the moment, we should just leave it as is, until we know beyond a reasonable doubt. Either the article made a mistake and his father wasn't Jewish at all, or his father had some distant Jewish ancestry and maybe "considered" himself Jewish, which is why (if he did) Tom referred to him as "Jewish". But either way, it's not that important to him and Tom is "barely" Jewish ethnically. Vulturell 17:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, you are making assumptions that the family research is reliable. I would only consider it accurate if the person had actually spoken to family members as a version derived from official documents alone does not take account of illegitimacy, adoption or other possibilities. In my own family an ancestor of mine has a person down as their father on their birth certificate but it is known that the father was in fact somebody else by members of the family. Arniep 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you're always in trouble if you assume that anything may be even vaguely true on the basis that Tom Baker said it. :-) Angmering
LOL, indeed. Vulturell 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but who cares if he's Jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.89.238.127 (talk • contribs) 11:36, April 9, 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may not be of vital interest, but if the article is going to say anything about his ancestry it should at least be accurate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Baker can be a Jewish name so I don't think the fact that his ancestors were named Baker rules anything out. Has this question been settled? Type 40 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He isn't Jewish, or of Jewish ancestry, but like Cary Grant before him, he inexplicably claims to be at times. Tom is a teller of many 'tall tales', and his claims of being "half" or "part-Jewish" should be taken with a grain of (Kosher) salt. His claims make about as much sense as Courtney Love's insane claims. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

The above point is one that needs to be emphasized: Tom Baker has an exceedingly mischievous sense of humour and is well known to embellish the truth for humourous or simply eccentric effect.

A couple of general observations that I would make are that sailor seems an improbable career for an English Jew in the early 20th century; that the surnames in Baker's family point clearly towards an ordinary English/Scottish background that was common in the city of Liverpool 50-100 years ago; that an English farmer marrying a Jewish woman is an unlikely proposition even now, never mind 100+ years ago. Not to say that any of these things is impossible, of course - but without any supporting evidence at all it stretches the plausibility of the matter rather.Shiresman (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the statement about his father being Jewish should be kept out of the article. It'll just circulate around the net and it almost certainly isn't true. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

See my edit at the bottom ; in this section alone, two instances crop up Baker himself saying his father was Jewish, and now there is a more recent authoritative web source confirming this.

217.44.53.114 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The 1911 census says that John Stewart Baker is the son of Thomas Baker, a chair and glove dealer from Presteigne, Radnorshire, Wales. No evidence of any Jewish ancestors yet, and it's proving difficult to trace the paternal line any further back than Baker's grandfather. His ancestry seems to be a tough nut to crack; for one, the online transcriptions for the 1911 census are wrong, which is why it took me a while to find the entry for his father. WJVM (WJVM) 16:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What "recent authoritative" evidence is there that his father was Jewish? His father was the son of Thomas Victor Baker and Sarah Grieve, who weren't of Jewish ancestry, nor is there any evidence that his father converted to Judaism. As before, it should be left out of the article, since leaving it in is simply spreading the same false information in an endless chain. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The BFI bio of Baker says "Thomas Stewart Baker was born in Liverpool on 20 January 1936 to a Jewish Naval man and a devoutly Catholic mother."[11] That is a reliable source so we need to accept it, regardless of speculation above to the contrary. That other sources do not say his father was Jewish is not evidence that he wasn't, particularly as none of them state that John Stewart Baker was Protestant or Catholic or another faith. They simply say he was Jewish, or say nothing at all. If the BFI bio is incorrect then someone would have to contact them and ask them to verify or correct the bio but we cannot assume it's wrong, particularly as several online sources say it's true. 104.247.241.28 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Silver (1999 video game)

Baker's credit for the 1999 PC game "Silver" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_%28video_game%29 is missing - I'd add it but without an account the change will be automatically reverted. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2879554/ if a citation be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.33.42 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Baker/Archive_1&oldid=1188541493"