Talk:Tom Holland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notable

No, not yet - ten months in Billy Elliot, a few promotional TV performances. This does not satisfy the notability guideline of WP:ENTERTAINER, which states:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles.

Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable? - Yes, and very much so. There is enough evidence to conclude that the notability guideline of WP:ENTERTAINER is satisfied:

• Tom Holland had been playing the title role in the major award-winning West End show for almost two years (not "ten months" - please do your research; although ten months is long enough) with great success acknowledged not just by thousands of spectators but also by some famous figures of theatre and entertainment world (Elton John, etc.). That role is considered by some experts as "the most difficult role ever created for child" and this fact alone should be enough to give young performers of that unique role a credit of being "notable" - actually, more notable than some adult actors who were not lucky (or talented) enough to get a role of a similar calibre during their long careers (a lot of them are happily present in Wiki, though). The very fact that first boys who had performed that very role both in West End and Broadway received the highest theatre awards (Laurence Olivier and Tony) as best performers (in adult categories!) speaks for itself.

• He does have a decent fan base - e.g., there are hundreds of messages in special threads devoted to him and his performances on two Billy Elliot the Musical fan forums, quite a few videos at YouTube, etc.

• At this very moment he is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon.

Overall, Tom Holland is without doubt one of the most talented young British actors with a great future, and I do not understand why the article about him (written according to the guidelines with all the appropriate references) does not deserve to be in Wiki. In fact, I find the very fact of this discussion rather strange. So I object the deletion of the article very strongly.

Kind regards, AdVal (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, please note I have tagged two references to user submitted YouTube videos. These are clear copyright violations and should not be linked to, please see WP:YOUTUBE. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and prompt reply. If you are definitely certain that the references to two YouTube videos "are clear copyright violations" then why you tagged them instead of plain removing? It is difficult to argue with it and I am not going to. Although, the guideline from WP:YOUTUBE states: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube... Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis." There are thousands and thousands videos owned by TV channels like BBC, ITV and FIVE at YouTube. If these copyright holders really want to remove them from YouTube then there is a very simple way to do it altogether (one proper letter to YouTube administration would be enough. There are quite a few precedents). However, they don't care - perhaps because they see clear benefits of that "clear copyright violations" for themselves. So why do you care about their copyright more than the holders do? By the way, there is a lot of Wiki articles with similar links. Anyway, this is just a remark.

Let me make another remark - about the very notion of "the notability". This is a very principal and difficult matter. Creative personalities (authors, performers, etc.) from Art and Entertainment world cannot be judged on the basis of "numbers": sometimes one role (book, song, etc.) can be more significant contribution "to a field of entertainment" (and to culture as a whole) than hundred of others - this is a nature of the field. One should be especially careful with "child actors". They by definition very rarely have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances". Tom Holland is a simple case: he is so exceptional that "multiple significant roles" are just a matter of time. Many of child performers will not even become professionals. However, these prodigies are a modern reality and as such the most outstanding of them should be present in Wiki - otherwise it is not "encyclopaedia" reflecting this reality! Whether or not a child performer deserves to figure in Wiki should depend on significance of his/her role (even if it was just one and only role). The potential to become an outstanding performer in future is also a factor: knowledge about prospective talents is important part of the encyclopaedic knowledge. For instance, the title role in Billy Elliot the Musical at Broaday and West End is so big and difficult that no additional evidence is needed. The patronising remarks like "Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles" in relation to those who already proved that potential are unfortunate and can be perceived as unjust and offensive.

Sorry for such a long note from non-native speaker. Thanks again!

Best wishes, AdVal (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions, but what matters here at Wikipedia are policies and guidelines established by the consensus of editors. WP:ENTERTAINER is clear enough. You cite that currently the subject "is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon." Per WP:CRYSTAL that information, whih appears to be research is of no relevance to establing notability. Criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly not addressed. The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role. As I noted before, when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied. Meanwhile much of the article verges on WP:FANCRUFT. I shall remove the copyvio Youtube links, I tagged them so that you could source other reliable sources, if you cared, but you have indicated that you do not. Suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, if you disagree with them start threads on the relative talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier if removing links to YouTube videos is dictated by the policies then I was not going to argue. I do not know whether these two videos are available elsewhere, so the point is not that I don't care; I just cannot immediately find other links instead those removed. These videos are not that important in the article context, though. So I suggest to leave this article as it is now after your editing for a while.

Concrete minor remarks.

"The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role." Once again, "60+" is not exact number - please do your research before jumping to conclusions. It's 45 for the entire world (UK, USA, Australia, S. Korea). 23 performers in West End from UK, USA and Ireland during 5.5 years - not big number. In addition, what this number has to do with the essence of our discussion? Some roles (e.g., take Hamlet) have been performed by hundreds actors and many of them who are the most outstanding are in Wiki.

"Criteria 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly not addressed." This is your subjective opinion. In my opinion "unique ...or innovative contributions" are present, and this is confirmed by some references to the sources citing some prominent experts.

"when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied." This means that actually no child actor (who by definition cannot demonstrate "lasting abilities" until they grow up) can be subject of Wiki article which contradicts the current practice.

On a more general note: you are consistently refusing to discuss matters per se. Instead you time and again refer to the "policies" assuming they provide exact receipt for everything. Of course the policies should be followed; however we are discussing here not exact sciences but human personalities and their "notability" in the context of the art and entertainment. The judgements in this context are quite subjective by definition, including your judgements, and the criteria you were referring are just guidelines, not exact laws, and writing articles (even those focusing on the facts) is a creative process, not mechanical one. The policies and criteria are subject of a gradual elaboration and should be applied carefully and thoughtfully. This is common sense, and a great deal of Wiki articles are written according to this common sense. I probably will follow your piece of advice and will try to initiate discussion on how to make the notability criteria more perfect (if I manage to understand how to do it). Thanks for your time.

AdVal (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole article is written by daddy... More than bright and not a bit balanced or neutral. All interviews (first interview in a news broadcast, The Impossible interviews), other promotional TV performances, reviews for "leading" appearances in the B.E. musical (he was not the only lead actor) and so on are mentioned. And a lot of advertising for dad's e-book. This is more a press kit than an article. my two cents... RIMOLA (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

I'm responding to AdVal, the original author of this article, who left a long post on my Talk page today. Firstly I'd like to point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia. It is a bit rich to ask why I "pay so much attention" to the Tom Holland article (in fact, I rarely edit here) when it is AdVal's exclusive activity! I would turn the question around and ask why they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollands.

But the general problem I addressed yesterday was the excessive quoting from (1) a blog interview of Naomi Watts (2) a Hitfix review of the Palm Springs Film Festival. There is a duty on Wikipedia to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article. In these instances, everything that Watts said about Holland in the (unattributed) blog interview was repeated; everything said by the Hitfix article was pasted into Wikipedia. This is giving undue weight to these sources and, for that reason I shorted the quotes significantly to give the essence of what was said. Generally you should summarise, in your own words, what others have said. It gives more credence if well-known, reliable sources are used too. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sionk, the title "Excessive quotes" is misleasing. You may be right regarding particular fragments or (as I think) not that right - but the point I am trying to make is not about that; it's about the manner in which you do your editing that - it seems to me - does not respect your fellow editors' efforts. Sorry if my input is too long but I want to present my arguments, not just declarations. I start from some general points.

1. Of course, anybody can edit Wikipedia. No need to caricature opponent’s arguments refering to "exclusive activity". As I already pointed out on your Talk page, I did find some your interventions helpful. If you see a factual error, inappropriate stuff, an invalid link or you can provide a new properly attributed content – then do it! Who can object? Certainly, not I. But what I meant was something different: a number of times you removed an existing content on the ground of your subjective views. The pattern has been alarming: you needed just a minute or two to make a decision and then without any doubt or discussion removed a portion of content. I would say (to me it's common sense) that such cavalier actions are only possible if you are an expert in the subject. I have no doubt there are many subjects in which you are an expert, and I am not. But in this particular case you are not, even if you have a greater experience in Wiki than I. I am the expert because of a very simple reason: I know about the subject more than you – just because I have been gathering information about him for a number of years. It is reflected in this article which was created by me and almost all its content was written by me too. I think I know why a particular fact or a view is there. Given that I believe that when somebody removes a good chunk of content he should have a clear reason to do so, and needs to present that reason before that heavy editing. And the obvious rule: do not compromise a factual correctness of the article. I will give in due course some examples to show the results of some your edits which were at odds with that rule.

2. Your words: “why they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollands”? Strange question. As any contributing editor, I have the subjects interesting to me, so I do pay attention to them doing a proper research (as a scientist I know how it should be done - it takes much more than a minute). I am interested in prodigies and have written (and published) a number of articles (not in Wiki – in Russian press, if you are interested) about them. “Promoting”? This word has an exact meaning that is not applicable here. Well, it’s not “promoting”, it’s reflection of the reality. Or you mean that the article contains only positive material and for some reason you are not happy with that? Well, if you think there is shortage of negative stuff about Holland, then find a properly attributed source with negative or critical views and cite it! No problem. For the record: I don’t know personally Tom Holland – although I saw him in theatre (on the stage) and – recently – in cinema (on the screen). However, his father (whom I never met in person) is a celebrity in his own right, so one can easily reach him – e.g. through his site. Two times – first, at the time of creating the article about Tom 3 years ago, and then at the time of premiere of “The Impossible” I asked him to look at the article and check the facts. I also asked him whether the family objects to publishing any personal information that already was there. I didn’t ask about approving or disapproving any views, and he didn’t ask about any additions. Of course, I wanted the article to be detailed enough to let readers get a truthful (ideally – comprehensive that is to say - encyclopedic) image of the subject. Is it “promoting”? I think it’s Wikipedia mission.

3. More about your declaration “There is a duty on Wikipedia to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article.” Yes, this is a general rule. But “balanced” cannot mean that if there is absence of negative views on the subject (just because they do not exist), then one cannot publish positive views. I can only repeat that “overview” should be truthful - this is paramount. If you can find the sources that can provide negative opinions, then add them to the article. I also believe that citations have to be exact rather than described using “your own words”. Readers are not that interested in my or your words – they prefer original words by known authorities. And in this particular case Naomi Watts is such an authority.

These were my general points. Next time I will present my arguments regarding some your concrete edits to illustrate what I am talking about.

AdVal (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

4. Now – specifically about Watts’s words. First, Flick and Bits is not just “blog” – it’s well-known and reliable online outlet famous for its interviews with showbiz stars. Many established media use its materials on a regular basis – for instance, that very Watts’s interview (including the fragment about Holland with words removed by you) was cited in Daily Mail article. You can be right that the fragment in Wiki article was quite long – but given that Holland have had only one significant role in cinema and it was characterised by Watts (who as a superstar and a co-star was the most trusted person to talk about the young actor, so her opinion has that very “weight”), it’s only adds an interesting detail. When Holland gets other roles in future and they are described in the article, then the fragment will be shorten without problem. But for the time being it provides a proper answer the question that many people (numbers of visitors of the page are not bad) can ask: why this young actor got so many prestigious awards and such an acclaim from the critics.

5. Now it’s time to move from general statements to a concrete editing practice - to illustrate what I mean. I am going to consider the very first (to my knowledge) edit by Sionk of Holland’s article (Revisions as of 23:59, 2 February 2013 and at 00:02, 3 February 2013). Let us have a look at Difference between revisions. In particular, here is the sentence in the version before that intervention:

He lives in Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers - Sam, Harry (who are twins), and Paddy, with all of them being younger.

Sionk’s Edit summary: “Personal life: Billy Elliot source doesn't have bio or brothers' names”. This was true and well spotted – the link (previously correct) was no longer valid. It happens – in this particular case Billy Elliot the Musical official site had been radically re-designed, and the reference became irrelevant.

Here is the same sentence after editing:

He lives in Wimbledon with his parents.

Obviously, you, Sionk, looked through the article, spotted the reference that was already used (scotsman.com), found out there the sentence “Holland was spotted in a local dance class in Wimbledon where he lives with his parents” and then inserted a new sentence into the Holland’s article “He lives in Wimbledon with his parents”. Fine! The only problem was that the journalist got that fact wrong – in reality they live in Kingston-upon-Thames! As you are not an expert in the subject, you just believed that ill-informed source not bothering to find the second one. In fact, there are quite a few of them. A little later (revision at 19:10, 3 February 2013‎) I, having spotted that incorrect fact (I knew that it was incorrect as I was an expert in the subject :)), did found the proper sources and after that (see Difference between revisions) the sentence looks as it should:

He lives in Norbiton, Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers – twins Sam and Harry (who is to be seen in the role of Prince Harry in the film Diana), and Paddy, with all of them being younger.

6. Perhaps too many words. Let me stress once more the net result of that your session of editing: you removed a piece of information that was completely correct and inserted instead the incorrect one. In other words, you have compromised the factual correctness of the article. I am interested in your comments on that.

7. In addition, information about Tom’s brothers (that was also completely correct) was just lost altogether and restored (with a proper reference) by me later. Meanwhile, instead of removing that fragment in a whim you could have left it there for a while marked by “better source needed” or something like that. That would have been a proper editing manner, in my opinion.

8. Of course, we all do mistakes and the collective efforts of Wiki fellow editors normally help us to correct them without fuss. Sorry that I did make one. However, I believe that your mistake (I can argue about some other examples too but it's obviusly enough) was a direct consequence of your attitude: you thought that you knew better and that it’s all right to remove an existing portion of content in an reasonably well-research and well-maintained article without undertaking a proper own research. I hope now you understand what I am talking about and why I’ve been not happy regarding some (not all!) your interventions.

Best wishes!

AdVal (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this Talk page isn't me, it's the article about Tom Holland. Rather than put me on trial for editing "your" article, please address the subject of this section. If you have an issue with verification of his personal details, please discuss that separately.

As you point our, Holland has starred in one film and one stage production. There's no justification for repeating everything that's been said about him - that's not the point of Wikipedia. The sentences quoted from Watts still retain the main essence of her strong praise. There was absolutely no need to copy-paste the report of his speech at the Awards event. Suffice to say it was well received and returned the compliments to Naomi Watts. Sionk (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Put you "on trial"?! Really? That's some claim. I am not talking about you. I am talking about the concrete instances of edits of the article about Tom Holland. This is exactly what this Talk page is for by its definition. You are again repeating misleading lamentations that I am against editing "my article" - I had articulated quite clearly that it's not true. I am against edits, especially those performed in a cavalier manner, that do not improve the article (or even worsen it) - this is my only interest.

I don't have "an issue" with "verification of his personal detals". I do have an issue with some problematic practices you had demostrated here. I provided an evidence, you prefer to ignore it completely. To point out one's concrete mistakes doesn't mean to "put one on trial", don't be ridiculous. You don't even understand that your recommendations (that can well be worth considering) cannot be credible if you cannot even acknowledge your own well-documented oversights on editing this very article. This is a pity because the blunders as such are not big deal, but the attitude to them is. OK, probably our talk came to a conclusion.

AdVal (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, discussing my editing history rather than the topic at hand. Considering another ediotr has chipped in to agree with the general principle, I'll assume this topic is closed. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also just noticed the comment further up the page from RIMOLA who's noticed the tendency to include in the article everything that's ever been said about Holland. My main point still stands, that Wikipedia articles should be a balanced summary of what has been said about the subject. Sionk (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there you go again too. I also thought that the topic is closed as our views were articulated enough but I don't agree that your point of view has prevailed. One can continue to argue what the very word "balanced" can mean in this context but I don't see any sense in that. Input from other editors is always welcome but it can only be convincing if they provide arguments rather than unsubstantiated declarations.

I am forced to repeat once more that your "editing history" IS the topic here - it was this history that had served as a starting point of this exchange in the first place. Of course, it's always more pleasant to discuss the failings of other people (and my work here is by no means ideal) and there is no pleasure to be at the receiving end but that's life. I find it astonishing that you, who has strong opinions how others should do their Wiki work, is not prepared to take even slightest responsibilty for your own practice that has not always been up to high standards. Sorry about this rant but I believe it is up to the point of this discussion.

AdVal (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing info about "Eclipsed" book and blog

Editor Spanglej has removed the section “Eclipsed” of the article with the Summary: “This is not about Tom Holland”. I don’t understand the comment as “this” IS about Tom Holland: the removed fragment included the mention of the book about Tom Holland (as well as a blog about him). The book is a legitimate and most authoritative source of reliable information about this young actor and as such is essential information. It’s written by the most knowledgeable and notable (in terms of Wikipedia) author. If there is a Wikipedia policy explicitly banning any mention of the book about the subject in the subject’s Wikipedia article, then cite it. After that removing can look justified. But not before. If there are issues with the presentation of the removed section then suggest corrections which can help to reach consensus. To remove essential information in a whim is hardly acceptable. AdVal (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A mention of the blog/book as reported in the Independent and the Daily Mail appears appropriate. I'm not sure it needs its own section "Eclipsed". In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't since it can/will encourage other editors to begin creating a separate section for every production the subject has appeared in. It seems a brief mention of a proud father's blog/book trumpeting his son's accomplishments would be an appropriate addition to the "Personal life" section, but that's just my opinion. I don't have any intention of getting into the middle of this. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crakkerjakk, thanks for your constructive opinion. In fact, before the book was published, the mention of the blog was located in the "Personal life" section (blog had mainly been covering the current events whilst the book - which includes some material from the blog - is much wider). Perhaps, to give the blog and the book less emphasis in the context of the whole article one should move "Eclipsed" into the "Personal life" as a subsection(?) there. Although, I will postpone this until listening to other opinions if they appear one of these days. AdVal (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs a section or subsection at all, but, like I said, I don't want to get in the middle of it, so I'll let others sort it out. One note: If you (or anyone else) has read Dominic Holland's Ebook, there might be a mention of Tom's exact date and/or place of birth, etc, which can be used to source what's in the article already (I wouldn't use it as a source for Tom's resumé or awards he's received, but I think most people would agree the boy's father would be an acceptable source for date/place of birth, etc). I noticed the ancestry.com source was questioned, so I took a few minutes to look, but couldn't find an independent 3rd party reliable source for an exact DOB (lots of mentions of the same date that's listed here, but the sources look like they could be the result of websites repeating the information supplied in this article). From experience, I've found that even the most famous Hollywood stars' birth dates aren't usually mentioned in the mainstream media unless/until that date rolls around each year, whereupon their DOB is briefly mentioned in a "born on this day" type of section in magazines/newspapers, so we may have to wait until his birthday rolls around in June and then check again for reliable sources. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the birthday date remains an issue. I am 100% sure it's exact but I didn't see any proper source explicitly confirming it. The refering to the ancestry.com was inserted by the other editor, not by me. Initially (when the article was being created) I had taken the date from the Billy Elliot fansite (their information is usually reliable as it comes from the people in the know including parents) - but of course it's not a proper refering source. There was an implicit reference in the blog (like "the other day..."). As I declared above I wrote to his father (I don't know him personally - did that through his site) on two occasions asking to check the facts (it's my principal position that parents should have a right to control what information about their children is publicly available), and he confirmed that everything's OK (although I didn't ask specifically about birthdate). So I also hope that the date pops up in three weeks or so - although I am not sure that despite all Tom's awards he is already big enough to get mention of that in the mainstream media. AdVal (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

He might get a little birthday mention since most of those little blurbs simply state "born on this day" and then a list of names like "Todd Holland, actor - 17", etc.. One thing we know for sure is that he was born in 1996, since I found reliable sources stating that he was 16 back in December (before the release of The Impossible) and again, 16 in January, after the film's release, so we at least know the year, but like I said, some reliable entertainment sites, or possibly his "hometown" newspaper, etc, might mention his birthday when it rolls around.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the article and its history, I suspect this is all promotion for the father's blog, book and website. There's too much coatracking and COI going on in this article. Span (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I ordinarily wouldn't be in a hurry to add info regarding a doting father's blog/book about his own son to a Wikipedia bio either, but when every newspaper in the UK is reporting it then it's difficult to ignore. Admittedly, the article could use some cleanup (lists of interviews could be cut and co-stars' words of praise could be trimmed, etc), however, aside from his father and co-stars, the subject appears to have received numerous awards and praise across the board from critics for his performance (and I've never seen the film; I'm not a "fan"; I'm just giving my objective impression from the sources provided), so again, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to try and find a way to tone it down when every source is unanimously giving the kid glowing reviews, but I agree we could try and cut some of the extraneous info out. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Span, do you mean my activity here? Well, instead of substantiating and defending your problematic "summary" you decided to make a vague smearing statement aimed at a person who challenged your editorial decision. I would like to hear the concrete evidence of "coatracking and COI going on in this article." I should also add in my turn that I believe that one of the editors (not you) who happened to deal with this article does have COI of a negative kind - but this my conclusion is based on some concrete evidence and I hope to present it in due course using an appropriate procedure. On a more general note: I might be a less experienced Wikipedia editor than you and others (I don't have enough time to be active here, in addition I am not a native English speaker) and by any means I can make mistakes - including those concerned with a proper understanding what should be present in a good encyclopedia article as well as concerned with a proper style of discussing; however, I believe that any disagreement should be resolved on the basis of the arguments and their quality rather than inconcrete "Wikipedia speak" of the pattern you just demonstrated; the editors should respect what other editors do - in particular, this means that before doing radical editing of a negative sort (e.g. removing in a whim the results of somebody else's long research) it's better to discuss things and convince your counterparts that you are right. Actually all the quarrels in which I participated here were about exactly that. At the end we all want to make Wikipedia (and this particular article) better, and there is no exact science to do that. AdVal (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jakk, do you mean that 'every newspaper in the UK is reporting' the blog? Several other editors have also had issues with it. I am looking at the history of the article over the last six months and seeing editors adding puff. The book looks like it was self-published. I have no problem at all with reviews, glowing or otherwise. It is for editors to tone down promotion, not the presentation of verbatim coverage by the mainstream press. Span (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous UK news sources reporting the blog and/or the book, as can be seen here, here and here. I'd personally never heard of Tom Holland or Dominic Holland prior to Tom's Young Artist Award nomination, but there's sufficient sources demonstrating that his father is notable in the UK, which, I'm just guessing, explains the coverage of his self-published blog/book about his son. As I said, I don't know that it needs an extensive mention or its own section, but a simple sentence like "Dominic Holland has written a blog and authored a book entitled "Eclipsed" which chronicles his son's rise to prominence." in the "Personal life" section would appear acceptable to me. I agree with you that there is quite a bit that could be trimmed or removed altogether, but keep in mind, when a subject's notability is challenged (as this one was a couple of years back), it tends to inspire editors to begin tacking in every mention that appears in reliable sources in order to protect the page from being deleted (notability is sufficiently established now, so we don't need to keep all of it, but it's just one possible explanation for why so much of it was added in the first place). Also, keep in mind that the Billy Elliot musical appears to have garnered an extremely avid "cult" fan base, which may have also contributed to some of the edits over the years. Of course subjects of Wikipedia bios (or their friends, families, professional representatives, etc) often do come to Wikipedia to edit their pages (I've seen it happen lots of times), however, I, myself, have been accused of being the subject themselves and/or a "paid editor" when I was starting out, so we need to be careful when accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest (particularly when it comes to "teen" stars with a young fanbase). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Crakkerjakk, thanks again for your balanced approach. I have reduced the stuff about the blog and the book and moved it to "Personal Life". Hopefully, now it's OK. You are right that I (being a creator and a main contributor) am worrying about this article. Unfortunately, there are challenges even in terms of the established notability. Actually, all this quarrel started when very recently a certain editor had removed all that "Eclipsed" stuff with the summary "rm not notable blog by not notable subject. only through association" (he didn't mention the book in the summary but removed a reference to it anyway). Then this editor (who acts under his real name and maintains a number of Wikipedia articles about Billy Elliot-related young stars with many of whom he - I cite - “have either a close personal or professional relationship to”) tweeted about that to Tom Holland (whom as he claims he doesn't know personally). It's difficult to be certain what the editor meant: did he want Tom to look at the article to recognise that now, after those edits, there is no mention of the book about him there? Or he wanted Tom to see a rather derogatory (“not notable blog by not notable subject”) comments about the blog devoted to him and about his father? Or he wanted to make a point that Tom should have noticed him and his earlier tweets to him and respond? I don't know and don't want to know. What I do know is that such a bully-ish tweet (that was removed after my challenge) aiming at 16 y.o. schoolboy is clearly unethical. The editor responded that he "did not violate any Wikipedia policy in any way". Well, it's surprising to me if this is true. Anyway, it's seems that some editors might have their own agenda beyond a fair and neutral editing. Almost certainly I am not right in my worries but I don't like what is going on lately around this article that gets up to 2000 viewings daily. AdVal (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me tackle your points.

• In our times both Self-publishing and E-book are legitimate forms of publication with many bestsellers in both categories (some classic books in past were also self-published). Recently self-publishing became a global trend which's visible not only in literature but in other industrues as well, musical in particular. In the particular case of the book in question it was written by a professional author who is in addition a reasonably known specialist in the area the book describes. What's wrong with that? It can be bought from Amazon (a lot of reviews can be found there). The same is true regarding such a modern form of journalism as blog. Some of them are more popular and more influential than traditional outlets. Once again, it all depends on the author. We don't talk about an amateurish blog here.
• I would like to see how the notion of "promotion" can concretely be applied to the mention of the book (as well as a blog). The legitimate purpose of those mentions (which're purely factual, without any assessment, and no superlatives there) is to give readers the references for further reading about the subject. Similar things can be found in almost every properly written Wikipedia article. I was not able to find in WP:PROMOTION anything that applies to the mentions in the article. Although, of course one can perceive any line of any Wikipedia article (especially related to showbiz) as promotional.
• The definition of "puffery" according to WP:PEA is: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject". I believe that all the nice words about the subject are properly attributed and their sources are proper and authoritative. Their purpose is to let readers understand what is special about the subject (which is an important part of any Wikipedia article devoted to a creative person). If there is something that is beyond that, then of course it should be removed. If there are negative comments about the subject from a proper source then they should also be cited. So far I wasn't able to find them. AdVal (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

WP generally examines self-published material quite hard. Blogs, private websites, user edited sites etc are generally not used as sources. In this case, even if the book is self published, there is enough mainstream press of it to merit inclusion. Re an above comment, I don't think this article stands any chance of deletion now. Notability of Holland is very firmly established by virtue of winning major awards and having much press coverage. Span (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor awards

I concur with Lady Lotus' edit regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting actors or anyone else through indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award. Anybody can create an "award" and start giving it out. That doesn't mean en encyclopedia is required to give them credence or an imprimatur.

I would also note that AdVal certainly seems to be a partisan editor on behalf of this child actor. It might not be his publicist, mother or other self-interested party, but he or she certainly gives that impression. He or she has edited virtually no other article since March 2010, and as argued over and over, regularly wikilawyering at the Notability board, such as here, and generally not seeming interested in being a productive member of Wikipedia but being here solely to promote Tom Holland. That is not helpful to this beautiful, altruistic project to help bring free, egalitarian knowledge and reference materials to the world, and if I were AdVal I would certainly think about whether his or her actions are appropriate or respectful to other editors or the project. This is not the type of editor Wikipedia needs.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well Tenebrae, I had to stand up while reading your astonishing rant about imperfection of the world as it seems to be the only proper posture when a top evangelist's enlightening us poor souls from his heaven. I believe (and WP regulations confirm that), WP is a community of equals rather than a sect with gurus adopting such a patronising and offensive tone. All I did was challenging a concrete editorial decision by Lady Lotus. Why that "action" is not "appropriate or respectful to other editors or the project"? Why do you think that it's appropriate - instead a normal discussion about concrete issues of the article - to lecture me using those ridiculously pompous statements ("not helpful to this beautiful, altruistic project to help bring free, egalitarian knowledge and reference materials to the world")? How does this full of unsubstantiated insinuations attack corresponds to the fundamental WP convention: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor"? I have to say that I'm uneasy about this coordinated (between you and Lady Lotus) attack. The citing is very telling: she started on her talk page and you wrote there: "Lady Lotus could not have put it better", and here “I concur with Lady Lotus”. Then here she in her turn supported your rant: "I completely agree with Tenebrae regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be." Something wrong here...
• I know, I'm an easy target, especially for you: indeed, you are a very active and highly productive editor and I'm a WP:SPA. The reason for that is simple: I don't have time for Wiki as I'm very busy in a real world. In addition, I'm not a native English speaker. However, even if I've been concentrating on the single subject (apart from occasional other activities) I still expect that my content (not me as a person!) is judged fair. Why have I created Holland's article and then contributed to it? For the record: I've never met him or talked to him (the same is true regarding his father - you can easily find info about my contacts with him through only email in this very page, and I have no relation to showbiz whatsoever). I saw him on the stage, was impressed, then wanted to read about him in WP, discovered that there's no article about him (in distinction from many boys performing Billy Elliot's role) and decided to create it. I did my research (as a scientist with PhD I know how to do it - in addition I am an experienced journalist who published a lot of articles in my country; moreover, I am an editor at the very popular specialised site. If we continue the matter in a more formal way according to WP regulations I'm prepared to disclose my identity and to prove every claim I've made). For that matter, I don't understand your derogatory comment: "argued over and over… such as here". Yes, it was suggested that the article to be deleted, I didn't agree, presented my case and fellow editors supported me. Now as Holland career proceeded it's clear that I was right. What 's wrong with such arguing? It's completely within WP regulations. At the end, what you are doing here? Arguing!

OK, enough about personal issues. Of course, we should discuss the article, not me or you, and our main concern should be how to make it better. I have already posted a detailed reply to your opinion – see below. AdVal (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tenebrae regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be. As for the awards, I will remove them once again per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, leaving National Review Board on there however :) Lady Lotus (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lady Lotus,You are on a shaky ground here. With your rant ("regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be") you clearly violate a very fundamental WP regulations (I'm citing):

• Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I am also not sure that you are in a position to give spiteful characteristics to other editors. As a superficial look at your talk shows you have had a number of problems such as this warning (I'm citing): " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Justin Timberlake videography, you may be blocked from editing".

More specifically, some your edits concerned with awards had also been disputed by other editors - which is not surprising in the light of your claim regarding National Review Board's and other awards. So please restrain from abusive statements. AdVal (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm on shaky ground? Really? You consider me saying "what kind of editor you are appearing to be" after agreeing with Tene over you seemingly being a partisan editor on behalf of Holland as you have edited virtually no other article since March 2010 a rant? I would say that's a little far fetched. Regarding your "cite" over the Justin Timberlake videography, I was simply following what I considered to be MoS of filmographies and removing content that I did not see relevant to his filmography when I had another editor disagree. But I have NEVER been blocked. I've had numerous conversations with editors where we don't agree with each other, sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. I admit when I am wrong but when another editor completely disregards policy, it's another thing. Tene was the very one who educated me on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE, (a section in wikipedia that not many editors are aware of because most seem to think that every award an actor is ever nominated for should be present when that section CLEARLY states that it shouldn't be). The National Review Board is the ONLY one that I have retracted from being removed so what was my "claim" again. And please do not accuse me of making "abusive" statements when it was far from it. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, the so-called "coordinated attack" between myself and Tene is me simply asking Tene to explain to you the way he explained to me about the use of INDISCRIMINATE, look at his talk page. No where does it say "I have this annoying editor reverting me, please help me gang up on him" Please. It sounds like you are REACHING and when you are accusing us of these "malicious" attacks, you yourself are making abusive statements. I have no need to delete this article, only to follow guidelines and all I did was delete 9 awards NOT ALL OF THEM and you have turned it into these glorifyed witch hunt with me and Tene as the hunters. Have you even read WP:INDISCRIMINATE to see where we are coming from? Lady Lotus (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You seems not to understand what you've actually acknowledged. "simply asking Tene to explain to you..."?! You are either extremely naive in disregarding the basic ethics (including specifically WP ethics) or just don't care; You really don't understand at all that what you did WAS exactly arranging "an coordinated attack" from editors who know each other ("gang of two" - I'm being deliberately over-dramatic here as you both were earlier) against the 3rd party do you? Thanks again. I thought I finished wuth my comments here completely but you did manage to inspire me again. "Tene" (as you call him/her that friendly) is probably sharing my feelings and without doubt will be grateful to you too. AdVal (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Asking another editor to look at a page is perfectly fine. No one "conspired," since by simple definition that would mean we had gotten together, talked about a strategy designed to thwart and frustrate someone and launched a coordinated effort. No one did any such thing, and it is both repugnant and inaccurate for you to make such an accusation. You, on the other hand, seem not to understand that Wikipedia is not a place for press-release puffery or fan pages.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're joking right? Because I asked another editor for help in maybe better explaining to you the relevance of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (take this into account seeing as how this is where he first told me about it Talk:Scarlett_Johansson#Awards_section) it's now a master plan to gang up and attack you? YOU obviously don't understand what I meant or you're trying really hard to make it look like we're picking on you. I've been in correspondence with Tenebrae for over a year, he's a respectable editor. This converation is ridiculous considering it all boiled down to me removing awards that you are still dancing around the topic of. Look at the how the facts look to me: the only article you hardly EVER edit is this one and every edit another editor makes you revert. It looks like you have a special interest in the article for some reason that would fall under the category of a partisan editor. You took that one comment and have fully blown it out of proportion. Congrats. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable WP:OR

Some Familytreemaker page on a genealogy website is hardly reliable proof of Holland's personal info, for example date of birth and full birth name. Private pages on Ancestry are always littered with mistakes! Neither are the birth registration indexes proof of place of birth (they only give registration district). This sort of stuff should be zapped on sight, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So what are we doing then?--88.104.131.9 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article is extremely problematic. It certainly is not written like a neutral encyclopedia article. I've placed three tags. I know there's a "multiple issues" tag, but this article's vios are so egregious I wanted to make them as clear as possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am forced to provide a detailed substantiated reply - otherwise no sense to answer at all. So my comment is going to be long.
• This article can be problematic and definitely needs to be improved. I can also acknowledge that some problems could appear due to me as a creator and main contributor - I don't have much WP experience and I'm not a native English speaker. At the same time, in real world I have enough experience as a scientist, journalist and editor, and I think in terms of research the content was valid and supported by a proper number of references to the reliable sources. Having said that, I have also to add that I find your, Tenebrae, assessment to be too general and not concrete; you are also keen to use sweeping generalisations along with loud adjectives - although the matter could be just technical and easily correctable. Some your edits here were helpful (e.g., you "toning down" of "Charity Work" section or estimation of "Awards" section as too verbose), others are problematic - and I am going to prove that below.
• Before going to the essence of the matter let me define what I find astonishing about recent Tenebrae's and Lady Lotus edits here. In actually few minutes spent they made very radical, if not brutal, dissections&cuttings down having removed in a whim a good part of content that was there for a long time and required many hours of research; moreover, it has been scrutinised by other experienced editors before. Maybe they're right but is it appropriate to do that without any discussion, on the basis of purely subjective (as will be shown shortly) beliefs? Tenebrae's main claim is that the article is extraordinary ("extremely", "egregiously", "unbelievably", etc.) inappropriate in many respects: the lead included promotional info such as mentioning awards, the fragments of interviews of the subject as well as of his co-stars have to have no place in such articles as they are "puffery", references to the sources about the subject and to the book about him (written by a relative) are not acceptable as they are promotional, too many details that are not important,etc. In general, Tenebrae finds some sections (and even the entire article) "unbelievably" promotional, and as such in need of radical rewriting.
• My general reply is simple: Tenebrae seems not to read many WP articles about actors. Of course, my WP experience is limited, especially in comparison with his/her. However (in addition to my extensive relevant experience beyond WP) I'd been reading a lot of WP articles about actors and tried to model this article on a basis of a number of well-established ones: I assume that articles about popular actors are properly written by experts and observed by a high number of experiences editors. Now I will make my major claim: every aspect mentioned by Tenebrae as utterly inappropriate can be found in a great number of well-maintained WP articles about actors. So I doubt that his/her personal subjective views should be prevailing without any discussion because they clearly contradict to the established practice. Later I will elaborate this claim using the concrete fragments of the content as well of Tenebrae's concrete edits of it that are not that perfect as he/she seems to believe. Note that I am going to argue in concrete relevant terms and facts (with appropriate references), not in general words.
• Let's start from the awards issue. I am not going to argue with Lady Lotus as she doesn't even know what National Review Board award is - which speaks for itself. Tenebrae has dismissed quite a few awards which Holland got or been nominated for ("Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting actors or anyone else through indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award. Anybody can create an "award" and start giving it out. That doesn't mean en encyclopedia is required to give them credence or an imprimatur"). The problem with this claim is two-folded. First, actually every of the awards dismissed (and removed from the Holland's article) is represented in WP with a devoted article. If you, Tenebrae, think WP is not "required to give them credence" then go and delete them. I'll watch what happens after that with interest. Secondly, every award under the question can be found in a great number of articles about actors. Let's look at the articles about actors mentioned in the Holland's item - Saoirse Ronan and Naomi Watts. You can easily find there a lot of awards (including "regional") - such as Broadcast Film Critics Association Award, Saturn Award for Best Performance by a Younger Actor, Phoenix Film Critics Society Award for Best Performance by a Youth in a Lead or Supporting Role and many others. The same is true regarding articles about many and many other actors. So I'm asking you: why it's not acceptable to mention these awards (that in your personal opinion are "minor" or "regional") in Holland's article and it's perfectly fine to have them in other well-maintained articles? I'm afraid, without a clear answer your edits here cannot be treated as indisputable. And once again I suggest you to start your mission of removing "indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award" from articles about more prominent than Holland names.
• Now about that "promotional" spirit of the article. It's quite convenient to throw out negatively colored words without referencing to their exact definition. Tom Holland is an actor; in his industry (and in showbiz as a whole) the notion of "promotion" has its precise definition. It can hardly be applied to WP article. It seems that for Tenebrae any mention of a film, award, interview, book is "promotional" - whilst this is just factual information (or reference to the source with such info) important in the context of actor's career. Tenebrae (and some other editors) claim that the article is written "to promote" Holland because it includes only positive information which is "unbalanced" coverage. The problem with Holland is that there is no negative info about him in public domain whatsoever! Does this mean that for the sake of "balanced approach" we should omit any positive info? That's ridiculous. In fact, there are sound criteria: if that positive piece of info is truthful, if it reflects the reality then it's worth to be included into the article. Of course, some info is just not important (and as such can be omitted) but that's another matter that has nothing to do with "promotion" accusations.
• Another general issue is: how detailed the article should be? Widely, there are two different approaches - both of them are adopted in WP. The first one: the article should include only facts and short neutral dry opinions. In my opinion, such articles can look as stubs and WP readers are struggling to find there any interesting and novel information beyond common-knowledge-wise. There is second approach: encyclopedic knowledge by its definition assumes richness of detail: for instance, the article about Tom Holland should answer not only basic questions about him (who is he? When was he born? What roles he played?) but also the fundamental question: Why is he special (and what his roles are special and why) and what distinguishes him from a myriad of other actors? That's why info about awards as well as opinions of the experts (who are experts in his case? Obviously, his directors and co-stars with big names such as Naomi Watts) are critically important. Accordingly what's wrong in exact citing of those experts? This IS NOT "puffery"! Tenebrae had removed in a whim all such citations about Holland and by Holland. I don't agree. Once again: a lot of WP articles about actors have numerous citations of that sort: e.g., in Naomi Watts one can find numerous (a few dozens!) citations from hew own interviews (e.g.: "She said of the nomination, "It's far beyond what I ever dreamed for – that would have been too far fetched" - isn't it "puffery", Tenebrae? Maybe you will remove this - and many other citations from Watt's article? If not, then why did you remove every Holland's word from his item?).
• Tenebrae has removed a chunk of the text concerned with Dominic Holland's blog and book about Tom Holland (his "conspiratorial remark" is also worth to cite: "Judging by all that detail about Dominic Holland, who is not the subject of this article, there certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence of who this article's WP:SPA is". I.e., he insinuates that Dominic Holland is the major contributor here which is ridiculous. I am not Dominic Holland!). This matter had been discussed in length in this very page before; at the end fellow editors have agreed that those references to the sources written by a professional writer and showbiz personality/expert in his own right are useful for those WP readers who want to know where to find more info about the subject. The references were mentioned in a purely fact-of-the-matter manner, without any praise or other "promotional" flavour. What I find completely unacceptable is that Tenebrae wasn't interested in the previous discussion of his fellow editors; he just removed what he thought appropriate in a whim. I think this cavalier approach is a demonstration of utter "disrespect to other editors of the project" (citing Tenebrae himself) and is a bad editing practice.
• Let's now look (in a reasonably clinical fashion) at some other Tenebrae's edits. Let's start from this his edit. Before his intervention the text was as follow: "Then, after a successful eleven plus exam, he became a pupil at Wimbledon College. Having successfully completed his GCSEs, in September 2012, he started a two-year course in the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology". After his edit: "As of December 2012, he was attending the the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology". He accompanied that with rather conspiratorial: "Personal life: That's ALL that the cited article says. Clearly, the rest was put in my someone who knows him personally and is violating WP:COI"

What does normally WP editor do having spotted (rightly) that indeed the source doesn't confirm the info? He/she would either try to find a proper source herself or to tag that unfortunate info to let other editors do the job - and only after some time expires one can deal with the matter decidedly if no source appears. This would be a normal and proper action. Not Tenebrae - he's not an expert in the subject and doesn't want to do research but he immediately removes the info under question which was actually correct. In fact, it was somebody's (maybe mine) technical mistake of confused references: the wrong one (ref name=sct) instead the right one (ref name=est). Yes, that's simple! Both sources had been referred to a few times in Holland's article. One can easily find that the latter (article from the Evening Standard) includes the following: "After the shoot Tom dutifully returned to Wimbledon College to finish his GCSEs, following which he enrolled in the BRIT performing arts school". The only non-attributed words were "two-year course" which is a standard duration for BRIT school (as well as for other similar courses in UK). If you think there is a need to confirm literally any word then there's such a source in the article - "UK Stars of Tomorrow". I hope it's obvious now that the already cited dramatic ("the rest was put in my someone who knows him personally and is violating WP:COI") remark by Tenebrae is not correct at all, and the information should be restored (with the correct reference) as it was before his/her edit.

• Another Tenebrae's edit was concerned with the sentence "He lives in Norbiton, Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers – twins Sam and Harry (who is to be seen in the role of Prince Harry in the film Diana)" with the accompanying remark ("cited source said none of that. Toned down overdetail about brother -- not the subject of the article"). So his version inserted at once is: "He has an actor brother, Harry, who appears in the film Diana)"). He is wrong regarding Norbiton - the same article from the Evening Standards (this time properly referenced) does include mention of Norbiton (which is as WP points out "an area within the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, London"). Of course one can mention just Kingston upon Thames (a number of sources confirming that Holland lives there exists) but to remove it completely?! As to "overdetail about brother" - well, I don't mind but isn't that small detail that brother Harry performed the role of Prince Harry was interesting? Anyway, Harry is not "actor brother", he just played one small role...
• I can continue - but will limit myself with the following Tenebrae's edit (the remark: "...the WP:LEAD is a summary of the subject, not a place to promote his next movie."). The removed sentence mentioning Tom's forthcoming movie was inserted not by me but by Lady Lotus. Those who look at the previous section of this page will understand the irony. On a more serious note: earlier Tenebrae had removed any mention of awards from Holland's article lead ("Removed completely inappropriate laundry list of awards from the WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of what a subject is best known for, and NOT a promotional blurb"). Once again, he is wrong: virtually any article about actors (including already mentioned) includes some award-related info in the lead. Why doesn't he know this?

• My comments are already too long and I apologise for that. But how else I can defend my stuff in reply to those sweeping ill-informed general accusations - only by a clinical detailed analysis. I know I am not completely right in everything I was deliberating about but I believe the paper is a victim of a biased and over-dramatic attitude of some editors. Now the major question arises: what to do with Holland's article? After the latest interventions it looks like a stub - yes, I believe the article became much worse than a month ago. I don't think it's fair to leave all the decisions regarding this particular articles to editors like Tenebrae who are so good in imposing their subjective views: he/she is very experienced but I think it's established enough here that their experience is not exactly related to actors and showbiz. I would propose to revert all the latest edits and start again from, say, the version of the article of 29 Sept 2013. The question is whether other editors who are experts in the theme are available to do a proper job here? I don't think it's appropriate job for myself in the circumstances - and I don't want to be involved into "editing war" (obviously, Tenebrae is in an infinitely better position to win it irrespective of his competence on the subject). I don't know how unbiased and knowledgeable in the particular theme editors can be brought here. I should probably learn how to do that - but I have very little time for that. We'll see.

• Finally, I'd like to cite the following fragment from a very interesting article by ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld - who seems to be a founder of WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers - maybe he can look at here? I didn't see before such a thorough analysis of the WP problems, and I understand even stronger now that my content is far from perfect. One could reproduce the entire text here. In particular, in the section "Site problems" he describes the situation in which I feel I am (and this Holland article is):

• Wikilawyering and lack of good faith. In my experience the behaviour of certain individuals in discussions on here indicates a distinct lack of good faith towards the goodwill of editors who edit here without compensation. I've seen many very decent editors forced out of the project by constant berating and lack of good faith in what they do. We can't afford to treat constructive editors who produce content in this way...
• A hostile community at times rears its ugly head and offers the worst of humanity. Often disgruntled editors relish the opportunity to attack to work of other editors or support their buddies who they feel that have been insulted in issues they really don't care about. This often results in pointless sniping and personal attacks on the work of others. In my experience, this sort of thing tends to happen at ANI, the DYK forum and others forums on here which attract mean-spirited ogres, ungrateful wretches, and wiki dinosaurs with long-standing grudges who have nothing better than to tell other editors that their working is shocking and that they're somehow inadequate. However much good work and enthusiasm you put into the project there's always a group who fails to recognize this and uses examples of your worst work. AdVal (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(2821 words!! Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC) )

This incredibly overlong attempt to bludgeon experienced, longtime editors who have been following Wikipedia policies and guidelines for years and know them well is what's inappropriate here. So are all the bad-faith accusations in the final paragraph's diatribe. Until this editor understands WP:ACTOR and WP:BIOGRAPHY guidelines, it is not worth the time to plow through this transparent attempt to shout over other editors from a soapbox. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Having now looked in detail to the beginning of this page, I've realized you have been arguing with editors over these same issues since 2010. Every other editor on this page disagrees with you and sees through your obvious non-disinterested puffery. Your only role in WIkipedia appears to be to promote Tom Holland, and your reaction when editors call you on it is to write longwinded rants. Methinks thou dost protest too much. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And just to respond to one particularly bothersome thing you wrote, yes, clearly, the first sentence of the Evening Standard story reads, "It’s a long journey from Norbiton to Hollywood but one that Tom Holland is getting used to." Did you really mean to be so insulting as to suggest that a grown man can't read the word "Norbiton" in the first sentence? Now, as a journalist, I'd like to point out that this article suggests that he's living in Norbiton now. Or it be might suggesting he was raised in Norbiton and now lives elsewhere, such as, perhaps, Hollywood. One thing it does not state is where he was born — and did you know that sometimes people are born in one place and raised elsewhere? Gosh. Why in one of those Wikipedia actor articles you say I don't know, I find that Alec Baldwin is almost always referred to as "from Massapequa," where he was raised. Guess what? He wasn't born there.

I'm not going to give you a step-by-step lesson in journalistic research. But this one haughty assertion of yours really bugged me. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• You did try hard to find the most trivial out of all issues and even there you needed that demagogic equilibristic. This tactic shouldn’t work. You can ignore the major questions concerned with your problematic edits and incompetence but those questions are not going to disappear. Everybody can see that you have nothing to answer those principal questions and can draw the conclusions. Now as your latest edits show you went even further and removed even references to the citations from the leading critics published in leading newspapers. These and many other your decisions turned the article with some issues into a complete stub failing to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. What you are doing is at utter odds with well-established WP practice on writing articles about actors. As a typical cowardice bully you will not do similar edits in WP articles devoted to more prominent actors (e,g. Naomi Watts and many, many others) but you feel it’s safe to strip the article about a young actor of any significant content to give an intimidating lesson a fellow editor who happened to legitimately ask explanations about your problematic decisions.
• You keep accusing me in arguing with editors here but this very page is by definition for discussing the issues of the WP article. Issues rather than persons! The result of all those “arguing” (there were not many of them anyway) was positive in terms of improving the content. You started from a unprovoked personal attack (on the request of your protégé Lady Lotus as she herself naively, if not foolishly acknowledged above; also it's worth to look at your personal talk page to see how it all started: asking for your help, Lady Lotus begins from "Hello dear :)" and being happy after your intervention: "Thanks so much love! :)". This is just beyond belief!) and consistently kept that line of behaviour that is an obvious violation of WP regulations (“Comment on content, not on the contributor”, etc.) Your motives in this hatchet job are so openly expressed here and so in conflict with any unbiased editing that I’m puzzled. In real world incompetent bullys face the consequences of their behaviour. Perhaps you have a good reason for thinking that you are untouchable and can do anything just to indulge your swollen ego (good connections in WP?). I don’t care about myself in WP context. But I do care about WP content that should not be so related to personal features of individual self-important editors even if those editors are so decorated. We’ll see what happens. AdVal (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"We'll see what happens." Is that a threat of some sort? Every other editor on this page takes issues with your violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines by adding puffery and uncited or poorly cited information. And I've reached my limit on your name-calling and wild, unfounded personal accusations. If you continue to post such temperamental diatribes, I'll ask an admin to look at your posts and get an opinion as to whether we should do an ARB or take other action. Your behavior here is unacceptable.

And for heaven's sakes, do not make any more blatantly untrue statements about my editing. Look at Clint Eastwood if you think I'm "a typical coward[ly] bully [who] will not do similar edits in WP articles devoted to more prominent actors." Just stop, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is your main point to all of this? I've lost sight of it in your long winded rants of how your "journalist" experience trumps our editor experience and how it's all a well planned conspiracy by Tenebrae and myself. I would like to see another editor agree with you on this "bullying" accusation. We have stated WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the removal of certain text with well stated explanation, and the way this page is worded and referenced. We, as I see from previous conversations on this talk page, are not the only ones that think you have a special interest in this article more than just a beginning editor. So, without going into another mindnumbingly long retort, why don't you just simplify what you think the problem is and what you would like to see happen and we'll go from there. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)