Talk:Tom Holland (author)

Photo

This is a very old photo of him. I saw him last night at the Bath Literature Festival and he looks much different now - anyone got a newer photo? Deb 17:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better now. --KesheR 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He was born in 1970, I think

This is all wrong. These are two different authors completely mixed up.

In several sources, I have seen his birthdate as 1947. Kirkesque 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Persian Fire.jpg

Image:Persian Fire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

latest book

Can somebody please add some more info on Tom's latest book (shadow of the sword). The page states it has been published already but I can't find it on Amazon. Thanks, 77.166.109.108 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World" because that is the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.41.147 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Historian?

I was under the impression that he is only an author. I'd think that at a minimum a historian today would have a PhD in some historical era. 24.107.56.35 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, he passes off rubbish as history. No serious scholar holds him in esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.130.236 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. He has no academic qualifications in history, therefore no way is he a 'historian'. And indeed, this is demonstrated by his work, as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

He is indeed not an historian, but rather a populariser of history. He has won many awards for his books, which I think is evidence that at least some of his work is held in esteem. Ashmoo (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

He might be considered a 'popular historian'. We wouldn't call someone who created inaccurate works on science and had no qualifications a physicist. It is not elitist, but accurate.--SabreBD (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is highly subjective to call his works "inaccurate"; the objections to his works on Islam have largely come from those angered that he used historical sources to question Islamic religious doctrine. It is their right to be angry and to disagree with his conclusions, but it does not factually establish those conclusions as 'inaccurate' by any scholarly standard. Indeed, this section is full of a number of claims with no scholarly value (such as "no serious scholar holds him in esteem" - actually, a number of world-renowned historians have defended and cited his works). Lilipo25 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed "popular historian" to "history enthusiast", cause "popular" could mean that he is popular and in addition a historian, or thar he is an author that disseminate history (makes it popular). However, he's not a cientist and I thought it could be disrespectful to this field of knowledge. --2804:431:CFEF:79AF:D524:CA20:5287:7E1D (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this and feel it should be changed back. To be honest, it should probably just read "historian" - there are no certifying agencies or requirements for one to qualify as a historian like there are for a physician, lawyer or engineer. One isn't legally required to attain a particular level of education or pass an exam to use the title. Technically, a historian is just anyone who attains expertise in an area of historical knowledge.

I think we were okay with 'popular historian' as a compromise between those who felt it should be historian and those (largely critics of his statements on the origins of Islam) who felt it shouldn't use the word at all. I think this has gone a bit too far in the latter direction. Other opinions? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply 'historian' unless there are reliable sources examining his work which say otherwise. It is not for editors to impose their view. Whether he is popular or unpopular is neither here nor there.SovalValtos (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The term "popular" as used in "popular historian" is not in the sense of "he is liked by many", but in the sense of "a writer of history books intended to appeal to the general public as opposed to the academic student". Try "writer of popular history". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Maybe this should be in its own section.) I'm concerned about the statement that he has a PhD. academic bio does not mention a degree. And the reference for him getting a PhD is a hagiographic blog post - which chores no sources for its assertion. I'm going to look into this a bit more BrotherE (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Islam: The Untold Story

Clearly, this television programme was very controversial, at least among the Muslim community. But is the controversy best served by a reference to the little-read Huffington Post website, when this programme was widely reviewed and commented on across elsewhere?

(I thought perhaps, given the sensitive nature of the topic, it was best to raise it here rather than wade in with an edit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.47.5 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post, little read,is the 20th largest website of the USA? Mr. Tom says on his website that "he is the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Making History. He has written and presented a number of TV documentaries, on subjects ranging from religion to dinosaurs." 2.121.164.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"In March 2015, Holland published a piece entitled in the New Statesman" WHAT? Make sense!

Career citation

The first sentence of the Career section is currently:

"He has adapted Herodotus, Homer, Thucydides and Virgil for BBC Radio 4.^{[citation needed]}"

This is (less the "citation needed") the exact wording of the first sentence of the first page (i of xxxii) of the prelims of the (Abacus 2004 4th print) paperback edition of his book Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic (Little, Brown 2003). The second sentence of the prelims is "Holland lives in London with his wife and two children.", which is the uncited first sentence of the Personal life section bar our substitution of "daughters" for children.

• Is this source sufficient to answer the citation request? {I would think yes.]
• As it may be based on information supplied by him to the publisher, though surely readily checkable by them, can it be treated as Reliable? [I would think yes.]

(NB: From its History, the Article was started by User:Aytakin (now Retired) on 21 December 2005‎, post-dating the book, so the text in the book cannot have been taken from the Article.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.118.169 (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

B-Class Review

I checked the article against criteria for B-Class (suitably referenced, covers the topic, defined structure, reasonably well-written, infobox, easily understandable) and found it met them. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)