Jump to content

Talk:Tom Jones (singer)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Edit request from 81.105.49.183 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My link to Sir Tom Jones' original birth certificate http://tomjonesintl.com/2011/09/08/middle-john-jones-check-birth-certificate/ keeps being removed. There has been on-going problems with Sir Tom's middle name being either "Jones" or "John" and I consider that the above link (showing a copy of the birth certificate that I have in my possession) finally confirms his middle name as John. I would appreciate it if this link was restored. Someone has also ruined much of the article by inserting many links to tabloid-type articles that use the singer's wrong middle name. I have done as you suggested and posted on the Tom Jones page Regards 81.105.49.183 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY - we go with secondary sources, not primary ones. The article clearly says his middle name is/was John, so I fail to see what the problem is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
With certificates of births, marriages and deaths, I suppose one could argue that the "actual event" is the "primary source" and the certificate is the best secondary source one can get, since every event of this kind is always officially notable. But provided the certificate is properly referenced, any further source is superfluous. Yes, an image may seem to "prove it" in some way, but any image one finds on the internet may have been very cleverly photoshopped or adjusted in some other way to falsify something. And there is no way of knowing. A link to on-line BMD is generally perfectly trustworthy, but all that really needs to be added is the reference number of the entry in the local Register. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Spillers Records

According to the telegraph here the record will only be sold from Spillers Records as a limited edition tri colour vinyl. Or at least that's how I read it, probably deserves inclusion EdwardLane (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Plastic surgery details

When I went to revert this edit, I didn't notice that Radiopathy had made some edits to clean up the newly added text. However I still think the info is too trivial for the article; it's not like his plastic surgery exploits are as famous as those of Michael Jackson. Graham87 14:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

////
Hmmm! But it's the frenzied media that made a huge ("Famous") deal out of MJ's surgery, anyway. Something millions have done (And often more than once) everyday.
He didn't have half as much as many media and self-appointed experts *speculated he had. They "exploited" the whole thing.
The biggest difference to his appearance was the change of skin colour, due to Universal (Progressive) vitiligo, and hair, (Wigs / weaves) due to Pepsi ad burns leaving bald patch on scalp. It was the fact that MJ was/ is so globally "famous"...Almost every single thing was picked up on and obsessively analysed. I don't think anybody's surgery should be of particular interest, unless it is someone who deliberately made themselves almost unrecognizable through it...such as Jocelyn Wildenstein (Google those photos) and the likes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3125310/Catwoman-Jocelyn-Wildenstein-74-steps-black-ensemble-NYC-stroll-younger-beau-Lloyd-Klein-48.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.196.37 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What a completely bizarre addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

British or Welsh

Have not yet fully searched the Talk Page archives here yet, nor compared this article with those of all other Welsh singers, but.. one editor seems to think that Jones can't be Welsh because he's British. And because "Wales is not an independent nation." Is this correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is an independent nation or not is not relevant it is a country. Removing all references to Welsh, Scottish, English and replacing them with British would cause uproar for no good reason and it should not be undertaken without seeking community consensus. noq (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good reason to depart from the views expressed at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom? In particular, the section at "Changing an existing UK nationality". Of course he's Welsh, of course he's British, and of course there is no inconsistency in saying he is both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Tom Jones is defined by his Welshness. He is well known to be proud of it and very obviously self-identifies as Welsh. Numerous verifiable, reliable sources identify him as Welsh. To note him as anything else would be ludicrous. Do we really have to go through this charade every time some ignorant edit warrior decides his own unsubstantiated opinion is worth disrupting an established biography? Just revert, stick a warning on his talk page, then block him if he persists. Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above (Daicaregos that is, who I thought was retired...). You can understand why some people, aka outsiders, would find the situation confusing though in regards to UK-nationalities. We're so unique ^_^. Always ask for clarification though! --Τασουλα (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that, Τασουλα. I would point out, however, that the editor in question lives in Scotland, according to his user-page, and self-identifies as British - of course. Any 'confusion' in this case would indicate WP:POINT. Daicaregos (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Goodness me, so this person should be British and not Scottish, and this one and this one. I think they should be told! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, that Welsh is fundamental to his identity. We should bank this consensus and just revert next time.--SabreBD (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I admit I did not look at the user page of this user, Daicaregos. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article comes across a bit too much as if it was written by a biased Plaid Cymru-sympathising editor. Why is he not listed as British, even though his heritage is not just Welsh but English as well? Yes he is a proud Welshman, but aren't we all? The fact is Wales is in the United Kingdom. While we know this, people visiting this article from abroad don't necessarily know this, and only adds to the misconception that Wales is an independent country, which it is most definitely not. 5.151.61.150 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion (above), WP:VERIFY and WP:TPG. Daicaregos (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I see no easy way to decide between populism and intellectualism on wikipedia, and the arguments below don't help resolve that. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

– (see talk page) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Page views for the Tom Joneses in September:

  • The singer: 116,632
  • Astronaut: 177
  • Australian politician: 52
  • Baseball: 96
  • Bishop: 71
  • Cricketer: 85
  • 1899 footballer: 63
  • 1964 footballer: 168
  • Racing driver: 186
  • Trade unionist: 68
  • Writer: 1548

With those numbers, I think the page views alone are extremely overwhelming in favor of the singer being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If the next-highest number of page hits (for the writer) is barely one percent of the views for the singer, then it's absolutely no contest — Tom Jones, the singer, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by an enormous margin. I would also think that a 50-year career would easily amount to "long-term significance" and "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". (Compare recent page moves for Chris Young, Craig Morgan, John Rich, etc. — and even with those, the page views were far smaller but still enough for making the respective singers the primary topic.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Mild Oppose - the nom hasn't compared to the original meaning of "Tom Jones", the novel and film from which Tom Woodward switched to his mother's maternal name. LIFE - 18 Sept. 1970 - Page 54 Vol. 69, n° 12 "Mills promptly changed the singer's name to Tom Jones, to exploit the popularity of the current film by that name, and for six months he and Tom and the accompanists lived off a loan Mills talked a bank into giving them...." A very crude GB search, Tom Jones + Fielding 799 000x, "Tom Jones" + singer gets only 23,000x. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I would expect massively more page views for a pop singer than a classic work of English literature.
Note that WP:PRIMARY does not say viewer-votes are what determines primary:

There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors) include:...

If we go by page views we are condemning everything but entertainment to secondary status. I don't think an encyclopedia should do that. Neither the novel/film, nor the singer who took his stage name from the film, a clear primary from an encyclopaedic point of view. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/598793/Tom-Jones In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I still think that's awfully pedantic to shrug off page view statistics that are that imbalanced. Not even the Chris Young example I cited above was that far in imbalance. The first several pages of Google are entirely about the singer. Going by page views is not "condemning everything but entertainment to secondary status" — it's accepting the fact that literally hundreds of thousands more people per month are looking for the singer than any other meaning of the name "Tom Jones". Even if the singer's name is derived from another work, the fact that the singer is way the hell in the lead for page views is way the hell too much to ignore or say "bah, you and your lowbrow entertainment, how gauche of you". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but as above I'm one of those editors who isn't swayed by page views. This isn't American Idol where viewers' votes establish what matters, printed sources are as you say "way, way, way, WAY THE HELL overwhelmingly in Tom Jones' favor" (meaning the Tom Jones per printed sources not the Tom Jones per page views). Hence http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/598793/Tom-Jones again. It won't kill searchers to see "(singer)" after Tom Jones' name on a search. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And why do you keep throwing that Britannica link at me? Wikipedia is not printed. What the print sources say doesn't matter. Page views do matter since it shows what editors and readers are looking for the most. I still think you're being unnecessarily snobbish about how this awful stuff we call modern music is tainting your highfalutin' book learnin'. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The point being Britannica doesn't even have an article on the Welsh singer. We on the other hand already place the book, film and the singer who took his name from the film equally - with the name as disambiguation. It's also a WP:WORLDVIEW issue. I doubt encyclopedia users in India, for example, would expect Sir Tom to be so much the primary subject here that "(Singer)" is too obvious to be useful. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support going by the page stats, it's fairly obvious what the prime topic is. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the more encyclopedic topic would be the novel -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per page views. Wikipedia is there to serve its actual readers, not its idealised ones. Graham87 06:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I had to choose a single Primary Topic, it would be the novel. Second choice would be the 1963 film, and the singer third. Each has notability, but as the singer was named after the film, and the film named after the book, that determines 'Primary' for me. If usage were the determining criteria, I would support the proposal, but it isn't. The second criteria, 'long term significance', notes the importance of 'educational value', which places the novel well above the singer. Makes sense to keep the search term Tom Jones as a disambiguation page, as it is currently. Daicaregos (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi and Daicaregos. No good reason for change - the "long-term significance" and "enduring notability and educational value" are at least as high for the book as for the singer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
"The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, often known simply as Tom Jones, is... among the earliest English prose works describable as a novel..." It's culturally a lot more significant than a pop singer. And DON'T SHOUT. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You still don't think page views count, do you? I'd never heard of that damn book before, but I had heard of the singer. And I'd imagine billions of people likewise have only heard of the singer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Quite possibly. We are here to educate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Why yes. The book is so obviously famous and lasting in importance. The 100,000+ people a day looking for "Tom Jones" and ending up at "Tom Jones (singer)" are clearly looking for the book. Why, it's so famous that I've absolutely never heard of it! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
If we change this to the singer being primary, I think we should revisit the Avatar decision then, since that's also based on the encyclopedic quality of the topics. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The "educational value" exception is supposed to make it easier designate an educational topic as primary. It should not be used as a reason to keep the DAB as primary, since a DAB is obviously not educational. The idea should be to get the topics that people want to read about under their actual names and with titles that look professional. Kauffner (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Were it just between the people who are called Tom Jones, then I would agree that the singer is the primary topic. However, the novel is far too well-known for him to be considered primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL. I refuse to comment on this. No wait. It's obscene! There are many other Tom Jones's but this one is by far the most notable of them. Isn't it obvious? KEH! --Τασουλα (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling has been viewed 9593 times in 201209.
  • Tom Jones (film) has been viewed 8537 times in 201209.
  • Tom Jones (1917 film) has been viewed 100 times in 201209.
  • Tom Jones (opera) has been viewed 311 times in 201209.
  • Tom Jones (Philidor) has been viewed 144 times in 201209.
    --Apteva (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and list as an excellent demonstration that page views need to be treated as evidence rather than proof. Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no reason to redirect users away from the topic that they clearly want to read. Page views certainly are not the end-all and be-all of primacy, but when they're this overwhelming, there is very little room for educational value to outweigh them. Besides, who is to say that English literature is necessarily more educational than popular music? Powers T 16:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Weight of WP:RS are to say. Also the assumption about searches may not reflect that Users in India are the largest English-speaking community on earth. The Britannia Tom Jones is well known, still, in India, per the Britannia Tom Jones still having 33x the hits in Google Books as the non-Britannia notable singer named after the book. If we go by page views pop and TV will always be primary, we'd have pop singers on the front page every day, but doesn't 33:1 in printed sources weight towards the Britannia Tom Jones count for an encyclopedia? If Tom Woodward hadn't been renamed after the book/film by his agent perhaps it'd be different. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    And we're talking about maintaining status quo of equalizing the 2, asking both literature/film students and pop fans go equally through a fair disambiguation page. An extra click is not beyond most pop fans' skills. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed move would be the most beneficial outcome for the majority of readers. The educational value criterion is often incredibly subjective and in this case I don't believe the novel (which is actually not at "Tom Jones (novel)", but The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling) is of sufficient educational value that we should disservice so many readers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per reasons given already above. Henry Fielding's Tom Jones has been highly notable for three centuries. If some people aren't aware of that, that's what Wikipedia is here for. Walrasiad (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
We know no such thing. To remind: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a custodian of popular culture nor a Google-type search engine, where our priority is to match highest searches. We're here to help out earnest inquiry. When a student who comes across references to the novel (which they likely will), e.g. "Tom Jones had an outsized influence on the development of English literary culture", they might seek to follow it up and be misled by being directed to a pop singer. The cleverer types may know that's not quite right, and try to search a little harder. But lazy eighth-grader Betsy Windham (not the brightest bulb in her school) may assume that this is what is meant, and write a school report on the great impact of the pop singer on English culture. A disambiguation page would help Betsy target her inquiry properly. And since, in the grand scale of things, it is precisely for students like Betsy whom Wikipedia is for, not for gossip columnists trying to find out how many marriages the sexy Welshman had (and they won't likely get confused when an 18th C. dasher shows up). I see no reason to make life complicated for little Betsy. If Tom Jones was an obscure novel, perhaps I might agree. But it isn't obscure. When the singer manages to maintain his fame for 300 years, like the novel has, we can revisit the matter. But right now, it smacks of WP:RECENTISM and a pretty needless debilitation of the encyclopedic function. Heck, Madonna doesn't get the primary page, despite her overwhelming fame, why should Tom Jones? Walrasiad (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Your bias is showing. Obviously the only person interested in this article would be a gossip columnist, while poor innocent Betsy schoolchild cannot access the article on the novel. That's ridiculous. Can we at least stipulate that both the novel and the singer are both popular culture topics? And that either one is likely to be the subject of serious inquiry? Powers T 01:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Just anticipating the audience. I highly doubt Tom Jones, pop singer, is going to be referred to in an English literature class. Just like I expect Tom Jones, Augustan rascal, is not likely to be the topic of gossip columnists. Given that the audience that consults Wikipedia is less likely to be people who know their topic, but rather dim schoolchildren who don't, I have a tremendous interest in ensuring that the precious little things don't get lost or misled. Not saying pop stars du jour aren't worthy of an article. But they aren't worthy enough to plaster over a disambiguation page, obscuring likely school projects and tripping up poor Betsy. There's an entire internet chock-full of pop culture out there. That doesn't mean Wikipedia ought to replicate its content in the same proportions or give it the same priority and prominence. Walrasiad (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, results of a Google search of “Tom Jones” provide: 1. tomjones.com (Tom Jones' website); 2, Tom Jones (singer) (this Wikipedia article); 3. The History of Tom Jones, a foundling (the Wikipedia article). Results from typing “Tom Jones” into the Wikipedia search box (without pressing enter) provide: 1. “Tom Jones (singer)”; 2. “Tom Jones (film)”; 3. “Tom Jones” (the disambiguation page); 4. “Tom Jones (writer)”; 5. “Tom Jones (opera)”; 6. “Tom Jones (baseball)”; 7. “Tom Jones (novel)”. There seems to be no reason to fix what “ain't broke”. This proposal has been open since 26 October. It seems unlikely any consensus will develop. I suggest it be closed with no change. Daicaregos (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Television, lawsuits and arrests

Are there any arrests other than the one mentioned? I'm not that familiar with Tom Jones' life, but if that was the only time he was arrested, shouldn't "arrests" be singular? Jtyroler (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1972 arrest

I reverted an edit claiming Jones was arrested for biting a police horse outside a pub in Islington in 1972. All charges were later dropped., noting that the edit was uncited trivia. This edit was reinstated with the edit summary “uh, the ref tag is right after the statement”. A ref tag is after the statement. However, the cited book was published in 1971. Consequently, the book cannot be a reliable source for an event which apparently happened a year after its publication. I have again removed the statement per WP:BLPREMOVE. Daicaregos (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It was originally added here. Could be vandalism? Certainly needs a more reliable and accessible source - it doesn't seem to be mentioned online, except in mirror sites. Best to leave it out. PS: This seems to confirm that it's a hoax - it's the only use of the word "horse" in that book (a real book) - and it has nothing to do with Tom Jones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me three times, uh, trout me? :-) Sorry about that; I didn't notice the discrepancy with the year of the book, and am now quite happy to have that info left out. Graham87 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

height

Why don't these bios mention how tall people are? I think that's a significant factor in understanding people. Height, for better or for worse, makes a huge difference in life. Skysong263 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

probably due to a lack of WP:reliable sources giving the height - they don't seem that concerned about it. noq (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nickname?

IMDB says his nicknames are Tiger and The Voice. Can either of these be corroborated? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox name/honorific prefix

I just reverted a pending change to the infobox adding "Sir" to the name. I cited that adding honorific prefixes to the infobox was inappropriate because Template:Infobox person says to put it in the honorific_prefix attribute. It turns out that Template:Infobox musical artist doesn't have an honorific_prefix property because the infobox name is for the name of the act rather than the name of the person. In the case of Tom Jones, he does not use an honorific prefix as part of his stage act. So I ended up reverting the edit for the wrong reason, but the content shouldn't be in there for a different reason. Just thought I'd drop a talk page note for reference. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sleep

Is the north american euphemism "sleeping" with groupies replaceable?

(I generally do consider "bathroom/restroom" instead of toilet silly as well...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanneW (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, per Wikipedia's guideline on euphemisms. I've also removed the "admitted to" bit as well because it made the sentence clunky and wasn't really necessary. Graham87 14:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What means "to do a Tom Jones"?

Pete Townshend said according BBC in 2012: "I don't particularly want to do a Tom Jones. I love Tom, I think he's a great man and performer, but I don't know if I want to be doing that." Can someone tell which of Jones' actions Townshend is referring to? Thx in adv. --85.179.82.163 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

From the context, he seems to mean that he'd never want to continue performing, seemingly forever, in his twilight years, as Jones is an ancient 74 and Townsend a mere sprightly 69. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC).. or maybe it's just the hip action?
Agreed. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Tom Jones (singer). 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 07:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle name (again)

There is still confusion in the article over whether his name at birth, and/or his name now, is (or was) Thomas John Woodward or Thomas Jones Woodward. In previous discussions it has been claimed that his middle name at birth was John. That is supported by his biographer here: "Tom Jones's full name is Thomas John Woodward. Yet lots of articles and books call him Thomas Jones Woodward. Although his mother's maiden name was Jones he was named after the leading character in the hit movie of an 18th Century novel." But when the London Gazette announced his knighthood here, they referred to him as Thomas Jones Woodward. So, did he change his middle name at any point? Any sources for that? It's not unusual to do that. If sources differ, the article should set out both the alternatives, using footnotes if appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Alas the link to an image of the birth certificate (discussed on 21:12, 17 February 2012 - see archive) no longer works. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This again gives strong evidence that his name at birth was Thomas John Woodward: "He'd signed the contract as Thomas John Woodward, which was his name..." - and Phil Solomon suggested that he use the name Tom Jones, based on the film. It goes on to say that Gordon Mills claimed that "all he had done was remove Tom's surname, thus spawning another prevalent myth: that Tom's real name is Tom Jones Woodward." The same book goes on to say that, on a TV appearance in 1980, he gave his real name as Thomas Jones Woodward - which the book's author says was a "little white publicity lie", along with the lie that he was married for over a year before his son was born (in fact, he was born about a month after the wedding). So.... I don't think there's much doubt remaining over his birth name - Thomas John Woodward. The only question is whether he changed it at some point, to Thomas Jones Woodward, or whether the London Gazette got it wrong and unwittingly reprinted the myth/lie. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty convincing. Also given as "John" here, here and here. His new autobiography is unlikely to yield much, I suspect, even if it is nicely over the top. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Hey, "Ghmythlie" would make a great user name (?)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tom Jones (singer). 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 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tom Jones (singer). 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 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Move ?

Does someone think this article should be moved to Tom Jones as the primary topic? I think there have been previous discussions on this. We're currently left with Tom Jones (disambiguation) as the disambiguation page. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And just to add even more confusion, the article name and Talk page here no longer line up. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've undone the cut-and-paste move; everything is back to normal now. Graham87 04:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps another RM would be reasonable. The closing admin of the last RM in 2012 closed it as "not moved", but it looks to me more like there was no consensus. Those page view stats are pretty compelling. Lizard (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No objection, as it's now been five years. He's not a TV regular at the moment, but I believe that's about to change in 2017? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. which page view stats?
The ones in the RM from 2012. (Wow, 2012 was five years ago). I can't imagine they're too much different now. Lizard (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

British privacy injunction child rape allegation

Just wondering on what wikipedia's rules are with regards to this? Are we able to mention that he is under investigation for the alleged rape of a 14 year old or because wikipedia is available in the UK it is subject to the privacy injunction and not allowed to mention this. (Redacted) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3446993/british-singer-probed-over-claims-he-raped-14-year-old-girl-petrified-after-name-spreads-online/ --Tcla75 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The source of this story appears to be UK tabloid The Sun, the second link you provide. I don't think we'd normally consider that as a suitable WP:RS for most information to be added to the article, let alone information on criminal proceedings? The location of the alleged offence was Cape Town, so the appropriate jurisdiction is South Africa. I'm not sure how that would affect whether or not it could be reported on English language Wikipedia, in terms of reporting restrictions and so on The offense was alleged to have taken place when Jones was in his 30s i.e. between 37 and 46 years ago. So that looks like quite a difficult case for the accuser? I'd suggest that we should stay as far away as possible from such tabloid scandal. Perhaps User:Ianmacm may have other suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The website involved doesn't look like an even remotely suitable source for backing up a claim of this kind. This isn't a privacy injunction such as CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd, it is part of a police investgation. Although Wikipedia content is hosted under US law, WP:BLP is the overriding policy. None of this is anywhere near article suitability unless a mainstream source mentions it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Jones (singer). 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) 17:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Jones_(singer)/Archive_2&oldid=1137258562"