Wikipedia

Talk:Captain Tom Moore/Archive 3

< Talk:Captain Tom Moore
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 182.182.37.95 in topic Filepaper
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 2 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago100 comments40 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Captain Tom → Captain Tom Moore – Just “Captain Tom” is absolutely NOT his common name. Twitter name is Captain Tom Moore. Any use of his name in the articles about his passing is either Captain Tom Moore or Captain Sir Tom Moore. Essentially all result comes back with his last name. Needs to be moved to reflect his full name at least. Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree: The page title should reflect the way he is mostly recognizable as per WP:CRITERIA. — Mr White 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: BBC News at Six has tonight referred to him (in its main story) as Captain Sir Tom Moore. But that form simply wouldn't be allowed here, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
His JustGiving page calls him Captain Tom Moore. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
JustGiving doesn't have the !rules against titles that Wikipedia does. I'm just trying to follow precedent. For example, Sir Tom Jones' page is titled Tom Jones (singer); Captain Cook's is James Cook. jamacfarlane (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You are quite right. I was focussing on JustGiving as that was one of the central places from which Moore's notability arose. Yes, Wikipedia has plenty of !rules, even for fictional captains. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per previous discussions on this matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I don’t really consider that a strong enough reason. Regardless if he’s not the definitive Tom Moore, referring to him simply as Captain Tom is misleading in my opinion. Disambiguate the name if needbe but it’s irresponsible to have the page at what’s frankly just some cute nickname, as opposed to his real, common name. Rusted AutoParts 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really just a cute nickname. He was promoted to captain on 11 October 1944? There are others e.g. Captain John Scott? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not the point I was making. He was likely called Captain Moore upon promotion no? Point is “Captain Tom” sounds like a cute nickname, as opposed to “Captain Tom Moore”. And that Captain Tom by itself is not his common name. Rusted AutoParts 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nickname, but permitted as it's the name he is known by the public. Most people wouldn't know his surname. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I thought you meant a nickname like "Captain Bob". It's not that cute, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Then we move him to just Tom then? How is Captain Tom right and the common name but Captain Tom Moore is wrong, not the common name AND in violation of HONORIFIC? Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If Captain Tom Moore is incorrect, then obviously so is Captain Tom. This is nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I think there are some very petty arguments being used above. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
A honorific is fine if it's part of a nickname. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine if you want to use his full name, but will have to drop "Captain" and use "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" or similar. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What's your problem with his family name being in the article title? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to it, I'm just saying it has to be either "Captain Tom" or "Tom Moore" but not "Captain Tom Moore" per MOS. I'm not even sure if "Captain" is accurate given that he was made a Hon. Colonel last year. jamacfarlane (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Using his full name, and the one he's most often referred to as by the Media, would be best to minimize confusion. I'd be strongly against dropping 'Captain', however, although I know that's not on the table right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpicula (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the discussion could result in consensus for a title other than the one originally proposed. jamacfarlane (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
He can’t be Captain Tom though per that argument. It’s not appropriate. Rusted AutoParts 05:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I would say that rule doesn't apply to nicknames (if we're going to call it that). He's either "Captain Tom" or "Tom Moore". See WP:TITLESINTITLES and compare "Mother Teresa" but not "Mother Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu". jamacfarlane (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Nicknames are only appropriate if that’s how they are commonly referred to. It’s akin to stage names. We don’t know Jim Hellwig, we know The Ultimate Warrior. I have never heard Moore just be called Captain Tom in any news article about it, it always includes his last name. So to me it’s just not true that just Captain Tom is his common name. Rusted AutoParts 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It was the name he used on the cover of his book but I agree it's not clear cut. jamacfarlane (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What’s funny about that link though is that Amazon at the top of the page refers to him as Captain Tom Moore. Rusted AutoParts 14:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
'Captain Tom' was the name I've heard in a few news tidbits I've seen/heard. It seems to be a common name for some, it's the one I used to look for him on here, I was mildly surprised to see this discussion. :) Halbared (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support I don't necessarily agree with including the prefix "Captain" because that's not common practice here on Wikipedia, but at least the suggested title is less vague than the current one. Keivan.fTalk 07:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support Agree with above, prefer title to be less vague than the current one. If general public knows him by the title "Captain", then that's cool, and I feel we should keep that. But prefer to be specific. Ben 11:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
In that case using Tom Moore is what we should use, or simply change the Wikipedia consensus, it's not something which has to remain fixed. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Where possible, we try to be an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It's amusing to try searching for the topic at the Encyclopedia Britannica. Their top hit for "Captain Tom" is Another Cricket Quiz while for "Tom Moore" it's Tom Jones!. Their search links are so bad that they are actually blacklisted here. That encyclopedia is useless so readers come to Wikipedia because it actually works. Yesterday, we had over 400,000 readers for Captain Tom. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Problems with Britannica? Quite common. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per previous discussions on this matter.Halbared (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please could you give an actual reason for your opposition, rather than just citing previous discussions, which were probably held a long time ago and aren't even visible on this page?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe there is a chance that some of the previous discussions may also have been invalidated by what we have discussed in this thread, although of course I have no read them so wouldn't know. In any way it is a very poor line of argument used by the user above. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: On the news just, I see it's more just Captain Tom, and the big sign on the fence (outside his house I suppose) says Captain Tom and his website is captaintom.org.Halbared (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The website. https://captaintom.org/. Halbared (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, do you think Tom himself would refer to himself with his full name. What's important is how he's referred to on a common level. His last name has always been included. Captain Tom could literally mean any Tom thnat's a Captain. Rusted AutoParts 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think in formal occasions he'd use his full title. In the news snippets I've been watching in the last few days it is mostly as Captain Tom he is referred to as, and he has been in some of the snippets I watched. He seemed to enjoy it, the moniker that is.Halbared (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not sure that "Captain Tom Moore" is ideal, but it is more encyclopedic than just "Captain Tom". We should avoid nicknames unless they are unavoidable or overwhelmingly someone's best known name. PatGallacher (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Also "Captain Tom" is tabloid headline language, like Arnie, Fergie, Princess Di etc.. It also sounds a bit like a made-up title like Lady Gaga or King Oliver, he really was a captain in the British Army, saw active service. PatGallacher (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Though 'Captain Tom' should be a redirect to the new page. --The Right 'Orrible (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support He is by no means overwhelmingly known as 'Captain Tom'. Media usually use 'Captain Tom Moore' or 'Captain Sir Tom Moore', but the former is more suitable as a title. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Captain Tom Moore is the name his song was released under. And if Captain Tom redirects here, there can't be any issue with trouble finding the article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support move but it's still not perfect Wikipedia policy and precedent is clear that he should be "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" or similar: we have James Cook not Captain Cook, Robert Falcon Scott not Captain Scott, despite both being commonly referred to by their title. Boris Johnson is normally referred to by first name alone in popular media, but there's no question of what his name article should be under. WP:COMMONNAME excludes non-reliable sources like tabloid news, social media, etc, in favour of official, academic, and scientific sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to be a permanent reference, and it's more important to have consistent naming rather than use cute diminutives from sources we wouldn't accept to prove anything else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Both his single and autobiography are published under the name Captain Tom Moore. As mentioned by ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia, if the article redirects from "Captain Tom", then there should be no issues with finding the article. BillyDee (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the article name should stay exactly as it is per WP:COMMONNAME, and with RS support in worldwide obituaries as follows:
    • The Guardian: "Universally known as Captain Tom...".[3]
    • The Telegraph: "... he was known to the whole country and much of the rest of the world as "Captain Tom"...".[4]
    • The Times: "Step forward once more "Captain Tom" to do his bit...".[5]
    • The New York Times: "Nicknamed "Captain Tom"...".[6]
    • The Washington Post: "She [the queen] also promoted Capt. Moore to the rank of honorary colonel, but the nation continued to call him simply "Captain Tom.""[7]
    • CBC: "Captain Tom, as he became known in newspaper headlines and TV interviews...".[8]
    • The New Zealand Herald: "... widely known as Captain Tom."[9]
    • The Australian: "Sir Tom, affectionately known as "Captain Tom"...".[10]
-- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"Nicknamed"? "Affectionately"?? I also hadn't realised how far the readership of the The Guardian extends. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
None of the sources above call the subject "Captain Tom", they all refer to him as variants of "Captain Tom Moore" or "Captain Sir Tom Moore", so they support the proposed move. The fact that someone is "widely known" by a particular nickname doesn't mean that the nickname is actually their encyclopedic common name. For example, Paul Gascoigne was/is widely known as "Gazza", particularly during his heyday in the 1990s, but nobody would propose moving the article to that title. The question is not whether the term is widely used, the question is whether that name is how the subject is introduced in reliable sources. For someone like Lady Gaga, they are always introduced with that nickname even in headlines;[11][12] so it is correct for us to use that nickname rather than her legal name. But with Tom Moore, the sources don't introduce him in the headline as "Captain Tom", they always include his surname, and neither should we.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, for Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta that's a stage name and Moore certainly never had one of those. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but I think the major point stands. How is the subject commonly known? Take Sophie (musician) as another example, who also sadly died recently. Her case is similar to "Captain Tom" in that the debate is over whether to include her surname or not. But the headlines in that case simply call her "Sophie": "'Visionary' music producer Sophie dies aged 34", whereas the headlines for Captain Tom spell it out in full, e.g. "Captain Tom Moore: Record-breaking NHS fundraiser dies aged 100". That in my mind is the crucial difference.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As well as British news stations referring to him as 'Captain Tom.'Halbared (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
People aren’t going to keep using a full name when talking about someone. In obituaries for Christopher Plummer they didn’t keep going “Christopher Plummer” at a certain point they shortened to “Plummer”. People may call Jennifer Lopez “JLo”, that doesn’t make JLo her common name. Rusted AutoParts 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
In this case though, they don't shorten it to "Moore", they shorten it to "Captain Tom."Halbared (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Captain Tom Moore (best), Captain Sir Tom Moore (2nd best), Tom Moore (fundraiser) (3rd best). "Captain Tom" when used is a term of respectful endearment but suffers from being easily confused with the many other Captain Toms in the world. As time goes on, this problem is only likely to increase. I'm not sure if even the extensive bureaucracy in these parts spells out if WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over MOS:HONORIFIC but it ought to. Captain Tom Moore appears to be the most common name in reputable (non-tabloid) sources even if sources say tat he is widely known as Captain Tom. Greenshed (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Greenshed: do have any RSs specifically stating that "Captain Tom Moore" is the most common name (to compare with those stating that "Captain Tom" is, which we do have above) or is that just your personal opinion? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, his song was released under Captain Tom Moore; that's not controlling, but it does show what his 'official' name was.. (and while less convincing, the British cancellation stamp used "Captain Thomas Moore"). If you do a news search (with quotes) on Google for "captain tom moore", NYT, Forbes, People, CNN International, Reuters, and the AP all use Captain Tom Moore or Tom Moore in their headlines. (If you want me to link to each I will but it's kind of daunting to format all those links). The point is, yes, he is called Captain Tom, but he is also called Captain Tom Moore by other RS; sometimes the same RS calls him by both names. I just think at this point, where either name is supported by RS, we should go with the one that is less ambiguous, especially over time. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto: El Cid has essentially answered the question. I would add that when the WP:RS that you have dug out say that he is commonly called Captain Tom, what I take them to mean is that in colloquial, common or affectionate parlance, people often called him Captain Tom (which I think is probably true and, more importantly for our purposes, verifiable). Nonetheless, all but one of the sources introduce him more formally. I.e. going through the refs above we get the following titles: "Captain Sir Tom Moore obituary", "Captain Sir Tom Moore, 1920 - 2021", "Captain Sir Tom Moore obituary", "Tom Moore, Who Inspired Covid-Ravaged U.K. With Charity Walks, Dies at 100", "Capt. Sir Tom Moore, who raised millions to fight pandemic, dead at 100 after positive COVID-19 test", "British WWII veteran Sir Tom Moore hospitalised with Covid-19" and the exception "Lockdown hero Captain Tom battles Covid". My interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME is that we should follow the example of WP:RS and that common parlance (or for that matter usage in unreliable sources etc) is not determinative. Effectively, do what they do, not what they say. It's a subtle point I know. Greenshed (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, "subtle". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand the reasons for wanting this, but the fact is that the suggested new title doesn't abide by Wikipedia article naming guidelines. If he's known for being a captain, then we call him Tom Moore (captain) or Tom Moore (military officer) or whatever - and there's an argument for that. If we can't decide what he's best known for, we call him by his common name, but we don't incorporate ranks into the name. The reasoning behind the present name is that people immediately recognise that this is the common name, not an error. Deb (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
What about Colonel Tom Parker? There will always be exceptions to every "guideline". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeedy. And that article is finger-lickin' good! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"we call him by his common name, but we don't incorporate ranks into the name" – so why is "Captain Tom" somehow exempt from this, yet "Captain Tom Moore" is not? "Captain" is a rank, however you swing it. Also, clearly people do not "immediately recognise" that this is the common name, or we wouldn't be here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This isn't particularly his common name though, as has been amply demonstrated. Reliable sources almost always include his surname. And although he may be in the news right now, the current title isn't going to stay recognisable for very long. I have no objection to Tom Moore (fundraiser) etc, but between the present title and the proposed title, it's really a no-brainer.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Because "Captain Tom Moore" is a plain combination of his rank and name, which clearly invokes the honorific rule, but "Captain Tom" is a nickname and the word "Captain" is just part of this, so the rank isn't being used as an honorific per se. It's like how Dr. Seuss is acceptable but "Dr Theodore Geisel" wouldn't be. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: Although you opposed the move from Captain Tom, I presume from your comments above that you are no more in favour of Captain Tom than Captain Tom Moore etc? The reason why Moore should be an exception is that unlike the far more senior military officers you mention, Moore became well-known for his fundraising as a retired captain not for his service as a junior officer in the Army. That said, even though my preference is for Captain Tom Moore, I still think Tom Moore (fundraiser) would be better than Captain Tom. Greenshed (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I favour Tom Moore (fundraiser), as I did in the last RM. I oppose any use of ranks in article titles, despite what the public commonly call them. Otherwise we'd be moving another famous gentleman to Field Marshal Montgomery, easily his commonest name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find the current article title really jarringly informal, verging on disrespectful. No news articles that I have seen ever referred to him as "Captain Tom" without introducing him via his proper name first. I think this article title is an extreme overinterpretation of WP:COMMONNAME, according to which we should not call him "Thomas Moore", but rather "Tom Moore". Nowhere does that guideline say that informal nicknames should be used. See for example in the news right now, Man charged in Lanark over Captain Sir Tom Moore tweet. That refers to him as Captain Sir Tom Moore, Sir Captain Tom Moore, Sir Tom, but not "Captain Tom". Or this, which refers to him as Capt Sir Tom Moore, later Moore and Sir Tom but again not "Captain Tom". The first sentence of this article itself does not even start by referring to him as "Captain Tom". I see no possible reason for the article title not to be simply "Tom Moore". Andesitic (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - As thoroughly explained by many, his surname is part of his common name, as recognized by reliable sources. I'm neutral on the inclusion of "Captain", but I think we can save that discussion for later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Military service

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does this section state that Tom was stationed in Cornwall ? When conscripted he was stationed with 8DWR, at Weston Park, in Otley, West Yorkshire. See his article on his regiments veterans website. See Paragraph three:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/

Thanks for spotting that. The ref is marked as "unreliable", but even Metro doesn't mention Cornwall. Without looking back and checking I'd suspect unnoticed vandalism. I've corrected it and added the new source. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Death and tributes

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could somebody please clarify the inclusion of the image of the Church, in Wetherby, with a flag at half mast ? It does not appear to bear any relation to the article entry or even the article as a whole, seeming to be nothing more than a plug for the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's showing the half-mast flag tribute after his death. I would say that's notable. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
So were many other churches, Neither Wetherby nor the Church had any specific connection to Captain Tom, or at least none is given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The relative sizes of the church tower and the flag mean it's not a very strong image anyway. Given that the text mentions only the flags above Downing Street, and given the fact that Moore had no connection with Wetherby (as far as we know), I'd respectfully suggest that the image should be removed. If there's a copyright free image of the Downing Street flags I guess that could be substituted. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be no copy-free images the flags above Downing Street available on-line. In any case, such photographs are hardly very expressive or informative. If there are no objections, I'll remove that image from the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Years of Army Service - when did he leave?

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I can't find any citation that he left the army in 1946. The BBC obituary article says he spend the 50s as a tank trainer, not leaving until 1960. It's not clear whether this was army or TE. Regardless, the years of service should be amended to be 1940-1960 I think.

Yes, the BBC source plainly says: "Moore left military service in 1960, and took a job as a sales manager for a roofing company in his native Yorkshire. In 1967 his marriage to Billie ended after 18 years - they never had children." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, I couldn't see that ref in the article, so tagged it. Also, the assertion that he left the army in 1946 is still in the prose, but not supported by any of the cited references, so I tagged that too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I just came across this Telegraph ref, already cited in the article, which suggests he was still at Bovington (they call it Borvington) in 1962 - at the time of the Cuba Crisis. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Intriguing. Many thanks for that. I should have put "this BBC source plainly says". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (p.s. "they never had children." I wonder why.)
Perhaps I can help you with information about Tom's service from his conscription, in 1940, until his demob in 1946, not from 1939 until 1960, as the BBC erroneously stated. Take a look at Tom's former Regimental Website page about him:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/ where the details have been compiled from his offical archived documents. Also note that the Army Lists (Annual list of serving Officers and units), as Tom was no longer listed in them after 1946. Also note a few other errors, which news media have published and thus found it's way into the article. Not least that Tom was back in the UK, at Bovington, when the 9th Battalion's A Squadron was involved at Ramree Island (The only squadron to go there). I also note, in other sections above regarding News Media articles appearing to be like the Wiki article, so wondering who copied who. Well that is easy. The Army website initially copied an early version of the current Duke of Wellington's Regiment Website articles. You will also find the information on the DWR Website is stated in Wendy Holdens 'Official Biography of him, which the family and the Regimental archives provided details for:- http://www.wendyholden.com/tomorrow-will-be-a-good-day.php
Yes, the DWR soucre is very clear. It says: "Although his name appeared on the demob list in June 1946 it was not until 5th October 1946 that he became once again a civilian. By the end of February 1947 the 146 Regiment RAC had been disbanded and the Battalion once again reverted to 9DWR.". So I have corrected the "Years of service" in the info box. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, is this a reliable source and does it trump the BBC and Telegraph? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say yes and yes. But, if you think there are particular BBC and The Daily Telegraph articles that contradict it, by all means feel free to remove the "Years of service" dates while a discussion ensures here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, you quote from a BBC obit above, and I give a link to the Telegraph article above. Perhaps we should say there is disagreement amongst the sources, until we can establish the actuality. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, although it seems the BBC Obit is no longer used in the article. I'm afraid my subscription to the Torygraph has expired. Do you know what it says? Yes, I think a note about "disagreement amongst the sources" would be a good idea, I just can't believe that the DWR site would get details like that wrong. And the IP who has recently brought this information here seems to be competent and very well informed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, the BBC source still exists though. The Telegraph says: "After the war, Moore moved to Borvington [sic], Dorset, to teach soldiers how to use armoured vehicles. He was there in 1953, at the coronation of Elizabeth II, and still there in 1962, when a dispute in Cuba took the United States to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union." -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I won't deny it exits, although I see no one has put their name to it. Thanks for the extract from The Telegraph, which is used in the article, but only to support the claim that his mother was a head teacher? So those two sources don't even agree for how long he was at Bovington. Is it possible he was employed at Bovington as a civilian? I would be tempted to take the autobiography as the most reliable source (as it's not "an exceptional claim", I hope). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
His Who's Who entry states this in relation to his military service: conscripted 8th Bn Duke of Wellington’s Regt, 1940; commnd 9th Bn, 1941; served in India and Burma campaign; demobbed, 1946. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for that tip, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, it's now used as a source in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Business career

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a 14 page chapter on Moore's 1983 management buyout of Cawoods Concrete Products in Green & Berry's Cultural, Structural and Strategic Change in Management Buyouts (Palgrave, London, 1991). I have added some material from the online two-page Introduction/summary, but cannot access the rest. From that, and similar summaries of other chapters, it seems likely that there will be more about Moore and his previous business career - perhaps someone can use an institutional access (or spend £20). Davidships (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidships, you could try requesting it at WP:REX. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago30 comments25 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Captain Tom Moore → Tom Moore (fundraiser) – My suggestion of "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" was made at exactly the same time BD2412 moved the page to "Captain Tom Moore". I was going to suggest that as the discussion produced strong opposition to both "Captain Tom" and "Captain Tom Moore", the page was moved to "Tom Moore (fundraiser)". This compromise would avoid using a "cute nickname" and would follow the !rule against using titles/honorifics in article titles. I don't agree the previous discussion resulted in clear consensus. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Question Doesn't it is a primary topic for all Tom Moore articles? Assuming that his long name is (Sir) "Thomas Moore", which has similar name to Irish poet born in 1779. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My major qualm was of the page being located where it was (Captain Tom), but I worry this discussion might be too early. It only just got moved. Rusted AutoParts 02:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure about your part of the world, but where I'm from, a "fundraiser" is an event which is intended to raise funds for a cause. The title "Tom Moore (fundraiser)" looks wrong and confusing. 2001:8000:1588:B800:34A4:F032:E70E:463B (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There are several Tom Moore's on Wikipedia. To call him a Fundraiser would not be correct, it was not his occupation, but a byeproduct of a retired and proud army veteran going out to raise a small amount of cash for the NHS, whereas he raised many millions more than professional Fundraisers. Whilst doing it he also raised the moral and pride of people all over the world. On his own Regiments Veterans website he is titled quite simply as 'Captain Sir Tom Moore', which is a singularly specific to him and him alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as proper policy per MOS:HONORIFIC. The inclusion of "Captain" was from a WP:COMMONNAME argument for the "Captain Tom" title; given the page move to his full name (and general agreement that the "captain" inclusion isn't a universal inclusion with his name, as is the MOS:HONORIFIC requirement), this article should be titled in accordance with the established naming scheme for those with military ranks, which is not to include the rank in the article title. See for instance . The fact that the press like to popularly refer to him as "Captain" doesn't mean that we should make an exception to standard naming policy. As someone in the last RM mentioned, even James Cook's article does not include the title "Captain" in his article title, despite that being one of his most common epithets. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is known as Captain Tom. When people search for him they will expect to see his name as Captain Tom. Tom Moore will likely only serve to confuse. StoneKommittii (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If he's known as "Captain Tom" then that's where this page should be, not "Captain Tom Moore". jamacfarlane (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
That chat was had though, and the 'Captain Tom' lot did not have the votes.Halbared (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - common name is "Captain Tom": as per WP:TITLESINTITLES, Honorifics and other titles [..] are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known. He is best known with the title of captain, not by his full name (its almost a stage name). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Aside Strictly speaking, I guess the current title should be Captain Tom Moore (Ret’d), as per his entry at dwr.org.uk, since he left the army in 1946. But I'm pretty sure WP:MOS would never allow such a format. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title provides natural disambiguation. We should not try to force article titles into unnatural disambiguation, simply to fit our own internal guidelines. This is a sui generis case, and we should use an article title by which he is commonly known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per Agrippa. This seems exactly the kind of case that the wriggle-room was created for. Davidships (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. User:Jamacfarlane, if you disagree with a RM closure, you can use WP:MR. I don't see what yet another discussion will serve. The points have already been made above, particularly Gaia's points above. The Honorific is what is used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly known. There isn't a news article that doesn't describe him as Captain Tom or Captain Tom Moore. I would also suggest that the closer of this RM puts in a 1 year moratorium on further page move requests. 5 in 12 months is enough. Woody (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. As I stated in the previous RM. We don't use ranks for much more senior military personnel who are commonly known by their ranks, so why are we making an exception here? As an example, Bernard Montgomery is invariably known as Field Marshal Montgomery, not by his name. But what do we use for the title of his article? His name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is disrespectful to change the title of the article as he has achieved a lot more than just the fundraiser and he is commonly known as “Captain Tom Moore”. I find no reason to change it. ABigBeast05 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is disrespectful, naming decisions are decided by sources, policy and consensus, and not by how people would personally like others to be styled. The article name should stem from sources and claim to notability BlackholeWA (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just concluded an RM on this topic, and there's no need to be revisiting the name again immediately. I also concur with those above saying that calling him a "fundraiser" misrepresents who he is. His notability arose from a unique combination of his status as a decorated veteran, his very advanced age, and his exploits in walking around his garden to raise money during the COVID pandemic. Every reliable source calls him a variant of Captain Tom Moore, so an exception to MOS:HONORIFICS applies here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with many of the above arguments, especially with the one that "fundraiser" misrepresents who he is", his notoriety came about in part thanks to the title Captain and it is intrinsic to the public recognition, it is simply what he is best known by.Halbared (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title is clearly the common name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We've just finished one renaming and it's, ideally, too soon to discuss renaming again. However, as it has come up then I will enter in to the lines. While we don't generally preface names with ranks in article names, the reason why Moore should be an exception is that unlike almost all notable military personnel, Moore became well-known for his fundraising as a retired captain. He was not known for his service as a junior officer in the Army but if he had been then I would suggest that we might use Tom Moore (British Army officer). Finally, the much cited MOS:HONORIFIC states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." Moore is certainly on the cusp of this and anyway I don't think we should get bent out of shape when the odd exception to the general pattern comes up. Greenshed (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. There is a distinct lack of policy-based voting in many of the comments above and I'd urge people to read WP:NOTAVOTE. Personally speaking, I am willing to buy the idea that "Captain Tom" might be a viable WP:COMMONNAME but that is not what is under discussion here and WP:TITLESINTITLES is pretty clear on the subject. The fact is that military people are invariably referred to by their rank and that we have historically avoided this - for example, in Marshal Smuts, Marshal Foch, Marshal Pétain or even Dr Livingstone for example. It is bizarre, as seems to be implied by some above, that "fundraiser" is patronising or inaccurate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
To copy from WP:TITLESINTITLES, "Honorifics and other titles ... are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Mahatma Gandhi)." What we're arguing here is that Captain Tom Moore's rank is used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is best known. He is certainly way better known as Captain Tom Moore than Tom Moore the fundraiser. I submit that WP:TITLESINTITLES does not support the proposed renaming. Greenshed (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. And I'm not sure why WP:COMMONNAME is being tossed out of the window here. As a policy, that trumps WP:TITLESINTITLES where usage is overwhelming. Virtually no sources omit "Captain". There's also WP:NATURALDIS to consider, which the present name also satisfies. So no, the oppose votes are not rejecting policy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose One of the most ridiculous move suggestions I've heard. Just Tom Moore would also work but it's best to leave it.Prins van Oranje (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Divorce and marriage

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

No quibble with the principle of what is there currently: Moore first married in 1949 to a woman he later referred to as "Billie":[2] the couple divorced.[111] In January 1968, he married Pamela, fifteen years his junior.[8][112]

As Who's Who is behind a paywall I can only assume that it is OK for content on the first marriage, but then the punctuation/grammar goes awry, though the undated divorce is cited. For the second marriage, the refs are contradictory (and neither mentions January) - Metro says the marriage was in 1969 (with no mention of any earlier one) and they were "together" for over forty years (ie at the latest, since 1966); the Daily Mirror opts for a 1968 marriage, and having met Pamela when he was 50 (ie c1970), which would be unusual! That's exactly why unreliable tabloids should be avoided. Perhaps Who's Who or something else reliable can provide clarity, otherwise at least the year should be removed. Davidships (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the colon to a full stop. I also have no subscription to Who's Who, but I wonder does User:DeFacto? Metro material is usually sourced from the Daily Mail so may need to be replaced as per WP:DAILYMAIL. The Daily Mirror is listed at WP:RSP as follows: "The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
pinging @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: who added the Who's Who refs. Davidships (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Davidships, I added it here? I was assuming that Gaia Octavia Agrippa had access. Perhaps they can confirm that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
In relation to marriage Who's Who says this: m 1st, 1949, Billie (marr. diss.); 2nd, 1968, Pamela Mary Paull (d 2006). There is no divorce date given, so perhaps it would be better worded as Moore first married in 1949 to a woman he later referred to as "Billie":[2] the couple later divorced. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gaia Octavia Agrippa, I'm not sure we can assume that "diss." means divorced, my guess for that would be "dissolved", but that would be OR/speculation too. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the plot thickens... I would certainly expect "diss." to mean dissolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Who's Who doesn't used divorced but rather "diss", its simply a more "polite" wording than "divorced": strictly speaking "dissolution of marriage" is the legal term for a divorce. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. How jolly decent of them. We don't want any of that frightful unpleasantness or beastly nastiness here, thank you very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gaia Octavia Agrippa, ah, ok, thanks for clarifying. I couldn't find the key to their abbreviations anywhere, but I guess you managed to. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123, ping received. I do have access to it, but I think Gaia Octavia Agrippa has provided the info now, before I got here. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm pretty sure that I was previously able to see the top lines of the entry, which had both marriage dates, in preview format. But that facility now seems to have been rescinded. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
In Chapter 17 of his autobiography, Moore says this: "Pamela and I were married at Gravesend Registry Office in January 1968." Although he doesn't give the exact date, I suspect he could remember this quite clearly, and didn't just invent it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Ramree Island

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The BBC Obituary here, says this: "Slowly, the 14th army turned the tide in Britain's favour. Over the next two years, Captain Sir Tom's team helped cut Japanese supply lines along the Burmese coast. ... One notable occasion was the battle for Ramree Island in 1945. More than 1,000 Japanese infantrymen were forced into a mangrove swamp infested by salt-water crocodiles. Only a handful emerged." So I think this should be mentioned in the main article and then restored in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123, the infobox summarises the article, so discussion of Ramree needs to be added to the prose really, and referenced there. Then it should be added to the info box without the cluttersome references. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I just thought this would be at least a start? Please be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That BBC obituary is so hagiographical and at odds with what we see in other sources (moving his motorcycle team training from India to Malaysia, remaining in the army until 15 years after the war, meeting Pamela a few years after his divorce from Billie) that I really don't think it can be trusted as stating that he, rather than the 14th Army in general, was involved in the battle. Indeed, it doesn't explicitly state that he was at all: there were a million men in the 14th army, and they weren't all at that battle. We have him as returning to the UK in February 1945: this battle was 14 January – 22 February 1945, and if there was some recovery from dengue before evacuation, that at least bites a long way into this time. And ITV did a half hour documentary about his war career without mentioning Ramree Island: surely the opportunity to refer to crocodiles eating Japanese soldiers would not have passed by the producers. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that current source, ITV's Captain Tom's War from 8 May 2020, makes no mention at all of Ramree. The Burma narrative ends with Moore being posted back to Blighty to "teach another set of recruits how to drive tanks". In the light of that, the BBC piece looks a bit general. So I'm removing it from the box. Perhaps a better source can be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment At the time of the Battle of Ramree, in which only elements of 'A' Squadron of 146 RAC took part, Captain Tom was actually back in the UK, in Bovington learning about a new tank. Regrettably an unknown journalist heard or read something, fed on it then regenerated it as fact, rather than ascertaining the truth, which was then regenerated by other hungry journalists. The correct detail of Tom's service is in his regimental documents and stated on a properly researched article about him on his regiments veterans website:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/2020/04/19/captain-tom-moore-retd/ The regiment is quite happy to provide information to anybody, as stated on their website's Family History and Research page:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/regimental-family-history-research/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.19.214 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ramree Island is mentioned once in Moore's autobiography, in Chapter 11 (links added):
"Before too long Major Bucknall’s squadron was sent to take part in a successful amphibious assault on Ramree Island with the 71st Indian Infantry Brigade, as part of Operation Matador. We were under orders to remain where we were and many of us thought that we might not be deployed again. This proved to be unfounded because a few days after ‘B’ Squadron had departed we were sent with ‘A’ and ‘C’ Squadron on a reconnaissance mission to the vicinity of Cox's Bazaar, named after an eighteenth-century captain of the British East India Company."
Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Rhythwyn Evans" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rhythwyn Evans. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#Rhythwyn Evans until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"On the morning of his birthday, he had raised £30 million"

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says: "On the morning of his birthday, he had raised £30 million.[1]" But that source is a primary one, is not dated and shows a figure of £32,796,155. So how does that source adequately support the claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not suitable as a ref, for reasons stated. And also noted that (at least for me) the archived version doesn't open fully or show any figures. Surely there is a proper secondary source, if not hundreds.Davidships (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Captain Tom Moore's 100th Birthday Walk for the NHS". JustGiving. Archived from the original on 29 April 2020. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

Filepaper

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cgiijsbbkjssh 182.182.37.95 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Captain Thomas Moore" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Captain Thomas Moore. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Captain Thomas Moore until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Staged adultery

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the fact that Moore staged adultery - as he himself admitted on national television - to facilitate a divorce not in the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported category?

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

PossiblyWe, in this edit you said "Sir Tom died from Covid-19". The article does not support that claim. Please supply reliable sources that support your claim, otherwise that category will have to be removed per WP:CATVER. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source that said he "died from COVID-19" and here's one that says "died on Tuesday, just days after he tested positive for Covid-19". Would his death certificate settle this? It is legally bound to mention COVID, but may not give it as a cause of death (like thousands of others, I suspect)? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Would you agree that the vast majority of sources do not say that he died of Covid, but rather that he had Covid when he died as your second one does? If he was known to have died from Covid, it seems odd that so few sources say that. I think a death certificate would contravene WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've seen enough sources to make a judgment about "the vast majority". But I think you are probably right, as that's the safest way to describe it, unless those sources had taken the trouble to look at the certificate (which we would probably never know). I also think you're right about WP:BLPPRIMARY: I have edited here for 15 years and I'm still amazed we can't use BMD records that are considered, in nearly all other arenas, as the bottom line. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Tom_Moore/Archive_3&oldid=1181164240"