Jump to content

Talk:Tom Jones (singer)/Archive 1

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

Bias

The beginning of the article claims not only has Tom Jones sold "70 million records" world wide but also has "a powerful voice." Unless someone can prove this by citing reliable sources I will remove it and suggest we replace his number of records sold with a far more realistic number. Eatspie (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia is for factual information, not opinions. Eatspie (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A more realistic number would be 140 million records. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.18.139 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Tom Jones has sold ten million records over the last six decades! Roger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.188.15 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue-eyed soul

Tom Jones has always been considered a blue-eyed soul singer for many decades, especially during his early career. In the 60s many that heard him on the radio assumed he was a black singer. Tropiwikian 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OBE does not confer Knighthood

If Tom Jones is "only" an OBE, he cannot be referred to as Sir Tom Jones. Only the two highest ranks (CBE KCBE) entail admission into knighthood. Tom Jones is only an Officer of the British Empire, and therefore there is not "Sir" attached to his name. user:ber06122 17:04, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Being an OBE doesn't make one a Knight, but being a Knight Bachelor does. (And the two highest ranks in the Order are KBE and GBE, not CBE and KCBE, the former of which is the third highest rank and the latter of which doesn't exist.) Proteus (Talk) 22:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you're right about the ranks. But the point is the same isn't it. We shouldn't be referring to him as "Sir Tom", right? I didn't want to change it without some sort of greater input. user:ber06122 17:48, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Tom Jones was awarded a Knighthood in the in the New Years Honours List this year. The investiture takes place at Buckingham Palace on 29th March 2006 - so maybe he should not officially be called 'Sir Tom' until then. He was awarded an OBE in 1999.

They'll knight anyone these days. If we're down to Tom this year, my goodness, in the next year or two or so, we'll end up knighting people like Jim Davidson. It's a tragedy!!

  • Just to clear things up, there was the same confusion with the Sir Alex Ferguson article (which I managed to sort out)- I have now edited this article and it is correct and should not be edited. He was created an OBE in 1999, which he still holds- and he was also awarded a knighthood in 2006, but that knighthood was not a KBE (KBE = Knight of the Order of the British Empire), it was a Knight Bachelor, which entitles the recipient to be titled Sir, but without any additional post-nominal letters, thus, he is correctly styled "Sir Thomas Jones Woodward, OBE".

Sir Tom is credited as holding a KBE at the head of the article when in fact he has on OBE. Perhaps this should be corrected?????

What's the hulabaloo all about?

Why is there a debate about "NON POV" ? What, is "strong and powerful voice" too subjective for the wikistewards? The guy's voice is amazing! I came to this Wiki because I knew Tom Jones sang Thunderball, and I learned that he was only 25 when he recorded it. Now that is amazing (and about racism, down below: that retort is hilarious). 128.119.236.34 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. We're becoming overly sensitive. -Elp gr 14:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

WRT Mr. Jones' career slumping in the forties and fifties, how can that be if he was only born in 1940 and didn't rise to fame until the sixties? Maybe what was meant was seventies and eighties? Nohat 17:33, 2003 Sep 12 (UTC)

"During his forties and fifties" i.e. the 80s and 90s. Arwel 13:43, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In 1988, British heavy metal magazine Kerrang! ran a hoax story that Jones was joining heavy metal pioneers Black Sabbath. There was never any truth to this, but Sabbath leader Tony Iommi said that he would have liked to have had Jones sing on his 2000 eponymous solo album. Hmmmm. --MarshallStack 04:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom Jones middle name

Can anyone confirm Tom's middle name? I thought it was John, and plenty of web pages confirm that, but equally many have 'Jones' - but Jones as a middle name (rather than hyphenated last name) seems a little unlikely. Varitek 07:38, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not unusual (sorry got the pun) in Wales for people to have their mother's maiden surname as their second forename. My mother's middle name is Jones, too. I first heard his full name was "Thomas Jones Woodward" back in the '60s. -- Arwel 13:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Ellis/Sutherland biography (from 2000) clearly states that his name is Thomas John Woodward. (E-Kartoffel 12:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Many biographies state his name as Thomas John Woodward, and I've even found one that stated his name as Tom Woodward Junior. But his official website www.tomjones.com indicates his name as Thomas Jones Woodward. Seanna 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BBC [1] and National Portrait Gallery [2] gives Jones. Good enough for me. --Henrygb 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Jones would like to forget that he was named after a film (that uses the story of Henry Fielding) that was released in 1963 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057590/). His backing band was accordingly renamed The Squires His real name is Thomas John Woodward (to shorten Thomas to Tom is not that unsual by the way) (E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (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 Regards 81.105.49.183 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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 in this article is the reference number of the entry in the local Register. That said, the link you provide does indeed seem to be genuine and quite conclusive. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Singles

His discography seems only to list his UK hits, probably needs a bit of work done to include non-charting singles. I have a few sources for these, so I will get onto it shortly. Bonalaw 09:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that he may have done a single with Steven Page of Barenaked Ladies called "Little Green Bag" I'm just wondering if on the album "Help Yourself" if a single was left out titled "Laura" or was that on another album but not listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.153.135 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Racism

On the Kumars at No. 42, Tom Jones said that because of his curly hair, he was mistaken for an African American while in the United States and discriminated against. Fkh82 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know how that would make Jones a racist. Maybe you should read the sentence again slowly and try to understand it first Fkh82 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - you didn't mean to imply Jones is a racist. I go back to my first point - what does this have to do with anything - it seems like a non-sequitur. Srcastic 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems blindingly obvious to anyone who can read that he/she wasn't trying to imply that Tom Jones is racist. As to what it has to do with anything - it seems to me to be an interesting anecdote about Tom Jones who is the subject of the article. Do you understand what a non-sequitur is? TurnerPrize 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
My interpretations: Tom Jones was merely pointing out the prejudices that existed in the American society; even if you "looked or had features" that were associated with African Americans, you too were discriminated against. - QzDaddy 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom has also stated in numerous interviews that when his first single hit the airwaves, people mistook him for being a black singer because of his voice. But this didn't have anything at all to do with prejudices, only that they said he sounded black. Tropiwikian 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, add up the evidence, he must have some non- White ancestry, he has a dark complexion, wide nostrils, kinked hair and a black man's voice? You add it up.

82.9.29.195 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark complexion can be had through tanning (compare George Hamiltan). Wide nostrils are result of nose surgery (he had his schnozz bobbed). Kinked hair results from "permanent wave." Afro voice is easily imitated and is mimicked by many singers today (it is all the rage) See Michael Bolton, The Righteous Brothers, and other Blue-Eyed Soul performers]].Lestrade (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Let's face it, Tom's appearance is hardly that of a typical Celt or Anglo-Saxon. The area of Wales he came from is long settled by Somalis, so Tom may well have Somali blood in him. 86.166.124.232 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Jones' appearance is that of a typical Welsh person. Celts tend to have dark features. The Welsh have always looked Italian to me. Eligius (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So many big issues, so many ip addresses - who do you think you are exactly? Who is disputing Jones' West Country ancestry? And where is any evidence? As for the garden-shed genetics, I wouldn't have thought that Sir Toms's nose was the best place to start. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romany?

I have seen it claimed in the past that Tom is part-Romany. I have not seen a reliable source for this, but his complexion suggests that it is possible, I suppose. Does anyone have any more information on the claim?

He's a black, can't you see, or some kind of a mixed.

82.27.229.140 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps he is only Welsh. Many Welsh resemble him (for instance, consider John Rhys-Davies); not all Celtic people are red-haired and green-eyed; in fact during the 19th century English stereotypes considered all Celts to be darker complexioned than Anglo-Saxons, or at least more likely to be. Shanoman (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The part of Wales where Tom was born has long been settled by Somalis. 86.166.124.232 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's just try and close the creaky door on that old garden shed, shall we? It's quite heavy, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor

My understanding is that conferral of a Knighthood Bachelor does not entitle the holder to a post-nominal except in cases of potential ambiguity, therefore this reference ought to be omitted. --Ross UK 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this ref next to his name: Kt? This item is frequently submitted and omitted. Does it belong there or not? 65.3.230.241 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Carlton Dance

Someone should mention the Carleton Dance off of the Fresh Prince of Bel-air.

Cwmtillary

I assume this is a misspelling of a town(paragraph 3 music career) but I don't know the correct spelling BauerPower 19:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

this is the correct spelling. It comes up in Google as a valid place name in Wales. Rossrs 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks BauerPower 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly tidbits:

An impersonator appeared on a Summer 2005 episode of Clean Sweep. I hope Tom himself caught it.

At the end of each episode of his variery show, he was said to have announced: "Gwyn eich byd a dymunaf i chwi lawenydd bob amser." Meaning, "May you always be well and be happy."

Oh, he couldn't possibly have killed the music scene. It's still around.

Yeah but a lot worse because he's in it 66.66.161.1 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discography

This section is fairly extensive. does anyone think it should it be moved to a separate article? riana 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree... Seanna 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I don't doubt that someone could not know Tom Jones but a photo of his would be nice

What genre?

First paragraph should include what genre(s) the artist can be categorized in. I don't know enough about his music to do this myself. Please assist. Kent Wang 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What's New, Pussycat?

I have edited "Woody Allen's What's New Pussycat" to read simply "What's New Pussycat". Thought the script was written by Mr. Allen (who also plays a role), it was not directed by him.

It is not customary to attribute movies to the writer; the format "John Doe's Movie" usually implies that John Doe directed it. (Compare, for example, "Steven Spielberg's ET" versus "Melissa Mathison's ET".) MIP | Talk 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

His race

The Twelve Tribes of the Commonwealth of Israel's undisputed opinion of Tom Jones should be noted. I believe that listing this fact is paramount to keeping the neutral point of view that wikipedia holds so dear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.192.91 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Here's the Wikipedia article for their religious movement: The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement). Graham87 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the group only has 2500 members. The neutral point of view policy says that viewpoints with extremely small minorities shouldn't be mentioned - 2500 people out of a world population of over 6 billion is quite a small minority. Graham87 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiger! tiger! in the night!

What is the reason to omit the well-known and popular nick-name "Tiger" which is used for Tom Jones quite regularly? Why was it deleted? NPOV? Unsourced? Unimportant? Even German Wikipedia has an entry about this...

I've been watching this article since January 2006 and I don't remember that ever being in the article. If you want to you can add it - why did he get this nickname though? I don't know too much about him - the article is just on my watchlist because of some sneaky vandalism I fixed a while ago. Graham87 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Split trousers

People keep removing my "split trouser" reference. Maybe its because they personally have not heard of it and hence don't believe it. I have been occasionally scouring the web for references and today happened upon this blog: http://buckleyontheblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html which came up in a google search. In it she mentions splitting her trousers and refers to Tom Jones doing the same. So its not just me! (I knew I hadn't imagined it). I shall keep searching for a definitive reference. Migglezimblatt 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

another reference: http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/dress-up/masks/pop-stars/tom-jones.html

Kelley Hardman

There is a reference at the end of the article to Tom having a lifelong grudge against this individual. Unless this can be verified, it should be removed. Maybe I'm an ignorant American, but I have no idea who Kelley Hardman is, and searches of wikipedia and google turn up nothing... 199.79.10.118 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Working in a garden centre?

In the Personal Info section there is this statement: "Tom Jones also works for Countryside Nursery & Garden Center in Newark, Delaware." I don't believe this, can we have a citation please or take it out? Cathi M (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article was starting to sound like a Tom Jones promotion

I have deleted(and changed) a large amount of un-encyclopedic, POV content from the article. The article was starting to sound like an resume or promotion for Tom Jones. WackoJackO 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WHERE DOES HE LIVE NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.82.93 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cymraeg

Does Jones speak Welsh? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have often wondered about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.129.65 (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the good old "Western Mail" tells us no (unearthed fact 26, but that statement by Alex Terrell simply cannot be literally true, can it?!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas John Woodward

Born Thomas JOHN Woodward - Please see An Entry of Birth, Registration District Pontypridd, Birth in the Sub District of Pontypridd in the County of Glamorgan held in Pontypridd Register Office, Courthouse Street, Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, CF37 1JS82.3.30.226 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stand in for P.J.Proby

Tom Jones first came into the public eye when he was asked on at least one occasion and maybe more to stand in for P.J.Proby who was unrelaible at times in showing up for performance. Is this not true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.47.145 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently yes, in January 1965, when Proby's trousers split (twice!) [3]. And this might well deserve a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.233.121.180, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} his birthday has been changed to the wrong date to match up with a question on a tv quiz show, check it :) 92.233.121.180 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His date of birth is the 7th June 1940 and it has been corrected (AdamD123 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC))
His date of birth has been corrected. AnemoneProjectors 23:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 194.46.251.241, 5 November 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}} Tom Jones is 51, duh! Dont you guys watch Channel 4? Davina is the best!!194.46.251.241 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Tom Jones is 70 (AdamD123 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC))
Not done. Tom Jones is 70. AnemoneProjectors 23:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from TheBubler2010, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I have found a reliable source stating that his date of birth is 1940 if you would like to use it [4]

–TheBubler2010 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think it's really necessary though. I think the article has references for it, just not placed at the very start of the article. --Stickee (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.145.56.206, 10 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Tom Jones is 52!

78.145.56.206 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The evidence is against you. Rodhullandemu 18:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Website for real estate agents Redfin indicates that the house in LA (363 Copa De Oro Road) sold on 9 November 2010 for $10.5 87.113.254.144 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

$10.5, wow that's cheap! wish i had known!! 2601:19C:527F:A660:4D75:817F:6D0F:6D51 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

'Long-lost' son

[5] I removed "long-lost" son because although it's true the source uses it I feel it's confusing as it's not like he wasn't aware of his son or had no idea where he was. He simply denied paternity. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Jones_(singer)/Archive_1&oldid=1265015887"