This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stanley Holloway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 21 days
![]() |
![]() | Stanley Holloway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
What's with all the primary sources cited in the "Family background" section? A lot of it seems to be original research, which is cracked down on mighty hard elsewhere on Wikipedia. 78.144.75.151 ( talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I see this has previously been queried... frankly, the first section of the article is a mess of primary sources and disturbing lack of reliable secondary/ published sources, and for no discernible reason. The main thing is, per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , citation of primary sources- lacking corroboration, as the guidelines state, from reliable published secondary treatments of said primary sources- is deprecated. This level of detail on family is virtually never accepted here, so I'm quite bewildered to see it in this article, particularly, as I say, so very poorly sourced. I've added not-dissimilar paragraphs on family origins/ recent history here and there in the past, directly citing an autobiography or memoir, and had the information immediately removed for being "irrelevant". One of the very great problems with Wikipedia is the differing standards upheld by different fiefdoms that have built up over the years- no real consistency, so no solid precedent to follow!
The "Family background and early life" section has far too much original research and synthesis of primary sources going on. For the first paragraph, the published sources cited are sufficient- the only thing that cites a primary source is Holloway's birth at Manor Park, London, which is covered in his ODNB entry, already cited.
The section on his grandfather, however, entirely relies upon original research, and is at any rate superfluous; the only relevant facts, covered by the ODNB entry and by Holloway & Richards, are that the grandfather was a fairly successful brush-maker thanks to whom Holloway's own family was comfortably off. His wife's name and other children are irrelevant and again represent original research/ synthesis.
The next section begins by mentioning the grandparents' relocation to Poplar, London, citing a probate record. This is totally original research, predicated upon the user who added it having identified the correct individual. A reliable published source would be required. At any rate, this is surplus to requirements in an article on Stanley Holloway, the only possible relevance to whom deriving from the statement that on the grandfather's death, Holloway's father relocated to Manor Park (one rarely encounters such a detailed account of exactly why an individual was born in the place that he was born, so here too it seems superfluous- and at any rate is original research). The details of George Holloway's occupation, marriage to his employer's daughter, and children are all in Holloway & Richards; the Ancestry.com 1901 census return is unnecessary (and specifically deprecated per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). That George Holloway left his family is, as shown, covered by Holloway & Richards; the probate record citation is, again, original research and the information scarcely relevant.
Hi.
In the edition I checked before making the edit, the phrases "Shakespearian roles" and "Shakespearian connections" do not occur. I've since traced the origin of the chapter descriptions in the footnote to a series of IP edits made in 2010, starting here.
Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
By the time you edited those descriptions into a footnote in 2011 perhaps it was no longer clear that the chapter descriptions did not originate in Holloway's text, but were added by a Wikipedia editor. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 22:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have drifted rather far from the point. I don't object to Tim riley's revertion of my edit, although I think his arguments for doing so are not convincing. I object quite strongly to Tim riley's suggestion in his edit summary that I falsified a quotation. That's why I moved this discussion to Tim riley's talk page. Tim?
Also: "That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective."
The first two points are humbug. No quotation was tampered with. Neither was any part of what I edited passed off as a quotation. Tim riley may have wrongly assumed that the material I edited formed part of a quotation, but that's not my mistake. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 08:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised this article does not have a summary box like most biographies on Wikipedia do. Please can someone who knows how to do so please add one so the article is more complete. I was just looking to see whether he had children and that is harder without the box. Thank you. 82.132.184.235 ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to Tim Riley above this has not been “discussed at length”; it appears to have been discussed once, briefly, in 2014/15. Additionally the subject was in the military, and military personnel generally have infoboxes since there’s a lot of rote, but important information to be covered like rank, branch etc. which an I-box is extremely well suited to. Dronebogus ( talk) 02:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not benefit from an infobox. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this WP:Featured Article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the excellent WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. Do people really think that one of the 3 or 4 most important facts about this famous actor is the number of children that he had? Nevertheless this is already in the lead section and in in the body of the article. (2) Since the information that would be in the box is already discussed in his comprehensive Featured Article (and also its Lead) and is again seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 4th mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format at the top of the article would discourage people from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (5) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, editors usually spend time arguing over what to include in the box. (6) The numerous reviewers at this article's peer review, GA review and FAC did not think an infobox would be helpful. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This article (lead section, paragraph 3) includes Major Barbara in a list of "war films". It's actually a Shavian social satire, and Barbara is, of course, a major in the Salvation Army. Have I missed a joke? Was "wartime films" intended? Does anyone object if I delete Major Barbara from that list? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
What is the possible explanation for not including a standard format infobox on the page?
Keystone18 (
talk)
00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stanley Holloway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 21 days
![]() |
![]() | Stanley Holloway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
What's with all the primary sources cited in the "Family background" section? A lot of it seems to be original research, which is cracked down on mighty hard elsewhere on Wikipedia. 78.144.75.151 ( talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I see this has previously been queried... frankly, the first section of the article is a mess of primary sources and disturbing lack of reliable secondary/ published sources, and for no discernible reason. The main thing is, per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , citation of primary sources- lacking corroboration, as the guidelines state, from reliable published secondary treatments of said primary sources- is deprecated. This level of detail on family is virtually never accepted here, so I'm quite bewildered to see it in this article, particularly, as I say, so very poorly sourced. I've added not-dissimilar paragraphs on family origins/ recent history here and there in the past, directly citing an autobiography or memoir, and had the information immediately removed for being "irrelevant". One of the very great problems with Wikipedia is the differing standards upheld by different fiefdoms that have built up over the years- no real consistency, so no solid precedent to follow!
The "Family background and early life" section has far too much original research and synthesis of primary sources going on. For the first paragraph, the published sources cited are sufficient- the only thing that cites a primary source is Holloway's birth at Manor Park, London, which is covered in his ODNB entry, already cited.
The section on his grandfather, however, entirely relies upon original research, and is at any rate superfluous; the only relevant facts, covered by the ODNB entry and by Holloway & Richards, are that the grandfather was a fairly successful brush-maker thanks to whom Holloway's own family was comfortably off. His wife's name and other children are irrelevant and again represent original research/ synthesis.
The next section begins by mentioning the grandparents' relocation to Poplar, London, citing a probate record. This is totally original research, predicated upon the user who added it having identified the correct individual. A reliable published source would be required. At any rate, this is surplus to requirements in an article on Stanley Holloway, the only possible relevance to whom deriving from the statement that on the grandfather's death, Holloway's father relocated to Manor Park (one rarely encounters such a detailed account of exactly why an individual was born in the place that he was born, so here too it seems superfluous- and at any rate is original research). The details of George Holloway's occupation, marriage to his employer's daughter, and children are all in Holloway & Richards; the Ancestry.com 1901 census return is unnecessary (and specifically deprecated per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). That George Holloway left his family is, as shown, covered by Holloway & Richards; the probate record citation is, again, original research and the information scarcely relevant.
Hi.
In the edition I checked before making the edit, the phrases "Shakespearian roles" and "Shakespearian connections" do not occur. I've since traced the origin of the chapter descriptions in the footnote to a series of IP edits made in 2010, starting here.
Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
By the time you edited those descriptions into a footnote in 2011 perhaps it was no longer clear that the chapter descriptions did not originate in Holloway's text, but were added by a Wikipedia editor. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 22:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have drifted rather far from the point. I don't object to Tim riley's revertion of my edit, although I think his arguments for doing so are not convincing. I object quite strongly to Tim riley's suggestion in his edit summary that I falsified a quotation. That's why I moved this discussion to Tim riley's talk page. Tim?
Also: "That apart, there are three points here that need to be addressed. First, if a quotation uses one spelling we do not tamper with it to suit our own tastes. Secondly, if something is shown in a WP article as a quotation but is not a quotation it should be amended accordingly. Thirdly, there is the spelling of the relevant adjective."
The first two points are humbug. No quotation was tampered with. Neither was any part of what I edited passed off as a quotation. Tim riley may have wrongly assumed that the material I edited formed part of a quotation, but that's not my mistake. Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 08:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised this article does not have a summary box like most biographies on Wikipedia do. Please can someone who knows how to do so please add one so the article is more complete. I was just looking to see whether he had children and that is harder without the box. Thank you. 82.132.184.235 ( talk) 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to Tim Riley above this has not been “discussed at length”; it appears to have been discussed once, briefly, in 2014/15. Additionally the subject was in the military, and military personnel generally have infoboxes since there’s a lot of rote, but important information to be covered like rank, branch etc. which an I-box is extremely well suited to. Dronebogus ( talk) 02:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not benefit from an infobox. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this WP:Featured Article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the excellent WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. Do people really think that one of the 3 or 4 most important facts about this famous actor is the number of children that he had? Nevertheless this is already in the lead section and in in the body of the article. (2) Since the information that would be in the box is already discussed in his comprehensive Featured Article (and also its Lead) and is again seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 4th mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format at the top of the article would discourage people from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa). (5) Instead of focusing on the content of the article, editors usually spend time arguing over what to include in the box. (6) The numerous reviewers at this article's peer review, GA review and FAC did not think an infobox would be helpful. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This article (lead section, paragraph 3) includes Major Barbara in a list of "war films". It's actually a Shavian social satire, and Barbara is, of course, a major in the Salvation Army. Have I missed a joke? Was "wartime films" intended? Does anyone object if I delete Major Barbara from that list? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
What is the possible explanation for not including a standard format infobox on the page?
Keystone18 (
talk)
00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)