Talk:Tom Hanks

Nationality

Should the lead say American-Greek? Spectritus (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. The honorary Greek citizenship is a recent development and not a contributor to his notability. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Schazjmd. "American-Greek" should not be in the lead. See, MOS:NATIONALITY. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem Okay. So, it's honourary. I just thought that since Craig Ferguson's lead includes both Scottish and American even though he was just naturalised American in 2008 and has no family links to the country. Spectritus (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Spectritus: Apparently you did not read MOS:NATIONALITY. Please read MOS:NATIONALITY. Craig Ferguson has notable activities in Scotland and America - see, Craig Ferguson#British career and Craig Ferguson#American career. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem Okay, thanks. Spectritus (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed lead image discussion

I’d like to open a discussion regarding the current lead image. There is disagreement over whether the existing image or the newer proposed image is more appropriate for use in the infobox.

The newer image is a recent, high-resolution photograph from a professional source and is available on Commons under a free license. It shows the subject in a direct, neutral-facing pose, which is commonly used for encyclopedic lead portraits under WP:MOSIMAGES and WP:LEADIMAGE.

Concerns have been raised that the newer image is less representative or “unflattering,” but those considerations are subjective. The Manual of Style generally prioritizes clarity, neutrality, and suitability for identification rather than aesthetic appeal.

I am opening this discussion to see if there is consensus on which image better meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for a lead image. Anon6700 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I began my reply to you before you posted this, which is why I made a separate section. I will now merge it here. Also, your reply here is 100% AI-generated. I will not be engaging with robot text. Please write using your own words, not with AI. Οἶδα (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

just because someone types with more clarity than you, doesnt make it ai. rule #1, assume good faith ~2026-31737-22 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

just because someone types with more clarity than you,

Nowhere in my reply did I suggest that I assumed their post here was AI-generated based on their supposed superior clarity of language compared with my own. I dismissed it as such based on of basic, learned WP:AISIGNS i.e. style, structure, and phrasing, all which strongly resembles AI-generated text to me. Those are different things. But you clearly already know that. Please do not twist my words for some pathetic snarky "dunk". I am certainly not assuming good faith on your part when all you've done is post a patently veiled insult. And btw, "assume good faith" =/= "pretend obviously AI-generated text isn't AI-generated text". Completely bogus, time-wasting IP reply. Next. Οἶδα (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

even if it were AI, it doesnt change their reasoning or their thought process. they could have a disability that keeps them from typing for all you know. again, assume good faith and like the other person said, stop with the bias. its not a good look ~2026-31770-40 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

even if it were AI

It is.

like the other person said

Nice try Οἶδα (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Image #1 should be used. More recent doesn't always mean better, as evidenced here. Seasider53 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: revision 1356230956 by Anon6700

A page should always show the most up-to-date information and imagery. A photo being unflattering is an opinion, when pages are based on fact. Stop with the bias.

Up-to-date information in proportion to the WP:WEIGHT given to that information in reliable source coverage, yes. However, infobox images are not automatically chosen based on the most up-to-date image available on Wikimedia Commons. That is because recency alone is not determinative under MOS:LEADIMAGE. More important is quality, framing, lighting, etc (MOS:IMAGEQUALITY) and whether a given image is a more appropriate representation of the topic. Between these two images, which would we say represents Hanks more accurately?

#1

#2

If WP:CONSENSUS should determine that the second image is superior, I will of course respect that. But until then I have boldly reverted the addition of the newer image based on, yes, my opinion that it is exceptionally inferior to the previous image as it does not as accurately depict the subject to readers. If that is bias, then so was your decision to restore it in the article. As already explained, there was no discussion, no consensus for infobox image change. Consensus must be established through actual discussion and agreement, which has not taken place. And consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. If an updated image is superior in quality then it should be preferred. But the close, wide-angle lensing and rather unusual, exaggerated facial expression here doesn't match Hanks's familiar public image, making him not immediately recognizable in it. That is not preferred. I mean cmon, he looks like an anxious cartoon turtle wearing enormous glasses. See: Filburt.

Here is an interview with Tom Hanks from just under two weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgYXYh-4uuc

Does he looks more like image #1 or image #2? The answer is obvious. Οἶδα (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

First image #1 should remain. Yes, image #2 doesn't match Hanks's familiar public image, is not recognizable, is not suitable for identification, is exaggerated, is cartoonish, and is inferior. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2026

Please change "Hanks was born at the Mount Diablo Hospital in Concord, California, a suburb of San Francisco." to "Hanks was born at the Mount Diablo Hospital in Concord, California." Concord is a separate city further away from San Francisco. Maya1236 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for pointing that out. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)