Talk:A. A. Gill

message: In "The Angry Island" he claims that his grandfather was Indian. Should the article mention this and add him to the catagories of "English people of Indian descent" and the like? Also, why is he called a Scotsman. He may have been born in Edinburgh, but the articles on both his parents simple refer to them as English, and mentions they were both born and raised in England. Whats his claim to Scottish descent, other than happening to be born there and his general loathing for the idea of being considered English?
:He's listed as Scottish because someone changed it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._A._Gill&diff=prev&oldid=420988707  - I would think think the prior British is more suitable Thedarxide (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian?

message: This article doesn't seem very balanced. I don't think Mr. Gill is hated by the public at large, and this article seems to imply that he is some kind of fascist rather than perhaps a tongue-in-cheek humourist.
I don't really agree. The article doesn't suggest or imply that he's hated by the public. I've removed the bit about Branson calling him a 'prick', because it seems totally irrelevant. Personally I think Gill is absolutely brilliant, and if there is evidence of any acclaim (awards, praising quotes from others) then it should definitely be included. The quotation section is a bit quote-heavy I think, but since he's known and appreciated for his use of language rather than any opinions he might be thought to hold, this seems justified. Maybe, there should be less of his satirical take on individual nationalities and more from his restaurant or tv criticism. What do you think? Either way, I don't really see the need for a neutrality tag here.SamuelSpade79 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Critic toasts Welsh"  Headline says it all. Thedarxide (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The CPS stated he wasn't racist.  You have clearly come to wikipedia with an agenda.  I have given reasons for the reverting, as have other users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced?

message: I have tagged this article for a neutrality check, specifically if the many quotes (since removed, see the history) attributed him make this a balanced article, or a hit piece. One Night In Hackney303 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality check

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
The section seems to be cherry picking quotations and making an implied assumption that AA Gill is a racist based on these quotations, and I have removed it pending discussion. One Night In Hackney303 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These quotes are not being presented in a neutral manner. There is a clear agenda in the selection of quotes to presented a synthesised view that Gill is a racist. Do not add the quotes back until this has been discussed. One Night In Hackney303 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: BLP problems are removed immediately, and stay removed until discussion has taken place. One Night In Hackney303 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One Night In Hackney, is correct WP:BLP concerns come out immediately and only go back in with consensus.   The burden is on the user who wants to include the content.  Jeepday (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll explain in depth why I think the previous version was unacceptable. Four quotes were being presented and the synthesised (and unsourced) conclusion that "Gill is notorious for his comments about other races and nationalities" was being made. These are four quotes out of many, many columns during his 15 year career at the Sunday Times. The Guardian article on him does include a couple of the quotes, however it also balances it out by including quotes on other subjects. It's my belief that simply leaving quotes on other subjects out while including as many contentious comments about other countries is not neutral and unduly skews the article and is a violation of WP:BLP, especially due to the conclusion being drawn. One Night In Hackney303 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd more or less endorse what ONIH is saying above. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.  There are a number of BBC articles addressing the criticism, so there are reliable reference.  The shear volume of the criticism section is completely out of balance with the rest of the article and the subjects notability.  This article says His essays are known for their humor and satirical content about the subject so presumably race is not the only subject that would be appropriate for the criticism section.  I would suggest the editors here try to reach a balanced criticism section that does not overwhelm the rest of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section

message: There is no need for a neutrality tag on this page and i'm removed it again. If somebody wishes to reinsert it, can they please provide a justification for doing so?SamuelSpade79 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Been discussed above. Please do not remove the template again. One Night In Hackney303 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was of the impression that the issue had been dealt with.  Offending comments had been removed, and there has been no argument for some time. Thedarxide (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. I'm not convinced the current version is neutral, but it certainly isn't a BLP violation any more. One Night In Hackney303 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because neutrality is a two way street? I'd have thought that was obvious, it's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney303 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well since two of us have know (sic) questioned the current status, perhaps some pointers would help.  Thedarxide (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Neutrality is a two-way street, an article can be too positive as well as too negative. I'd expect to see some criticism of Gill in the article, but it has to be in proportion to the criticism and the rest of the article. If you look at the really disupted version, the quotes and criticism are approximately half the article and focus on his more controversial quotes rather than include his more obviously humourous and satirical ones for balance. If the article was much longer you could include a section of that detail, but you can't with a short article. One Night In Hackney303 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality (again)

message: RFCbio | section=RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute!! reason=Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to please comment. !! time=10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'His essays are known for their humour and satirical content, but some people often find them offensive.' would be a more balanced and factual statement.   ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, if he is known for his racist comments, there will be something in print somewhere that says so and it will be quite valid to include something in the article to the effect that "Gill has been criticised for expressing racist views" along as it is accompanied by valid references. Deb (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Will the Press Gazette do ?    ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Welsh statement should be included, as it is just about the only thing that AA Gill is actually known for in Wales and there is serious dislike for the man across the border. Ann Robinson's article includes a paragraph when she offended the Welsh, and that comes across fairly neutral. At least she apologised for the offense (and she does come from Liverpool which has an antagonistic relationship with Wales) whereby A.A. Gill as recently as this year reiterated his opinion on the Welsh in a TV show by Rob Brydon. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see any justification for the reversal edit by Thedarxide.  The quotes were cited and provide material on the individual.  Let his own voice speak for him.  --Snowded TALK 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points made above. It's a bit like having an article about David Irving which doesn't mention his views on the Holocaust. This is an encyclopedia article so we must be strictly neutral in tone of course, no matter how we may feel, but as Snowded says above, let his words speak for themselves. These edit reversals are unacceptable and obviously protect a POV; let it stop. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the edits due to the previous BLP discussion above that no one seems to have read.  There was little discussion and no concensus on how to integrate the material Thedarxide (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time and trouble to comment.  I think we can take the RFC tag off now, unless anyone objects (best to leave it for a few more days in case anyone does). Other than the minor vandalism you would expect on such a controversial topic, the article now seems fairly NPOV and stable (although I've added the 'humorous and satirical' quote that was reported to the CRE). We seem to have reached a consensus that AA Gill's racist views should be noted in the article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the RFC tag should be removed. The matter seems settled. If somebody comes along and adds a POV comment or statement it can be edited. Good to see some commonsense and decency prevail. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute

message: Here's a typical example of lack of neutrality. Read the Barber article.  It's ironic and about trying to like Gill. It isn't (especially for Barber) unduly negative.  Wikipedia is all too frequently used to settle scores. Perhaps it is time (with the current Twitter issues in mind) to start discussion at a higher level the whole issue of anonymity and Wikipedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavelboy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynn Barber

message: Can someone provide a citation for the welsh being a different "race" my parents are welsh, I was unaware of being a different race. Don't get me wrong I think he's a an idiot for his Welsh comments, but calling it racist when it's xenophobia helps no one. 77.98.164.98 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this BBC page cited in the article, it was the members of the National Assembly for Wales who called the remarks "persistent anti-Welsh racism"; and according to the same BBC report, the Crown Prosecution Service did not seem to agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The CPS didn't say it wasn't racist. The cited BBC news report says “However, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take action against Mr Gill.” Being a racist or stating racist views isn't against the law. The CPS argued that Gill “had not meant to stir up racial hatred”, which would be necessary to prosecute successfully. Nevertheless, the IPs point on the statement that Gill's comments were reported to the CRE as racist is valid. The words “as racist” are redundant here - reference to the CRE would be made for no other reason. I have removed them. Daicaregos (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: The wording "anti-Welsh racism" is a verbatim quote from the motion put to the Welsh Assembly.  It's not up to anyone here to challenge that wording.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone provide a citation? 

message: I fail to see anything controversial about Michael Palin's observation or AAG's review of Morrisey's book, which won Hatchet Job of the Year which is a British journalism award given annually since 2012 to "the writer of the angriest, funniest, most trenchant book review of the past twelve months".. which is a positive not a negative. For it to be a controversy it has to be a two sided argument.Greglocock (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are clearly relevant to the article subject. Perhaps they just are in the wrong sub-section. Daicaregos (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - a beat up 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Does it not follow that if one had a "first" wife then there must have been at least a second one?
So the second sentence "They later divorced" must be obvious, and is therefore pointless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.0 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gill's first wife was the author Cressida Connolly, daughter of the writer Cyril Connolly. They later divorced. 

message: I contacted the photographer who took this photo, which has still "all rights reserved". I am still awaiting his response. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading a free image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A. A. Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041023/http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html to http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041023/http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html to http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/locals-hit-sunday-times-columnist-aa-gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, Philafrenzy. You uploaded :File:A. A. Gill.jpg months ago. I appreciate your efforts to visually identify this person. However, the image may have commercial interests, which prevents it from meeting WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"). The "Use the image" option from the National Portrait Gallery website reveals that the image's only license is "Professional licence", which requires a purchase and registered account on behalf of one's own organization. Also, Iconic Images probably owns copyright of the image, even when Terry O'Neill (the photographer) created the photo, and Iconic Images requires permission to use the photo. Besides the image, do you know any other image that displays the person accurately BTW, I uploaded one image previously, but then I removed it to be consistent with the decision on another image at Wikipedia:Deletion review George Ho (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have removed the image from the article. I don't know of any alternatives at present. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Since you removed it, Philafrenzy, you can add  there if you want to request deletion. George Ho (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:A. A. Gill.jpg]]