Talk:Jeremy Clarkson/Archive 1

message: In the Netherlands, the tv-series "Jeremy Clarkson meets the neighbours" is being aired right now. There is no mention whatsoever on the Wikipedia page about this. There's also no mention about it on IMDb, nor on the BBC website. Does anyone have more info about it? I'm guessing it's from 2001 or so, since they were talking about Belgian francs in one episode, which were replaced with euros in 2002. -- Sander 13:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands

message: I am wondering if this unsubstantiated fan fluff is from his own sarcastic hand, if this cannot be substantiated then I vote for it's removal
:Considering his constant rants about hardware issues with his Sony VAIO, I'm not sure he could find the Wikipedia :p. That said, his issues with that Sony built piece of crap are not rare - using one now, and its got similar mental problems - often refuses to wake up from hibernate, etc, etc... --Kiand 03:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "known for his physically imposing presence, and ebulliently robust manner"

message: Do we have any more information on the fight with Piers Morgan?  What were they fighting over?  What were the allegedly compromising photos?  Nandesuka 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See earlier mention of this in the article (search for "Piers Morgan"). Halsteadk 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight with Piers Morgan 

message: The Isle of Man or Chipping Norton? Both are given in the article. If he has residences in both places, where does he spend the most time? Dabbler 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In his car? Nick Boulevard 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So where does he live?

message: I'm getting fairly fatigued by dealing with all the recent POV additions by User:83.196.194.145.  Can we set some ground rules on what is appropriate for this article and what is not, and get general agreement to revert changes that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines?
Specifically:
* Clarkson is a controversial figure.  It's perfectly appropriate to cite sources that critique him.  ("Transport 2000 claim that Clarkson is helping to hasten the end of the world by supporting cars over mass transit.")  It is not appropriate for us to launch our own unsourced critiques ("Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist.")
* Moreso than in most articles, we need to be very careful about quantifiers ("some" "most", etc.), particularly when making vaguely-sourced claims.
* When discussing two sources with a differing view, we should try not to write our text so as to "favor" one side or the other.  Just the facts, ma'am.
Basically, so much of what has gone in to the article recently is not attributable to any citable source, but just reads like personal opinion, that I'm more or less assuming that any edit that doesn't have a citation, at this point, is suspect.
Any other guidelines people would like to suggest? Nandesuka 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and the Controversy section 

message: Firstly, I agree that my first posting contained material which was not appropriate.  However, I am new to Wikipedia and nowhere in the later edits does it say anything like '"Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist." (Not that I used the term 'fascist' anyway, which has a specific political meaning, Sure, fascists tend to be hierarchical-authoritarians but not all hierarchical-authoritarians are necessarily fascists in the strict sense of the word. OK I used the term 'motor fascist' above but I did put the term in 'scare quotes', certainly plenty of the posters on the Oxford Brooks petition seem to think he is one, even if I would shy away from using the term directly
I would refer you to the post I made above. However, I have carefully sourced almost every thing I posted and I feel it shows a definite lack of balance when other guff in the article is not sourced at all. Who on earth thinks he is ' ebulliently robust in his manner'. If I have to quote every single thing or risk having it cut surely the same should apply to similarly unreferenced material?
Th article is about Clarkson and this inevitably includes his role in 'Top Gear'. Why on earth the need to quote the ABD in order to somehow counter T2000's criticisms of the program especially when it was done in a way which biased the content of the ABD's 'Turd gear' piece? Now, I suspect that even to have bothered reading the 'Turd Gear' piece you must have some sympathies with the ABD. Lets agree to disagree, you cut out all mention of the ABD and I won't press for a countering link to the Guardian piece on them...
You say 'the show is staggeringly popular'.  This seems to suggest that you think if it is so popular there can't be much wrong with it, whatever, I would suggest that the term 'very' is more appropriate than the hyperbole of 'staggeringly'  Also why not add balance by mentioning who it is popular with?  Clarkson uses the term 'petrol-heads'.
Why cut the comments about some thinking his comments display an 'ironic' and 'satirical' humour. As I mentioned above these comments do seem to give an alternative explanation of why he says the things he does and in any case were added by someone else, seemingly in order to 'balance' the fact that so many think he is a right-wing bigot. 
WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says.
P.s. Perhaps part of the problem is that if we actually quote the words of Clarkson he does come across as an opinionated right-wing bigot (and there is plenty more in a similar vein that could be added). Perhaps the mans very words make it difficult to to present a 'NPOV'. Perhaps the entry (if there is one) on The Boston Strangler or whoever also has a problem in presenting a 'NPOV' and so pains are made to stress how much he loved his mother or whatever. 
Personally I am more concerned about what he says than with who he really is in private. People I know who work in the media tell me that many of those who turn out all the  vitriol in the right wing press attacking everyone from refugees to single mothers KNOW what they are writing is ill-informed and divisive garbage but simply couldn't care less, as long as they get the fat pay cheque at the end of each month. For all I know Clarkson by be just as cynical.  Whatever Clarkson's real attitudes are I feel it is important that the reality of his public persona is made clear, similarly who cares if Jim Davidson or Bernard manning are racist, it is what they say which counts and is what they should be judged by.
:Welcome!  I'm glad that you created an account.  Note that you can "sign" your posts by ending each section with four tildes, like this:  ~~~~.  It's usually useful to do that, so that other readers know who said what.
:Rather than going through a point by point back and forth, let's take one specific issue which I think might let you know where I'm coming from.  You ask "WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says."  The answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a repository for original research.  Put another way: the fact that you or I might be concerned about that is not encyclopedic, and not appropriate for inclusion.  If that opinion becomes widely-held, or is expressed by a notable and credible commentator, then it might be appropriate for inclusion — but, if it's widely held, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reputable source to cite to support the statement.  My problem with the edits have been going in has not been simply that they are critical, but that some of them were critical and unsourced.  You've done a good job of providing sources for some of them, for which I'm glad.  Let's find sources for the other ones.
: Lastly, I think we do have an obligation to try to keep our perspective balanced.  The guy is staggeringly popular in some circles.  If we're going to present 10 paragraphs on how certain classes of people hate him, we can't plausibly claim to be providing a neutral point of view if we discard any favorable comments others have had about him.
: The "fascist" comment was meant to be an example, not literally based on your text. 
: Thanks again for joining us on the talk page and working towards reaching consensus.  Nandesuka 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok let's agree on what can go in the 'Controversy' section 

message: I have noticed that the material I have posted earlier has been removed by Clarkson fans who obviously feel uncomfortable about having even the mans own words placed in the public arena. Says a lot about the sort of people who idolise him...
::Well there was a lot of anti Clarkson propagandas that was removed to obtain an article with a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. It is not right, IMO, to take everything Clarkson says seriously as he clearly does not himself. I am no car fan and certainly don't idolise Clarkson but I find him very funny even when he is obnoxious in his The Times, column and Top Gear is one of the very few BBC programmes I would pay to watch (being an ex-pat) as he is much funnier than a lot of what passes for comedy. The article seemed to be trying to judge what he says by ther same standard as one would judge say Tony Blair, and that is not right, SqueakBox 18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, the motorphiles who idolise Clarkson can't tolerate the truth presented by his own words...  

message: The "Other Clarkson Controversies" section is now more than twice the size of the rest of the article, and seems to include every bad thing ever said about Clarkson by anyone, including some guy he passed on the street last week, and that one time when he was six months old and wet the bed.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
I'd like to propose that it be viciously edited down to a reasonable size, and only include the most notable controversies.
Thoughts? Nandesuka 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other Clarkson Controversies" section out of control 

message: As it is, it's a kind of jaundiced quasi-biography, which reads a lot like some kind of Neo-Stalinist dossier detailing his numerous "thought crimes"........
Perhaps those who enjoy editorializing could try getting jobs at newspapers instead of writing Wikipedia articles.
I couldn't agree more. I hope it is a bit better though it is far from being perfect. At least it is not so anti him now. Read to me like it had been written by one of those who were protesting against him. Probably the same sort as those who demand cyclists drive on the road and thus have to face the millions of drivers out their just like Clarkson, SqueakBox 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would be nice if this was a purely biographical page. 

message: I am lodging a Formal Complaint that the neutrality of the article has been compromised due to the removal of Clarkson Controversy section. The article "as is" is more of a whitewashed and revisionist bio rather than making a full bio complete with detailing certain controversies that Clarkson has been in. It's almost akin to saying that the SS wasn't responseable for the mass-murder of Russian Civillians during WWII and that the Japanese Imperial Army never conducted War Crimes in Nanking. unsigned comment by 72.234.99.65 Karmafist 18:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPoV tag added to article; article listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Andy Mabbett 09:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comparing Clarkson to the SS. Nobody did. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It was you who brought up the SS, Andy: It was not. My previous point remains valid. The article should balance praise and criticism, it was at least 10-1 in favour of criticism before If he's been criticised ten times more than he's been praised, then the article should report that.Andy Mabbett 15:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Who brought the SS up then?: . Perhaps you would care to source that he receives far more criticism than praise: Were I claiming that, I would. He hasn't been criticised more than praised except in minority, extremist circles: by whose definition? which doesn't count: Why the hell not? Andy Mabbett 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: UK-only Google produces this for Jeremy Clarkson criticism and nothing else of much use: Then use more appropriate search terms. Andy Mabbett 10:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree, I balanced out the intro some time ago as it was totally over the top and read as an advertisement or a self written biography. I also added the bad fashion part. I think that we need to be clear that JC is controversial in what he says and does, this needs to be highlighted in the article, afterall he is not in Wikipedia because he's my next door neighbour. Lets be honest about who he is and what he says and his opinions, (that is what his carreer is built on) if someone does not like some of his idiotic quotes then maybe they could find something that he has said that is inteligent and inspiring to re-address the balance. Nick Boulevard 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the quotes need to be limited otherwise many people will give up reading the article, the best and the worst seems fair enough, which parts did Andy object to being removed? Nick Boulevard 19:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal Complaint of the Neutrality of this Article 

message: I have to say that I see Clarkson very much as a humorist and therefore deserves a great deal of comedic license. Yes, he says things that are tasteless, but it's often very funny. Through the "comedian" lens I think he's not as controversial as he would otherwise appear. Sbwoodside 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarkson is a humorist