Talk:Jeremy Clarkson/Archive 2

message: In my opinion the NPOV tag is not needed. I cannot see a NPOV problem. Myself, I agree more with Jeremy Clarkson than Transport 2K and so-onDuke toaster 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he is clearly an intelligent commentator who is often spot on, and even when you diasagree with him he remains amusing, SqueakBox 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then you should read the preceding debate on this matter. The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article; they do not. Andy Mabbett 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should read WP:NPOV on this matter.  The issue is not whether "everyone" agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article, but whether the article conforms with the WP:NPOV policy.  It does.  Also, you should read and respond to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing.  Kindest possible regards, Nandesuka 12:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh> The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed adherance of this article with WP:NPOV. They do not. Andy Mabbett 12:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are claiming that WP:NPOV claims that everyone in the world who might read an article needs to agree with it, you are incredibly misguided, as even a cursory read of that guideline reveals.  Since you are apparently incapable of explaining what in the article is POV, or to suggest any ways to fix it, your claim that the article is POV is not credible.  Nandesuka 13:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andy, if you want to put the NPOV tag up, you have to make concrete suggestions that are actionable within our policies that would make the article NPOV. What changes exactly would you like to see, bearing in mind that they must be actionable within our policies? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such requirement; if you cannot find an asnwer to your questions in the preceding discussion, then ask the user who disputed the neutarlity in the first place. Andy Mabbett 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your comment. I asked what changes you want to see, so please tell me. In the meantime, I'm removing the tag because you're misusing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not misusing it; so please don't remove it again. I understood whet you asked, and I said that it's not me you need to ask, but the person who originally disputed the article (and specifically the section's) neutrality. Andy Mabbett 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Andy, if you put the tag on it, whether you're the first to do so or the  100th, you have to justify its use by explaining exactly what your objections are. Stop being disruptive. This is a terrible article, one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. Please help to clean it up. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here from the RfC.  It looks to me like the poster's initial complaint of NPOV (controversy section removed) has been wholly addressed.  The controversy section is back, but doesn't dominate the article.  I personally know nothing about the subject except what I've read here, and from my perspective the article is in excellent shape currently; especially considering it's obviously about a controversial subject.  I think the NPOV tag should stay off. Joshf 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial complaint was made on 4 November. Compare the minor differnece between the controversy section as it was then, and now with the vast difference between how it was originally, and at the time of the complaint. Andy Mabbett 14:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Apparently Jeremy Clarkson himself has recently edited the article. I recently heard he's doing another technology series for the BBC, so perhaps it could be assumed the internet could appear.....or it could be possible that it isn't him of course. Either way I think some kind of confirmation is the way to go. 172.216.9.164 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarkson Edits 

message: I should have linked to this earlier:
But the astonishing thing about his Michael Wharton's flights of fancy is that so many of them became reality. No sooner had he invented the "race relations industry" than it came into being. His preposterous "go-ahead Bishop of Bevindon", champion of every trendy cause imaginable, now sits enthroned in almost every diocese. His overbearing motorist, J Bonington Jagworth, predated Jeremy Clarkson's first appearance on television by almost half a century. Sir Aylwin Goth-Jones, the "greatest living policeman", who advocates the greater use of police helicopters to catch drink-drivers, is now in charge of every force in the land. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/24/dl2403.xml]
: Thanks.  I think that's clearly a noteworthy comparison, and merits inclusion.  My one remaining complaint is I don't like having it under "See also" -- perhaps we could work it into the text somehow, and include the citation for the convenience of the reader?  Something like "In an obituary for author Michael Wharton, the Daily Telegraph compared Clarkson to the overbearing motorist caricature, J. Bonington Jagworth." Nandesuka 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that sounds fine. Can I leave it to you? You're more familiar with the article than I am. He is amusing, JC, but he's a barbarian. Dubiouscod 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarkson and Jagworth

message: This bit reads a bit too much like apologetics for Clarkson:
: The matter was not helped by national publications (in both Britain and Germany) quoting Clarkson out of context which to the misinformed would put Clarkson in a racist light. Here is an example of such an article:
Whether or not Clarkson is actually racist, he has certainly made enough offensive statements that unequivocally saying that anyone who believes he is racist is "misinformed" is POV. --Saforrest 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that bit in and what i was trying to get across was that (like i said) the things that he said weren't helped when many national papers didn't report the precedding events and why Clarkson went off on one and to an extent just made it sound like inbetween reviewing a car he started making racist comments about Germany. So to some one who just read that article in teh paper (you could say misinformed person) would believe Clarkson was racist. I really don't see how that is POV, it only becomes so when you paraphrase the statement like you did does it become POV. More over it is fact as if you put all knowledge about the event aside and just read that linked article you would come away with teh impression that Clarkson is some neanderthal racist but when you get the whole picture you can see thats not the case.   TheEnlightened 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetics 

message: What this whole debate comes down to is this: Is he one of the above?
Maybe the discussion page/article should be split into two; the ones that think he preaches the gospel of humour/intelligence, and the ones that think he has the integrity of a stoat.
There seems to be no way of reconciling these differences, or is there? What do we think about that?
Is there/can there be a balance? I hope so...  andreasegde 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarkson: God or idiot? 

message: In the Driving section of the Sunday Times, whilst reviewing the Audi TT, of which the last two paragraphs were actually about the car, Clarkson mentioned how his Wikipedia article says how he once hit a tree, as an example of how boring he was. Newmhost 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's the link. . Maybe someone who knows how to do those poncey "this article has been used as a source" boxes at the top of the page would be kind enough to make one. --Bonalaw 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarkson has read the article 

message: Surely what Clarkson said was "a Nazi staff car".
66.135.106.50 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nazi-staffed car" ["foreigners" section]

message: # It was revealed, during The F-Word on 5 July 2006, that Clarkson's house on the Isle of Man is a lighthouse.
:That has been known for some time so hardly "revealed" in July 2006.  one mention here and here.  --jmb 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Home

message: IMO the article has slid back into the same anti-Clarkson direction as it had before. I have tried again to bring it back into a more NPOV format, he is notable as a journalist and not for this series of alleged controversies which his opponenets would have us believe reflect the reality of his career, SqueakBox 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hello- Just looking at the history of this page and the editors that edit it. It's a little strange. A chap started a new thread here that said something about the Americans needing passports to buy drinks and someone deleted it within ten minutes. They didn't delete the comment, but the whole thread. Then I decided to look at the history of the page itself and it seems that there is a war of editors to make sure that the page says that Americans need passports to drink. I don't think that a real Encyclopedia would offer any wrong info at all. Why are you editors keeping this page wrong? I can see from the history of the page that someone added a section that clarified the truth and he kept getting deleted. I would understand if it was one person that hated Yanks or whatever but there's a small army of them. Who are you people? Why is this page edited like that? I am going to try to set up an account so that I can edit this page too. This is too strange.
Here is the chap's thread that was deleted:
(cur) (last)  02:56, 15 July 2006 Zoe (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Oliverdefleur (talk) to last version by 66.135.106.50) 
(cur) (last)  02:46, 15 July 2006 Oliverdefleur (Talk | contribs) 
I don't see how what he said was offensive or against the rules? Would someone explain?
JeffDeHart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.112.58 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 July 2006
:Yet again, this article is written in a NPOV. It does not contain any bias. There is no conspiracy . I am getting tired of all of these inane rants. The JPStalk to me 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BAD INFO

message: I added the doctor bit on his name because he IS A DOCTOR.
That is part of his name so it stays.
my talk page is where you dispute the fact.--Joshuarooney2006 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DR 

message: Another way of dying quite early — though this time with an axe in the back of your head — is to get a researcher’s job on Top Gear and be found by me, using the Wikipedia website as a research tool. Oh, it sounds great, like the BlackBerry and a wire that connects your mobile to your iPod, but it doesn’t work.
	
I recently checked the Wikipedia entry for Jeremy Clarkson and after just a short time thought, 'Wow. When can I meet this guy?' He’s killed hundreds of cyclists, murdered all of northern Scotland, eaten a barn owl, and at weekends he goes out and rams trees for fun
To prove this I recently checked the entry for Jeremy Clarkson and after just a short time thought, “Wow. When can I meet this guy?” 
The Sunday Times Driving Section, 30 July 2005.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 July 2006
When will you learn that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!!!!!!NOT AN OPINIONS BROADCASTING SITE????????--Joshuarooney2006 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what you're going on about.  He's just saying that this page has been cited in Jeremy Clarkson's column this week. - Blah3 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another citation by Clarkson 

message: What should we do with the Toybota?
He created It so he should be adequatly acredited with creating It.--Lucy-marie 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should await the result of the AfD.  violet/riga (t) 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that he seems to happily admit that he is useless with any sort of tool, I doubt whether he had much to do with creating it.  The production team probably had it made up by some contractors.  His contribution seems to be limited to trying to sink it.  --jmb 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  can you quote any source about this doctor of engineering being useles with tools and that he did not infact design and help modify the toyota hilux in to the toybota.--Lucy-marie 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all the Top Gear programmes that I have seen that involve any sort of work with tools, Clarkson loudly points out that he has not any interest in doing that type of thing.  It might all be bluff as most the things he says but I just can't actually see him spending the time on the construction of the Toybota himself.  His doctorate is purely an honorary one and there are plenty of academics with real engineering doctorates who I would not like to trust to do any actual manual work with tools.  So much of the programme is planned and scripted that is always hard to tell what is real and what is not.     --jmb 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toybota 

message: "In the Sunday Times on June 2, 2002, he joked that he had spent the day hunting rats using tennis racquets and croquet mallets. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals issued a warning to him as a result of this comment."
Anyone get the impression the RSPCA is a bit of a joke organisation? Some of the stuff the persue is literally ridiculous. Rats are vermin and Clarkson would be fully entitled to exterminate them on sight if he pleased. Also I read recently they tried to bring a private action against a police officer that put a dying bird a member of the public had clipped with their motor vehicle out of its misery with a shovel.. and dragged it through the courts for 2 years on repeated appeals, causing him unreasonable stress etc... rather then persue generally barbaric incidents of animal abuse, they persue high profile media healine grabbing cases to promote their charity name and secure public funding to justify the outrageous salaries their staff draw. Such frivolous waste of money genuine animal lovers have donated being abused in such a manner should be investigated by the Charity commision.
What dose this have to do with the artice at large?--Lucy-marie 12:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSPCA