Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

Archive 1 Dec. 2004 to Dec. 2005
Archive 2 Dec. 2005 to Aug. 2006
Archive 3 2006 to 2010

Clarkson Serious?

this article presents Clarkson as much more serious than he is. He pretty much mocks everyone and everything. He will review a car, and list all the wonderful things about it, and then declare it rubbish for some petty reason(its brand, not having a flaw). Does he really hate America? well certainly not in a bin Laden or even Michal Moore type of way. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's well documented that media is often deliberately provocative and controversial to generate interest. Hence the saying 'no publicity is bad publicity'. That might not be entirely true, but the producer of Top Gear is on record as saying that Clarkson, along with the other two, 'play up' to their on-screen characters. I would suggest that unless someone knows him in real life, they are not qualified to offer an opinion on what he is really like. The endless debate on the subject keeps Top Gear and Clarkson in the news, and some people probably watch TG and other shows in which he stars simply to add things to their list of peeves. Other organisations that slate him may well have some motivation to get their names and that of their causes in the news.

Having been in the audience of TG and observed Clarkson's behaviour off camera, I would offer that he is down to earth, happy to chat with anyone, and certainly not the character that he appears to be on camera. This is purely my opinion, before anyone argues - he tends to be 'marmite' to put it colloquially! Some love him, some hate him.. but most people have an opinion and something to say. Whether he is genuinely offensive is an interesting point, but probably goes back to the endless discussions on what is 'safe' for comedy. Some argue that there are no limits, either everything is funny or it's not. Perhaps Clarkson's style follows this theory..

While this might seem like general discussion of the topic, it is leading up to my point - this talk page and the edit history shows that some people edit first, and self check their opinions and seek that of others later if at all. Keeping the pages here with so many potential flash points of opinion when all editors are human (cept those nice little bots) is the ongoing challenge of a publicly editable encyclopaedia. All we can do is keep trying to contribute and balance each other out, and hopefully what is left is the best possible result. Of course, such perfection is always somewhere in the future, and only by endless revision can we make progress. If Clarkson is indeed simply a master presenter and comic, but always keeps in character in public, how could we tell? Individuals might realise the truth when they have met him, but without sources it cannot be used here, and sources are in the same bracket as 'on-camera'.. Unless privacy law is repealed in the UK! Bertcocaine (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Height

Will people not keep changing the height value in the infobox without providing a reliable source. The IMDB is not a reliable source of information and should not be cited, see for example this discussion. The other 2 sources that I have just removed claim to get their information from Wikipedia and as such are also not reliable sources for this. Keith D (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Until an agreed source for J.C.'s height (as in J.C. himself) can be sourced, I propose removing it as per the trivia rules).Angry Mustelid (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen the Peel Car episode and in it Clarkson states he is 6'5" (before getting in the tiny car). I would consider that as good a source as you'll get, if it is to be included (trivia rules to be taken into account). Halsteadk (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Use the {{cite episode}} template with the correct info. Cheers. (I'd do it myself but am not sure what you mean by Peel Car episode - If your unsure how to use it just post as much info as you can on my page (eg Top Gear, Power Lap:Murchielago, Star in Car:Ross Noble, Challenge:Peel the bodywork off a car using only the whiteness of Hammond's teeth- that sort of thing) and I'll get right on it (either the Power Lap and Star would be sufficient for TG).Angry Mustelid (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - but feel free to tweak the {{cite episode}} template! Halsteadk (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Right of Way" dispute a "controversy"?

I don't think so. The law on rights of way is notoriously confusing, and it shouldn't be a surprise that disputes arise, because they are traditionally poor to validate due to vague legal and historical evidence, resulting in cases like this. To my mind, that does not elevate them to the status of "controversy", unless Clarkson is being shown to be perhaps bloody-minded, which does not appear to be the case here. That's why I've removed it pending some evidence of bad faith on the part of Clarkson. I remember a similar case in Wiltshire about 20 years ago involving a path to the rear of Peter Gabriel's Real World Studios, on land which he owned, and in relation to which he was entitled to remove a "public right of way", because none could be proved to exist. Same here but hardly a "controversy". Rodhullandemu 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The controversy was over the fact that he wilfully diverted the path without prior consultation with the authorities and commented in his Times column something along the lines that he "should be able to shoot them with rock salt". Further controversy was also brought to light (again in his column) when discovered that he was responsible for the welfare of a type of rare cricket that is found on his land and was being decimated by the ramblers. Re-instating.Angry Mustelid (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see 1:1 being a consensus. It's Bold, revert, discuss, not Bold, revert, revert. Rodhullandemu 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the BRD to be flawed. The information is relevant and pertinant to subject and, as such, should remain within the article until consensus is reached to remove - not the other way round (it's always better to have too much than too little). I would class the deletion as a Bold (in addition to that of the creation), mine the first, true Revert and, obviously, this, the Discussion.Angry Mustelid (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexico complaint 2011

Worth mentioning the complaint upheld by the mexican ambassador in January 2011? (80.176.234.167 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

No, not here. It was a Top Gear complaint, not specifically Jeremy Clarkson - Criticism of Top Gear is the most appropriate place and it is already covered. If it ends up in Clarkson's article, it has to go in all of the presenters' articles, and that's just unnecessary. Halsteadk (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, and anyway it wasn't Clarkson who made the comments that upset the Mexicans. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

criticism and political views

There seems to be a misinterpretation of Clarkson's views. The criticism I am referring to is the criticism made by Clarkson, which really isn't criticism at all. To one not familiar with Clarkson's works, this article makes it appear as if he is making critical remarks about certain things, such as the USA. They are jokes. Also, the concept that Clarkson holds a special dislike for the US and Obama, is silly. He has called Briton the worse country in the world due to its regulatory policies. Most of this section should be deleted. I also question the sources cited, such as Top Gear(a first party source) Remember this is a BLP 98.206.155.53 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

primary sources

since this is a blp I feel obligated to remove sections citing primary sources. While I realize that this could be debated, considering this is a BLP and I am unlikely to get a response otherwise, deletion seems the best option. Especially since these citations refer to a small portion of the source material, while ignoring the main point of the piece. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Public reaction and Criticism

How many sections does Clarkson need? is this his rap sheet or an encyclopedia article. not all his hijinks need be listed. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Are the politically incorrect one-liners really his views or just the product of the "witty" Top Gear script writers? I think the content of his newpaper columns and live quotes are fair game, but I'm not entirely happy that the latest Top Gear howler gets reported, especially here, as "Jeremy Clarkson says this, Jeremry Clarkson says that." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there are wikipedia guidelines on first-party sources, and I think they are being misused. one of his columns it about how he recycles and hates packaging waste, however the it is cited to make him look like an anti-environmentalist. This article should be a summary, of his life, career and beliefs. Since Clarkson is notable for being a motoring journalist, that should be the focus. yes, people don't like him, and that should be in there too. But it should be an overview, not a collection of individual moments. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctorate

isn't he a doctor? what is the protocol for an honorary doctorate? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, he is. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So what I am wondering is does that mean the article should call him Dr. Jeremy Clarkson, or Jeremy Clarkson (HonDEng), or just as is? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate article section Honorary_doctorate#Honorary_doctorates_in_the_United_Kingdom offers no advice. But there must be many similar examples with which to compare? I don't think he calls himself Dr. Jeremy, does he? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected

I have semi-protected this page for three months. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this semi-protected article by proposing them here, on the article's talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions.

Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). If you require any assistance directly from me, please feel free to write to me on my talk page. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Silence over the phone hacking scandal

Is this really relevant enough per WP:BLP? It seems to have WP:NOTNEWS issues as it is from a single source rather than news reporting. The overall tone of this section is also non-NPOV. There are also WP:UNDUE issues, as well as creating a separate criticism/controversy section, which is considered to be poor BLP writing style. Better out than in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the style of writing and the position in the article are side issues which could easily be resolved. And I would also agree that a list of “current events which Clarkson has chosen not to comment on” might be a very long list indeed. But here we have two facts - that Clarkson is employed by Murdoch and that he has made no comment on the phone hacking scandal, a scandal about which, as a journalist, he might be expected to be very concerned. That these facts exist in the context of Clarkson’s normally very outspoken personna, makes them notable for me, regardless of how many other newspapers have commented. I think it deserves no more than a single short sentence, but I certainly think it is not simply “laughable POV”. I’ll not re-add. But I am interested to hear the views of other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not laughable, but basing an entire criticism section on a single source is not good writing style. It fails to establish notability and also leads to WP:RECENTISM. There would need to be more coverage of this issue to show that it was a relevant factor in his BLP. This Guardian article refers to the "Chipping Norton set" of west Oxfordshire, of which David Cameron, Rebekah Brooks and Jeremy Clarkson are said to be members. The trouble is that all of this is speculative at the moment, and could be seen as an attempt to smear Clarkson because he writes for a Murdoch newspaper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, what a lot of blue links. You may be right. But am already picturing a cartoon of Clarkson, with daughter sat on his knee, and with the caption, "What did you do in the Phone Hacking Scandal, Daddy?" Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a link online to the reference I linked to in the physical Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/diary/diary-be-afraid-sir-cliff-tony-blair-is-the-kiss-of-death-2311652.html As I see it, all we need is one other notable commentator to mention Clarkson's silence for it to be noteworthy of inclusion in the article. Farrtj (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The link from The Independent is a commentary piece rather than a news article, and does not accuse Clarkson of any wrongdoing in the News of the World phone hacking affair. The risk is attempting guilt by association, because he is an acquaintance of Rebekah Brooks and writes for the Murdoch press. The previous wording was removed because it was stressing this in a non-NPOV way. There still needs to be more sourcing to explain why this is notable at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we treat this source which directly refers to phone-hacking in the title? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I have to say I'm with Ianmacm here, this is an utter non-issue. We don't put "this journalist didn't comment on this issue therefore they must have something to hide" on every journalist's article when they fail to comment on a particular issue. The edit smacks of recentism and is a good example of synthesis. We are making the link between two separate facts (that he writes for a Murdoch owned paper, and that he has not currently commented on the "phone-hacking" scandal. Unless and until this becomes an actual news-story then it is utterly un-encyclopedic and does not merit a place in this article. Woody (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the synthesis seems to be being performed by others, e.g. The Guardian, not by Wikipedia. But agree it's press comment and not really news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Pie incident

Do you think the pie incident is worth a mention?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_p8AZzVmWI

-- leuce (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as it was a prank and lacks long term notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ownership

What happened to his ownership history? Was that deleted by accident and then forgot, or why is there only this few cars mentioned? Hunocsi (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This section had sourcing issues, and was also becoming a bit of a trivia section. The article is better off without it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The lack of references was a serious problem. However, Clarkson's views on cars are extremely influential and therefore his choice of ownership is significant, so it is not true to say the article is better off without a well-referenced section on ownership at all. I notice that his well documented taste for owning high-end Mercedes is completely missing at present. Halsteadk (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This section has come back again, and has the same sourcing/trivia issues as before. I'm tempted to remove it again, what do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

99.102.199.156 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Dec 4, 2011, partially locked page, wanted to contribute to the ownership section here as JC stated in his 2011 video Powered Up that he had owned a Honda CR-X

Anders Breivik

I was wondering if we should incorporate something about Andrew Berwick's praise of Jeremy Clarkson? Seems to be something of note since it was referenced in at least a couple of serious UK national braodsheet newspapers. I realise this may be a thorny subject but maybe something like below? thoughts appreciated...

"==Impact==

Jeremy Clarkson's writings have received widespread public attention. Controversially, Jeremy was praised by notorious Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik in his "European Declaration of Independence" for Clarkson's comments on the flag of St George.," Clyde.tunnel (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Offensive remarks

Just removed a load of remarks that were claimed to be offensive. It is not enough to cite the article where the remarks were made, as this only suggests that YOU think they are offensive. The fact that offence was taken needs to be proven and that offence needs to be notable - ie a separate published news story, not just comments against the original article (which could be a small subset of opinion). If a remark is made and offence is not established, it is not an "offensive remark". Halsteadk (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In an episode with Jones and Prophetis of Dragons Den, Jones said Prophetis's car was Jewish racing gold. This anti-semitic remark received a number of complaints but the remark has not been edited out despite its several repeats on Dave. The BBC is known to be institutionally anti-semitic so its not surprising that such remarks are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.2.210 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear, Alex, which part of that ip comment you are rubbishing - the point being made, the example used to support it or the claim about BBC anti-semitism. But assuming you mean that it's all rubbish, I'm not so sure. These days when people hear that Jeremy Clarkson has made an offensive remark, it's about as surprising as a banker saying he deserves his bonus, or Sir Bruce saying "you're my favoutite couple" or the present government blaming the previous one. Many people think that most of what Clarkson says is an extended joke - a very long and predictable joke, and one that sometimes falls flat, but a joke nonetheless. I think he may even believe that himself. It's part of his carefully-crafted, right-wing, grumpy personna. Perhaps he thinks it's his job to be outrageous. I expect he's quite gratifled by seeing that particular sub-section in this article getting ever longer. Yes, I think his latest comment about public sector workers was probably offensive, but how noteworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Privacy injunction

Jeremy Clarkson has voluntarily lifted the AMM v HXW injunction. News story here, but not sure if this is BLP notable at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in the persona section,,,

{{edit semi-protected}}

This is the first time I've ever made a request, so bear with me if I break etiquette.

I was reading the "persona" section of Jeremy Clarkson's bio and noticed an error. In the third paragraph, where it talks about Clarkson's views on global warming, the second sentence completely misinterprets a quotation and also contains a grammatical error. Here is the segment:

Clarkson has unorthodox views regarding global warming: although he believes that higher temperatures are not necessarily negative and that anthropogenic carbon dioxide production has a negligible effect on the global climate,[40] but is aware of the negative potential consequences of global warming, saying "let's just stop and think for a moment what the consequences might be. Switzerland loses its skiing resorts? The beach in Miami is washed away? North Carolina gets knocked over by a hurricane? Anything bothering you yet?"[41]"

This part: "although he believes... but is aware" doesn't make any sense logically or grammatically.

More importantly, the claim that Clarkson is "aware of the negative potential consequences of global warming" is supported by a quote that implies exactly the opposite. Clarkson's remarks about losing "Swiss Ski resorts," "Miami beach" and "North Carolina" are clearly sarcastic. It doesn't make any sense to interpret his remark literally. Swiss ski resorts and Miami beaches are stereotyped as overpriced tourist destinations and North Carolina stereotyped as being full of backwater hicks. The point of Clarkson's remark is to imply that nothing of consequence will be lost. It was a terrible joke, but this interpretation is consistent with the original source, which uses the quote to illustrate Clarkson's disdain for environmentalism. He is a comedian after all.

Since the persona section is bloated as it is, and this segment is clearly a misinterpretation of Clarkson's views, I suggest that the sentence I quoted above simply be removed from the article.

Hope that helps clean things up. Thanks.

Afreshcupofjoe (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting consensus here.  Chzz  ►  07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence needs simplification - the reference is not accessible without a Times subscription, so did he actually use the words "anthropogenic carbon dioxide production" or is that just a Wiki editor showing off? We should only say what he said to the level of detail he said it, but I don't think the whole thing needs to be removed as this is a "persona" section - if that section heading is correct (and it has resulted in some minor edit warring) then this is about the image he portrays, not necessarily what his actual seriously-held personal views are. Halsteadk (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)