Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Jeremy Clarkson was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
May 19, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Jeremy Clarkson is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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


The article states he lives in Chipping Norton, as does the Chipping Norton page, but he is on the List of residents of the Isle of Man, which is it?

Clarkson Serious?[edit]

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. (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)


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"?[edit]

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[edit]

Worth mentioning the complaint upheld by the mexican ambassador in January 2011? ( (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[edit]

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 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

primary sources[edit]

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. (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Public reaction and Criticism[edit]

How many sections does Clarkson need? is this his rap sheet or an encyclopedia article. not all his hijinks need be listed. (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. (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


isn't he a doctor? what is the protocol for an honorary doctorate? (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? (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[edit]

Policy shortcut:

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

Do you think the pie incident is worth a mention?

-- 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)


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) (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

As an occasional viewer of the program, I'd have to say that for Clarkson, Hammond and May this section is vital. Whoever looks up the presenters on wikipedia has at least some interest in knowing what cars are the personal favourites. It will inevitably become a trivia section, but unlike most, this info is helpful to a lot of people (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Anders Breivik[edit]

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...


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.[1],[2]" Clyde.tunnel (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Offensive remarks[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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]

{{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)


Just a reminder that we need to make sure that anything on this article on a living person needs to have decent verifiable references. YouTube videos and references to episodes of a TV show definitely do not fulfil this requirement. --John (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Following on from this, we absolutely cannot have salacious details about his private life which are sourced only to tabloid newspapers. --John (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


Here are all the cars Jeremy has owned that are unsourced, please put them back only if they have a reference.

  • Ford GT
  • Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder
  • Mercedes CLK63 AMG Black
  • Ferrari 355
  • Ford Cortina 1600E (Jeremy's First Car) *Ford Cortina
  • Volkswagen Scirocco(MK1)
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Amazon (100 Series)
  • Ford Focus (MK1)

HMman (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally approve of removing unsourced entries from this list, but I might point out that ownership of the GT and the Gallardo is covered in the article in the paragraph after the list. This problem keeps coming up with the list filling up with unsourced dubious rubbish until someone clears it out again - this is not a sustainable way of maintaining an article, and doesn't help the reader. Can I suggest that we establish consensus here that any further entries added to the ownership list are removed on sight if a source is not present. I would also suggest that "owning" it for the purposes of a Top Gear segment (ie "I bought it with my own money" - hmm) is not sufficient for inclusion. Given Clarkson's strong opinions on cars (and everything else), what he actually owns personally is clearly important. Halsteadk (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Despite the cars being referenced after, I think the cars should be referenced directly with an inline citation. Clarkson is a well known car aficionado, and while a lack of direct citation in a primary ownership list with some other person (assuming they are not a car commentator and the cars are referenced elsewhere) may not be a problem, with a motoring fanatic extra care should be taken with his car ownership history. I can quite easily imagine someone coming to Clarkson's Wikipedia page solely for the purpose of seeing what his car ownership history is; because of this I fully agree with the two points you gave. HMman (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I can give a cite for the CLK Black, a BWM CSL, a Honda CRX, the Ferrari 355, and a Gallardo. I didn't want to add them to the article myself in case it caused an argument. Citation is: 'Clarkson, J. (2011). Round the Bend. Penguin. London. p.230.'
-- (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Also got a citation for both a mk.1 and mk.2 VW Scirocco. Same as above (Round the Bend), but pages 140-141.
-- (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that; I will get on those as soon as I am able. Regards, HMman (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you the farmer?[edit]

Another user has asked if we can use this to source that Clarkson bought a farm in 2009. My own feeling is that it isn't particularly notable but I am open to persuasion. What do others think? --John (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad this other user has provided such a good reliable source like the Farmers Guardian, haha. But as regards notabilty, it's surprisng that Clarkson has only 45 acres - more of a back garden for a man of his stature? Clarkson himself tells us it has sheep (which don't belong to him) and, it seems, it's near where David Cameron never rode any old police horses being cared for in their retirement by Rebecca Brooks (but this is all from a radio broadcast "primary source" alas). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, 45 acres is a large field rather than a farm.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(.. no combines in the "Ownership" section yet, but I guess that V8 Vouge is a bit of a Chelsea tractor, isn't it?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Farmers Guardian "source", it is just re-quoting what Clarkson wrote in his own column - I don't see how it is a useful source in its own right. If Clarkson had made it up or embellished it for his column (not that Clarkson would ever exaggerate!), then the FG has just requoted it. I cannot see the point of using these indirect sources that just link to other people. Halsteadk (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree, that's not really a independent "source". He did mentun it in his live broadcast with Chris Evans on BBC Radio 2, but that's a tricky source too, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Persona" section title[edit]

After one too many changes to this section title, I've changed it to something clearer. "Persona" is a correct word, but clearly lots of people think it is a typo and don't understand it (and probably haven't seen such a title in other Wikipedia articles) - what's the point of having something that sets people up for misunderstandings and lots of unnecessary reverted edits (especially in a prominent place)? Discuss - but if you want to change it back, I think you need to state how you plan to avoid the unnecessary edits that will follow. Halsteadk (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion of "Opinions and influence" is probably an improvement. Could this long section be split into something like "Motoring" and "Other"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment about British PM[edit]

Due to the multiple reversions to the sentence about Clarkson's statement towards the Prime Minister, it would be a good idea to explain my reasons. The sentence [1] "Clarkson was reported to have called the British Prime Minister "a silly cunt" during a warm-up" has been reverted to [2] "Clarkson was reported to have made an obscene remark about the British Prime Minister during a warm-up", and I am of the opinion that [1] is the preferable sentence. Wikipedia is not censored, and any arguments that [1] may not be included solely on those grounds cannot be used. In the content guidelines on offensive material it's stated that "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I am of the opinion that sentence [2] is less informative and less accurate than sentence [1] because of the vagueness of [2]. "Obscene remark" doesn't convey the degree of the obscenity or the type; if Clarkson had said something like "He has a hot ass" it would be considered an obscene remark, but such a statement would be taken much less seriously than Clarkson's actual comment, thus calling it an "obscene remark" adds ambiguity. I think sentence [1] is preferable because of this; if there are comments or objections please voice them here. HMman (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree with your argument, HMman. But one slight observation... you won't find a word like that in the good old Daily Snail, apparently. So the current reference does not support? Better remove or find an actual source? Or maybe the Grauniad cnut just needs swapping to the first sentence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article reports "Clarkson is understood to have told fans: 'I get into trouble talking about Gordon Brown, he is a silly c***'." I don't quite understand what you mean by "current reference does not support", could you clarify please? Regards, HMman (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That's WP:OR! The Daily Fail obviously meant "silly crab". But worry not, the trusty Grauniad has no need of polite Whitehouse asterisks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, does not the Guardian reference clarify that it wasn't "crab"? (I know, or at least think, you weren't serious, but I'm going to clarify). I don't see that as original research as there were no conclusions drawn not mentioned by either of the sources. So couldn't the Guardian ref be used alongside the Daily Mail ref as supportive, as you suggested? Regards, HMman (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, we so need a new mark-up symbol for toungue-in-cheek. Yes, you are quite right. But does the Daily Wail actually add anything here (apart from three polite asterisks, of course)? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that he was "silly" about it, otherwise nothing else. I suppose sentence [1] could be modified to read "Clarkson was reported to have called the British Prime Minister a "cunt" during a warm-up". I cannot do that as I have made 3 edits to that section and my 24 hours is not yet up, but you could if you think it would make it more accurate. HMman (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with your reasons HMman, although I sympathise with the anon (but not his persistently uncommunicative approach) and would only want to see the word present when absolutely necessary. I think it should name him, "British Prime Minister" is unnecessarily vague - readers shouldn't need to know who the PM was at the time. Brown is named in the previous para, but this is a separate para and happened several months later so it isn't clear enough that it refers to Brown too. I guess we'd all be a bit surprised if he said the same about Cameron... Halsteadk (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd be surprised, although he seems to be well in with the Tory Shire set (?) It might have been more notable if he had called Brown a crab. I get a bit weary of wiki feeding the Clarkson outrageous comments machine. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Military interest Apache incorrect[edit]

The Apache that was 'raced' against the Exige was a WAH-64 Apache Mk1 Not an AH-64D As it was flown by members of the AAC who do not fly the 64D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference? Personal knowledge alone is not enough - it's WP:OR. Halsteadk (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of interest, would it still be WP:OR if there was a source saying that it was British Army Apache appearing in the show, and then another source stating that the British Army only fly WAH-64s? Due to the comparatively specialist knowledge required to know the difference, I can't find any sources which state the variant of the helicopter. If nothing can be found, would it be favourable to remove AH-64D and just have "Apache" as it is obviously an error, although no source can be provided to say one or the other? WillDow (Talk) 13:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


I feel like I have taken this unreferenced "nickname" out of the infobox quite a few times now. I don't think it is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article; certainly not without references of any kind or any mention in the main body of the article. It looks like a tabloid meme without any encyclopedic merit. --John (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I support your decision per your reasons. I also think it's about time this article got semi-protection. Too much anonymous editor vandalism. I'll wait 48 hours or so for you to request it or arrange it, before requesting it myself. Thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There is sources for it: "Jeremy curses the fact that life is now too short to properly enjoy endurance racing. There's always Bingo, Jezza", that's his own employer calling it him! Plus another employer: Narom (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
These aren't very good sources and certainly wouldn't justify having it in the infobox, in my opinion. --John (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The BBC isn't a good source? Nor the best selling newspaper in the country? Narom (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
See WP:PRIMARY and WP:IRS. --John (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, it's trivia. - Fantr (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Trivia? Why do we bother at all then? Lance Armstrong, Richard Hammond, James May, Emma Chambers, Alex Jesaulenko, Jeremy Kyle to have just a few. Are you suggesting from now on that wikipolicy should be changed and we should go on a mass removal of nicknames even if it's well source and often used? Shall i go ahead and nominate Jezza for deletion because it's just trivia?
Surely WP:PRIMARY is Irrelevant in this case? A nickname is a personal thing which is probably going to be known by people who work with him such as those at the biggest news organisation in the world and the best selling newspaper. But ok then:
All three on the show are commonly called their nicknames through out, infact Hammond and May both have their nicknames in their boxes (not for long, John's on the case!) i guess them being a incredibly primary source isn't good enough now? Plus there are thousands of primary and secondary sources that back this up. But hey ho, they aren't mentioned in the broadsheets so we must remove them instantly! The lower classes and their newspapers are reputable enough, even as a secondary source, or is that just your opinion? Because no where on the pages you lazily link to state you should remove them completely if acting as a perfectly good secondary source. I wonder what the top link is when you google Jezza Clarkson, oh bugger... Narom (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me know if you are nominating Jezza for deletion. I agree it could probably be deleted without any loss to the project. --John (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Musical tastes[edit]

(trying again, with TV this time...) "Appearing on Danny Baker's Great Album Showdown, on BBC Four in February 2013, Clarkson chose, as his all-time favourite three albums, Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd and, as his top favourite, Crime of the Century by Supertramp."[3] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ "Danny Baker's Great Album Showdown". 5 February 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2013.  Text "publisher-BBC " ignored (help)

Tabloid sources[edit]

We cannot have material on a WP:BLP which is in any way controversial sourced only to sources with a record of printing poorly fact checked material. We can obviously use Clarkson's own column as a source on its own content, but in that case it is a primary souce and should be used sparingly if at all. --John (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case we best not use anything from any press outlet in the UK since they've all be guilty of printing poorly fact checked material, heck even the BBC have made whole programmes off incorrect information! Narom (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Have a gander at WP:RSN and its archives to see what are considered good sources for this sort of material. --John (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did. No where does it say to remove tabloids acting as secondary sources. Narom (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. --John (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from article[edit]

Clarkson played the role of a public schoolboy, Taplin, in a BBC radio Children's Hour serial adaptation of Anthony Buckeridge's Jennings novels until his voice broke.[1]

  • Anybody got a source for this? I couldn't find one. --John (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Wayback machine HMman (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
Thank you! --John (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome; I can't count how many times the Wayback Machine has saved me! HMman (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC).

"Doctor of Engineering - twice"[edit]

In the "Italian supercar challenge" (s07e04), Clarkson said: "All I have to do now, is demonstrate to you two, why I am a doctor of engineering - twice". Does he have a second doctorate? PhilippDavid (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fault in quoted text under Activities on Top Gear section[edit]

In the Polar special the article quotes Jeremy as saying "Don't write in to complain about us drinking and driving, because we're sailing!" This is incorrect. Starting at the 18:44 mark in the show Jeremy says "And please do not write to us about drinking and driving. Because I am not driving I am sailing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDobak (talkcontribs) 16:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Quote doesn't justify being paraphrased - unfortunately as this and the next section shows some editors don't understand the concept of quoting. Halsteadk (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ferrari 430 Speciale[edit]

A small mistake guys:

Where it says "Ferrari F430 Speciale as "speciale needs"", it should say Ferrari F430 Scuderia. The Ferrari F430 Speciale does not exist. (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to reflect the source, which gives the name Ferrari F430 Speciale. Besides, a quick google suggests that it does exist. A speciale means a custom build. Rubiscous (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013[edit]

Change the salary to 14 million pounds, instead of two million that it currently states, with source being (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done, the Telegraph article says that he was paid £1million for his salary as a presenter. The £14 million figure is for a buyout of Clarkson and executive producer Andy Wilman by BBC Worldwide of Bedder 6, an external production company. This appears to be a one-off event, so it should not be stated as his annual salary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

West Riding of Yorkshire does not exist....[edit]

So why refer to it as the birthplace of this man? He was born in Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Not the "west Rding" of Yorkshire. "South Yorkshire" is the ceremonial county name. West Riding was dissolved decades ago.

This wikipedia must be accurate and not create false impressions. If a person reading this gained the false impression that Doncaster was in the "West Rding" they would be wrong. If a person repeated that same false impression in Doncaster today, they would be ridiculed. So I do not understand any basis for this inaccuracy. Not only is it wrong, but it is failing to do what an encyclopedia must not do: create a false impression to the embarrassment of those who rely on it to factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that we are talking about the year 1960 and then there was no South Yorkshire. South Yorkshire only came into existence in 1974 so cannot be used when talking about something before that date. Keith D (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. It seems arbitrary. Is it 1974 which is the guiding date - and who is to know that? Or a specific day in 1974? If so, am I supposed to know that date? I look at Fred Truemans entry and it also say "West Riding" but he was born in what is now South Yorkshire. I think it better idea to state they were born in West riding but put in brackets "(now South Yorkshire)" just as the entry to General Tito states "7 May 1892, Kumrovec, Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary, (modern Croatia)". The problem is that those born in South Yorkshire are South Yorkshiremen. Whether they were born before 1974 or after it makes no difference. Those born in South Yorkshire which at the time of their birth was "West Riding" are South Yorkshiremen. I lived in Sheffield for a few years. I know this. You do not have such people saying "I'm a West riding man" because they are now all "South Yorkshiremen". I never heard someone in English pub saying "I am not a south Yorkshireman because I was born in Sheffield before 1974" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I have since looked at your page Mr. Keith D and I note you are somewhat of an "Yorskhire affectionado" - and I know that there are those in all parts of Yorkshire who are "purists" and insist that South Yorkshire is "West Riding", even today 30 years on. I hope you are not one of those and therefore that is not why you are supporting the false reporting of where Doncaster is at the time time of publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong in assuming my position as for post 1 April 1974 I would expect South Yorkshire to be used for location of Doncaster. Keith D (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for making clear: "West Riding" does not exist has not existed for 30 years and is unlikely to ever exist. Just a question: do you think your English kings born in what is now France should be reported (at the time of this Wikipedia's publication) as being born in France or in England? I am worried that the reporting of a recent birth is being falsely reported to be in an area which (as an administrative county) bore the name "West Riding" for about 100 years only. I think date of publication is what matters. It should be stated "South Yorkshire" and if it is so important to mention "West Riding" then put in brackets (at the time "West Riding"). Don't you think this suggestion is not only the most accurate, but also least likely to confuse? Surely you agree we do not want people to have the false impression "West Riding" exists, nor create the impression there is any prospect of it ever existing again..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The current consensus is to use the date of event for the county/country in articles or you end up with rather strange and confusing situation. Keith D (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any such "current consensus". I think to state he was born in what WAS West Riding is fine. The problem is the parsimony of the entry suggests he was born in what IS West Riding. Which is not true. For example, Edward IV of England was born in Rouen, France, despite Rouen being part of England at the time. I say this in context that "West Riding" does not exist, has not existed for 30 years, and is unlikely to ever exist. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013[edit]

Under heading CAREER (Television), it reads: "He is credited with co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond as turning Top Gear into the most-watched TV show on BBC Two,[28] rebroadcast to over 100 countries around the world.[29]" This is a grammatically poor passage, and would be much better presented in the following way: "Along with co-presenters James May and Richard Hammond, he is credited with turning Top Gear into the most-watched TV show on BBC Two,[28] rebroadcast to over 100 countries around the world.[29]" (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Done. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional Movie[edit]

Jeremy voiced the character Harv in the movie Cars. It's in the end credits, not that easy to find a web citable source though. RCozens (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb Appearance[edit]

Just to add to the Filmography, Jeremy Clarkson voiced a racing commentator in Phineas and Ferb recently. (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Roles[edit]

In 2013, Clarkson (along with Hammond and May of Top Gear) was a voice artist for the video game Forza Motorsport 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrhein71 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ethnic slur "n word" in a children's rhyme[edit]

The article states "In an unused take for a Top Gear feature recorded in early 2013, Clarkson mumbled the ethnic slur "nigger" in a children's rhyme. The clip later surfaced on the website of the Daily Mirror tabloid at the beginning of May 2014.[118] Clarkson at first denied having used the word, and then apologised.[119] It was reported on 3 May, that the BBC had given Clarkson a final warning, with the presenter accepting that he will be sacked if he makes another offensive remark.[120]"

However having read the BBC article <> it seems to be that it is alleged that he used that word but not proven, i wonder if the correct sentence should be "Clarkson is alleged to have mumble the ethnic slur.... " After all in the above web article it says "He (Clarkson) also said the BBC had told him "very firmly" to apologise but added: "Apologising for using the n-word would be the same as apologising for starting the war in Syria. It's something I hadn't done."

Also in this article it points out "He (Clarkson) also highlighted that the expert used by the Daily Mirror had told LBC that she could only be 75% certain the word was used.

Michelle Bowman of digital forensics company CY4OR told Nick Ferrari: "You can't be 100% certain, it's not an exact science. Ideally you would want to compare that phrase with a phrase where the word is said or where a different word is said."

So I wonder if some changes need to be made?

RJRaistlin (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Clarkson would apologise and the BBC issue a warning if there was nothing to apologise or warn about. I have heard the clip, it is clear what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is not clear what he said. The Mirror had to get a forensic expert in to support their case and they could not be entirely certain of it. Furthermore, the existence of an apology is not proof of guilt given that, if you bother to listen to it, he does not apologise for using the alleged word. Yet the BBC are continuing to employ him without any sign of an amended version that does admit guilt. Even the warning proves little as the BBC need to save face. The truth of the matter is that this article is just about as misleading on the subject as those in the tabloids that manufactured this "scandal". Like them, it implies an admission of guilt (in saying that he first denied it then apologised). He did not apologise for saying it. Indeed, the very article that is cited as a source (the Guardian one) does not support the claim that he apologied for using the word. So this article is inaccurate. I would suggest that changes be implemented to give a more balanced report of the event, irrespective of users' personal feelings (as above) on what actually transpired. Perhaps it is worth referencing the production note that he claims to have sent, acknowledging what it sounded like and asking for another take to be used? This is mentioned here (amongst other places): (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014[edit]

Please change:

Ownership Clarkson owns or has owned:

Volvo XC90[68] Range Rover TDV8 Vogue SE[69] Lotus Elise 111S[70] Mercedes-Benz 600 Grosser[71] Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG[72] Mercedes CLK63 AMG Black[73] Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Roadster[73] BMW M3 CSL[73] Honda CR-X[73] Ferrari F355[73] Ford GT[74] Aston Martin Virage[73] Lamborghini Gallardo[73] Volkswagen Scirocco 1[75] Volkswagen Scirocco 2[75] Ford Escort RS Cosworth[76]

to this:

Ownership Clarkson owns or has owned:

Volvo XC90[68] Jaguar XJR Range Rover TDV8 Vogue SE[69] Lotus Elise 111S[70] Mercedes-Benz 600 Grosser[71] Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG[72] Mercedes CLK63 AMG Black[73] Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Roadster[73] BMW M3 CSL[73] Honda CR-X[73] Ferrari F355[73] Ford GT[74] Aston Martin Virage[73] Lamborghini Gallardo[73] Volkswagen Scirocco 1[75] Volkswagen Scirocco 2[75] Ford Escort RS Cosworth[76]

Because he has also owned a Black Jaguar XJR.[2] (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I do believe this falls under WP:NOT and probably WP:OR... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014[edit]

I want to add an other name 'Jezza'. (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Здравствуй Джереми !!! Извини за наглость,но как говориться это второе счастье :).Смотрю Ваш Топ гир с превиликим удовольствием !!! У меня не получиться ездить по нашим дорогам на "Aston Martin" а "NIVA" в самый раз,когда увидел как Вы утопили (R.R.)то Я подумал- а что Вам стоит приколоться и подарить Мне скромный "ВАЗ" ,а Я готов со стиккером "Top Gear" ездить пока авто не умрёт- хотя по живучести этого автомобиля Вы знаете не меньше чем Я. СПАСИБО !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Jeremy Clarkson's official site be added to the article?[edit]

There is the official Jeremy Clarkson's site at should it be added to the article? (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Michael Z. Kadaner

  1. ^ "The Radio Academy". William ('Uncle David') Davis. The Radio Academy (a registered charity dedicated to the encouragement, recognition and promotion of excellence in UK broadcasting and audio production). Retrieved 29 February 2008. Among the schoolboy actors who passed through the Jennings plays before their voices broke, incidentally, was Jeremy Clarkson. [dead link]
  2. ^ [source: and his documentary top 100 cars it is number 14 I think]