Talk:Ricky Gervais

Huh?!

Under the 'Criticism and controversy' section there's this gem:

"The following week, the Guardian noted that Gervais had responded with "an exhilaratingly foul-mouthed tirade" on his website, concluding with the words, "Yes I am resting on my laurels you cunt!", in this video Gervais mocked Jim Shelley typing the words "Resting on his laurels" as Ricky jokingly lashed out by stating he was resting on his laurels and that he was not going to make another show for television and saying "What's the point? What is there to beat?"."

I'd try to make a coherent sentence out of this but it's so bad I honestly have no idea what it's trying to say. Could some kind editor take a stab at it? Mallocks (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminds of me of the Monty Python sketch which included (IIRC) "would it belie you to deny that you issued a falsehood when you rejected the contention that you falsely averred that you had deliberately mis-stated that you had erred in stating that you had erroneously alleged that you had not been there; or not?". Makes sense to me. --Rodhullandemu 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gervais' influences

Whoever keeps reverting the text back to claiming Gervais has admitted being influenced by The Larry Sanders Show and Curb Your Enthusiasm is going to have to do better than the existing reference. Finding an article clearly biased against Gervais and basing your claim on the following excerpt is not sufficient grounds.

Gervais often talks about his admiration for American comedy, and in Extras you can see him striving to match the brilliance of The Larry Sanders Show and Curb Your Enthusiasm, which handle layers of reality with dazzling insouciance. For me, he is not remotely in their league - and maybe he'd be the first to admit that.

If you can find an interview quote, for instance, where he directly cites either of those shows as an influence, that would suffice. Otherwise, it should read: "Some have claimed that Gervais is influenced by..."Geenfietsen (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Science

Why was the small bit of information about Ricky's next tour removed?

http://www.rickygervais.com/fame4.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.165.116 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't add the reference you've just cited. Feel free to add it, with the website between <ref></ref> tags. --Rodhullandemu 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Is there not a better photo to use for the top of the article? It's slightly unflattering and quite dark. Maybe a portrait would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Burma (talk • contribs) 23:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This could very well be the worst footage of Ricky yet, and I'm including Seona Dancing in this. There should be a picture of him with his jaw wide open, as you're most likely to see him like that. --Helt91 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians decided awhile back that you're not allowed to use nice, posed portraits in articles for living celebrities; you have to use a random snapshot, preferably taken from a great distance with a low-quality cameraphone. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. The idea is that since the text is created by Wikipedians, the photos should be contributed by Wikipedians as well, which I find asinine, because it's a lot easier and more realistic for an amateur to create encyclopedia-level text than to create an encyclopedia-level photo of a celebrity. Honestly, the Gervais picture is in the upper tier of these photos in my opinion; start looking up random celebrities and it won't take long to find lots of photos that are worse. (For example, Roseanne Barr and Kate Flannery are two I've seen recently.) Propaniac (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. All that is required is an image free of copyright, whether taken by a Wikipedian or not. That's because we are, uh, a free-content encyclopedia and shouldn't need to pay royalties to some paparrazo or agency. That would arguably swallow up our entire annual budget. There are many free images on Flickr, for example. All we need to do is to encourage uploading of free images, but some of our editors and readers don't have the technology to do it. I'd have more confidence in your reply if you'd surrounded it by <sarcasm></sarcasm>, but we live in a world in which very little is "free". --Rodhullandemu 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those above. How's about a slightly more candid photo for the page? The existing photographic specimen wreaks of lameness, something not at all representative of Ricky's creative prowess.Weirdly Sawbones (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stan Trolley

Can anyone find anything tangible linking Ricky Gervais to his new persona Stan Trolley (www.stantrolley.com)? I've seen references to that effect on several websites now, but it seems the news is still 'unofficial' since there's nothing on Gervais' main site - perhaps because Trolley is a character rather than a live show or book... The hunt for an official source continues - any help greatly appreciated. Isitwhatitis (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stan Trolley should, if there's any comedic justice, be a Peter Cook character:

“ The name's Trolley- they say "Trolley by name, Trolley by nature", but that wouldn't make any sense, because I don't have wheels and people don't push me about. Actually, that's not quite true, because I work in a factory, and people DO push me about; not physically, of course, I won't have that, but emotionally. Just because they think they're better than me, doesn't mean they are. They may earn more money, have wives and things, don't live in a hostel, and don't have... certain problems, doesn't mean they're better; oh, no. I can hold my own against the best of them, and in the past, have done so. That's why I have to live in a hostel. Some people take things the wrong way. I was only trying to be friendly. Actually, I lied about the wheels, not so much lied but misled you; I don't rely on wheels, but they're there if I need them. I keep them handy, just in case. Most days, one wheel is enough for me to get about a bit, other days, I need more than one and have to rely on someone leaving a spare one handy. Problem with wheels is that they're easy to lose, so I have to maintain a ready supply. Luckily, I am able to forage. It's surprising sometimes how many discarded wheels you can find on even a short-lived forage- unfortunately, foraging without wheels to start with is unbelievably tricky. That's why I tend not to bother. Sometimes, it's all too much for body and soul to manage. ”

--Rodhullandemu 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm Stan Trolley is not Ricky Gervais. Stan Trolley is the creation of a Bristol-based production company and is comedy actor Chris Grimes. I saw these references too but Ricky Gervais a) isn't that funny (IMHO) and b) is nothing like Stan Trolley 81.110.104.217 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

I just saw a rerun of Graham Norton where Ricky said his name and I don't think he pronounced the final -s. Anyone know for sure how he says it? 68.185.180.192 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In that clip, Gervais is making fun of the fact that someone mispronounced his name. Marshmallow1304 (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais as 'Wilson the butler'

Does anyone remember wilson the butler? It was basically a pair of arms that came on screen with Andi peters and Edd the duck in the Broom cupboard. By now american readers will be saying 'WTF?'. But british readers in thier early 30's will be going 'oh, yeah'. Well, over on the wilson the butler page it claims that wilson was, on occasion, played by Ricky Gervais. Does any one know if this was true?

It's unsourced by any reliable sources, so that assertion has gone, and the article itself PRODded as non-notable. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference

Cite note #47 refers to an episode of Jonathan Ross which hasn't aired yet. I assume the date is just wrong, can anyone fix it? --—Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've been looking at the history for this article, and over thhe past few weeks, there has been a number of edits which have been removed due to vandalism. The frequency of these appears to have been increasing recently, and although I don't think it has reached a level which warrants semi-protection, I thought itshould be pointed out. These edits will continue to increase as he becomes more popular worldwide, and he is a relatively controversial figure in some circles. Jhbuk (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gervais is detested by many folk and that will mean this article will always be defaced. Perhaps semi-protection is the answer? Paul210 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons Wikiproject

Why is this article under the scope of The Simpsons Wikiproject? I mean he only participated in one episode of the Series.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the project is to include anyone who wrote an episode for the series, which is why the page was added. That being said, he does have a very minimal connection to the show, and I would have no objection to it being removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge standup show articles

Versions as found:

• Animals (comedy)
• Politics (comedy)
• Fame (comedy)

No offence, but these articles aren't very good in their current state, if they can't be improved I suggest they be merged here.

Support as proposer. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, we don't do this for most performers unless the tour/act has achieved separate notability ; Peter Kay is a case in point, so I support merging. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment If Eddie Murphy's Delerious and Dave Chappelle's Killin' them softly have their own separate articles, why not these?--Jeff79 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because other crap exists is never a good argument to make, because it only creates circular paradoxes. Based on general notability, there is no evidence Dave Chappelle: Killin' Them Softly as an unreferenced stub should really exist at all, and appears to be a just coatrack for a non-free image, and while Eddie Murphy Delirious has more content, it is equally unreferenced, and its notability seems to rest on the uqalified assertion of having been "a big success", and for Murphy having said fuck a lot, apparently. MickMacNee (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support merger. The main article seems strangely incomplete without these included. It's also unlikely that these standup shows are going to be remembered by name separately from the rest of Gervais's career. Acsenray (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Judging from his performances, he appears to be atheist, or agnostic. Can anyone confirm or deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.195.82 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he can. Rodhullandemu 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Can we have English replaced with British?

English isn't an oficially recognised nationality outside of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.63.147 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom I can't really see any problem with either to be honest; English is a very common description. I personally don't have much preference either way, although I suppose English is more precise. It depends what other people think. Jhbuk (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a British citizen. Nationality is different from citizenship. A citizen belongs to a national community, I.e. the UK. Nationality is place of birth, in this case England therefore he is English. Jamie (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. He was also born in the UK, so equally you could say he is British. If I went abroad and met someone who told me they were English, I would think they were think. The passport says British, therefore he is British. 'England' is a non entity which hasn't existed as a country for over 300 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.81.26 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not this again - I'd argue that he is English. It may not be a sovereign state but England is considered a country in the same way that Wales and Scotland are. I see that those born in Wales and Scotland are listed as "Welsh" and "Scottish" respectively on their Wikipedia articles, so the same logic should apply to those born in England. Whether you think it should be British or English, if you were to change all references of "English" to "British" then you'd need to do the same for all Welsh and Scots.--86.15.46.130 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I say we just call him an Earthling since he is from Earth. Angryapathy (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And if we want to be more specific that Earthling, we can call him a European. Angryapathy (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Most popular film role?

Is it really fair to say the his role inNight in the Museum was "his most popular"? This suggests that RG was the reason people watched the film, ignoring the fact it was a pretty small role compared to Ben Stiller, owen Wilson and even Steve Coogan. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

No such thing as a Franco-Ontarian

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. His father was a Canadian. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readerthis2000 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a valid description that is more accurate than generic Canadian. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane Fallon

The infobox says she has been his domestic partner since 1982; the Personal life section describes her as his partner of 25 years. They can't have cohabited for 28 years but have only been in a relationship for 25 years. Jim Michael (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be changed to "partner since 1982" and then it won't need updating ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.214.154 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to his MTV short skits?

I remember some time between 1996 and 2001 Ricky used to do these short roughly 30 second clips that were shown in ad-breaks on MTV UK. It was Ricky in an 80's style vinyl record shop talking Brent-like nonsense to either the camera or other people in the store. They were really funny. I remember when The Office first aired I thought "oh it's that guy from those MTV shorts". I thought that because I'd missed the 11 o'clock show and meet ricky gervais completely. I can't find these anywhere. I bet most people at MTV themselves don't realize they have them in their archives somewhere. 84.155.241.235 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

On January 16 2011, Gervais hosted the Golden Globe Awards and ended the event by proclaiming "...thank you to God for making me an atheist". I added this section to the main article and someone promptly removed it. If that represents his belief, then it is worthy of mention in the main article. Merlin1935 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if it is a notable statement and there is some source for it other than your recollection. Is there? Jonathunder (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a notable statement. Celebrities professing atheism is a noteworthy item in our contemporary society, especially if such proclamation is made to an audience of tens of millions such as the Golden Globe Awards. Quoting the individual is not a judgment but a statement of fact. It is also not based on my recollection - credible sources are awash with this fact, let alone the Internet. Anyone interested in this fact therefore does not have to rely on my recollection. This YouTube video speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin1935 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that we cannot use a YouTube clip as a reliable source; this might be solved by using {{cite episode}}, but I don't have the broadcast details to hand. Either way, it is obviously a humorous remark and I'm not sure how much credence we can give to his statement; it would be different if he said as such in a serious interview, but AFAIK, he hasn't. Accordingly, I'm going to remove this per policy for now until further discussion either reveals a more reliable source or consensus emerges that this statement is one. If necessary, the matter can go here or here for outside opinions. Rodhullandemu 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One cannot imagine any source more reliable than video evidence, unless such video evidence was manipulated which is not the case here. Just for the sake of argument, a misdemeanor or crime caught on video and reported on You Tube cannot be dismissed as "unreliable" just because there are no AP or Reuters reporting on it. Your comment that "it is obviously a humorous remark" is strictly a subjective opinion and cannot be a parameter for determining what is suitable (or not) for Wikipedia. Comments made by public figures are no less important simply because the forum was not a formal interview setting. Besides, Wikipedia is replete with casual quotes made by profiled personalities, including Gervais himself. He made his Golden Globe statement fully aware he was speaking to tens of millions of viewers. It is no less significant than the profile entry that he is an Associate of the National Secular Society - which by the way has no references whatsoever - as well as that supposed Wall Street Journal article. Therefore objections to inclusion of Gervais' Golden Globe Awards statement seems to point to a bias in his favor. Since he fully embraces his atheistic beliefs, this bias is totally misplaced and has no place in Wikipedia. Merlin1935 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• "One cannot imagine any source more reliable than video evidence" - unless that evidence is a copyright violation, in which case it cannot be used here.
• "it is obviously a humorous remark" - is it not? Gervais is a comedian presenting an entertainment programme. Why should he be serious?
• "Wikipedia is replete with casual quotes..." - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. If they're unsourced, either source them or remove them.
• "a bias in his favor" - WP:AGF, please. I'm happy to see a reliable source for his atheism, but thus far, I dispute that this is one. Remember that WP:BLP applies to this article, and controversial must be reliably sourced. But thanks for remembering WP:BRD, and I look forward to contributions from other editors. Rodhullandemu 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies on copyright violation - references to YouTube videos are not included as violation. In fact this is encouraged and the contrary appears to be the case. If you have a direct link to Wikipedia policy indicating references to YouTube videos as copyright violation, please provide it. Yes comedians make jokes but they sometimes get serious on current issues and must be taken seriously like everyone else. Perhaps we can as well discount all other Wikipedia entries regarding his atheism as humor? Merlin1935 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article from The Huffington Post on this topic. Is this credible and reliable enough? Merlin1935 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a profound difference to us between linking to a Golden Globes or television channel website hosting that video, and a YouTube site; in the former case, we not linking to a copyright violation, and in the latter case, we are, since whoever owns the copyright to the broadcast hasn't explicitly licensed the clip for free (as in "of copyright") use. As for the Huffington Post site, it's evidence of what he said, but taken as one of a long list of jokes made by Gervais that night, I'd say that weakens the position beyond that from which it could be regarded as a reliable source for something so critical; however, re-reading the article, his atheism is already sourced to some extent, so perhaps adding one more cite doesn't matter that much. If it were the only source, it would be worth very little. Rodhullandemu 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons the Golden Globe Award comment is most worthy of quote is not the fact of his atheism but his choice of words in expressing this belief, which in turn has evoked a plethora of commentary in the print media, television and the internet. Such can hardly be dismissed as just a regular joke. If Gervais had advocated child or spousal abuse in his long line of jokes that evening, it is doubtful that this would be seen as "weak" or "worth little", because there is always a line to draw and a price to pay for free speech.

Contrary to your statement above, it is not a violation of copyright to link to copyrighted material (such as the YouTube clip) provided the source is credited, as affirmed here by Wikipedia WP:C in this statement "[It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography]".

As stated earlier, the main article itself contains statements that have no citations whatsoever. This is not a justification for inclusion of just about anything, but it does prove that every instance does not necessarily require a rigid adherence to traditional news agency sources and formal interviews or op-ed pieces. If anything, the recent Gervais statement in question deserves inclusion more so than the unreferenced entries that he is an Associate of the National Secular Society, and had written a Wall Street Journal article. Merlin1935 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you're missing the point here. We are not linking to "copyrighted material"; by linking to a YouTube copy of coyprighted material, we are linking to an unauthorised copy of copyrighted material, and if YouTube removed that content, I wouldn't be surprised. Neither would I be surprised if the copyright holder of that content sued YouTube, it's uploader, yourself, and anyone else who perpetuated its use here, for damages and injunctive relief against its further use. Although we are not all lawyers here, optimism does not, and can not, substitute for proprietary rights here, of which copyright is the major issue as far as the Wikimedia Foundation and its legal Counsel are concerned. It stays out as a source, and that's an end of it. There are other sources, as you've pointed out. Rodhullandemu 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a direct link to the unlicensed video clip is a violation, the fact of the event having significant value for inclusion here should not be discounted if other credible sources are provided. For so doing is a subjective judgment contrary to precedence as I have shown above. Merlin1935 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nationality again

According to the article, Gervais was born in Reading. Reading is in England, so it would surely make sense to describe him as English, would it not? Is there any particular reason for using British rather than English? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS is our guideline here. If all British citizens were describable by the constituent nation of their birth, then nobody would be described as British; so I don't think that's a tenable argument. It really is splitting hairs to make the distinction between British and English, but it seems to matter to some people. I think that if a particular description has been written into the article, then by analogy with WP:RETAIN it requires a jolly good reason to change it, supported if necessary by discussion, sources and consensus, otherwise people would just come along (as they tediously appear to do) and change it according to their own preference/prejudice. That's no way to write an encyclopedia, in my view. Rodhullandemu 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

appearance in 'Spaced'

The main article does not list Ricky's short appearance in the 2nd series of Spaced in 2001 (episode 6 'Dissolution'). Gervais plays a telephone operator for the property listings in a local paper. Gervais's character miss-hears Marsha's requirements for potential tenants prompting him to write "professional couple only", thereby laying out the premise that Tim and Daisy have to pretend to be a couple on order to live at the flat Rossewing (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)