Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

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

Tank

Under military a tank is mentioned. This is a Challenger 2 and should be names (and linked) as such as the attack helicopter is also referred to as its name (Apache). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.192.220 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

German Government Section

The citated link in this section is offline. I found http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-371720/Clarksons-blitzkrieg-offends-Germans.html, which states: "The German government, which has no official comment [...]". Complaints were made by a German industrialist and a representative of a German-British business foundation. Could someone with a login correct that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.52.243 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, AFAICT, he did not say "ein fanbelt that will last a thousand years", but rather "ein fibre fanbelt that will last a thousand years". 86.56.41.93 (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think....

That Jeremy clarkson has a striking resembelence to david firths Salad Fingers? Reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.144.158 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. 96.242.34.122 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. And this is completely irrelevant 87.194.30.99 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MySpace link

Do you have any kind of evidence that this is anything more than a good fake? I have never seen or heard of Clarkson mentioning a MySpace page, and the only article I can find on the subject states that Clarkson's wife said it is a fake. I'm going to remove it again for now, but if there's some kind of proof it is real, feel free to add it again. - Blah3 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it did seem suspicious that it said that he smoked (It is known that he quit) and how he talked all pervy (He talked about how he liked a good perv and lots of hot chicks, which seems pecular for a married man as old as him to say) Karrmann 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It also links to other MySpace sites for various other well known people that looked very suspicious. Presumably anyone can open a page with any name that they want. --jmb 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cars owned

Didn't Jeremy sell the SL55? 210.84.6.179 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did, he bought an SKL55 instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.80.176 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fast driving "addiction"

So the biography isn't going to even mention all this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/22/hammond.police.reut/index.html

?

Nothing about: "The series, which attracts over 6 million viewers in Britain as well as millions more abroad, was criticized for being 'obsessed with acceleration' by a group of MP's in 1999".

??

And now one of his buddies came darn, darn close to getting killed while filming the show ... and that won't be mentioned here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David877 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 September 2006

To be honest this sounds like something that should, perhaps, be on the Top Gear page instead. Nothing really Clarkson-specific in there; his name isn't even mentioned in the article. - Blah3 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but, according to CNN, the show, on which he is the prime host, has been criticized by Members of Parliment about the cavalier way it regards road safety. For myself, I have watched his show and thought it's all a bit insane. If Members of Parliment are talking about it, doesn't that consitute a controversy ? Clearly his page is already discussing other controversies surrounding the guy, but this controversy is being left out. Maybe you are right that there's no reason to mention this recent accident, but to not mention the controversy surrounding issues of road safety, that clearly relate to Mr. Clarkson, and apparently have been publicly spoken about by MPs, this seems like something significant is being left out.

And looking here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news/2006/07/26/34349.shtml

it's clear ... some people say there is an issue with the show, of which he is the prime host. The page is going to discuss controversies about Rover, Vauxhall, and other comments he has made on the show, but nothing about this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David877 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 September 2006

Again it doesn't really seem like something for Clarkson's article speficially, at least not in any detail. There is already mention of some of the show's controversies, perhaps it should be enlarged slightly. The controversies section does need to be cleaned up a good bit which I'll try to get to today, and perhaps see if Top Gear in general warrants another sentence or two, while I'm at it. Also, please try to remember to sign your post with 4 tildes, like so ~~~~ - Blah3 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Actually, in my opinion, just speculating, I think this accident is just the begining of the end for Jeremy Clarkson's career on television. I can't see how these recent events won't change the way people look at him. If he just tries to brush it off like it's just another funny aspect of going fast and taking risks, he'll look like an idiot. The show, and Jeremy Clarkson himself, are socially unresponsible, in my opinion. And the BBC is run with government money, so politicians will be in the picture as well. But Wikipedia no doubt isn't the place for speculation. We can just wait to update the page after he's thrown off television. I think some addition is needed, but whatever you decide on will be fine with me, for now. 14:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)14:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) david877

I love the way people think it's Clarkson's fault. "Contrary to reports that he [Hammond] was put there [in the dragster] by ratings-hungry producers, it was his idea. He wanted to know what it would be like to go really fast ... " [1] Regarding the style of the show itself, I really don't understand people who object. Personally I'm furious that my licence fee is used to pay for tripe on the BBC (makeover shows, Bargain Hunt, and of course Eastenders). However a lot of people like those shows, so good luck to them. I just choose not to watch it. Likewise people who have a problem with Top Gear should switch over and let the 6 million or so of us who do like it to enjoy the programme. Now that ignores people who are genuinely concerned about the health & safety of the show. To that I would say I only really got into the "new" Top Gear very recently and I haven't suddenly developed a passion for bombing into work at 100mph!

As for Clarkson's influence, I read an extremely combative interview today. It was a defence of the show in its current format and a threat to walk away from it if it was changed due to pressure. And it wasn't a Clarkson interview, it was the producer.

And the BBC is not run by government money. It is funded by the licence fee (about 75%). Other income is BBC commercial activities as well as selling programmes overseas etc. FCO does give a grant, but this is for World Service. The only real influence politicians have is during charter renewal (or the Hutton aftermath!!). Mark83 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a small addition about the 1999 incident and the rumors the show might be canceled, and reorganized them into a general Top Gear section. - Blah3 16:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the reason people object, the first time I started to be bothered by the shown, it was when I saw Clarkson speeding through France in excess of the posted limits. He wasn't doing this at some race track, but on public highways, alongside other motorists who had nothing to do with the show. What if there had been an accident during the filming out that show ? Say with Clarkson seriously injured, and a family of 4 quite dead ? 82.120.183.172 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the Richard Hammond talk page... please keep this discussion about the article at hand. Discussing your views on Top Gear and its presenters is not what this talk page is for. - Blah3 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We really should try to stick to the subject of the article at hand. And looking through the Jeremy Clarkson article I see there really isn't a lot about his penchant for speed. It's mentioned, but just briefly, alongside his clean driving record. However in searching via Google, I found this article,

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1890873_2,00.html

This to me seems rather striking, to have somebody talking so openly about fast driving. Maybe we could change the article around to be,

In spite of his penchant for fast driving, Clarkson has been reported to hold a clean driving licence. None the less, he is not especially reluctant to discuss the subject of fast driving. In a November 2005 article in "The Sunday Times", Mr. Clarkson wrote, while discussing the Bugatti Veyron, "On a recent drive across Europe I desperately wanted to reach the top speed but I ran out of road when the needle hit 240mph", and later, in the same article, "From behind the wheel of a Veyron, France is the size of a small coconut. I cannot tell you how fast I crossed it the other day. Because you simply wouldn’t believe me".

Could we write that ?

These two quotes are rather remarkable, in my opinion, and worth mentioning in the article. They demonstrate his honest and frank manner of discussing his travels across Europe. And we could just leave it to the reader to decide if he is talking about going 240mph on public roads, or whatever. I realize you may feel differently about Mr. Clarkson than I do, but none the less, these two quotes do clarify his penchant for fast driving, and are worth mentioning, alongside his clean driving record, I would say. David877 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know we shopuldn't change other user comments but the title of this section was speed addiction, implying that Jeremy is addicted to amphetamines. Even on the talk page this is a gross violation of our policy on living people so I have changed it to high velocity addiction, SqueakBox 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it the 1st of April? Mark83 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw the words speed addiction come across my watchlist when someone edited this paragraph and thought to myself, that can't be right, Clarkson addicted to amphetamines. Good to see not everyone hates him in this neck of the woods nowadays, SqueakBox 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

racism

How is calling someone a "Nazi" racist?

If I were German I would be horrified, but maybe that is just, not in the reader of this articles interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.91.38 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a racist is a cheap get out clause for saying someone has said something you do not like. The reason we have freedom of speech is to protect people no matter what they say. --Lucy-marie 12:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling people Nazi's simply because they are German is generally regarded as racist. Of course, perhaps it was tongue in cheek and not intended to be serious, but this is not for us to decide. This is wikipedia, and not a place for us to debate freedom of speech or cheap get out clauses or whatever you wish to debate. There are other more suitable places to do so. The fact is, people do regard it as racist and it is our responsibility to report on that in a encyclopaedic manner, not to editorialise Nil Einne 07:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, by definition, freedom of speech also protects the right of people to label other people however they wish. It seems to me that people saying something is a cheap get out clause are using one themselves. Of course, you're free to do so, but it doesn't mean people have to take you seriously when you do Nil Einne 07:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All very true, but the point remains that if it's potentially POV then it shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is not about 'freedom of speech', you don't just get to say whatever you want, even under the argument that 'it can be construed as racist'. While saying that, 'It can be seen by some as racist' is one potential get-out, the trouble is that we find this popping up all over Wikipedia where one person says, 'I feel its racist' and suddenly this has a universal impact (the same goes with every sexual-preference conspiracy that seems to pop up as well). The point is that, unless it's a relatively held truth, it isn't appropriate for here, and given that it's heavily open to interpretation, it's most likely not appropriate. Roche-Kerr 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Jeremy Clarkson is racvist, in the difinite usage of a deluge of racist comments and xenophobia over the years. The person below is a good example of how Clarkson is mired in xenophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.91.38 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing racist about calling Germans Nazi's. Its like calling Israeli's as Zionists, British as Conservatives, or Arabs as Islamists. Calling Germans Nazi's is generalizing, but its not racist. The Nazi party was a German political party, if they didn't hold a extreme view towards Jews, they probably would be around in German politics today. Yes I agree with Lucy, it is a cheap get out clause to call someone racist for generalizing when describing a nation. Same as calling him "homophobic" for calling a car gay? Lol.. its funny how people call cars masculine etc. but when the word gay comes in, its suddenly homophobic. Maybe the Sun editor has been lurking around this article? And Roche, if "it can be construed as racist" then that is what should be written in the article. e.g. "his comments may have been seen as racist by some", but to right out call it racist is again, a POV as it assumes everyone saw it as racist, which we know is not true. Nor me, my friends or Lucy seem to find it racist. I suggest it should be be changed to something like "which may be seen as racist by some" at the end of the sentence.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The plural of Nazi is Nazis, not Nazi's.Zerotta (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, while "Nazis" is an accepted plural of Nazi, the word Nazi itself is a contraction of Nationalsozialismus. If one desired to do so one could therefore add an apostrophe between the Nazi and s maintaining that one is using an apostrophe to denote the shortening of "Nationalsozialismuses" which, as it is a proper noun, would be an acceptable way of pluralising the word. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.105.196 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it offensive when he said (in regards to The Stig) "Some say if he was the video ref at the FIFA World Cup, Italy would have won the series, you BLIND AUSTRALIAN HALFWIT! Apalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.158.129 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, let's start an article called "Catalogue of things I find offensive" and then you can all trundle off there and write them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.105.196 (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cited as a Source

One wonders why the discussion page makes a big deal of noting that this article has been cited as a source.

Both times it was cited by Clarkson himself, for the sole purpose of panning Wikipedia and labelling the page as nonsense, as well as saying that Wikipedia had no value as a research tool.

Whether this is true or not is debatable, but surely the fact that the man himself regards the page as nonsense should tell you something, shouldn't it? Anyone can see this article has been hijacked by NPOV types against Clarkson, more concerned with mudslinging than actual encyclopedic standards. Certainly the man is a controversial figure, but listing every little off-the-cuff remark he has made in his lifetime is a bit excessive for Wikipedia, don't you think?

Maybe it just means Clarkson is irked that when he says something considered to be offensive, it doesn't just get forgotten immediately? --SandyDancer 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Views on Wikipedia

Clarkson has been critical of Wikipedia, claiming that anyone can just log on and update it with nonsense. http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-2289279,00.html He cited his own entry as an example:

"Another way of dying quite early ... is to get a researcher’s job on Top Gear and be found by me, using the Wikipedia website as a research tool. Oh, it sounds great ... but it doesn’t work. To prove this I recently checked the entry for Jeremy Clarkson and after just a short time thought, “Wow. When can I meet this guy?” He sounds like a riot, a cross between Nick Van Ooestrogen and Genghis Khan. He’s killed hundreds of cyclists, murdered all of northern Scotland, eaten a barn owl, and at weekends he goes out and rams trees for fun. Apparently all the entries on Wikipedia can be updated by anyone. Which means there’s nothing to stop you going on there are saying oh, I don’t know, that Bonnie Tyler is a man."

Wikipedia is not self-referential. --88.110.131.11 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check the meaning of "self-referential" in the Wikipedia article Self-reference, please check Wikipedia's policy in detail: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and in particular please check Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#Writing about Wikipedia itself, which covers this situation. Clarkson's views about Wikipedia, within a Clarkson biography article, are not "self-referential". This is true both as a simple point of logic, and as Wikipedia's policy (which one would hope would be compatible with basic logic). Factoid1000 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not disagree with policy, but I still don't think this section should be in the article. Clarkson's views on wikipedia may be of interest to those interested in wikipedia, but they are not specifically interesting to people that are interested in Jeremy Clarkson, and that's what the article is for. You could fling fling bricks in random directions in a crowded street for half an hour without hitting anything that Clarkson hasn't voiced had a negative view about, so wikipedia is not especially notable. He seems to have said negative things about wikipedia only once or twice, whereas other subjects not noted here have received a lot more of his attention. The only thing that makes Wikipedia more special than, say, 'the French' is that this article happens to be part of Wikipedia, but again, it's about Jeremy Clarkson, not about Wikipedia. I think there's a page that collects public opinion of Wikipedia, which is where this info should be.

I really think it's very important to get rid of this section. This sort of thing makes Wikipedia look very self-obsessed, and biased in a sort of childish way. It's easy to explain the bias as everyone editing wikipedia is probably interested in stuff like this, but certainly not all readers of the article will be.

For now I'm just moving it to the bottom of the list, pending further discussion, but I do think it should be removed. risk 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the subjects noted here, the "Accusations of homophobia" section refers to a single remark, the Koreans and dog-eating are also things he's said something about "once or twice". The Wikipedia remarks are neither more nor less notable than the other content.

"but certainly not all readers of the article will be [interested]"

Not all the readers of any article will be interested in all the content of the article. If this criterion were applied, it could be used to delete the whole of Wikipedia. The argument itself makes no sense, the underlying mindset seems to be that "Wikipedia must not be mentioned in Wikipedia" - as explained above, this is simply incorrect. Factoid1000 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to view the situation as: Wikipedia editors should be suspicious of mentioning Wikipedia in articles, because we all have a tendency to view ourselves as more important than we actually are. Of course it's not the case that Wikipedia must not be mentioned in Wikipedia. But it is the case, perhaps, that a higher standard of care is required when deciding whether or not to include such references, especially when dealing with a polymath like Clarkson whose work primarily has very little to do with us. Nandesuka 13:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Something like accusations of homophobia or xenophobia may also have been just one incident, but they caused controversy, which makes them notable from a Jeremy Clarkson perspective, as an example of his style, and position in the cultural landscape. It shows how he operates, and what people think of him. The wikipedia remark wasn't picked up by anyone other than wikipedia. Fair enough, not everything in the article is going to be interesting for all readers, but a criterion of interestingness or notability should be relative to Jeremy Clarkson. His views on wikipedia are notable relative to wikipedia, they are not notable relative to Jeremy Clarkson, and they don't particularly serve to illustrate anything other than that he doesn't like wikipedia. If he had said the same about Everything2, or H2G2 in one of his columns, we wouldn't think about mentioning it. I'm not against using some random selection of his opinions, just to give an indication, even if they are not of themselves notable, but even in that situation we should not use his opinions on wikipedia, because, as Nandesuka mentioned, we should be weary of mentioning wikipedia. We have a systemic bias towards mentioning wikipedia. There are plenty of good reasons to do so in an article, but for something like this, it looks out of place and immature. risk 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No evidence Clarkson doesn't like wikipedia, at other times he has been praising of it and everything he says should be taken tongue in cheek as with any comedian; he says he doesn't like small people but that isnt credible either, he's just being humorous, SqueakBox 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, then I think that's a stronger argument for removal than anything. Surely, we can find some opinions of his that haven't changed over time. However, the only two times he mentions wikipedia that I can find are the section under discussion and a rather melancholy one where he says that according to wikipedia his only accomplishment is driving into a tree (which is about himself and not about wikipedia). risk 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it is much better than when it was the first views subsection but I would support removing it altogether were there consensus for that, SqueakBox 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But consensus on what grounds, exactly? The original reason for removing it (self-referential) was shown (and agreed) to be incorrect. In a rational discussion, this would lead to agreement. Instead, further incorrect reasons were put forward to delete it. It seems clear that the starting point is a desire to remove the text, which is then followed by a post-hoc attempt to find a rationale. Please provide a valid reason. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, there are routes available for changing it. Factoid1000 09:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing about a discussion is that people will not always agree about which arguments and reasons are 'incorrect'. That seems to have happened - I don't think this is going to be resolved in agreement. If we cannot resolve it by agreement, what other option do we have than to go by numbers? risk 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on this is covered in Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. The policy strongly discourages votes. (One reason is that they are easily rigged with multiple "sock-puppet" identities). The aim is consensus through discussion. Wikipedia's policy states: "Straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes". I realise that you disagree with the policy, but this should be taken up in the policy discussions, not in an individual article. Factoid1000 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that policy at all. I disagree with your statement that 'further incorrect reasons were put forward to delete it'. That is your assessment, yet it sounds like you're trying to close the discussion and determine the outcome. I welcome further discussion until we can reach consensus, I was just pointing out that if that's not going to happen, the numbers point toward removal of the section. risk 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been dead for a week, I've removed the section. risk 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy on resolving disputes: Resolving disputes: Disengage for a while.

"I was just pointing out that if that's not going to happen, the numbers point toward removal of the section." No, the numbers never point to anything - Wikipedia's policy on votes is crystal clear:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes" and

Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote: "Participants in a poll often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding - which is not the case, since Wikipedia is not a democracy." Factoid1000 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with policy. I expected that you had followed the advice to 'disengage for a while' and I would be very happy to do so myself. Given the current state of the discussion, however, I believe that the default state the article should be left in, until this is resolved is without the wikipedia subsection, since it is highly disputed, and does not present crucial information (rather, it serves to illustrate Clarkson's style) and leaving it in seriously comprises the image of wikipedia as a serious resource, since this particular article is likely to be scrutinized by a public figure. I think I've made my case, and I'm happy to leave this issue to further generations of editors to resolve. I won't return to this article. Feel free to return the section if you want to, I won't argue. risk 07:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To me reading through all of this it seems like most people are reacting in an "OMG he said something slightly bad about wiki, I must find a wiki rule that says it can't be posted" personaly I feel it is notable enough to go into the article, but I won't force the issue as it seems to have been forgoten about anyway, but people must realise it is petty things like this that give wiki a bad name\press in the first place. Golden Dragoon 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence of contempt towards Wikipedia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3021124.ece Roxana Q (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox : according to you, everything Clarkson says should be taken as "tongue in cheek" and a humorous untrustworthy comment. If that is true, then we should disregard anything Clarkson says in this article? You see, the problem is, Clarksons comments about Wikipedia were not said in a comedic sense, he was serious and critical when making those comments, in an interview. If he said those critical remarks about Wikipedia in a TV Show with a punchline, then perhaps they should be disregarded, but because his criticisms were said in an interview, then they are eligible for inclusion and basis. His views on Wikipedia are important to this article and I strongly suggest they should be included to adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. There should be no prejudice as to the organization being criticized and the relevance is the article it self.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sanctimonious [...] tard"

I've removed the stars, because it looks poor and it's generally bad taste to write something in that fashion. Also, since it's not one of the "7 words you can't say on TV", it's probably similar for publicly viewable internet sites. Anyone actually offended by the word can change it back (I can't stop you). --PublicSecrecy 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the asterisks, in part because that's what the linked source (The Sun newspaper) has, but also because I'm 99 per cent certain that the missing word is "turd" and not "tard". Either is, of course, speculation, and therefore unencyclopaedic :) - mholland 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was "tart". --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course he meant turd - but mholland is 100% right about speculation. Mark83 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vauxhall Astra VXR

Was there ANYTHING positive in his review of that car? I watched that episode time and again and his remarks were anything BUT praise. The word he kept using to describe its handling was "appalling". He did, however, put it on the "cool" part of the wall, because, to quote him, it's cool to die aged 17 crashing into a tree because of the understeer. But that's not a positive comment: it's ironic and sarcastic.Elp gr 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The BBC seem to have made a special Top Gear review of the Astra VXR just for me and by some conspiracy have beamed that episode to my satellite dish and a different one to everyone else I have had this conversation with on Wikipedia. Anything but praise?? Here are a few quotes:

• "...the Astra VXR which, in a hot-hatch beauty contest would certainly go home with the tiara."
• "...and the Astra isn't just a pretty face either... [comment about same size/engine size/similar weight] .... but, though all the animals are equal, the Vauxhall is more equal than the others"
• "...[comment about more hp and higher top speed]... makes a good noise as well"
• "so it's the best looking, the fastest and, get this it's also the cheapest. Not just slightly either, this powerhouse, this roadrocket, is a thousand pounds less than the Golf and the Renault, A THOUSAND POUNDS"
• Then criticism about not getting a chest of drawers in the boot, the radio/nav computer being "unfathomable"
• Yes then he tears into the handling. Brilliant quote: "driving this car is a bit like getting a piggy-back from Richard Hammond after he's had a couple of pints of Stella. You don't know what's he going to do next or where he's going"
• In the Focus ST review: "..but the Vauxhall has too much power, it torque steers like an absolute pig! And it's £1500 more expensive than this. If I were GIVEN a Vauxhall, I'd love it I really would, I'd defend it to the hilt. But would I buy one?? With money? No"

So in summary, he does give it a rough ride. But you're totally wrong to suggest he says nothing positive. If I'm misunderstanding your comment, I'm sorry, that's just how it reads. Mark83 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Family History

Who cares? His wifes father received the victoria cross. S0? Thats not relevant to his Biography.--Tresckow 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm? Maybee. It would be more relevant for a page on his wife.

Have your heard his father in laws story about how he recieved the cross!? It's amazing! He is truly worthy of a Victoria Cross and truly worthy of a poxy one line mention in an online encyclopedia, monitered by neards and people with a want for power but no means to get it. It's an interesting fact and he's a great man!

OK, your powers of charm and persuasion have convinced me. Normally I would have said that the achievements of anyone's father-in-law were totally irrelevant to an article on the man himself. After reading the personal insult contained in the words "neards and people with a want for power but no means to get it", however, I now realise that I was wrong. I'm sure that the compelling logic of your argument will be equally obvious to the other editors here. --Stephen Burnett 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Other

In the "other" section mention is made of Clarksons Nazi comments. The section then goes on to state "A similar incident occurred during the first episode of the ninth series on the 28th of January 2007 whilst Jeremy and the boys were attempting to repair a road in under 24 hours. In the midst of an emotive speech he again stated ",this road will last for a thousand years." "

How is this a similar incident? Upon watching the episode myself i assumed he was making reference to the "Finest Hour" speech made by winston Churchill ("if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour.") This impression was reinforced when he started playing recordings of speeches by Margaret Thatcher.

Secondly I have heard of no controversy raised over Clarksons 1000 years comment (in this context) so i dont really see why it should be included. Deckchair 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is original research. Who can say what he meant? Could be a random number, a reference such as Deckchair suggests or a 1000 yr reich. All are plausable. Anyway "Jeremy and the boys" is not encyclopedic. Mark83 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RSPB?

I know Clarkson stated in the first episode of this series that he was a member of the RSPB, would stating that he did so be concrete enough a source for its inclusion in the trivia section? Its just been removed from the section, and I feel compelled to put it back, but I don't want to do it if Clarkson was only being quasi-serious as he so often seems to be. M A Mason 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarkson has made various references to himself being a 'twitcher' both on TG and in his articles, so should be easy enough to source if you want to stick it back in with ammunition. MilleauRekiir 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

None of the images have fair use rationales, I'd recommend adding them or the article will face a quick-fail. --Nehrams2020 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section also needs eradicating per WP:TRIV. LuciferMorgan 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the view section is very POV laden. Could it be improved--ZincBelief 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged libellous material

The probably libellous material I just removed should not be reinstated as it is a BLP violation, SqueakBox 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia articles should have some perspective. He is a television presenter; not someone responsible for human rights violations. There should be a criticism section of reasonable length, however per WP:UNDUE this should be in proportion to the overall article. Addhoc 12:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson's Birthday

For some reason, someone keeps changing Jeremy's birthdate on here to April 9th. Strangely enough the man himself states quite often in his writings that he was born on April 11th. For example: "The World According to Clarkson", Article "Call this a riot? It was a complete washout", "The night of 11 April 1981 was dry and unseasonably warm. I know this because it was my twenty-first birthday. It was also the night of the Brixton riots." 82.70.202.17 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA nomination on hold, Image:Topgear.jpg and Image:2EDVD0044.jpg need fair use rationales. -Phoenix 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I had nothing to do with improving this article, or nominating it, but as no one seems to have read your GA review... The images in question now how fair use rationales. Gran² 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationales, it's good to go now. -Phoenix 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Automobile Ownership in Engineering Section?

Jemermys vehicle ownership history should probably be split from the section detailing his advocacy and love of enginering.

Bobby Sands

I reverted this edit as I didn't think it was particularly noteworthy or accurate. If he'd referred to a car interior (as was originally stated on the page), thenm yes it was of note. But as it was a wall apparently covered in excrement, I don't think think it really is that noteworthy. There's only one source I can find, quoting one Sinn Fein representative - hardly angering Irish Rpublicans. As it's doesn't appear in any NPOV media, it looks to me like a press release from SF trying to get some publicity rather than community outrage - hence I don't think it's worth of inclusion. DrFrench 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just thought it was rather amusing, that's all. Unknown Unknowns 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's deinitely funny - in fact I find highly amusing! But probably not the right thing for Wikipedia. DrFrench 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirty unwashed limeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.129.178 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

GA

I have no idea why this article got a GA, as it needs so many references. The Lead is lumped together, and the first reference in Notes needs fixing. I have placed a "This article does not cite its references or sources" template on the page.

Writing "declaring famously on Top Gear" is not encyclopedic, and (having no citation) it should be deleted. Not every reader has videos of Top Gear/watches it on TV. I would suggest that the main contributors bring this article up to a worthy GA, as it is an often-read page. andreasegde 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Andreasegde: I spot-checked some of your "citation needed" tags, and I'm afraid that you might be misusing the tag a bit. In some cases, the sentence which you tagged as "citation needed" was clearly discussed in a citation in the same paragraph, or in the article's references section. I encourage you to ask for clarification on the talk page before littering more reader-visible tags on the page again -- that might help resolve these issues more quickly. Nandesuka 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to misunderstand the meaning of "cite". Not every reader has access to a library or bookstore; that does not mean that a citation to a book is inappropriate. Nandesuka 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right we don't all have access to books, SqueakBox 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: He has written books (which would be great to quote from) but you can also quote from newspapers and web pages, as has already been done.andreasegde 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added/expanded a few citations in recent days, but I tend to agree with Nandesuka that andreasegde has been 'somewhat over-enthusiastic' in applying the citation tags. Can you go back and revisit them, I think you'll find a number of them are not really required. Cheers! DrFrench 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you put them at the end of paragraphs instead of in the middle of a sentence? That would make it look as it was correctly referenced. (I have done one or two). I think Jeremy Clarkson is funny as well, so please don't misunderstand my intentions. I am only applying the normal standards of a GA process, which is always a lot longer and more detailed than saying that two photos need to be looked at for fair use. The article isn't that good, is it? Can you also look at the other points I made above? The Lead surely needs to be refined, as it should never have references, because it should be a succint summary of the article.
• Writing, "Clarkson is well known for his posturing and deadpan delivery of oddball humour", is POV, unless it is supported by a reference. BTW, I know he is, and you all know he is, but what about everybody else? If one single person had a book by Clarkson (and he has written one or two, or am I wrong?) it would benefit this article enormously (with individual page numbers added, of course).
• "Born in Doncaster, Clarkson was educated at Repton School, although he claims to have been expelled.[3] His first job was as a travelling salesman for his parents' business selling Paddington Bear toys, after which he trained as a journalist with the Rotherham Advertiser.[4]" Is that all we can say about his early years? The "claims to have been expelled" reference is totally wrong, because on the relevant web page it says nothing of the sort.
• "for the best non-scripted entertainment show" - "and I only found whilst I was busy writing the script for the next show....". This can't be true can it?

There are lots more examples, and they should be addressed, or this could be delisted and returned to B-class. andreasegde 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's perfectly acceptable to put a reference in mid-sentence - especially when it makes it clearer waht the reference is referring to. (I was looking at WP:CITE, there may be another guideline elsewhere that suggests differently).

"for the best non-scripted entertainment show" - "and I only found whilst I was busy writing the script for the next show....". This can't be true can it?

Yes, he did say that (or words to that effect). That was the joke...

As for the "claims to have been" reference - is it the 'claimed' part you have issues with? There are plenty of references to his being expelled, but all of these seem to rely on his claim, rather than any proof. It would seem prudent to refer to it as a claim, as it may just be part of his character to appear rebellious... DrFrench 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• If there are numerous claims, they should be cited, or at least one good one. The web page showing the reference does not say "claimed". What about the other points? andreasegde 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Woah, don't shoot the messenger! I'm only giving you a possible explanation of why things are written as they (based on my interpretation) to put it into a context. Have a look around yourself to see what references you can find. DrFrench 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry DrFrench - things always look more severe in black and white, and I didn't mean to be nasty at all. andreasegde 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I change it to "was expelled", which clears up that point. You might consider trying your hand at editing. It's quite fun. Nandesuka 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if that comment was made at me or someone else.) I've posted a citation for the 'claim' and put the text back as it was. DrFrench 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tony Parsons is mentioned in the Lead, but never again in the article. It should be moved to the article.
• I am putting this article up for a review, as it needs to be looked at by other editors, with a view to possible de-listing. andreasegde 11:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article has been brought to WP:GA/R review for possible delisting of its Good Article status. andreasegde 11:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

General cleanup

I've swept through the article and processed the various "cite needed" templates. A number of them were inappropriate, indicating that the person who put them on either did not read the article, or check the citations. Some of them were appropriate, and in these cases I added a citation. The one point raised at the good article review that I agree with so far is the "laundry list" nature of the latter part of the article. The list of videos, books, and TV shows does not need to be overlong: we're not IMDB. One short paragraph indicating that he's written books, produced many videos, etc, and linking to some external list(s) would be more than sufficient here. Would anyone object if I edited it thusly? (Or, feel free to do it yourself). The other (minor) issue is that we should probably be using {{cite episode}} for the top gear episodes, instead of {{cite video}}. But the format for "cite episode" is dauntingly complex, and I figured that was best done in a separate sweep. Any volunteers for that? Nandesuka 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice going, Nandesuka. I would help but I've got one GA review to come up soon, and I'm working on an FA review as we speak/write. Anybody else? andreasegde 14:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you are more careful on those reviews than you were on this one. It is particularly galling to see a "citation needed" tag on a fact that already has a citation in the same article. We can put in citations, but we can't force you to actually read them. Nandesuka 14:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors, and not ones that work on the article, as the outcome will be decided by editors who have worked on GA articles a lot. If you care about the article, you should improve it. It's not my word against yours, it's just Wikipedia. I wish you the best. andreasegde 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. "People who have worked on GA articles a lot" sounds fairly dire. First, it sounds as if there is an allegation that there is something called a "Good Article" that has a particular form or look and that this is taking precedence over the content and presentation of the article. If this is true, then "Good Article" is going to be an oxymoron. Second, "neutral" is always one of those delightful terms that can be used as an unanswerable charge. If I see a vandal, revert him, and then block him, am I "involved" because I reverted him? If I see an article and work on it and improve it and then reject as nonsense some of the cavils in a "review," am I not "neutral?" Neutrality is about objectivity and dispassion, not about whether a person has or has not worked on an issue. To suggest otherwise is to insist that there is an us and them, a right and wrong, and to create a polemic in the name of preventing them. The entirety of the "citation density" debate (if it can be glorified with such a term) is pathetic. Neither reliability nor information are served by a small minded ideé fixe on little superscripted, incommunicative numbers. Such "references" are neither references nor aids. Geogre 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that about this article or Wikipedia? I'll give you credit, you're a feisty lot on this page. :) andreasegde 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Wait a minute, Geogre is an admin! I also think "the imperiousness of these jackasses" is not that friendly. (Sound of scratching one's head)... :)) andreasegde 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not. Tag-and-run people are jackasses. I shall be happy to denigrate them further, if you wish. However, I had not said and did not say that the particular people here were such, only that I loathe people who do things like that. Confer, confer, confer. All matters are matters of discussion, and tagging and then skipping away with a merry song is irresponsible and counterproductive. The fact that you are reading this, and that, indicates that you are engaging in discussion and frees you from that characterization, certainly. Geogre 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article? That is what needs your/and other people's attention.andreasegde 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I used the {{cite episode}} template in footnote 25 in this revision. I agree the syntax is a bit complex, but I 'adapted' it for the purpose. I will tidy up some of the other citations (the ones not currently using templates) over the next few days, so will change {{cite video}} to {{cite episode}} where relevant. DrFrench 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a seriously concerned editor. He is to be congratulated.andreasegde 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Facts

User Nandesuka seems to think that asking for a fact by putting a citation needed tag in the article is an "abuse of the tag". I would like to know exactly how he reached this conclusion. andreasegde 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you here to edit, or are you just tagging and running? You have yet to do even the most cursory research on this article, instead you seem simply content to paint tags on the page, and complain here (and elsewhere) that other editors are meeting their own (high) standards, instead of your (confusingly wrong) standards. It is this refusal to actually edit that makes yout activities not merely frustrating, but on the verge of disruptive.

Instead of you doing yet another round of tag-and-run, I'd like to see you do even a minimum amount of due diligence here. It's clear that you haven't done that due diligence yet, since if you had even bothered to look at the edit summary of the edit that removed this inappropriate tag the last time you'd marred that sentence by putting it there, you would understand why it was removed, and why you should have come to the talk page first. At this point, you have exhausted my store of good faith. Your use of tags here has been astonishingly irresponsible, beyond nearly anything I've seen on Wikipedia. You have burned copious amounts of other editors times through your misuse and abuse of tags ont his article -- placing them where they were not appropriate, placing them on sentences where the facts were already cited, and all while refusing to do even the smallest amount of useful editing. Therefore, if you think there's a problem with that statement — and, for the record, I don't, for reasons you'll discover when you actually bother to look it up — then fix it yourself. Join us in editing. It's what Wikipedia is about. Nandesuka 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think (if I am correct) that you seem to be very angry about something that is normal working practice in Wikipedia. As for me editing this article I can only say that I currently have one article up for an FA, one for GA, and am working on another GA article (over the last five months I have taken five articles to GA, BTW). I do a lot of edits (which people have complained about because of how many I have done in a single day, believe it or not) but I am not involved in this article because it seems to have enough people (with very strong opinions) that should do it themselves. Why didn't you do it before?

As for the "misuse and abuse" of tags - I think that is silly. This article has improved enormously over the last few days (and I think it will definitely keep its GA status) and that is to be congratulated. What's the problem? The article is very much better than before = problem solved. Chill out - the next round's on me. andreasegde 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "Clarkson has also appeared as a guest on the BBC series QI 4 times, 'winning' twice." still needs a citation. What does 'winning' mean? andreasegde 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does "appeared" mean? What does "guest" mean? What does "series" mean? I'm troubled by your lack of rigor. Nandesuka 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It means, quite simply, that it needs a citation, because writing winning as 'winning' could mean that he was 'allowed' to win. Isn't there one web/newspaper report on it? BTW, you may think I am being a ........... (word of your choice) but I like Clarkson's humour (as in LOL) and believe this article should be good. Is that alright? andreasegde 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This man is a famous Korean car hater

I do not believe his hating speak about korean car. also he hates malaysian car, too. Pgdn001 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He hate all car that not good. he flammable oil-based product head, but he got pie in face. Nuff said?andreasegde 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss or just being plain racist? Could a Wikipedia admin do what he/she needs to do re: recording this racism officially? Cheers --leopheard 10:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin explain what humour and sarcasm is officially? Cheers, mine's a pie and a pint. andreasegde 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

pwnt ^† DBD 10:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarkson's M5

I'm somewhat sceptical about the claim that Jeremy once owned an M5. I know that the Askmen article is cited as the source for claiming he once owned an M5, but Clarkson is quite a well documented character, as is his car history. He once owned a seventies CSL, but no other source which can be deemed more reliable (including his many newspaper articles and video programs) has ever suggested he owns an M5. I'm struggling to find any other source which backs this up, and personally I think it's likely the Askmen article is incorrect about this.

Comments? Lonewolf 1183 11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

The Good Article status of this article has been delisted per WP:GA/R by a vote of 6-2 for a failure to meet GA criteria. The review discussion can be seen here. Once issues have been addressed it can be renominated. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with future edits. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear Section

Noticed this text:

"Clarkson and his fellow presenters have come under increased scrutiny following Richard Hammond's jet-powered car crash in September 2006 leading to concerns that the Hamster will still think like a chicken and have a bump on his head."

Although amusing, does anyone else think this is vandalism?

Writing the script for the best non-scripted entertainment show

Probably not something we can or should solve but, Clarkson was busy writing the script... for the "best non-scripted entertainment show". Isn’t that slightly inconsistent? --Van helsing 10:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It is, after all, the irony of the statement which makes it so funny. I seem to remember that that's pretty much exactly word-for-word how they explained it on Top Gear...

Of course... why didn’t I get that the first time. --Van helsing 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

Usonians ???

I think when JC says "American" he means "American". Usonian is far from common usage, and I think one of the main points of an encyclopedia is to be clear in its language. I believe he of all people would find the use of the tern "Usonian" quite bizarre. --Stephen Burnett 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But then the reader might confuse the USA and all the people in the Americas. Quotes are quotes, but some sort of a clarification would be nice. -Lapinmies 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to clarify that is one thing. To replace the word "American" wherever it appears with another which, dare I suggest, only a tiny minority of readers will have seen before and even fewer will have a clear idea of the meaning of is very different - especially when that word appears in a main title. Quoting Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens :

with the exception of "U.S." or "U.S. citizen", no alternative to "American" has been seriously considered. --Stephen Burnett 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind The Buzzcocks

JC has made an apperance as a stand-in host. Is this relevant? I would think it is. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk} 14:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

According to the 1837 England & Wales BMD, it appears he may have had a first marriage in September 1989 in Hampshire to Alexandra James. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1837? what are you? a moron?123.255.52.127 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, though you might be. If you took five seconds to Google, you would find that 1837 refers to the first year in the volume, which runs through 2005. Lethesl 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tehe. Pwnt. ^† DBD 10:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia no citation

Homophobia is a strong word and used to describe people who are scared of homosexuals. Never the less, there are no citations that describe Clarksons comments as homophobic nor himself, which prohibits the title using the word homophobia. Whether it was insulting to homosexuals is another question. Despite the lack of citations, any normal human can see that his comments are far from homophobic, but insulting. Whoever added that section has had a personal agenda. In accordance with the source, he was accused of "derogatory use of a term for homosexual people" which is million miles away from homophobia. Please change the title to a more appropriate word unless you have a reputable source that links his comments to that of homophobic. And guys, this isn't a newspaper or The Sun, you should prioritize accurate titles over headline striking attention grabbing and bile titles. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia is an irrationa fear or hatred of Homosexuals, one could argue that offensive comments with regard to Homosexuals could be a display of hatred in the same way that some one might call a Black man a Nigger. that said I agree with the point your making and I don't think Jezza is a Homophobe and thus the article shouldn't sugest he is.(Morcus (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

this is all nonsense, yes he may have made some remarks that, if not properly understood, could be considered homophobic, but it's fairly obvious he isn't. It'd be fair to write that he joked about homosexuals, if it can be cited, and maybe that peope were offended, if it can be cited, but nothing more. If, according to wikipedia authors, calling a car 'a bit ginger beer' makes you homophobic, something's wrong.

--stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.91.170 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheist or at least anti-religious

I have found an article, written by Clarkson, which suggests that he is part of the above mentioned. This is not certainly endorsed by other sources, so should Clarkson be classified as an atheist or not? See the link to decide (Jeremy Clarkson on religion on Times Online) - in the mean time I shall take actions to classify him as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie M Hayes (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's an atheist, Clarkson has a habit of trying to offend everyone, Just because someone doesn't believe in organised religion doesn't mean they're an atheist, And in some of Jeremy's other articles he has made several statements that suggest he is either an agnostic or a not-very-devout Christian-GeorgeFormby1 14:48, 06 March 2008 (GMT)

You have made an excellent point. I therefore retract my contribution to this article. I apologise, in addition, to all those affected by my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie M Hayes (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't it be assumed that everyone is an atheist unless otherwise known? you wouldn't write someone is a modernist just because his parents were modernists would you? unless there is a source saying he subscribes to some religion or other, all such accusations should not be in the article. -stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.127.68 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't subscribe to the assumption that all people are atheists unless they declare otherwise. Atheists tend to be as vocal as religious people about their beliefs, i would imagine agnosticism or apatheism would be the proper assumption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.86.163 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd go for the apathetic view. I do. (Personally, I prescribe to the apa-pan-theistic view of it all:- There may, or not, be a God, or Gods. Who cares. As long as everyone can get along and stop killing each other; but still have enough differences to find things funny enough to be able to take the 'mick' out of everybody and have the 'mick' taken from themselves'. It's about time for 'the rod' to be removed.

Angry Mustelid (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

There is no need to put each field on a different line. It makes it difficult to edit. And please remember to disambiguate Radio 4. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American Topic Removal

Why were Clarkson's anti-American comments removed? The comment by the person who did it said that the remarks weren't controversial because no one called him on it, which seems like he was justifying removal for other reasons. His remarks put the man in context, so shouldn't they be listed in the article? Agoodall (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but the person who removed this, also removed the bit about his alleged mobile phone usage, which Clarkson has virtually admitted. Claim that the Mirror is the only source. Martin451 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatred of motorcycles

Has JC ever explained why he (of all people) hates motorcycles? I mean, when listening to him getting excited about the Bentley Continental GT because in it you can use the smallest gaps for overtaking and considering ANY motorcycle above 20 hp can do that for a fraction of the cost...--Cancun771 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, nor your point. It's sufficiently different, motorbikes have their own magazines, just not enough people intrested for a show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.45.75 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is strange, though. He has all but incited drivers to run motorcyclists over at every given opportunity, and yet not only are his two co-presenters on Top Gear both motorcyclists but he himself rode a Honda Cub during the making of one of his "Motorworld" programs in India (and I recall described the experience as "not too bad"). I am lead to beleive that he removed a motorcycle from the Top Gear "cool wall" with a chainsaw. Basically, 150mph on a bike is far scarier that 150mph in a car, and just too scary for someone who perports to like speed.. Paul-b4 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarkson clarifies his position on motorbikes in a conversation with Neil Morissey in series 2, episode 7. He perfectly understands their performance and price bargain but he detests them because they fall over, they have no interior, no stereo, a saddle rather than a seat, they expose you to the elements, you fall off when you hit anything, and you have to wear a full suit of leather and a helmet to be safe on it, and even then it's still ridiculously dangerous. These are all perfectly understandable reasons. Chaparral2J (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

...Whereas driving a supercar at speeds in excess of 200MPH isn't likely to result in instant death should anything go wrong...(he supposes). Racing drivers only make it out alive (most of the time) because they wear full harness seatbelts, neck braces, crash helmets and their cars bear little relation to the kind of cars Clarkson drives. Most supercars are like paper planes with a jet engine fitted, and your chances of surviving a crash at speed are only marginally better than on a bike. Perhaps this is what makes him so compelling - his arguements can be very thin at times, and you find yourself just waiting for him to make a fool of himself (as per the "Identity theft" episode.) At least he does have the grace to admit that he's wrong - its a shame he has to go quite so over the top at times. Paul-b4 (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting footnote(?) to this small section - Clarkson, who has always appeared very vocal in is hatred of bikes, has actually turned out to be a deeply-closeted scooter rider and zips around on a Vespa. He also rode from north to south Vietnam on a Vespa clone.... Paul-b4 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

the fastest car

the fastast car jeremy clarkson has driven is the bugatti veyron ascari a10 keoniggsegg ccxr porscher cerrara gt mercedes mclaren slr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.59.78 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarkson is married to Francis Cain, daughter of Major Robert_Henry_Cain, who won the VC at Oosterbeek in Operation Market Garden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.209.197 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarkson in a MOVIE?

Wasn't Jeremys voice featured in the disney/pixar movie 'Cars'?

as Lightning McQueens agent?

I was looking on his page primarily to see whether anyone had written this down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrh (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Myrh

He was, see here: [[2]] 81.156.47.162 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes to Europe

"Jeremy Clarkson Meets The Neighbours (2002): A notorious eurosceptic, Clarkson travelled around Europe, confronting (and in some cases reinforcing) his prejudices"

As I remember it, he ended the show with his opinions changed, becoming quite pro-European.Musungu jim (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BMW M3

From this recent article it appears that Jeremy owns a BMW M3 also now. http://www.topgear.com/blogs/planettopgear/129-jeremy-top-fuel-tips/ JleeLink (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or was just loaned one for a week or so, he often mentions on top gear that he had x car a week. I believe TG often keep cars that they review for longer than just a film shoot (you can't review a car in a day, well at least not very well). 86.133.117.213 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix needed

Link to Robot Wars needs to be: Robot_Wars_(television_show) The current ambiguation doesn't even have a link to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.229.99 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Hi, I can't edit this article because it is locked. Could someone please put this in the "controversy" section if it is needed? 66.53.210.67 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. The controversy section appears to cover general topics that Clarkson has been accused of several times, with specific examples as references. I'm sure the gutter press would be quick to tell us if he did make a habit of swearing at children in public (and it is interesting that it was a child whose parents then went and told the Sunday Mirror) and is well known as a family man and regularly acknowledges a lot of children watch his shows so I don't see this as notable enough to go in. Halsteadk (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1995 Motor Mayhem Video

Missing from the videos section is the Motor Mayhem video he made in 1995. I'm watching it right now as it happens :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.245.32 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Table for his cars

I am doing a table for jeremy clarksons' current cars and new cars. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good way to present this. However, (a general question to editors of this page, not just you!) where is this information from (yes I know he has mentioned many of them, but refs are still needed for something like this), and how does anyone know if it's up to date? That last point is very difficult to verify. For example, how do we know he still has a Focus? This feels like own research to me. I would suggest that it is difficult to distinguish between what he has owned and what he may still own apart from particularly recent examples, and it is of more interest to the article that he has owned such a car at all. Halsteadk (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

presenter

This page makes no mention of when he presented the BBC show 'Tomorrows World' alongside Carol Vorderman for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.185.130 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect thats because he didn't. Coob (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope For Heroes

Does anyone want to do a section on Jeremy and Francie Clarkson's patronage and foundation of the Help for Heroes appeal. He and his wife are mentioned at http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/patrons.html. Some more research into the appeal is required. 87.194.30.99 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(post moved to bottom per talk page procedures). His suppport is already mentioned in Military interests section, unless there is something specific to be said? MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Freedom and the Right to Roam

There is an inconsistency in the section on Outspoken views. It says that he is "in favour of personal freedom" but then that he opposes the right to roam. I'm a wiki novice, but this seems to me to violate neutrality: "personal freedom" is a biased and inaccurate way of presenting his personal views. He is (apparently) in favour of government regulation to protect the power of property owners over other people's freedom to roam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.124.97 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ownership (current)

The "current ownership" is not verifiable - who of us here knows what he actually currently owns seeing as it probably changes frequently and he doesn't write and tell us whenever he buys or sells something. It therefore is not reliable and not encyclopedic and should not be presented as fact. I feel these should be merged with the list of what he has owned, assuming there are references for each. By the way, his column today says he has bought another Volvo XC90, hence this article is out of date, and how do we know he didn't sell something to make way for it - see what I mean? If no serious objections that are in accordance with Wiki policies in 7 days, I will be bold and edit accordingly. Halsteadk (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the importance-sect tag to the ownership section, as a list of cars owned by a celebrity is not encyclopaedic. The list should either be removed, or relevant information be integrated into other parts of the article. jenuk1985 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now merged previous and current ownership as there have been no objections. If anyone wants to disagree, first prove to me that he still owns all of the cars in the "current" list. :) Re whether it's encyclopedic or not, I think in this case having a list of cars he's thought good enough to buy for himself or his family is useful to understand his opinions more. Jenuk1985, would you be able to give some reasons why it isn't encyclopedic? I have left the tag in place anyway, and have also requested more references - every item in the list needs a reference if it is to be there at all. In the absence of a date order, I have put the apparently "current" entries after the "previous". Halsteadk (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As this inappropriate tag is still in place and I see Jenuk1985 never responded, I have now removed this tag as the information IS relevant and of importance when the celebrity in question is an influential commentator and journalist on cars. Clearly what he chooses to own privately is of significance when it his job to give an opinion on them, which in some cases it has been claimed has significantly influenced sales. The section is still woefully lacking references however. Halsteadk (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can his Argo Avenger 700 8x8 be added to the list? He has reviewed it affectionately and referred to his Argo in multiple columns, but I think it might be more considered an ATV than car Saucy dog (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Times/Sunday Times

Does he write for the Times? I thought he wrote for the "Driving" section in the Sunday Times (which is mentioned also) but not for the Times. However without scouring the whole paper every week I could not say for sure he doesn't. But the Sunday Times is not a tabloid (it is still broadsheet)--the article does not say that it is, but it may be assumed through inference by non-UK readers, or others not familiar with the UK newspaper market. Some clarification needed here, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He writes for the Sunday Times, not The Times. I have corrected this in the relevant part of the article (the intro correctly states Sunday Times). Halsteadk (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also corrected the section header to "Writing career" rather than "Early career", as these sections aren't particularly chronological, and it describes both his first writing jobs and his current writing. This is then consistent with the next section describing his TV work. Halsteadk (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life section correction

As per this article Jeremy has written for The Sun - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/clarkson/article2346534.ece - he hasn't actually sold his flat in Bayswater. Since the article is semi-protected, I can't update this myself, but I thought someone else might like to? Alisso (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done now, i did check the article after reading that yesterday but couldn't find where he meant. I've also removed Francis being an agent, as the source just says agent-cum-manager, it doesn't say it was clarkson's agent who became his manager. Plus the above source also says she wasn't an agent. Uksam88 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarkson attacks a 12 year old boy

I have included this story twice, as it is informative and relevant, and deserves as much coverage as other items posted about him, such as his remarks about Gordon Brown or the Morgan feud. A leading TV presenter attacking young kids is both newsworthy and significant. It adds to the weight and volume of information available about Clarkson, and that is good for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.128.118 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

_{Moved from top to bottom, so that talk page is in chronological order. --Taelus (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)}

I checked the diff for the revert which is here: [[3]]. Whilst you do indeed have a source, the way that the information is presented is not encyclopedic, and could be seen by some as biased. "Attacking a 12 year old" is a very strong thing to say, and leaves things vague. The section could perhaps be included if it was re-written to be more neutral and approach the situation from a factual and encyclopedic point of view, rather than a tabloid newspaper style. I agree with the revert that it had undue weight. --Taelus (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it once as it was presented as the story from Mirror (or similar newspaper with 3rd page girls) is an absolute truth. It is not immediately clear to me how much it is a truth and how much it is the victim seeking publicity. As no serious news outlet reported it, it has no place on Wikipedia in my view DR2006kl (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires reliable sources and WP:NPOV requires fair reporting of those sources, but even if there were any, it sounds like a minor incident of dubious relevance to the article. We are not a tabloid scandal-sheet. Rodhullandemu 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd take anything written in the Mirror with a pinch of salt, especially this article. I'd say rarely, if ever, should the Mirror be classed as a reliable source. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like some wags have been embellishing the article 80.69.30.17 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The C-word shirt during the interview with Kazunori Yamauchi

Yet another controversy from Jeremy Clarkson. This actually happened during the rehearsal.

http://www.gtplanet.net/clarkson-meets-yamauchi-wearing-offensive-t-shirt/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by APR76 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of controversy. Finding someone who actually said they were offended would be a good start. And please sign your talk page posts. Halsteadk (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. An incident from which no discernible reaction ensued would seem to be trivial. Rodhullandemu 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Live voice loss

Where should we put about Jc's voice loss live?--Launchballer (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would question whether it's notable enough for inclusion anywhere in the article. Halsteadk (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm curious, is a statement like, "He is best known for his role on the BBC TV show Top Gear along with co-presenters Richard Hammond and James May" POV or just a statement of fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac520 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't really imagine a serious challenge to that proposition; although also known as a journalist and he appears on many TV programmes, his notability stems from his "Top Gear" presenting. Any alternative proposition would be interesting to hear, however. Rodhullandemu 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, his notability stems from his "Top Gear" presenting, and I see this has been changed without discussion, not that I think it deserves that much. However, WP:LEAD stipulates that notability should be established up front, and it has just been changed to weaken that. If there is any serious doubt that he is not "well-known for Top Gear", this should be debated; meanwhile, weakening the terminology merely to countervent accusations of peacockery seems to be unnecessarily careful. As far as I'm concerned, "he is best-known for ... Top Gear" is beyond argument, and yet still I await a contrary argument. That's why I will revert that edit. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rodhullandemu. If someone is going to claim this statement is POV, then please suggest an alternative, plausible POV. What else is he better known for? What else has he worked on that has had as many episodes and has been seen by as many people? Halsteadk (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Official Site

I added in the official site, however I am unsure if it actually is the official site. I got it from IMDB. so please review and see if you agree. Drag-5 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The site says at the top that it's a "fansite". If it was official it would say so and we should not assume it is just because IMDB (which is user edited) says so. I have left the link in but changed the description. Halsteadk (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

please revert vandalism

• Weluvjezza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made recent despicable edits to the Jeremy Clarkson page. AuntieAgony (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you notice vandalism please try to revert it yourself rather than report it - it will disappear quicker that way! All you need to do is browse to the last good version of the page in its history, then edit that version (it will warn you that you are editing an old version) and save it. Thanks, Halsteadk (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeans and the Clarkson effect?

Clarkson's fondness for wearing jeans has been blamed by some for the decline in sales of denim in the mid 1990s, particularly Levi's, due to being associated with middle aged men, the so-called 'Jeremy Clarkson effect'.

Am I alone in saying "bollocks" to this? Apart from anything else, Clarkson was only in his mid-30s in the mid 1990s - hardly a "middle aged man"! 217.155.20.163 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the section has multiple sources, so it seems legit. If you can find another source refuting this theory, go ahead and add it as dissent. DP76764 (Talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)