Talk:Top Gear controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge Into Main Article[edit]

anybody up for a proposal to merge this into the main Top Gear Article?

GainLine ♠ 10:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep/No Merge Originally, this was a part of the main Top Gear article, but it took up a large section of the article and made it look, well, messy. Since there is no such thing as internet paper, I don't see the harm in keeping it here... LicenseFee (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Oppose merge This article was made to keep the maina rticle short. Merging it all back in the main article would just raise the issue again. Looneyman (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled and the main article's talk page has clearly shown that there is too much opposition for the merge to take place. I think it's time to wrap this up. Looneyman (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

the morris marina fan club[edit]

Shouldnt there be a section about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


why is it that any busybody who has some complaint about tg is worth a mention, even a seperate article? even if the complaint isn't half substantial.

this isn't a rethorical question, i'd just like to learn the reasoning behind it

-stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I dont think it merits an article of its own. GainLine ♠ 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talkcontribs)

Because there was enough criticism of a very popular show to warrant a mention it in the main article at first but when it became too big, it got split into it's own article. Looneyman (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How relevant is it really? Does the fact that a tree was damaged making a TV programme really deserve mention? WP:HTRIVIA I'm playing devils advocate here. Trivia sections suggests that an abridged version in main article should be sufficient —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talkcontribs) 17:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just a tree damage incident. It was because the BBC had to pay the parish compensation because a presenter working for them delibrately damaged the tree (effectively Vandalism) that the incident gets a mention. If the tree damage has passed by without anything happening, then it wouldn't be included. And this is not a trivia article. The criticism and accompanying material in this article is sufficiant enough to make the criticism relevant to the show and valid enough for it's own article. Looneyman (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

about half of this article has no relevance at all, the other half is verbose. it should be removed, what was in the original segment before the move was more than sufficient. When it gets so far as to mention that jc has made gestures that looked like 'giving the finger' in front of a policeman in america, and nobody complained, where does verbosity start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the article again. People DID complain to ofcom when Jeremy gave the finger to the police in america. And the article does have relevance to Top Gear, since the show does attract a lot of criticism. Looneyman (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not too good with common wiki guidelines but heres my five cents; I dont think this article is wiki worthy. All shows have their critism but i dont think any of these incidents are wiki worthy.--Ssavilam (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose move to Criticism of Top Gear (2002 TV series)[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No decidable opinions in a week. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Top GearCriticism of Top Gear (2002 TV series) — This article was split out from the one on the current format of Top Gear. The current format of Top Gear is the one that gets viewers and has attracted notable criticism. There is no reason to have items from the previous format- as far as there was criticism, it can be integrated into that article. Nevard (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know what to think on this one. I'll have to thinka bout this and based my decision on what other's think. Looneyman (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as criticism of the original series is kept somewhere, fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No mention of the Reliant rocket?[edit]

The Top Gear show was criticised for the stunt in which they turned a Reliant Robin into a space shuttle, owing to potential environmental damage and the fact that they were experimenting in an area that contains unexploded ordinance.

Could you find a reliable source to confirm this and exactly what the criticism was and what happened with it? If you can find that, we can put it in the article. Looneyman (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely the concerns about environmental damage to a place littered with UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE are a bit misplaced? Does most of the live ordnance not explode anyway? The fact that this is in the area seems to suggest that this area at least is one of the more suitable places to explode stuff... (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Tesla Roadster test "a bit of a mess"[edit]

The article says: After several weeks, Clarkson wrote a blog for The Times of London, acknowledging that "the film we had shot was a bit of a mess." That gives a wrong impression. Although there is this sentence in the text (what knucklehead linked to page 2 of the column when the cited sentence is on page 1?), Clarkson stands by the criticism against the Tesla. The mess he refers to was about the way the film was shot, not about what was said about the car. (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster recharged in 3.5 hours[edit]

"the car can be fully recharged in 3.5 hours using a conventional source of electricity." Sorry, but it takes over 30 hours to charge a Tesla on a 15A 120V outlet, which is the standard outlet in the US. Jeremy was correct in saying it would take 16 hours on a 15A 250V outlet in the UK.<ref>[1]</ref><ref>[2]</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoncohen (talkcontribs) 07:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

top gear, specifically Clarkson, have very strong public views when it comes to electric cars. they have all openly stated they respect he idea of saving the enviroment and wish to move away from gas guslers however they need to be brtually honest when it coems to reviews to show the pros and cons of jumping over to electric these days (in one special they use the term "to early"). as such they have had alot of dislike from electric car fans by debunking sales media such as the 3.5 hour recharge (only achievable if battery is at its low marker not flat and with a factory recharge unit). if the hydrogen cless gets more development away from the SUV range into sports cars you will probally see some more positive views come out. however when it coems ot electric the flaws make them to easy for TG to mock152.91.9.153 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Romanian controversy[edit]

Having tidied up this section, which had a number of grammatical errors, I found myself wondering if the cites are all valid - several link to Romanian language pages, and quote these sources in English - which means that the text in WP is someone's interpretation, and given the poor grammar I'm concerned that the sources may be misrepresented.

Can anyone advise on WP policy for the language of sources for each language version of WP? i.e. should the English WP only have English language sources (otherwise how can English speakers review sources?). Failing that can someone review the sources and check the "quotes"?

Thank you for correcting some minor grammatical errors. You can check all sources that are represented and yes, they are all valid, English or Romanian. Maybe i had some errors but that doesn`t mean that this section is misrepresented. If you have doubts about it fell free to check everything and you can use google translate to check Romanian sources. The text is the exact copy from sources, there isn`t any personal interpretation. PS: Please sight your posts. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for not signing my previous quote. You can always see the user or IP in the history for the talk page, so it's never a mystery. Concerning your statements about the accuracy of translation, please refer to this page for guidelines on using non-English sources in the English version of wikipedia - original text should be quoted with the translation. I'm not about to try and translate, online translation services are notorious for taking words out of context, and I would have no way of verifying it's accuracy.
I've also amended the text to remove the statement about the producers information - Top Gear is well known for it's irreverent attitude - unless someone has an interview to cite as proof that the producers were unaware that their statements were false that is opinion. I've also amended some more grammar to make the paragraph all in one tense.Bertcocaine (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The first part was written by me, the second, unsourced part is introduced by another user, so I don`t really know what is the deal with that. Everybody who saw that episode can confirm that info but it doesn`t have any references. About the translations, can you be more specific? What seems to be the problem there? I have translated them from Romanian to English , should I include the original text by the English translation ? Adrian (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Romanian controversy 2[edit]

dear user, could you tell me why have you deleted that paragraph? do you think that romanian is not a romance language? if nobody has any objection i will undo that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talkcontribs) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry user, the citation is the show itself. i can guarantee you that the woman does NOT speak romanian and that the language used is not even close to romanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talkcontribs) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The woman is speaking Russian in the show. Very similar :-). Prometeu please sign your posts with by typing four tildes ~ . [3] sometimes a BOT won`t sign you or it can create some problems if we can`t identify which message is which. * Like that comment in the "Romanian controversy" that is unsigned and it`s author is unknown. iadrian (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Two paragraphs from the Romania section (which I have now removed twice) are unsourced, there is no reference anywhere that Top Gear might have received any complaints about the Russian TV show or the remark that the People's Palace was Ceausescu's residence. Since this article is about criticism of the show, and not about criticizing it itself, I don't see why they should be here. CaptainFugu (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 8 months and no sources to be found. I say remove it unless someone finds a source. DP76764 (Talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
First I don`t understand who is this ip address, second, reference for what? [4], do we need a reference that Romanian is not a Slavic language? Adrian (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the ip address, and IMHO Romanian being a Slavic language or not has nothing to do with this article unless there is a reference that somebody criticized Top Gear for that. CaptainFugu (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest racist comments on the show[edit]

We need to add this [5] to the article. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


It is my opinion that this article requires a major rewrite: it currently seems to list every instance of criticism that ever got any coverage in sources, and some instances that didn't. Many of these sections could be merged into each other, and some things could be removed entirely: for example, the NABAS thing. Opinions? --cc 12:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article is very unorganized in the first half. The Specific criticism part is looking alright, but the top half needs some sort of category system so that things can be merged together instead of just a list of random subjects/occurrences. Any Ideas? I think that things that pertaining to racism/sexism/etc should be categorized. Maybe BBC criticism can have it's own, or Clarkson himself since he is the basis to most criticism. These are just stimulating ideas... --mgwrolstad 16:19, 3 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Racist Comments: The Mexican Saga Continues[edit]

In yet another in-show reference to the Mexican racist comments (s16e06), Clarkson "accidentally" made a reference to getting a "Mexican," and immediately retracting his supposed accidental statement by claiming he meant a "Brazillian" (reference to waxing/shaving all pubic and genital hair), and then following this by saying "I am sorry Mr. ambassador." I believe this is supposed to be an intentional/scripted goof to make reference to the idea of poking fun of national character. They seemingly accidentally refer to a pubic hair trim that shares the name of the country. anyway, here is (one of many) references that documents the actual lines that were spoken by the presenters (in this case Clarkson) I think we should add this information to the end of the Mexican Scandal subsection, as it is yet another example of their in-show references to the scandal itself, and it is easily the most blatant and extreme reference thus far. It is much more blatant and extreme than the supposed "Mexican Standoff" reference, which may or may not actually be a true intentional reference (unless someone has a quote from one of the writers/presenters/producers that verifies it as such). it is a common enough turn of phrase to be passable as normal script material. (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(Non-admin closure)The result of the move request was:yellow tickY Partly done,Moved to Top Gear controversies.That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Top GearControversies relating to Top Gear – As discussed in the recent AfD nomination, it was felt that "Criticism" does not necessarily imply a neutral point of view as well as "Controversy". Relisted Themeparkgc  Talk  01:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Ritchie333 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Suggestion. How about Top Gear controversies? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support either of these. This is a popular programme in UK, but some of the stunts are controversial. However I suspect that some of the nwspaper criticism is manufactured by teh tabloid press as a means of generating readership. In response to a previous nom: calling it a 2002 series is inappropriate, becasue there has been a series every year since. If a disambiguator is needed "(TV series)" might be appropriate. If that is still ambiguous "(BBC series)". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Clarkson has made many statements denigrating the people of the US. These should be included faculty in the piece perhaps under the title "Views about Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation for series 17 episode 6[edit]

Why does the parking spot part need a citation? It's clearly visible in the episode. SkySilver (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Series 20, Episode 4: Hovervan[edit]

(See page history for details). I personally thought this counted as a controversy. Thoughts anyone? MrDerails (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I can't seem to get the post out of this green box? Edit 15:20 09/08/13: Thanks Nanonic.MrDerails (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Series 12 Episode 1: Lorry drivers and prostitutes[edit]

Although the original comment drew criticism in the Ipswich area for the assumed reference to the Steven Wright, The Suffolk Strangler, I am certain Clarkson was actually eluding to Peter Sutcliffe, The Yorkshire Ripper. This is due to the fact that Sutcliffe was a lorry driver whereas Wright was a forklift truck driver at the time of his arrest. Also, due to his number of victims and length of his reign of terror, Sutcliffe is a far more notorious serial killer. I have update the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Season 11 Episode 4[edit]

Jeremy Clarkson was accused to have crossed a double line in his repainted Alfa Romeo 75 in the previous episode. He excused himself sarcastically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6F8:900:8EBD:21F:D0FF:FED1:E10C (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


The service designation of the Kukri is "The British Army Issue Kukri, Service Number One". An editor has found an American website named the Ex-Gurkha Kukri House, which applies its own product designation and in one the most egregious examples of WP:OR and WP:SYN jumped to the conclusion its proof that EKH refers to a Kukri. WCMemail 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The event meets most parts of WP:GNG, however as it is an event, only time will tell whether it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Also, I agree, as it fails verification it should be removed per WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I never mentioned WP:GNG but I rather expect that perceptions will change when the footage is aired. However, the issue right now is one editor edit warring in material that is in gross violation of wikipedia principles:
  1. He has sourced a claim to an Argentine newspaper that Gurkha's beheaded Argentine soldiers in the Falklands War and to label them mercenaries. A worse case of WP:COAT you couldn't find; as it happens there was never any combat with the Gurkhas as when the Argentines on Mount William found out they were coming they fled en masse.
  2. He has found a product code on an American website starting with EKH, jumped to the conclusion that its a manufacturers code and edit warred that claim into the article. This is nothing but WP:OR and WP:SYN.
  3. He is edit warring to include material that fails verifiability.
Whilst edit warring, he is not following WP:BRD and I really wish someone else would take an interest in dealing with this. WCMemail 08:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re WCM
First point: Argentinians (not me) made the claim/rumour that "EKH" is a reference to the Gurkha kukri. This claim/rumour is sourced in ref #37 (current; "The third and most controversial of all ..."; Spanish). Even if they were wrong in this, as a rumour it existed and it was part of the row. So we can add that, from the source.
Second point: is the base of that claim/rumour correct? iow, does "EKH" actually mean "kukri"? In source ref #36 (current; "Ex-Gurkha Khukuri House") it does make the direct connection between EKH and the kukri knife. This part of the claim/rumour cannot be labeled fantasy. The text could say like: "Protesters thought the "EKH" in the plate was a reference to the Gurkha army knife (kukri)[36] that was carried in the Faklands War.
That's two connections in their claim/rumour: 1. EKH=kukri, 2. kukri was used in Flaklands war. These can be mentioned without being OR of POV. (Again, it may be their POV, but it's not a wikipedian's).
Third point: currently missing, but I can imagine that refutes were made. There my be a RS saying "EKH is never used as designator", iow it is too far-fetched. (just as we note the error in number associations wrt deaths). Still, as a rumour it was part of the fire in Tierra del Fuego. (so: if by RS their rumour was nonsense, we can add that; but we do not delete the rumour for being nonsense).
Minor notes:
I don't propose literal sentences here, mainly because my English is not subtle enough. But the elements required are there.
BBC is not a RS in this, BBC is involved, like Clarkson and Wilman. iow, when BBC (News) says: "it was such and so", that is not proof.
to edit: About tagged text: "... the Gurkha soldiers used to behead victims in the Falkland war". Yes it should be changed, following point one, into meaning: "with which the Argentinians thought Gurkhas had beheaded Argentinians in the Falklands war". It is a meaningful part of the claim/rumour, per the same source.
to edit: The wording "EKH is the military designator" indeed should go. It is a leftover wording from days ago. The replacement is already via point two ("EKH was read as a reference to ..." or so).
Agree removal of link to wildcoasttents Gurkha Falkland War Kukri. I guess this is the American site you mentioned (btw I did not add it, it was there when before I touched the page). It is not a source, just a link to say "this is a kurki" or so). Anyway, wikilink kukri does the job now.
It does not matter whether EGKH is American or not. It is where the claim/rumour is based. (Address is in Nepal btw). If there were a rumour involving Boeing or Airbus, could we not source something from their site?
-DePiep (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
re RightCowLeftCoast: above I described two facts with two sources that were already present. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This also answers the 08:42 post by WCM, I read after the ec. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed not just this but a whole wodge of noncompliant material. Because this relates to living people a higher standard of sourcing applies, so we cannot use YouTube, Metro, the Daily Mail or some Spanish-language blog to verify this material. Please don't replace any of it unless it can be better sourced. --John (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Reverted. As you appear to know, this is being discussed. -DePiep (talk)
A bit weird that you left the BBC refs in there. Are we part of their PR department? -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, this removal was an administrative action under WP:BLPSOURCES. Please do not revert again. Instead, discuss here and try to come up with a compromise. The compromise must comply with BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This an admin action? You edited, you removed a DVVL link, and what not more. sp "traveled" into "travelled" is about BLP? If it were an admin action, it should have been limited to BLP stuff only. Also you only afterwards claim admin level. Since you were editing all over too, you are involved and should stop talking about blocks (save one-directional threats for them for ANI, where you and your admin friends who will do the block for you can go unchallenged). Altogether, this looks like abuse of admin status.
I request that John reverts their last revert (re the Argentinian section), and then removes only BLP issues in a separate edit. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Request declined. As this is an article on living people, all these poorly sourced claims are BLP matters. You may revert the incorrect spelling of "travelled" without contravening BLP, but I wouldn't advise it. Having edit-warred poorly sourced material into a BLP and having been previously blocked for edit-warring, I really don't think this would be a smart idea. --John (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Firstly, you are on at least 6RR on this page in the past 13-14 hours, at least four of them after warning. Do you seriously think any uninvolved admin is not going to block you for edit warring if you revert again and get reported? John has given you a lot more leeway on this than I (as a non-admin relying on WP:AN3) would have done.
The Argentina section you want to put in makes a significant number of serious allegations about living people. The sources you use do not back these claims up and are of poor quality. WP:BLPSOURCES clearly applies. Kahastok talk 10:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My point is, as you could have read Kahastok, that John claims that the whole edit is about BLP (and thereby justifies their admin action). I state that John should have separated their non-BLP edits, and join the talk here as any editor should for these. What is BLP about the last paragraph deleted? -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And he was right. In terms of the last paragraph, we cannot make such an accusation - about living people (the Top Gear production team) - without some pretty good evidence in the form of reliable sources, and your edit did not come anywhere near that requirement. Kahastok talk 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This is still about this edit. "the last paragraph" (that's the one about "be11end". So you mean to say that paragraph is BLP and badly sourced?); "your edit"? I made dozens.
Even then, you point to a part of the edit, which does not explain why the whole of John's edit justifies an "admin action" in BLPSOURCE. Two chucks, two paragraphs removed and multiple wording edits were made. Why should the non-BLP changes not be discussed here first? (example: how or why should the DVLA gov link to be removed for BLPSOURCE? Is a number plate BLP and does a site about number plates make that worse?). -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
John edited "traveling" into "travelling" and (afterwards) invokes admin authority for that, citing BLP. How is the DVLA link BLP? (your blanket "everything is" is not an answer). John was involved in regular editing, and so should have engage in the discussion here. I suggested already that John (not me) reverted & corrected the edit (separating BLP issues and other edits). -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To answer the two actionable points here; it is a reasonable question whether the BBC should be considered a reliable source on a matter that concerns a BBC TV show. I am open to discussion on that. The DVLA link is a BLPSOURCES matter for the same reason as the kukri sales code is; it depends on original research on the editor's part to support the material the editor wishes to add. This we cannot do, ever, and on a BLP it definitely becomes a BLPSOURCES matter. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that the BBC is generally reliable on two counts:
  • BBC News is generally reliable for statements of fact, and for representing the various views. BBC News as a rule has a good record of impartiality on reporting on the failings of other areas of the BBC (and occasionally of BBC News itself - for example, Panorama's investigation into Newsnight re: the Savile scandal). If there's anything particularly controversial then clearly it may be desirable to look for backup elsewhere, but I would not worry about relying on BBC News primarily.
  • Wider BBC statements, and Top Gear production staff in particular, are reliable for the views of the BBC and of Top Gear production staff. In this case they should probably be specifically attributed.
I would also note that other British outlets are very often direct competitors to the BBC. The Murdochs, for example, own various newspapers and Sky, and they have been outspoken in their criticism of the BBC funding model. Non-BBC media may well use Top Gear controversies as part of a wider argument against what they see as the BBC's unfair competitive advantage in the UK media market - and may consequently be biased against Top Gear. Kahastok talk 11:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── EKH does not mean Kukri, DePiep linked to an American collectibles websites, Ex-Gurkha Kukri House, saw their product code and made a massive jump to conclude it is the manufacturers code and asserted it was proof of the ludicrous allegations made by certain officials in Argentina. It isn't. Kukri are manufactured in Nepal by Ex-Gurkhas working for the Khukukri House and the manufacturer uses the same designation as the British Army, Service No.1 and Service No.2. I've explained this to DePiep and he sticks his fingers in his ears, goes blah, blah, blah and carries on.

I have no problem with you removing the DVLA link but its kind of redundant as anyone with Google can do a check with the make of car and the number plate to confirm its been on the car since 1991. WCMemail 13:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the opinion that the American website is not relevant, and does not meet WP:IRS, and the content verified to that website should be flagged, if not removed outright per WP:BURDEN. I concur with the opinion that BBC is a relevant source, and although involved is a reliable source, at least for their own viewpoint of the event, and shouldn't be removed. I think the greater issues is finding reliable sources from Argentina, they are likely going to biased (as is being argued as why BBC shouldn't be counted, but there is a guidleline for that WP:BIASED, and just cause a source is biased doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
WCM, you are repeating again your statements, but this time you do so after my 9:05 post here, without responding. I also note that you did not read sources provided while concluding. Keep hammering your own statements out of reply mode doesn't add anything. Now there is a bonus ahead: stories appear on internet that the sources dated 16 or 19 September (I did added) are indeed part of the story. Even better: BBC sources say so. Now they are acceptable then? Finally, I note that you repeatedly cast bad faith editing accusations. Just stop that. -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


surely the dropping of clarkson sude be in the clarkson critersime section — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Top Gear controversies[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Top Gear controversies which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Top Gear controversies[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Top Gear controversies which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

H982 FKL[edit]

I've reinserted this comment, as the source vehicleenquiry confirms that the reg plate has been on the Porsche since 1991 - which is when the "H" plate was valid. If an editor believes that this isn't the case, then reliable sources confirming their viewpoint need to be found.

Oh, and while I was at it, I also reverted the rather obvious vandalism about fascists and "teenage veterans" - but that's by the by. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support your move, but maybe better to find a secondary source to that. There should be coverage of it in the press. WCMemail 22:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair comment - I can be doing that while the opposing editor finds evidence that says the vehicle had a different plate at first registration. However, this does count as a reliable source, even if others would be better. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)