Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeremy Clarkson article.
News This article has been The Sunday Times 
by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Jeremy Clarkson (11 June 2006). "Audi TT 2.0". The Sunday Times (UK).

News This article has been The Sunday Times 
by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Jeremy Clarkson (30 July 2006). "At long last, that hybrid hocus-pocus has a point". The Sunday Times (UK).

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cars owned

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

[edit] 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 ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David877 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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 ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David877 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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)


[edit] racism

How is calling someone a "Nazi" racist?


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Moved from article

[edit] Views on Wikipedia

Clarkson has been critical of Wikipedia, claiming that anyone can just log on and update it with nonsense.[1] 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)

[edit] "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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJeremy_Clarkson_87cf.html"