Talk:Richard Hammond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Hammond article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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]


If you are here to leave a message of support for Richard Hammond please send a message to the following Top Gear email address instead: tgweb@bbc.co.uk?subject=Richard. Likewise, please do not include charity or donation links, per WP:SPAM. This page is for discussing changes to the article


Contents

[edit] Height edit war

Could the various anons please stop repeatedly changing the stated height of 5'7". I have now added a link which verifies that the current info is correct. Any more these edits could be seen as vandalism. Death Eater Dan 10:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Any evidence that he has faced height discrimination?Ros Power 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you actually ever watch top gear?

[edit] Car Accident

The Vandals are swooping, I request a partial lock on this page by an admin SuperTycoon 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it will be ok, just calm yourself down.

someone needs to change the the occurances of "is" to "was", in regards to his condition after the crash.

The car was Jet powered, not rocket powered.

I agree - once again wiki is being used as an `up to the minute' news service rather than a legitimate encyclopedic tool. These are the kind of submissions that give the site a bad name.

Wikinews calls. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep - sorry that was my fault - I was updating with what I had heard on the BBC during an interview with the show's producer (hence the lack of source). There seemed to be a lot of confusion about whether it was a jet-powered car or rocket powered dragster, with the BBC and Sky both using the terms interchangeably. It was a dragster though, which is quite different from a car.--Leigh 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
According to a few sources he was NOT attempting to break the land speed record, so can that be removed? [1] Cactusrob 22:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of anonymous IP vandalism lately. I say we should semiprotect the page. --Kenmcfa 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But just the same, respectfully, one has to say something, I think. The guy is on a show that makes light of dangerous driving on public roads. When one drives dangerously on public roads one puts others in danger as well. It's a serious issue that people have a right to be concerned about, because anybody could be a victim of unfortunate decisions dangerous drivers make.

It seems wrong to try to use "semiprotect" to try to sweep under the carpet an issue a few fans of "Top Gear" don't want to discuss.

This was an event organised by professionals and experts on a private airfield and amounts to more of an unfortunate accident rather than anything negligent regarding the show's presenters or producers. Seeing people using the incident as an excuse as to why Top Gear should be banned seems like oppertunistic nannying Xzamuel 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing one episode of "Top Gear" where Mr. Clarkson was speeding through France to Monaco, while the other two guys where on a fast train to Monaco. What if an "unfortunate accident" happened there in France, with Mr. Clarkson killing some other motorist, would that be about "nannying" ? You're right that this accident was at a private airfield, but not everything the show has done has been done on private property. Where is their next accident going to take place ? Will the victims of the next accident be just people from the show ? I think if Mr. Hammond comes back on the show, people will look at him and ask these questions. And if he doesn't come back, his absence would also provoke the same questions. David877 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion here at least remotely related to the article/improvements to it. This isn't the place for discussing your (or any other Wikipedia user's) views on Top Gear. - Blah3 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody said "nannying", and I responded to it. You may have your version of "Richard Hammond", the way you want the article to be, but others have a differnt version of him. These versions, and what the article should say, that's what we're discussing. David877 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No... what you're doing is using this talk page to present your personal opinions and concerns on Top Gear/its presenters. The only thing even marginally related to the article so far that you have mentioned is your (misplaced) dislike of the protection. - Blah3 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: why don't we just state the facts about Richard Hammond ? Richard Hammond, along with Jeremy Clarkson, are the presenters on a show that often seriously jepordizes the safety of innocent bystanders. Also, while filming segments for their show they routinely exceed the posted limits on public highways. Could we say that much ?

No we can not say that. To the best of my recollection, I cannot remember then ever being shown to exceed posted limits on the public roads - remember when Stephen Ladyman, Minister at the Department of Transport, was "Star in a reasonably priced car", Clarkson pointed out that he had a clean driving licence while Ladyman had nine points. -- Arwel (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to figure out how to validate the facts, but going down to Monaco, Mr. Clarkson was clearly exceeding the limits, and he even said so. I'll start looking. David877 17:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a central detail of who Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson are. They are presenters on a show that grossly jepordizes the safety of innocent bystanders. I cannot think of any other program on television anywhere that does this to the level that they do. As presenters it represents a judgement call they have made to participate on the show, and hence it is pertinent to their biographies. In the event that they are one day in jail for manslaugther, well ... we can just update that section at that time. For now, we'll just state the current facts. They jepordize the safety of innocent bystanders, and exceed the posted limits on public highways, while filming their show. Simple enough ? David877 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the safety of innocent bystanders is jeapordised, how come the only serious injury has been this one, in a 370mph Jet-car on a private airfield with no bystanders and emergency services on standby? Therefore, absolutely no evidence, no citable sources and definitely POV

Moreover, definitely no posted speed limit on the airfield... Noob.

Thanks, Jonabofftalk

22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear is entertainment, David877. It is eagerly watched by millions of viewers for precisely the reasons you seem to think it shouldn't be on television. It is even popular outside its country of origin, as evidenced by the fact that you (from the US, I'm guessing) are commenting about it. If you don't like it, you can always choose not to illegally download it in the first place (since it is no longer broadcast in the US, it is the only way you could be watching it). I'm sure you've never exceeded a speed limit in your life. -- Scjessey 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an Americain living in France, and I don't want to get killed by some Brit trying to be like the guys on Top Gear while on their way to Monaco. I am thinking of the innocent victims, of which I could be one. It was an outrage to see Clarkson speeding through France. He reminded me of soccer-hooligans, another national disgrace for Britain, like Clarkson. David877 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"They are presenters on a show that grossly jepordizes the safety of innocent bystanders" Obviously David877 you support the misguided view that speed kills. I feel sorry for you for holding such a blinkered out of date view. 71mph or 171mph can be extremely safe in just the same way as 29mph can be recklessly dangerous. Maybe you could go on a crusade with BRAKE or preferably just go :) It is well proven that speed saves time and thus gives more time to live, also that the areas with no speed cameras whatsoever show the greatest improvement in road casualty figures and the lowest accident rates overall, totally bucking the trend elsewhere (2004 figures the latest available). Clarkson "speeding" though France was one of the greatest expressions ever of what it is to be free, something Americans totally fail to grasp. Have a nice day - and don't let the cops catch you M100 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"He reminded me of soccer-hooligans..." THE WORD... IS... FOOTBALL!! And just because British hooligans get all the coverage because the rest of Europe can't bear to see its own thugs in the media, well...
And in response to "the misguided view that speed kills" Richard Hammond is a prime example of the fact that speed does not kill!

Thanks, Jonabofftalk

22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"It was an outrage to see Clarkson speeding through France." Presumably, you are referring to the episode in which Clarkson (in an Aston Martin DB9) races May and Hammond (using mostly trains) to Monte Carlo? That is my favorite episode, and watching it made me feel proud to be British. It reminded me of how much I enjoyed speeding through Normandy on one of my many trips to Le Mans. It's nice to get out into the open countryside and light the afterburners. -- Scjessey 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There are shots of a speedometer saying 100+ MPH during that race, but who knows when they were taken? Top Gear has regularly used editing to make the show exciting, even if it does not stick to reality. The film alone is no proof. As I have stated before numerous times, WP is not the place to voice concerns over Top Gear. It is an encylopedia. You cannot say they jeopardize the safety of innocent bystanders just because that is how you feel about it. All of the recommended additions above are strictly POV and cannot be added as such. I encourage you to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Again, to try to make it doubly clear: you cannot use this article to state your concerns about the show or its presenters.

You don't even pick this up, do you ? It's not my concerns: it's the facts. They exceed the posted limits. They make light of the speed limits, and they do that on public roads. Let the reader read those facts, and make their own judgement, that's all I'm suggesting David877 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Using 'facts' in that way is POV. It is as simple as that. - Blah3 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That said I find it hard to believe that you are so bent out of shape over this. If you are truely from the US then you should be able to remember that people largely ignore speed limits here as well, and I can assure you Clarkson has nothing to do with it. Your sentiment seems so misguided that I am beginning to wonder if it is not simply trollling. - Blah3 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"trolling" ... that's just bullshit. The BBC last July decided to NOT cancel the show, in spite of all the complaints. I am not trolling, I merely want the article to reflect the truth. Lots of folks don't like the show. Hammond's biography should reflect the controversy around the guy. You just want to squash the discussion, because you don't agree with what's being said. David877 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, trolling. I will admit that I do not agree with your views, because they are patently wrong. There is no defined corrolation between Top Gear and public road safety. None at all. Furthermore I have outlined exactly why your ideas are not fit for this page according to WP guidelines and you still carry on. It certainly sounds like trolling to me. - Blah3 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is a defined corrolation between the judgement's the presenters make to participate in a show that makes light of road safety and who they are. Hence, it is a valid part of their biography. It says something very significant about them, and their concerns for their actions as human beings. Let's present the judgements they've made, about ignoring the speed limits, and making light of them. It's stuff they've done as presenters. What's the big problem ? You don't want to talk about what they've done in their biography ? David877 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Talking about what they've done is one thing. That is reasonable. Using it to make a point as you wish to do is another. - Blah3

Maybe in this discussion I am making a point, but in the article itself we could just state these 2 facts: 1) they have, at least, given the impression to be in the process of ignoring the posted limits, and 2) they make light of these limits quite regularly.

Perhaps some will demand proof, but that's just because some want to white-wash who these 2 guys really are. Everybody that watches the show knows this stuff, so why not say it ? David877 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is objective, then mentioning motoring views is certainly acceptable. Writing something with a slant that infers Hammond or the other presenters are irresponsible or dangerous is not, and it seems that is what your goal is... Thus my opposition at this point. - Blah3 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit childish. It's like it's some sort of game, and you don't want to give in. How many other shows do you know where the presenters are on the show and one is at least given the impression that the presenters are in the process of breaking laws ? It's an interesting, objective, detail worth mentioning about these presenters, in their biographies. What my goal is or isn't should not affect you, if your goal is to improve the quality of these Wikipedia biographies. David877 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't white-wash the fact that people want proof either, or more to the point, that wikipedia demands proof, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of what "everybody knows". On top of that, I think you need to ask yourself why Top Gear hasn't killed any innocent bystanders already, probably because the presenters are amazing drivers and they have a very good safety team. Hammond crashed, yes, but they obviously considered this risk because they did it on a private stretch of road. Also, as for your general attitude towards breaking the speed limit, you should probably read this if you haven't before: [2]. --Aceizace 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do we need ? A few images of the speedodometer from the trip down to Monaco ? As for the rest, just in general, one has to have serious doubts about any show that is suggesting laws should not be respected. Bad laws should be changed, and we have a system for that, but you just don't ~go willy-nilly picking and choosing which laws you'll respect, especially ones that concern the safety of others. David877 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The only way infomation relating to the presenters disregard for speed limits can be presented on Wikipedia, is if either presenter were caught speeding by police, or they actually caused an accident on the public highway which they caused through recklessness, and this was reported in the news. The news article would make a valid citation, but even then you would only be allowed to state the fact that was reported and not refer to your own opinions on their attitudes towards public driving. Images of speedometers are not a valid citation or proof they were speeding as they could be easily faked either by the producers of the show, or by anyone with a decent paint package.
The only way you can document that the show was suggesting speed laws shouldn't be obeyed is if there was some sort of internal or external investigation of the programme for this reason that was also documented in a news report.
Also, please may I request that you use colons rather than bold text, it makes it seem as though you are shouting (which I'm only assuming you're not). Correct use of discussion pages is described here. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what you've written there makes sense. I can see your point, for the two paragraphs above. And so I don't have much else to say. It's a shame that somebody that knows nothing about the show and comes to Wikipedia looking for info about "Top Gear", won't learn what anybody that saw the race to Monaco saw, but that's life. You're right, Photoshop or whatever, the speedodmeters could be faked as evidence in here. If I could find a downloaded-able version of that race directly from the BBC site, then that would be valid proof too, I guess ... but I doubt I'll ever find anything like that. So... thanks for your clearly written comments. David877 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries, glad I helped! ~~ Peteb16 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear may laugh at speed limits, but I'm not sure how often they actually break the law. They have on more than one occasion done road tests on the Isle of Man (no legal speed limit), and on one of those actually got the police to close several roads so that they could do speed tests. They often film footage of a particular car with the Stig driving but edit it so it looks like one of the others is. In the recent episode where they were playing with vans James May clearly had six mattresses in the back of his so that he would go appropriately slowly. The point of all this is that top Gear is a very cleverly edited and (probably) scripted entertainment programme. The sort of feelings the show generates means they have to be more than usually careful - if they actually did break the law the police would certainly prosecute them and Government officials would not dare to appear on it.195.92.43.117 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Agree with the above. I'm quite sure that as a program filmed by the BBC, dispite the rumours, Top Gear and it's presenters are not allowed to flagrantly break the law. They may drive on public roads but how often do you see other cars on them when they are speeding excessively? I'm quite sure that they will either have sections of roads closed with the same sort of licenses that those filming say, car speed chases in movies have, police/stunt escorts out of camera-shot, and that the odd one or two cars they pass when going at such speeds are also driven by actors for comparison purposes. OR they drive where these laws don't apply. High speed does not equal reckless driving. Top Gear also never suggests that users try to copy things on the show and often warns against it. Xzamuel 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Top gear has resumed production and he is apparently recovering more quickly than expected: [3] 65.190.189.222 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sure that Top Gear also uses "closed off" sections of road and also roads in the isle of man (im sure some of these have no limits?) - also roads in Europe often have higher speed limits and its not as though they constantly show you the speedo - with a little clever filming things can look deceptively fast... SiHudson 19/12/2006

[edit] What was the car?

BBC are now reporting it was similar to Vampire [4]

Vampire has a sister car called Spilt Second [5], maybe this was what he was driving. Anon user 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is only ONE Vampire jet dragster in the UK, and it has been around since the early 80s. If you look at the pictures of the wreckage on BBC news you can see the letters 'NSK' on the engine. NSK were one of the sponsors of the British land speed record. RapidR 14:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

INSIDE BRITAINS'S FATTEST MAN

Could you mention he was also the miniaturised intrepid traveller inside Barry Austin in Inside Britain's Fattest Man? Many consider it his finest hour..

I Second that --86.4.34.31 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools Out

he was in this thing called "SCHOOLS OUT" showen on BBC1 7:30 on wednesday.

[edit] comment form the artical

Found in the main artical:

"Whimsical height"?????

Sir, may I put it to you that while the average height of this country is 5'9" describing those below this average as having "whimsical" properties only serves to perpetuate discrimination against those who fail to meet this criteria as set out by a height-ist society.

Regards

Someone 1/4 inch shorter than Richard Hammond

[edit] House sale

I thought this was interesting enough to add to the article, but the only citation for it is the actual sale sheet, which I don't want to add to the main article as it will be considered advertising. However, for reference sake, here it is. [6]. --195.93.21.71 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamster

"His nickname was further re-enforced when on two separate occasions in Season 7, Hammond ate cardboard, mimicking hamster-like behaviour."

I thought one occasion was him eating the car picture in the cool wall segment and the other wasn't him eating carboard but in the section when Clarkson flips his Toybota and RH clings to one of the wheels. Can someone clear this up. 82.3.189.28 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The wheel bit was a separate incident in series 8 (and might be worth a small mention as well). That line is referring to the two incidents in series 7, once when he ate a cool wall sticker, and once when he ate one of the slips they used during the Top Gear Awards segment. - Blah3 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I would just like to say that the hamster nickname has NOTHING TO DO WITH DIMINUTIVE HIEGHT. How many people have seen 5 feet seven hamsters??

The Hamster derives from his surname The Ham(mond)-Ster.

Undoubtedly this will be ignored as is wiki's wont. Further to this, James May was not present at the accident as shown on Wiki page. May was in fact, supposed to drive the car but pulled out. Hammond taking over as driver of the car on September 13th 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.4.2.172 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your negativity to yourself. :) I've removed the bit linking his height to his nickname as I agree it doesn't seem connected. - Blah3 13:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nickname: Hammond > Hammy > Hammy the Hamster > Hamster. (Surely you've heard of Hammy the Hamster :-) ChrisRed 15:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. No evidence that his nickname has its roots in height discrimination.


I think it's appropriate to get the nickname back into the page. A quick search of any of the new headlines (BBC, UK Times, etc) shows that he is commonly and affectionately referred to by the name 'Hamster' 66.243.167.6 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move away from Top Gear

Please ensure that this article doesn't just become an account of what Richard Hammond has said/done in Top Gear. violet/riga (t) 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He built the dampervan himself it was his creation so it should be adequatly acedited to him.--Lucy-marie 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That comment was made prior to your addition, but is relevant. The Dampervan is one small part of one show that he has done and as such does not warrant inclusion here. It may have a place at List of Top Gear episodes or as its own article (as it currently stands) but we should await the AfD decision rather than have duplications. violet/riga (t) 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, he presents Braniac as well.

[edit] Someone deleted an entry

I added an entry, statiing that on on of the episodes he accidentally flipped a van, and someone deleted it, i am going to add it again, dont delete it. --Joshuarooney2006 11:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor details and events from single episodes are usually considered fancruft, which is probably the reason for it being removed. Jastein 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Dead

Richard is not dead, and I hope he isnt going to die. Stop saying he's dead. We dont know if he is yet.Samaster1991 19:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The section proclaiming his death cites its source as a site that does not exist - this is not proof - I am deleting it until concrete evidence is provided - lets not jump the gun here everyone BritBoy 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is highly disrespectful that you use the phrase 'jump the gun' when we're talking about a person's life here.

I think you ALL need to get a life and cut the fancy-pants words. Hammond's fine and making jokes isn't illegal.

[edit] Semi Protection

I'm inclined to suggest this article be semi protected. Archibald99 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already had several instances of vandalism in a short time, I'm inclinded to agree. Guinness 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I too must agree. A number of anon IP's are changing information to say he has died, which I have just had to revert. --tgheretford (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree also, semi-protection seems necessary at this time BritBoy 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree too, just for an hour or so until everyone has hopefully calmed down a little bit. --Leigh 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a request for this now. Guinness 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be semi-protected, a lot of nonsense coming in. -- Banes 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Please contact me (or another Admin) when you feel they've gone to bed. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Archibald99 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: There's just been an example of vandalism by a regisered user, which suggests that the page is not ready for unprotection at this time. Guinness 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages are always being vandalised. Protection should be a last resort, not a first step. Iorek85 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The best way to protect the entry in the long run is to be fair, and give a voice to everyone. The accident is just going to add to the controversy around the show. To try to ignore it will be like spitting into the wind.

[edit] IMDb entry

Let's try and take our minds off Richard's accident until we know some concrete facts, and enjoy this from his IMDb entry:

He eventually landed his dream job as a TV presenter on a motoring show but, alas, the show was on cable TV where the cameramen regularly outnumbered the viewers. Top Gear thought it daft to waste all that genuine petrolhead enthusiasm, so they gave him a job on proper telly.

Brilliant. Good luck, Hamster. 86.7.208.240 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Work to keep the article free of speculation. Budgiekiller 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Birth

According to the BBC website Richard Hammond was born in 1970, I have tried to add this to the article, but when I save the page the year of birth stays at 1969. Anyone have any ideas?--Katieh5584 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes, but the BBC website also says he is 36. If the December date is correct then he must have been born in 1969, otherwise he must be 35. Can anyone clear this up? 143.252.80.100 10:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just had a quick search - it is 1969. Archibald99 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please make the relevant amendment then please. There are two conflicting years of birth (1969 and 1970) in the article.

Also Ripon is spelled thus (and not Rippon)

[edit] Change in condition

BBC News 24 is saying that the hospital are now reporting his condition as 'stable' (rather than 'critical'). I haven't added it yet because none of the web news sources have picked up on it yet. Cynical 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on news.bbc.co.uk now states he is in a stable condition. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The citevideo template would suffice if you wished to reference "stable" to News 24. Mark83 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's hope he's ok. 82.25.23.173 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
From looking at it, it seems like cite video is aimed at defined video 'objects' (for want of a better word) - like an episode of a tv series, or a movie, or something like that. Besides which there is no copy of the News 24 broadcast available so it wouldn't be verifiable. But thanks for the tip, I'll keep Citevideo in mind in future. Cynical 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added a quote from Jeremy Clarkson regarding their wish to have their 'Hamster' back as soon as possible. Darkfearytales 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Trumpet

How ironic that only a couple of weeks or so ago, Time Trumpet joked about Richard Hammond's death during a stunt for Top Gear - though, if memory serves, it involved being run over by a steamroller. Let's hope the prediction turns out to be premature. TharkunColl 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, but they also said Jeremy had an affair with Anne Robinson! besides, we all know it'll be James May who gets that treatment! 213.48.178.138 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support messages

Please remember folks, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article. As much as you might want to wish Richard well, this is not the place to do it. Cynical 06:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

miserable bastard. 82.25.23.173 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we change the article to include a section for get well messages for Richard (I wish he does). Discuss... Mike Giggler 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I understand the motivation behind your suggestion Mike, this is an encyclopedia, and as such not an appropriate place for such messages. Ajcham 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
^ Sense of humour bypass successful. Sarcasm reflex and ability to read and understand the English language properly also removed during operation. Patient doing fine. 86.7.208.240 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The BBC now have a page set up for this purpose - the 'have your say' discussion is available here
I believe this website is intended more as a discussion of the risks, rather than for messages of support. It would be better to send them via the address on the Top Gear website: tgweb@bbc.co.uk?subject=Richard. Some of the messages sent so far can be seen here. Halsteadk 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio and television career

This part of the article states that Richard worked for Radio Cumbria and Radio York. However Richard worked for Radio Lancashire, which one is incorrect, if any? Darkfearytales 08:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this profile all are correct... plus Leeds. Added the missing ones to the article and ref'd it to clarify. - Blah3 12:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Darkfearytales 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Significant Brain Injury"

The last edit regarding a brain injury and James May originally being the driver was on BBC News 24 at 5.03pm BST, but doesn't appear to be on any web sources yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archibald99 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i'll agree with that. If it is true, can the person who posted it at least post a reference? - chris_z99 - 17.25 BST
The person you're replying to added it. :} It's been posted on the BBC site now, will add a ref to it. - Blah3 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah i see, thanks - Chris z99 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donation Link : Please Add

This kind of link is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, and should not be added. Incidentally, "Justgiving.com" gets a kickback from every single donation made - better to go to the relevant page of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Service. -- Scjessey 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As someone that works for a charity, although 'just giving' do make a transaction charge for using the service, this charge is somewhat offset as there is no paperwork for the charity to process as there would be with a cheque or credit card donation to the charity, just giving also automatically reclaim the 22% gift automatically, meaning the charity do not have to do this and create the appropriate paper trail for HMRC. Hence the charge is not excessive and charities would not use the site unless they believed the site gave value for money. Incidentally one reason why the Yorkshire Air Ambulance will be using Just Giving (in association with the piston heads) is because they do not accept on line donations. JDA 21/09/2006

[edit] Vic Reeves for Braniac

Isn't it true that Vic Reeves is taking over Brainiac???? Thank-you Duff12 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Tracked it down, this information is on the BBC websitehere The Brainiac wikipedia page mentioned it from 14 September 2006, and the Vic Reeves page from 21 september 2006. --Braneloc 14:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Incident Not a Speed Record Attempt

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=196085852&p=y96x86558 Hamster wasn't going for the Speed Record. On all other "record" occasions, the BBC have ensured that the appropriate oficials were present.Emyr42 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't going for it on that run. He had already set the record and wanted to go for another ride, so I heard on Look North. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
He could not have beaten the record, no officials were at the event.[7] Cactusrob 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
He was not officially trying, and this is the only source that claims that he was not trying at all. nihil 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
BBC's digital television text page was also claiming the same thing. Either way something needs to be added he only broke the land speed record unofficially, whether it was his intent to do so or not. Cactusrob 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the giraffe thing

eeeh...what exactly is the reference to his giraffe spouse Harold and subsequent two giraffe babies all aboot?

i'm guessing slight vandalism???

–'aboot'?? Are you Canadian by any chance?165.222.186.195 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism

There's also vandelism in the section on the crash, I've not heard anywhere else about "lower back pain" or "laughing in the car". Giraffes? I'm sure there are other minor changes that have slipped general notice too.

^ The BBC article on news.bbc.co.uk did mention him talking after the crash about lower back pain. It has since been removed. I don't recall any mention of him laughing, however. As for the giraffe references...

[edit] Similar accident - but this one was fatal

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3314222

Johan Jacobs was killed on Tuesday (June 27 2006) "in a 500km/h crash in a dragster powered by a jet engine." It seems to be a worryingly similar accident in a similar car at a similar speed. I wonder if Richard was aware of this before setting off?

Note: who wrote on the main article that Richard was going at 780 mph? They must surely mean 280 mph! --80.43.4.151 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Er....never mind, someones changed it.--80.43.4.151 10:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hammond regains conciousness, speaks and walks for the first time since the crash

just been reading the news sites and the teletext news and came across this news story from the times "THE moment that Richard Hammond opened his eyes, spoke and took the first steps since his 300mph car crash was described by his Top Gear co-presenter Jeremy Clarkson last night.

“In the wee small hours [late on Thursday night] Richard Hammond suddenly sat up in bed, opened his eyes and asked what had happened,” Clarkson said. He had replied: “You’ve been in a car accident.” Hammond asked whether he had been driving stupidly “before getting out of bed and walking, shakily, to the lavatory” " [8]


could someone add it please as i'm unsure if i'm allowed to :)

cheers Aragami 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hammond not deceased

Richard Hammond is not dead, as started on the info page. This is a very upsetting mistake and needs correcting as soon as possible.

Where does it say this? Plus I've changed your subject header as that was briefly upsetting too. ~~ Peteb16 22:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factually incorrect information

Please please can someone unprotect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Hammond&oldid=76850445 and edit to say that Richard is not dead? Incidentally, the link seems to be a different one to the one which the article tab takes you to. Milford Cubicle 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you referring to that version of the article, which was live for less than a minute three days ago, since when this article has been edited over 350 times? That was a case of vandalism by an anonymous user which was very quickly reverted. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia does NOT delete old versions of articles without a very good reason, which vandalism of this type is unlikely to be considered as it's too common. If you don't quote the "oldid" parameter, no-one will ever find that version, and search engines won't find it either. -- Arwel (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (Admin)

[edit] Vandalism in James May quote

This quote seems different from the reports I've heard and contains langauge which is unacceptable. I cannot believe that May would use such terms when talking about his friends serious condition anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.20.231 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is cited and correct. - Blah3 16:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
and factually accurate. 86.16.223.203 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an anonoymous user BTW. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where the hamster lives - not near Cheltenham!

I keep seeing media references to him living "near Cheltenham". This is incorrect - he lives near the village of Redmarley D'Abitot, which is just outside the town of Newent, Gloucestershire. The nearest large town/city is in fact Gloucester. Tastyfish 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Source: I'm a local resident, as well as Ledbury Reporter, Severn Sound radio

Map: Streetmap.co.uk

[edit] Charity total very wrong

Charity total reads £145,000,000 when it is actually closer to £145,000. 82.69.54.182 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School Life

Having lost the details for my old account I find myself unable to post, someone may like to add that between 1981 and 1985 Richard attended Solihull School.

[edit] charity appeal

I am now starting a discussion on the charity as to weather it should be included at all in the aricle and if so how it should be included without being advertising and how to end this revert war going on.--Lucy-marie 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A charity appeal for Richard Hammond has raised so much money that the beneficiary (Yorkshire Air Ambulance) is considering buying a second helicopter. That is not advertising. That is a fact and to leave it out is a gross omission. It has been one of the main stories of major UK broadcasters all day. References:

Then if it is such an important issue the wording of the section should be more like this

Due to public generosity yorkshire air ambulance trust have recived enough funding to purchase a second helicopter. this has mainly been caused by publicity given to them throught the crash.

wording like that avoids all off the forms of advertising and still gets the message across.--Lucy-marie 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I can't put this in as another user rvtd once and I've rvtd twice, hence 3 reverts. This is what I propose, where exactly is the advertising?:

"A charity appeal in aid of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance was established shortly after the accident. Initially the money was to be used to fund day-to-day running costs of the helicopter. However on 24 September, due to the success of the appeal, the chief executive of the air ambulance trust announced the money would be used to procure a second helicopter. [1]" Mark83 00:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but should replace success of appeal to public generosity to remove any hint of advertising.--Lucy-marie 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like debating semantics to me but I don't have a problem with "public generosity":

A charity appeal in aid of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance was established shortly after the accident. Initially the money was to be used to fund day-to-day running costs of the helicopter. However on 24 September, due to the generosity of the public, the chief executive of the air ambulance trust announced the money would be used to procure a second helicopter. [2] Mark83 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can fully agree with that now it seams that words and time are better than heavy handidness im glad we sorted this problem out and avoided advertising on wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted and switched off my computer for the evening I didn't realise I was leaving behind an edit war - I sinecerely apologise if I instigated any problems. I agree the above wording is now actually better than it was when first removed, but with respect to .--Lucy-marie I still cannot understand where in the original paragraph, the way the charity was presented, could be seen as an advertisment for it. If it said in big bold letters "but they'd really like a third helicopter so click here to keep donating!" I would've instantly seen your point :D. Anyway I hope everything's been resolved now. ~~ Peteb16 07:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the advertising may have been a refeernce to pistonheads.com. Guy 09:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Lucy-marie objected as it was "advetising for the charity". The charity is the YAA, pistonheads.com were the ones who set it up the Hammond appeal. Mark83 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video of his dodge

I was filming with hammond on the 2005 london boat show special when he had just bought his dodge, not only did i get a photo of it with my kayak on the roof!(you can see him in the photo leaning against the car with the film crew behind) http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Image121.jpg i also managed to get a short video of him leaveing at the end of the day http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Video006.3gp cant seem to upload this vid to wiki so its on my own space for now(i'll keep it there as long as i can). as a funny side note, we went to costa coffee before the filming, not only did he insist on buying his own coffee(he was that insistant on paying his own way) i had to hold tho coffee he bought cos the car has no cup holders!! also that thing was damn loud! it took bout 5 mins to get started but you could tell when it was, anyway thought somebody here might wanna use the photo/vid somewhere for other use i also have: http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Image116.jpg http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Image117.jpg http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Image119.jpg http://www.whatsmyscore.co.uk/Image120.jpg (you can try and get img 19 but im saving that myself, i want some proof it was me there and not the rest of ya! :P) Sorry for the crappy quality but its the best i got on my phone! also if anybody knows where to get or has a copy of boat show special im talking about that would be awesome, email me chilvarez69@hotmail.com (im the guy teaching him how to kayak) im sorry if i broke any wiki rules with this post, its my first try and i was just attempting to give you guys some more images/videos.

[edit] Children's ages

I've now twice removed Isabella and Willow's ages which have been inserted by anonymous editors. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan-site, and articles should be written so that they still make sense whether they're read today, next month, next year, or in ten year's time. Unless you're prepared to come back to this article and update it every time one of the kids has a birthday, don't say forever that they are x and y years old. Just saying that they are very young is quite sufficient. -- Arwel (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Birth years are perfectly sufficient - as you say, explicit ages are prone to becoming out-dated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.107.44 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Stuff To Add

[9] [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobo6balde66 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Vintage Ford Mustang?

I think he actually owns a Dodge Charger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.123.72 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] #Car accident poor structure, out-of-date facts, citations, etc.

This section is as close to being proseline as possible without actually fitting the definition. It has obviously been updated line-by-line in parts. Also, it could do with someone with some spare time to go through and update the citations, because many of them now have more recent, more accurate alternatives (ie. some now available on Top Gear official website. The article also repeats itself in places, and contains unnecessarily duplicated sourced facts. I would love to get stuck into this if I had the time, but unfortunately I don't.

Thanks, Jonabofftalk

22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that - also, the quotes saying the parachute deployed and then the car went off the runway are obviously wrong as can be seen from the footage shown on Top Gear. Actually, the parachute cannot be seen deploying at all. Granted, at times, smoke and dirt cloud the image so one could not see if indeed the parachute was deploying - but from the footage shown, it is very clear that the parachute did not deploy before Hammond veered off to the right - it hadn't even deployed by the time the car hit the grass and rolled over.--afromme 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge / Car Accident Text Copied!

I have recently noticed that the section "Vampire Dragster Crash" is identical to the page 2006 Richard Hammond Dragster crash. I have tried to delete that page but the tag was removed as the cirtierion is not suitable.

Can I please safely suggest on this talk page that this section be removed, or at least shortened, on this article? Thanks! --rjcuk 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screwed-up timeline

This article tells some specifics of the crash, then has Hammond back on the air, then seems to go back in time to give many more details about the crash, then tells again about his return to Top Gear. Could someone integrate this info and put it in order? Jessicapierce 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichard_Hammond_e5fd.html"