Talk:A. A. Gill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Why was this change by JohnBull removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._A._Gill&diff=66546730&oldid=66432139 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.195.186.220 10:54, July 31, 2006.

If you could be bothered to check the article history, you'll see that was removed by User:Fieraku, not me.--Johnbull 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read my English you'd see I didn't say 'removed by JohnBull', of course I checked the history otherwise I wouldn't have known. You were attributed as the original author of the change, not the removal

He also offered many Irish people by impling in an article that the IRA has strong links with the Irish Army!!! What a crank

I have removed the descripion of his comments as "provocative and acerbic" and changed them to "racist". It is hard to describe his comments on the Welsh as being anything other than racist. If he said this about people of African descent, or Asians, he would quite rightly be called racist. There is no excuse for an encyclopedia condoning comments like these with the words "provocative and acerbic", which are tacitly complimentary.

Either the comments should be removed, or the encyclopedia should not take its current positive position on them. Does Bernard Manning's entry refer to his "witty and amusing" comments about black people and jews?

Contents 1 Balanced? 2 Neutrality check 3 Removal of section 4 Neutrality (again)

[edit] Balanced?

This article doesn't seem very balanced. I don't think Mr. Gill is hated by the public at large, and this article seems to imply that he is some kind of fascist rather than perhaps a tongue-in-cheek humourist.

I don't really agree. The article doesn't suggest or imply that he's hated by the public. I've removed the bit about Branson calling him a 'prick', because it seems totally irrelevant. Personally I think Gill is absolutely brilliant, and if there is evidence of any acclaim (awards, praising quotes from others) then it should definitely be included. The quotation section is a bit quote-heavy I think, but since he's known and appreciated for his use of language rather than any opinions he might be thought to hold, this seems justified. Maybe, there should be less of his satirical take on individual nationalities and more from his restaurant or tv criticism. What do you think? Either way, I don't really see the need for a neutrality tag here.SamuelSpade79 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

if you didn't know of his work, he might come across as a nasty bigot from reading the quotes in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there is something odd about someone known primarily for being one of the UKs leading food and television critics, being exclusively represented by his satirical take on various nationalities. What do you suggest? Either the quotes could be removed or they could be slimmed down and others included as well. I think that some should stay at least, since they do exemplify his style of writing. SamuelSpade79 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. There is no context for the quote, and in the context of the article, he doesn't seem to be advocating hate of the Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article. It is impossible to conclude that he is advocating anything else. Substitute "black" or "asian" for Welsh and see what it sounds like. If you choose to revert then please explain how you do not construe these comments as racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Critic toasts Welsh" Headline says it all. Thedarxide (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you capable of actually defending your point? The "toast" in question is in reference to a much later event than the date of the quotation in question. The article linked to recounts things that Gill said earlier. If Stalin had said he quite liked Gelfilte fish would that mean that he wasn't really an anti-semite? The quotation stands by itself and is part of a consistent pattern of racism on the part of Gill.

If you revert again then I would appreciate your comments being less oblique than "headline says it all". If you are not prepared to defend your actions then please don't revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added footnotes to BBC news in which he is described by governmental representatives as racist. Unless you have some more credible evidence that he is not racist, then please stop reverting my changes with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The CPS stated he wasn't racist. You have clearly come to wikipedia with an agenda. I have given reasons for the reverting, as have other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The CPS did NOT say he wasn't racist. They declined to prosecute, which is a different thing entirely. Most racists are never prosecuted (see Jade Goody for the most well known example).

The Welsh Assembly says he was racist. Please find some body of similar standing who says he is NOT racist if you choose to revert. I have clarified the text to incorporate your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the current edit Thedarxide (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality check

I have tagged this article for a neutrality check, specifically if the many quotes (since removed, see the history) attributed him make this a balanced article, or a hit piece. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of section

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

The section seems to be cherry picking quotations and making an implied assumption that AA Gill is a racist based on these quotations, and I have removed it pending discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotations have been in there for months, and were described as witty and amusing comments he had made. It is only now you care about them, because I added some stuff about the reaction to them. You are fine with people calling welsh people "ugly trolls", but not OK with Welsh people pointing out how offensive it is. I have reverted. I did not add these quotes. They all contain reliable citations (BBC etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These quotes are not being presented in a neutral manner. There is a clear agenda in the selection of quotes to presented a synthesised view that Gill is a racist. Do not add the quotes back until this has been discussed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These quotes have been there for months. Do not delete until there is consensus.

BLP problems are removed immediately, and stay removed until discussion has taken place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, is correct WP:BLP concerns come out immediately and only go back in with consensus. The burden is on the user who wants to include the content. Jeepday (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain in depth why I think the previous version was unacceptable. Four quotes were being presented and the synthesised (and unsourced) conclusion that "Gill is notorious for his comments about other races and nationalities" was being made. These are four quotes out of many, many columns during his 15 year career at the Sunday Times. The Guardian article on him does include a couple of the quotes, however it also balances it out by including quotes on other subjects. It's my belief that simply leaving quotes on other subjects out while including as many contentious comments about other countries is not neutral and unduly skews the article and is a violation of WP:BLP, especially due to the conclusion being drawn. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd more or less endorse what ONIH is saying above. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. There are a number of BBC articles addressing the criticism, so there are reliable reference. The shear volume of the criticism section is completely out of balance with the rest of the article and the subjects notability. This article says His essays are known for their humor and satirical content about the subject so presumably race is not the only subject that would be appropriate for the criticism section. I would suggest the editors here try to reach a balanced criticism section that does not overwhelm the rest of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality (again)

There is no need for a neutrality tag on this page and i'm removed it again. If somebody wishes to reinsert it, can they please provide a justification for doing so?SamuelSpade79 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Been discussed above. Please do not remove the template again. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was of the impression that the issue had been dealt with. Offending comments had been removed, and there has been no argument for some time. Thedarxide (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not convinced the current version is neutral, but it certainly isn't a BLP violation any more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe OneNightinHackney can explain how the article as it stands can possibly be considered less than neutral. The quotations have been removed and there is nothing any vaguely imbalanced about it. What could 'convince' I wonder? 144.173.6.75 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because neutrality is a two way street? I'd have thought that was obvious, it's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since two of us have know (sic) questioned the current status, perhaps some pointers would help. Thedarxide (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i'm very curious. So, without any rocket-science cracks, can ONIHack explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.227.121 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is a two-way street, an article can be too positive as well as too negative. I'd expect to see some criticism of Gill in the article, but it has to be in proportion to the criticism and the rest of the article. If you look at the really disupted version, the quotes and criticism are approximately half the article and focus on his more controversial quotes rather than include his more obviously humourous and satirical ones for balance. If the article was much longer you could include a section of that detail, but you can't with a short article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)