Talk:Jim Davidson (comedian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Way too much POV

This page and this discussion page clearly indicate a level of subjective and emotional carry on that is neither here nor there. Why not just cite his carer and use references to back it up. There is nothing about the TV series Up the Elephant and Round The Castle or Home James. If you like the guy, if he appeals to you or not, shouldn’t be the point, that is POV and the idea of wikipedia is to provide some relative balance thus displaying an encyclopaedia style not a FOX News version of the I hate Jim London cause he is an outdates racist pig. Personally, I don’t find the guy that funny myself, but the way that the ‘I hate Jim’ campaigners carry on is pathetic – you are not even pretending to be reasonably self-removed regarding POV.

[edit] Vandalism

I must say that the vandalism on this page is hilarious! --Differentgravy 10:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I totally agree, although if the abuse of this hate-preaching wankarse is to continue then we should take the route of more constructive criticism so as to not give anyone cause to delete it. -- GyroscopicPatio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.100.175 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-29 22:17:20 UTC.
  • It most certainly is. But then again that's because so many people can't stand this guy. A mention of that should be made on the page, ok "he's a cunt" is putting it bluntly, but "despite his success a large number of the public dislike him strongly, more so than most celebrities" is fine. 195.93.21.97 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but Wikipedia's meant to be an encyclopedia, right? Encyclopedias present the facts. And the fact is, Jim Davidson's a cunt and a racist. Jim's Mum 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 02:50:49 UTC.
    • You have the right idea. 61.218.55.27 does not. (61.218.55.27 is not even correctly distinguishing fact from opinion.) If, starting from that wording as a beginning, you can work up a neutral and, moreover, verifiable wording here on the talk page and garner a consensus, it can be added to the article. Citing sources is especially important here. All opinions must be properly attributed to the people who hold them. Weasel terms like "a large number of the public" should be avoided. I've provided a place for you to start. Uncle G 10:14:05, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
      • Methinks Uncle G missed the joke. --Ousted1 07:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
      • me thinks Uncle G is Jim Davidson

jim davidson is my dad. So the git who called him a cunt can keep his opinions to himself, at the very least be polite.

  • What? Polite like your dad is?
  • As long as you're nothing like your dad that's OK. I can tolerate being a violent racist, but appearing on a snooker related psuedo comedy I will not.


This is supposed to be an article in an encyclopaedia and language like that should have no place in wikipedia. Whether or not one considers him to be a cunt is irrelevent. Is is he any more of cunt than bernard manning, ron atkinson or adolf hitler. He does do al ot for charity. Franz-kafka 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Stalin did a lot for charity and he was a cunt too.And Jeffrey Archer.

  • I've just removed a picture of a muslim woman purporting to be Davidson as "Buttons." Are you feckin blind? I don't find his humour particuliarly funny, there are hundreds of idiots like him in every pub In Liverpool and London. But whatever any of us thinks of him, vandalism to Any Wikipedia Article is Not Funny. It should be dealt with swiftly! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Vera you are such a hypocrite! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.39.59 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw that remark forthwith. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed wording for reporting public opinion

[edit] Wording

Jim Davidson has been the subject of media coverage, especially in British tabloid newspapers. The Shropshire Star reports1 that much of it has focussed upon his divorce payments, income tax bills, and court orders for cancelled shows, with a tendency to concentrate upon where his comedy is ill-received rather than where it is well-received. It cites as an example an incident where he once refused to go on stage in Plymouth because all of the disabled guests had been put in the front row, quoting his as saying that "I've got nothing against disabled people but part of my act is taking the piss out of the front row. Just imagine if I had have ripped it out of them? The papers would have had a field day. Instead I asked them to move but they wouldn't budge."

[edit] References

  1. Rous, Nathan. "Still space for a blue comedian?", Shropshire Star, 2005-08-22. 

[edit] Discussion

Except that that a) is obviously biased toward his side, and b) completely ignores the whole "he's a racist cunt" thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC).

There may be some validity to the above anon's point a (point b is obviously little more than POV.) Considering the example given about the disabled audience members, without knowing the theatre in question, I obviously can't say for sure, but there may have been an entirely valid reason why "they wouldn't budge", for example, maybe the only wheelchair-accessable area in the auditorium was in the front row, and there was nowhere else for them to watch his show from. More generally, what the Shropshire Star article is commenting on is nothing specific to Jim Davidson, it is simply a comment on the nature of the tabloid media, in that they will jump on anthing that looks remotely like a "celebrity scandal", because that sells papers. I'm not sure how relevent it is to this particular article. AJR 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that last part was me using a bit too much hyperbole. My point was that it totally glosses over the (well-founded, IMO) accusations of racism. Plus the whole paragraph is clearly slanted in Dim's favor.--203.73.105.51 16:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim Davidson is the ultimate celebrity scandal. It's a scandal he ever made it. Freddie Starr is a million times better, and he's a non-talent. You can't find many better examples of a non-talent, except of course, Jim Davidson!

  • Freddie Starr is a non-talent? He's a hasbeen, I agree, but he's never been talentless...Unlike Jim Davidson, Starr knows when to quit while he's ahead :-) SmUX 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour Me Kubrick

Colour Me Kubrick is for 2006 scheduled. --ThomasK 14:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC) I will tell you what he does for charity.Some years ago he was booked well in advance to be the main item at Wakefield hospice gala dinner .For this he charged 17k , no discount.At four on the Afternoon of the dinner he pulled out citing illness,however it was reported in the tabloids that on the evening he should have performed he was at Kenny Jones polo club , pissed and singing on stage.TO ME THAT MAKES HIM A CUNT, A SELF CONFESSED WIFE BEATING CUNT AT THAT AND IF YOU ARE HIS SON THEN YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIM.HE IS NOT EVEN ORIGINAL HE KNICKED JIMMY CARRS MATERIAL AND LICKED MARCO PIERRE WHITES ARSE.CREEP.I DONT CARE IF HE'S RACIST OR HOMOPHOBIC HE IS JUST NOT FUNNY AND DESERVES A GOOD SLAP AND STOP GREASING UP TO SQUADDIES, I AM ONE AND I THINK YOU ARE A TWAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.253.125 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

Protecting a page like this for weeks and weeks is pretty sad. Unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear vandals

We tried to reflect your point of view with the "controversy" section, but we can't just go right out and say "he's a cunt", so if you mess around with it we either waste our time putting it back or it gets protected and no-one else can edit it. How about you give us a break? Kappa

  • Jim is a legend, you people should get a sense of humour. This whole article is a joke, which simply reflects on a few people that don't like his jokes. We've got stupid things like "etc", which don't belong in an encylopedia. Instead we've got an article on a small group of people who continually complain about him, with hardly anything on his work....especially television work. His whole act isn't standup. Sort it out, come on. Blightsoot 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He's a legend all right - he's legendary for being a cunt and a racist.

-ps this article basically has given into the vandals, they should be get banned, not catered for. (I also should use that remember me tag on login a bit more often)

[edit] Have any of you actually seen his act?

I recently have, and was pleasantly surprised ( I expected to hate it) to find Davidson has now tailored his act to a more contemporary format; gone are the 'Chalkie' characterisations and in its place is a more self-deprecating US-style of comedy story-telling more in tune with what audiences expect these days- the only person Davidson takes the mickey out of these days is himself...and very funny he is too....you may not belive it , but its true! [[Harryurz 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]]

What are you? his PR agent? Jim Davidson is British comedy at it's worst. The only time he comes close to being funny is when he's ripping of Bob Monkhouse gags and even then, he can't do them justice! User:192.135.227.226
Nope, not his PR, just someone who has seen his stage act ( unlike I suspect yourself) He doesn't tell 'jokes a la Monkhouse anymore , as I remarked above. Could you also please sign your contributions as a matter of courtesy please. Thanks Harryurz 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have seen his act. It is complete dross. Yes, he STILL does do the Monkhouse gags, deny it if you want but we all know it's true. User:152.163.101.8

mm, so when it suits the racist he uses the black man's jokes? How convenient.

[edit] Headline text

In light of the large amount of debate here about Jim, I added the text to the header which reflects both the popular comic, the turbulent personal life, and his dedicated charity works. However, I note anonymous user 62.6.139.11 revereted to the original header, which the RevertBot Tawkerbot2 changed back. I hope we can reach an agreement on what should be written, particularly as I note the later pieces collaborating these points in teh article have not been editted - so it seems just a headline issue. I will happily state I have seen Jim in performance live, and on TV - which is really like watching two different but both very funny people, and hence why I understand the varying comments. But as an encyclopedia, we have to try to reach a balanced NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as an FYI - User:62.6.139.11 is an annoymous NHS account. Rgds, - Trident13 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't funny a matter of opinion too?

[edit] Neutrality

I really cannot stand the man and would love to rant on about how revolting he is, but I can't help but think this article is hugely biased. Someone needs to clean up the section regarding his ex wife. Yes, he MAY be fickle or horrible, but it is a point of view and does not belong uncited in this article. Adamshappy 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Hague

I removed "William Hague is a close friend" from the trivia section. The statement is not cited, and I find the idea highly unlikely. If someone can provide a citation, then feel free to add it back. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Err it says here that he was "warm-up act for Mr Hague" so unlikely it was not and probably should not have been removed either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Charles story

I cannot find any evidence of this story happening. Would someone please add a source if it is true? Ggareth77 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Things tend to work the other way round when we're dealing with living people. Things like that should be deleted unless they have a source, see the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. For that reason, I have deleted the text in question. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My name's Craig... Not sure about that particular story, but I can confirm he's a cunt.

[edit] Forget Neutrality, Let's Consider Realism For A Second

Isn't wikipedia supposed to be an accurate representation? Therefore the point of view that Davidson is the biggest c**t in the world (and I should know, because I deliver the children of elephants), taken by the many, should be encouraged. Why not say that Bernard Manning is misrepesented by the PC lodge? Did Hitler have a valid point? Was the Yorkshire ripper a misunderstood prankster? Should we try to understand Falwell? No, we shouldn't, and pussyfooting (something Davidson does a lot by all accounts) around the issue will not help. Or we could of course hush these sort of points of view up and have a purely unemotional, factional (yawn) online page.


Moron! --86.153.2.145 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

What's going on with the references ?

Half of them are of the format " # ^ missingauthor (missingdate). missingtitle. missingpublisher."

[edit] Vandalism 2

I've reverted a bunch of edits back to before a bunch of categories were added as vandalism. If I reverted a real edit, please forgive me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

Comedian and writer John Junkin wrote most of his early TV scripts, as did scriptwriter Terry Ravenscroft.[23]

Surely this could be written better...

It's not very clear.

86.140.159.159 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious libel

{{editprotected}}

This fraudulent edit [1] should not have been allowed to stand for any length of time, let alone remain in the article for several weeks to propagate over the internet. It should be removed.

I've reverted the change to the quote. The inaccurate death report has already been removed. --- RockMFR 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Administrator to make an edit

{{editprotected}} Hello. I've made a number of constructive and factual contributions to this listing over the years, and I am pleased to say that they have stood the test of time, both in terms of sourcing, and in terms of having remained relatively unedited. I understand that the vandals to this page have rendered it necessary to protect the current version, but it now means that I can not add the following text. If any administrator would like to do the good job for me, I would be very grateful. At the end of the "Controversy" section, please add:

In August 2007, UK tabloid, "The People" alleged that Davidson had taken part in a number of "bizarre sex sessions" with a prostitute. Among other allegations, the paper claimed that Davidson had gone on all fours and impersonated a dog, while at the same time requesting sexual favours.

Source:http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=jim-s-too-frisky&method=full&objectid=19572640&siteid=93463-name_page.html

Obviously, the formating will need tweaking to match Wikipedia's rules. Thanks again for help on this. jasonpaultrue

Edit not done. Please gain consensus for this edit first, or wait until your account is four days old. The source this information comes from does not seem reliable. --- RockMFR 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The source of this information is The People newspaper. The People newspaper is a registered UK weekly with a circulation of 1 million, and as such is bound by the Press Complaints Commision Code of Conduct ( http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html ). This specifically prohibits defamatory and inaccurate articles. Obviously, this is not to say that the UK press always plays by the rules. But if there were any factual inaccuracies in the above source, Mr. Davidson would be at liberty to pursue his complaint via the PCC, and information on how to do this is available at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs/index.html To date, he has chosen not to use this route, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary or any complaint with the PCC by the effected plaintif, it is reasonable to state that the allegations have been made by the paper (not that the allegations are necessarily undisputed by the parties involved). After all, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia that are based on much more flaky sources, that do not have an official form of redress. jasonpaultrue —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

It's a trash tabloid, and not in any way a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.166.240 (talk) 10:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honours

When and why did he get his OBE? Opera hat 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He got it for his charity work. It was in the article and sourced correctly a while ago, yet vandals seem to have removed it from under my nose. Agent Blightsoot 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

He should be listed as Cameron Davidson known as Jim Davidson; Jim or James was not his first name at birth. His actual christian name is Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.40.72 (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Comment moved to bottom of list by me on 3rd October. (Still latest post at that date) Britmax 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having moved the above comment so more people can see it I would point out that the name used for a person on Wikipedia tends to be the one by which they are most commonly known, which in this case would be Jim Davidson. Britmax 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The ludicrous semi-protection of this article

I think it's about time this was unprotected, don't you? I'm sure the vandals have had their fun by now. 82.31.6.28 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not dead

Can editors stop reverting the changes made by an anonymous user who is removing unsourced and hoaxed material? Jim Davidson is not dead, as a quick google search would indicate. - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct term?

In the part of the article about the heckler

"In December 2006, Davidson was embarrassed by a 15-year-old boy who heckled him during a performance of his pantomime Dick Whittington in Kent. Reportedly, Davidson came on stage at the Orchard Theatre in Dartford, delivering the scripted line, "Do you know who I am?” The boy, a Scout in full uniform, loudly replied, "Yes, you’re a fucking wanker." According to The Sun, Davidson was enraged and spent the remainder of the first half of the show in a sullen mood. He reportedly tried unsuccessfully to find the boy's scoutmaster during the interval to personally address his heckler."

I appreciate the term Scoutmaster was probably used by the original source, but the term is around 40 years old - should the more modern Scout Leader be used instead? 86.130.133.64 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source (at [2]), does not mention Davidson searching for a Scoutmaster or a Scout leader. I would add that the Sun is hardly a reliable source for anything (except racing form). DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have accordingly removed material unsupported by the reference, and replaced the url in the reference with one that works. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)