Talk:Jeremy Clarkson/Archive 2

This archive covers talk from December 2005 to August 2006.

Comments and Suggestions

Clarkson might be an intelligent commentator but as a journalist his job should be to bring out “facts” without any bias and prejudice. Clarkson seems to have had some issues in his life (regarding motoring world), he seems to hate certain brand of cars for no apparent reason and also seem to have a biased opinion on certain things. Now one can understand to have an opinion but to try and force them on others and to portray them as they are facts is another issue! In the program top gear in the section cool cars, he broke all the rules set out for a car to qualify as a “cool car”, he disagreed with all the other presenters and insisted (rather forced other presenters) that his favorite car was included in the section.

Then there was a controversy when he brought an F-1 car on the top gear racing circuit where they are suppose to test road cars. (ED: He later explained that it was a joke, and took down the results of the F1 Car) Also in an interview with Patrick Stewart, in the segment “celebrity in a reasonable priced car” he made comments about driving while attending mobile and compared it with people who can only drive with one hand! (In his opinion not allowing people to use mobile while driving is like stating that people who can drive with only one hand are less able to drive and shouldn’t be allowed to drive). I would like to add my opinion here, is he comparing likes with likes? When someone is attending mobile their attention is “divided” and this seriously compromises the ability to drive as efficiently.

He also seems to talk about only super cars, as he seldom tests cars that a common person would drive. Ever since Clarkson has joined the program Top Gear , the image of program has gradually changed, it seems to be obsessed with drag races, quarter mile times, higher engine capacity rash driving, trying to scare motorcyclists and no regard to issues like pollution and “nature friendly” attitude.

Maybe some of this can be used on the article?? I leave it up to you all! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.80.41 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 April 2006

I really appologise to those people this inconsiderate person offended, with his malinformed statements, I have edited it to make it truthfull, comment on my Talk page if you agree or dissagree. --Joshuarooney2006 16:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing? You can't go around scoring out what people have said unless it's blatantly offensive. I'm removed the scores and taken your comments out and will list them under this paragraph instead. - 81.179.69.230 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(ED: he only hates rubbish brands of cars, ie: Rover, Cadilac)

(ED: In what way is public opinion, which he broadcasts "Biased"?)

(ED: ok, the Ford Focus is a family hatchback, the Ford Mondeo is a four door family sedan, The Renault Clio Sport and many more normal cars, all were tested by Clarkson, and none are super cars)

(ED: would it be called top gear if they were not obsessed with these sort of thing?)

(ED: No because this is an online encyclopedia, NOT a opinions broadcasting site)

NPOV tag

In my opinion the NPOV tag is not needed. I cannot see a NPOV problem. Myself, I agree more with Jeremy Clarkson than Transport 2K and so-onDuke toaster 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is clearly an intelligent commentator who is often spot on, and even when you diasagree with him he remains amusing, SqueakBox 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should read the preceding debate on this matter. The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article; they do not. Andy Mabbett 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You should read WP:NPOV on this matter. The issue is not whether "everyone" agrees with the claimed neutrality of this article, but whether the article conforms with the WP:NPOV policy. It does. Also, you should read and respond to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing. Kindest possible regards, Nandesuka 12:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

<sigh> The issue is not whether you agree with Clarkson; but whether everyone agrees with the claimed adherance of this article with WP:NPOV. They do not. Andy Mabbett 12:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are claiming that WP:NPOV claims that everyone in the world who might read an article needs to agree with it, you are incredibly misguided, as even a cursory read of that guideline reveals. Since you are apparently incapable of explaining what in the article is POV, or to suggest any ways to fix it, your claim that the article is POV is not credible. Nandesuka 13:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy, if you want to put the NPOV tag up, you have to make concrete suggestions that are actionable within our policies that would make the article NPOV. What changes exactly would you like to see, bearing in mind that they must be actionable within our policies? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no such requirement; if you cannot find an asnwer to your questions in the preceding discussion, then ask the user who disputed the neutarlity in the first place. Andy Mabbett 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I asked what changes you want to see, so please tell me. In the meantime, I'm removing the tag because you're misusing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not misusing it; so please don't remove it again. I understood whet you asked, and I said that it's not me you need to ask, but the person who originally disputed the article (and specifically the section's) neutrality. Andy Mabbett 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Andy, if you put the tag on it, whether you're the first to do so or the 100th, you have to justify its use by explaining exactly what your objections are. Stop being disruptive. This is a terrible article, one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. Please help to clean it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[resetting indents for ease of readability] you have to justify its use: I dispute that assertion, but, in any case, I justify its use by pointing out that I added the tag after I noticed that an anon user, presumably a novice, had disputed the netrality, but neglected to add the tag. Furthermore, I note that the reasons for which that user disputed the neutrality have not yet been addressed. Your alelgations of disruption are unfounded. Since you currently have the articel tagegd as "in use", kindly restore the tag. Andy Mabbett 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Here from the RfC. It looks to me like the poster's initial complaint of NPOV (controversy section removed) has been wholly addressed. The controversy section is back, but doesn't dominate the article. I personally know nothing about the subject except what I've read here, and from my perspective the article is in excellent shape currently; especially considering it's obviously about a controversial subject. I think the NPOV tag should stay off. Joshf 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The initial complaint was made on 4 November. Compare the minor differnece between the controversy section as it was then, and now with the vast difference between how it was originally, and at the time of the complaint. Andy Mabbett 14:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarkson Edits

Apparently Jeremy Clarkson himself has recently edited the article. I recently heard he's doing another technology series for the BBC, so perhaps it could be assumed the internet could appear.....or it could be possible that it isn't him of course. Either way I think some kind of confirmation is the way to go. 172.216.9.164 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

hilarious, i've been logged out again. :/

Maybe he could weigh in on his "controversy" section. Cantthinkofausername

Can you tell us which edits you think are his? SqueakBox 00:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything? Cantthinkofausername 07:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jeremy Clarkson. (Clarkson talk) --Chaosfeary 07:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

His edits are exclusive to this article, so maybe it is him? We'll probably never know unless we see JC himself saying something about this on TV - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tidying

This is a terrible article. I'm trying to tidy it, but it's full of trivial, unverified details, fancruft, like how he sometimes spends his free time in his house on the Isle of Man. How do we know this, and anyway, so what?

How much of this stuff do others want to retain? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The supposedly PD image seems to be owned by the BBC so I've removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary is reverting in the middle of my copy edit even though I put the in-use tag on it, which means I can't get anything done. What is the point of this, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered if the pic was a copy-vio. Best to give Slim a chance as I agree with her comments aboput this article though she should have sen it a month ago, SqueakBox 16:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

They're not all *his* works, they are just shows he happened to appear in. He did not produce (nearly all of) them. Also you keep adding in the bad formatting that I previously fixed. Changed the picture back tho, since it's apparently a copyvio (even though Clarkson put it there himself...) --Chaosfeary 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes well Jeremy almost certainly doesn't know about wikipedia policies concerning copy-vio. Perhaps someone would care to explain to him? SqueakBox 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find the replacement image is also a BBC picture from [1].

Saying that they are both probably copyvio and I'll be sticking copyvio templates on them shortly. Agent Blightsoot 16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The latter picture has a fair use tag on it. Fair use images are allowed on articles. Nandesuka 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious....just as I found the correct template.. I'll revert it. :( Agent Blightsoot 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that frustrating? I always have to look up the templates; I just can't seem to remember them. Nandesuka 17:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Both images can be claimed fair use. The reason I removed the first one is that it was a bad, small image, the only benefit of which was that it was PD. But if it's not PD, we may as well use a better one.

One thing that confuses me: why is there so much fuss over this article? I mean, why do people care so much about Jeremy Clarkson (no disrespect)? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He is clearly very controversial. He kind of prides himself on being obnoxious while at the same time making lots of digs against political correctness. But I guess to some extent you have to be British or live there to really understand. There must be similar controversial US media personalities? Having said that the ferocity of the loathing surprises me. I always thought I was everything he hates and disdains (beardy, sandal wearing cyclist) but I find him primarily funny and when he does talk seriously he is one of the brightest commentators around. Clearly not everyone would agree, SqueakBox 17:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I've finished the copy edit. I've kept most of the trivial stuff but it's now in a Trivia section. The rest I've just tidied and got rid of repetition, overwikifying, and I tried to tidy the writing a bit. I've removed the NPOV tag because POTW/Andy won't say what his objections are, meaning we have no way of fixing them, which is a misuse of the tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: does he still have anything to do with Top Gear? If so, it would be good to put that it has so many viewers/won an Emmy in the intro. If not, we probably shouldn't mention those things at all if the show is no longer connected to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Squeakbox, we're not supposed to wikify dates unless they're written in full: see the MoS. Wikifying April 2004, or April, or 2004 is pointless, whereas wikifying April 23, 2004 makes the date responsive to date preferences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your efforts look great. The only change I have made is to restore British spelling which is necessary in an international encyclopedia for as Brit and is how this article has always been (remeber we British don't know how to write in American (that's 11-16 years education for you) so it needs top be in the Engl;ish we the majority of contributors know how to use. He still presents Top Gear, SqueakBox 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Aah it was Hajor who had got me into wikifying December 2005 etc, revert me if you want on that one, SqueakBox 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay will do; thanks Squeak. Just a small point: "organization" is British spelling too. ;-) If he still presents Top Gear, why do we say he presented it until 1999? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think he presented it until 1999, then he left, the show was taken off the air in 2001, but it returned in 2002, and Clarkson came back with it, I think it's a new-look format, so it depends how to classify it, can't really say he presented it solidly from 1989 due to the gap {Sadisticality 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)}

(edit conflict)There certainly are disputes about UK spelling but most English people use organisation if you judge by the papers etc. English people tended in the pre internet era to get much more confused than Americans as American printing houses demanded authors (Jeffrey Archer etc) write in American (presumably with editorial help) whereas English publ;ishing houses publish UAS authors in the original American so a lot of people make mistakes and use the 2 written form of the 2 languages interchangeably. We sometimnes get a couple of minutes of Top Gear after Newsnight online so I know he is still the presenter, SqueakBox 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He certainly has presented it since 89, and the text doesn't say every year or anything contradictory of the truth, SqueakBox 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But saying 'which he has presented since 1989' implies continuity in him presenting it, which is untrue, would think some mention of the fact that there was about a three year gap where he didn't present it should be made somewhere in the article? {Sadisticality 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)}

Absolutely, ideally somewhere lower down, SqueakBox 16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified that in the text but left it as "since 1989" in the intro, because if it was taken off air while he was not presenting it, then he has in fact presented it since 1989, insofar as there was an "it". We don't need the same level of detail for the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't taken off air in 1999, he left it then, the programme carried on with two or three other presenters until the BBC took it off air in 2001 Sadisticality 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! Okay, I'll clarify, thanks. 15th time lucky. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure people do care! but maybe the readers care more than the editors (wiki fatigue?). He is certainly notable, shame we don't get to have an idea of how often individual pages are visited, SqueakBox 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just Clarkson fatigue. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Shame we had to revert the latest vandalism — Image:Clarkson2.gif. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

LMFAO.... Amazing piece of work. Wonder if it was made specially for this article or found elsewhere... --Chaosfeary 20:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It was made by someone on the site www.b3ta.com , I can't remember who though.

It clearly can't go in the article, which is a shame but we are a serious encyclopedia, SqueakBox 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We could put it on BJAODN. Nandesuka 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I nominated it for Lamest edit wars ever.--Cantthinkofausername 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarkson and Jagworth

I should have linked to this earlier:

But the astonishing thing about his Michael Wharton's flights of fancy is that so many of them became reality. No sooner had he invented the "race relations industry" than it came into being. His preposterous "go-ahead Bishop of Bevindon", champion of every trendy cause imaginable, now sits enthroned in almost every diocese. His overbearing motorist, J Bonington Jagworth, predated Jeremy Clarkson's first appearance on television by almost half a century. Sir Aylwin Goth-Jones, the "greatest living policeman", who advocates the greater use of police helicopters to catch drink-drivers, is now in charge of every force in the land. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/24/dl2403.xml]

Thanks. I think that's clearly a noteworthy comparison, and merits inclusion. My one remaining complaint is I don't like having it under "See also" -- perhaps we could work it into the text somehow, and include the citation for the convenience of the reader? Something like "In an obituary for author Michael Wharton, the Daily Telegraph compared Clarkson to the overbearing motorist caricature, J. Bonington Jagworth.[2]" Nandesuka 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. Can I leave it to you? You're more familiar with the article than I am. He is amusing, JC, but he's a barbarian. Dubiouscod 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina editorial

Surely the reproduction of this article in full, as it is here, is a copyvio? ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then please provide the date, page #, and which paper it was in the article, and make the appropiate <ref> marks.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like faitr use of Image:ClarksonKatrinaCommentary.jpg, after all ypu cannot read it. If it is a copyuvio iot is that page not this thast is. Try a copyvio notice orn seek advice for clarification, 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You can read it. There's a high-resolution version. Reproducing a source article by copy-and-paste directly into a Wikipedia article is a copyvio - and this doesn't even bother to do that. It's a full res scan of an entire article. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You must put a copyvio on that page then. It is not a relevant discussion here but once marked copyvio must be removed from here, SqueakBox 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is a relevant discussion here, as this is the only WP article that refers to said scanned image. Informing those who edit this page that there is a possible copyvio in one of the images used will help generate discussion of the issue. You will note I have already placed a copyvio notice on the image's talk page. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

it is relevant in the sense that if you beleive there has been a copyvio you should re3move the image from this article until the case is resolved. I would strongly support such a removal, SqueakBox 00:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please quit it with the spelling errors? I can't read if your trying to get an image pulled or have a horrible sense of l33t speak.

Plus if you do pull the image, I strongly request that appropiate <ref> markings be made to illustrate this in the article to comply with Wikipedia policy on providing verifiable references (which the image of the article has exceeded in certain respects). Otherwise, the deletion of the image goes against such policy (both of deletion of image and not referencing such sections in the article) and is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and I will protest the deletion until such marks are made. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of pulling this image from this page until the proper copyvio procedure has been followed and there's been some discussion on the image's talk page. Until then I believe that the status quo should prevail. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From the copyvio template "If this media is linked by an article, it should be removed..." GraemeLeggett 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I just didn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 16:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So if their is a copyvio it must be pulled. I am doing it, SqueakBox 14:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If a copyvio is suspected the offending material must immediately be removed while the status is sorted, otherwise wikipedia is liable, SqueakBox 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics

This bit reads a bit too much like apologetics for Clarkson:

The matter was not helped by national publications (in both Britain and Germany) quoting Clarkson out of context which to the misinformed would put Clarkson in a racist light. Here is an example of such an article:

Whether or not Clarkson is actually racist, he has certainly made enough offensive statements that unequivocally saying that anyone who believes he is racist is "misinformed" is POV. --Saforrest 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I put that bit in and what i was trying to get across was that (like i said) the things that he said weren't helped when many national papers didn't report the precedding events and why Clarkson went off on one and to an extent just made it sound like inbetween reviewing a car he started making racist comments about Germany. So to some one who just read that article in teh paper (you could say misinformed person) would believe Clarkson was racist. I really don't see how that is POV, it only becomes so when you paraphrase the statement like you did does it become POV. More over it is fact as if you put all knowledge about the event aside and just read that linked article you would come away with teh impression that Clarkson is some neanderthal racist but when you get the whole picture you can see thats not the case. TheEnlightened 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarkson; Mr. Man

Before we all get bogged-down by Clarkson´s comments and actions, let´s look at the facts:

His comments are based on childish games, which were/are always based upon, "My dad is bigger than your dad". You can interpret this by using the word ´penis´, if you feel so inclined.

He has a right to say anything he feels (because the BBC allows him to) so who are we to complain? Write to the BBC instead.

People think he is funny, but that´s only because he perpertrates the image of the "Thick Northerner", who doesn´t care what he says. (I was born in Leeds, so I know...) All comedians have a basic fault that people laugh at. Terrible; but it´s true. People should ridicule him, and then pity him, because he is denigrating his own background. Poor stupid lad; he´s not a full shilling, but let him rant on...

Have you EVER bought a car because he said it was good?

Answer that....

Whilst writing you little rant which is pretty well written you forgot one major thing, and that is the point. I have read your comments twice and cannot for the life of me see what you are on about. So he gives the image of a thich northener and all his comments are based on childish games. The biggest and largest fact you left out is: 350 million people watch his show and that is the only reason that the BBC let him rant on otherwise they'd have kicked him out years ago. As come on forget that he writes it and came up with the new format, imagine top gear with out him?

Got it?

Yep you got it it's called pulling power and its crap and don't get me started on 5th gear, thats just plain wrong.

Do you think pulling power gets 0.350 million viewers? let alone 350 million? NO i didn't think so.

Now in answer to your last question, no i haven't ever bought a car that he said was any good. Why? well because i am not a millionaire thats why and when you not a millionaire you can't spend £100,000 on car.

Yeah answer that.... TheEnlightened 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S it is customary (could even say polite) to sign your comments either with the four ~ if your a wiki member or just a name if your not.

Re; Clarkson - Mr. Man

I apologise for not signing. My supposed rant is not as it reads. I watch Top Gear, and I laugh at his comments, but I don´t take them seriously at all. I never took Ken Dodd´s jokes seriously either. It´s simple/stupid humour, and nothing else. Clarkson knows that he offends, which is why he gets the Ratings, of course. He´s not that daft; its just the style he uses to get them which offends.

I object to the idea that when it is supposed to be an informative show about cars, it becomes an opportunity for Clarkson to cruelly ridicule everything that he takes a fancy to; even his co-presenters. We have all heard his biased comments (which are not allowed on Wikipedia) about the Ozone Layer, small people are crap in bed, people that buy certain cars are "brain-dead", and on and on... (I´m over 6´, by the way, in case you were wondering.)

If anyone who was not a TV ´Celeb´ walked into any pub on a Satuday night and came out with the same comments - and as loud as Clarkson is - I would give them a maximum of 15 minutes to be either thrown out or kicked in the goolies. Why not try it yourself as an experiment? (This is a joke - laugh...)

Don´t forget that Clarkson came from a well-to-do family, so he is either acting out the role of the Local Squire, or play-acting at being, "One of the lads in the pub". Either way, he is laughing at us, while we are laughing with him, about ourselves. At school we used to call people like him a ´Bully´, and, if anyone remembers, you had to laugh with a bully, or he would start to laugh at you. Bullies don´t like to be caught out, or laughed at, which is why he punched Piers Morgan for running an article about him being photographed kissing the same woman over a two-year period.

Maybe the show should be renamed, "Top Laugh". But then, why would we be laughing?

P.S. He does review less-expensive cars, and he even likes them sometimes. I did like the story-line about his new Ford, because he made an unbelievable fool of himself, but turned it around to ridicule Ford and the car-theft security company.

andreasegde 12:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All your comments are correct but it still doesn't stop the fact that he is what makes Top Gear what it is now (in both his presenting style and the fact he helped create the new format)and that is a motoring show that is watched by non-petrolheads. People like my mum whos only interest in cars is the one she drives to the shops and that is a remarkable achievement rarely achieved. And like i mentioned above if you remove Clarkson you are left with a Pulling Power/5th Gear pile of crap which i think even the most die hard petrolheads have trouble watching.

So he might be a making a fool out of us but we must like it otherwise we wouldn't watch his show/s in droves would we?

It could also be said that we Brit's love to laugh at someone else's misfortune (even our own) something that Jimmy Carr, Jack Dee and Clarkson (and the producers of Big Brother and You've been framed)all capitalise on.

TheEnlightened 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I have to to comment on what you have written, but also to ask some pertinent questions. OK; here we go, (deep breath... laugh...)

"he is what makes Top Gear what it is now". But what is it, exactly? Is it a comedy programme? I see it purely as entertainment. I laugh at his stupidity. Why do you watch it? If it´s a comedy programme, then who is the comedian? Is it "The Marx Brothers" on wheels?

"we Brit's love to laugh at someone else's misfortune". Very true, but only when we know we could have made the same mistake ourselves. Otherwise it would be just sadism - don´t you think? Did you watch "The Office"? That was fictional humour (and we all saw ourselves in it somewhere) but Clarkson is a large, and real, fact of life. He presents his opinions as fact.

"something that Jimmy Carr, Jack Dee and Clarkson (and the producers of Big Brother and You've been framed)all capitalise on." Yes, they capitalise on it; meaning that they make a lot of money out of it, and why not? We´re paying them, after all. Maybe we could have a show where people answer the questions, and, if they lose, they get murdered? Or if a contestant misses a penalty they lose a finger? It´s endless.

My main worry about all this is that maybe people are taking him seriously, and especially younger people. Do they think he´s a buffoon, or a "Celeb", who should be respected? Maybe they think it´s OK to walk around and laugh out loud about anyone who does not hold the same views as Clarkson. "Hey guys, look! - There´s a disabled, bald, bearded, midget, pipe-smoking bloke wearing sandals with a caravan and a bike... Let´s give the Nazi a good kicking..."

OK; now this going to sound severe, but I read about a European who used to make vicious speeches about a certain race of people as being the main cause of his country´s problems. A lot of people believed him and millions died as a result of a World War.

Didn´t Clarkson write, "The World According to Clarkson"? Hmmm...

andreasegde 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I watch it for the cars but the comedy makes it even more enjoyable to watch don't you think as like i keep saying if Top Gear didn't have have the comedy it would be Fifth Gear or worst Pulling Power.

As for a game show were the people are killed, i dunno if we'd ever go that extreme but there was a show by Jimmy Carr that the contestants got elececuted and cut in some of the challenges, though i cannot remember its name and i doubt think its been renewed for a new series.

I also think that you are going to extremes to say Clarkson is like Hitler. People find what he says funny but if he one day turned round and said we should cleanse our nation but giving free showers to people who are"disabled, bald, bearded, midget, pipe-smoking bloke wearing sandals with a caravan and a bike." It shoudl also be said that Clarkson never makes jokes about disabled people as that wouldn't be allowed by the BBC as it aint "PC".

People listen to his views as they are so out of the ordinary and laugh at them but i can say this for most people of the UK, we laugh at his jokes but we don't give them another thought. We do not then go find someone in a caravan and brand them a insult and drop a wrecking ball on them do we. Nor did i after reading "The World According to Clarkson" (it was a present) did i go round running over every fox that was along the side of the road.

I also think this debate could go on fo ever as neither of us will agree to others point of view, so we shall have to agree to disagree. TheEnlightened 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, TheEnlightened, I agree with you, but...

My only points are these: Do you think he´s a person to be respected? If he became a politician, would you agree with his policies? If he was your Dad, would he like you? If you talked about cars, would he agree with you, and compliment you on your knowledge? If he gave you driving lessons, what would happen? Would you like to be him? (Certainly his money...)

OK, that´s enough, but I thank you for your replies, and I truly wish you the best. Viva Wikipedia...

andreasegde 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a rush so my answers may be a little bit short.

Not sure about repected but he defiently has some good points

No but i don't agree with many/ if any politician's views

Probably not

Only if my views were the same or similar to his plus he'd probably laugh at my Citroen Saxo

I'd crash as like James May says he only like "POWER!!!"

Er not really but i wouldn't mind his job.......and his money

See you around on other parts of Wikipedia hopefully

TheEnlightened 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dr."

Someone referred to Clarkson as "Dr. Jeremy Clarkson" on Mercedes-Benz W221. Is this appropriate? If not, please edit it. Shawnc 05:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. andreasegde 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He has two honorary doctorates. It is thus moot whether he should be called "Dr".

Well being bold I have removed it. If he held a 'real' not hon doctorate and he was known by that title then using 'Dr' might be appropriate - although wiki MoS doesn't even for famous drs - but as it is it's just a distraction. Alci12 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Honorary Doctorates has this to say on the matter. --jmb 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Recipients of an honorary doctorate who do not also hold a bona fide doctorate often choose not to use the title of "doctor", though it may be appropriate to use the title provided it was conferred based on some tangible and relevant achievement. Even so, one who holds a honorary doctorate may use the title "doctor"[citation needed]. In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, it is not customary for an honorary doctor to use the formal title of "doctor", regardless of the background circumstances for the award (the clergy being a notable exception: Robert W. Schuller, Robert A. Schuller, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale and Jerry Falwell, just as examples, are all referred to as "doctor" and refer to themselves that way, even though none of them possess an earned doctorate but all have several honorary degrees, whereas Martin Luther King, Jr. earned a Ph.D. from Boston University). One other notable exception is Benjamin Franklin, who, in 1757, received an honorary doctorate from Oxford University for his scientific accomplishments, and from then on went by "Doctor Franklin."

Well, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles seemed the crucial aspect not that I disagree with what you say anyway. Alci12 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The style manual makes no mention of honorary doctorates only academic qualifications though it does point out honorary knights are not allowed to use the title. I have never heard Clarkson use the title himself though I am sure he has used it in fun at some point. So if someone with an ego as big as Clarkson does not use it then it seems rather silly to keep reinserting in front of his name. If every famous person who has an honorary doctorate had "Dr" in front of their name then it would probably apply to most of the "notable" people in Wikipedia. I can't be bothered playing childish games of removing it for it to put back in again for no good reason --jmb 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarkson: God or idiot?

What this whole debate comes down to is this: Is he one of the above?

Maybe the discussion page/article should be split into two; the ones that think he preaches the gospel of humour/intelligence, and the ones that think he has the integrity of a stoat.

There seems to be no way of reconciling these differences, or is there? What do we think about that? Is there/can there be a balance? I hope so... andreasegde 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarkson has read the article

In the Driving section of the Sunday Times, whilst reviewing the Audi TT, of which the last two paragraphs were actually about the car, Clarkson mentioned how his Wikipedia article says how he once hit a tree, as an example of how boring he was. Newmhost 11:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And here's the link. [3]. Maybe someone who knows how to do those poncey "this article has been used as a source" boxes at the top of the page would be kind enough to make one. --Bonalaw 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear viewing figure

"but is most associated with the BBC motoring programme Top Gear, which he presented from 1989 until 1999, and then again from 2002 onwards. The show has 350 million viewers worldwide and won an International Emmy in 2005."

Where did the 350 million figure come from? It sounds a bit like the dodgy figures of xx billion people watching the Superbowl or Oscars when they seem to be got by just adding up the potential viewing audience in each country where they are shown. --jmb 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation request to the main article by this figure. --jmb 08:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to Ellen MacArthur's website has been added by someone. This read

BBC Two’s Top Gear programme is presented by Jeremy Clarkson and regularly has an audience of over 5 million viewers each week in the UK alone and an estimated 350 million viewers worldwide in over 90 countries. So don’t forget, tune in at 8.00pm this Sunday (4.12.05) on BBC2.

I still find the 350 million viewers figure very improbable. It will need an average audience of about 6 million in each of those 90 countries. Either it is getting a huge audience in some of those countries or it is getting a bigger audience in most overseas countries than in the UK. --jmb 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the UK it gets around 5 on Sunday and around 2 on the Tuesday repeat; but I'm guessing some of the figures have been made up by taking BBC Worlds total weekly reach (absolutely massive) as 'viewers' for its version of TG. --Kiand 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC

That is the point I was making. "Viewers" means bums on seats watching the programme. "Reach" is just the number of people who can receive the channel so is not relevant but seems to be used often to inflate viewing figures. --jmb 20:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Goddamn xenophobia comment

• What's the deal with this. sounds like a stupid pratt with a grudge. --Blythy

• Little less of the abuse please, Blythy. But please, 86.29.116.177, discuss your changes here. //R_edH_otR_adiators ^(talk) 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, what do we do about them if they don't stop and listen to reason. That IP at least needs blocking: that user has now reverted at least 7 times, so anyone know a helpful admin we can ask? Setokaiba^✌_≝ 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone on WP:AN/I, or you can report it as a 3RR violation because they've done it 4 times in 24 hours (and will likely continue) at WP:AN/3 --Kiand 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reading back through the discussion pages for a few of the vandals yesterday. There often seem to be a series of "final warnings" then they continue again a few weeks or months later. I am no expert on Wikipedia procedures but surely if someone repeatedly vandalises a whole series of pages in rapid succession then they should be immediately blocked permanently unless they can give a very good explanation. --jmb 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does continually deleting the comment breach the 3RR? Blythy 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reverting potentially libellous material" is what we seem to be doing, so we should have a reasonable safety net. Setokaiba^✌_≝ 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if the same person does it 4 times in a row, anyway, libellous content rule nonwithstanding. --Kiand 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that the paragraph being reverted is poorly written, and the tone is not befitting an encylopedia. But it is citing the source accurately. So the current "comment" to potential editors (not the readers of the final page) appears to be inappropriate. mdf 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur, there is nothing wrong in a paraphrase of his column put into context and the point he was making, or even a brief quote from it, so long as it is verifiable and in an encyclopedic manner. If the there is nothin notable about the column eg it wasn't controversial or it is not a good example of his style then there would be no reason to mention it. Quoting substantial parts of it is of course a breach of copyright. GraemeLeggett 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page as a temporary measure, tho' I'm not convinced it's the right cause of action because it's more of a content dispute than vandalism (it's really to deal with 3RR). Feel free to unprotect if you're an admin; experienced non-admins can also request unprotection to me and I'll do it without argument. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the bit from the Biography since it was already included in the Controversy-Foreigners.

"Nazi-staffed car" ["foreigners" section]

Surely what Clarkson said was "a Nazi staff car". 66.135.106.50 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Cy

Home

# It was revealed, during The F-Word on 5 July 2006, that Clarkson's house on the Isle of Man is a lighthouse.

That has been known for some time so hardly "revealed" in July 2006. one mention here and here. --jmb 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

IMO the article has slid back into the same anti-Clarkson direction as it had before. I have tried again to bring it back into a more NPOV format, he is notable as a journalist and not for this series of alleged controversies which his opponenets would have us believe reflect the reality of his career, SqueakBox 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

BAD INFO

Hello- Just looking at the history of this page and the editors that edit it. It's a little strange. A chap started a new thread here that said something about the Americans needing passports to buy drinks and someone deleted it within ten minutes. They didn't delete the comment, but the whole thread. Then I decided to look at the history of the page itself and it seems that there is a war of editors to make sure that the page says that Americans need passports to drink. I don't think that a real Encyclopedia would offer any wrong info at all. Why are you editors keeping this page wrong? I can see from the history of the page that someone added a section that clarified the truth and he kept getting deleted. I would understand if it was one person that hated Yanks or whatever but there's a small army of them. Who are you people? Why is this page edited like that? I am going to try to set up an account so that I can edit this page too. This is too strange.

Here is the chap's thread that was deleted: (cur) (last) 02:56, 15 July 2006 Zoe (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Oliverdefleur (talk) to last version by 66.135.106.50) (cur) (last) 02:46, 15 July 2006 Oliverdefleur (Talk | contribs)

I don't see how what he said was offensive or against the rules? Would someone explain?

JeffDeHart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.112.58 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 July 2006

Yet again, this article is written in a NPOV. It does not contain any bias. There is no conspiracy . I am getting tired of all of these inane rants. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete misinterpreatation of what really happenned. Oliverdefleur was the sockpuppet of a blocked user and Admin Zoe than reverted his contribution because we are duty bound to revert the comments of blocked users. I didnt realise what was happening, reverted Zoe and replied to the comment, then when i realised Oliverdefleur was blocked I reverted his and my comment. This had nothing to do with the passports issue or even with this article. The opage is certainly not werong nor is there any kind of conspiracy going on, SqueakBox 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is JPS? Tired of what? go away then! Squeakbox, I don't know what a sock puppet is. What I do know is that there have been some very reasonable looking quotes deleted from the page. Right now the page is misleading. I have not one but two people telling me that "theres no conspiracy", it's so strange. Why don't you either add the disclaimer or remove the false comment if you chaps are on the level? There was definitely some bullying going on there I've just had a look at the comment. Starring role from The JPS who seems to have taken a very keen interest in Jeremy. You should be less rude The JPS. Work on your people skills. Squeakbox, what's a sock puppet? Is wikipedia all political people trying to paste misinformation and bad substance?

Jeff DeHart

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. I dont think the info is misleading in the sense that Clarkson said you can buy a gun and bullets and yet not a drink in the US without a passport and it is our job to record what he said not to comment on the truth or otherwise of his comments. I neither know nor care whether he said is true or not and I dont believe we are evn allowed to say whether his comments are true or not as that would count as original research. The comment seemed fine the other day when i passed my editing hand over the article. There are some political leftie types who edit this article but I am not one of them, SqueakBox 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot BUY a gun with no ID in the States. the idea is moronic. You edited that foreigners could not buy a drink without a passport and they deleted that. The statement is incorrect, false and misleading. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain fact. I can see why those chaps were getting so irritated. The page has been hijacked by politicians. Also: If it's your job to record what he said then whey were direct pastes from the sunday times article deleted? I have now done my own mini investigation. it's attrocious. if your job is to report what he said then undo the malicious reverts. Seems like BBC bullies or TIMES bullies. It's not on matey!

JeffDeHart

DR

I added the doctor bit on his name because he IS A DOCTOR. That is part of his name so it stays.

my talk page is where you dispute the fact.--Joshuarooney2006 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another citation by Clarkson

Another way of dying quite early — though this time with an axe in the back of your head — 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, like the BlackBerry and a wire that connects your mobile to your iPod, but it doesn’t work.

I recently checked the Wikipedia entry for Jeremy Clarkson and after just a short time thought, 'Wow. When can I meet this guy?' 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

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?”

The Sunday Times Driving Section, 30 July 2005. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 July 2006

When will you learn that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA!!!!!!!NOT AN OPINIONS BROADCASTING SITE????????--Joshuarooney2006 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're going on about. He's just saying that this page has been cited in Jeremy Clarkson's column this week. - Blah3 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A question about a quote to ask for someone else

Recently, myself and a few other RC patrollers had reverted the edits of a user who may be a wikistalker. With his constant accusations and later personal attacks and vandalisms of our pages, I am going to ask a question for this user.

Did Jeremy Clarkson ever state on Top Gear that "When you buy an American car, you have to have sex with your cousin, because that is just what [Americans] do."? I do not doubt that he said this (as the British love making fun of the Americans), but to give the original reverter some closure, this has to be proved or disproved somehow. Ryūlóng 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall him saying that, though I would have to search to find out which episode. Either way, if I am right this is the same guy who started a revert war a while back and was banned, though now he is JeffDeHart. Extremely similar IPs/hostmasks and style of posting. - Blah3 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this information. I have added the statement back in, and when you can, Blah3, could you give the quote context in the episode? Ryūlóng 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked it up and the closest thing I've found is from the episode from 7 August, 2005 (series 6 episode 11), where Clarkson is reviewing the Ford F-150. The exact quote is "You see, right now I'm driving through a tiny little village, very rural, miles from any big city, and if this were America it would be full of people doing... whatever it is they do... incest, mostly."

As I can't find the exact quote used in the article I'll change it to a paraphrase to say something similar, which should suffice. If anyone can find the exact quote Ryulong posted above, feel free to revert and cite it. - Blah3 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And maybe we can keep the baseless accusations of others off of this page some more. Ryūlóng 05:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the exact clip of where he says the incest joke. I've linked it in the references. Ryūlóng 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one who put in the original quote about incest. I knew it came from when Hammond was driving the Charger for the first time, and when I edited I didn't have a clip/video in front of me, so I went upon what my mind was telling me. Upon further review, the exact episode was on 23 May 2004, and check it at around 19:30 in--the exact quote is "if you buy an American car you're gonna have to commit acts of love with your cousin". So there: the challenge is complete, and he has two examples of stupid, prejudiced anti-American comments about how we're inbreds. (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos/Kerry, and hope to support Bernie Sanders if he runs for Prez...which I hope to god he does.) I edited the page as such, and included a reference from YouTube.--ChicosBailBonds 06:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the youtube clip for the Dodge Charger episode does not have the quote in it, and I have removed that quote from the text. Ryūlóng 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Toybota

What should we do with the Toybota?

He created It so he should be adequatly acredited with creating It.--Lucy-marie 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We should await the result of the AfD. violet/riga (t) 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he seems to happily admit that he is useless with any sort of tool, I doubt whether he had much to do with creating it. The production team probably had it made up by some contractors. His contribution seems to be limited to trying to sink it. --jmb 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

can you quote any source about this doctor of engineering being useles with tools and that he did not infact design and help modify the toyota hilux in to the toybota.--Lucy-marie 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In all the Top Gear programmes that I have seen that involve any sort of work with tools, Clarkson loudly points out that he has not any interest in doing that type of thing. It might all be bluff as most the things he says but I just can't actually see him spending the time on the construction of the Toybota himself. His doctorate is purely an honorary one and there are plenty of academics with real engineering doctorates who I would not like to trust to do any actual manual work with tools. So much of the programme is planned and scripted that is always hard to tell what is real and what is not. --jmb 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

RSPCA

"In the Sunday Times on June 2, 2002, he joked that he had spent the day hunting rats using tennis racquets and croquet mallets. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals issued a warning to him as a result of this comment." Anyone get the impression the RSPCA is a bit of a joke organisation? Some of the stuff the persue is literally ridiculous. Rats are vermin and Clarkson would be fully entitled to exterminate them on sight if he pleased. Also I read recently they tried to bring a private action against a police officer that put a dying bird a member of the public had clipped with their motor vehicle out of its misery with a shovel.. and dragged it through the courts for 2 years on repeated appeals, causing him unreasonable stress etc... rather then persue generally barbaric incidents of animal abuse, they persue high profile media healine grabbing cases to promote their charity name and secure public funding to justify the outrageous salaries their staff draw. Such frivolous waste of money genuine animal lovers have donated being abused in such a manner should be investigated by the Charity commision.

What dose this have to do with the artice at large?--Lucy-marie 12:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)