Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 4 November 2005

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the tv-series "Jeremy Clarkson meets the neighbours" is being aired right now. There is no mention whatsoever on the Misplaced Pages page about this. There's also no mention about it on IMDb, nor on the BBC website. Does anyone have more info about it? I'm guessing it's from 2001 or so, since they were talking about Belgian francs in one episode, which were replaced with euros in 2002. -- Sander 13:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction?

"He is known for his physically imposing presence, and ebulliently robust manner... He has an image of not pulling any punches".

BUT

"He also recently punched Piers Morgan, former editor of The Daily Mirror, a UK newspaper for printing some unflattering photographs of him. This was generally considered fairly out of character."

I'm all for Morgan getting a slap, but can it really be said to be against character?

The not pulling any punches refers to being open in his criticism , and not his ability to hit other people. Furthermore, according to Morgan's autobiography , it was part of a long running dispute, and by Morgan's attitude, he deserved it. Go on, please, hit him again.

In any case the term "pulling punches" means that the punches have no force behind them, so that "not pulling any punches" means that every hit is intended to hit with full force (i.e. that he does not understate his arguments). The term is almost always used metaphorically, and almost certainly never referred to any physical punches or lack thereof.

Cleanup

I have rewritten the article as requested by the cleanup notice, retaining most of the content, but toning down the POV stuff and discarding some trivia. I hope it's OK but feel free to let me know if I've done badly. Qwghlm 16:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Smoking?!

Does jeremy clarkson really smoke 400 cigarettes a day? or is that, as i suspect it is, an extra zero

Rover

I removed this: "He is well known for the part he played in the downfall of MG Rover, the last major British-owned car manufacturer. His constant negative reviews of Rover's essentially competent products affected market confidence, leading to falling sales and the eventual closure of Rover.". It's POV (because it says that Rover's products were 'essentially competent') and wildy overestimates the effect one journalist can have on a company. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed it earlier as well; it's back again now. If there is no evidence, it should be removed. akaDruid 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the above - is DJ Clayworth so naive to think that journalists cannot have an effect on a company's fortunes?!? I get the impression that this user has a strong bias for Mr Clarkson, and cannot tolerate anything negative being stated.

I think it's fair that something should be said about Clarkson's constant and unfounded rubbishing of MG Rover and its cars, and his joking about the company's closure and its workers' loss of jobs. I'm thinking at the moment about the best and most non-POV way to include this, and will post something when I've finally decided.

I agree with this. Although it is impossible to ever quantify what damage Clarkson personally did to MG Rover, he certainly kicked the company when it was down, and this should not go unmentioned. Even when Rover workers were being sent redundancy notices, Clarkson was gloating over the company's collapse in his columns in The Sun and in The Sunday Times. Here's a quote from his Sunday Times column just after the collapse - "..when I heard the news my first thought was “good”. Now we can move on and do something we’re good at" - I think more mention needs to be made of the nasty side to this chap, because if your first thought to the news that 6,500 people are to lose their jobs is 'good' then you are indeed a spiteful person. It's not witty, sarcastic, controversial, or whatever - it's purely vicious.

I completely disagree with the above - is DJ Clayworth so naive to think that journalists cannot have an effect on a company's fortunes?!? I get the impression that this user has a strong bias for Mr Clarkson, and cannot tolerate anything negative being stated.

Just inquiring, how do you get the impression he has a strong bias for Clarkson, because he rejects that particular sentence as POV? It would be more biased to let it be. As it is in the current revision (yeah, I know I'm a bit belated in my reply), I think it states it well enough, as NPOV.

Now, I'm not British, so I don't have access to British newspapers and the like (actually only seen Top Gear, where he in my opinion makes fairly innocent jokes), but did he rejoice at the loss of 6,500 jobs, or the closing of a car manufacturer he did not like? There's a huge difference. - Jacen Aratan (I am lonely) 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

An Inspiration

Ever since I was a mid-teen, backstabbing know-it-all I've had the inner itching to put pen to paper (or fingers to keys) and write scathing remarks about things I can't change, but want to let everyone else know what I think anyway. Jeremy Clarkson's fabulously sarcastic narratives on life have been a real inspiration to me - no one does irony like him - and the fact that he really does base his opinions on facts is marvellous. In my writing I tend to either really hate something, or really want to praise it - Jeremy Clarkson was my metaphorical push into journalism and I aspire to get as much hate for my work as he manages to get too!

what can i say the guy is a mook

Jeremy Charles Robert Adolf -the willy stroker Clarkson (born April 11, 1666 in the seventh circle of hell) is a smug french-hating nob swallowing degenerate motoring journalist and television presenter. He is known for the incredible contrast of his minute penis and his swollen ego - the second man made object to be visable from space. He is recognised within the industry for physically repulsive presence, and ebulliently robust philipino slaveboy. He is forthright in his opinions yet stands at a staggeringly tilted (almost 57 degrees) angle, to the point where some consider him paralell to the tower of Pisa, and others entertaining.

Contents 1 Biography 2 Television career 3 Newspaper journalism 4 Other interests 5 Honorary Degree Controversy 6 Personal life 7 External links

Biography Duke of sarcastic japary ? moronic xenophobe ? public school inbred ? or the very embodiment of arrogance ? all very apt discriptions but no one could possibly and justly define the root of all evil. Mr Clarkson is famed for being the 4th avitar of the antichrist, his lower jaw forged from titanium in the brimstone of hell's inferno - his every articulation poisons his already toxic atmospheric localaity. Clarkson is the proud owner of perhaps the most notable speech pattern in the parlance of English, over emphasising every syllabul, infraction and vowel sound his style can be said to be that of a tribute to Moira Stewart. A keen student of the black arts and machiavellian manipulation techniques, he quickly distinguished himself at hogwarts, where he famously ate his contemporary --- Gail Porter.

Cute. - Jacen Aratan

It was in the actual article before :( the wub "?/!" 30 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

OK, that explains quite a bit... was wondering why someone had randomly posted it. My comment still stands, cute. Spite is funneh. - Jacen Aratan

I hope Mr Aratan loses his livelihood one day, and people have a good laugh at him. Spite is 'funneh'? What a complete dick. I'd like to hear him say that to the face of a former Longbridge worker. Once again, what a dick.

That thing does not mention Longbridge anywhere, so why would I say that to a former worker? The piece of writing there is nothing but bashing of Clarkson, so why assume I'm referring to former Longbridge workers in any way or shape? I'm only referring to the original author of that. And yeah, I know I'm a wanker, thanks for reassuring me. - Jacen Aratan (I am lonely) 6 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Unfashionable

I have added this section and I have balanced out the intro slightly, may ease any MG-Rover workers clenched fists next time he appears on T.V., incidentally I agree that he has been quite depreciative about MG-Rover but I hardly think that he could be blamed for a wider press attack of the company and besides, the greatest enemy of MG-Rover were the last owners.

some references.

regarded as sexist

Road safety campaigners have called on BBC chiefs to axe Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear, claiming it "glamorises speed" and encourages a "yobbish" attitude among drivers.

the so-called `Jeremy Clarkson effect'

more 'Des Lynam' than 'fashion guru'.

'What Not to Wear' Celebrity Special

"known for his physically imposing presence, and ebulliently robust manner"

I am wondering if this unsubstantiated fan fluff is from his own sarcastic hand, if this cannot be substantiated then I vote for it's removal

Considering his constant rants about hardware issues with his Sony VAIO, I'm not sure he could find the Misplaced Pages :p. That said, his issues with that Sony built piece of crap are not rare - using one now, and its got similar mental problems - often refuses to wake up from hibernate, etc, etc... --Kiand 03:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Fight with Piers Morgan

Do we have any more information on the fight with Piers Morgan? What were they fighting over? What were the allegedly compromising photos? Nandesuka 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See earlier mention of this in the article (search for "Piers Morgan"). Halsteadk 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So where does he live?

The Isle of Man or Chipping Norton? Both are given in the article. If he has residences in both places, where does he spend the most time? Dabbler 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In his car? Nick Boulevard 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

2234

So the ABD mob now control, Misplaced Pages...

It seems some motorphile/ Clarkson fan has taken it on themselves to give 'balance' to the material I added by cutting out some very relevant material and adding an irrelevant plug for the extremist motorist group the ABD. Lets have a look at what offends them.

Clarkson has frequently been critcised for promoting what T2000 and others have called 'The get out of my way school of motoring. Fact. However this seems to be an uncomfortable fact for the motorphiles who control this page..

Clarkson did 'joke' that it was almost worth running down a pedestrian in order to see the bonnet deployment system on one sports car in action. Fact, so why cut it?

I fail to see who T2000's suggestions for a modified 'Top gear' program, to be called 'Third gear' in turn requires a reference to the objectionable propaganda of the ABD. I left the link to the ABD story in balancing this with a link to an article examining who the ABD actually are. Balanced enough one might think. I would argue that no link to anything the ABD say should be made without a corresponding balancing link, such as the one I supplied. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1137531,00.html

Also the editor of this page inserted some very misleading information as to what the ABD 'critique' of the 'third gear' proposals actually said. They did not say that T2000 had a poor grasp of the problems faced by UK commuters. The ABD article, (and lets not be coy, let's use it's title 'Turd Gear'), actually rants on about T2000 expecting people to drive at 29 Mph on the motorway (total nonsense, but then this is the ABD talking) and the rest of the article seems to try to argue that 'there are no alternatives' (to use an aptly Thatcherite phrase) to car use. In reality T2000 does accept the need for responsible car use and its main aim is to develop alternative modes of transport so people have a real choice, as is the case in many European cities. 'There is no alternative' to the car, bus trips all involve being menaced by youths in baseball caps and having drunks being sick on your shoes... only in the reactionary world of the ABD. Public transport cannot work? Tell that to people who live in central London, only a minority of whom even own a car..

What else does our ABD mole object to? Ah, only 'some' road safety and cyclists groups have objected to Clarkson's rants. Which genuine road safety organisations have NOT objected at some time? T2000? The slower speeds initiative? Roadpeace?, Brake? PACTS? ....

So Clarkson and 'Top Gear' is popular? Popular with who? According to Clarkson himself 'petrolheads', so why the pretence that the whole of the UK population somehow find Clarkson appealing?

What else didn't Big Brother like?

'Some, however suggest that his comments, such as his claim that he would run down cyclists 'for fun' and his suggestion that noisy motorcyclists should be 'shot in the face' simply illustrate his 'ironic' and 'satirical' sense of humour.'

A balanced statement surely, or by admitting the sort of objectionable comments Clarkson makes do we show what a hollow pretence it is to claim his comments are in any way 'ironic' or 'satirical'

Also cut:

'Others feel that his comments, even if meant 'in jest' or a part of a deliberate strategy to ensure he continues to have mass-market appeal, may dangerously validate and reinforce the prejudices of some of his viewers and readers.'

Why cut this? this is probably THE concern of the sort of people who signed the Oxford Brooks petition. I also leave open the possibility that what he says IS 'in jest' or perhaps part of a strategy to keep his market value up) quite possible given what I have been told by people who work in the media). Surely, the only other explanation for his comments is that he really is some sort of 'motoring fascist'?

If the edits were made in good faith I would ask who ever did them to look at the wider picture. We live in a right-wing car-centric society and you cannot give true 'balance' to extreme right wing car-centric views by quoting slightly less right-wing car-centric views, let alone those of the ABD! This same problem exists with the BBC. One might think that a 'balanced' motoring program might give exactly 50% of its time to the sort of "puerile political incorrectness" Clarkson presents and the other half might be given to T2000, Roadpeace and so on. Of course this doesn't happen and yet the BBC still claims that 'Top Gear' is a 'balanced' program because every now and then they road test small economical cars rather than the overpowered 'supercars' which they so often feature.

Still positing on this page has been an instructive lesson in how pervasive the sort of propaganda presented by the likes of 'Top Gear' is. Perhaps it is just another aspect of the campaign being run by the likes of the ABD who have tried to take over web forums (even T2000's own on-line forum) in an attempt to give the illusion that their views are 'mainstream' and to encourage people to think that believing even that driving an economical car or walking 200m to the shops rather than driving marks one out as some sort of 'lefty eco-warrior.'

NPOV and the Controversy section

I'm getting fairly fatigued by dealing with all the recent POV additions by User:83.196.194.145. Can we set some ground rules on what is appropriate for this article and what is not, and get general agreement to revert changes that don't follow Misplaced Pages guidelines?

Specifically:

• Clarkson is a controversial figure. It's perfectly appropriate to cite sources that critique him. ("Transport 2000 claim that Clarkson is helping to hasten the end of the world by supporting cars over mass transit.") It is not appropriate for us to launch our own unsourced critiques ("Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist.")
• Moreso than in most articles, we need to be very careful about quantifiers ("some" "most", etc.), particularly when making vaguely-sourced claims.
• When discussing two sources with a differing view, we should try not to write our text so as to "favor" one side or the other. Just the facts, ma'am.

Basically, so much of what has gone in to the article recently is not attributable to any citable source, but just reads like personal opinion, that I'm more or less assuming that any edit that doesn't have a citation, at this point, is suspect.

Any other guidelines people would like to suggest? Nandesuka 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok let's agree on what can go in the 'Controversy' section

Firstly, I agree that my first posting contained material which was not appropriate. However, I am new to Misplaced Pages and nowhere in the later edits does it say anything like '"Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist." (Not that I used the term 'fascist' anyway, which has a specific political meaning, Sure, fascists tend to be hierarchical-authoritarians but not all hierarchical-authoritarians are necessarily fascists in the strict sense of the word. OK I used the term 'motor fascist' above but I did put the term in 'scare quotes', certainly plenty of the posters on the Oxford Brooks petition seem to think he is one, even if I would shy away from using the term directly

I would refer you to the post I made above. However, I have carefully sourced almost every thing I posted and I feel it shows a definite lack of balance when other guff in the article is not sourced at all. Who on earth thinks he is ' ebulliently robust in his manner'. If I have to quote every single thing or risk having it cut surely the same should apply to similarly unreferenced material?

Th article is about Clarkson and this inevitably includes his role in 'Top Gear'. Why on earth the need to quote the ABD in order to somehow counter T2000's criticisms of the program especially when it was done in a way which biased the content of the ABD's 'Turd gear' piece? Now, I suspect that even to have bothered reading the 'Turd Gear' piece you must have some sympathies with the ABD. Lets agree to disagree, you cut out all mention of the ABD and I won't press for a countering link to the Guardian piece on them...

You say 'the show is staggeringly popular'. This seems to suggest that you think if it is so popular there can't be much wrong with it, whatever, I would suggest that the term 'very' is more appropriate than the hyperbole of 'staggeringly' Also why not add balance by mentioning who it is popular with? Clarkson uses the term 'petrol-heads'.

Why cut the comments about some thinking his comments display an 'ironic' and 'satirical' humour. As I mentioned above these comments do seem to give an alternative explanation of why he says the things he does and in any case were added by someone else, seemingly in order to 'balance' the fact that so many think he is a right-wing bigot.

WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says.

P.s. Perhaps part of the problem is that if we actually quote the words of Clarkson he does come across as an opinionated right-wing bigot (and there is plenty more in a similar vein that could be added). Perhaps the mans very words make it difficult to to present a 'NPOV'. Perhaps the entry (if there is one) on The Boston Strangler or whoever also has a problem in presenting a 'NPOV' and so pains are made to stress how much he loved his mother or whatever.

Personally I am more concerned about what he says than with who he really is in private. People I know who work in the media tell me that many of those who turn out all the vitriol in the right wing press attacking everyone from refugees to single mothers KNOW what they are writing is ill-informed and divisive garbage but simply couldn't care less, as long as they get the fat pay cheque at the end of each month. For all I know Clarkson by be just as cynical. Whatever Clarkson's real attitudes are I feel it is important that the reality of his public persona is made clear, similarly who cares if Jim Davidson or Bernard manning are racist, it is what they say which counts and is what they should be judged by.

Welcome! I'm glad that you created an account. Note that you can "sign" your posts by ending each section with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It's usually useful to do that, so that other readers know who said what.

Rather than going through a point by point back and forth, let's take one specific issue which I think might let you know where I'm coming from. You ask "WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says." The answer is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a repository for original research. Put another way: the fact that you or I might be concerned about that is not encyclopedic, and not appropriate for inclusion. If that opinion becomes widely-held, or is expressed by a notable and credible commentator, then it might be appropriate for inclusion — but, if it's widely held, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reputable source to cite to support the statement. My problem with the edits have been going in has not been simply that they are critical, but that some of them were critical and unsourced. You've done a good job of providing sources for some of them, for which I'm glad. Let's find sources for the other ones.

Lastly, I think we do have an obligation to try to keep our perspective balanced. The guy is staggeringly popular in some circles. If we're going to present 10 paragraphs on how certain classes of people hate him, we can't plausibly claim to be providing a neutral point of view if we discard any favorable comments others have had about him.

The "fascist" comment was meant to be an example, not literally based on your text.

Thanks again for joining us on the talk page and working towards reaching consensus. Nandesuka 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope you feel that the few minor edits I have made are OK

I have made a few very small changes to the edit you made. I hope you feel that these are acceptable. If so I am happy to leave the article as it is. You suggest that if I source them properly it would be acceptable to post more 'Clarkson Controversies'. There are many I could add but I feel the few I have given do give a taste of the sort of thing he writes/ says. I guess I could press for the 'favourable comments' about him to be properly sourced as well, but what the heck, I am happy with the article as it currently stands.

I have just noticed that a properly referenced section has also been removed

That is:

'In The Sunday Times of April 30, 2000 Clarkson did much to reinforce his image as right-wing authoritarian by writing about his fantasies of shooting a burglar dead with some 'cold Russian steel', and using the body to encourage more vigorous growth from my new yew hedge before stating his opinions on prison reforms:

I do believe that prisons should be a little less luxurious. And let's not stop at taking away their menus and confiscating the video players. Let's introduce some rats and straw, and let's have a system where inmates are only allowed to eat what they can catch on the windowsill. I want to see prisons where there are no warm radiators, no lavatories and no attempt to rehabilitate the wrongdoers. Two to a cell? No, think more in terms of about 25. I have in mind the sort of establishment where it costs about £2.50 a week to house each inmate. Locking people up would become cheap and that would mean people could be banged up for all sorts of things - first offences, shoplifting, evading paying the TV licence. Anything.

Perhaps not unexpectedly given Clarkson's attitudes to driving (he has claimed in The Times that he knows of roads close to where he lives where he could fully explore the performance of the 150Mph plus sports cars he road tests) Clarkson has never argued for a similar policy for motoring offences.'

Given that I would argue it is very important to illustrate why so many think Clarkson is a right-wing authoritarian, I feel this sections should not have been cut. However, in the interets of brevity I have edited it down to the following. If in the interets of balance anyone would like to add a quote from Clarkson expressing his concern for the dreadful conditions in many UK jails, the misuse of ASBO's or similar they are of course at liberty to post them as well.

'(For example, in The Sunday Times of 30 April 2000 Clarkson wrote about his fantasies of shooting a burglar dead with some 'cold Russian steel', and using the body to encourage more vigorous growth from my new yew hedge, also arguing that " I want to see prisons where there are no warm radiators, no lavatories and no attempt to rehabilitate the wrongdoers. Two to a cell? No, think more in terms of about 25. I have in mind the sort of establishment where it costs about £2.50 a week to house each inmate. Locking people up would become cheap and that would mean people could be banged up for all sorts of things - first offences, shoplifting, evading paying the TV licence. Anything").

So, the motorphiles who idolise Clarkson can't tolerate the truth presented by his own words...

I have noticed that the material I have posted earlier has been removed by Clarkson fans who obviously feel uncomfortable about having even the mans own words placed in the public arena. Says a lot about the sort of people who idolise him...

Well there was a lot of anti Clarkson propagandas that was removed to obtain an article with a Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View. It is not right, IMO, to take everything Clarkson says seriously as he clearly does not himself. I am no car fan and certainly don't idolise Clarkson but I find him very funny even when he is obnoxious in his The Times, column and Top Gear is one of the very few BBC programmes I would pay to watch (being an ex-pat) as he is much funnier than a lot of what passes for comedy. The article seemed to be trying to judge what he says by ther same standard as one would judge say Tony Blair, and that is not right, SqueakBox 18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Other Clarkson Controversies" section out of control

The "Other Clarkson Controversies" section is now more than twice the size of the rest of the article, and seems to include every bad thing ever said about Clarkson by anyone, including some guy he passed on the street last week, and that one time when he was six months old and wet the bed.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

I'd like to propose that it be viciously edited down to a reasonable size, and only include the most notable controversies.

Thoughts? Nandesuka 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Have done some of the worst. It looks like one Clarkson hater to me pushing POV, SqueakBox 00:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if this was a purely biographical page.

As it is, it's a kind of jaundiced quasi-biography, which reads a lot like some kind of Neo-Stalinist dossier detailing his numerous "thought crimes"........

Perhaps those who enjoy editorializing could try getting jobs at newspapers instead of writing Misplaced Pages articles.

I couldn't agree more. I hope it is a bit better though it is far from being perfect. At least it is not so anti him now. Read to me like it had been written by one of those who were protesting against him. Probably the same sort as those who demand cyclists drive on the road and thus have to face the millions of drivers out their just like Clarkson, SqueakBox 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am lodging a Formal Complaint that the neutrality of the article has been compromised due to the removal of Clarkson Controversy section.

Formal Complaint of the Neutrality of this Article

I am lodging a Formal Complaint that the neutrality of the article has been compromised due to the removal of Clarkson Controversy section. The article "as is" is more of a whitewashed and revisionist bio rather than making a full bio complete with detailing certain controversies that Clarkson has been in. It's almost akin to saying that the SS wasn't responseable for the mass-murder of Russian Civillians during WWII and that the Japanese Imperial Army never conducted War Crimes in Nanking.