Talk:Jeremy Clarkson

/Archive1

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. 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.

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)

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)