Talk:Jim Davidson (comedian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Way too much POV
This page and this discussion page clearly indicate a level of subjective and emotional carry on that is neither here nor there. Why not just cite his carer and use references to back it up. There is nothing about the TV series Up the Elephant and Round The Castle or Home James. If you like the guy, if he appeals to you or not, shouldn’t be the point, that is POV and the idea of wikipedia is to provide some relative balance thus displaying an encyclopaedia style not a FOX News version of the I hate Jim London cause he is an outdates racist pig. Personally, I don’t find the guy that funny myself, but the way that the ‘I hate Jim’ campaigners carry on is pathetic – you are not even pretending to be reasonably self-removed regarding POV.
-
- You sound like a bit of a c*** there yourself, boy.
[edit] Vandalism
I must say that the vandalism on this page is hilarious! --Differentgravy 10:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- I totally agree, although if the abuse of this hate-preaching wankarse is to continue then we should take the route of more constructive criticism so as to not give anyone cause to delete it. -- GyroscopicPatio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.100.175 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-29 22:17:20 UTC.
- It most certainly is. But then again that's because so many people can't stand this guy. A mention of that should be made on the page, ok "he's a cunt" is putting it bluntly, but "despite his success a large number of the public dislike him strongly, more so than most celebrities" is fine. 195.93.21.97 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Wikipedia's meant to be an encyclopedia, right? Encyclopedias present the facts. And the fact is, Jim Davidson's a cunt and a racist. Jim's Mum 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 02:50:49 UTC.
- You have the right idea. 61.218.55.27 does not. (61.218.55.27 is not even correctly distinguishing fact from opinion.) If, starting from that wording as a beginning, you can work up a neutral and, moreover, verifiable wording here on the talk page and garner a consensus, it can be added to the article. Citing sources is especially important here. All opinions must be properly attributed to the people who hold them. Weasel terms like "a large number of the public" should be avoided. I've provided a place for you to start. Uncle G 10:14:05, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
- Methinks Uncle G missed the joke. --Ousted1 07:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- me thinks Uncle G is Jim Davidson
jim davidson is my dad. So the git who called him a cunt can keep his opinions to himself, at the very least be polite.
This is supposed to be an article in an enclapaedia and language like that should have no place in wikipedia. Whether or not one considers him to be a cunt is irrelevent. Is is he any more of cunt than bernard manning, ron atkinson or adolf hitler. He does do al ot for charity. Franz-kafka 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Stalin did a lot for charity and he was a cunt too.
[edit] Proposed wording for reporting public opinion
[edit] Wording
Jim Davidson has been the subject of media coverage, especially in British tabloid newspapers. The Shropshire Star reports1 that much of it has focussed upon his divorce payments, income tax bills, and court orders for cancelled shows, with a tendency to concentrate upon where his comedy is ill-received rather than where it is well-received. It cites as an example an incident where he once refused to go on stage in Plymouth because all of the disabled guests had been put in the front row, quoting his as saying that "I've got nothing against disabled people but part of my act is taking the piss out of the front row. Just imagine if I had have ripped it out of them? The papers would have had a field day. Instead I asked them to move but they wouldn't budge."
[edit] References
- Rous, Nathan. "Still space for a blue comedian?", Shropshire Star, 2005-08-22.
[edit] Discussion
Except that that a) is obviously biased toward his side, and b) completely ignores the whole "he's a racist cunt" thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC).
- There may be some validity to the above anon's point a (point b is obviously little more than POV.) Considering the example given about the disabled audience members, without knowing the theatre in question, I obviously can't say for sure, but there may have been an entirely valid reason why "they wouldn't budge", for example, maybe the only wheelchair-accessable area in the auditorium was in the front row, and there was nowhere else for them to watch his show from. More generally, what the Shropshire Star article is commenting on is nothing specific to Jim Davidson, it is simply a comment on the nature of the tabloid media, in that they will jump on anthing that looks remotely like a "celebrity scandal", because that sells papers. I'm not sure how relevent it is to this particular article. AJR 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that last part was me using a bit too much hyperbole. My point was that it totally glosses over the (well-founded, IMO) accusations of racism. Plus the whole paragraph is clearly slanted in Dim's favor.--203.73.105.51 16:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Jim Davidson is the ultimate celebrity scandal. It's a scandal he ever made it. Freddie Starr is a million times better, and he's a non-talent. You can't find many better examples of a non-talent, except of course, Jim Davidson!
[edit] Colour Me Kubrick
Colour Me Kubrick is for 2006 scheduled. --ThomasK 14:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotecting
Protecting a page like this for weeks and weeks is pretty sad. Unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dear vandals
We tried to reflect your point of view with the "controversy" section, but we can't just go right out and say "he's a cunt", so if you mess around with it we either waste our time putting it back or it gets protected and no-one else can edit it. How about you give us a break? Kappa
- Jim is a legend, you people should get a sense of humour. This whole article is a joke, which simply reflects on a few people that don't like his jokes. We've got stupid things like "etc", which don't belong in an encylopedia. Instead we've got an article on a small group of people who continually complain about him, with hardly anything on his work....especially television work. His whole act isn't standup. Sort it out, come on. Blightsoot 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
He's a legend all right - he's legendary for being a cunt and a racist.
-ps this article basically has given into the vandals, they should be get banned, not catered for. (I also should use that remember me tag on login a bit more often)
[edit] Have any of you actually seen his act?
I recently have, and was pleasantly surprised ( I expected to hate it) to find Davidson has now tailored his act to a more contemporary format; gone are the 'Chalkie' characterisations and in its place is a more self-deprecating US-style of comedy story-telling more in tune with what audiences expect these days- the only person Davidson takes the mickey out of these days is himself...and very funny he is too....you may not belive it , but its true! [[Harryurz 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]]
- What are you? his PR agent? Jim Davidson is British comedy at it's worst. The only time he comes close to being funny is when he's ripping of Bob Monkhouse gags and even then, he can't do them justice! User:192.135.227.226
- Nope, not his PR, just someone who has seen his stage act ( unlike I suspect yourself) He doesn't tell 'jokes a la Monkhouse anymore , as I remarked above. Could you also please sign your contributions as a matter of courtesy please. Thanks Harryurz 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have seen his act. It is complete dross. Yes, he STILL does do the Monkhouse gags, deny it if you want but we all know it's true. User:152.163.101.8
[edit] Headline text
In light of the large amount of debate here about Jim, I added the text to the header which reflects both the popular comic, the turbulent personal life, and his dedicated charity works. However, I note anonymous user 62.6.139.11 revereted to the original header, which the RevertBot Tawkerbot2 changed back. I hope we can reach an agreement on what should be written, particularly as I note the later pieces collaborating these points in teh article have not been editted - so it seems just a headline issue. I will happily state I have seen Jim in performance live, and on TV - which is really like watching two different but both very funny people, and hence why I understand the varying comments. But as an encyclopedia, we have to try to reach a balanced NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just as an FYI - User:62.6.139.11 is an annoymous NHS account. Rgds, - Trident13 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
I really cannot stand the man and would love to rant on about how revolting he is, but I can't help but think this article is hugely biased. Someone needs to clean up the section regarding his ex wife. Yes, he MAY be fickle or horrible, but it is a point of view and does not belong uncited in this article. Adamshappy 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Hague
I removed "William Hague is a close friend" from the trivia section. The statement is not cited, and I find the idea highly unlikely. If someone can provide a citation, then feel free to add it back. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
