Talk:A. A. Gill

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a

The section seems to be cherry picking quotations and making an implied assumption that AA Gill is a racist based on these quotations, and I have removed it pending discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations have been in there for months, and were described as witty and amusing comments he had made. It is only now you care about them, because I added some stuff about the reaction to them. You are fine with people calling welsh people "ugly trolls", but not OK with Welsh people pointing out how offensive it is. I have reverted. I did not add these quotes. They all contain reliable citations (BBC etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes are not being presented in a neutral manner. There is a clear agenda in the selection of quotes to presented a synthesised view that Gill is a racist. Do not add the quotes back until this has been discussed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes have been there for months. Do not delete until there is consensus.

BLP problems are removed immediately, and stay removed until discussion has taken place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Night In Hackney, is correct

WP:BLP concerns come out immediately and only go back in with consensus. The burden is on the user who wants to include the content. Jeepday (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll explain in depth why I think the previous version was unacceptable. Four quotes were being presented and the

WP:BLP, especially due to the conclusion being drawn. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd more or less endorse what ONIH is saying above. Thanks,

SqueakBox 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. There are a number of BBC articles addressing the criticism, so there are reliable reference. The shear volume of the criticism section is completely out of balance with the rest of the article and the subjects notability. This article says His essays are known for their humor and satirical content about the subject so presumably race is not the only subject that would be appropriate for the criticism section. I would suggest the editors here try to reach a balanced criticism section that does not overwhelm the rest of the article. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no need for a neutrality tag on this page and i'm removed it again. If somebody wishes to reinsert it, can they please provide a justification for doing so?SamuelSpade79 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been discussed above. Please do not remove the template again. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the impression that the issue had been dealt with. Offending comments had been removed, and there has been no argument for some time. Thedarxide (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not convinced the current version is neutral, but it certainly isn't a BLP violation any more. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe OneNightinHackney can explain how the article as it stands can possibly be considered less than neutral. The quotations have been removed and there is nothing any vaguely imbalanced about it. What could 'convince' I wonder? 144.173.6.75 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because neutrality is a two way street? I'd have thought that was obvious, it's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well since two of us have know (sic) questioned the current status, perhaps some pointers would help. Thedarxide (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'm very curious. So, without any rocket-science cracks, can ONIHack explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.227.121 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is a two-way street, an article can be too positive as well as too negative. I'd expect to see some criticism of Gill in the article, but it has to be in proportion to the criticism and the rest of the article. If you look at the really disupted version, the quotes and criticism are approximately half the article and focus on his more controversial quotes rather than include his more obviously humourous and satirical ones for balance. If the article was much longer you could include a section of that detail, but you can't with a short article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCbio | section=RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute!! reason=Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to please comment. !! time=10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(RFC tag removed Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to comment.

Mr Gill's name has been mentioned many times (in conversation, letters pages, message boards and newspaper articles). Usually as a form of shorthand for someone who has been able to state racist views without having to face the consequences of their actions. I'd heard some of the things that had been attributed to him and found it hard to believe. Firstly, that anyone would hold such hateful views, let alone put them in print. Second, that any newspaper would publish them. And last, that having written those awful things, no charges were brought against him. I decided to see for myself if these allegation were true by seeing if there was a Wikipedia article on him. Well, there is, and there isn't. There is an article on the person, but apparently, "His essays are known for their humour and satirical content." Well, not by any of the people who've spoken to me, they're not. He's known for a completely different reason. I've read this talk page and I am at a loss to know why the article has been sanitised and why none of Mr Gills controversial statements (for which he has become famous) have been allowed to remain on the article - despite the last comment in this discussion, implying that the article may not be balanced. I note that yet another attempt to create some balance in this article was reverted only this morning, with the edit summary 'see talk'. As far as I can see there hasn't been any talk for nearly five months. I'd be interested to hear your views. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'His essays are known for their humour and satirical content, but some people often find them offensive.' would be a more balanced and factual statement.
♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 11:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, if he is known for his racist comments, there will be something in print somewhere that says so and it will be quite valid to include something in the article to the effect that "Gill has been criticised for expressing racist views" along as it is accompanied by valid references. Deb (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Press Gazette do ? [1]
♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Welsh statement should be included, as it is just about the only thing that AA Gill is actually known for in Wales and there is serious dislike for the man across the border. Ann Robinson's article includes a paragraph when she offended the Welsh, and that comes across fairly neutral. At least she apologised for the offense (and she does come from Liverpool which has an antagonistic relationship with Wales) whereby A.A. Gill as recently as this year reiterated his opinion on the Welsh in a TV show by Rob Brydon. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any justification for the reversal edit by Thedarxide. The quotes were cited and provide material on the individual. Let his own voice speak for him. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made above. It's a bit like having an article about David Irving which doesn't mention his views on the Holocaust. This is an encyclopedia article so we must be strictly neutral in tone of course, no matter how we may feel, but as Snowded says above, let his words speak for themselves. These edit reversals are unacceptable and obviously protect a POV; let it stop. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits due to the previous BLP discussion above that no one seems to have read. There was little discussion and no concensus on how to integrate the material Thedarxide (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "'His essays are known for their humour and satirical content, but have caused offence in Wales [and elsewhere?]." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard the comment left on the talk page of the Guernsey article, I don't see that the passages are terribly relevant - Gill is a restaurant critic, not an historian. If an historian made comments to the effect that Channel Islanders could have put up more of a fight (and some have), that would be worthy of inclusion. As it is, the comments are hyperbolic and emotive, with little to back them up. In any case, the comments would be better placed in the article on the German Occupation of the Channel Islands. Mon Vier (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the original question. No, of course not. The Welsh comment, for example, is verifiable and noteworthy. It needs to be in there. 13:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan (talk • contribs)

I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time and trouble to comment. I think we can take the RFC tag off now, unless anyone objects (best to leave it for a few more days in case anyone does). Other than the minor vandalism you would expect on such a controversial topic, the article now seems fairly NPOV and stable (although I've added the 'humorous and satirical' quote that was reported to the CRE). We seem to have reached a consensus that AA Gill's racist views should be noted in the article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the RFC tag should be removed. The matter seems settled. If somebody comes along and adds a POV comment or statement it can be edited. Good to see some commonsense and decency prevail. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a typical example of lack of neutrality. Read the Barber article. It's ironic and about trying to like Gill. It isn't (especially for Barber) unduly negative. Wikipedia is all too frequently used to settle scores. Perhaps it is time (with the current Twitter issues in mind) to start discussion at a higher level the whole issue of anonymity and Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavelboy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide a citation for the welsh being a different "race" my parents are welsh, I was unaware of being a different race. Don't get me wrong I think he's a an idiot for his Welsh comments, but calling it racist when it's xenophobia helps no one. 77.98.164.98 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC page cited in the article, it was the members of the

National Assembly for Wales who called the remarks "persistent anti-Welsh racism"; and according to the same BBC report, the Crown Prosecution Service did not seem to agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The CPS didn't say it wasn't racist. The cited BBC news report says “However, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take action against Mr Gill.” Being a racist or stating racist views isn't against the law. The CPS argued that Gill “had not meant to stir up racial hatred”, which would be necessary to prosecute successfully. Nevertheless, the IPs point on the statement that Gill's comments were reported to the CRE as racist is valid. The words “as racist” are redundant here - reference to the CRE would be made for no other reason. I have removed them. Daicaregos (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hasn't answered the question above. I too am troubled by an anti-welsh sentiment being included in the knee-jerk catch-all "racism". 198.147.19.2 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "anti-Welsh racism" is a verbatim quote from the motion put to the Welsh Assembly. It's not up to anyone here to challenge that wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything controversial about Michael Palin's observation or AAG's review of Morrisey's book, which won Hatchet Job of the Year which is a British journalism award given annually since 2012 to "the writer of the angriest, funniest, most trenchant book review of the past twelve months".. which is a positive not a negative. For it to be a controversy it has to be a two sided argument.Greglocock (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are clearly relevant to the article subject. Perhaps they just are in the wrong sub-section. Daicaregos (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in

So the second sentence "They later divorced" must be obvious, and is therefore pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.0 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of cancer(s) did he have? And did he smoke??? (I have seen a photo of him with a cigarette in his hand). How much did he smoke? Were the cancer(s) possibly related to his smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit history, you seem to have an obsession in this subject. Surely if it piques your interest that much, you would search for reliable sources, instead of using this as an open "Yahoo Answers" forum Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because, although I am interested in the subject, I was not particularly interested in A.A. Gill (I had never heard of him until I saw his obituary). There would be no reason for me to do extensive research on this one guy's smoking habits. (personal attack removed)

Why not actually read the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article - on 10 December 2016. The info on his smoking was inserted on 13 December. You posted on 14 December. But thanks for bringing it to my attention.

@Stephen: I contacted the photographer who took this photo, which has still "all rights reserved". I am still awaiting his response. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I contacted other photographers and then asked those at Commons about recruiting more photographers. Pinging Marchjuly, with whom I discussed at File talk:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg. George Ho (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use this photo; the uploader via email told me that he did not create this photo. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A. A. Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041023/http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html to http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041023/http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Locals-hit-Sunday-Times-columnist-AA-Gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html to http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/locals-hit-sunday-times-columnist-aa-gill-s/story-20382881-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]