Talk:Richard Hammond

I've seen this flagged in the comments of the revision history - "except [sic?] this entire section is a waste of time and should be deleted "controversy, my arse"".

I'd like to defend the addition of this section on the grounds that it is relevant, and is worth mentioning in a biographical article on Richard Hammond. A similar section exists for the article Jeremy Clarkson (albeit longer, due to the sheer number of controversies that man generates). As demonstrated by the significant coverage by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, Reuters, CNN), the section meets the bar for notability. The controversies section for the subject has been modeled on the already existing controversies section for Jeremy Clarkson.

I have attempted to make the sections as neutral as possible, in each controversial act adding (and sourcing) any statements made post put forward by the subject. To this end, I have quoted Hammond verbatim. In describing the controversies as 'xenophobia' and 'homophobia', I have used only the specific terms used by the accusers (the Mexican ambassador in the case of xenophobia, and Stonewall in the case of homophobia). I have been clear not to come down on either side of the discussion, preserving neutrality - merely presenting the facts as they lie and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions on the matter. Domeditrix (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)DomeditrixReply

I'm sure your good efforts are much appreciated. I'm certainly not saying that section looks biased in any direction. Far from it. There may well have been one or two controversial things that Hammond has said during the course of his career and I wouldn't want to defend any of them. But, quite honestly, when an encyclopedia has to report the "controversy" in the press produced by him saying "I don't eat ice-cream because I'm straight", it seems to me we've lost some perspective. Presenters on those kind of shows are expected to make "edgey" or "controversial" comments every now and then, aren't they? It comes with the laddish territory? It's not as if he punched a producer in the face for not providing hot food, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. you omitted my edit summary Ricky Tomlinson tribute.Reply

I essentially agree with Martin, and would support removal of the section, or consolidate it down to a more reasonable couple of sentences. I also think it worthwhile to point out that all of the supposed "controversies" happened during his Top Gear tenure - which was itself noted for courting controversy. In other words - if we are to point out that he made such comments I think it should also be pointed out that he only ever made such comments during and while he was on Top Gear. There are no other recorded instances of him ever being controversial, and being in the public eye he's had plenty of opportunity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

What a great shame the scriptwriters never get the credit they deserve? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I should imagine that the scriptwriters have been quite relieved at that fact or more than a few occasions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I originally went for consistency, noting that there is coverage of Jeremy Clarkson's antics that caused controversy while at Top Gear on his page. Additionally, the controversy stemming from the 'ice cream' remark resulted in, arguably, a larger controversy for his remarks made about people coming out (in an interview with The Times). It's tough to frame the second, more noteworthy point (that occurred outside of Top Gear or The Grand Tour) without making any reference to the ice cream incident. The backlash to the Times interview was covered in the UK's biggest newspapers, local papers (Birmingham Post), and even specific interest magazines (NME, Attitude). I can see the utility in blending the xenophobia point into the Top Gear controversies page (and providing a link to that within this page), but I think the backlash to Hammond's statement in The Times interview - "when I hear of people in the media coming out, I think, why do they even feel the need to mention it? It is so old-fashioned to make a big deal of it. That isn't even an interesting thing to say at a dinner party any more" - wouldn't fit there or on the page for The Grand Tour. Domeditrix (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)DomeditrixReply

I'm not sure consistency is the criterion you want. With respect, the section is both heavy-handed and judgmental, but it also blows two, admittedly highly inappropriate comments out of proportion and we're in WP:UNDUE territory. Three headings to cover two incidents is a lot, "Controversies" is too broad, and the two sub-headings are both inflammatory. The section needs one heading, perhaps "Inappropriate remarks" or something comparable, and a careful editing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps an option would be to separate controversies between those that occurred on television (Mexican ambassador, gay ice cream) from those that occured off-tv ("why do they even feel the need to mention it?") Domeditrix (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)DomeditrixReply

So do we know whether the original comments were Hammond commenting as Hammond, or whether it was just Hammond delivering what a witty scriptwriter had dreamed up for him to say on his TV show? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would not break them up. These are poor decisions, but largely uncharacteristic for Hammond. We can't handle this by using the example of the handling of Clarkson's extreme behavior as a model. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given, as we've discussed that these have all appeared on Top Gear, I'd suggest that the section is trimmed down to a single paragraph under the heading of "Top Gear XXXXXX" - where "XXXXXX" is "controversy", "Comments" or similar. I also wonder that if we're to mention the ice cream incident, then we should also clarify that it was actually a very carefully scripted and drafted comment that had a relevance to the target Finnish audience who found his comments hilarious, and he garnered much laughter and applause from it[1] - which was of course the intent.

"Inappropriate remarks" is good, but I do feel that it should be clarified that these remarks have been made in a very specific context - even the Times interview was as a response to the initial TV-created furore. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Chaheel Riens, for explaining the Finnish connection, which puts the ice-cream remark in the correct context. I agree with your proposals. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

For reference: Ingman's Kingis advert. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

And for tabloid-readers' reference: [2]. If even The Sun can mange to explain the context, perhaps Wikipedia could try too? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been trying to add Richard Hammond's new show to his filmography, but it keeps getting reverted. Here's my perspective.

Materialscientist reverted my edit stating there was no citation. Literally none of the other shows on his filmography list have citations, so I thought that was the norm. The show's existence is already stated and cited earlier in the article under citation 57. As such, I restored my edit stating as much.

Martinevans123 reverted my edit stating that the source says "not yet commissioned", which as far as I can tell, is incorrect. The source stated within the first few sentences that Amazon had commissioned the show. I restored my edit again given that martinevans123's reason for reverting was, in my view, false.

Martinevans123 again reverted my edit saying to take it to talk page, which as far as I'm aware, is not required, but optional per the link he submitted. So I restored my edit as no other reason was given for the reversion of the edit.

Martinevans123 again reverted my edit saying to take it to the talk page, which I did not do. I noticed at the top of the filmography that it stated that citations were missing. So I cited a newer article that covered a drivetribe video that had been released on August 2, 2020 where Richard Hammond gives some details on the new show. But then, since the article was just pointing to the YouTube video that DriveTribe posted, I modified the citation to go straight to the source rather than a blog post about the youtube video.

Then, Glen reverted my edit saying Youtube is not a valid source and to stop edit warring and take to talk. I'd never heard of edit warring, but I guess this is what that is. In any case, that's my perspective. I won't be restoring my edit, nor will I be making any other edits/additions to any other pages. So good job, guys, you won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.236.242 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, it's bonkers that in this modern age, a video posted by Richard Hammond's own platform(DriveTribe) on YouTube is not a valid source. Like, what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.236.242 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply