Talk:A. A. Gill

Indian?

In "The Angry Island" he claims that his grandfather was Indian. Should the article mention this and add him to the catagories of "English people of Indian descent" and the like? Also, why is he called a Scotsman. He may have been born in Edinburgh, but the articles on both his parents simple refer to them as English, and mentions they were both born and raised in England. Whats his claim to Scottish descent, other than happening to be born there and his general loathing for the idea of being considered English?

He's listed as Scottish because someone changed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._A._Gill&diff=prev&oldid=420988707 - I would think think the prior British is more suitable Thedarxide (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

removed?

Why was this change by JohnBull removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._A._Gill&diff=66546730&oldid=66432139 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.195.186.220 10:54, July 31, 2006.

If you could be bothered to check the article history, you'll see that was removed by User:Fieraku, not me.--Johnbull 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read my English you'd see I didn't say 'removed by JohnBull', of course I checked the history otherwise I wouldn't have known. You were attributed as the original author of the change, not the removal

He also offered many Irish people by impling in an article that the IRA has strong links with the Irish Army!!! What a crank

I have removed the descripion of his comments as "provocative and acerbic" and changed them to "racist". It is hard to describe his comments on the Welsh as being anything other than racist. If he said this about people of African descent, or Asians, he would quite rightly be called racist. There is no excuse for an encyclopedia condoning comments like these with the words "provocative and acerbic", which are tacitly complimentary.

Either the comments should be removed, or the encyclopedia should not take its current positive position on them. Does Bernard Manning's entry refer to his "witty and amusing" comments about black people and jews?

are the welsh a "race", strictly speaking?

198.147.19.2 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If he said this about double-glazing salesmen, or people from Thaxted, would he "rightly" be called racist?

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Balanced?

This article doesn't seem very balanced. I don't think Mr. Gill is hated by the public at large, and this article seems to imply that he is some kind of fascist rather than perhaps a tongue-in-cheek humourist.

I don't really agree. The article doesn't suggest or imply that he's hated by the public. I've removed the bit about Branson calling him a 'prick', because it seems totally irrelevant. Personally I think Gill is absolutely brilliant, and if there is evidence of any acclaim (awards, praising quotes from others) then it should definitely be included. The quotation section is a bit quote-heavy I think, but since he's known and appreciated for his use of language rather than any opinions he might be thought to hold, this seems justified. Maybe, there should be less of his satirical take on individual nationalities and more from his restaurant or tv criticism. What do you think? Either way, I don't really see the need for a neutrality tag here.SamuelSpade79 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

if you didn't know of his work, he might come across as a nasty bigot from reading the quotes in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there is something odd about someone known primarily for being one of the UKs leading food and television critics, being exclusively represented by his satirical take on various nationalities. What do you suggest? Either the quotes could be removed or they could be slimmed down and others included as well. I think that some should stay at least, since they do exemplify his style of writing. SamuelSpade79 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. There is no context for the quote, and in the context of the article, he doesn't seem to be advocating hate of the Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article. It is impossible to conclude that he is advocating anything else. Substitute "black" or "asian" for Welsh and see what it sounds like. If you choose to revert then please explain how you do not construe these comments as racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Critic toasts Welsh" Headline says it all. Thedarxide (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you capable of actually defending your point? The "toast" in question is in reference to a much later event than the date of the quotation in question. The article linked to recounts things that Gill said earlier. If Stalin had said he quite liked Gelfilte fish would that mean that he wasn't really an anti-semite? The quotation stands by itself and is part of a consistent pattern of racism on the part of Gill.

If you revert again then I would appreciate your comments being less oblique than "headline says it all". If you are not prepared to defend your actions then please don't revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added footnotes to BBC news in which he is described by governmental representatives as racist. Unless you have some more credible evidence that he is not racist, then please stop reverting my changes with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The CPS stated he wasn't racist. You have clearly come to wikipedia with an agenda. I have given reasons for the reverting, as have other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The CPS did NOT say he wasn't racist. They declined to prosecute, which is a different thing entirely. Most racists are never prosecuted (see Jade Goody for the most well known example).

The Welsh Assembly says he was racist. Please find some body of similar standing who says he is NOT racist if you choose to revert. I have clarified the text to incorporate your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the current edit Thedarxide (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I have tagged this article for a neutrality check, specifically if the many quotes (since removed, see the history) attributed him make this a balanced article, or a hit piece. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll explain in depth why I think the previous version was unacceptable. Four quotes were being presented and the synthesised (and unsourced) conclusion that "Gill is notorious for his comments about other races and nationalities" was being made. These are four quotes out of many, many columns during his 15 year career at the Sunday Times. The Guardian article on him does include a couple of the quotes, however it also balances it out by including quotes on other subjects. It's my belief that simply leaving quotes on other subjects out while including as many contentious comments about other countries is not neutral and unduly skews the article and is a violation of WP:BLP, especially due to the conclusion being drawn. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd more or less endorse what ONIH is saying above. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Neutrality (again)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute

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))

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)

'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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lynn Barber

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)

Can someone provide a citation?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Controversy section - a beat up

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)

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)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Gill's first wife was the author Cressida Connolly, daughter of the writer Cyril Connolly. They later divorced.

Does it not follow that if one had a "first" wife then there must have been at least a second one?

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)

What kind of cancer(s) did he have? Did he smoke? If so, how much?

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)

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)

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)

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.

Uploading a free image

@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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

File:A. A. Gill.jpg

Hello, Philafrenzy. You uploaded File:A. A. Gill.jpg months ago. I appreciate your efforts to visually identify this person. However, the image may have commercial interests, which prevents it from meeting WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"). The "Use the image" option from the National Portrait Gallery website reveals that the image's only license is "Professional licence", which requires a purchase and registered account on behalf of one's own organization. Also, Iconic Images probably owns copyright of the image, even when Terry O'Neill (the photographer) created the photo, and Iconic Images requires permission to use the photo. Besides the image, do you know any other image that displays the person accurately

BTW, I uploaded one image previously, but then I removed it to be consistent with the decision on another image at Wikipedia:Deletion review George Ho (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the image from the article. I don't know of any alternatives at present. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you removed it, Philafrenzy, you can add {{db-g7}} there if you want to request deletion. George Ho (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)