Talk:Al Murray

Critics of the European Union
Does this refer to the character or the man himself? If it refers to his alter ego, it should be removed as he is fictitious. (Ken Barlow is not listed as a Critic of Religion)

Puzzle
I can't see why the amendments added by me as follows require the persistent attention of a removal artist.
 * "Al Murray has been married twice, and currently lives in Hammersmith with his wife, Amber, and daughter, Scarlett."

and
 * " ... "I was never confused", which is an allusion to a supposed gay interlude in his character's early identity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

per this policy, the first part needs reliable sourcing. Per WP:V, so does the second. Neither is sourced. From policy: "any material that is unsourced, particularly in relation to living people, may be challenged and removed, aggressively if necessary". -- Rodhull andemu  16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also worth taking a look at WP:TALK to see what editing of a talk page is permissible. -- Rodhull andemu  18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Al Murray does not live in Hammersmith, that's why, and values the privacy of his family. As you don't know where he lives, how can you be sure of what his family are called, let alone how many children he has? (which you get wrong too). this wiki is all over the place in general, largely innacurate (the book? the comedy award), so get private specifics so wrong is surely utterly removable. You call me "a persistent removal artist" - I call you a persistent poster of innacuracies. why do i know all this, for I am Al Murray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.58.253 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. However, I do know that Al Murray can spell, and I do know where he lives. However, as an admin here it is my responsibility to make sure that our policies are followed. That means removing inadequately-sourced personal information, which will continue as long as I'm around. -- Rodhull andemu  21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On what authority do you know that I live in Hammersmith? I don't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.58.253 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Al was on BBC Radio2 this weekend (Saturday afternoon) and confirmed that the person above stating that he is Al Murray is indeed himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.75 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just heard this on iPlayer, and apparently, I'm "the nerd", although he didn't give any credit for the assistance I gave him here. I suppose if I wandered into "his gaff" and began to rearrange the furniture to suit my own preference, The Pub Landlord might have something to say about it. Point is that we don't get to write articles to our own preference, and when we have no way at the time of verifying whether or not the IP's claim to be Al Murray is true. I might log out and edit Barack Obama's article claiming to be him, but my IP address says I'm in Wiltshire, so that claim would quickly fall to the ground. There are ways of dealing with this sort of thing here. At least I've never produced anything as dire as "Multiple Personality Disorder", and if those scripts had crossed my desk as a script editor I'd have said "Forget it Al, they'll crucify you." And they did. Rodhull  andemu  19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Charity
Corrected the details of the charity which Al is the Patron of (not a trustee). Would have thought that a simple lookup on the Charity Commission website would have been done to check accuracy first (suggest for all charity entries). Mark, CamKids Chairman 88.111.145.162 (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would help if he were listed there, but he isn't; you and Amber are listed as trustees, but the CC doesn't seem to list Patrons. -- Rodhull andemu  14:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If he isn't listed on our CC website, then why are you repeating the incorrect statement that Al is a trustee ????????

If you really did go to the CC website, you would also have seen that the name of the charity is "The Cambodian Children's Charity" and that "CamKids" is just a working title and our domain address.

A charity patron is not an official title which can be registered with the CC - it is purely honorary. As the Chairman of the Charity, I am telling you that he is a Patron and that should be enough. If not, go to our news weblog entry: http://camkids.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-murray-pub-landlord-is-patron-of.html for confirmation.

You still have the wrong website link - the website you link to was set up by someone else, without our permission, for a project done at a local NGO we support, is not maintaned by us and therefore has NOTHING to do with the charity whatsoever.

Please get you facts straight and do not delete my corrections - we all work ads volunteers and your innaccuraies are just wasting our time..

Mark Purser, Chairman, The Cambodian Children's Charity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.145.162 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me dense, but...
A quiz show, Fact Hunt (say it aloud)...

What? I don't get it. 88.111.184.73 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact hunt = Fat c*nt. You dense b*****d.


 * You mean "dents bustard". Call the RSPCA. Nphase 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's precisely for this reason that vague statements and innuendo like this don't belong in an encyclopedia, it just creates confusion. A quiz show, Fact Hunt (say it aloud) isn't informative, it's just playing a silly guessing-game with the reader.


 * I've re-written the text in a more informative style. It's OK, you can say "cunt" here. There's no censorship on Wikipedia. 172.203.101.212 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted "The title Fact Hunt is a spoonerism of the words "fat cunt"." This is simply not true. A spoonerism of "fat cunt" would be "cat funt". A spoonerism of "fact hunt" would be "hact funt".--Shantavira 10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you thought it wasn't a Spoonerism, why didn't you just correct it instead of deleting the whole sentence? Because of your extreme editing style here, I suspect you may be using the "Spoonerism" error as an excuse to remove the word "cunt" from the article. If that's the case, sorry, but it's staying (with the Spoonerism reference deleted, just for you).172.159.126.224 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Took me a while, but I worked out "fact hunt"-"fat cunt" is known as an Oronym (look it up here :-))...something to be added to the main page, add it as you wish SmUX 13:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Character name
I always thought Al Murrays character was nameless, only known as 'the pub landlord', and that al murray was the name of the guy performing it, not the actual landlord (like alan partridge is steve coogan) but...now the tv show is called Al Murrays Happy Hour... so has he adopted it as the only thing he will do for his career?


 * No, I just watched his latest show on ITV, and it was called Another Audience With Al Murray, The Pub Landlord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.125.162 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section
I've removed the following:

Often in his shows, as a deliberate comic interruption, Murray offers a glimpse at the extremely intelligent and sensitive man behind his antithetical persona. This often involves a modest and subtle demonstration of his knowledge of philosophical and literary debates, and his appreciation of real-world political issues beyond the right-wing extremism he is lampooning (his act may be seen as a fresh take on the Alf Garnett idea). It is a testament to his skill as a comedian that he mainly uses this to deflate the egotism of anyone he invites on stage, who are mainly people with pretentious job titles from the first few rows. Although quite a lot of his act involves light-hearted 'attacks' on women, especially if they are drinking pints ("Tell me there's lime in it, darling!"), and people from other countries, the object is satire and ultimately the Pub Landlord is a deliberately pathetic creature, with Murray working in a background featuring a failed marriage, failure as a father and early homosexual experiences ("I was NEVER confused!") lying behind his misogyny and bigotry. As a particular example, when interviewing Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, he essentially dropped the persona entirely to express his admiration for the astronaut and discuss the conspiracy theory surrounding the missions.[citation needed]

Although I think we should be thankful to the person(s) who wrote this, this is in no was neutral - see WP:NPOV. Wikipeida is also not the place for original research of commentary WP:NOT, so even if this may be well written, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I considered editing it, but almost every sentence is a matter of opinion, not a statement of fact. In the end I had to be bold and get rid of it. Tompagenet 09:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parody and contradictions
The paragraph above having been removed, there is now nothing in this article that states the parody and contradictions of his character, which are major aspects of his Pub Landlord character. His character is supposed to be uneducated, with a over-simplistic xenophobia, strongly influenced by his wife's infidelity with continental men. There is no doubt that the real Murray is educated to a high standard, and, like Warren Mitchell and his character Alf Garnett, has clearly created a uneducated, right-wing 'straw man' character, in an attempt to discredit the right by reprenting them as ignorant and narrow-minded. However, whilst in character, Murray quite often drops his pretense, by doing things such as speaking fluent German, and, as pointed out above, engaging in intelligent conversation, such as with Aldrin. Another massive contradiction is that people who are very right-wing are strongly opposed to anything and everything LGBT. However, the Pub Landlord's favourite band, as he enthusiastically exclaims so often, is Queen (whose lead singer was a multiracial immigrant bisexual who died of AIDS). The suggestion is that the Pub Landlord is a latent homosexual, but no-one has pointed out that idolising Queen obviously runs completely contrary to British nationalism. The Pub Landlord has interviewed several homosexual guests, without condemning their orientation or lifestyles. That is very different to how a real nationalist is. Murray doesn't make his character a convincing portrayal of a right-winger, whereas Warren Mitchell did; Garnett never showed intelligence, nor ever mentioned loving an AIDS-infected promiscuous bisexual. Murray discredits his own character through the major inconsistencies in his act. There needs to be something in the article that states the points in this paragraph. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor English
"... with a dislike for anything "un-British"." Not good usage, almost Orwellian, what's wrong with "not British"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.92.30 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bubble and Squeak?
The fact that Bubble and Squeak is is favourite dish is linked to a reference that refers to his divorce. Its clearly fallacious and has been put in as a joke.

Its prolly you bloody Yanks that can't see that its stupid. bubble and squeak weekly? Jesus, give me a break.

I'm great and you all suck.

Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.79.201 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Political connections
User:Mabelina has written a paragraph musing on how "Murray's parliamentary pedigree and know-how exceeds that of lesser publicans, being able to draw on cross-party family connections..." with some plain primary-source links about how Murray's family tree contains various political figures. This seems WP:SYN at best: we don't really know what level of "parliamentary know-how" the man has, or whether is he able to draw on the "connections" of long-dead ancestors. If this is an individual Wikipedia editor looking at somebody's family tree and making a point or a joke about it, does it belong here? Has any press coverage of his standing for parliament commented on his ancestry as being particularly unique or interesting in relation to it? --McGeddon (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanding FUKP to new article Suggestion
Since FUKP is a real party, isn't it notable enough to have it's own article with policies, history, etc.? I'm not sure, what do you think? Moony 22  19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life and Campaigning
Having read the talk on this topic I note that one of the contributors claims to be the subject himself. Surely this is a conflict of interests and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines?

Relating to this, the contributor has stated that the subject supported Paul Chambers' successful High Court campaign for the right to free speech (over the sending of an allegedly "menacing" tweet).

In 2014, Murray entered a complaint against at least one user of Twitter with the Metropolitan Police, which claimed that he didn't like the statements they were making. This can be referenced by written data produced at the time by the police authorities involved. By stating the former support and omitting the latter allegations, this is an unbalanced profile of the subject and is designed to reflect unfairly in their favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:COISELF allows article subjects to correct their own articles to remove inaccuracies, and this is all Murray did, cutting a single unsourced sentence. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME the article shouldn't have been stating where he lived and the names of his children without a source.
 * If something could only be sourced to a WP:PRIMARY police complaint then it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear McGeddon, A small cross-referenced edit I made just now(subsequent to leaving the topic for discussion for 24 hours on the talk page, unchallenged) was immediately deleted by you with the above note. You appear to be quite over-zealous with support for this subject. Whilst I did question the conflict of interests that accompanies self-editing in this talk section, at no time did I bring up the topic of the subject's domicile or family arrangements and cannot understand why you see the need to address this as if I had, resurrecting a discussion that went on above this with another editor entirely. With regard to my edit, I would suggest that anything that has published police supporting evidence was valid enough. Why are you supporting the content of this item in such a biased way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that wasn't clear - I challenged your suggested edit by pointing out that a police complaint is a WP:PRIMARY source. WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly says that Wikipedia should not use "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". We'd need to use a secondary press source that commented on the police complaint. I don't think I'm being biased here, this is just basic Wikipedia policy: articles about living subjects must use reliable secondary sources.
 * I mentioned the family and place of residence because you questioned whether there were COI problems in Murray editing this article directly. If he only removed a single unsourced sentence about his home and family, claiming it to be inaccurate, then no, this is not a problem and is in fact encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. --McGeddon (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification on that. I appreciate your reply. I totally support the personal anonymity guidelines that Wikipedia have set and see no reason why any family or area of residence details should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 October 2015‎

Removal of Sentence
In the section marked "The Pub Landlord". I have removed the sentence; "When asked about the sitcom during live shows, in character as "The Pub Landlord", Murray claims to be unhappy with the television series, a joke some have taken literally." There is no citation or cross-reference for this and it is merely the opinion of the originator which contravenes Wikipedia guidelines for content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, quite right. This kind of explanation can be put in your WP:EDITSUMMARY, for future reference. --McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mock" xenophobic
The article describes the Pub Landlord character as "mock-xenophobic" and professing "an apparent particular animosity towards Germans". If he's a fictional character, shouldn't we just say that he's "xenophobic" and "has a particular animosity towards Germans"? Or is the Pub Landlord merely pretending within character to hold these opinions? I'm not really familiar with Murray's routine. --McGeddon (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Article style
The entirety of the Wikipedia entry on this subject (Murray) is too opinionated and partial in style. It's not an appraisal, after all. It should be about fact. Rightly so. In any event the character that he portrays is the fundamental bit, and invites minor description (unlike this article, which currently emotionally over-embellishes to the point of the Baroque) but not content of his act, because themes of any performer's act vary and change along with topical events and quickly become outdated. It's an encyclopedia. Not a fan site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 October 2015‎

The Pub Landlord
I have removed the following statement from this section. " His character "The Pub Landlord" is a stereotypical,Reductionist[1] right-wing British patriot avowing a dislike for anything "un-British"." With the attendant footnote, Ref Herring, Richard. "Richard Herring's Leicester Square Theatre Podcast Episode 79 - Al Murray". Retrieved 24 September 2015. This was done under the following Wikipedia guidline. "Ideally all information should be actually cited to reliable sources to provide evidence that it is verifiable, such as published books and mainstream press publications. Blogs, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, fan sites, and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is another Wikipedia article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, I think it's safe to regard Richard Herring as an "established expert" on the subject of stand-up comedy characters, so we could quote his description of the Pub Landlord even if it was just written on his personal blog. It might even be Murray himself describing the character, given that the podcast appears to be an interview. --McGeddon (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear McGeddon, No matter what status the contributor has, it should still be taken into account that entries of this nature are disallowed by Wikipedia. I gather Mr Herring writes for various publications including newspapers, etc. If he has committed his views on Murray for publication in any of these, then fine. But it is entirely against Wikipedia rules to include Blogs just because the originator or the interviewee is deemed as "famous" by certain sections of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordFrazey (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 October 2015‎


 * If you click through to WP:SELFPUBLISH you'll see that Wikipedia explicitly allows the use of blogs and other self-published sources if they're written by established experts. Herring's podcast seems like a reasonable source for a short description of a fictional character - it may even be Murray giving his own description of the character, I haven't listened to it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead
This is me "tak[ing] it to talk", as an anon advised. Now, I prefer 's slightly more nuanced version of the lead, so will be reverting to that forthwith. —— SerialNumber  54129  15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain my edit.
 * Describing his work as "widely popular" is peacocking that doesn't belong in the lead.
 * If the article is going to state what he's best known for then it should be cited if asked. Personally I've never heard of his impressions of animals and guns, so I'd like to see how he's best known for this, and best known by who.  Happy to accept any cite and then we can see if it's so significant it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead.
 * The stuff about Edinburgh festival is notable, but do we really put it before details about "Pub Landlord". Does it need to be in the lead?
 * Who knows his comedy is biting and hard edged? Why do we care who knows it when we can just say it is biting and hard edged?
 * What does "biting" even mean that isn't said by "hard edged"?
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And lastly, if any reverting is to be done, it should be to this version. Unfortunately today's edits do not have consensus. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your words here and blind revers edits earlier do not match up. two actual people vs 1 logged in and later logged out crank seems like consensus to me. Ceoil (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh happened before pub landlord, & was a BIG DEAL. do you even know what the fuck you are talking about. biting is gone asshole who never heard of sofixit. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are against Wikipedia policy and groundless. Your constant personal attacks also.  I think the end result of both our edits are an improvement, but since you aren't prepared to discuss your additions, and have edit warred to revert to them, I'm very close to reporting you.  Which is a great pity.  I'm giving you a chance to respond to my points above, and/or revert your edit.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and report. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Since Ceoil is unwilling to discuss his edits in any constructive manner, I have again removed parts of them. I'll again explain my thinking, and am happy to discuss the additions rather than simply having them again re-inserted. For the most part they are good, but there are a few issues.
 * sourcing a cite than mentions his original act included impressions of sound effects and animals does not verify that this is how he is "best known". It only verifies that this is what he used to do, and now does no longer.  Indeed, this is the only thing said about them in the source; he doesn't do them any more.  So if anything, it suggests he is not "best known" for them.
 * Fortunately, the article lead needn't guess what he is "best known" for doing, when all it needs to do is explain what he does.
 * Describing some of his work as "widely popular" is simply peacocking.
 * I've left the bit about the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
 * "wanker" is not a synonym for blowhard, so linking to it under "blowhard" is effectively putting words into Murray's mouth that he did not say. It shouldn't be linked within the quote.
 * We don't need to guess how Murray's comedy is known. We can simply describe what it is.  A cite for this description would be good, however.

Serial Number 54129's thoughts are noted, but reverting additions to the article back in, on the grounds that you prefer it that way, is not really "tak[ing] it to talk". -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, my phrasing was poor; I meant, of course, that I felt Ceoil's edits more accurately reflected the article body, per MOS:LEAD. As for reverting...you will note that I did not do so :)  also, thanks for the analysis above, it's very thorough. Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you are correct. It was not you who reverted.  My mistake. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In remainder to peerages
I removed the sentence about being in remainder to peerages, given Murray has disputed it and there wasn't a proper reference. Bellowhead678 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor who added it 5 years back (and shortly after cited it when challenged) was blocked for long-term disruptive editing and behaviour a year later. Particularly among peerage articles.  So I think we're safe to assume that this was not a good faith attempt to cite the content. Good call removing it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 08:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Age
Why does the article not mention that he was born on 10 May 1968? (86.154.234.140 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC))
 * Perhaps no-one had yet found a reliable source for that information. If you know of a reliable source maybe you could edit the article accordingly? As this article is a biography of a living person, it is expected that such facts are supported by a source, otherwise they are likely to be removed. Poltair (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Historian
JHB2895 has repeatedly added to the lead sentence "historian" on the basis that his colleague calls him a historian in the intro to one of his books. I would suggest that James Holland is not a neutral individual in this matter, and appears to be the only one making this claim. For a lead to call someone an historian I would expect multiple, third party, uninvolved sources to call him this, and perhaps for him to hold some kind of academic position in the study of history. Otherwise most sources describe him as a "enthusiast".

In the absence of the above, please stop adding this to the article. The lead sentence should focus on what makes him notable, and being a historian is not one of them. Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since JHB2895 is declining to discuss their edit, and appears to be a disruptive single purpose account, I will have no option but to revert their edit. I have tried to engage them here, and on their talk page, but only response has been through warring edit-summaries


 * If anyone has anything to support what it says (other than the opinion of one person, who is his friend and podcast colleague), happy to hear it here. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per bold, revert discuss and explanation above, I'm again reverting this disputed addition. Contributing editor refuses to discuss it except through edit summaries while re-adding.  Continued addition of this without discussion will be treated as disruptive edit warring. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Open letter to The Guardian
"...200 public figures who were signatories to a letter to The Guardian expressing their hope that Scotland would vote to remain part of the United Kingdom in September's referendum"

This is such a frequently-referenced text, occurring in the wiki articles of at least 200 public figures, what support would there be for an actual Wikipedia article on this subject? Nuttyskin (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)