Talk:Jim Davidson

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 . 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.


 * Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, once the PC Police (the guardians of our morals) are out in force you can expect trouble! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.137.16 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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  is to continue then we should take the route of more constructive criticism so as to not give anyone cause to delete it. -- GyroscopicPatio &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.100.175 (talk &bull; 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  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's Mum 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk &bull; 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  can keep his opinions to himself, at the very least be polite.''


 * What? Polite like your dad is?


 * As long as you're nothing like your dad that's OK. I can tolerate being a , but appearing on a snooker related psuedo comedy I will not.

This is supposed to be an article in an encyclopaedia and language like that should have no place in wikipedia. Whether or not one considers him to be a  is irrelevent. Is is he any more of  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  too.And Jeffrey Archer.


 * I've just removed a picture of a muslim woman purporting to be Davidson as "Buttons." Are you feckin blind? I don't find his humour particuliarly funny, there are hundreds of idiots like him in every pub In Liverpool and London. But whatever any of us thinks of him, vandalism to Any Wikipedia Article is Not Funny. It should be dealt with swiftly! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Vera you are such a hypocrite! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.39.59 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw that remark forthwith. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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."

Discussion
Except that that a) is obviously biased toward his side, and b) completely ignores the whole "he's a " thing. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.218.55.27 (talk &bull; 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!


 * Freddie Starr is a non-talent? He's a hasbeen, I agree, but he's never been talentless...Unlike Jim Davidson, Starr knows when to quit while he's ahead :-) SmUX 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour Me Kubrick
Colour Me Kubrick is for 2006 scheduled. --ThomasK 14:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC) I will tell you what he does for charity.Some years ago he was booked well in advance to be the main item at Wakefield hospice gala dinner .For this he charged 17k, no discount.At four on the Afternoon of the dinner he pulled out citing illness,however it was reported in the tabloids that on the evening he should have performed he was at Kenny Jones polo club ,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.253.125 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike him then fine, but to constantly post hateful remarks about him, just highlights your OWN prejudice against someone and makes you no better than the person you are attacking.
 * It appears that there are a lot of people that dislike him for his act and his treatment of women. As I understand it, he has had treatment for his drinking and anger management, as part of his treatment in anger management, it would be required of him to openly admit to his violence against women, which he did. It also takes more courage for a man to openly admit he has hit women, than it did to actually hit them.

For the record: "He has made five visits to the Falkland Islands, twice to the Republic of Macedonia, and at least six times to Iraq." Add "at least once in Belize 1980" (I was in the forces when he put on the shows for us in Belieze). Edit: "His (should be "He") is presently the Chairman of The British Forces Foundation charity" (and has been for over 20 years). Samantha.pia (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting
Protecting a page like this for weeks and weeks is pretty sad. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear vandals
We tried to reflect your point of view with the "controversy" section, but we can't just go right out and say , 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 .

-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)

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

mm, so when it suits the  he uses the black man's jokes? How convenient.

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)

Isn't funny a matter of opinion too?

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)

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)


 * Err it says here that he was "warm-up act for Mr Hague" so unlikely it was not and probably should not have been removed either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Craig Charles story
I cannot find any evidence of this story happening. Would someone please add a source if it is true? Ggareth77 18:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Things tend to work the other way round when we're dealing with living people. Things like that should be deleted unless they have a source, see the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. For that reason, I have deleted the text in question. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My name's Craig... Not sure about that particular story, but I can confirm he's a

Forget neutrality, let's consider realism for a second
Isn't wikipedia supposed to be an accurate representation? Therefore the point of view that Davidson is the biggest  in the world (and I should know, because I deliver the children of elephants), taken by the many, should be encouraged. Why not say that Bernard Manning is misrepesented by the PC lodge? Did Hitler have a valid point? Was the Yorkshire ripper a misunderstood prankster? Should we try to understand Falwell? No, we shouldn't, and pussyfooting (something Davidson does a lot by all accounts) around the issue will not help. Or we could of course hush these sort of points of view up and have a purely unemotional, factional (yawn) online page.

Moron! --86.153.2.145 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs
What's going on with the references ?

Half of them are of the format " # ^ missingauthor (missingdate). missingtitle. missingpublisher."

Vandalism 2
I've reverted a bunch of edits back to before a bunch of categories were added as vandalism. If I reverted a real edit, please forgive me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Comedian and writer John Junkin wrote most of his early TV scripts, as did scriptwriter Terry Ravenscroft.[23]

Surely this could be written better...

It's not very clear.

86.140.159.159 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Malicious libel
This fraudulent edit should not have been allowed to stand for any length of time, let alone remain in the article for several weeks to propagate over the internet. It should be removed.
 * I've reverted the change to the quote. The inaccurate death report has already been removed. --- RockMFR 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for administrator to make an edit
Hello. I've made a number of constructive and factual contributions to this listing over the years, and I am pleased to say that they have stood the test of time, both in terms of sourcing, and in terms of having remained relatively unedited. I understand that the vandals to this page have rendered it necessary to protect the current version, but it now means that I can not add the following text. If any administrator would like to do the good job for me, I would be very grateful. At the end of the "Controversy" section, please add:



Source:http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=jim-s-too-frisky&method=full&objectid=19572640&siteid=93463-name_page.html

Obviously, the formating will need tweaking to match Wikipedia's rules. Thanks again for help on this. jasonpaultrue
 * Edit not done. Please gain consensus for this edit first, or wait until your account is four days old. The source this information comes from does not seem reliable. --- RockMFR 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The source of this information is The People newspaper. The People newspaper is a registered UK weekly with a circulation of 1 million, and as such is bound by the Press Complaints Commision Code of Conduct ( http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html ). This specifically prohibits defamatory and inaccurate articles. Obviously, this is not to say that the UK press always plays by the rules. But if there were any factual inaccuracies in the above source, Mr. Davidson would be at liberty to pursue his complaint via the PCC, and information on how to do this is available at: http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs/index.html  To date, he has chosen not to use this route, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary or any complaint with the PCC by the effected plaintif, it is reasonable to state that the allegations have been made by the paper (not that the allegations are necessarily undisputed by the parties involved). After all, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia that are based on much more flaky sources, that do not have an official form of redress. jasonpaultrue —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * It's a trash tabloid, and not in any way a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.166.240 (talk) 10:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Honours
When and why did he get his OBE? Opera hat 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He got it for his charity work. It was in the article and sourced correctly a while ago, yet vandals seem to have removed it from under my nose.  Agent Blightsoot 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Name
He should be listed as Cameron Davidson known as Jim Davidson; Jim or James was not his first name at birth. His actual christian name is Cameron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.40.72 (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Comment moved to bottom of list by me on 3rd October. (Still latest post at that date) Britmax 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having moved the above comment so more people can see it I would point out that the name used for a person on Wikipedia tends to be the one by which they are most commonly known, which in this case would be Jim Davidson. Britmax 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

The ludicrous semi-protection of this article
I think it's about time this was unprotected, don't you? I'm sure the vandals have had their fun by now. 82.31.6.28 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not dead
Can editors stop reverting the changes made by an anonymous user who is removing unsourced and hoaxed material? Jim Davidson is not dead, as a quick google search would indicate. - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct term?
In the part of the article about the heckler

"In December 2006, Davidson was embarrassed by a 15-year-old boy who heckled him during a performance of his pantomime Dick Whittington in Kent. Reportedly, Davidson came on stage at the Orchard Theatre in Dartford, delivering the scripted line, "Do you know who I am?” The boy, a Scout in full uniform, loudly replied, "Yes, you're a fucking wanker.". According to The Sun, Davidson was enraged and spent the remainder of the first half of the show in a sullen mood. He reportedly tried unsuccessfully to find the boy's scoutmaster during the interval to personally address his heckler."

I appreciate the term Scoutmaster was probably used by the original source, but the term is around 40 years old - should the more modern Scout Leader be used instead? 86.130.133.64 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source (at ), does not mention Davidson searching for a Scoutmaster or a Scout leader. I would add that the Sun is hardly a reliable source for anything (except racing form). DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have accordingly removed material unsupported by the reference, and replaced the url in the reference with one that works. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Redactions
WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Accordingly I have removed all unsourced contentious statements from the talk page and replaced them with "<redacted due to WP:BLP concerns>". Exxolon (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So we can't even call Jimbo a on the talk pages any more? It's PC gone mad. I'm sure Jim Davidson would be the first to admit what a complere and utter he is.
 * No, you can't. Please stop doing so. We're here to put together an accurate and neutral article on him, not to personally abuse him. Exxolon (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, just because you can't legally prove that this   celebrity is really and truly a  , you've taken it upon yourself to place "<redacted...>" throughout a discussion? What nonsense!  This censorship truly is political correctness gone mentally-challenged.  Talk pages are by definition opinions rather than facts.  I'm guessing that these people were accusing him of being a racist; given his cited controversy for racial jokes it's a reasonable thing to debate on a talk page.  Mrstonky (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cameron or James first?
Another editor keeps changing the name from Cameron James to James Cameron. I am fairly sure that the first of these is correct but a lot of the Google entries I find giving his name either way are mirror wikipedia sites. Anyone really know? Britmax (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we called Jim rac*st?
Can someone explain to me in simple words why we cant call his horrible excuse for a human existence Racist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.19.249 (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's an opinion, not a fact. You'd also have to be sure that it's part of him and not part of a stage persona. Britmax (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2603:8001:B840:8B82:8D98:44E2:B598:802F (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Because calling him a racist is a political attack designed to transfer power to yourself. Its cynical and destructive to society. You're a bad person for doing it because you're a race baiter. Race baiting is a hundred times worse that racism.

Valid comment on amount of negative website material on Davidson
BRITMAX :

How am I supposed to reference websites & pages that refer to Davidson as a ***t? Don't be daft.

It's quite simple: if you can't find a reference it can't go into the article. Britmax (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Burt Kearns claimed that he had plotted" in place of "Burt Kearns had plotted"
I've put in "Burt Kearns claimed that he had plotted" in place of "Burt Kearns had plotted". This is a temporary fix to tone the thing down. But I suspect the entire statement should be removed (probably under either WP:RS or WP:EXTRAORDINARY or both, and perhaps also WP:BLP) as based on a source or sources of questionable reliability, but I would prefer that decision to be taken by somebody with a better understanding of the relevant Wikipedia rules than I have. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

After further thought, on the theory that under WP:BLP the philosophy is basically 'when in doubt, take it out', I've removed the entire sentence under WP:BLP, as based on a seemingly unreliable source, and one which contains further seemingly unsubstantiated and potentially damaging allegations. If it turns out that I've made a mistake, somebody else can easily revert me. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus the comedian is the primary topic. Cúchullain t/ c 14:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

– The other Jim Davidsons are hardly notable at all compared to this one. Unreal7 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim Davidson (comedian) → Jim Davidson
 * Jim Davidson → Jim Davidson (disambiguation)


 * Oppose – WP:Notability is not a comparative attribute. No rationale has been presented for why this guy should be selected as primarytopic for this ambiguous name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I just don't see any advantage to this proposed change. Britmax (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely there's a better disambig begining with "c", as he's not a comedian...?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support While I actually dislike him myself, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that he is the primary meaning, he is a very well known performer in Britain, the others may not be far above the threshold of notability.  Britmax's comment strikes me as the sort of vague statement we should avoid in these discussions, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PatGallacher (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with the above - the other entries in the disambiguation list are much less well-known.  86.156.79.210 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This article has had 29k views in the last 30 days, the other three have less than 800 combined over the same period. Clear primary topic benmoore 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. He appears to have considerably more notability in both usage and long term significance than the other Jim Davidsons. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies
Should the paragraph regarding Charles Bruce's suicide be moved from Controversies to Personal life? I can't see any controversy regarding Jim in it. - Dave Crosby (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it altogether - it's certainly not a 'Controversy', where it was listed. It could be considered part of Davidson's Personal Life, and I wouldn't revert if someone re-added it to that section, but I'm not sure if it's really a significant enough part of his life to be listed here at all. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How did this article contain a blatant WP:BLP violation for over five years?
I just removed from this article Category:English people convicted of assault, as a violation of BLP policy - an unsourced negative allegation about a living person. I've looked through the history of the article, and it's rather disturbing to see that the article was in that category (or similar ones) since it was added in November 2008. The article formerly contained text describing a purported assault by Davidson, which was removed as unsourced in February 2009; unfortunately, the editor who removed it didn't remove the category as well. Going back to when these allegations were added to the article in June 2008, it becomes apparent that they have never been sourced.

Frankly, this is pretty shameful for Wikipedia. Unsourced allegations of criminal behaviour about living people should be removed on sight. They should definitely not be allowed to remain on the page for over five years! Robofish (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles about controversial people should be monitored frequently, as unsourced/false info is likely to be put in them. It's clear that no-one questioned the unsourced paragraph for months, and that the cat was added by someone else months after then. Jim Michael (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo
Just uploaded a recent pic of the subject - would anyone like to add it to the Infobox?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Transangst (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

alleged comedian
Can we change comedian to 'alleged' comedian please? Can you find reliable sources to prove that he is infact a comedian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.254.51 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jim Davidson was a comedian (perhaps he still is - I've not followed his career). In fact, I think this needs to be addressed in a new section, which I will now write. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Scare quotes in lede
Jim Davidson was a comedian. He may still be a comedian - I have no idea, as I don't follow his career. Personally, I reject his comedy (of old) as mostly offensive - particularly in today's more enlightened society. However, Davidson was a comedian - and a successful one at that. That isn't a reflection of anything other that societal norms at the time and, unfortunately, we accepted as normal jokes that are deemed as unsavoury today.

That doesn't make him any less a comedian in his past career. The fact is that I personally find many comedians either distasteful or unfunny. But that doesn't mean they are not comedians. I believe I remember Davidson no the show 'New Faces', in which he was quite successful as a comedian. He also won, according to this article, the TV Times award for 'Funniest Man On Television'. The country has moved on, leaving the offensive jokes of the likes of Davidson and Bernard Manning behind. The jokes they made were jokes. They made people laugh, back in the day. As a child, I'm pretty sure I probably laughed at Davidson's 'Chalky' persona, and his "Nick, Nick" policeman character. Surely I was ignorant though, as a child, I was innocent. I have obviously changed, as I hope Davidson has.

An offensive joke, is still a joke. An offensive comedian is still a comedian. The apparently evil Jimmy Savile was an athlete, entertainer, TV presenter and charity fundraiser. He didn't cease to be those things when it was discovered that he had indulged in disgusting and perverted acts and abuses.

The format of blogs and magazine articles is to use 'scare quotes' as emphasis, in order to evoke emotion about a particular facet. This is not, however, a blog nor a magazine article. The fact is that Davidson had a successful career as a comedian. The fact is that many people found his jokes and caricatures funny, back in the day. We can certainly have remorse for our ignorance, but we cannot avoid the fact that Davidson was indeed a comedian, whether his jokes caused offence or not. Nor should this encyclopaedic article ignore or gloss over this fact. The record should show and reflect that this is the way things had been, and not make judgements based on our (hopefully) better and higher standards today.

Davidson was encouraged by his fans. Whilst that isn't an excuse which let's the man off the hook for his attitude, it is a (unfortunately sad) reflection of how society used to be. This article, as I think somebody else had said above, should not be involved in making value judgements. It should stick to the facts, and the fact is that Davidson was a comic.

I do not know if someone has put the quotes around the word 'comedian' as an act of vandalism, but I am going to revert or remove the quotes. This shouldn't be a controversial edit, as the article itself makes it clear how offensive his jokes were, and the controversy that resulted as his career continued. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jim Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114173724/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/04/24/dp2401.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/04/24/dp2401.xml#4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Jim Davidson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071114224950/http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk:80/download.asp?docid=486719 to http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/download.asp?docid=486719
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090207101337/http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk:80/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133942&command=displayContent&sourceNode=244910&contentPK=19147348&folderPk=103546&pNodeId=244911 to http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133942&command=displayContent&sourceNode=244910&contentPK=19147348&folderPk=103546&pNodeId=244911

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 05:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Jim Davidson. 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/20051128045008/http://www.shropshirestar.com:80/show_article.php?aID=36439 to http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=36439
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200603/http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentRealityTVEatsItself.html to http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentRealityTVEatsItself.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Davidson. 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/20130821041913/http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/famous-masons to http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/famous-masons

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Davidson. 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/20140222200335/http://jimdavidson.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1170591566&page=1 to http://jimdavidson.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1170591566&page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928210227/http://www.briandowling.biz/newsfeed/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188955963&archive=&template=HomepageHK to http://www.briandowling.biz/newsfeed/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188955963&archive=&template=HomepageHK

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible additions
Would it be considered NPOV to mention Davidson's obsessive dislike of Lenny Henry, often aired on his YouTube uploads, and that his Ustreme service once featured interviews and regular appearances by the subsequently disgraced and currently imprisoned troll Alex Belfield, in this article? Dolmance (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)