Talk:Bernard Manning

Mrs Merton Show

I specifically recall Manning stating he was a racist in this show, therefore Manning should be described as such in the article. I will try and track down a copy of the interview but for now I will continue to revert to my edit.

was there some random editing by a manning fan in this section? it claims that 'few' people thought he came out second best in the interview, whilst the reference (BBC obit) says just the opposite: it was only manning that believed he 'floored' aherne with this admittance- most did see him as poor second best. so whoever it was- if you are going to lie, dont cite sources which contradict you!Jackc5755 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw part one of three of this interview, and said he wasn't racist. So if he says he is in other two parts will let you know, but first part when asked he said no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.136.252 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Part two he does say that when he leaves he'll still be a racist, though to be honest was after he was asked repeatedley when he was going to stop the racist jokes in his act. And no one seemed flooered at all, and also didn't seem to be an Oprah type admittance and more I'm still telling racist jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.136.252 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Part three, was asked again if he was racist, said no twice, then asked if he'd of picked up hitchhikers if they were black said they'd still be standing beside road. all in all nothing approaching admittance to racism, other then his constant racism within his act. Much ado about nothing. Can't see saying he was in fact racist from this show, especially in face of documented feelings of his Indian neighbhors. 69.154.136.252 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Style of humour

Part of this section seems to have been entered in a biased and informal way. I would suggest more comments about the perceived racism of Manning's humour, and reforming the arguments against perceived racism into a formal style. Ggareth77 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

well, the article was originally biased against manning's sense of humour (with an unnecessary mention of it in the intro paragraph) and then the 'style of humour' section was edited to be biased towards it; both look wrong + what it needs is relevant commentary (e.g. notable fans of manning and what they say about him, vs critics of manning and what those people say about him) - not just people automatically responding to the parts they disagree with. KZF 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with this "People from African, Indian, Irish or Pakistani origin, or those of Christian or Jewish faith were all fair game to Manning's logic." i can think of no example of manning making jokes about christians or jews. This seems biased[i want to claim this to my account i was at work when i wrote this and didnt want to log in, i am glad someone altered this sectionRagingbullfrog 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]

The fact that you can't remember it doesn't mean someone made it up. However, it shouldn't be in the article if it isn't cited. KZF 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Bernard Manning told lots of jewish jokes, he also was part jewish himself....and if you think Manning wouldn't have told christian jokes then you clearly have no clue about him. Everyone most certainly was fair game and to claim otherwise is dishonest and inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FBC2:E300:2CA4:39C0:DAA1:6CBE (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Middle name

Manning's number-plate was "BJM1" [1], so I'm assuming he had a "J___" middle name. Anybody know what it was and/or have a source? Jhamez84 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was Bernard John Manning according to the Scotsman's editorial. [2]. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Style" section needs more style

"Manning was a great believer in family values, who never swore in front of his mother" Should be "...values, and claimed that he never swore in front of his mother"

Theres a link / citation there too, that goes here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3867363.stm

Problem is that rather a lot from that BBC page has somehow found its way into the article. Is this right?
Incidentally, I wouldn't presume to edit an article. Not in the gang.

Anybody can contribute to Wikipedia - it is open source and written collaboratively by volunteers - no "gangs" exist, nor are any personal credentials or details sought from contributors. However due to constant vandalism, this particular article is temporarily locked so only registered editors can contribute to it.

Also, citing published and reliable sources (such as the BBC article you mention) is wholly encouraged by Wikipedia, so that it's content is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources, and thus not written according to a specfic biased point of view.

Your point about Mannings family values is a valid one however. Hope that helps, Jhamez84 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that this article's "Style" section just rips off the BBC obituary article shamelessly. Tompagenet 10:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

What is wrong in any way with a BBC reference? You silly people, the BBC is more worthy than any other reference (books not included) because it doesn't have adverts. As for not swearing in front of his mother, you should know that nobdy in Britain does that - it's a holy command. :) --212.241.67.98 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Knew about citing sources, my main point was that (if you check the BBC article) I felt that the Wikipedia article owes too much to the BBC article. When I said "Is this right?" I was being sarky. Unless its OK to just copy and paste whole sections of an article from elsewhere. There I go again. My other point was not specifically about this article, but more broadly I have just felt recently that Wikipedia (regardless of policy) is getting a little clubby, and it often seems that strangers are unwelcome. Not you. You're OK.

I agree. It's almost a copy and paste of the BBC article. Some serious plagiarism going on. Snowbound 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I tend to agree here. There is a strong similarity between the wording of the BBC's coverage of Manning's death and the current Wikipedia article. Although this may have been done unintentionally in response to a breaking news story, the article should try to look less like a copy and paste job. Still, at least it cannot be accused of being taken from an unreliable source.--Ianmacm 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here. It's not cool to copy whole sections from the BBC website and only change a few words here and there. If this isn't removed soon, I'll do it but it will consist of a wholesale delete of the offending material where others might be more sympathetic Docta247 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... hold on. What policy are you excersising to do this? There are simillarities, but look at any article in the major newspapers about Manning - they're all simillar. Deleting article content on the basis you personally find it an infringement is not directly supported by a policy on Wikipedia. Instead, you should substitute some of the reference material for other newspapers. Material supported by reliable sources should never be removed. Jhamez84 13:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has changed considerably since these comments were originally written. The policy exercised was Wikipedia:Plagiarism. It's a fun read  :-) Docta247 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

I personally dont think Wikipedia articles should show the personal opinion of the writer, as this one clearly does. To do so attracts abuse and detracts from the actual facts. Whether the writer(s),you or I liked the guy or not should remain anonymous to any reader.

Channel 4 poll

This was removed:

In March 2007 he was ranked 29th on the list of the 100 Greatest Stand Ups in a poll conducted by the television station Channel 4.

This was probably the right decision, although it could be added later on in the article. Bernard Manning's reaction would probably have been "Do you mean that there are 28 f*ckers who are supposed to be funnier than me?" Like most of these polls, it does contain some rather odd results. For example, why is Bob Monkhouse ranked only 31st - weird.--Ianmacm 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Information supported by reliable sources should not be removed! This poll is used throughout Wikipedia - Manning should be treated no different. Jhamez84 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Such polls are meaningless and do not reflect public opinion in any way and do not have any legitimacy on wikipedia. A real opinion [poll would be fine but a poll of those who watch a minority tv channel AND choose to vote has no notasbility esp in the opening, SqueakBox 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some contributors sometimes... so the poll doesn't conform to your idea of a so called "real opinion" or a "real poll"? And it was watched by a minority? - who says? sources? citation? And it's not notable? - according to who's point of view? sources? citation? And it doesn't conform to public opinion? - who says? sources? Perhaps if it was your favourite comedian who came 29th it would be suitable? Does it infringe a policy? - No! Is it unreliable or unsourced? - No!...

It's presented in a completely impartial manner, doesn't say it's definative, has its own article page (and thus is notable), is used for other comedians, is referenced, and establishes context!

Anyway, thanks to User:UpDown we now have a locked article. Jhamez84 23:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The poll is notable enough to mention, but it is not the definitive assessment of Manning's career. Polls of all-time favourite pop songs, films etc are interesting for what they reveal, but often contain some weird decisions. On the subject of the page becoming protected, everyone should cool down a bit and discuss any major changes on the talk page before editing or reverting.--Ianmacm 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Nationality

Jewish? How does that make him not English. And to claim he was Irish when he was born in and grew up in England is bizzare, SqueakBox 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! These people are being very annoying, Irish and Jewish ancestry does not mean you cant be English. He lived in England his whole life. Paul McCartney has Irish ancestry, he's down as English. One of the Users claim that McCartney article is "badly article", very unlikely. It's far better than this. We had the debate so many times, and in the end the other users do always realise, so I would urge these to look at previous debates. And please accept the comprimse. --UpDown 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling users very annoying is neither helpful, nor polite, and an infringement of WP:CIVIL.

You'll find yourself blocked shortly for multiple breach of policy. Sorry, but you've got to respect rules. Jhamez84 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And you should respect accepted consensus, and also try and comprimse. It was your lack of comprimse that caused me to break 3RR. There was no other policies I have breached, and to be honest I think the 3RR rule should not apply due to the fact that you edits were against widespread consensus. You also had the help of another editor to avoid you being in breach, I did not have this advantage. But if you wish to try and have been banned, thats your right, but I feel your time would be better spent improving and creating articles rather than trying to block me. --UpDown 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really - you broke 3RR despite a warning I would report you, and are yourself not bringing anything to the table to initiate a mediation other that personal comments. Where is this consensus? Show me the policy that dictates we use English as a descriptor! And as for improving articles, well we can compare contibutions anyday, but that's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Jhamez84 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: The debate about Nationality continues further down the page. KZF 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A facinating debate, but back to the point, the article that claims he's jewish is wrongly ascribed. The actual guardian obituary is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,2106105,00.html

a cursury glance demonstrates only the shortest joke about being jewish, which is clearly irony and no reference to ancestry. I suggest his 'jewish' ancenstry section is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.135 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think page protection was perhaps the best idea; but my changes were not major, that is what is so annoying about Jhamez84 edits, and it was because of him reporting me that the page was blocked. There is a widespread consensus to have English/Welsh/Scottish, as I showed by many high-profile pages, but Jhamez84 used his POV (he admits to being "proud to be British") to try and insist on British. Hopefully once the protection is over, Jhamez84 will leave the nationality as it is, and what consensus agrees on. --UpDown 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also identify as an Anglo-Scot, and have ethnic Bangladeshi ancestry - but I can't hold English nationality (where is the article?), nobody post 1707 can; British nationality is factual, verifiable and NPOV. You're assuming that if one is born in England, they are English, but that is only one point of view. If Bernard Manning identifies himself of Jewish (as an ethnic group) and Irish (as an ethnic group), then he is not English BY EVERY DEFINITION (ethnically, ancestrally, or verifiably). Tell me, is Tony Blair English or Scottish, what is his (legal and verifiable) nationality other than British? Stating British nationality and that Bernard was born in England is therefore NPOV, scholarly and doesn't infringe upon broad converse academic definitions of nationality and ethnic grouping. Frankly you're out of your depth on the matter, and pushing a point of view, citing a non-existent and non-codified consensus, and are totally misunderstanding my motivations which infact have the article's best interests at heart. Jhamez84 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to get drawn into the whole "Bernard Manning was English/British" thing, as I was somewhat disappointed that the page was protected over this relatively minor issue. If Bernard Manning was born in the UK and held a UK passport, he would for strict legal purposes be described as British. However, people from the UK can be described as Welsh, Scottish or English, although in strict legal terms there are no such nationalities. Before the page is unprotected, let's have an end to this debate, as it is not worth filling up the talk page on this issue. I am happy to describe Manning as English or British.--Ianmacm 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jhamez84, I actually find it offensive that you suggest a person with Irish and Jewish ancestry cannot be English. Everyone has varied ancestry, that does not mean they can't be English. This ancestry may not be recent, it may go back 100s of years. To be honest I find you attitude verging on racism, as you are saying I can't be English because I don't have exculsively English ancestry. Manning was born, lived in and died in England; this is what makes him English. There is a widespread consensus that while English, Scottish, Welsh are not legal nationalities, there are used as the three are nations, not just states or regions. Just look at the thousands of pages that reflect this; Paul McCartney is a good example; He is of Irish heritage, yet is down as English. McCartney's page is a very good one, and one which is carefully monitored; If English was anti-policy, it would have been changed. Just look at the debates before, English, Welsh and Scottish are widely used and to suggest otherwise is POV. --UpDown 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, again. I'm not asserting he cannot be English; I'm asserting that according to scholarly definitions of nationality law, and ethnic grouping, we should avoid using both English and British as a adjective, as it is only one point of view. We should state where he was born, and that his nationality is British in the infobox; that's the only truely neutral and factual approach that can be taken.

You're also totally out of depth on understanding the dynamics of Wikipedia's WP:CONSENSUS policy, and using bizarre personalised tactics here, and I object to stating my attitude is one that is racist (race is socio-cultural construct which has nothing to do with nationality law or birthplace). You're familiar with my userboxes and think you've used that to provoke a response rather than discuss the content of the article at a mature level. You've cited no naming convention. You're also suggesting that I'm a POV editor (?!), and citing Wikipedia as a source on the use of British nationality law. That you state Paul McCartney is good article is a point of view (your point of view); you're not using any form of critical thinking or reliable academic literature or examples of other encyclopedias.

You're intentions of using POV descriptions are very clear, which you are failing to recognise (you've used misleading edit summaries, removed citation, and clearly just want constituent country descriptors for wants sake). Whereas I'm considering the broader implications - indeed why not call him a Jewish, Irish, Mancunian, Earthling, Universer, white comedian? - we could find citation of course, but none are a wholly neutral descriptor. Jhamez84 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, this is getting out of hand. It is hard to believe that the article is currently protected over this issue. There are other editors with things to say, so please resolve this issue as soon as possible. This is the sort of edit warring that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Please look at the talk page guidelines.--Ianmacm 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to believe the page is blocked, but that was nothing to do with me. And in reply to Jhamez84; Your idea of only placing nationality in infobox is very strange; that would contradict 99% of articles where its says "John Smith is a English/Welsh/Belgian etc actor/writer". I am also not using "tactics", I am offended by your ideas, and then trying to insist you are being NPOV. And its not only me that states Paul McCartney to be a good article, its a recognised a "good article". This means it has gone through much anaylsis and critisicm; and if English was wrong this would have picked up upon. And the reason for not calling him "Jewish, Irish, Mancunian, Earthling, Universer, white comedian" is because they are all inaccurate. He was not Jewish or Irish, but merely had their ancestry, Mancunian is too specific, white is too broad and "Earthing, Universer" is, well, too broad! English is what he was, born there, lived there, died there. He parents were perhaps English as well. I really would urge you to relise what widespread Wiki consensus is, and ask you not to patronise me by saying I am "out of my depth" - I am not, you are just delibratley ignoring Wiki conventions because you don't agree - and thats wrong. --UpDown 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issues at hand. Four points:

• Where is the Wiki convention that insists we use English/Scottish/Welsh etc?
• What nationality is Tony Blair?
• Where is the article on English nationality?
• When is somebody officially English?

Jhamez84 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Try this: English people. Hope this helps Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming seriously off-topic for a biography of a stand-up comedian. Please respect the talk page guidelines.--Ianmacm 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, with all due respect, I'm conforming to the talk page guidelines; "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page". This issue of nationlity should be simple I agree, but there are four points above which need addressing to allow for an English descriptor to be allowed on this article's lead. I'm trying to work to a consensus, raising serious questions but being persecuted as racist, POV editting, and breaking a rule which doesn't exist. Again, I'm challenging unferenced, point of view statements for the interest of this article. Four answers for four questions please. Jhamez84 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, I am developing a strong yawn factor over this discussion. Who would have thought that the page would have ended up fully protected over this?--Ianmacm 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that helps exactly. I agree its an absolutely ridiculous and time wasting process; but I feel strongly about it, and the integrity of the article. I assume this means there are of course no possible answers the challenges I've raised. Of course they were somewhat rhetorical. I standby my approach and viewpoint to this issue, and think it is the only way forwards. Jhamez84 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have asked the four questions and would like a reply, my answers are:

a) There does not seem to be one. b) Don't know/care in the context of this article. c) There isn't one. d) Don't know/care in the context of this article.

We must move on, as this has become a sideshow. I have already said that it does not bother me one way or the other whether Manning is described as British or English. I've got other things to do.--Ianmacm 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... why not do them then? You don't have to be here, and not really sure how you're helping. We need someone who does care about the issue. You are aware that this article will be locked for at least another 24hours regardless of the outcome here, We're not holding anything back, we're here to work this out. Thanks for your answers though, as I said earlier, it is the best way moving forwards. Jhamez84 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

a)Wiki convention can be seen by the 99% of articles on UK people that use English/Scottish/Welsh. It's not just some articles, it a very large majority of them.

b)Firstly, Tony Blair's nationality is nothing to do with this page (however, I think it is logical to describe a UK Parliament polititican as "John Smith is a British politician...", to say English or Scottish is misleading as it might suggest he is a politician for an England/Scottish Parliament).

c)There isn't one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There isn't a Wiki article on me, I still exist! One could say the article English people achieves the same purpose.

d)I don't like the word "official". As I have said there is no English/Scottish legal nationality, but its what is used in UK. Great Britian is made up of 3 historic countries, whose histories as nations go back thousands of years. The one parliament and monarach has not meant that the individual countries have lost their individual articles. They have kept them, and that is why we use English/Scottish/Welsh to describe people.

Well, there are your answers. I do hope that we can agree on the current format of the page; with nationality:British in infobox and English in opening line. I believe that to be a good comprimise, and would urge you to stop the arguing and accept it. It may not be what you want, but we have to comprimse. I don't really want the British there in Infobox, but am more than happy to keep in there, so we can stop this time-wasting arguing. --UpDown 08:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your answers are not adequate; they are not answers but POV statements. You have no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or conventions, and absolutely no understanding about how the United Kingdom, ethnic grouping or nationality operates or exists (Great Britain is an island not a country, no such thing as a historic country). Again you've not used any form of critical thinking or scholarly citation. You're an inexperienced contributor interested in Upstairs, Downstairs, citing Wikipedia as a quantifiable consensus ("99%" is a further example of your nonsense!). Your efforts have spurred me to draw up a REAL convention for this matter, and from my involvement in many many projects, good sense will prevail over your POV here, and a British convention will be formed and applied.

We do not have to compromise - we have to write according to WP:RS, WP:CS, WP:V etc which is what you're not doing. Just because somebody opposes a POV doesn't mean a compromise has to be formed - we should battle it out. You simiply cannot override the issues in hand; there's no way you can properly answer my questions about English ethnic grouping and British nationality.... I have no problem with nationalism, but do when it effects the ingrity of Wikipedia, which is what you're doing here. The citation says British and that's what we should use. Jhamez84 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you just patronise me, how disapointing. The reason I said Great Britian not the UK was to avoid the very complicated issue of Northern Ireland. The principal is the same though. You once again fail to answer why most articles use English/Scottish etc, yes 99% is not accurate, but it was not meant to be, I was making a point. If you wish to try and draw up conventions, then please feel free to waste your own time. The fact is most people agree that to British as blanket is wrong. Scottish and Welsh people especially would not accept this, and that has been acknowledged before. To describe people like Sean Connery or Tom Jones as British would just not be accepted. Why do you think we have English/Scottish categories (ie English television actors, Scottish singers etc etc)? We have them because Wikipedia recognises that these are nations within a nation, and hence we can use the terms English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish to describe people. With regard to "there's no way you can properly answer my questions about English ethnic grouping and British nationality"; I am not saying English is a legal nationality, but it is a nationality because England is a nation within a nation. The citation was a newspaper, and they cannot be trusted for these purposes. Papers will describe, for example, Sean Connery, as Scottish, but by your standards that would be wrong. And it's such a shame that you will not even think about comprimising.--UpDown 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

• Why is Northern Ireland complicated? It is part of the United Kingdom - its citizens hold British nationality. These are facts, not points of view.
• What source are you using that asserts most people agree British is "wrong"?.... numbers, citation, facts, figures, verification?
• Are Cornish people English or British?
• Sean Connery is a Scottish born, half Scottish and half Irish descent, British citizen. Fact... He also hold a British honour ("For God and the Empire").
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Winston Churchill, James Dyson, Tony Blair (Scottish born), Ramsay MacDonald (Scottish born, Scottish name), David Cameron (Scottish parents, Scottish name) - British citizens and British people.
• England is not a nation. A nation is a group of people - England is a consituent country.
• English people do not trace their heritage to the Jewish and Irish peoples. Britons are inhabitants or citizens of the UK - there is the key difference. Just read the article.
• What nationality do the Basque people hold? Jhamez84 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is always a complicated issue; NI has never been a country like the 3 GB countries. Just look at most articles, so many say English/Scottish etc. Also, look at the categories, we have seperate categories for a reason. Cornish people are English, the same as people from Yorkshire or Surrey are English. Sean Connery is not of half Irish descent. This is what you are failing to understand, just because some is descended from a nationality, doesn't mean they are that. We are all descended from more than one race, doesn't we cant be English or Scottish. With regard to Churchill, Blair, MacDonald and Cameron I repeat what I said before, politicians are different. With regard to Dyson, not all pages are correct and say English/Scottish. But you will note the category is English inventors, not British inventors. Again, I find your attitude racist when you say "English people do not trace their heritage to the Jewish and Irish peoples."; I have both which means you think I cannot be English. McCartney has Irish, he's English, Manning has Irish, he's English - I could go one. You cannot exclude someone from being English/Scottish/Welsh because they have ancestry which is non-English, to do so is racist. And I don't care about the Basque people, thats not what we are talking about. --UpDown 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You've not answered the questions; just demonstrated continued misunderstanding and side-stepping.

Nobody is descended of more than one race - race does not exist, its a archaic taxonomic socio-cultural concept; it's nothing to do with nationality law, and increasingly little with ethnicity.

You also demonstrate misunderstanding about administrative geography, which is also central here. Yorkshire doesn't exist; its a former county of England, whilst the Cornish people are an ethnic group, (some say a nation) and one which is particularly opposed to being described as English on the basis of their ethnic heritage.

I'm not excluding anybody from being English - you think this is personal, but it's not. It's about neutrality, integrity, accuracy and verifiability. Not everybody believes you're English if you're born in England (many British Asians identifiy themselves as British but not English because the English are an ethnic group, whilst British is a nationality). You fail to answer the question; at what point does somebody become English? Is it birthplace? Is it self-indentification? Is it divine right? Is it if you live in England? Is it if you were raised there? - It's not codified at an official or intellectual level, whereas being British is! It has legal, verifiable defintions which can be applied encyclopedically.

I must warn you that I take being called a racist both as a personal attack, and a breach of WP:TALK. Please refrain from this. Jhamez84 14:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if you are offended by it, but I continue to be offended by your attitude. And please don't be pedantic about Yorkshire no longer being a county, you knew my point. Equally your knew what I meant when I said race, maybe I chose a bad word, but you knew my general point. I really don't think that most Cornish people would be offended by the word English, but regardless they do not have the status as a constituent country or a former indepednant nation like England/Scottish. With regard to being English, its not just about being born there (Julie Christie was born in India, but she's English), but Manning is a good examle. Born there, lived there, died there. One's parents also have an impact (but any further back than parents seems OTT). You must look away from complete legality, this is only thing which backs you up. And you don't answer my point regarding categories. --UpDown 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

.... two other points (perhaps to bring us back to the main issue):

• Why isn't Bernard Manning Scottish?
• Are you asserting Bernard Manning isn't British? Jhamez84 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer them 1) why would he be Scottish, how is that relevant? By legal nationality (ie Passport) yes he is British, as his Connery, Tom Jones or Paul McCartney, as I have said before. But that does not mean English is not a better, and more accurate, description. --UpDown 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere now then... and some more points:

• Jack Straw is an English born, Roman Catholic of Jewish descent - English or British?
• Nihal Arthanyake, English or British? Or is it more complicated than that?
• In what capacity is using English more accurate on this article? More accurate in his description of ethnicity, ancestry or nationality?
• Julie Christie is English according to who's point of view?

Categorisation according to constituent country is fine, and I believe descibing people as English is fine, but only in the right circumstances, where every definition of Englishness is satisfied (born, bred, ancestry, died, self identification) - I'm not opposed to its use in these situations, but I am here, and as its use of nationality when English nationality is a falsification. We have someone here (Manning) who identifies centuries, if not millienia of Irish and Jewish heritage - who jokes himselfs (rather distastefully) that "They think they're English 'cos they're born here - does that mean if a dog is born in a stable it's a horse?" The facts are just too large to ignore, and in this capacity, descibing Manning as quantifiabley English is, as I stated before, only a point of view. Jhamez84 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Manning was English, born and bred. His Catholic and Jewish ancestry are not relevant. Incidentally, I think we can lose the redundant flag icons when the protection runs out. Just the word (and) link to England is fine. It may also help to reduce the incidence of lame conflicts like this. --John 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I especially don't see what somone being Catholic would have to do with anything! And actually Manning's quote "They think they're English 'cos they're born here - does that mean if a dog is born in a stable it's a horse?"; I actually think that shows he thought of himself as English. Otherwise he would have said British? Buts that just speculation. If someone is in a category called English, to say you can't use English at top of page is totally insane! --UpDown 19:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So User:UpDown has contacted some high profile nationalists [3], [4], [5] because he can't answer my questions; he's defeated, my knowledge and logic has prevailed through a silly POV. Whilst John (a nationlist identified on his userpage) is a user of double standards - asking for flags to be removed here, but the Scottish flag to be posted elsewhere (in breach of a REAL CONSENUS).

User:John is not aware of any of the debate and has already made his decision (Manning is bred English, but has Irish and Jewish ancestry?... right). I think this demonstrates UpDown's aptitude and maturity here. Tactics again, but have it your way. You have not answered my questions still. Jhamez84 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so arrogant, "he's defeated, my knowledge and logic has prevailed through a silly POV", is really rather pathetic. I contacted them because us two arguing against each constantly is having no effect or resolution (as you won't comprimse, or indeed accept anything I say), so other people is always a good idea to try and calm down a situation. And to be honest, everytime I do answers your questions, you ignore the answers and re-ask the question. A "tactic" to pretend you're winning. And to be honest, I'm fed up with arguing with someone who is so POV (i.e "proud to be British for a start) and so illogical in their argument. I also find your arrogant and patronising attitude, which you have shown throughout, very tiring. It does nothing to help your cause. --UpDown 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, your answers? We're here to talk about English nationality (deadlink), and when does somebody become verifiably English? You haven't answered these, but are focussing on me. Of course they're rhetorical questions - you can't possibly answer them, and thats why I'm insisting we use a neutral frame of reference. Jhamez84 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrogance again, amazing. Just look at all the above comments by me. They answer all your questions, and I am not wasting my time by repeating them. England is a civic nation therefore, per MofS, we should use English (same with Scottish, Welsh). I'm not going into more detail because I've said it all before and you ignore it anyway. It's funny that you critisce me for contacting others, then do exactly the same and even contact a project on Royalty?! Where's the connection there, why not write a message on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways!! --UpDown 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

UpDown: Not only has Northern "been a country like the 3 GB countries", it was actually the first part of the United Kingdom to have its own devolved government. One could argue therefore that it was actually more of a 'country' than the other three sub-nations.

I couldn't be arsed reading any further than that quote to be honest. The infobox has too many flags as it is - two of them are regional location flags (English flags). One of them though, specifically states "Nationality:" I don't know about your British passport, but my British passport states quite clearly that my nationality is British, as is the nationality of all the other British peoples of the United Kingdom, whether they be from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Cornwall. Their nationality is also British whether they like it or object to it.

Those are the facts, and Wikipedia should stick to the facts.

Scotland used to be made up of many different nations: Pictland.. Caledonia.. Dal Riata.. but none of them are the nationality, as used today, of the country that is called the United Kingdom. Sean Connery does not stop being Scottish, and nor does Ewan McGregor or Jackie Stewart. Being British hasn't prevented me from being Irish, being an Ulsterman or being a Belfastian.

I do think we should do as the F1 project seems to do with regard to consistency - in the infobox, under the heading "Nationality", it gives the federal (for want of a better word) nationality: British. In the opening paragraph, it gives the sub-national one, or simply a location (ie: "from Huddersfield, England").

Categories for the UK are generally broken down into the four main sub-nationals: English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh, which are in turn categorised under "United Kingdom" or "British", depending on the context/grammar.

Bernard Manning was both British and English - not one or the other. Let's stick to reality here people. --Mal 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I may well do - I have a right to. But my posting is to bring some balance, as you've brought nothing to the table but nationalists!

So let's have a recap here UpDown.

"There is a widespread consensus to have English/Welsh/Scottish"

- no there isn't.

"English, Scottish, Welsh are not legal nationalities"

- I agree! See I don't patronise you!

"Manning was born, lived in and died in England; this is what makes him English"

- according to which authoritative journal, and what definition?

He was not Jewish or Irish, but merely had their ancestry"

- merely? their ancestry? Don't you mean his ancestry and heritage?

"Firstly, Tony Blair's nationality is nothing to do with this page..." and "I think it is logical to describe a UK Parliament polititican as "John Smith is a British politician"

- so it doesn't matter where you're born, but what your career is for you to be English?

"Great Britian is made up of 3 historic countries"

- so what about Cornwall, or the Heptarchy?

"I am not saying English is a legal nationality"

- Bingo.

"England is a nation within a nation"

- no, an nation is a group of people, but I forgive you. But then, why not use the larger nation?

"The citation was a newspaper, and they cannot be trusted for these purposes"

- according to who? It seems to satisify WP:RS.

"Julie Christie was born in India, but she's English"

- so now it's not where you're born? And according to who?

"One's parents also have an impact" - on what? Nationality or ethnicity? Why does it?

What can I say to you with this evidence? That you're right and I'm mistaken? That he's not British? That it's really simple and to just trust you that he's English according to every definition possible?

Thanks also to Mal. Jhamez84 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add briefly that I am very glad this is being discussed, as nationalism is getting in the way of encyclopaedic accuracy. Just to provide some historical perspective, this is a fairly recent process: most articles describing British people listed their nationality as British until about 1-2 years ago. Nowadays we have ridiculous things like the Beatles being listed as an English rock band, but part of the British Invasion genre. All my previous attempts to reason with editors have failed, due largely to the fact that I don't have the patience to argue day after day. But should there be necessity for more discussion or even a vote later on, you can count on me to re-state the (very simple and dry) facts of the case. Some previous arguments that I have had about this are linked from my user page. laddiebuck 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree, British is the nationality and that is what should be stated first. I have no problem with English, Scottish, etc being stated second. I have the same issue with people stating that I am from Greater Manchester, when in fact I am from the historic county of Lancashire, which was never actually abolished. Greater Manchester County (which was created in 1974, after I was born, and abolished circa 1986) was only ever an administrative region which legally lesser than the county of Lancashire. Please see Friends_of_Real_Lancashire.

The article itself states that Manning joined the "BRITISH" army (not the ENGLISH army). Did Manning have an English passport? No one has an English passport and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever had one. I doubt Americans would stated that their nationality is Californian or an Australian would state that their nationality is Queenslander. These regions, like England, are sub-regions of the United Kingdom. Wales, since the 1535 Law in Wales Act (and subsequent Acts) states that Wales is part of England. The official border of the regions of England and Wales and not fixed and as such parts move backwards and forwards, for example, Monmouthshire is currently in the British region of Wales, formerly in England, previously in Wales, etc, etc. Britain existed long before England, Wales, Scotland. Britain was the name given to our Island by the Romans and is possibly derived from the Brigantes who lived here. England is a more contemporary name derived from the invading Angles. Hoever, for the last 300 years exactly, The United Kingdom is the name of this country and its people are BRITISH. A fact, end of story. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia and people's personal feelings are not part of that, by default, in my opinion. Encyclopaedias only state fact and it is a fact that Bernard Manning was British and that is what should be stated on his page. Darkieboy236 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: the term almost certainly derives from Pretani used by continental Gauls to refer to inhabitants of Britain and Ireland - see British Isles for detail. .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The above user has just shown his ignorance by comparing to the USA and Australia. You cannot compare, they are totally different (for the reasons I given before). Hence why we have categories like English actors, but would not put people in a category on Queenslander actors. I could go through and debate each point made by Jhamez84, but frankly I can't be bothered to argue the same points as seems to like doing. All his points I have explained and answered before, so I presume he enjoys arguing for the sake of it. I would prefer to not argue and settle with the current page. --UpDown 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I have stated elsewhere to give my view about this, but I will amplify it a little. The only thing that can be said with certainty about this concerns what is officially said on the travel documents when one travels away and returns to the UK. In the passports, it clearly states "British Citizen". Consequently, the only thing that can be claimed with utter verifiability and legality if one is determining nationality is that there is a British Nationality. If people wish to alter this, then they would be better occupied campaigning to get those changes made officially - which means going to the government and arguing with them for changes to be made to these travel documents rather than engaging in squabbles on here that are ultimately disruptive to wikipedia. In terms of names people have, there is a similar point to be made: my son has a Chinese name - it is on his birth certificate and in his Chinese passport. However, over here, he has chosen to known by a British name, which takes my surname as his. He can call himself by his British name, and is known by his British name by others, for example his classmates. But when it comes to official and legal matters, he must use his legal name. The same thing applies with respect to British Nationality (the official, legal one), and the chosen descriptors of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Nationality. A compromise would be to have the official one listed first, followed by Bernard Manning's verified and cited self-chosen one, clearly labelled as not having a formally legal basis. If it can't be verified, it shouldn't be added. If it can be verified, it must be cited.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. "British" is the official nationality, often disputed by nationalists or by people generally sensitive to national perceptions in this country where many people are comfortable with multiple national identities. I'd think of Manning as an English comedian because that was his stage persona, in the same way as Billy Connolly is a Scottish comedian, but verification is needed for such self-identification if it's to be put in the article. I notice that the Big Yin's article evades the issue by not mentioning it in the infobox .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think thats because it does not need to be in the Infobox. I don't really think that many do have nationality/ethnicity in Infobox, and I tried to remove it. It's only need in opening line, and it should be English like Connolly is Scottish. --UpDown 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! The auld get is causing more trouble dead than when he was alive! Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is ethnicity and nationality self identified? The police categorise ethnicities according to a criteria, whilst one may want Cornish nationality, but officially and verifiably, they're British. We've already got citations that Manning was a British comedian. Jhamez84 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the current changes to the infobox (which give "English (British Citizen)" as his nationality, I raise an issue that has not yet been resolved. The entry apparently has two citations, but neither verify the label "English", even as a self-identified label. The most they do is call him "British". Consequently, on the grounds that if it can't be verified, it shouldn't be added, and if it can be verified, it must be cited, I feel that "English" should be removed, since birth in a particular part of the country does not guarantee that a person will self-identify as being of that nationality.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this person. This hasn't been sorted. There are no definitions of when somebody is officially English. Only British. El.Bastardo 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that putting "British" in the infobox is perfect. Almost immediately, the article goes into detail about where precisely he was born and raised, as well as his Jewish and Irish ancestry - providing sources for both. KZF 13:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkrington is in Greater Manchester

Just a line to say that Alkrington is in Greater Manchester - not in Middleton or Manchester or Lancashire - or bizarrely all three at the same time as User:Local yokel has decreed! I'd cite a source, but just look at the Alkington article - very demotivating. Jhamez84 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alkrington is near Middleton, which comes under the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, not Manchester. DShamen 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems be an ongoing problem of User:Local yokel - he's been contacted about this, but not passed comment. He's also been asked to use edit summaries and isn't. I just ask that users watch out for any revisions that edit out that Alkrington is in Greater Manchester. Jza84 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has been 3RR protected already over whether Manning was English or British and this is becoming a similarly tiresome dispute. By strict modern standards Alkrington falls within the Greater Manchester area, although it can also be described as part of Middleton. In best Wikipedia tradition, some sort of compromise is needed to prevent needless revert wars over this issue. I have given both localities in the current edit.--Ianmacm 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ianmacm. Though the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) (a policy) apply here with regards to the use of counties - Alkrington is in Greater Manchester. Technically it isn't in Middleton; it was in a pre-74 local government district named Middleton, but this division of land was abolished, and thus it's a named place south of Middleton. I can live with the compromise, but it's wrong frankly (it's a shame that facts are increasingly having to be presented in this way to accomodate "alternative" views)

Just a totally random piece of advice to all contributors - sockpuppets and sleeper accounts on Wikipedia are expressly forbidden, and can be traced upon request. Jza84 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It clearly is in Middleton. We have a ref which states this, against your personal opinion. We also had a ref in the article which had nothing to with Bernard Manning and was there purely so you can promote Greater Manchester. Iceage77 11:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is this reference that gives verification to your source? I cannot find it in the article easily. If, however, one goes to various official sites which allow one to view existing boundaries, one get what appears to be the definitive answer. Election Maps would seem to be a useful site. In this, searching for Alkrington in any of the fields yields no results, nor does searching for Middleton, which suggests Middleton is certainly not any kind of official district. However, searching for Rochdale as a Local Authority and showing the boundaries of the Wards and Metropolititan District boundaries allows us to verify the following facts: (a) Alkrington is in Greater Manchester. (b) It is near to a area within Greater Manchester called "Middleton" which has no unitary status in any districts or wards within Greater Manchester; (c) It lies within the Rochdale District of Greater Manchester; and (d) Whilst "Middleton" has no unitary status as any ward or district within Greater Manchester, it does lie within the "East Middleton" and "South Middleton" wards of Rochdale District. So, in conclusion, it appears that if we are talking about local government-defined locations, Alkrington is within "Greater Manchester", within Rochdale District in particular, and it appears to be split between two electoral wards which have "Middleton" as part of their name, even though as a single entity (district or ward) at Local Government level, Middleton does not appear to exist.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with Bernard Manning? The original ref was an article about Manning in the Telegraph. Iceage77 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted your comments as being part of a dispute over whether Alkrington was in Middleton or not. This interpretation certainly fits in with other's interpretation of this dispute. The contribution I made was to show what the official sources allow us to conclude. The conclusions seem to go against what you seemed to be insisting, and now you appear to deny that the dispute was what it seemed perfectly clear it was. Furthermore, there is NO reference to anything from the Telegraph listed in the article, so if what you now say is true, you seem to be quite confused. If there was and it was removed, I would tend to view the official websites dealing with boundaries for administrative purposes to be of greater veracity than an articel from any "Telegraph" newspaper, anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For all the wealth that fame brought him, Manning rarely strayed beyond a five-mile radius of his home in Alkrington, Middleton Now let's stay on topic please. Iceage77 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But I am being on-topic. It seems it is you who are disputing a fact about Middleton and quoting a Daily Telegraph article about the actual local government status of a place over and above the official sites.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROLL. Iceage77 14:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iceage77, I am writing here as a result of a Wikiquette alert reported here, in regards to your comments on this page. Please note that calling someone a troll is a serious accusation. Unfounded accusations are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please avoid this kind of comment in the future unless you are ready to back it up with evidence and file an official report. If you feel upset by someone's comment, please wait a few moments before entering your reply so you don't reply out of anger, but rather in consideration of the topic of discussion. Please do not discuss other editors; focus your comments on the content of the article. Thank you. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of contribution is neither pleasant nor helpful Iceage77, I must urge you to reconsider your approach to using talk pages. I believe User:Ddstretch is qualifying his understanding fairly and respectfully, and is very much on topic. He's even gone to the trouble of getting some official primary source material to help here. The problem is here is one of the use/hiding of modern counties, which from your contributions is very clear as to your opinion. Trouble is, that this is a breach of one of Wikipedia's policies, which I believe exists for good reason.

We could describe Alkrington's location in a whole different range of ways - in its UK constituency, official region, former postal county, current post town, the county palatine of Lancaster, its NHS trust, its European parliament constituency, former registration county, former county, former hundred, current Anglican parish and, as you appear to prefer - it's former local government district. However, it is convention (based on legal literature, consistency with the published realm, consistency with other encyclopedias) to use the modern administrative county (so for this part of the UK, that is the metropolitan and ceremonial county of Greater Manchester).

Your source is helpful in some aspects, but some newspapers use this type of informal phrasing - indeed I heard the phrase "Salford, Manchester" on a documentary just this week. I beleive it's a misappropriation of the source (WP:RS) to use it to hide Greater Manchester (just look on the Alkrington article at it's location), and in this capacity your approach does not help the accuracy and integrity of the article. Jza84 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Darcus Howe quote

I think that this quote is completely out of context. It's being used to show that a noteable black person liked him. The quote itself was in scathing criticism of Tony Blair, saying that he had nothing in common with Manning and less with Blair. This quote has been taken completely out of context.

How does that work then? Darcus states quite clearly that he liked him. cheers Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't taken out of context (as VC&D just said, Darcus makes it obvious that he likes Manning). It's certainly relevant, but it was included in the wrong part of the article. I've tried to improve this a bit. KZF 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I could say "I would rather eat hot shit than blue cheese", but that's doesn't mean that I would like to eat hot shit. Even without reading into Howe's intention's, saying "I have more in common with this person" does not imply liking them. 90.217.104.219 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's completely clear what this quote means. Just as "I have more in common with Hitler than I do with you" would be a damning insult, this was an insult to Tony Blair that relied not only on disliking Manning but the assumption that everyone dislikes him. As such I've removed the quote (as it was being used as an attempt to support Manning).

The only way you could misinterpret the quote is if you think it's obvious that everyone loves Tony Blair, so that having even more in common with someone than that is a complement. But whatever you think of Tony Blair, I'm sure it's obvious that not everyone loves him. Quietbritishjim (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

When this page is no longer protected, Las Vegas needs to be disambiguated to Las Vegas, Nevada.--Dcooper 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} see above. --Mal 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - auburnpilot talk 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More non NPOV in main article

"Most viewers felt that Manning came second in a television interview to Caroline Aherne's character Mrs Merton when he supposedly confirmed that he was a racist, but also in the same programme said: 'I tell jokes. You never take a joke seriously.'"

What citation is there for MOST viewers? Even weasel phrases like "some viewers" are frowned upon in Wiki aren't they?

I felt that by answering "Yes", to her question "Are you a racist?" (which has been shown again and again recently on TV) he took the wind out of her sails, but that is opinion not fact

chrisboote 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Most viewers is cited - read it. [6]Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the citation, but having worked at the Beeb, I would hesitate before taking that source as authoritative - especially relating to a BBC program. Still, it IS an external source, despite its likely inaccuracy, so that's good enough for a citation I guess chrisboote 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a BBC lie. She tried to outwit him but failed miserably, that is the natural outcome of a great comedian versus a mediocre one. He went on to really piss her off by saying "You're Irish, we all leave the room when you do", she was not happy in defeat.Stutley (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Style section

I've tried to sort out the 'Style' section a bit - here are my changes:

• I reorganised the whole section. I thought it best to start off with information about the kind of humour he had, then what notable (well kind of) celebrities think of him, then what his friends and family say about him. I haven't added or removed anything, it was just a bit jumbled up before.
• I deleted this detail: "...having his Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit (registration plate I LAF) parked strategically outside but sitting inside in vest and Y-fronts..." - even though it's funny, it's more something an interviewer or reviewer would write. It would be nice to include it somehow, because it's relevant to his image. But I wasn't sure where to put it...

Things that I think need to be improved are:

• the Mrs Merton bit - what does it even mean, 'came second to Mrs Merton'? Why does it say 'most viewers felt that'? This needs clarifying or removing.
• i'm no expert on bernard manning, but i've been told his humour wasnt 100% 'controversial' stuff - it sounds like he used quite a bit of satire, subtle humour etc as well. This really needs to be included if so, because if this article only draws attention to the controversial aspects of his jokes without mentioning the more widely acceptable parts, then it's very biased. KZF 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Links

I removed the links to youtube because of this;

Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

BigDunc 12:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added these links. The 29 May 2005 video was shot by me and was added with my full consent. The Stockport video looks like a home video of one of Manning's appearances in a pub. Just because YouTube has a poor record on copyright, it does not mean that all links to YouTube videos are banned. It is useful to have some videos of Manning in action, but anything that is obviously from a TV show should be removed. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. BigDunc 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote

"I dragged myself up by my bootlaces. I don't drink or smoke, I don't take drugs. I have never been a womaniser. I was brought up right with good parents and I have never been in trouble or harmed no-one. And I love my family."

Yet on the top of the page the picture clearly shows Manning, cigarette in hand only a couple of years before his death. Also he only become teetotal on doctors advice/orders because of his kidney trouble. Can we find a source for this quote? --EchetusXe (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The photo at [7] comes from his performance on 29 May 2005, which can be seen in video form at [8]. I took this photograph and video, and can recall Bernard Manning asking a person in the audience to give him a cigarette for a few moments. During the performance, Manning said "If you want to smoke, smoke, if you want to drink, drink." Whether Manning was a regular smoker or drinker is hard to say. It may just have been a part of his act. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, thnx for the info. Nevermind then.EchetusXe (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i was wondering about that, should there somewhere be a disclaimer to that effect, or perhaps more research into it, as the photograph and the quote can be seen as contradictory. --81.23.56.12 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Manning was a smoker and a heavy drinker for most of his life. The quotation should be removed because it is untrue. (92.11.192.105 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

This would require a source in line with WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows he smoked and drank heavily in the 1970s and beyond. He might have given up in his last years due to his declining health but it would be wrong to claim he was a non-smoker. He only gave up drinking because his kidneys were destroyed. (92.11.192.105 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

The issue here is the standard one of verifiability, not truth. A statement like this would need a source, even if the quote from the BBC article is inaccurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Era of "political correctness"?

Can someone define what is the era of political correctness? When it did start? Has it ended? Can you please define "political correctness"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.207.246 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article and is sourced to the BBC obituary [9] which uses a similar phrase. Political correctness is wikilinked, and the era of PC is generally reckoned to have started in the 1980s when alternative comedians like Ben Elton derided Manning as a dinosaur.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What?

"In 2006, he made Madonna laugh at the 40th birthday party of chef Marco Pierre White."

Why does this information need to be there? It's fucking pathetic.

This is sourced in the article at [10]. I'm not sure that it is "fucking pathetic", but if anyone dislikes it then it can be edited or removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alwyn W Turner

Who is Alwyn W Turner? He has a website at [11], but does not appear to be a mainstream journalist or academic. Wikipedia articles are not exercises in commentary or analysis, and should stick to factual material as far as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

English standards and recent changes to lead

IF new material is added to an article, as here, and there are problems with the grammar, format or whatever, BY ALL MEANS feel free to edit it and make it better. But to merely delete it is NOT being constructive. There is nothing wrong with what has been added - so improve it, and STOP deleting it.

As to YouTube there is nothing which explicitly bars it as a source. (Someone with such perfect English can surely read that - it says it quite clearly in the guidelines?) IF there are Copyright issues, improve or correct them. Just deleting material is lazy, unconstructive, it breaks several Wikipedia guidelines and is liable to provoke an edit war. AiFWww (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, viewing the edit history of this article, I'd like to politely point out that no-one owns the articles on Wikipedia. No matter how long they have carefully nursed them or how many years they have edited them with care and attention. Sometimes, with articles, it is better to let go... Like a child, they have to be allowed to grow and live on their own! AiFWww (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out twice that there is a WP:YOUTUBE issue here, but you have decided to sail past it. In any case, the "although by no means limited to such" phrase is clunky and does not really improve the article. The WP:LEAD summarizes the important aspects of the subject, and Manning was best known for his jokes about ethnic stereotypes. None of this makes a great deal of sense in the lead, but I am not going to 3RR on it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that Manning was branded racist - it is obviously important to make it clear in the lead that much of his humour was aimed at all races, all religions. I dont see any room for dispute there. However I can readily accept your criticism that it is "clunky" - but rewriting is the way forward not deletion. Is it not?

As to YouTube - I have indeed "sailed past it". Why? Because I just cannot follow nor understand all the rules on Wikipedia about Copyright and images and so forth. This is certainly no dig at you, so please take no offence, but Wiki anoraks need to realise that ordinary folk edit this thing and don't really have a clue about all that sort of stuff nor the time to learn it. Nevertheless, IMHO it seems important to add these sources because - even here on the talk page - someone has said he never made jokes about jews or christians whereas in the (YouTube) sources I have provided, he clearly does both. Furthermore if the YouTube sources are removed - and I can see your reasoning for wanting to do so - someone will soon say "ah, he was a racist" again and remove the extra sentences I have added. And the article will be no further advanced. AiFWww (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the YouTube videos have to go per WP:ELNEVER. On the issue of Manning's act, it is true that not every single one of his jokes was about ethnic minorities. However, a look at videos of his live performances shows a predominance of this type of material. Manning always denied that his act was racist, and the article needs to reflect this. A lot of the sourcing comes from the material in his obituaries, for example this one which stresses the controversy over "racist" jokes for which he was best known. The wording in the lead could be tweaked, but since it is intended as a summary, it has to point out that most of the controversy surrounding Manning's act was because of the perceived offensiveness of some of his material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To not include - or worse to remove - the extra material in the intro would be to bias the article against the truth. Manning made racist jokes about all races (same for religions etc..) and that has to be in the lead where he is, in effect, accused of racism. As it stands, the only "defence" is Manning's own denial. That is insufficient where material actually exists which proves his claim. AiFWww (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the issue of copyright re. YouTube - where is anything that states that material cannot be used for reasons of copyright? (I'm not saying it doesnt, just asking where it does). AiFWww (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The two videos cannot be used per WP:ELNEVER. In any case, YouTube videos are not ideal citations and it is best to stick to text based citations where possible. We should both have a look through the existing text citations to see how to handle this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. WP:ELNEVER states that they cannot be used where there is copyright infringement. I am asking you, where is the copyright infringement? Personally - and as a novice I may well be wrong - I can find nothing on those YouTube links which states they are not to be used in this manner. So you need to show me where it does say that. No point just keep referring to WP:ELNEVER or any other Wiki edict - when it comes to improving an article, this rule overrides them all - WP:IGNORE. Unless there is infringement? Is there? If so, where? AiFWww (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of the videos cited have material which is taken from TV shows or videos of Manning's live performances. Videos like these are often removed by XLinkBot on the grounds of unsuitability. It would still be better to tackle the NPOV issue by using text based citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, well, as, unlike a Bot, I'm sure we both have better things to do, why don't we wait and see whether or not XLinkBot does just that? If it does, then you get full marks. If it don't, sure then we've no more need to waste time worrying over it! On the other matter, the text changes I made, well I want that in the lead for the reasons I've given and I can't see any issue with it being there. But I'm certainly not going to say that you couldnt phrase it better than me. And if you can, then by all means do so. AiFWww (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

XLinkBot reverts the addition of YouTube videos by IP editors automatically. This does not alter the fact that the YouTube videos cited in the lead are WP:ELNEVER. I'm not trying to edit war on this, just pointing out the facts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter how many times you say this, it does not make it true: "This does not alter the fact that the YouTube videos cited in the lead are WP:ELNEVER". WP:ELNEVER states that they cannot be used where there is copyright infringement. I am asking you, for the third and final time, where is the copyright infringement? Please, by all means, point to it. AiFWww (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

See the above, it has all been said. I've run out of breath on this, can someone else comment?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been modified to include a direct quote from Manning, which is reliably sourced. The two YouTube videos, Classic Bernard Manning (Part 1) and Classic Bernard Manning (Part 2) are WP:ELNEVER because they are compilations of clips from broadcast television shows and videos of Manning's act, and as such are almost certainly copyrighted, making them unsuitable per WP:YOUTUBE. It is also better to source the denial of racism from Manning himself, rather than to introduce personal commentary or analysis. If there is disagreement here, it is time to seek a third opinion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As we have come to stalemate - then unless you wish an edit war - please leave the material intact. Just removing it again, even whilst we are discussing it, shows bad faith. I agree wholeheartedly that a 3rd party must intervene. Until they have done so, we must leave it as it is to avoid the aforementioned edit war. AiFWww (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There now does need to be a third opinion, in view of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the copyright issue. New batteries in the deaf aid, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't afford a deaf aid never mind batteries for it! But sure, as soon as we have that 3rd opinion, as you clearly feel very strongly about the issue, THEN the disputed source material may/may not be removed. However, please continue to note that the text I have added may NOT be removed, only altered to read in a better way. AiFWww (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

While we are waiting, please find a source that backs up what you want to say that is *not* a YouTube video. This is the crux of the matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The two videos linked to appear to be a television broadcast, which will inevitably be copyrighted. However there is nothing to state what broadcast this is. Since it is not on a Youtube channel belonging to a TV channel or related organisation, I think it's safe to say that the Youtube uploader does not own the copyright to this material and it is therefore a WP:LINKVIO. I have removed it on that basis. January ^(talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion request: I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Since an RfC is a step up on the dispute resolution ladder, your Third Opinion request has been removed now that a RfC has been requested. The opinion by January, above, can also be seen to be a Third Opinion. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to summarize Manning's career fairly in the second paragraph per WP:LEAD. I do hope that Manning is in Heaven looking down and having a good laugh about all of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I started writing some more thoughts after looking at the article and edits before I saw the latest edit, but I think they're still relevant so ...

• The Youtube links were to an interview with Manning. Even if we didn't have the linkvio problem, the statement "he did indeed make irreverant jokes about people from all walks of life and of all racial and religious backgrounds" is written as if it is an outside observation, and therefore it would need to be sourced to one, ie a third-party source is needed.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The material being added to the lead is not reflected in the rest of the article. I would suggest discussing additions further down in the article first (probably in the Comedy style section), then looking at how it might be reflected in the lead.

• Maybe the lead could use a little expansion so that it isn't entirely focused on the controversy and reflects the earlier part of his career, for example this BBC article starts out by saying how he rose to fame. At the moment it says "Manning was rarely seen on British television in the later part of his career", without having previously mentioned he'd appeared on television. January ^(talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The 1970s was the peak of Manning's success on television, so this should be in the lead. This has been added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor

I agree with the WP:LEAD comment above. The lead is not the place to add new material. Also, as stated by January above, we should not include our comments on a video. We need a commentary by someone else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with this. The lead - as with any part of any article - is the place to add new material. No idea why you suggest otherwise? Is there a wiki rule which supports your statement: "do not add new material to the lead"? If so, please show me that rule - because I have often done just that. AiFWww (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. January ^(talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here is a quote from the guideline, 'The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernard manning a Local Hero?

I read with interest the basic facts regarding Bernard Manning. Unfortunately, there appears to be nowhere where one could add their experience's with the Great Man? He touched so many with his Humour, & i say that with the best of intentions! I saw him many ,many times over the years, & i never thought of him as "rascist"? He spoke the language that was spoken on the Street! A perfect Gentleman in ALL respects he never promoted his many Charity Commitments that he peformed over the years.He just wasn't that kind of person who would do anything for fame! No he was a proper "Manc" loved by many! Steve Winder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.53.70 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrote his own obituary?

I'm a bit suspicious of the obituary he supposedly wrote himself. In the seventh paragraph from the end, the obituary reads, "Indeed, my act was an equally big success on the other side of the Atlantic, though I had to adapt his material for American audiences." That's not an error someone would make writing about himself, but it is an error someone would make while pretending to be another person writing about himself. I'm proposing the text in the entry be modified to read, "The Daily Mail claims to have received a eulogy he wrote for himself, and published it as his obituary two days later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoulding (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The wording is as you say above, in the Mail obituary on 20 June 2007.[12] There may have been some input from a copyeditor, but there would be an element of original research in saying that Manning wrote none of it.

Smoker?

We carry his claim to be a teetotal non-smoker, but the photo illustrating him shows him with a cigarette. This seems suboptimal. --John (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I took this photo. Someone in the audience handed him a cigarette. I have got a video of this somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Manning. 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/20071007225403/http://www.pr-inside.com/controversial-british-comedian-bernard-manning-r157083.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/controversial-british-comedian-bernard-manning-r157083.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928131233/http://www.markhodkinson.com/pages/journalism_bernard_manning.htm to http://www.markhodkinson.com/pages/journalism_bernard_manning.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422082302/http://www.eofftv.com/t/thi/this_is_your_life_1969_main.htm to http://www.eofftv.com/t/thi/this_is_your_life_1969_main.htm

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bernard Manning. 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/20090210081816/http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=6527 to http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=6527
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016211209/http://menmedia.co.uk/middletonguardian/news/s/529637_manning_was_no_racist_says_asian_neighbour to http://menmedia.co.uk/middletonguardian/news/s/529637_manning_was_no_racist_says_asian_neighbour
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184553/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1009/1009476_bernard_manning_dead.html to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1009/1009476_bernard_manning_dead.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515050729/http://www.mymanchester.org/manchester/celebs%26gossip-bernard_manning.htm to http://www.mymanchester.org/manchester/celebs%26gossip-bernard_manning.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernard Manning. 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://archive.is/20130420225748/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1009476_bernard_manning_dead.html to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1009476_bernard_manning_dead.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515050729/http://www.mymanchester.org/manchester/celebs%26gossip-bernard_manning.htm to http://www.mymanchester.org/manchester/celebs%26gossip-bernard_manning.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard Manning. 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/20070621204834/http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007280272,00.html to http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007280272,00.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Prison guard at Spandau

Manning was 15 at the end of WW2. Were there 16/17 year-olds guarding German prisoners ?Pamour (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This comes from Manning's self-penned obituary [13] in which he writes "I was one of the armed guards watching over the Nazi hierarchy locked up in Spandau prison. For a 16-year-old, it was a bizarre experience, standing over the likes of Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer with a Bren gun." I agree it's a bit odd, but that's what he says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nature of controversy

This article hints at the controversy surrounding Manning's act, but it seems that unless you are already familar with him, a reader of this article would still be unclear as to what it entailed. The two most egrarious examples are the that lede says the controversy led to him not appearing on TV. However, 'controversy' is an almost contentless word. It should be replaced with a clearer explanation of what part of his act led to him not appearing on TV (with cites of course). Also this line appears in the article: ' playing to packed audiences which he claimed sometimes included people from ethnic minorities.' But nowhere in the article does it explain why ethnic minorities in the audience is notable. At this point it is all either insinuation, or only of interest to readers who basically already know the whole story. I understand characterising offense is difficult and by definition, subjective, so we should find reliable sources for all the statements about how his act has been interpreted and received. Ashmoo (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of this can be sourced to his BBC obituary. Manning was pretty much shunned from television after tastes changed in the 1980s, but he was not particularly worried because he had so much work from his live shows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC obituary

Hello, @Ianmacm:.

I think that the confusion here lies between two different BBC articles.

You mentioned this one in your reversion of my edit at 07:57 on 24 January 2022. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6765093.stm

However, that is not the one that I used for my edits. I used this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3867363.stm This is the one defined as "BBCobit" in the text.

The current wording of the article is favourable to Manning in not mentioning that the case where two Black waitresses won damages from a Derbyshire hotel was based on hearing his use of the word "wog". His claim that he never used the word in his life is in reference to that case, but that is not made clear in the current article. As he lost the case, it seems as if he might not have been entirely candid. This is why I tweaked that paragraph to make clear that Manning denied having used the word "wog" after those two Black waitresses in Derbyshire said that they'd heard him say "wog".

Here is the relevant section of the BBCobit reference that I used.

He was furious when two black waitresses, who won damages from a Derby hotel because it failed to shield them from Manning's invective at a Round Table dinner, accused him of calling them "wogs".

"It's a horrible, insulting word I've never used in my life," he complained, while maintaining that "niggers" and "coons" were historical terms with respectable roots.

There is then the time when he admitted to being a racist on The Mrs Merton Show. This was a new addition and it is needed to represent a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Here is the justifying part from the BBCobit reference:

On Mrs Merton's television show, Bernard Manning supposedly floored Caroline Aherne's alias by confirming that he was a racist.

At least, that was his version, although most viewers felt he emerged a poor second-best from the confrontation.

Although I know that YouTube videos are seldom used as references on Wikipedia, you can see this exchange at the mark here (the video should be time-stamped at 6:30). He even tried to justify his racism by saying, "these people think they're English because they're born here. That means that, if a dog's born in the stable, it's a horse." I don't think that there can be any good reason to exclude this part from the article. Indeed, I think that excluding it would violate Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view by being favourable to Manning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0ESNN03YwE&t=390

I hope that my edits can be restored now. Epa101 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Manning contradicts himself in the Mrs Merton interview. He says at 6:30 that he is racist, then at 7:30 he says "Well, I'm not really racist, I tell jokes about everything."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The bulk of his comments throughout the programme seem to be on the side of admitting that he's a racist. If I use the BBCobit rather than the YouTube video, are you happy for my previous edits to be restored? Epa101 (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)