Talk:Henri Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	France Portal Henri Paul is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Hmm no discussion of alleged links to British security services, or the level of CO2 in his samples. Not saying that either is verifiable or anything, but they have been mentioned? Marlinspike 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

well if they're not veifiable why would they be mentioned?

[edit] Fiat Uno

I added back the informaton on the mystery car, (Fiat Uno) as I think it is directly related to this article. The article explains that Henri Paul has been officially accused of causing the car crash. However evidence is clear that the Mercedes was clipped by a Fiat Uno in the tunnel. The fact that they haven't found the car doesn't make the first part unimportant. It could be that the Fiat Uno caused the crash, and not Henri Paul, therefore it is very relevant to this article. James Andanson's suicide is also directly linked to the conspiracy theories (which this information is added to). Sue Wallace 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss here before removing relevant, correctly cited information. Other reliable reference sources are allowed other than the Paget Report. By the way, there is already an article wholly about the Paget Report.

The information regarding the Fiat Uno is relevant (see below as eg). Sue Wallace 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Extract of Lord Justice Scott Baker's summing up in the Cornoner's Inquest:

12 You will have to consider carefully what it was that

13 caused the driver of the Mercedes to lose control.

14 Obviously the faster you are going, the more difficult

15 it is and the less time you have to deal with an

16 emergency or untoward situation. One possibility is

17 distraction by following vehicles; another is excessive

18 speed; and a third is that the Fiat blocked his [Henri Paul's] path,

19 whether by accident or design. Yet another is the

20 suggestion that the driver may have been distracted or

21 blinded by a bright flashing light, whether deliberately

22 or otherwise.

23 Alcohol is both a disinhibiting factor and something

24 that makes a driver's reactions slower. It is very much

25 in issue whether Henri Paul was fit to drive that night.

59

1 On the one hand, almost all who had contact with him did

2 not notice anything untoward about him; whilst, on the

3 other, tests carried out on his body appear to show that

4 he was well over the drink drive limit.

5 The way in which those tests were carried out is

6 strongly criticised by expert witnesses. I shall return

7 to this aspect of the case in due course.

Sue, my friend, I beg to differ. I would argue that the relevancy of this is based on an intellectual link that is very weak. OK, there's evidence the car had glancing contact with a white Fiat uno but this needs to be placed alongside all the other factors, mentioned in the transcript above. The fact Mohammed Fayed makes an allegation about the Fiat Uno is dealt with in considerable depth on another article and most of what you've got here is mere duplication. Who was driving the Fiat Uno and their fate is for the most part, I contend, irrelevant to an article about Henri Paul and you shouldn't go into the level of detail about the Fiat Uno you do here.

As for sources, I favour primary sources myself that are not drafted with a view to making money or selling a biased POV. That's why I regard the Paget Report and the Inquest transcripts as being the best and most appropriate sources to draw upon. The legal authorities will also have access to sources and resources far greater than any available to private individuals or journalists. I also draw upon reputable media sources that have a legal obligation to be impartial. For this reason, I tend to trust the BBC and, occasionally, other British broadcasters.

Newspapers, particularly tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express, have a bottom line goal of increasing circulation and meeting the demands of their propietors and shareholders. Standards of accuracy are not very high. They will report what happened, but they will be guarenteed to put a 'spin' on it most likely to inflate their proprietors egos, or more likely, bank balances. The same applies to a lesser extent to quality newspapers. The Telegraph, the Times and the Scotsman have a right-wing bias whereas the Independent, the Guardian and the Herald have a left-wing bias.

So, for an encyclopedia, I strongly believe official and unbiased sources are most appropriate and suitable. Speaking personally from my own experience of people, I'd trust the word of police officers over the word of tabloid journalists by a wide margin.

I'd be interested to hear your comments.--B626mrk 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you say as far as tabloids are concerned, I actually deliberately go out of my way to avoid "sensationalist" newspapers, thats why I don't think you'll find any references from me citing The Express as I know that they do appear biased as regards Princess Diana's death etc. Other references I sourced, included The Times, and The Independent etc. I think they are pretty credible and I've sourced plenty from the BBC. The Daily Mail reference where they said Justice Baker had told the jury to disregard Lord Stevens report was taken out of context and I think I did remove this part, however I did check the Paget report's official website and I did see that it had been removed, why I do not know and I haven't checked since. I believe we should use as wide a variety of credible sources as possible, if we only use the 2006 Lord Stevens report then I think we risk creating an unbalanced one-sided article.

You may think that the fiat uno has nothing to do with Henri Paul, but I disagree, as the report above states, this car may have been an important contributing factor that caused the crash, the same as the discrepancy of the 20% carbon monoxide levels that were found in his blood, I think relevant discrepancies should be added. The fact that we are stating on the article that he has been accused of causing the crash (that Paul has been blamed for), this other information needs to be added to give "balance" IMO; in perhaps I could argue the same way that to every conspiracy allegation, you add a contradicting statement (from the Paget report), which I have no objection to. I don't think our views are that different really. Sue Wallace 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the other conspiracy allegations are directly related to the life and circumstances of Henri Paul. The Fiat Uno only comes into play seconds before he died. B626mrk 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but considering the only reason Henri Paul has his own article in Wikipedia is because he was the driver in the fatal collision and has been directly blamed for it, surely we should include all relevant angles relating to the crash itself and that have been mentioned in the inquest, the inclusion of the Fiat Uno is directly related to the possible cause of the crash and Henri Paul's alleged guilt, to not add it we would be creating an inaccurate, incomplete and unbalanced article. Surely this article should give the reader as much related information as possible. Besides, I don't think it unbalances the article, it is two small paragraphs at the bottom, it hardly gives it undue weight, don't you think? Sue Wallace 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)