Talk:Michael Barrymore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

Contents

[edit] Celebrity Big Brother

Surely we can't allow things like this is our articles:

"Barrymore however, has gained much popularity in his recent appearance in 'Celebrity Big Brother'. However, whether this is the signalling of his big comeback remains to be seen. Tabloid newspapers were responsible for ruining his career in 2001 and have recently been tearing him apart during this stint."

This is obviously someone expressing their personal opinion I would move to change it aleast to a more netural tone Grandwazir 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The nature of Barrymore attracts editors who don't fully understand our policies. Merciless editing of unencyclopedic material is strongly encouraged in a case l;ike this so go for it. IMO your perceptions are correct and I advise bold and incisive editing, SqueakBox 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
10 minutes of merciless editing later :-), and I have finished rewritting parts of the article to a higher standard although I am not sure about the bit I wrote regarding the bullying in the house. Although Miss Marsh does call him a horrible man and I have attributted it as such would including the actual quote be considered POV? Grandwazir 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun

There are WAY too many quotes from The Sun newspaper in this article. Too many to make it credible. As anybody with an IQ above room temperature will know The Sun is a rancid scandal sheet and is one of the least reliable sources in the British media. However, non-UK readers of this article may not be as aware of The Sun's dubious reputation. In the interests of preserving any kind of integrity for this article, can we please avoid quoting The Sun.

This article requires a rewrite I will try and do it today. BlueKangaroo 09:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, SqueakBox 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me.


This BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3579653.stm - says that Barrymore was actually sued for £100,000 (not that Terry Lubbock merely intended to sue him) - any other details on the outcome of this?

That story is an announcement of intent, not a report of an event. Terry Lubbock announced to the press that he was SEEKING to sue Barrymore for £100,000, for neglect of 'care of duty'. But there seems to be have been no development on this, perhaps due to the complications of Barrymore living in New Zealand at the time. The moment Barrymore was back in the UK (for Celeb Big Brother 2006), Lubbock started up his legal campaign once more, but this time in the form of a private prosecution comprising the pressing of six charges relating to the incident. So I guess the £100,000 suit has been replaced by this. --highgater 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do read the Mark Simpson interview[1], it's fascinating stuff. --highgater 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

very good article - andrew roberts

[edit] Name

Is Michael Barrymore merely a stage name, or has he actually changed his name to it? Proteus (Talk) 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


"Michael Barrymore is a criminal mastermind. With intend to murder all of Europe and send them to their watery graves."
Ummmm? Can someone fix that?

[edit] Death of Stuart Paragraph

Is it just me or just this look like it has been lifted from somewhere, I am sure I read it when I was researching this article. Grandwazir 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think there has been a copyvio my advice is to remove it, SqueakBox 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


NOTE: Contributors are reminded that only the basic facts of the Lubbock case relating to Michael Barrymore's life and career (ie those that are usually mentioned in non-tabloid news stories on Barrymore) need be mentioned in this article. In-depth reports, blow-by-blow legal proceedings, theories, controversies, opinions, investigations, police inquiries and statements by the Lubbock family really belong in the separate Stuart Lubbock article, not here. The January 2006 Bennett and Lubbock Private Prosecution, for instance, is only worth the briefest of mentions until it results in Barrymore actually answering questions in court, at the very least. This article is about what Barrymore is doing, not what Anthony Bennett or Tony Lubbock are doing. --highgater 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note To User:Readallaboutit

To 'Readallaboutit'. Please can you refrain from adding lines about the latest press quotes by Terry Lubbock or Anthony Bennett to this Michael Barrymore article? Add them to their own biogs: create a Terry Lubbock article if you must. The MB article is about what MB does, not others do. I respectfully note from your contrib history that you have a personal interest in Anthony Bennett, due to his UKIP / Veritas past. Fair enough, but that's not relevant to a Wiki article about Michael Barrymore's life and career. Thanks! --highgater 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Hospital Inquiry

I've edited the article to include details on the hospital inquiry launched in January 2003. I think it's important enough to include in the article, particularly in the interests of balance. However, it does need tidying up with the appropriate links put in.--highgater 07:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it me or does this article need some serious cleaning up? This is meant to be about Barrymore, not a detailed report of everything concerning the death of someone who was at one of his parties. A slow trickle of details on this has been being inserted, skeweing the focus severely. Barbara Osgood 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out several items which just seem inserted to paint as negative a portrait of Barrymore as possible. They are arguably relevant, true, but their slipshod insertion and formatting indicates little interest in integrating them properly into a formatted article, just having them visible. This page seems to be being used to catalogue everything negative that's dogged Barrymore. Barbara Osgood 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw you removed my links to the BBC News coverage of the hospital inquiry, with the reason "someone appears to have a vendetta against Barrymore - this article is not a record of every negative event or allegation in Barrymore's life.". On the contrary, if anything I have a raging erection right now! The 2003 enquiry is Barrymore's most significant attempt to close the case with his name cleared. I was trying to redress the Lubbock content balance in Barrymore's favour. Still, I agree that the page should have absolute minimum Lubbock content regardless, with the details of the case and subsequent investigations moved to the separate Stuart Lubbock page. There is more to Barrymore's life than that one incident. --highgater 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
apologies, I must have got a bit over-zealous there! There was just too much here on Lubbock and every single aspect of court action every taken against Barrymore Barbara Osgood 13:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with the need to cut down the Lubbock content whether pro or anti-Barrymore regardless. Fuller details really belong in the Stuart Lubbock article - that's what it's there for. I've therefore edited the paragraph in the Barrymore article so it contains the very basic facts of the Lubbock incident relating to the entertainer's life. --highgater 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Mirror link

Someone has added a link to a Daily Mirror article in the Links section of the Wiki entry, though there seems to be no reason for adding this and it doesn't benefit the Wiki entry in any way. There are already many references to news articles (a place better suited to external news articles) that accompany valuable text contributions to the entry so if the poster would like to imrpove the article by writing some good content and use this link as a reference then that would be great, otherwise there seems little point in just linking to news articles without reason for doing so. There are literally hundreds of articles about Michael Barrymore all over the web and we'd end up with a long unhelpful list if people just added the ones they come across to the external links section.

[edit] THis page is basically a diary!

All it says is Barrymore did this 1st Feb

On the 2nd of Feb somebody else did something else

This man, like him or loathe him, has had a varied career - this report just concentrates on one major (albeit tragic) matter and is not really a valid encyclopaedic entry!

There, I've said my piece now.

[edit] Cleanup

Woah...this article needs major cleanup! I tried adding {{cleanup|July 2006}} but on a PDA the size of the article is too great to save the edit. Please can someone add it for me. Be bold and all, but I haven't got time at the moment - plus the size limit anyway. Cheers.

— Gary Kirk | talk! 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

His father was a serial killer????? I think we should require a source for that

[edit] 14th June 2007 Arrest???

The article claims that Barrymore has been arrested along with two other men citing a link to a news article on the BBC. However as of writing the bbc article states that Essex police have refused to say if Barrymore has been arrested. Deckchair 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC) http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1270525,00.html 81.174.140.46 10:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is reasonable to assume that he has indeed been arrested, since it is mentioned in the Times and on Sky news, both reputable sources? RJE42 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is mentioned by (and linked to) a reputable source then i would say yes. My objection was the statement that he had been arrested was backed up by a link to a source that at the time did not verify that he had been arrested. Deckchair 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There is still no official confirmation that he has been arrested. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's okay to wait. It would also be okay to say that three men have been arrested in connection with the death of Stuart Lubbock, that they have not been named by the Essex Police but that all reputable news outlets are reporting that Mr Barrymore has been arrested. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is OK to say it is thought to be Barrymore, but not to say definitively that it is based on what has been said by official sources up to ths point. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This link says he's been arrested. Corvus cornix 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It speculated that he has been arrested. The official police line in the article is that three men have been arrested. The police have not formally identified Barrymore yet, and until they do you can't say he's been arrested.
Although it's moot now, please tell me where it says that this is speculation. It says, "Barrymore arrested". Corvus cornix 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrymore's solicitor has now confirmed he is in custody. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced claims

I have listed this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Although there are lots of references, each of the allegations should be specifically sourced, or removed. For instance, the information about the two men initially arrested in the murder. Where is that information sourced? Corvus cornix 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Predator

"The recent newspaper article in the Daily Mirror accounts Barrymore forcing himself, money and drugs onto a 17 year old homosexual male. This is not related in the article to what happened in the Stuart Lubbock affair. Barrymore is clearly a sexual predator."

I think you will find if you look at the Daily Mirror article, it's an excuse to show what is essentially a photo of Barrymore in a gay club, in which there happened to also be a 17yr old boy on E pill. Is this really encyclopaedia content? Certainly not grounds to call him "clearly a sexual predator". Gay hater! Michaeldrayson 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly, that's a bizarre ad hominem attack, secondly, having just read the article [2], I've got to say I completely disagree your reading of the article.
Yes, there's a picture of Barrymore, but it's quite small compared to the sheer amount of text, and there's no indication that the picture is from a gay club or there's a 17 year old on an E there. but it's actually a pretty serious accusation, and one that is quite encylcopaedic. The story tells about someone who's concerned after seeing Barrymore attempting to force himself and drugs on a young boy, and, to be frank, with the Lubbock affair, does paint a disturbing picture of Barrymore. If it's true, I'd find it hard to argue he's a sexual predator. Although that shouldn't be said in the article just now, as it's not 100% reliable, but the coverage is worth covering.
Calling the editor a "Gay hater" is completely out of line, and unjustified. I've got to say, that it is just generally worrying if one of the first british family entertainers who came ouf as gay does turn out to be a sexual predator, as it's a worrying message/image for the public. Disliking Barrymore's actions and believing him to be a sexual predator doesn't make anyone a gay hater. Unless you identify "Gay" as "Someone who attempts to force drugs on 17 year olds so they can have sex with them". J•A•K 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes in some ways but as boy not in the picture and barrymore not supping on an E or killing lubbock hard it a leap to go and title section "SEXUAL PREDATOR"

it should perhaps go "FAMILY ENTERTAINER"? Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

oh and no I don't hate gays Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

do you think that I hate gays? I don't associate them with drug forcing or recall any sex with the teenager in the article?? Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never had a drug force by a gay Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where do you get the idea I accused you of hating gays? I just said "Disliking Barrymore's actions and believing him to be a sexual predator doesn't make anyone a gay hater. Unless you identify "Gay" as "Someone who attempts to force drugs on 17 year olds so they can have sex with them". " I wasn't meaning to imply all gays are people who attempt to force drugs on 17 year olds, just that a national newspaper publishing a story accusing someone of this is perfectly encyclopaedic. I also am slightly confused by your objection to someone titling a section on the talk page "sexual predator". Yes, there shouldn't be a section on the main page of that, but it's a valid thing for discussion. And don't go calling people gay haters. Be civil J•A•K 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Be civil! He's calling him a SEXUAL PREDATOR! Does that mean he's a Sexual Pre-Dater? As in he sexes people before he dates them? Or that he PREYS on people like a bird of prey, an eagle or an owl, perhaps, but in a sex way?

Fair enough, the daily mirror said that, but they say a lot of things. Do you remember when the Sun accused Elton John of cutting the voice boxes out of his dogs? And they didn't even have the right sort of dog in the article, let alone the missing voice box!

"Barrymore is clearly a sexual predator" seems a fairly strong statement to make. Clearly? Based on a dubious artickle in the Daily Mirror? That's a bit like saying "Lubbock clearly died with an apple up his ass forced there by lustful and predatory Michael Barrymore", no? Michaeldrayson 14:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a care for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the Mail article looks on the verge of libel and we would need better sources to include anything on the incident here. --Salix alba (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you Salix Alba! This is what I mean. Enough of these calling me "THE PIG MAN" McGeddon! Just because Michael Barrymore has not taken any legal action against the mirror does not mean that the article is libellious. I propose that the statement that Barrymore did the e-pill forcing and made other trouble in the gay club is a dubious one. However it does have a citation so we can't say [citation needed]. I learn. Michaeldrayson 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name the wrong way round, surely

"Michael Ciaran Parker (born 4 May 1952) is an English comedian better known by his stage name Michael Barrymore."

Michael Parker was never an English comedian. Michael Barrymore (an English comedian? - very funny but a 'comedian'?) might have been born Michael Parker but he's not 'better known...'he is Michael Barrymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.65.28 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a tabloid

Just a reminder that we do not aspire to the same levels of sleaze as papers like The Sun. We need to present a well-balanced summary of the guy's life, not shying away from reporting controversy where it can be reliably sourced, but not dwelling on every tabloid allegation either. We are an encyclopedia; we do not make judgements on someone's character or their guilt, we report the reliably sourced facts in a proportionate way. WP:BLP is worth a look too; we absolutely do not publish unreferenced negative info about living people. --John (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)