Talk:Paul Burrell

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Redirect?

He isn't really notable apart from the scandal he was involved in. Perhaps it might be an idea to junk all the stuff about his TV appearances in latter years, and move the material to Burrell affair here instead? Vashti 21:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, any objections? --Iacobus 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object, he was notable before the affair Gareth E Kegg 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for being a royal footman or butler? Or for being a contestant on celebrity shows based on his noteriety stemming from the Burrell Affair? If there is anything else to his notability, can you please explain? Thanks. --Iacobus 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Burrel

Are there any websites that view Burrell in a negative light? Isn't he usually considered a bit of a creep? --V. Joe 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't worth the effort. Dr. Wikipedian 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is usually considered a bit of a creep (certainly by me), BUT that isn't really suitable encyclopaedic content is it? Therefore I have removed the umbrella statement that he is 'greatly disliked by the British public' - unless someone has interviewed all 57 million of us, this comment is spurious at best. Smurfmeister 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality?

An anon. editor offered the accusation (if it is in fact an accusation) that "it is an open secret" that Burrell is a homosexual who has had affairs with several men. I have reverted to the previous edition of the article for several reasons.

1) There is absolutely no source given for that information. (It might be true, I have no idea, although I have heard rumors to that effect.) 2) It is potentially is not actually libelous, especially under U.S. law, which is what wikipedia operates under. Remember, Liberace won his anti-defamation suit when he was accused of being a homosexual, even though he actually was. Even under British law, although libel would probably not be proven, its still not a good idea, since wikipedia could still be sued. To quote a lawyer (barrister) I once knew "the only good way to win in court is to stay out of it." U.S. law is the real problem since, even if it is TRUE, it is still potentially libelous. If Burrell was dead I would not have a real problem with questioning his sexuality... because the victim being dead is an absolute defense for libel 3) If it isn't true or isn't proven, it isn't good for an enclyopedia to give words to seedy gossip. Its bad for wikipedia...

Cheers V. Joe 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of speculation about this in the press, and Michael Barrymore has claimed Burrell tried to seduce him. Maria Burrell seemed to confirm in an article in The Mirror that she knew her husband had had gay affairs in the past. If someone can find one of these articles to link to I think it's fine to include it, but to announce it is 'an open secret' is indeed potentially libellous. Smurfmeister 09:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

I am requesting that this talk page be moved back to its original location of Talk: Paul Burrell. A vandal appears to have moved the original page from Talk: Paul Burrell to Talk: James bratt, then to here. I don't know how to revert this, so am making this request. Thank you. Egdirf (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the original Paul Burrell article, this still exists, but there is now a duplicate at Not Paul burrel. An anon user has requested Not Paul burrel be deleted. Egdirf (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

"Burrell is very misunderstood by the public and by the media." This in particular stands out, but the whole introduction (pre-contents) section strikes me as NPOV, and has no references. It is written like an amateur press release for him. Thoughts? 130.88.179.77 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I came to this talk page for that exact reason, it's such an outrageous statement that without a lot of respected sources espousing the same view, it cannot be left in the article. I tried to delete but someone (who apparently does not particularly favour the ideal of free editing in wikipedia) has arbitrarily protected the page without attached the template142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]