Talk:Michael Barrymore

message: 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."
How many normal people end up with a dead person in their swimming pool with anal injuries and then get away with denying any involvement in it?  All press speculation on Barrymore is legitimate.  Also Barrymore also confessed to a relative of George Michael that he was in fact involved.  This "celebrity" has unresolved issues the main one is a MURDER.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.87.61 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Celebrity Big Brother''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''The Sun'' 

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

message: Barrymore ran off and phoned his agent before phoning an ambulance (in fact did he subsequently call one?) That was the key part of his downfall? Compare the Art Malik case etc and watch the Martin Bashir interview where Barrymore tried to justify his actions - someone found dead in the swimming pool of a celebrity doesn't automatically end the career of that celebrity. Surely the key point in his downfall was Barrymore's responses to Lubbock being found dead in the pool - once those responses were made public (compared to say Art Malik's response to the person dead in his pool). Barrymore ran off from the scene (his own house) and phoned his agent not an ambulance - surely it was that which finished him in the eyes of the public even before his reticence at the inquest etc?
Barrymore's explanation for the anal injuries (caused by a thermometer at the hospital etc) has always been entirely speculative, highly unlikely, and self serving? Gay/bisexual man attends drug and alcohol theme party including other gay/bisexual men and ends up with a badly damaged anus. Barrymore's claim that instead a nurse later did it with a thermometer when taking the temperature of Lubbock's body etc needs to be stated as a utterly ridiculous proposition given the alternative and far more likely scenario? (Many sources on this issue seem to equate the anal damage with a lack of consent by Lubbock - which might not be the case).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there has been a copyvio my advice is to remove it, SqueakBox 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Stuart paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note To User:Readallaboutit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2003 hospital inquiry 

message: Woah...this article needs major cleanup! I tried adding  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.
— G<B>a</B>ry Kirk | talk! 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unreferenced claims

message: "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)
replies: text: If he hasn't legally changed his name, he is still actually Parker; Barrymore is his stage name. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So obviously no relation to Drew Barrymore if it's only a stage name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.20.238 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not related to the American Barrymore family. His reason for using the surname is that he wanted a showbiz name, rather that his own ordinary surname. Jim Michael (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name the wrong way round, surely 

message: 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)
replies: text: Who else publishes it?  There are no citizen journalists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.4.239 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The red-top papers have done many stories on him. They are very interested in a prime-time family entertainer who was found to be an unstable homosexual alcoholic who married a woman who later divorced him, stated how bad his behaviour was and later died, and who also had a man found dead in his swimming pool. The more upmarket media have not covered his life anywhere near as much; hence finding stories about him in The Sun is much easier than finding them in The Telegraph. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a tabloid 

message: Exclusive: We reveal Susan Boyle's first TV talent show audition - for Michael Barrymore
Susan Boyle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodawi (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested for inclusion 

message: The Lubbock section is as big as the rest of the article put together. I've already removed two The Sun sourced paragraphs (as a muckraking tabloid, The Sun in no way meets WP:RS) and one dubious Daily Mail article (the Mail is okay for factual articles but has tabloid leanings when dealing with celebrities). Exxolon (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: michaels ethnicity is white irish surely  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon543 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity white british 

message: Why is his wife referred-to under the name Cheryl St. Claire and also Cheryl Conklin? There was no other marriage. Valetude (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcription of GRO records on FreeBMD website shows that Michael K Parker and Cheryl C Cocklin marriage was registered in the June 1976 quarter at Harlow register office.  Because there is no cited source for the name Cheryl St Claire I have changed her name in that section to Cheryl Cocklin.  I don't believe that I can cite FreeBMD as a source, though, because it probably counts as original research. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife's name 

message: Barrymore met his first wife Cheryl Cocklin in 1974...
:Who is the second wife meant to be? Valetude (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When I looked today, the article no longer refers to her as his first wife. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First wife? 

message: I'm not making these changes since others might object. But:
(a) shouldn't the opening refer to his career collapsing - that he was a major star and then "suddenly" TV poison seems to be the most interesting thing about him, and
(b) the 2017 judgement that he was due more than nominal damages, was overturned the next year  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.110 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: The section is too large. 
It needs its own article with only the details pertaining to Barrymore included in this one.
The death is notable by all the press coverage on its investigation.
With an arrest made of someone who is not Barrymore, this needs a new article quickly. 81.153.37.24 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I added info to that section today and then saw your note - I agree, it's practically taken over the article. There's clearly enough coverage to merit a separate article as an event, maybe "Death of Stuart Lubbock" initially. I'd be bold and try to split it, but I'd probably break something.  Let's see if anyone else turns up with an opinion. --DSQ  (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree it probably needs a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks. As it's from 14 years ago, it needs quite a lot of adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on the Death of Stuart Lubbock is too large  

message: :On 1 March 2007, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), following a complaint lodged the previous December by Terry Lubbock, announced an investigation into aspects of the police inquiry into Lubbock's death after receiving complaints from the Lubbock family.
Were these separate complaints, or can the last seven words be omitted? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy? 

message: The article has Barrymore spent his early career working as a Redcoat at Butlins holiday camps and then in the West End theatre shows of London, where he met dancer and lifelong friend Cheryl Cocklin in 1974.
Surely if they met in 1974, when Barrymore was 22 years old and Cocklin 24 years old, the term lifelong friend is not at all accurate.  So I have deleted it. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term " lifelong friend" can generally be used to mean "friend for the rest of his/her life." So your deletion might seem a bit pedantic. But their divorce is described as "acrimonious" and "They subsequently had no contact." So that would seem to be a better reason for deleting it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lifelong friend" claim