Talk:Barry George

Calling him "a criminal" in the first line

It seems very ungracious to characterise Barry George in the very first line as a British criminal. We don't describe Princess Anne as "a British Criminal" because she was once convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act, or Cheryl Cole because she was convicted of assulting a nighclub employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Imprisonment

I hope this guy isn't in a regular prison.

nope Whitemoor (HM Prison) Hakluyt bean 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

It seems that chunks of this article have been copied verbatim from the Guardian's article http://www.guardian.co.uk/jilldando/story/0,7369,515874,00.html , also linked from the article. Copyright violation? Zindon 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

lack of citation in the text body I think (Guardian is clearly a source in External Links). Not my article, but was one of the last to have a go at it (and before discovering the neatness of footnotes, I think). Open to anyone to fix Zindon :)

Edit: unless you mean Guardian shouldn't be linked to at all(?). If you think about it, Wikipedia would not be possible without links to news media.Hakluyt bean 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interest in celebrity

I don't believe that this is is a good section. "He showed in interest in Princess Diana and Prince Charles". Who didn't? Perhaps this should be renamed something like "Adopted Celebrity Names".Whirlwindx 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt!

PoV

"... which made him an easy target for a police force that was desperate to pin Jill Dando's murder on to somebody. "

This is not exactly a neutral pov. 81.130.114.232 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I removed the photo because it is quite obviously fake. The original picture George's face was taken from can be seen here: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42039000/jpg/_42039044_george_203b.jpg FlyingToaster

"Real" name

I always found it strange that although he had been reported to have changed his name by deed poll to Barry Bulsara,[1][2][3] he was always still referred to as Barry George. If someone changes their name by deed poll, the new name is their legal name. Was this name change later found to be 'unofficial'? Just wondered - the name change isn't really mentioned in the article.--Michig (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Given that the party to the court proceedings has always been "George" rather than "Bulsara" we can probably infer that there was no deed poll, and this was misreported. LeContexte (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI "Barry Bulsara" redirects here. just in case anyone searches on that name. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempted rape

George was convicted of attempted rape in 1982. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1407284.stm) IMO, this is relevant to the article but chronologically it should go into "eccentric" behaviour. Any thoughts on a better section title? Robertcornell68 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eccentric behaviour?

It is hard to see how attempted rape can be called "eccentric". Most people would consider it a crime of the utmost gravity.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed and fuck the previous poster for suggesting so. --95.96.146.115 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not suggesting that, and maybe that is why they ask that the section title be changed. Please read the information properly before hurling abuse. Britmax (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Asperger syndrome diagnosis

I thought that Barry George was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a dreadful article by Dr. David Canter appeared in the Times newspaper on the 3rd July 2001 titled "Action or Autistic".[4] Maybe I misunderstood, perhaps the diagnoses proffered by Dr. Canter in his article were were made outside of the court case? And retelling changed speculation into an official diagnosis. This newsgroup post appeared on the 30th July 2002, well after Dr. Cantors article:[5]

Doctors who examined George after his arrest diagnosed an impressive array of psychiatric disorders: psychopathic personality, narcissistic personality, histrionic personality, paranoid personality and Asperger's Syndrome (a disorder linked to autism). As a boy he was diagnosed as suffering from attention hyperactivity disorder. George was also diagnosed as having somatisation disorder and concurrent factitious disorder.

Clearly, the author believes that George received a number of diagnoses by doctors who examined him after his arrest, including Asperger's syndrome. So what is the truth, did expert witnesses at his 2001 trial say he had Asperger's syndrome? --Diamonddavej (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we are into WP:BLP territory here, this would need reliable sourcing. I don't see Canter offering this diagnosis and we would need the original Times article to be certain there has been no inept paraphrasing. Newsgroup postings are not regarded as reliable sources except for them selves so have to be discounted. I thought we'd had this discussion before, but it seems not. Either way, I don't think these sources are good enough. --Rodhullandemu 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not suggesting that we use Newsgroup as sources, I'm well aware of Wikipedia's rules, I'm just illustrating that the belief that he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome was widespread at the time. I clearly recall reading the original Dr. Canter article, it was highly controversial and it resulted in a letter of complaint by Dr. Judith Gould of the National Autistic Society (see paragraph 9[6]). I will now look for original and other sources. --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few snippets from articles published in 2001;

"narcissism and Asperger syndrome, a form of communication disorder which .." - by Justin Davenport & Paul Cheston, Evening Standard, Jul 2, 2001 (preceding the Canter Article).

"and a mild form of autism called Asperger's Syndrome" - Perspective: Shaky conviction that casts doubt on profiling by David Wilson, The Birmingham Post, July 14, 2001.

"to Asperger's syndrome, from personality disorder to psychopathology are now..." - The Dando Verdict: Why was this unstable and messed-up man left largely to fend for himself? by Debora Orr, The Independent, July 3, 2001.

All are on the Highbeam archive, I don't have a subscription so I can't access the full articles. Nevertheless, Barry George received a number of diagnoses including Asperger's syndrome. The original David Canter article is not on The Times website anymore, their archive is limited to before 1985. --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is only one analysis, but per WP:BLP, I think it's the right one to follow: [7]. It's moot at best that George had it, and even if he had, this would not be probative as to his guilt, but highly prejudicial to a jury unsophisticated in subtle matters like this. If I were defending George (and I've long since given up doing that sort of work), I would not be happy to see it even mentioned in his article. on balance, I don't see any need to mention it. --Rodhullandemu 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I fair enough, I don't mind not adding it to the article. Maybe it will be mentioned again in the current retrial, if so we could consider adding it. And as for not mentioning it at his trail; A resent appeals court case, the US State v. Franklin Jack Burr II, found that the defendant was failed when the original trail judge disallowed expert testimony that would have "testified about defendant’s diagnosis and the characteristics of Asperger’s Disorder, as well as the serious difficulties in social interaction and the bizarre actions and mannerisms that can be common to persons who have the disorder." e.g. Georges habit of following women and asking them to date him etc. Thus, I think an explanation of Asperger's syndrome to the jury would allow them to decide if his odd behaviors where due to poor social skills or truly malevolent. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is being added again. In the absence of a reliable source, I will ensure that it stays out until it is sourced. Newsgroups and other forums are not reliable sources. Canter has denied Asperger's. That's the end of it for now. --Rodhullandemu 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Barry George is describes in several news paper stories today as e.g. "Sunday Mirror interview Mr George, who suffers from epilepsy, Asperger's Syndrome and has an IQ of 75"[8] and "Face to face with Barry you are left in no doubt this is a complex and volatile character, suffering with epilepsy as well as Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism."[9] etc. --Diamonddavej (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall tone of article

Although somewhat balanced by other material present in certain parts of the article, in my opinion overall this article seems slanted toward presenting its subject as guilty of the crime he was originally charged with. Particularly troubling to me are the claims present in the article based on news stories published shortly after George's initial conviction, which are quite patently heavily biased against him, perhaps justifiably so in their original context, but now seem irrelevant and unfair in light of his subsequent acquittal. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I take your point completely. The tabloids of the time emphasised George's "weirdness", arguably to suggest that therefore "he must be guilty". That is an equation that we must avoid at all costs, per WP:NPOV; however, we should report these descriptions as feeding into the whole story as reported. I don't think we should rewrite the narrative to omit those descriptions now that he has been acquitted, because they were made of great importance following his initial conviction. However, a recasting of the article to give them due weight would now be appropriate. You have to remember that this article has developed more or less ad hoc as events occurred. It may take a few days for the dust to settle and for this to become a properly historical article. Strangely, the recent trial was not as well-reported as earlier, so the evidential details about his alter egos, gun-club membership, etc, are not so much to hand. Perhaps the tabloids gave up on the "lone weirdo" theory? --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The "weirdness" factor is precisely what I'm referring to, although it may be appropriate fodder for bolstering newspaper (and television) advertising revenue, I believe that bearing in mind that this man has now been acquitted, its presence in the article (along with its accompanying "references") in this new context, is not far removed from deliberate libel in my opinion. I have no intention of "barging in" on this article, but I'd like to make one small suggestion. The titles for some of the individual sections set a tone for what I consider to be the more negative aspects of this article, they seem almost tabloid like themselves to me. I reside in southern Canada and I'm obviously quite removed from this particular story, but I do appreciate how a story like this can arouse strong feelings in editors who are 'on the ground', which of course is bound to be reflected in the editorial decisions made by them when they're working with the article. good luck, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the opening of this article. I feel it should begin by saying "...is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He was convicted..." or maybe "...was wrongly convicted of..." Surely the first sentence of a biographical article should reflect the person's current status. The first sentence of this article says he is a convicted killer. JRawle (Talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Victim" is POV; as for "miscarriage of justice", the jury convicted in the first trial on the basis of evidence available to them. That is what they were entitled to do. It was only once the CofA looked at the cogency of that evidence that the second jury, without that evidence, acquitted him. As far as the lead goes, it sets out that he was convicted, which is true, that his conviction was quashed, which is true, and he was acquitted at his retrial, which is also true. It could do with some expansion, but I think the lead adequately sets out the facts. Generally the article, as stated above, does need a NPOV rewrite with appropriate sections being given their due weight, with the benefit of hindsight. --Rodhullandemu 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew such a change would be controversial, which is why I put the idea here for discussion rather than changing it. But seeing as George has been acquited by a court of law, he has spent eight years locked up for a crime he didn't commit. If he's not a "victim", then you have a very narrow definition of the word. "Victim of miscarriage of justice" is the standard phrase that is used to describe people in George's position, so I resent it being called "POV". Here it is, used in the mainstream, non-tabloid media: [10] [11] [12]

How about "subject of a miscarriage of justice" or similar? Or "...was [initially] convicted and/then later acquitted..." JRawle (Talk)

I didn't intend to cause resentment, but there is a slight difference between us calling him a victim and reporting that others have done so. The references are fine, and I think we satisfy NPOV by saying "has been described as..." rather than "is..". Since nobody is now saying that he actually did it, there's no alternative POV that needs inclusion. As for "convicted and later acquitted", that is stated by the lead as it is currently written. I don't want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but yes, it is a matter of style. --Rodhullandemu 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

'Previous'

Removing 'previous history' from a heading is a perfectly valid change. The first word is slang for 'previous convictions' and a synonym for 'form'. Given George's acquittal in the retrial the new heading - "Earlier contact with the legal system" - is more neutral and conveys a better tone. Philip Cross (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is prissy beyond belief. He is in fact a convicted criminal, albeit not (now) convicted of the Dando murder. Ironman1104 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Is there a reason why this article is not listed under categories such as "British sex offenders", "English criminals", etc? It suggests a lack of neutral perspective, since he is a convicted sex offender, with a conviction for indecent assault and having spent time in prison for attempted rape, as well as a conviction for impersonating a police officer. These things would simply be factually accurate and to leave him out of those categories does make it look like his genuine convictions are being overlooked because he was the victim of an appalling miscarriage of justice. Of course, there is an argument that given his learning disability and mental health problems he ought to be subject to an alternative system of offender management and that designations such as "criminal" and "sex offender" are inappropriate (though to the best of my knowledge an IQ of 75 should not in itself make a person morally non-culpable). But that does not reflect the current state of the criminal justice system, so it seems appropriate to describe him in those terms.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to add the categories you suggest to the article. Things get overlooked on WP sometimes that must be the only reason; unaccountably quite a few prominent people still have articles at the stub stage. Philip Cross (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling him a British criminal implies, whether intentionally or not, and whether we like it or not, that he is somehow guilty of the Dando murder which is clearly completely unacceptable, I can live with the sex offenders cat and that should suffice, there are many people like Mick Jagger who we do not call British criminals and this seems an abuse of the category to em and an absolute impliciation that we at wikipedia believe he is guilty, which we don't. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not imply any such thing. Kenneth Noye, for example, was acquitted of one murder, but convicted of another. He's still a criminal. George has a conviction for attempted rape that is not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, therefore he qualifies for both "British sex offenders" and "English criminals", although the former should be a subcategory of the latter. I realise that categories can be somewhat blunt instruments, but in this case, there can be no doubt whatsoever. Some may feel relief for his recent acquittal, but that did not wipe out his 1983 conviction, did it? It stands. --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually find your claim that it does not imply such a thing simply not credible, as you say Noye is a convicted murderer whereas George;s problem is the CP and the police who still claim that he is somehow kind of guilty, but we have to adhere to NPOV and not imply such rubbish. I am not quite suire whaty you mean by it will stand, please dont think it is your article. We shopuld get other input though and do remeber meanwhile that serious BLP vios like this have a special place in wikipedia policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he English? Yes. Is he British? Yes. Does he have a conviction for attempted rape? Yes. Does that make him a British sex offender? Yes. Does it make him an English criminal? Yes. Does either category imply he is guilty of the Dando murder? No, when the validity of those categories is well-sourced. Nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. His previous conviction is a documented fact, and you cannot get over that. WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to uncontroverted facts. Neither does any other policy, and specifically not WP:BLP. --Rodhullandemu 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is he a convicted murderer? No. Is he known as the person convicted of murdering Dando? yes. Sophistry wont justify this BLP violation, one of the worst I have ever seen because it is clearly implying that we think he killed Dando. Why not just drop this int=stead of sukllying the reputation of the encyclopedia with such viciousness. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the sophistry? Is is a well-defined category? Yes. Does George meet the criteria for inclusion? Yes. Does membership of the category imply guilt of OTHER crimes? No. Is he known as the person EVENTUALLY ACQUITTED of murdering Dando? Yes. Do we put him into Category:British murderers? No. Take it to WP:BLPN if you disagree, but as far as I can see, we're not implying anything beyond the facts. We are not "sullying" the reputation of the encyclopedia by reporting, and applying, facts. Neither are we being "vicious". We are, in fact, applying WP:NPOV and WP:BLP exactly as they should be applied. That's what I'm here for, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one who understands these things. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere just a moment ago: I am not sure why SqueakBox is so worried about which categories the article is listed under. The facts are that he has been found guilty in the courts of attempted rape, indecent assault, and impersonating a constable. I am not sure whether any convictions arose from other incidents which have been reported, such as possession of an offensive weapon, not that it matters as far as this point is concerned. As far as I understand it any person who has been convicted by a jury of attempted rape and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment is, without question, a criminal and a sex offender. The fact that he is not also a murderer, and that he was imprisoned for so long for a crime of which he was innocent, does not mean that he has been cleared of his past convictions.

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that placing him in the "criminal" category implies that he is a murderer. It is just factually accurate to say that he is a criminal. If a retired police officer writes some bit of hateful poison in The News of the World (which other newspaper would print such stuff?) in which he says that he thinks Barry George is a murderer, let Barry George sue him for libel and defamation. If an encyclopedia article states that he is a criminal, he can't argue with it. The facts are simple: Barry George is a criminal; Barry George is not a murderer.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The poin t you are missing is that he is not notable based on these crimes to have had a wikipedia biography by any stretch of the imagination. He is only notabole for his wrong conviction. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing that point at all. It has already occurred to me that if he had not been wrongfully convicted of one crime the general public would probably never have heard of him and the crimes of which he was actually guilty. However, people are not categorised only according to what they are notable for. Gordon Brown is not notable because he was born in 1951. He is notable for something else and it is also true that he was born in 1951. George W. Bush is not notable for being a recipient of the Star of Romania Order, or indeed for his business activities or his English and Dutch ancestry. He is notable for being a politician and he is put in those categories because they also apply to him.

I just utterly fail to see how anybody, except you, clearly, could imagine that it is inappropriate to put a convicted attempted rapist in the category of "criminal" because somebody might think that Wikipedia is accusing him of murder! The article clearly sets out the reasons for which he is correctly deemed a criminal. Anybody looking at it would be able to say, "Hmm. It says he is a criminal. But he is not guilty of that murder. Aha! He committed attempted rape, indecent assault, impersonating a constable, for all of which he received either a prison sentence, a suspended sentence, or a fine, and it says he was caught with a knife, which is a crime, though maybe it never resulted in anything. Well, there you have it, he is a criminal, but not a murderer."--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are using sophist arguemnts to justify a BLP violation, and to imply that the overturning is incorrect, a view clearly held by the police etc, and to attack me makes you rather borish, please desist if you wish to post here again. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm boorish. It's not something I have ever been accused of before. You also think I am attacking you. I'm certainly not making a personal attack. I'm just questioning your judgement, which is something I do all the time. It does not mean that I don't hold in high esteem the people whose judgements I question. You make three allegations, none of which is correct:

• My arguments are sophistic. They are not. I am making a very straightforward, logical argument, which has at the heart of it the fact that the statements I am making contain no logical contradictions, and that my conclusions derive necessarily from premises that even you accept as true.
• I am trying to justify a violation of the rules concerning biogrpahies of living persons. No such violation has taken place. I have merely asserted facts.
• I am trying to imply that the jury in the first trial reached the correct decision. Why on earth would I do that? I don't think the jury in the first trial did reach the right decision. I have always, ever since he became involved in the case, been convinced that he was innocent. I am utterly convinced that he had no involvement at all in the murder of Jill Dando. The courts have shown that he is innocent of that charge.

I shall copy this to the Barry George talk page and suggest it is better to continue the discussion there.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is starting to get extremely tedious, not to say disruptive. SqueakBox, consensus is against you and I suggest you take this to WP:BLPN or WP:RFC. --Rodhullandemu 14:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • what consensus? he is English, he is British, he is a criminal, and he is a sex offender. (Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan are "British murderers" also, despite not even having a criminal conviction for such things). Who knows if he killed Jill Dando? But at the very least, we go by the courts' decisions on wikipedia. 86.163.252.120 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion and would like to state that I find the opening: "Barry George... is a British criminal" to be extremely jarring as well as contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of neutrality. My immediate thought upon reading it was that the article had been hijacked by someone with an axe to grind. It is clearly intended as a moral judgement about George. As has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, George is notorious for being falsely convicted of a particular crime and not for any other convictions or acquittals. It is no doubt appropriate to discuss these other crimes/allegations in the article. It is most certainly not appropriate to define George by those crimes in a Wikipedia entry. At the time of writing the article appears to be a reasonably balanced and detailed biography. However, the introduction spoils it and calls everything that follows into question.77.232.162.11 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Matt R. 25th August 2010

I've been following this article for a couple of months now, since I added the "Life after Dando acquittal" section. The problem with this article is that it seems like a battlefield between PoVs; to me, most editors of this article seem to give the impression of falling into one of two camps - either that he clearly did it and got away scott-free or that he was totally the victim of an injustice (and considering the failure to pay him compensation for his wrongful imprisonment, it would seem that his victimisation continues to this day, if you take that PoV). I'm no expert wikipedian, and not qualified to judge the neutrality of the article as it stands, but I think you would struggle to keep it more so without dedicating a lot of time to the task. I'm pretty sure the introductory reference to George as "a British criminal" was already been changed and reverted in the few weeks I've been watching the page. I think it's also problematic how to otherwise describe him: "Barry George ... is a British man who was wrongly convicted..." - I find that a little stilted, too. "An Englishman"? Most people on wikiepdia are notable for their achievements - Tiger Woods is "a golfer", Dando herself was a "TV personality and presenter"; even if he was merely a plumber and not-notable for that, he could be described as such in his introduction, but his only employment has ever been 4 months as a BBC messenger in 1977! The easiest way to summarise his life would seem to be by saying that "Barry George ... is a British weirdo and stalker..." - I think we can establish that from his "Previous convictions" section, but obviously that's not a very kind description, either! Stroller (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another version

Another version has it that George faked a Police card out of parts of the letter he received from the Police. It would be easier to do that than to obtain false warrant cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source to back this up, include it. Jim Michael (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is in Brian Cathcart's "Jill Dando - Her Life and Death". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The evidence against George

George was almost certainly placing false whereabouts of where he was at the night of Dandos death, and in fact I have observed that the only one reason why George was not given a sentence in court is sadly that so-called family of his bailed him out, because as long as you have enough money in this country you can get out, they got him an expensive lawyer, who let him out, despite the fact fibres from Dando were found on his body. The media was wrong and george is guilty as hell, asperger syndrome or no asperger syndrome. At least say it is suspected he killed Jill Dando, because that's what the evidence points to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieces123 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great information! Please add it to the article. Please make sure you site appropriate sources. Stroller (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Particle Residue Having left a gun with a recoil forwards, wouldn't a gun particle fired by the suspect be consisting of a line of inflection whereas those of armed police which could've contaminated the scene have appeared without such inflection? Are the photos of the residue even out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieces123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan to put into this article, a collection of info which hopefully will not be deleted. This is evidence hinged on the arrest of Barry George, wherein the police source which was responsible for indicting him brought the evidence, is stated here. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite good sources and I'm sure there will be no problem with the info you add. Stroller (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As a Leeds FC fan

I can see that a few footie fans have been having some entertainment with the page today, however a quick google does suggest that George is indeed a fan of the team. A 2008 Guardian article states that he planned "a holiday abroad [and] a trip to see Leeds United play" upon his release from prison. Facts on this subject - providing they are stated briefly and can be cited - seem as relevant as his father's date of birth (which is already on the page and apparently uncited) or his sisters' ages. If there are football chants being regularly sung about George at Leeds matches then that actually increases his notability, as many people will be participating in and hearing these chants. From a pragmatic, anti-vandalism perspective, deleting the vandalism just turns it into a game and encourages the vandals to fight back. If it can be stated in a neutral and factual manner what a "super Leeds fan" Barry is, then vandalism will be disincentivised. That's my opinion, anyway. Discuss it here Stroller (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the way it has been done so far is not that required for an encyclopedia. The word "super" in this context is tabloid, fan material and does not belong here, whether referring to him as a "Super Leeds fan" or a fan of "Super Leeds". If I were writing it I would put something like:

George is also known as a fan of the football team Leeds United. He has been seen wearing a replica kit in photographs and as a result of this, the crowd at Elland Road and other games involving the club chant "Barry George is innocent" and other chants supportive of him.

All this would need to be cited, of course. Britmax (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw some of the edits yesterday, and clearly encyclopedic standards have not yet been met. Let's how these recently-joined wikipedians do, and if no citations or improvements have been provided in a few weeks then delete the paragraph? Or just heavily revise it ourselves - we can cite him as a fan from this newspaper interview. I understand the word "super" to be incorrectly capitalised as the article stands, but a direct quote from the first line of the chant's lyrics - "innocent man" rhyming as it does with "Leeds fan". Is YouTube citable? Perhaps a LFC-supporting wikipedian could find us some televised match footage in which the chant can be heard? --Stroller (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's part of the chant that of course is a different matter. yo will have a hard job citing it as football chants are notoriously ad hoc but You tube is a more likely source here. A film of the crowd made directly for Youtube is less likely to invoke copyright problems than part of a programme intended for broadcast. Britmax (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mental disorders

I added a link to a BBC video which states that George has narcissistic personality disorder. The BBC is a reliable source. As the video was made after George's conviction for murder, but before said conviction was quashed, it refers to him as having murdered Dando. George's murder conviction was unsafe and was rightly quashed, so he is no longer considered a murderer. However, his NPD diagnosis has not been set aside. His conviction was not because he was judged to have NPD. No-one claims that because someone has NPD, they are a murderer - most people with NPD are not violent. However, the condition is certainly relevant to his life. I have not seen anything that says he does not have NPD, so what is the case for not stating that he does when it is backed by a reliable source? It would also be helpful to know which other personality disorders he has, but I have not been able to find reliable sources that specify them. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

i remember this being referred to in the cutting edge program. That particular psychiatrist was called as a witness in the prosecution case but as you know, the prosecution case was eventually overturned. That psychiatrist claimed that George had an unlikely mix of about 6 different mental disorders including various personality disorders and autism. The view of a single psychiatrist (especially when used to support a failed conviction) is far from conclusive. Take the case of Breivik, large committees of psychiatrists are squabbling amongst themselves and cant even agree whether Beivik has schizophrenia or a personality disorder - there is a very basic distinction between the two.--Penbat (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This article says he has Asperger syndrome Barry George is a man on the edge. What are you saying is unlikely about the mix of mental disorders he has? His narcissistic and autistic traits are readily noticeable, even though he is far from typical for a narcissist or autistic person. It is unusual for a narcissist to be overweight, uneducated and disorganised - but he has an IQ of 75, so he is incapable of being sophisticated. It is not rare for a person to have two or more concurrent PDs, and George's offending indicates he has features of antisocial personality disorder, even if he does not have enough points to be diagnosed with ASPD. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Name - and Categories

The reference to the pseudonym of Barry Bulsara is rather orphaned in the Lead. There is no mention in article proper, even in the section noting other pseudonyms, and the citation does no more than mention it in the same passing way. I'm not sure that he was really "known as" BB, but rather called himself that. There are however many citeable sources concerning this name, the significance of "Bulsara" and how BG used it. I will leave it to existing editors to consider this, in the light of BLP considerations.

The article is included in categories "Prisoners and detainees of England and Wales" and "English prisoners and detainees". Are these not meant to cover those currently in prison/detention? Nothing in the article suggests that this applies to BG. Davidships (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentenced to what?

It doesn't say how long his sentence was, when he was convicted of murder. Valetude (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Life after acquittal

Anything on his activities since then, apart from his attempted claim? Valetude (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry George. 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/20060902155028/http://www.innocent.org.uk:80/cases/barrygeorge/index.html to http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/barrygeorge/index.html#donhalearticle

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) 17:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)