Jump to content

Talk:Richard Burton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Rugby League

Wasn't he a big rugby league fan? Londo06 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Close, rugby union. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DAB page?

When I typed Richard Burton into the search box, I certainly expected to be taken to Richard Francis Burton, not some Hollywood actor. Is the actor really the "well-known primary topic" for the term, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Otherwise we should move this to Richard Burton (actor) and Richard Burton (disambiguation) to plain Richard Burton (herewith proposed). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at top of this page. You need to post your suggestion on Wikipedia:Requested moves before you think of doing anything. Deb (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I can just move the pages if there is consensus. From the above discussion, there seems to be consensus for at least a DAB page. If Richard Francis Burton should also be moved (to "Richard Burton (something)" is an independent question - I'd suggest to leave it where it is and just create redirects for "explorer" and "orientalist". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, you can't just move the page if there's a likelihood of it being controversial. If you investigate further, you'll find that there has been a good deal of disagreement over this already. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I predict that, if you attempt to move it without discussion, you will find it is moved back pretty quickly! Deb (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I see no reason to suspect controversy - the discussion up on this page seems to be supportive, and I found nothing apropos at Talk:Richard Burton (disambiguation) and Talk:Richard Francis Burton. But if you think it might be controversial, we can go the long route. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. This one is hard. The explorer is clearly not an unimportant footnote amongst the Richard Burton's of the world but, partly because of his name (the Francis) and because of the fame of the actor, I'm closing this as no consensus to move, for now. (I should point out that the page hits on the actor are equally unconvincing, for all we know, they may be coming from Elizabeth Taylor or from one of his many famous movies. In which case, the article title is meaningless.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Richard Burton → Richard Burton (actor) — Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - the 20th century actor and the 19th century explorer and author are both of similar notability. Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we have 8 Richard Burtons on the DAB page. Do we really want a double hat note? Hmmm...might work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done that. This might be a case of primary use, secondary use, then everybody else. Station1 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence that notability is similar - some evidence that actor's notability is significantly higher. Both general and google books searches yield mostly only hits for the actor, at least on the first page of results for each, which is particularly significant for notability. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yikes, does no one remember The Taming of the Shrew, or Elizabeth Taylor? RB is regarded as one of the best Shakespearean actors ever, and with the best diction of any actor. I would put his popularity up there with Marlon Brando. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The explorer lacks the benefit of recentism, and the actor is not more notable than the others collectively. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Google Books:
  • "Richard Burton", 2862 hits
  • "Richard Burton" actor, 938 hits
  • "Richard Burton" explorer, 770 hits; "Richard Francis Burton" explorer, 677 hits
  • "Richard Burton" cricket, 527 hits
  • That's a common mistake, to go by "collective" views. All you need to do is compare the two most viewed, in this case RB + RB (actor) = 3800 / RB (exp) + RFB = 1447, a ratio of 2.6:1. Plenty to establish primary topic. Except that I don't get any hits for Richard Burton (explorer). I get RB = 47,348,[1] RB (actor) = 1,954,[2] RFB = 14,628[3], a ratio of 3.37:1. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Page view statistics for June 2009 shows a surge in hits on Richard Burton (disambiguation) and on Richard Francis Burton. It appears the majority of readers hitting the dab page are looking for the article about the explorer. --Una Smith (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That should be obvious, because the explorer is clearly the second most commonly searched-for term after the actor, but people looking for the actor don't ever reach the dab page, because they go straight to the article. Hopefully the additional hatnote on the actor's page should reduce those hits to the dab page from now on.
Furthermore, there are only 897 hits to the dab page this month, compared with over 10,000 for the explorer. And to take that surge that you're talking about, on 30 June, there were 1,900 hits to the explorer's article, but only 194 to the dab page. This indicates that 90% of the readers of the explorer's article are typing "Richard Francis Burton" into the searchbox, or they're reaching the article via an internal or external hyperlink - in both cases indicating that the issue of the actor being the primary topic isn't causing a problem. Black Kite 11:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Page hits do not necessarily reflect use of the Wikipedia search box; many readers come from outside, or from other articles (eg, articles appearing on the Main page). A "primary topic" has to be "clearly" primary, and primary to all other topics, not just to one of them. --Una Smith (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are once again misinterpreting what primary and "clearly" primary mean. Yes you have to look over all the other topics to see which one is the second most viewed, but once you have identified that article, the only comparison is between the most viewed and the second most viewed. For example, lets take a hypothetical case where there are 10,000 actors named RB, one in the movies, the others who have only played in local stage productions. You might get 3 hits for each of them, and 20,000 hits for the movie actor. Now you seem to be thinking that since there are 50,000 hits and only 20,000 for the movie actor, they are not a primary topic. But that is not what is done. You never add up the page views, you only look at the most popular and the second most popular, in this case take any one of the 10,000, and the ratio is 20,000 to 3. I would clearly call that a primary topic, no? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding his sexuality

I don't know whether he is bisexual or not, but there may have been disregards lately. I noticed they deleted a passage based on family's reaction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/708074.stm). However, we may have to re-consider before re-entering the data with fully reliable source, even if the family disagrees. Is there anything we can do to make it stay alive? --Gh87 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Burton said himself that he had had sex with men, therefore it should be in the article. (92.9.69.17 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Citation, please! Deb (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was in a Fenruary 1975 interview on the set of "Jackpot" - a film that was never completed. Burton told an interviewer that he had had sex with men and that he thought all actors were latent homosexuals. This is mentioned in every biography I have read of him and should certainly be in the article. (92.13.99.172 (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

Are you sure he actually said he had sex with men? What were his exact words and where was the interview published? Deb (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The bisexual Burton said, "My father said all actors were homosexuals. That is nonsense, of course. But perhaps most actors are latent homosexuals and we cover it with drink. I was a homosexual once, but not for long. But I tried it. It didn't work so I gave it up." The interview was published everywhere at the time, and is mentioned in most biographies. (92.11.142.51 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

Sounds awfully like the kind of outrageous joke Burton loved to make! Deb (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Why? He admitted on other occasions that he had sex with men in order to further his career. Many believe the reason he chain smoked and drank his way into an early grave was due to guilt over his bisexuality. In any event these were his actual words so it should be in the article. Oh dear, so the only reason you are trying to remove this is because you're Welsh and don't want people to know that Burton was openly bisexual? Well he was and it's in all his biographies. You might think he said it just for publicity but the fact is that he did say he had sex with men, and never during the remaining nine years of his life did he try to deny this, so it must be mentioned. (92.12.54.231 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

I have added what I believe to be a fair compromise. It may be that Burton was either joking or trying to get headlines, but he did nevertheless claim to have had sex with a man and it was reported at the time, so it should be in his article. (RichardSalway (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Could you please add the citation for the interview? Deb (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have, it's mentioned on pages 170-171 of Ferris' biography. (RichardSalway (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

It's still a bit unclear. I thought the reference was for the second comment. What were the actual words he used in the interview - I can hardly believe he said, "I once had sex with another man". Deb (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

His words, "I was homosexual once, but not for long. But I tried it" obviously meant that he did have sex with another man. (RichardSalway (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

I would say that was obviously a joke. Deb (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? The interviewer said he was deadly serious and sounded very depressed at the time. Unless you were with Burton every day of his life then you don't know what he did. Even his family thought his relationships with Philip Burton and Emlyn Williams may have been sexual. (RichardSalway (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

There is a difference between "being homosexual" and "having sex with a man". Burton could, for example, have meant that he thought he was in love with a man, or that he decided to call himself homosexual, or any number of other things. I think it's a bit of a quantum leap from "I tried it once" to "I slept with a man". Deb (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
John Lennon once let Brian Epstein fellate him. That didn't make Lennon a bisexual. That sort of one-off passive activity may be all that Burton was referring to by "I tried it once". That's if he was being serious at all. The best we can do is report his actual words. We cannot make any inferences from them as to what he did, with whom, how often, etc etc. We certainly cannot say it means "he slept with" anyone. JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it may have been Brook Williams that Burton experimented with. I will do some further research. (RichardSalway (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Burton/Archive_2&oldid=1074051305"