![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 17 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Michael Fagan (intruder) to Michael Fagan. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Is the any reason as to why he broke in, did he want to talk to her majesty on any particular topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.48.48 ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"Only able to raise the alarm when he asked for a cigarette" - why? 82.153.193.197 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The official version is very different to the one here, in the main article. According to the Queen's staff, the Queen initially tried to call armed help but none arrived. She then asked a maid to bring some cigarettes, thinking that this would be better than nothing. The maid, whose surname is said variously to be Andrew and Andrews, arrived with the cigarettes and said, "What the bloody hell is he doing in here , Madam?" The party then moved into the corridor. When Andrews did not return to base for a long time, a man called Whybrew, ignoring the unwritten rule that male staff stayed away from the Royal bedroom at 6 in the morning, went to see what was going on. He found the three in the corridor and politely joined the conversation. Whybrew noticed that Fagan had been drinking and suggested further drinking. Fagan enthusiastically agreed and was given Palace whisky. The Queen noticed that Fagan was annoyed by the dogs and took them away. At this point the official version ends. Police only arrived much later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.188.139 ( talk) 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.56.16 ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources for this song. All I have found are a lot of references from blogs etc. via google. Nk.sheridan Talk 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Something about the article suggests informal or chatty style. I cant quite put my finger on it and I am not very good at rewrites and edits so perhaps someone could sort this out? SaintDaveUK ( talk) 19:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing vital information. It references how the Queen (the Queen) called police but no one came. Surely that sparked an inquiry/firing/review of procedures. Especially remembering this was the year after the assassination of Sadat and assassination attempts on Reagan and Pope John Paul; indeed, the Pope had been attacked a second time only a few weeks earlier. On top of that the Falklands War had only recently ended. This guy could have been anybody. And there's a reference to this being his second successful infiltration. Did they really let things stay status quo until that new law was passed 25 years later? 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Eek-A-Mouse song "Queen Elizabeth" ("a man came in on Queen Elizabeth") from his Mouseketeer album appears to be about this incident, although I don't know how to verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.139.250 ( talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I seem to remember that previously the public just assumed that The Queen and her husband Prince Philip shared the same bed (or at least the same bedroom) at Buckingham Palace since they are a married couple. The Fagan intruder case was reported verbatim in the media (only The Queen present when Fagan entered the bedroom), thereby unwittingly revealing that Prince Philip was sleeping in another room - or at least had started to by 1982 for some reason, or that he always did. It was a startling revelation to the general public, who otherwise didn't know at that point. I believe the reason for their separate bedrooms has never been publicly explained even when revealed by the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It's confusing right now. William was born on June 21st. So Diana's presents to her son, born the previous month, indicate that this happened in July. Calle Widmann ( talk) 13:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 05:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael Fagan incident →
Michael Fagan (intruder) – For the following two reasons: The article is just as much about Fagan as the incident, so it would probably be better here due to the article structure
from the contested db-move request by
Ktr101 (now banned) and The article is indicating the person and the incident is described anyway
from the move by
ABigBeast05 to
Michael Fagan (Intruder) that I have reverted.
Sharper asked for the uppercase disambiguator to be moved to the lowercase one at
WP:RM/TR, but given that the db-move request had been contested by
Yunshui, it is better to discuss a move from the original title instead.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
04:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would submit that the above move #Requested move 8 May 2020 was inadvisable and that it is reversed. I note there was minimal discussion and no admin was involved.
The subject of this article is clearly notable only for a single event. Our policy at WP:SINGLEEVENT is clear:
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16] If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
Note the general rule, to cover the event, not the person. I do agree separate articles can be argued, but that presumes that the single article is about the event, not the person. This move removed the article on the event. This I feel is ill advised.
As my primary suggestion, I request we have one article. This article should focus on the event. Furthermore, it should not contain the person's name. I suggest "1982 palace intrusion" or somesuch.
As my secondary suggestion, I can accept having two articles. The first and main one should focus on the event. The second article can be about Michael Fagan, assuming there is "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
This clearly requires a wider audience than a mere requested move is likely to garner (a total of three users, none an admin - based on the previous experience). That's why I'm starting this talk page which I will link to at appropriate places. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The article states that both incidents happened the same day?.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.230.46 ( talk) 12:29, November 20, 2020 (UTC)
The Queen is the head of the judiciary and thus most offences are 'versus Regina'. At the same time, 'officers of the court' are supposed to recuse themselves from any case in which they are personally involved. How then could any case at all have been brought against Fagan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.73 ( talk) 09:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC) She is not an officer of the court. She is the court. And the court can act against offences to it. Try disrupting a courtroom and see. 213.205.194.233 ( talk) 19:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Many sources say Fagan sat on the bed and asked for a cigarette. It is a notion many people have. It should be mentioned as part of the history of the thing, and researched to establish its truth or falsity. 213.205.194.233 ( talk) 19:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, and in absence of an article for the inventor. – robertsky ( talk) 07:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
– The disambiguation page only lists 2 other Michael Fagans. The former is naturally disambiguated as Mike Fagan and the latter (the inventor of the Fagan inspection) doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article.
Judging by page viewcounts, this Fagan also seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this page having 34,466 compared to 775 and 951 views for the other two. ZionniThePeruser ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 17 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Michael Fagan (intruder) to Michael Fagan. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Is the any reason as to why he broke in, did he want to talk to her majesty on any particular topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.48.48 ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
"Only able to raise the alarm when he asked for a cigarette" - why? 82.153.193.197 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The official version is very different to the one here, in the main article. According to the Queen's staff, the Queen initially tried to call armed help but none arrived. She then asked a maid to bring some cigarettes, thinking that this would be better than nothing. The maid, whose surname is said variously to be Andrew and Andrews, arrived with the cigarettes and said, "What the bloody hell is he doing in here , Madam?" The party then moved into the corridor. When Andrews did not return to base for a long time, a man called Whybrew, ignoring the unwritten rule that male staff stayed away from the Royal bedroom at 6 in the morning, went to see what was going on. He found the three in the corridor and politely joined the conversation. Whybrew noticed that Fagan had been drinking and suggested further drinking. Fagan enthusiastically agreed and was given Palace whisky. The Queen noticed that Fagan was annoyed by the dogs and took them away. At this point the official version ends. Police only arrived much later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.188.139 ( talk) 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.56.16 ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources for this song. All I have found are a lot of references from blogs etc. via google. Nk.sheridan Talk 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Something about the article suggests informal or chatty style. I cant quite put my finger on it and I am not very good at rewrites and edits so perhaps someone could sort this out? SaintDaveUK ( talk) 19:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing vital information. It references how the Queen (the Queen) called police but no one came. Surely that sparked an inquiry/firing/review of procedures. Especially remembering this was the year after the assassination of Sadat and assassination attempts on Reagan and Pope John Paul; indeed, the Pope had been attacked a second time only a few weeks earlier. On top of that the Falklands War had only recently ended. This guy could have been anybody. And there's a reference to this being his second successful infiltration. Did they really let things stay status quo until that new law was passed 25 years later? 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Eek-A-Mouse song "Queen Elizabeth" ("a man came in on Queen Elizabeth") from his Mouseketeer album appears to be about this incident, although I don't know how to verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.139.250 ( talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I seem to remember that previously the public just assumed that The Queen and her husband Prince Philip shared the same bed (or at least the same bedroom) at Buckingham Palace since they are a married couple. The Fagan intruder case was reported verbatim in the media (only The Queen present when Fagan entered the bedroom), thereby unwittingly revealing that Prince Philip was sleeping in another room - or at least had started to by 1982 for some reason, or that he always did. It was a startling revelation to the general public, who otherwise didn't know at that point. I believe the reason for their separate bedrooms has never been publicly explained even when revealed by the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It's confusing right now. William was born on June 21st. So Diana's presents to her son, born the previous month, indicate that this happened in July. Calle Widmann ( talk) 13:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 05:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael Fagan incident →
Michael Fagan (intruder) – For the following two reasons: The article is just as much about Fagan as the incident, so it would probably be better here due to the article structure
from the contested db-move request by
Ktr101 (now banned) and The article is indicating the person and the incident is described anyway
from the move by
ABigBeast05 to
Michael Fagan (Intruder) that I have reverted.
Sharper asked for the uppercase disambiguator to be moved to the lowercase one at
WP:RM/TR, but given that the db-move request had been contested by
Yunshui, it is better to discuss a move from the original title instead.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
04:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would submit that the above move #Requested move 8 May 2020 was inadvisable and that it is reversed. I note there was minimal discussion and no admin was involved.
The subject of this article is clearly notable only for a single event. Our policy at WP:SINGLEEVENT is clear:
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16] If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
Note the general rule, to cover the event, not the person. I do agree separate articles can be argued, but that presumes that the single article is about the event, not the person. This move removed the article on the event. This I feel is ill advised.
As my primary suggestion, I request we have one article. This article should focus on the event. Furthermore, it should not contain the person's name. I suggest "1982 palace intrusion" or somesuch.
As my secondary suggestion, I can accept having two articles. The first and main one should focus on the event. The second article can be about Michael Fagan, assuming there is "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
This clearly requires a wider audience than a mere requested move is likely to garner (a total of three users, none an admin - based on the previous experience). That's why I'm starting this talk page which I will link to at appropriate places. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The article states that both incidents happened the same day?.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.230.46 ( talk) 12:29, November 20, 2020 (UTC)
The Queen is the head of the judiciary and thus most offences are 'versus Regina'. At the same time, 'officers of the court' are supposed to recuse themselves from any case in which they are personally involved. How then could any case at all have been brought against Fagan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.73 ( talk) 09:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC) She is not an officer of the court. She is the court. And the court can act against offences to it. Try disrupting a courtroom and see. 213.205.194.233 ( talk) 19:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Many sources say Fagan sat on the bed and asked for a cigarette. It is a notion many people have. It should be mentioned as part of the history of the thing, and researched to establish its truth or falsity. 213.205.194.233 ( talk) 19:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, and in absence of an article for the inventor. – robertsky ( talk) 07:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
– The disambiguation page only lists 2 other Michael Fagans. The former is naturally disambiguated as Mike Fagan and the latter (the inventor of the Fagan inspection) doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article.
Judging by page viewcounts, this Fagan also seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this page having 34,466 compared to 775 and 951 views for the other two. ZionniThePeruser ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)