Talk:Squidgygate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Squidgygate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Squidgygate. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Squidgygate at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gilbey affair admitted by Diana?[edit]

A reference for this would be useful for the main Diana page (and would improve this page too). 82.40.183.118 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Squidgygate II?"[edit]

Most of this section is irrelevant to the topic, and should be dropped. Moreover, it assumes that the reader happens to know the date of Diana's death of the top of their heads! I suggest this be trimmed to no more than a single sentence. — Matt Crypto 09:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treason reference[edit]

It seemed a bit excessive to me but since somebody put the {{fact}} tag on the aside noting that thee Princess' adultery amounted to High treason I added a quotation from the relevant act. Although it is conventional to refer simply to the "Treason Act 1351" the full citation (25th year of the reign of Edward II, 2nd etc...)is usually given. Short titles didn't come in until the reign of Elizabeth II. Stroika 12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging strictly by the quote provided, neither party technically engaged in treason, since that would require "violation" of the Princess of Wales, when in fact the relationship was consensual. Furthermore, the act specifies only the male as engaging in treason in such cases. It might be good either to change the introduction accordingly or provide a different quote that would more accurately defend the assertion being made. -202.63.55.96 10:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually consent is irrelevant. This is not the modern law of rape. Adultery does count as treason. Cf. the death of Anne Boleyn. Stroika 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stroika has twice added the statement that Diana "admitted" to an affair with Gilbey. There is no support for this statement. If it is replaced, it must be accompanied by a citation. Deb 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article poorly written[edit]

Some sections of the article are very poorly written, with very short one-sentence paragraphs. Can somebody with good writing skills have a look into this and fix it? I don't think that just lumpling some of these one-sentence paragraphs together to form bigger ones will work well. -xDCDx 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's even more of a mess now, with long irreverent sections about the media reaction to Diana's death. Needs a ruthless cull Ariehkovler (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APB News Online?[edit]

The section titled "Surveillance of Diana after Squidgygate" quotes a FOI request by an organisation called APB News Online: I can find no references to such an organisation online, except for blogs quoting this WP article. In addition, the footnote links to a placeholder page. As this is the only quoted source for some quite significant details, I'm minded to delete the relevant paragraphs unless someone can come up with a current source for the FOI request ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's objected, so I've been bold. My edit can be reverted if anyone can shed light on the mysterious APB News ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Squidgygate. 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/20050909143957/http://www.crew-green.com/Diana.htm to http://www.crew-green.com/Diana.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]