Talk:Michael Fagan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason[edit]

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)[reply]

He indicated at some stage later on that he intended to commit suicide in front of her!!!?? (Khanada 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
{{citation needed}} Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007[edit]

"Only able to raise the alarm when he asked for a cigarette" - why?82.153.193.197 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Imagine you are in her position and you wake up alone and unarmed in your room and see a mentally disturbed stranger with an Irish accent (remember in 1982 you are pretty much top of the IRA hitlist) armed with a piecte of broken glass you are hardly going to reach straight for the phone until you can make up some pretext. According to [this article] they discussed "family matters".80.229.222.48 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for Fagan having an Irish accent? He appears to have been born and raised in London. (Yes I know 13 years have passed....) Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different version[edit]

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).[reply]

Charges of stealing the half-bottle of wine were not dropped. He was acquitted, suprisingly. Whybrew's full name was Paul Whybrew. The Queen is said to have imitated Andrews' Yorkshire accent later, when Miss Andrews was not listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.228.98 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm,Lots and lots of innunendo states that he actually raped the queen,and this was the reason why he was sent for mental evaluation,and held indefinetly,still believe hes in an institution to this very day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.118.241 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not. Nothing to the rest of it, either. Where do these stories come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.233 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/buckingham_palace.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.228.98 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See https://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/ssep/index.php . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B901:5173:803F:313C:4445 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he now?[edit]

.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.56.16 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shagging the queen song[edit]

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)[reply]

Chatty style[edit]

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)[reply]

Missing information[edit]

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)[reply]

It seems certain this incident would have led to a beefing up of security arrangements at the palace, but understandably there may not be much in the public domain about what specifically was done to improve these. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eek-A-Mouse song "Queen Elizabeth"[edit]

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)[reply]

Unwitting revelation that Prince Philip doesn't sleep in the same room/bed as The Queen[edit]

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)[reply]

This may have been a surprise to the general public, but it shouldn't be to anyone who knows about the traditional living arrangements of aristocratic families, where separate bedrooms for married couples was the norm. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First and second entries[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Support. The article is currently about the person. There were also two intrusions, and the article has earlier and later life. If the title is retained, then the article needs major restructuring.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article focus[edit]

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)[reply]

I always find it amusing when a fellow editor states "the policy on [X] is clear" and then quotes a section full of "may"'s and "if"'s and other caveats. No, such a policy is by its very nature and explicit intention not clear and requires reasonable interpretation. Editors can disagree on such matters of interpretation without either side being "wrong" -- that's why we have WP:CONSENSUS, after all. In this case, the consensus was a slim one in a poorly-attended discussion. It may be worthwhile to see if consensus has changed after more fully-advertised discussion but to state that the RM was wrong and should be reversed based on one editor's objection is against actually clear policy. I suggest closing this discussion and starting an RfC. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help desk volunteer here. I tend to agree with CapnZapp that the article focus would be better on the incident rather than on the perpetrator. The Queen Elizabeth II article only has two sentences on this. "On 9 July, she awoke in her bedroom at Buckingham Palace to find an intruder, Michael Fagan, in the room with her. In a serious lapse of security, assistance only arrived after two calls to the Palace police switchboard." I could envision this article being shifted in focus, with a one paragraph condensed biography of Fagan, but with added emphasis on the aftermath, such as additional palace security ordered, any hearings, and the world's reaction, none of which is captured here. We just watched the fictional retelling of this on the Crown, and this appears to have been quite a big deal at the time. Maybe do a formal RfC? One possible name would be 1982 Buckingham Palace intrusion, and the Queen's article could link Michael Fagan's name to his subsection in a repurposed article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn: If you feel that's the best approach, feel free. Timtempleton: thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When?[edit]

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)

If you want to change this, it is best to have a specific change suggestion and present reliable sources that support your suggested text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Paradox?[edit]

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)[reply]

Cigarette[edit]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

– 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)[reply]

  • https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Michael_Fagan indicates there were 127 views of the list, and the proposed primary topic and the first linked entry got 96 identified clickstreams, which is ~76%. Any other clicks there were under the anonymization threshold at best. This is also influenced by the fact the Fagan inspection inventor doesn't have an article. Is there a WP:POTENTIAL for that person to get an article? Because a long-term significance of the intruder's biography doesn't seem particularly great compared to an inventor, regardless of the topic's relative popularity. --Joy (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do have a fair point there... I had barely even considered long-term significance.
    Regarding the WP:POTENTIAL for Fagan the inventor, from a cursory search, he seems to have continued working in the field of software inspection, publishing 2 more papers on the subject (scratch that, 9 more assuming that he got into medicine and archaeology) and according to this PDF from Khoury College of Computer Sciences started an eponymous business.
    I'd say that's enough for a standalone. I mean, I've seen barer articles in my short time here. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting conundrum for the consideration of a primary topic. Let's look at some more stats to see if this is a pattern of usage:
    Monthly page views for "Michael Fagan" show a couple of spikes of interest, but now we're mostly flat. Last few months were:
    • August '23: 53
    • September '23: 40
    • October '23: 73
    • November '23: 65
    • December '23: 123
    • January '24: 127
    A look into the clickstream archive shows these outgoing clickstreams from "Michael Fagan":
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 45
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 32
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Michael_Fagan Fagan_inspection link 10
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 60
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 45
    • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 97
    • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 96
    So the ratios for the intruder were:
    • August '23: 45 / 53 = ~85%
    • September '23: 32 / 40 = ~80%
    • October '23: 60 / 73 = ~82%
    • November '23: 45 / 65 = ~69%
    • December '23: 97 / 123 = ~79%
    • January '24: 96 / 127 = ~76%
    It's rather consistent, and only in September did another topic cross the anonymization threshold, and it was the blue link about the inventor, which is nice to as a hint of potential for that.
    I fetched the archive tsv for 2020-11 to see what went on at the time of that largest spike in usage:
    • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:Michael_Fagan Michael_Fagan_(intruder) link 4110
    • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:Michael_Fagan Fagan_inspection link 28
    • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:Michael_Fagan Mike_Fagan link 24
    So that's also 4110 / 5458 = ~75.3%, remarkably consistent. It seems we've already been inconveniencing basically all of those readers who were looking for the intruder, but it was only noticed four years later.
    Because the third article isn't written, and the disambiguation of the proposed primary topic is parenthetical, going for a primary redirect as a compromise would be rather clumsy, too.
    I suppose it comes down to whether most of these readers are actually fine with or resigned to the fact that the intruder topic isn't going to be picked as primary in the encyclopedic context, and aren't really astonished that they have to do the extra click? Or maybe it statistically takes many years and tens of thousands of views for anyone to bother filing a bug report? :) --Joy (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both people are called "Michael" but views show a primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Fagan&oldid=1209944203"