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 sourcedmust 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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
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
"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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
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.
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.