Talk:Michael Fawcett

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Where in God's name is the foundation for this?? There is only one incredibly biased source to support it - surely this provides ample scope for libel? Megawattbulbman 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It definitely provides ample scope for libel against George Smith, but it is a verifiable fact that George Smith made the allegation, so it can remain here.Jdcooper 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On review, I see what you mean, I have added another source, hope this clears things up. Jdcooper 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section entirely - it was not supported by

reliable sources. If it was widely reported, sources should be available, but the material shouldn't be re-added to this article until they can be found. Robofish (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I added this because to my eyes the article is really rather a mess. It starts badly with those silly quotes around "close personal friend". That just makes it look "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" which is totally out of place in an encyclopedia. Then we get "Prince Charles of Great Britain", which is simply inaccurate. Another problem is "...after the report by Sir Michael Peat..." - that wording (the report) implies that everyone who reads the article is bound to know which report is meant. The passage dealing with Smith's death is not NPOV. And so on and so forth. I did try to clean up the article myself, but I really wasn't sure how to do it, so I've just left the tag there in the hope of attracting others who might make a better job of it than me. Loganberry (Talk) 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==NPOV tag - and potential deletion of much content== As nothing seems to have been done, I've added the {{

I've changed my mind, as it would seem that it's really a problem of intemperate language rather than outright NPOV. That being so, a cleanup tag is a more appropriate one. Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article goes straight from background to denial of claims and aftermath. What's in the middle? --Opcnup (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "unspecified banned allegation" could be discussed in much more detail from respected sources that have indeed published a great bit about it--sources such as the BBC, the Daily Mail, and other English papers that carefully discussed it after consultation with their lawyers. (Fzaegrbfrrgfr (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It is normal to quote d.o.b. Valetude (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]