Talk:Eddie Fenech Adami

Untitled
I found a duplicate page which is a suspected copyvio (cut-and-paste) from. I listed the duplicate on Copyright problems and added the missing facts to this article, in my own wording. Andris 22:11, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Name
What is the rationale behind the title of the article as "Eddie" while his name is "Edward" (as also written in the text)? -- Goldie (tell me) 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In Malta he is known as Eddie even though Edward is his official first name. Wikipedia regulations say something about naming articles about people in accordance to the name or variant that is most recognised and used by the people; he should thus be listed as Eddie --Roderick Mallia 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Officially Dr. Fenech Adami had stated that in view that he is President, now he should be referred to as Edward... Maltesedog 12:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be true, but he is still known as Eddie among the majority of the people. --Roderick Mallia 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst his name is Edward, he is indeed known as Eddie. On the electoral ballot paper EDWARD was written during the years. This is the same as Giorgio Borg Olivier. I think someone had commented that we should use official names for the title of the article and indicate the popular name in the article. Maltesedog 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I was asking. His name is Edward, while the text can highlight the fact people tend to use the less formal form. Even the change of his attitude after taking the office might be valuable. -- Goldie (tell me) 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing his name from Eddie to Edward does not change the man.!!!!

Why is the name in Maltese "Dwardu"? He was never known as Dwardu! Always Eddie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.26.234 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

2004 libel case
The article refers to a libel case (not "slander" as it was broadcast) successfully instituted against Fenech Adami. The description of this case takes a good one-fifth of the section of a political career that spans close to three decades. I think this is both disproportionate and out of place. First, this libel case was inconsequential. Second, since when do inconsequential libel cases get a mention in biographical articles?

Demdem (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)