Talk:Michael Fawcett

Rape Claim?!!
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)
 * 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)
 * On review, I see what you mean, I have added another source, hope this clears things up. Jdcooper 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Cleanup tag
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)

==NPOV tag - and potential deletion of much content== As nothing seems to have been done, I've added the NPOV tag as well, as the article remains almost laughably biased. As Fawcett is a living person and thus subject to our strict policy on biographies of living persons (which is not optional), I am minded to hack the article down to leave only that which is uncontroversial and/or properly sourced, leaving it in that state for more knowledgeable editors to bring up to a higher standard. As it stands, this article is frankly an embarrassment, though less so than it was. Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Missing the story
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)

Unspecified banned allegation
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))

Date of birth?
It is normal to quote d.o.b. Valetude (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)