|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourced must 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 . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
this article is incomplete: it is about the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise, but the text includes no details of the subjects working experince in business or enterprise.
- Perhaps he has never had a proper job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Secretary of state for Defence.
I intend to add some material using Daily Telegraph, Times, Independent and Guardian about his role as Defence secretary and the "stab in the back" as it appears not to have been covered. JRPG (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Knight of the Bath
Today the 2016 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours were announced showing Mr Fallon has been nominated for a knighthood, but when referencing The London Gazette I cannot yet find a mention of it. Normally convention has it that an honour, title, style dignity or appointment is valid from the moment that it is "gazetted", which is to say that Mr Fallon would officially become Sir Michael from the moment that a notice appears in the Gazette with the words
THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased, to give orders for the following promotion in, and appointments to, the Most Honourable Order of the Bath:
To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the Second Class, or Knights Commander, of the said Most Honourable Order:
The Right Honourable Michael Fallon
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Defence " or thereabouts.
Is it necessarily correct to enact the change on his page earlier than that? We wouldn't be so premature with peerages, after all.
- In principle, I agree with you. But many people and also Wikipedia users think that the honours are valid to use instantly on announcement and we should revert edits adding them maybe several times on every biography. Would that be worth of effort? Michael Fallon isn't Sir Michael Fallon yet, but we know that he is going to be. It's different with peerages, because we can't know peerage titles beforehand (at least for sure) as there are several options. --Editor FIN (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)