Talk:Laurence Fox/Archive 1

Archive 1

GAN on hold

• Is his exact date of birth known?
  • Comment: I'm afraid I haven't been able to find a source for it. — JackLee 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• "probably best known" - eek...if there isn't a "best known" role, don't say anything here...just list all his major roles. Probably = Yucky.
  • Fixed.
• Ref 1 (and others); IMDB isn't a reliable source
  • Comment: Again, I haven't been able to find other sources. — JackLee 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• "(possibly Shakespeare's earliest tragedy)" - belongs in the TA article, not here
  • OK, fixed. — JackLee 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• "When filming, Fox often play..." - is there more info on this? This paragraph could be expanded...
  • Comment: No, I haven't found anything else. — JackLee 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Personal life section should probably go before filmography
  • Comment: I feel that an actor's work is generally more important than his personal life and deserves to be placed first. — JackLee 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose is generally quote good. Leave me a note when you're done with this stuff. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've taken into account some of your suggestions and added some comments above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoowee! Thanks! Will think about reviewing GA nominees, subject to how busy I am... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can't help but feel some mention should be made of his more recent venture into music - he has released a song called 'Gunfight' on iTunes and a handful more via Soundcloud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotheronewhonevergrewup (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

debut album in 2016?

Header has His debut album, Holding Patterns, was released in February 2016.
Discography section has a album from 2013, so what is that? 85.76.139.36 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That 2013 album is actually an EP (as the citation seems to say, as well as Discogs and the running time is only 17 minutes) so the lead is correct and therefore I've moved it below with the singles and retitled that list as "singles/EPs" --Ichosethisusername (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection

I have requested temporary semi-protection given the level of IP vandalism, but there seems to be a bit of a backlog at RFPP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Article?

How on earth did this get classed as a Good Article? I am not referring to anything in relation to Fox's Question Time controversy, but it is just is a very ordinary C-class. Whoever reviewed it did very poor job - presumably there was some nepotism involved as there so often is with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.79.18 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please leave your conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia. The talk page's use is to discuss changes and improvements to the page. Thank you. - 92.206.142.146 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wording

The article currently says "In October 2020, Fox inexplicably announced" - inexplicably is a judgement on his opinions, it isn't something backed up (or that could reasonably be backed up) by a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.40.171 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed: I have deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Music Career

Regarding his music career can we add something about how he says he was banned by his record label from calling a song "MeToo" (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/actor-laurence-fox-snaps-at-rada-leftism-dw3tghvp0 & https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/laurence-fox-interview-let-the-hipsters-hate-me-i-wont-dance-to-their-politically-correct-tune-5d7tdgwz7) and how he is the director and only named officer of the aforementioned record label (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09408115/officers)? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Apology to Sikhs

Can someone add a part about the page subject apologising to Sikhs after saying that putting a Sikh soldier in a film about WW1 was "racist"? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51233734 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Billie Piper's photo

The current picture of Piper on this page is blurred and not particularly good: can we swap it for one of the pictures on her own page? This one seems a possible candidate. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What picture? There isn't one of Piper on this page. Nor need there be. 2.31.164.7 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There was one when that comment was published [1]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal section needs clean-up + perhaps additional info on Fox being sued for defamation

In the personal section, this doesn't make sense:

"During a 2008 interview on ITV breakfast show GMTV, They have two sons: Winston James (born 21 October 2008),[33] and Eugene Pip (born 5 April 2012).[34]"

I suggest removing "During a 2008 interview on ITV breakfast show GMTV,".

I also suggest adding a short sentence about Fox being sued for defamation.

Here's a source:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/05/laurence-fox-stonewall-simon-blake-defamation-lawsuit-sainsburys-paedophile-twitter/

Perhaps a short sentence would be useful.

I'd do it myself, but the article's been locked.

Of course, I do realise this is a bio of a living person, so I would suggest it's worded as objectively and succinctly as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.71.58 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability (talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ithink that both of those were done a few days ago? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

Gammon Party to Reclaim Party. (Wikipedia Vandalism) TealRedsky (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 03:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards?

Should the page have an awards section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.79 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Does he have enough to make a separate section worthwhile? Possibly simpler just to integrate them into other sections. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Reclaim Party

As The Reclaim Party is developing more, with Fox having been London Mayoral candidate and Martin Dubney having recently been appointed as Deputy Leader, do we think it's time the party got it's own page? Wikieditor123000 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor123000: plenty of political parties with more overall presence in electoral politics than one mayoral candidacy are not notable (some party deletion discussions this year: Freedom Alliance, Publican Party, Independent Green Voice, Alliance for Green Socialism). For the Reclaim Party to be notable, it needs to meet WP:GNG. If you can find sources about the party that are not primarily coverage of Fox, then it's got potential. I would expect most coverage so far to be about Fox's political actions (so it's not "significant coverage" in GNG terms). — Bilorv (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that this doesn't change the rules but those rules are absolutely ridiculous. All parties, however small, should have a Wikipedia page for the sake of reference to the voters. Makes you wonder what the ulterior motives are behind the rule. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The ulterior motive is that we're an encyclopedia, not a political propaganda press release host, and that we need to limit the number of articles we have because each one is an attack surface for undisclosed conflict of interest editing, vandalism, poor writing that damages our reputation and so on; what we chronically lack in volunteers we more than make up for in critics who are unwilling to actually learn why Wikipedia works the way it does before leaving rude comments. — Bilorv (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Reclaim Party already links here with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}. From memory (possibly flawed) this is highly linked to another party ?BrExpress? or something, and I believe Hosking may have had interests in either/both, but again I'm treading on memory. I believe The Reclaim Party certainly had a issue connected with its name (which was not directly Fox connected as far as I know). I'm working from memory writing this, not even reading the currently article, but I suspect with suitable supporting sources it may well be possible to promote the redirect to an article, but to do so poorly would be disruptive. Nothing to stop a draft being developed by peoples to replace the redirect which has no history which could pass via AfC or DRV into mainspace, alternatively it might be sustainable in a section within that other party ?BrExpress?/?BrExit Party? if that has an article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should have as much information in it as possible. There is no issue with having pages for small parties. It's merely a reference point. Wikieditor123000 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

But I've just pointed you to three practical issues with having a large number of pages on very obscure topics, and many more are obvious. You can't just assert the same thing again. — Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggestion anyone wanting to create an article on the Reclaim party to create a draft and submit it (perhaps ideally via AfC) and if it passes the AfC threshold it will be accepted for mainspace. That seems far better and more productive that having this debate here Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Add the mini web series he appeared in. It can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va6vqnURh7E&list=PLkLA2fcc0XvgeNZj2rPjGzpEFBOv5QAlp He appears in person in episodes 3, 5 and 8 Rowanhopkins1998 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There's no need to add every appearance. The series itself doesn't appear to have a wiki page, so it's notability is unknown. Hemantha (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

“Racial Equality” should read “Racial Inequality” 213.107.85.61 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The text you are objecting to wasn't great but your proposal doesn't work either. I've made a different change, sticking more closely to the facts and avoiding interpretations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Laurence Fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• Article has several instances of uncited claims, citation needed tags, and better source needed tags.
• This article has been significantly expanded since its initial listing back in '08 with claims that probably need a re-review given their political nature. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delisted Two months since reassessment opened; no activity. Issues persist. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

The phrasing of the first line under 'Views' is quite unclear, in my opinion. It reads like he was radicalised to become woke by YouTube videos. I'd suggest a change from: "In 2019, Fox told The Times that he had been 'totally radicalised' by watching YouTube videos about 'woke culture' and 'political correctness'."

To: "In 2019, Fox told The Times that he had been 'totally radicalised' against 'woke culture' and 'political correctness' through watching YouTube videos." Hylobatid (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, with modification, but with against. --Mvqr (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

GB News

Best source I can find is in the Metro (British newspaper) where you will find Laurence Fox has, unsurprisingly, landed his very own GB News show. This doesn't fit very well in any existing section but should go somewhere - very open to suggestions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I found the Metro source myself and I don't mind it particularly but think we should respect the consensus that it's generally unreliable—GB News itself (as a primary source) would be better. But then is this due weight? If it's got no media coverage then it mightn't warrant any more mention than if he had a podcast, or posted regular hour-long rants on Instagram Live. — Bilorv (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this largely a question of weight: I don't think there's the slightest doubt that he has a weekly show on GB News. It is mentioned in the Radio Times but not in any great detail.Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Laurence is definitely a broadcaster now, with GB News. He started in Jan 2023 and it is now weekly on a Fridsy evening.

Here's the evidence:

https://www.gbnews.com/presenters/laurence-fox/

I think this should go into a separate Broadcaster section, which will only be one para at the moment. Juliangrainger21 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Treating Fox as a serious broadcaster does raise weight issues. He's done all sorts of odd things during the last few years, and fronting an obscure discussion show on a fringe TV network is just one of them. Obviously appearing on broadcast media makes him a 'broadcaster' in a narrow literal sense, but he's likely to be off doing something else next week. --Ef80 (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's nonsense, and betrays a narrow-minded "cancelling" outlook that is just the kind of thing he likes broadcasting about.

He's hardly the British Tucker Carlson though is he? He's just an actor with some crackpot ideas and a bit of notoriety. I fail to see what "cancelling" has to do with minor changes to a WP article, or why you are indulging in personal attacks. --Ef80 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

By all means take it down in a year's time if he goes off and does something else next week, but I detect he will stick around at GB News, which is now becoming quite a serious player in the broadcast news arena. Juliangrainger21 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We can now add reliable sourcing in The Guardian [2] and the Birmingham Mail [3] so I think the case for inclusion is now met. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan. I am absolutely sure that Laurence would delight in the fact that his GB News inclusion is because of something written in The Guardian.  :) Juliangrainger21 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It quite often work out that way! I have boldly created a new section as discussed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

)

Juliangrainger21 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Add in personal relationships section. Laurence was in a relationship was with Arabella Neagle (as currently reported on the page) however as of June 2023 they are no longer in a relationship

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12226091/Who-Laurence-Foxs-ex-fianc-e-Arabella-Fleetwood-Neagle.html 2A00:23C4:6B07:5301:8454:E6F2:2C16:4865 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, particularly for contentious personal information. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have taken the original sentence out as the sourcing wasn't great and the whole topic is a bit of a mess in the sources we have. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

September comments - "misogynistic" removed

Which leaves readers in the dark about what those comments were. That seems odd, why would we want to do that? Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There should be some description of the comments, in my opinion, unless the issue is that it's a BLP violation against Evans to even repeat Fox's comments. I've put in that the comments were sexual and included "Who'd want to shag that?" — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hardly relevant. It's half a sentence with zero context, and I see no point in going into unnecessary detail unless wikipedia for some reason decide to take the angle of Fox' apologists, that he was trying to illustrate some esoteric point about "mutual respect" or some such nonsense. And I just don't see Wikipedia doing that. Fox made sexual comments towards Ava Evans on Wooton's segment. Fox and Wooton faced consequences. That's all there is to the story. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)