Talk:Fiona Fox

Libellous links?
This link was removed as "potentially libellous", by User:SimonLevey, who happens to be on Fiona Fox's staff (see staff profiles in the article, he's SMC's "Fundraising and Administrative Assistant"):
 * GMWatch profile


 * If I'd wanted to hide the fact I work with Fiona I wouldn't have used my real name, CPMcE. --SimonLevey 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I wasn't suggesting you were trying to hide that fact, though neither did you disclose it. It's just that when someone who works with the subject of an article removes information which may be critical of the person, it seems natural that one would want to investigate. I have no particular axe to grind on the subject of Ms. Fox, and merely created the original stub as I saw her mentioned in various other articles. I offer no opinion on GMWatch, though I believe that even "very minority" views deserve to be aired.Camillus (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, although I know that WP must avoid making "potentially libellous" accusations, does this also mean that we can't link to external, established sites which may be critical of people featured in articles?


 * I think we should be keen to keep it to a minimum, especially as this is a very minority opinion portrayed on the external site. --SimonLevey 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would contend that it was at the bare minimum, only a link. Who decides what constitutes "minority view", and don't "minority views" have the right to be aired anyway? Camillus (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I refer you to the articles on libel and  reliable sources. --SimonLevey 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This link was also removed, an article written by Fiona Fox when she was involved with Living Marxism, for which she was well known:


 * "Massacring the truth in Rwanda"

as was the reference to here being involved in Living Marxism, which is surely pertenent.


 * Not particularly, the issue is a very old one, in which Fiona is no longer involved. It was written as part of a much larger debate on a controversial issue of the time (not represented here) and is not relevant in the grand scheme of her biog entry. --SimonLevey 12:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not even relevant that Ms. Fox was a former supporter of Living Marxism/the Revolutionary Communist Party? Who decides? Camillus (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Only as relevant as to whether she's a former teen-Rod Stewart fan or not.--SimonLevey 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How utterly ridiculous, Simon. Fiona Fox wrote many articles for LM magazine, some of which created a lot of controversy in the newspapers such as the Guardian, and amongst agencies dealing in Rwanda etc. I'm afraid this disgracefully flippant comment has now disqualified in you in my eyes as someone who can be trusted to see that an objective view can be assured in this article. I will be re-adding some relevant data regarding Ms. Fox's 7-year relationship with Living Marxism and the RCP, and will seek a Request for Comment if you continue to censor this article of information inconvenient to your boss. Camillus (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider the views on Fiona Fox expressed by GM watch to be minority ones. In fact she would never have come to my attention if she was not a member of the 'Living Marxism' group, and had written the article 'Massacring the Truth in Rwanda'. Her recent past may be an embarrassment to her, and it is understandable why her colleagues may wish to play this down, but this is the reason she rose to public prominence in the first place, and is therefore very relevant to any biography of her.

If she truly considers the 'GM Watch link' libelous, then she has recourse to the courts. As she hasn't done so, even though that link has has been there for a number of years, it is fair to assume that it contains factually accurate information.

Simon's analogy about what pop band she liked as a teenager is fatuous - it was her work and association with the ':Living Marxism'group that put her in the public eye, and it is entirely relevant to refer to this in her biography.

Her Living Marxism Links, and the controversy continue to keep her in the public eye as can be seen from this recent article by Peter Melchett http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_melchett/2007/04/farming_for_the_future.html

Dean Morrison 13:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the links, and added the link to the Peter Melchett article. He repeated the claims made about Fiona Fox, and posted the links that had been removed from this entry. As the 'Science Media Centre' responded without complaining that the article was libelous I think its reasonable to deduce that Fiona Fox herself that the article and the claims made about her are not libelous.

Dean Morrison 12:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change?
Does anyone know why Fiona and her sister Claire changed their name form Foster to Fox? Camillus (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Foster was a pseudonym for publishing, not stricltly a name change. SimonLevey 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Proposal for Deletion
This article was proposed for deletion on July 2 2010.

I disagree with this, since she is a notable participant in Science debates in the UK at this time.Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) -- Flooded  with them hundreds 08:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Fox (press officer) → Fiona Fox – Only article - other subject was deleted. Unreal7 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fiona Fox (Sonic the Hedgehog) is probably WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in fact. "Only article" is irrelevant.   In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Unreal7 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly Fiona Fox (Sonic the Hedgehog) is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but it's not completely obvious that there is a primary topic ("much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"). I'm not opposed to the move but it doesn't strike me as being clear cut. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. No other article needs the title. Station1 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support although note that a topic without an article can be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, such as (compare Room 101 (disambiguation)). feminist (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Calidum   05:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.