Talk:Fox Brothers

Year of Incorporation / Nature of Article
This article appears to be an effort at story-telling and is promotional in nature. For instance the founding according to Companies House is clearly 1996, but claims by owners/directors of this company appear to extraordinarily place it at 1772, which is not verified by Companies House or any official registry.

I suggest it is rewritten so that only verified material remains. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The reference you keep deleting clearly notes the older date. References must be reliable and independent of the subject itself which The Times is. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you link the older date with the current entity? How can you claim they are one and the same? MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Companies House is the only qualitative source on incorporation. An encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia cannot take promotional/marketing statements by Company directors or Owners as fact. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If a Company was truly established in 1772, then I trust you will find the United Kingdom Companies House company registration to verify this extraordinary claim, and confirm that that company is indeed the same as the one founded in 1996, which this article relates to. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This article still appears like a story and not like an Encyclopaedia.
 * I suggest all unrelated information before 1996 be removed and the article rewritten in a concise way fit for Wikipedia. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ThaddeusSholtoI stumbled on this article and I agree with MrFox - this citation is an interview with the owner so the claims are better not referenced as fact. Is there a record of a 1772 establishment on any registrar of companies? Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I can find a few online references that give that date, but whether or not they would qualify as WP:RS is debatable. This interview with Douglas Cordeaux, owner and Managing Director, says 1772 but this is obviously not independent of the subject so this is out. This clother gives the same date although I have no idea what their source is for the date. This online periodical also says 1772 as does UKFT - The UK Fashion and Textiles Association. So the date is out there but a deeper dive into some references would be nice. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ThaddeusSholto Thank you for your prompt reply. You are indeed correct in that the date does seem to be out there, though I wonder whether it is due to the sources mentioned being somehow associated with and/or influenced by the company in question.
 * For instance, from what I gather, the clothier in question seems to be a customer of the company, while UKFT’s stated aim is to promote UK fashion and textile industry businesses, from whom it receives its membership income and information in exchange for promotion.
 * While I am certainly not taking sides in this debate, further to reviewing the exchange on this talk page, in a bid to avoid relying on material that has been influenced by a representative(s) of the company in question, might I suggest erring on the side of caution and relying on the impartiality of Companies House until an official record of the 1772 establishment can be found?
 * Kind regards, Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the date 1772 is true, it is verifiable based on the references. Verifiability, not truth explains the Verifiability policies. It isn't erring on the side of caution to ignore what the references state. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ThaddeusSholto, I am minded to disagree with this assessment, which suggests that the notion “if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes true” is indeed correct. Referring to the same Wikipedia guidelines, one might take a different view:
 * The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due weight.
 * Whilst I do not condone his comportment or editing in any way, and have always preferred not to edit articles myself, MrFox is correct to suggest that with regard to a company’s date of establishment in the United Kingdom, the source that must be given its due weight above all is Companies House, which is a verifiable and documented record of all companies created since the early 19th century and by extension, the overriding authority on such matters.
 * As such, in the event that the company in question truly was established in 1772 as we are led to believe, it is incumbent upon me to state that the previous entity would be featured in the first publication of Companies House, an entry which must be located for this statement of establishment to be confirmed as both verifiable and true.
 * Kind regards, Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well no, we don't use primary sources, and anyway the first register of companies didn't start till 1844 anyway. Even then, not all kinds of companies had to be registered. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @DuncanHill, many thanks for your comment. Actually, to avoid chaos, companies created before 1844 would have been required to register with Companies House in 1844 to continue trading. By that token, in the event that the company in question was truly founded in 1772, then it would be featured as 1844 on Companies House.
 * As an avid historian, my understanding is that there were several companies trading in the region and the current entity founded in 1996 may have borrowed the histories of now defunct previous entities which may or may not have had any affiliation. Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is common for new companies to be formed to restructure a business. Anyway, take a look at the Coldharbout Mill museum. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You could also look at the National Archives. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you could read the Historic England report. DuncanHill (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. As a historian, I will certainly read all three, but as you are no doubt aware, none confirm 1772 as the year of establishment.
 * That a company today chooses the name of a previously existing company does not confirm association or signify that it inherits the background story of said company by default.
 * Kind regards, Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That there is a modern company established recently doesn't in any way suggest or imply there was not an earlier one. I doubt very much whether an article only on the post-1996 version of the company would survive AfD. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear @DuncanHill,
 * That the article would not survive AfD is another matter entirely and should not I believe be used as a reason for maintaining information that cannot be confirmed as true.
 * To remain faithful to and inclusive of all sources regardless of weight, might I suggest adding the neutral introductory phrase “while the present entity was founded in 1996, the company claims it can trace its establishment to 1772”.
 * Kind regards, Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious editors
and were both created on 15 September 2023, and both appear to only be interested in this article, and both to share an obsession with company registration as the defining issue. I find that very suspicious. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear @DuncanHill,
 * I must say I find it surprising to be linked to another user to whom I have no affiliation.
 * As previously mentioned, I am an avid historian and as a matter of preference, do not engage in article edits, however I stumbled on this talk page exchange due to the historical nature of the debate.
 * Kind regards, Fabriziodellavalle (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Fabriziodellavalle and MrFoxMrFox blocked as socks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)