Jump to content

Talk:Mem Fox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mem's husband

Why is mention of Mem Fox's support for her husband during his trial not allowed, but mention of her daughter's successful political career allowed? Are only good things allowed to be said about Mem Fox?

I believe the fact that she has continued to support a convicted offender is of historical interest and should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.239 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While she may have supported him during the trial, it doesn't mean that his conviction should be placed in the article, since the article is about Mem not her husband and there isn't any issues stating that her daughter is a politician. Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any issues stating that her husband is a convicted sex-offender and paedophile either. Furthermore, her reactions to her husband's conviction are about Mem. They are her reactions, not somebody else's. I believe you are biased and not fit to rule on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.239 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A serious conviction of ones spouse can only be described as a significant event within ones personal live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.137.14 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to include conviction?

Yes, to include. I'm afraid that now there is a conviction I definitely agree with above comments in favour of including her husband's underage sex conviction. I agree unsavoury, but this itself is not a criteria to exclude. This is indeed a very notable biographical event in her life. Wikipedia should not be about censorship, or exclusion of public available, third party reported information. I hope this is not tied up in loyalty to Labor Party politics!! Please leave a vote/commentROxBo 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a conviction but if there was an article on Malcolm, it would belong there and not here. It isn't about censorship, it is about Mem and not Malcolm, the article also isn't an news article. Whether her daughter's ties to the ALP belongs here can be removed, no one is stopping you. I also think your rationale by using Senator Clinton is wrong as it was very public (World-wide) for totally different reasons. Bidgee (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't be much more public than the national papers? Second, it is patently obvious that Malcolm (retired high school teacher) is not notable, but "Mem Fox's husband" is notable. Hence Mem has article. Hence it is in the papers. Finally the issue is not comparing Mem Fox's international profile with Senator Clinton's international profile. The issue is her husband is convicted. It is a notable feature of her personal life. Please don't edit war, yet again Bigdee!ROxBo 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Which lasted only a day or two in the national media during a "slow" news day, unlike Clinton which lasted weeks to months. Fact is I'm not the only editor to remove it. If you think it is so notable how about raising it at WP:BLPN? How does this have any relevance to Mem other then being her husband, whom she supported during the trial (which isn't notable in itself)? Bidgee (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited, so Mem Fox's husband isn't notable in the WP sense (although it isn't really relevant, anyway). The problem is that the content is entirely about her husband, and isn't related to her, (in that there is no suggestion that the crimes had any connection with her at all, beyond her relationship with the perpetrator). Therefore it feels like undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
None of your comment makes sense. Why mention that notability is not inherited- not relevant. Undue weight? A childrens author's husband is convicted of homosexual underage sex? That is pobably worth a line in their biographical entry on wikipedia. Undue weight would be a paragraph. I still think this fact should be included in the entry, like many other wifes/husbands of other notable people eg Tiger Woods.ROxBo 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The lack of coverage prior to a few days ago is just the result of weak journos.[1] Nevard (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying Chloe Fox is a politician is allowed, but saying the husband is a convicted sex-offender is not. Biased much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.239 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If he is sentenced to a prison term, do we change the page to say that she is no longer living with Malcolm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.239 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't even been sentenced yet and is still free until he is sentenced in less then a fortnight's time. Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm found guilty

I've just added this to the article and then discovered there was controversy about it. Now that he has been convicted there should be a change in this issue.

First of all, Malcolm Fox has no Wikipedia page. So any mention of his conviction can only go to this article.

Secondly, the personal lives of celebrities recorded in Wikipedia often include things that happen to their non-famous family members. The death of singer Robert Plant's son or the son of Eric Clapton come to mind here. The media has ensured that this issue is high profile and it will ensure that people will remember this conviction when they remember Mem Fox.

Thirdly, the nature of the conviction itself - namely an unlawful sexual relationship with a young person - is now linked to Mem Fox's own career choice of producing books for children. A husband of a high profile children's author who is convicted of sexually abusing a child is notable.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's kind-of why we have to discuss this before editing. First, Malcom Fox isn't notable enough to have an article, so shoe-horning his conviction into another article is problematic. It may well be justified, but it needs careful consideration. Second, while it has an impact on Mem Fox, she wasn't involved in any way, beyond being married to him, and thus drawing a connection between her and her husband's actions is a poblem. I'm especially concerned with the type of view you provide above, where you relate her choice of careers to he husband's actions. These are completely unrelated. - Bilby (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it okay to have a relative of a notable person recorded in an article?
Harrison Ford: Ford's maternal grandparents, Harry Nidelman and Anna Lifschutz, were Jewish immigrants from Minsk, Belarus (at that time a part of the Russian Empire).
Terry Gilliam: The family moved to Panorama City, California, in 1952 because of his sister's bout of pneumonia.
River Phoenix: His father was a lapsed Catholic from Fontana, California,[4] and had a daughter from a previous relationship, Jodene, who later changed her name to Trust.
Kevin Rudd: When Rudd was 11, his father, a share farmer and Country Party member, died from septicaemia after six weeks in hospital due to a car accident.
Now of these four notable people I have mentioned above you can see that important information has been given about their respective families that have nothing to do with them directly. Harrison Ford's grandparents were from Belarus - why was that included in the article? River Phoenix's dad had a child from a previous relationship. Why is that included in the article? Terry Gilliam's sister had pneumonia. Why is that included in the article? Kevin Rudd's dad died from septicaemia. And so on.
What I'm trying to point out is that the personal lives of the families of notable people are recorded in the biographical details in the article. For you to argue that the conviction of a notable person's husband for a criminal act is somehow "out of bounds" because it doesn't relate directly to the notable person goes against all biographical standards that are applied here at Wikipedia.
--One Salient Oversight (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think those are comparable. It makes sense to mention the name of her husband, as we do. But mentioning her husband's crimes, when they are unrelated to her activities, isn't the same thing as saying that a subject's grandparents were Jewish, or that the subject's father died when he was young. We wouldn't mention her husband in his own right, and doing so here would create a false suggestion that Mem Fox's actions and her husbands are connected, as you tried to draw above. They main thing is to keep the focus on material relevant to the subject's notability, rather than incorporating material which is unrelated to the subject's actions. - Bilby (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I will now change the River Phoenix article. The fact that River Phoenix's father had a daughter from a previous relationship now has no relevance to the subject's notability. --One Salient Oversight [User talk:One Salient Oversight|talk]]) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have now changed Kevin Rudd.
I have now changed Harrison Ford.
I have now changed Terry Gilliam.
Once the page is allowed to be edited again, can you please remove the section about Chloe Fox being a politicians as this has no relevance to the subject's notability. Can you also remove the section that says "Groups and agencies can challenge a book to prevent it from being available to be read by the general public." since this has little to do with Mem Fox and more to do with the subject of challenged books.
I agree with "OSO". It is ridiculous to argue that a husband's underage sex convictions are not notable for a semi-controversial children's book author. It is more notable than her daughter being a politician. Yet this latter fact has been included for years on wikipedia. Wiki is not supposed to be a "good news only" encyclopedia.ROxBo 12:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and step back a bit, because I think we'll need to have room to let other opinions in. But it seems that I'm not being sufficiently clear, as your point above is exactly why I'm concerned: you're trying to draw a connection between Mem Fox's writing and her husbands actions, when there is no connection. Adding his conviction to make that connection, or because of a belief that his actions reflect on her career, would be a major BLP issue - what her husband did has no bearing on her writing. It would be different if she was somehow involved, but there hasn't even been the slightest suggestion of any improprietry on her part, so tying the two together is a concern. If you need a policy, though, BLP makes it clear that with these sorts of articles we need to stick just to the issues which make a person notable. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Family members ARE relevent in a section on someone's biography or "personal life" - the Harrison Ford, Terry Gilliam etc. articles should all be put back the way they were. Wiki is full of thousands of articles that list a spouse or child. That is normal for an encylopedia and should continue. Mem's daughter Chloe is relevent and so, sadly, is Mr Fox's conviction because it is a notable part of Mem's life. It probably didn't belong in the article until the verdict, because that could have been defamation. Now that the verdict has been given, there is no issue with defamation. It is a fact, it was front page national news and it is on the front page when you google her name. It is fundementally wrong to censor wiki when something is a matter of public record. This kind of censorship makes wiki less reliable overall. There are abudanct third party sources to back this up as a major part of Mem's life. It should be written in one sentence with footnotes to news articles. There should be no judgement and no link between her career and the crime. But it should be there if wiki wants to remain relevent and unbiased (129.96.234.184 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

With protection due to expire soon, I've raised this on BLP/N to see if we can get some more views to try and hash out a consensus. - Bilby (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No way

I'm a totally uninvolved editor here, as an American who never heard if this author until today. This is how I see things: We've got an author, notable mostly for a book written 28 years ago, and now pretty much retired. Her husband has recently been convicted of a sex offense. She had nothing to do with the offense which took place decades after she became notable. As an experienced editor, it seems crystal clear to me that it would be a massive WP:BLP offense to include this in her biography. If the husband's offense is so serious then write an article about the crime. I suspect that people only think its notable ( wrongly) because his wife is famous in Australia. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. There are enough of them already. Keep the crap out of BLPs. Disagree with me if you want, but only after reading, studying and pondering our BLP policy first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As per Cullen's comment - nothing to do with this person - if he is notable or his crime is notable then write an article about it - her husbands crime is not notable is this biography...as in - and she married a person who did this, - no - this article is about what this person has done. Off2riorob (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved as well - I endorse the analysis above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Of course

Sorry, I'm not sure how to contribute to this discussion in the correct way, but I disagree with the above. There seems to be the impression, from people who do not live in Australia and have no sense of the trial and the media's coverage, or of Mem's level of participation, that Mem is in no way connected to these events. That is untrue. She has been present at the trial and she has been quoted in several media sources gasping and commenting audibly during the sentence. She was also part of the announcement that she and Malcolm intend to appeal the verdict. She is very much personally involved. BUT, there is no suggestion of guilt on her part and the link between the trail, the verdict and her work as a popular children's author is unsavoury. It should be mentioned tastefully and briefly in the article that her husband was convincted of the offense and left at that. To not include it seems strange given that Australian national media, and not just tabloids, have focused on her involvement and her decision to stand by her husband. She has chosen to be photographed and filmed, waved for cameras, etc.(123.2.53.91 (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Mem Fox was only involved as an onlooker at the trial - she wasn't called as a witness, and the media's coverage was nothing more than an occasional reference to Mem Fox, as the wife of the accused, seeming to respond to the events during the trial - exactly the same sort of coverage the family always gets when someone is accused of a serious crime and the media takes an interest. The articles were not about her, but about Malcolm Fox, with a mention here or there of his wife and daughter. The important thing for the article is that she was never connected, in any way, to her husband's actions - the event was about her husband, not her, and she was at most a concerned onlooker. I'm not aware of anything in the media focused on her in relation to these events. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Draw a line

Here's what I wrote at WP:BLPN. This article is about her, not him. So we need to draw a line (may even say split some hairs). If all the information we can write is that her husband was convicted, that's not really about her, and is highly derogatory by association, so shouldn't be written. That said, though, odds are fair this is going to have a major impact on her, and we won't be able to avoid writing about that impact. If she actively campaigns for him, or against him, writes about the incident, divorces him, whatever, and that is covered by reliable sources, we will need to write that, and we won't be able to avoid writing why. Until then, though, as long as the only way the reliable sources mention her is that she is his wife, but don't actually write about her doing something in this context, we should leave it out. --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Her public support of him is clear and pointed already. Chloe Fox has a much higher national profile at present and has not appeared in front of cameras or newspapers in relation to this at all, has she? Certainly nowhere near the same extent. Mem has made a decision to publicly stand by her husband and be on the front covers and acknowledge the media, and be seen at his side wherever possible. So there is more to say than 'her husband was convicted of sexually abusing a minor', wiki could say 'Mem was present to support her husband during his trial' or even 'Mem publicly stood by her husband, who was convicted...' or 'despite his convinction, Mem Fox has chosen to stand by her husband'. All of that is fair. However, I agree with what you're saying overall. It makes much more sense to wait and see than to ignore the issue altogether. Inevitably it will come up and have to be addressed as the appeal is ongoing, but perhaps now is not the time to comment on it. All I was trying to say is that there is a position inbetween ignoring the issue and exploiting the issue. Pretending it hasn't happened is leaving a gaping hole in the article that will continue to raise questions, and may even be seen as censorship, but linking this crime to Mem's career or throwing mud at Mem is cruel and defamatory. She doesn't deserve that. There's no evidence to suggest she ever even knew. So is there an inbetweem position? Could wiki wait and see how it develops? (123.2.53.91 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)) Or could this debate be avoided altogether by simply quoting a reliable third party source, such as the Sydney Morning Herald? "Fox was supported through the trial by his wife, Mem, the author of a number of best-selling children's books including Possum Magic." SMH (123.2.53.91 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't think that would solve the problem. The generic statement, that the accused was supported by his wife, is pretty meaningless and not particularly significant - naturally she supported him. The question is really what happens later, and if it has any impact. However, if it does - she divorces him, or something else happens where she plays a significant role, then it is quite likely that things will change enough to warrant including the issue here. At this stage, though, she hasn't played enough of a role in the proceedings. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, fair call. I just thought that might be a way of handling it without betraying a bias eitherway. Wait and see does seem the best policy at this stage.(123.2.53.91 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

Must include

This doesn't make sense. Much of the above is based on incorrect assumption. Mem Fox is a public persona, not retired. Her last book - book no. 36 - was published in April 2011.[2] A few years ago she was all across the media for equating child care for young children with child abuse [3]. Her husband's underage sex conviction is as relevant as including that her daughter is a state politician, and where she was born. It is all through the newspapers. It's refered to obliquely on her website by the quote "to due the extreme pressure of more important events in my life."[4] There is no bias. It is a biographical fact. It must be included. ROxBo 10:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would disagree with you - she is an author, but being an author doesn't make someone a public figure in itself. - Bilby (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You are being misleading and intransigent. Even Malcolm Fox's trial judge stated "Your illness is a result of these proceedings. The case has attracted much media attention due in part to your own career but also the fame of your family". She is a public figure as an author, commentator and as Australia's best selling picture book author.ROxBo 11:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So should we just delete the article altogether, Bilby? I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Mem meets the notability criteria. I wasn't aware of her own comment on her website. Maybe that changes things. If she is engaging with this issue, and there are multiple third party sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald and her own website, is there really any problem here?(123.2.53.91 (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Same fundamental problem. If Mem Fox makes a controversial statement, it is about her. If her husband does something terrible, it is about him. If her husband's actions cause Mem Fox to do something of note - speak out, get divorced, whatever - that is about her again. We often handle biographies of semi-notable people badly on WP, as we rely so heavily on what is in the media, and that tends to be weighted towards extremes. Thus we have to be very careful about what we include. - Bilby (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be included. There is no bias. It is fact. I think the bias is not to include it. (58.160.170.240 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

No, she did not. That's just rubbish. - Bilby (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, she did. Here is a quoted reference.[1] Try googling Mem Fox and child abuse.ROxBo 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, she did. Try this quoted reference: [2]
  • "It's actually child abuse. It's just awful. It's awful for the mothers as well. It's completely heartbreaking."[3]
  • "You actually have to say to yourself, `If I have to work this hard and if I'm never going to see my kid and if they are going to have a tremendous stress in childcare, should I be doing it?"
  • "Babies have very much higher levels of stress in childcare."
I didn't disagree that se equated placing very young children into childcare with abuse. But I strongly disagree with any suggestion that it was in any way related with her husband. Especially given that her statements were well before the allegations against him came to light. Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong. - Bilby (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This has strayed off-topic. The issue is including Mem's husband and his conviction in this article. The appeal has been cancelled and it was a joint statement by Mem and Malcolm Fox. She has stood by her husband publicly. To not include it now is to show a clear bias in Mem's favor and also to make the site seem poorly informed on public facts. (58.160.168.215 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

I guess remain unclear as to why a wife standing by her husband is particularly significant. I guess I'm still waiting for this to have a more measurable effect on her, as opposed to Malcolm Fox. Perhaps if the article was expanded, so that mentioning this doesn't give it due weight, it would fit in better, but I still can't see why issues about her husband need to be mentioned here when she had no significant role in them, and they have yet to be shown to have have a significant affect on her. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has had a significant effect. It is a major part of her life, as it would be for anyone in that position. It's absurd not to include it.(58.160.168.215 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)) Sorry, I didn't mean to sound too blunt there. I appreciate your perspective, and you're right that Mem's comments about day care having nothing to do with this, but the fact remains that this is a major part of her biography. (58.160.168.215 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

You're right, in that it must affect her in some way. But we don't have anything to show that, and when you get down to it, it is still about her husband, not her. I'd feel different if she had a role in the proceedings beyond supporting wife, or if there was a visible effect on her covered in reliable sources, but as it is all we have is an event that happened to her husband rather than her, in which she played no significant role, and now that it is passed is unlikely to have any further impact. A full biography would cover it, but a full biography would also cover a great deal that isn't in the article, and would have room to focus more on those sorts of issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I just want to apologise that these seems to be pretty much circular. I guess I just haven't seen anything change that would affect my stance. I certainly respect that people disagree with that stance, and have no problems with that, but unless things change I can't see my own view moving. Thus we tend to go around the same points, which doesn't help much. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revision and summary of facts

In the discussions about the conviction of Mem Fox's husband, I can't find any links to the reliable sources that report the facts. Could someone please gather them and post them for review? Also, a great deal of the decision about whether to include this incident in this BLP revolves around the issue of undue weight. It would help to determine weight if someone would post a proposed edit.Jarhed (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem at all on sourcing. A typical article is here. In each case, as Malcolm Fox is unknown, his wife is mentioned in passing in each article, but she was not otherwise involved. The wording itself has always been something like:
In 1969, she married Malcolm Fox, a teacher. The following year they returned to Australia and in 1971 she gave birth to her only child Chloe Fox, who is now an ALP member of the South Australian Parliament. On 8 July 2011, Malcolm Fox was found guilty in Adelaide's District Court of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a teenage student while he was drama teacher in the 1980s.
The problem is that there has been a desire to draw a connection between Mem Fox, as a children's author, and her husbands actions, which any substantial mention of this will do. However, nothing in the press has ever drawn a connection between the two. Her husbands actions have never been shown to be, in any way, connected to her. - Bilby (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Although I have not commented nearly as frequently as Bilby, I agree 100% with Bilby's position here. Those who disagree, please read and understand WP:BLP, and base your counter-arguments on that essential policy, if you can. Bilby, I commend you for your diligence in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Bilby is correct. In addition, rather than a source for the fact about Malcolm Fox (teacher) (note the red link), what is needed is a reliable secondary source for the connection between the topic of this article and the incident: Is there a connection? What real-world effects have occurred (not counting gossip)? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources include all the major Australian newspapers and all the Australian news networks. Every article about this story has highlighted Mem or shown a picture of Malcolm and Mem together, or quoted her reaction in the court room. I'm sorry, but you must have you head in the sand. Obviously there is a connection. If there was no connection, why was she there for the world to see? Her husband - not friend, not colleague, but husband - was convicted for underage sex and there has been continuous public debate - not gossip, not innuendo, but televised, printed, widely distributed debate - about this trial and the fact that the media played a major role, precisely because of the connection between Mem and these events. Malcolm Fox cited the media scrunity as causing stress, which is why he withdrew his appeal, which he announced hand in hand with Mem. People on both sides of the trial have commented on the media storm, because of Mem's very public involvement, as either the reason why Malcolm Fox did not serve a prison term or the reason why he was convicted at all, depending on perspective. This was not a "slow news day" as someone said here. This went on for months in the Australian media. Google it for goodness sake. You'll find a flood of articles. If wikipedia editors want to make a deliberate choice not to include this because, as Bilby says, "there has been a desire to draw a connection between Mem Fox, as a children's author, and her husbands actions, which any substantial mention of this will do" then that is one thing, but to pretend this wasn't a major national story, or to pretend there is no connection between Mem and these events, is insulting to people's intelligence. Others have proposed edits that are tame and unbiased. Why not say 'In 2011, Mem frequently appeared in public at her husband Malcolm's side during his criminal conviction for sexual intercourse with a minor'? How is it 'biased' or 'undue weight' to state a fact that everyone else has already reported? If wikipedia were reporting alone, or if there was division on this issue outside of wikipedia, then it would make sense to surpress it or to think twice. As it stands, wikipedia looks biased by deliberately not mentioning a connection that everyone else has made. By not mentioning it at all, you are behaving as if it hasn't happened, as if a wife has no "connection" with her husband (ridiculous) or as if Mem's media profile wasn't a feature in this trial. No, we don't want to draw a direct line between Mem's job and the conviction itself. That is undue weight. But to ignore it entirely is a huge step in the other direction. The reason this argument is becoming circular is that nobody is willing to find the middle ground between vilification and acknowledgement. I'm sorry this is so long, but wikipedia should report facts free of political bias. One side wants to unfairly attack Mem and the other wants to supress established facts. A soft mention solves the problem. Herald Sun - Judge cites media scrutiny due to Mem, news.com - Malcolm comforts Mem, The Advertiser - Malcolm and Mem again. DPP and advocacy groups debate case, Sunday Mail - Malcolm withdraws appeal due to family, 7 News, article in The Australian, ABC news article, 5aa Radio - Mem's Husband Walks Free, The Australian - Teacher Abused Trust, Daily Telegraph - Mem and Malcolm again Slow news day? No connection? Come on. (58.160.170.152 (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC))

Clearly without the coatrackingg of Mem onto this legal case that had nothing to do with her at all the papers would have had nothing to write about it, I don't see any requirement for us to coatrack it onto her biography either. In 2010 Fox stood by her husband when he was found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a seventeen year old male in 1985. Off2riorob (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the media "coattracked" Mem onto this legal case is in itself a reason to include it here. It is a significant event in her life. (58.160.170.152 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC))

No isn't if that is notable is belongs in an article about media practice, not this article, and the media used the notable wife in a coatracking of notability to raise the profile of a not notable legal case. Its quite common in people like this with a limited biography (and actually .. others with larger notability although it is a case by case differing situation as I have seen a en wikipedia) - to not add the crimes of family members to the notable family members blp - if there is direct involvement in some larger way then clearly we usually do mention it - but all there is in this case is that she stood by him - her husband is not en wiki notable and his crime is not en wiki notable and as such he deserves a bit of wiki privacy and that assumes the position of not coatracking his trial here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, I commented here regarding editors who want to include this information: "Those who disagree, please read and understand WP:BLP, and base your counter-arguments on that essential policy, if you can." IP editor 58.160.170.152 declined to discuss BLP policy and instead linked to a bunch of articles in the Australian media. I looked at those articles, and saw plenty of photos of Mem Fox walking out of the courtroom with her husband. I learned that Mr. Fox "walked arm in arm with his wife". Mem Fox "gasped audibly" in one account, and "gasped with relief" in another account, when the sentence was announced. Another said she "sighed with relief". One story says she had her "hand on her chest" and another says she had "her hand across her heart". Then, really big news: she "hugged her husband's lawyer". What a load of worthless, irrelevant trivia. Nothing whatsoever of substance has been proffered. And these "references" are supposed to support inclusion of this material into this biography? We are supposedly "suppressing established facts" here. As if anyone who wants to see a photo of Mr. and Mrs. Fox walking out of the courtroom can't find these photos in plenty of Australian newspaper archives? As if anyone who is interested in gasps and sighs and hearts and chests and lawyer hugs can't find this trivia with a simple Google search? This article is on my watch list, and I say "no" now, "no" next week and "no" next year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment further after this, as I'm sure plenty of others will, and I feel a little attacked. Let me just state that I have no interest in misrepresenting Mem Fox. Not everyone who wants this article included is out to discredit this person or to link the crime directly with her profession. The strength of wikipedia is that it is an unbiased, uncensored source of information free from political influence and personal editorial. It relies on credible third party sources for information. In this case, there is a plethora of credible third party sources, indeed major sources, to support the very obvious link between the subject and this significant and highly notable event in her life, which is also a well-documented national news story. Despite this, a handful of editors seem to have taken it upon themselves to say "we personally don't like the way the media has handled this so we choose to disregard and discredit these sources" and that is a slippery slope. Wikipedia should not be a political fighting ground. If anyone is offended by that position, I apologise, but arbitrarily deciding that the media is out of line without quoting sources to back up that view or arbitrarily deciding that a case is not notable despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is hardly a neutral response. Wikipedia should strive to be neutral as much as possible. Indeed neutral point of view is a cornerstone of the WP: BLP policy. With further regards to WP: BLP, I refer you to this quote: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." With regards to notability, there is significant coverage from reliable, independent sources - national newspapers and national televised news reports do meet the criteria, even if Cullen derides them and derides me for including them in this discussion - and though this will inevitably die down in the media over time notability is not temporary. I respect Bilby's position, and others', but neutrality should be the goal. Anyhow, that's my piece. Sorry if I offended anyone. (58.160.170.152 (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

I completely agree with your logic. Anyone who considers Mem in the future will do so in the light of this conviction, whether it is supressed in wikipedia or not. It is a shame on wikipedia to censor a biography. It might also be relevant to note the politics involved, as Mem and Malcolm's daughter is Chloe Fox, Labour state politicianROxBo 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Er ... she's a writer of children's books. Are you really saying that parents or schools purchasing or reading her books will be doing so only after duly considering that her husband had sex with a 17 year old? Doesn't look that way, even now, while the iron is hot. [5] [6] --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Er ... I am talking about considering her from a biographical perspective, which is the topic of this talk page. The usual stuff - where she grew up, influences on her life, work, main activities, events = ie what a biographical article should cover. No one is going to write any biography about her without including about this event. However I don't think most mothers think too kindly about this issue either. Essential Baby for example debates the issue[[7]]

"The whole thing makes me feel quite ill. The actual crime is bad enough, but the way Mem and her husband have conducted themselves during and after is disgraceful" "The part 'Fox walked with his arm around his wife outside court and made kissing gestures at each other in front of news cameras' makes me want to go throw out all the Mem Fox books we own." "I'm really disappointed! I've loved Mem Fox since I was a child. Now to hear these stories about her makes me a little devo - I don't think I can read her stories to my kids without thinking about it now."Mem is inextricably linked to her husband's sex crime conviction and abuse of power as a teacher of children. It was in the papers and TV in Australia regularily, a widely known event like the Lewinsky example.ROxBo 12:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP has a policy for BLPs which you need to read before condemning it. I had never heard of Fox before I read about this issue on the BLP noticeboard and I could not care one whit about her family's politics. The only thing I care about is adherence to WP BLP policy, and all other concerns are beside the point.Jarhed (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have read it. My intepretation is different from yours, although clearly you are confident yours is correct.ROxBo 12:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As are you.Jarhed (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Everything you say sounds correct. If a notable person is convicted of a serious criminal charge and it is reported in reliable sources, such should be included in the notable person's BLP. The problem is, Mem Fox was not the person convicted. Instead, it was her husband, and no report connects Fox in any way with the crime. The only reason that this story was notable enough for coverage was because of Fox's connection to the story. I agree with other commenters that, as this story stands now, any mention of the crime in Fox's BLP is coatracking.Jarhed (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this still going? I don't understand the issue with a soft mention with a link to an article. "In 2011, Fox was the subject of media scutiny during the trial of her husband Malcolm". Or just add footnotes to the existing mention of Malcolm in the article. Nobody seemed to mind him being there or question his notability when it was all good news. What has changed now? Are people seriously suggesting that there is no connection betweeen Mem Fox and her husband? Well, if that is the position, then all reference to her daughter should be removed as well. Mem only gave birth to her, so that's off topic. Actually, better remove all reference to the books just to be safe. Those books are only notable because Fox wrote them, any reference to their existence is coatracking. Let's keep the article all about Mem Fox with no references to her life whatsoever. While we're at it, let's give the final word to overseas editors who no prior knowledge of the subject matter, no respect for the Australian media and no understanding of the national politics invovled and how their decision comes across to those who do. This is wikipedia policy gone mad. RoxBo makes a strong case. I'm not sure how to add links here but here are some that focus on the media spotlight on the trial due to Mem. Her impact on these events is all over the place. Link 1, Link 2 Is there soft wording that could be agreed to? Something from the first link? Mem was not convicted of the charge but she was a big part of this event and this event was a big part of her life. Doesn't this fit within the policy? If it was positive news, would it fit?(123.2.53.91 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC))
No. Articles at Wikipedia are not like blogs where people get to add whatever they find interesting. Enough explanation has been given already, so it is time to accept that it is not going to happen. See WP:DR if you want other people to join in (they will just confirm what has been explained here). Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that IP editor 58.160.170.152 feels "a little attacked" as it was not my intention to attack the IP editor whom I assume is acting in good faith. I again plead with that editor and any others who disagree with me on this matter to read and study WP:BLP and to base their arguments on specific reference to that non-negotiable policy demonstrating a comprehension and appreciation of it. I am not criticizing the Australian newspapers either, as they are no different from the American newspapers that I read. Newspapers are newspapers, and simple economics requires that they print a lot of trivia and gossip and light popular entertainment and other ephemera on a daily basis. Encyclopedias, on the other hand, are encyclopedias and have stricter, long term standards. One would not go to the Encyclopedia Brittanica in order to learn trivia such as the fact that notable person A was photographed walking out of a courtroom accompanying non-notable spouse B who had been convicted of a crime, or that person A had earlier gasped in the courtroom. If a newspaper chose to print that kind of material to sell more copies the next day, then so be it. In most countries, including Australia evidently, the newspapers are free to do so. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a tabloid newspaper. The world has enough of them already, and they are readily available for anyone who wants to read them. We strive to uphold a higher standard.
The conspiracy theory that some editors here have a political agenda to protect the Fox's daughter because of her party affiliation is 100% garbage, at least with regards to my involvement. I know very little about Australian party politics, and care about such matters even less. I do know a fair amount about American party politics, and do not hesitate to speak out forcefully against including trivia and gossip in the Wikipedia biographies of American politicians that I wouldn't vote for myself in a million years. I uphold the WP:BLP standards for people I dislike as well as for people I like. What motivates me here is Wikipedia's policies regarding notability and the neutral point of view. As an uninvolved editor who never heard of Mem Fox until recently, I remind my Australian friends that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I edit articles about Australian topics, Dutch topics, Japanese topics, Indian topics, British topics, Guyanese topics and so on. Any of you are welcome to edit articles about the history of mountaineering in California, which is my area of "expertise", such as it is. Just say "hello" when you pop in. When dealing with controversial and emotional topics, an uninvolved editor is often in the best position, in my opinion, to interpret Wikipedia policies in a neutral and evenhanded fashion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have come across as more hostile than you intended, Cullen. It's clear that you are trying to apply policy but you're not taking other people's opinions, or evidence, or knowledge, seriously. By your own admission, you do not know anything about this topic and care even less. You need to understand the nature of this case and the fact that, even if you disagree or do not understand, this is linked very closely and very publicly to Mem and there is nothing neutral about denying that. To put it in a context that you may understand better, Wikipedia's article on Hilary Clinton has two whole paragraphs dedicated to the Lewinsky Scandal. Now, this was her husband's affair, not linked to her according to your interpretation of policy, and it was reported in American tabloid and news sources, which are gossip and non-notable according to your interpretation of policy. So why is the Lewinsky scandal there? You may argue that Hilary is more notable than Mem, but there is no scale of notability on wiki. You may say the Clintons are public political figures and different rules apply, but there is no basis for that in any policy you've cited, and in Australian terms Chloe Fox is a public politicial figure anyhow. So why is Lewinsky permitted and not this? That is the double standard that I think is causing confusion here and when you fail to demonstate a comprehension of how this issue is framed in national terms and keep dismissing people's opinions, or their very genuine attempts to explain the issue to you, then it reads as arrogant and superior. The Lewinsky reference belongs in the Hilary Clinton article just as the Malcolm Fox reference belongs in this one. The policy does allow for this and it has been applied that way on any number of other articles. Most biographies on here reference family - that's what a biography includes. This one already does reference Malcolm Fox. Like I said earlier, there was no issue with him being there until now. And let's stop pretending this is a rumour or gossip we are talking about. This is a conviction for a child sex act and it is offensive to dismiss it or to equate it with "light popular entertainment" and "ephemera". I trust you didn't actually mean that. If you want to apply strict, long term, unbiased standards then it belongs here. It seems that the wiki Gods have spoken and it is a shame because I think with a bit of empathy we could have all reached a consensus, which is another wiki policy. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

This discussion is now contravening the talk page guidelines: however interesting, an article talk page is not the place to discuss the views of an editor on matters unrelated to improving the article based on Wikipedia's procedures. This is not a forum where discussion continues indefinitely. Suggestions about WP:BLP should be taken to its talk page, and disagreements about the interpretation of BLP with regard to this article belong at WP:BLPN. This conversation should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion here is imo now undue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If the IP editor has concerns about what I've said, feel free to discuss them on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I posted was "unrelated to improving the article based on Wikipedia's procedures". In fact it was all on topic and put forward a counter-arguement based firmly on policy and past precedent. I was not attacking Cullen as a person. Cullen is undoubtedly a very nice person. I was pointing out that that there are other examples where the policy has beeen interpreted differenly and, IMO, much more sensibly. I would also add that talking about mountain climbing in another country is not the same as making assertions about another country's politics or a delicate situation such as this one where there has already been a public debate about supression of information. I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive, but that was not my intention at all. I was trying to put this debate in a context that people outside of it can understand, and to explain why some comments were coming across as aggressive and arrogant, for example things like "the conspiracy theory that some editors here have a political agenda to protect the Fox's daughter because of her party affiliation is 100% garbage" is inflamatory when the DPP in South Australia and other prominent political and legal figures are in fact launching a serious investigation into precisely that issue, as well as the media attention because of Mem's involvement and the impact that involvement may have had on Malcolm Fox not recieving a jail sentence. Then to continue to say there is no connection between these events and Mem? It just isn't accurate and comes across, intentionally or not, as biased. But I think the editors who appreciate that are talking to a wall, so it's now my turn to give up. No hard feelings. Discussion closed. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

Dog

So do we have consensus to remove the comment regarding her dog in the intro paragraph? While this potentially imoprtant and notable biographical fact has existed unchallenged in Mem's article for some time it seems a little ... disrespectful?.. to keep this in, while turning our collective eyes away from her husband's crime and the fact she has spent the last year or so of her life attending court hearings with him.ROxBo 12:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit [[8]] Off2riorob. I'll take that as consensus then. ROxBo 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Removed, who she lives with is irrelevant in the lede. - just a bold edit really, consensus is only really an issue if there are objections. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Her husband's conviction should be included. (118.210.66.101 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

Consensus is against including that. It is his conviction, not hers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mem Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mem Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ [9]
  2. ^ [10]
  3. ^ [11]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mem_Fox/Archive_1&oldid=1072575851"