Talk:Claire Fox

Dispute over education

It has been stated that CF attended Lanchester Polytechnic (now Coventry University) and not Warwick University. Evidence is needed as to what is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.53.90 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP and libel case against Living Marxism

I previously removed the text regarding the libel case against Living Marxism [[1]], because the source cited for this doesn't mention Claire Fox, and including text regarding this libel case on Fox's BLP implies Fox committed libel or was involved in libel. She was previously co-publisher of Living Marxism, so it seems possible she was involved in this, but per BLP, I think we'd need a source saying this, I don't think we can conclude this based on original research or coatrack it in in connection to Living Marxism. I don't think this should be restored to Claire Fox's bio without a reliable source which actually mentions Claire Fox. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Reporting the reliably sourced fact that the magazine Living Marxism was closed down after a libel case is not a violation of BLP, nor does it imply that she personally held the views that led to the magazine being sued, though legally authors and publishers are equally liable in libel cases. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But the source used to reference this doesn't mention Claire Fox and doesn't mention the publication closing. It doesn't actually support the text added. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

LM clousre

The verifiable fact that the Living Marxism magazine was wound up following a libel case is not a violation of BLP. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the source to say something about Fox that doesn't appear in that source is a violation of BLP as well as WP:SYN. And the "verifiable fact" that the magazine shut down as a consequence of that case isn't particularly relevant to this article, and in addition it isn't isn't mentioned in that cited source, therefore it is not verifiable by that source. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claire 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514175501/http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/events/heat/freemarketstream.htm to http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/events/heat/freemarketstream.htm

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) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

She has also been criticised...

Isn't this weasel wording? We could also say "She has been praised..." right? Olive Hat (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If anyone ever praises her, then go for it. If. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's weasel wording. Why have praise or criticism. What's wrong with "She believes...", "She has said..."? This article is appalling for its bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The article reads like a hit-piece. I guess the people who contributed to this article's criticism of her disagree with her politically.

Well, perhaps, yes, but we are all struggling to find people to write in support of her, or neutral. The last CF fan-club meeting was held in a phone booth. Feel free to contribute some non-POV stuff. (Just jokes of course, but seriously, if some neutral or pro-CF people want to contribute, please do) SiJoHaAl (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I did try and look for a positive article. I even tried the Telegraph and the first hit was from April 2019 [2].

She tells today's Chopper’s Brexit Podcast - which you can listen to easily by logging in or subscribing below

- “I do not want to give the state and the authorities the right to ban things on the internet - no ifs.”

This included the viewing of videos of child abuse online and Jihadi terrorists who make videos, she said.

Describing child pornography as "illegal" and "vile", Ms Fox said: “This is not about defending child porn this is about fighting censorship and fighting for free speech.

“I actually don't think we should ban Jihadi videos because I don't think that is what causes the issue of Islamist violence. We have to confront these things beyond banning them.”

In her own word, repeated recently, in a right wing newspaper. --Salix alba (talk): 17:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Institute / Academy of Ideas

Should the Institute of Ideas and/or the Academy of Ideas be mentioned in the lead? Neither has its own article. JezGrove (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It has been her principal job for twenty years so is relevant. Jontel (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I redirected IoI here, and changed Academy to Institute in lead, but not sure about the latter change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)