Talk:Laurence Fox

message: After several iterations of unsourced and non-neutral content,  is attempting on the basis of this source to replace  with . The text implies that "Sikh" is mutually exclusive to "white", the latter a term which the given source doesn't mention (in this context), to which Tmaynes thinks that the burden is somehow on the person trying to remove the content to find a source that "disproves" that Sikhs aren't white. Or "disproves" the relevance that the other soldiers are white (something The Independent doesn't verify, for a start – how can I check that any of other soldiers actually were white?). They say: .
Except Fox is not a historian, mentioned nothing about the British Indian Army (Tmaynes hasn't given any evidence that Fox has even heard of it...) and the full quote of his objection to the advert is:  He later said . There's no implication in either comment that historical accuracy is anything to do with his objection. That's not to say that he doesn't have a view on the historical accuracy of the advert. And I think we can all tell Tmaynes' view on the historical accuracy (to which they are projecting onto Fox). That's just to say that the source doesn't verify any claims that that is what "Fox considered". — Bilorv (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see both sides here: Tmaynes is right to want to give more context, but Bilorv is right that that we need to source this properly and avoid original research, which Tmaynes is indeed straying into. What do people think of my new text (just added)? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me except for a small writing style point—", adding that" reads a bit confusingly as the sentence is long and the prior clause about a history fact doesn't come from Fox. I'd separate into a second sentence and lead into the quote with "Fox later added:" (since he said it on a different occasion). — Bilorv (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wondered about that but didn't like what that would do to the flow of the following sentence. Anyway I have had another go, but do feel free to edit more! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The new text is much better. My concern was that the previous text strayed into editorialising, falsely implying that Fox objected to the Sikh soldier's presence in general, rather than the context in which he was depicted. Thank you very much for your help in resolving this matter. — Tmaynes (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt that actually Fox's objection is to the presence of someone non-white, though. Ambrosen (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are reminded that WP:BLP applies on talk pages just as much as on article pages, and you should not make allegations about living people without providing sources that directly support your remarks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The libel verdict mentions this, including that at the time of the original Tweet, "He did not know then .. that Sikh Indians, and many others from the former British empire, did see active service in WW1 alongside British soldiers." Lovingboth (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research about Fox's comments on a Sikh soldier

message: As RSPN says "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers." I see no reason not to use it and do not see it as forbidden under WP:BLPSOURCES Doug Weller talk 08:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Evening Standard & other sources for "cancelled 

message: Add to his picture caption that it is taken in Oriel College, Oxford. Confuro (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Please see MOS:CAPLENGTH – in an infobox, the caption should not provide any more detail than is necessary to illustrate the subject. As his being present at the college does not convey the significance of the article, it should not be included in the caption. The image description does already contain this information. Tollens (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 

message: In 2023, Fox burnt progress pride flag buntings in a video he posted on Twitter and in a follow-up clip he referred to it as a "child mutilation flag" along with other anti-trans statements before stating that Union Jack flag is all-encompassing and there is no need of a rainbow flag either (paraphrasing his ranting tones). Having a section about his view on the Progress Pride Flag without this event is odd but all sources (including his own words recorded by himself on video) have been deemed unreliable. What could satisfy the reliability criteria? 79.26.183.251 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: With AI being what it is, it’s best not to believe everything one sees or hears in media. Believe first hand account witnesses with sworn statements. Everything else, presume to be propaganda and rhetoric. 47.225.18.71 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on his social media account both in video format and in writing, not random people online sharing fake stories. He stands by it. He also stated his stances on LGBT people, and particularly on trans people several time in public speaking for years now. Whether he said it or not is not a matter of interpretation. 79.26.183.251 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is neither based on "witnesses with sworn statements" nor on social media clips. Appropriate secondary sources would likely be news coverage by professional journalists. It is unlikely to be covered (even in the future) in books or academic journals or other sources we might use for other facts. If it wasn't the subject of commentary by an expert then it's not suitable information for Wikipedia (once we start quoting social media rants by Fox, where do we stop?). You can get an idea of some reliable and unreliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. — Bilorv (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: [Please note, for transparency, there was a coding/formatting problem and I needed to delete and repost my following topic. Nothing else has been change]
I have changed the subject heading from Views, to Personal views and opinions.
I have changed the subheadings, particularly Racial issues to Views on race and racism.
Reasoning: The first change is minor, it may be better reverted to something shorter (if needed), however these views and opinions have been made in a personal context, not a political one (even though the two overlap almost to the point of being the same).
The second change prompted this. Racial issues suggests that the views described are already problematic even before reading the section text, implying a judgement of sorts. This is compared to Legal issues where an arrest, police investigation or legal case is a clearly defined problem. It might be considered leading and already gives the impression in its title that his views may be problematic (which, to me, they very much are) but I propose 'Views on race and racism' is a less subjective and a more generic way of organising and labelling sections. The text section content itself can then inform and educate the reader as to what those views are.
My only concern is adding too much bulk to the headings. Perhaps someone who can see the point I'm trying to make has a better suggestion for neutral/generic headings? Montezuma69 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC Montezuma69 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to 'Views' section headings