Talk:Mem Fox

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))