Talk:William Fox (politician)

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

Disambiguation[edit]

Does William Fox have a middle name ? If so, it'd have been helpful as this page could be moved to the new name and William Fox be made a disambig page. Currently many pages link to here expecting this to be the William Fox, founder of Fox Film. Jay 13:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, New Zealand's William Fox didn't have any middle name, no. As such, the article should probably go to "William Fox (New Zealand)", or possibly "William Fox (politician)". I think I'd probably prefer the first one, since Fox was involved in things other than politics, but either would be fine. Feel free to do whatever you think best. -- Vardion 13:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm truly foxed by so many identical names. The PM's son's name is also William Fox ? http://www.youngminds.org.uk/magazine/56/gough.php is fact or fiction ? It can be included in the article.
Also I found 8 William Foxes in IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/find?q=William%20Fox&nm=1&ex=1&nr=1). Jay 15:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The PM's son is sometimes called William, I believe, but most accounts that I've come across prefer to call him Wiremu (the Maori equivalent of William). The article is generally accurate, yes. As for all the actors, I'm not sure what to do about them. Perhaps we should just start with a disambiguation page for the Prime Minister and for the founder of Fox Film, and then let people add others if they feel the need. -- Vardion 00:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let's carry on with this conversation some 6.5 years since the last post. These days, there is established policy for disambiguation. So I've had a look whether the movie mogul or the NZ Premier or any of the other pages are possibly the primary topic:

"Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

Here are the page views in descending order for October 2010:

  • William Fox (producer) - 4228
  • William Fox (New Zealand) - 714
  • William Darwin Fox - 387
  • William Thornton Rickert Fox - 327
  • William Fox (actor) - 270
  • William Johnson Fox - 209
  • William F. Fox - 203
  • William Price Fox - 199
  • William Fox (footballer) - 98
  • William Fox (palaeontologist) - 82
  • William Victor Fox - 73

So the producer is the top one by quite some, but the article doesn't meet the definition of primary topic. So the current form of disambiguation is appropriate. Schwede66 08:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the photo fit our policy?[edit]

I'm confused. The caption under the pic says Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library...... must be obtained before any re-use of this image. However, Wikipedia:Copyrights says .........Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others........ There is clearly a use restriction so it is not free (in terms of available without condition) Or do I need a good sleep? Moriori 03:17, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that images are treated separately to text. I was going by the first section of this page, and the fact that we have a tag especially for cases such as this ({{msg:copyrighted}} {{WikiProject North East England|class=B|importance=high}} - "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use."). See also this Meta page. There seems, however, to be a bit of debate about whether images need to be under GFDL, so perhaps someone more knowledgable about this than me could help clarify things. If it turns out that we do need the images (both on this page and on other PM pages) to be under GFDL, we'll have to remove them - the National Library has a fairly strict procedure for granting usage permission, and they didn't grant permission for these images to be used anywhere other than these specific pages of Wikipedia. -- Vardion 06:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the rub. Illustrations are no different from text. National Library can't tell Wikipedia users they can't use info they have alrrady allowed Wikipedia to use. Yes? No? Moriori 06:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
Well, the National Library allowed us to use the images on the explicit understanding that they wouldn't be used elsewhere (not with our consent, anyway). If we don't agree to that, we'll have to remove the images again, as we'd be in violation of the terms of use. The National Library never gave permission for anyone other than Wikipedia to use the images. I would argue, however, that Wikipedia's implementation of the GDFL does indeed treat text and images differently - the Wikipedia:Copyrights page says that "the text contained in Wikipedia is..." under GDFL, but doesn't appear to say that images are. There's also a section on the same page warning people that "fair use" images on Wikipedia might not qualify as fair use images if employed elsewhere - I would argue that "special permission" images fall into this category as well. But as I said, I'm not really an expert on all this. -- Vardion 12:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think your first sentence says it all -- Nat Lib okays Wikipedia use of images provided they are not used elsewhere. That doesn't gel with Wiki GDFL policy. Regarding text v images, it is total content of Wiki information that is subject to GDFL The method of its presentation is only part of the total content. Cheers. Moriori 21:39, May 3, 2004 (UTC).. Anyway, I see User:Maveric149 has now removed the copyrighrt message , so no probs. Cheers. Moriori 22:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I think you're probably right - my interpretation was in error. I've made a comment at Wikipedia:Copyright problems about it, and the images will have to be deleted. Our permission is now null and void. Thanks for noticing this - I would never have realised that there was a problem. -- Vardion 00:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

William Fox's son was Maori?[edit]

If Fox's son was called Wirimu this implies he was Maori or at least part Maori.His wife was pakeha so was the son adopted ? Anyone got more informtion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.217 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has his DNZB bio referenced - I suggest you have a read there. Schwede66 01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, adopted son Wiremu Fox (Ngatau Omahuru), captured by scouting party ahead of Parihaka invasion, taken to Wellington over parents' objections and installed in govt Maori Hostel (where he met senior chiefs in Wgtn to plead their tribes' land rights), adopted by Wm Fox, trained as legal clerk (for firm dispossessing Maori land, amongst other things) and became first Maori lawyer, met elder brother who then affected a change of outlook and he became a supporter of Maori land rights. See "The Fox Boy", by Peter Walker.
Potted history from memory ... someone nicked my copy of the book. FanRed XN | talk 03:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to William Fox (politician) as this man appears to be primary usage (premier of a major English-speaking country). Necrothesp's concerns are reasonable, so I have added a hatnote by means of disambiguation. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Fox (New Zealand) → William Fox (New Zealand politician) – A disambiguator is supposed to give a noun that describes what a person was / is notable for. William Fox wasn't a 'New Zealand', but he was rather a 'politician'. I've moved all the other NZ MPs that had 'New Zealand' as a dab, and I think Fox is the last one to do. What isn't entirely clear to me is whether the 'New Zealand' bit is necessary. Yes, there are many other politicians named William Fox. None of them with an article yet goes by "William Fox", though. On balance, given that there are quite a few, I'd favour having the country included in the dab. As it's not a clear-cut case, I put this forward as a formal move request. Schwede66 06:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. There may be no other people whose articles are entitled William Fox (politician), but there are certainly other William Foxes who were politicians, so for clarity's sake this should be the new title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though William Fox (politician) would be better. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Preferring the (politician) epithet. Other late-coming Fox's can be more specific L-Bit (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - But only to William Fox (politician), as NZ is unnecessary at this time. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. William Fox (politician) really does not provide enough disambiguation. People looking for William Johnson Fox or William H. Fox, both of whom were also politicians and were probably also commonly known as "William Fox", may very well just enter "William Fox" into the search box. Disambiguation is supposed to disambiguate from all other possible people of that name, not just those with an identical name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Fox (politician). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives a date of birth for Fox of Jan 20, 1812. The Dictionary of New Zealand biography gives the year of birth as 1812 with a question mark, and a baptism date of 2 September 1812. It is my understanding that baptisms in the Church of England are performed well after the date of birth, and it is not likely that a baby would be baptised on the day of its birth. An anonymous editor with a varying IP address keeps adding 2 September 1812 as the day of birth, but has not added any new reference, but has removed the Britannica one. I am not sure whether the anon is aware that they must provide a source, since they may not be seeing edit summaries or messages on the talk page of their previous IP address. If the anon sees this, please explain here why you are changing the date of birth.-gadfium 07:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the anon has attempted to remove this section rather than contributing to it, I can no longer assume good faith.-gadfium 17:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His headstone also gives date of birth as 20 January 1812 - see here. Paora (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Fox_(politician)&oldid=1217111028"