Talk:Samantha Fox

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

Which Sam Fox?[edit]

She certainly used to appear in "men's magazines" - not sure whether or not this was prior to her appearance in the Sun.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but you might be confusing the British Sam Fox [1] who was a page 3 girl with the American Sam Fox [2] who has appeared in "men's magazines", both were active at the same time. It seems the two are quite frequently mixed up. -- Popsracer 11:54, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not confusing the two, the British Sam Fox was definitely in men's magazines around '85-'86. I was under the impression that she didn't pose for page three until '86 though, for which I stand duly corrected.  :) - Hephaestos 12:03, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I give you: Mayfair, Volume 20, No 4 - April 1985, and possibly also Penthouse Mar 1985 Vol 20 No 3 -- Karada
Hmm. She would presumably have been 18 in the Mayfair pictures: perhaps the publishers were concerned about U.S. pornography laws, and waited until they felt that they were safe...

We have to mention The Brit Awards in this. Mintguy 11:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sui generis - you expect Sun readers to know latin (or at least be bothered to click on the link). Mintguy 13:00, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The use in the article is possibly a fine example of British humor and understatement but it is slightly unclear at what end of the extremes her performance was.
What exactly is the meaning of it in this article? I clicked on the link and it didn't explain anything. --Robotech_Master 22:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is obvious. The Brit is brutally ugly 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:2D02:FC39:26F3:5EB3 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation question[edit]

I'm a bit surprised that no one has thought to distinguish these two ladies, seeing how their fans are well aware that there are 2 women with this name.

So how should we handle this confusion over similar names? Move this content to Samantha Karen Fox, create an article under Stasia Therese Angela Micula for the American Samantha Fox, star of stage & screen, & create a disambig to fill this namespace? Or leave the content here & just offer a link to Stasia Therese Angela Micula (her birth name, according to IMDB) for those looking for the American Samantha Fox? -- llywrch 23:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image[edit]

Surely there's a better, non-topless image of SF that can be used in this article, which is, I remind everyone, supposed to be encyclopaedic (I'm removing the bit about her "alleged" measurements too). Exploding Boy 01:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"During her modelling career, her measurements were reported as 195cm tall, 991cm/568cm/729cm 36-23-31" (B/W/H)"

Are you guys sure about those measurements? 991 cms is almost 10 metres, ie about 30 feet. 212.171.197.7 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Vince In Milan[reply]
Everyone knows that the camera adds 9 meters to your height, surely? -- Jalabi99 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her measurements should probably be included along with her height, as she was a topless model and therefore such stats are relevant. The 36, I believe, was a 36DD. (!)
  • I have changed the image to an album cover. Candice 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second photo here appears to violate Wikipedia policy against nudity in articles. PatGallacher 10:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indecent image[edit]

The image on this article appears to be a topless photo of a 16 year old - under British law (sexual offences bill 2003) this may count as child pornography. Can anyone confirm the legality of this?

I have had a look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003. By my reading this photo in the Sun was not illegal when it was published, but it is now. Wikipedia is governed by Florida law, which makes it easier to publish some matters which might be illegal in Britain, but under this Act Britain claims far-reaching extraterritorial powers. In Florida the normal age of consent is 18, so this image could be illegal there. We should err on the side of caution in the absence of a formal lawyer's opinion. PatGallacher

I think we should keep it in the absence of legal threat. I see no harm. —Nightstallion (?) 10:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's child pornography. Why do you think images of this nature should be on wikipedia?
Whether it's child pornography or not is a matter of definition, depending on where you live... —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not child porn, no matter the age. This is not a pornographic photos. --Haham hanuka 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, too, though I'm sure that depends on your jurisdiction, as well; I wouldn't consider it pornography, softcore or erotic art at best. —Nightstallion (?) 11:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it should be left until there is a legal threat. Its not at all pornographic, and was legal at the time it was taken... Are thoes laws retroactive, or is it like a cat where if it didn't need a seatbelt the year it was built it doesn't ever.

This article needs help[edit]

This article is very badly written, can't someone rescue it? And what is with the Canadian bent? Hardly relevant to an article on someone who was an icon in Britain at the height of her fame.

I agree, it's a terrible terrible article, some parts clearly written by people who don't speak English well, and amazingly, the Italian page has a lot more information than this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.48.111.69 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

I really don't think that her height, i.e. 1.55 m (5 ft 1 in) tall is so important that it belongs in th first sentence. I'm not sure where it belongs at all. RJFJR 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkwind[edit]

Someone has to mention that Sam Fox appeared wirh Hawkwind in er... 2000 for a reuninn Gimme Shelter thingy. I even saw her singing "I've got two silver machines" and wobble her assets. The rudeness don't quite work I know.

You gotta include the Hawkwind connection though - it's too weird to ignore!

Last published photos[edit]

The section on modelling career contains the following sentence:

"In 1996, aged 30, she appeared in the October issue of Playboy magazine. These were her final published nude photos."

It also then has this paragraph at the end:

"Samantha Fox was, in a online vote held by the British Newspaper the Daily Star, voted by its readers, as 'The best page 3 pin up ever' in September 2008. As a result of the poll win, she appeared topless for the first time in 12 years in the Daily Star although on page 5, not page 3."

Presumably if this last sentence is correct then the line about the 1996 playboy photos being her final published nude photos is incorrect. extraordinary (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

anybody knows why is she in "lesbian musicians" and not in "bisexual musicians"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.94.130 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because she is a lesbian and not bisexual " 'I wouldn't say I'm bi because I'm in a gay relationship and I love her and I want to be with her forever. So to say I'm bisexual... it's too shallow. Maybe when I was younger I thought I was bisexual, but then I think I was just confused.' feb 2003 interview with guardian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.199.115 (talk • contribs) 17:15, November 27, 2009
She sounds like she's bisexual but only identifies as "Lesbian" because of Lesbian Inc. and having a lesbian partner, since historically and politically there are A LOT of lesbian women who are full of hatred and bigotry towards bisexual women and want to erase and pretend that every woman who has a sexual attraction or sleeps with women is "lesbian" and that women can only be "lesbian" or heterosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.251.171 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking (writing?) as someone who used to identify as bisexual and now identifies as lesbian, I think it is quite wrong to assume she only identifies as lesbian due to some kind of pressure from other lesbian women. All we can do as far as someone's sexual orientation is take their word for it, and she says she identifies as lesbian, case closed. I do believe there are bisexual people of both sexes and have no wish to erase their identity, but just because a woman has slept with men in her life doesn't make her bisexual. 88.104.130.240 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket[edit]

OTRS ticket 2010102410002951 is related to this article and the reason I've semi-protected it due to vandalism. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song Little Girl?[edit]

Can anyone confirm if Hugh Laurie's amusing song "Little Girl" - played during his time with Stephen Fry is actually inspired from Samantha Fox. It seems likely. 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.97.130 (talk)

Porn?[edit]

Where is the article about her appearing in a porn flick? Jeesh I can remember it right now. I think that I have it at home. It was her, not the older Samatha Fox of the same name.99.6.4.126 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official Facebook[edit]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Samantha-Fox-Official/102058873211496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marke1967 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil partnership[edit]

It talks about her plans for one years back but is there any newer info regarding when/if they had their ceremony?MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Samantha 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Samantha 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: 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) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Cassidy case[edit]

We are not here to empower women? We are however here to give a balanced and fair account of cases, which may include mentioning that women can sometimes fight back against sexual assault. Ms. Fox has gone public about these issues, so I don't think BLP issues arise. PatGallacher (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the undue amount of emphasis on her fighting back. If we're going to say that, then we might as well talk about her allegations that he was grinding up against her and stuck his tongue in her mouth. It's all unnecessary detail when the main point is that she was assaulted. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief mention can be made of the fact that Fox fought back. That's the fuller picture, and says something about her character. It doesn't have to be detailed or explicit - just something like "In December 2017, after the death of singer David Cassidy, Fox stated that Cassidy had sexually assaulted her on a video shoot when she was nineteen years old. Fox stated that she defended herself and "told him where to go"." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Cassidy is now unable to answer the allegations against him, but as they have been widely publicised I think they are encyclopedic. Anyone who disagrees should discuss this instead of edit warring. PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made a WP:BOLD edit and it has been reverted. Now per WP:BRD, it is incumbent upon you to try to reach consensus with other editors before reinserting it. The report has not, in fact, been "widely reported" — a story that appeared in a notorious WP:TABLOID, the Daily Star, has been re-reported by other outlets. Neither The Guardian, The Miami Herald nor Bang Showbiz did any original reporting or vetting of her claim ... they all just say, "She told the Daily Star this." A sleazy tabloid that pays people to say anything is not WP:RS in any way, shape or form. A newspaper, the "first draft of history," might report it, but an encyclopedia has higher standards. And one of those standards is we don't blindly run anything a non-WP:RS tabloid has to say.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, if you read the Guardian report properly, it conducted an interview with her themselves, it did not just report what the Daily Star said. PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read it properly. The first paragraph of The Guardian story here links to a Guardian story here that says, "She told the Daily Star" this story. Then she just repeats the tabloid claim. If you look at newspapers like The New York Times, they seek out people to whom the accuser told the allegation at the time it occurred. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also note you have begun edit-warring. Per WP:BRD, you need a consensus on the talk page before reinserting a removed edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the main Guardian article properly, it doesn't just repeat the Daily Star's claims, it mostly consists of an interview the Guardian conducted itself through Amy Fleming. Dangerous waters this, that we should only take allegations of sexual assault seriously if they were made at the time. It sometimes takes two sides to conduct an edit war. PatGallacher (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BRD is pretty clear and unambiguous. Also, 3RR does not apply to editor who are removing WP:BLP vios, which a personal-life claim ultimately traced to a non-WP:RS tabloid is. I don't think we'll find too many admins who would support including a BLP claim like this without talk-page consensus.
I addressed your point that The Guardian spoke with Fox. If you read my post more carefully, you'll see I say, "she just repeats the tabloid claim." In any event, if other editors agree with you and there's a consensus for including this allegation, then fine. But right now, there is no consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, yes the Guardian article is an interview of sorts, this is a link it's basically an advertising interview for her recent biography with the Gardian are selling on their website.link here It's a very long article as well, in which there is only a single minor mention about this allegation. "the day she worked with her childhood idol David Cassidy, who died earlier this month, which she says culminated in being sexually assaulted by him" , the article/interview is not about the allegation it is about her book. I don't support this inclusion, it's unproven , uninvestigated and it's a shame she waited 32 years and until he had just died and chose to use it in promotional interviews for her book release, otherwise we would have had his responses and police investigations to report and now we have nothing of value, not even in Fox's life story, I am sure so many other incidents in her personal life are of much more importance than this minor incident, as is seen by the real lack of widespread reporting, lets get back to discussion about inclusion in three months and see if it's still being reported. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article is an interview; I don't think we can judge it as "an interview of sorts". There is not just a single minor mention of the Cassidy allegation - it's in the title of the article ("Samantha Fox on fame at 16, stalkers and David Cassidy: 'I kneed him and told him where to go'"), and there is a longish paragraph about it, set within the context of several paragraphs about unwanted or OTT attentions from men. The Daily Star connection is a red herring, as The Guardian article makes direct reference to the allegation that Fox makes in her book. And seeing as Fox's book was published within about 20 days of Cassidy's death, it seems rather unlikely that publishing the Cassidy allegation is a reaction to his death - it seems to me more likely that the book was coming out anyway, and Cassidy just happened to die shortly before. If that's the case, I'm sure Fox's publisher's legal team would have done some checking. Having said all that, I'm not committed to keeping this allegation in the article, and I take Govindaharihari's point that it isn't necessarily a big incident in Fox's life story. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

Is it alright if we replace the photo in the infobox with this - File:Samantha Fox (10546153413).jpg (seen to the right) - which is more recent and clearer? It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic and therefore is free to share and remix. The reason why I ask is there is a note on the editing page about replacing the infobox photo, so I thought I'd check here first. Helper201 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mysterio[edit]

Why were mentions of his revitalizing her music career and two cuts on greatest hits album plus it's debut on Spotify removed? What kind of kurwa trolls run this 🥺 94.254.227.31 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaa[edit]

Lihaa jemmaa Ja 93.106.165.215 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Masterchef[edit]

Appearing on Celebrity Masterchef BBC1 2023 Percy2345 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samantha_Fox&oldid=1207282377"