Talk:Fan Expo Canada: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:57, 26 July 2006

Attendance Controversy

According to the article:

Critics and various other convention organizers are also quick to note that when a three day pass is purchased from FXC, the same individual attendee is counted as attending three times, thus inflating the true attendance numbers.

Anyone know anything about this?--み使い Mitsukai 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations and Removals (vandalism?) by FXC/Hobbystar employees

By doing some research by using the older version function and google searches, it's apparent that people working for/associated with this expo do not want certain public information available.

"Criticism"This was incredibly vague. If they are specific complaints/concerns, they should be listed.)

Detailed information can be provided for criticism (example: external links), but people such as jtkirk1760 (a Fan Expo Canada Employee) have removed them previously, thus making your request rather redundant. Is it considered standard practice by employees to hide facts that do not give their product a glowing review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto-SMOF (talk • contribs)

I've tagged the statement as needing a cite from a verifiable and reliable source. Please see WP:CITE, m:Cite/Cite.php, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:RS for details. The last one is particularly important because anyone can put up a webpage spouting off nonsense, but a non-editorial news article would have much greater credibility. I've also removed several addition that do not conform to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is not a soupbox to spout out your POV. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up on the recent turn of events, and yes, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. But it is a place to find fact, despite it not being popular.

There are currently some reviews of their events in the external links. If the Criticism section is removed, the current external links should at least remain.

Further citation can be provided about the illegal weapons sold at Fan Expo Canada (formerly Canadian National Expo) and deliberate attempts to harm another convention hosted by Paradise Comics.

talk:Toronto-SMOF 01:54, 18 July 2006 EDT

The link cannot be used per my comments above, it is an "unreliable" source no matter how much it may be true. However, if there are news accounts of the problems, then those can be included, with the sources properly cited. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links about the criticism: one from Paradise Comics, one from a comics news site and a thread started by a Hobby Star employee from a comics related message board. The Paradise Comics bit is a news blurb from their official web site about the competing event so I figure is reliable and covers their point of view, a balance to the Hobby Star site which doesn't say a thing about hosting an event a week before a competitors event. The comics news site shows a bit of the "industry" reaction even if it isn't a larger publication and the message board thread covers what some "fans" are saying and some reaction from a Hobby Star employee. Lando242 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and POV tags

For starters, the Criticism section needs to be completely rewritten as it doesn't explain the criticism, doesn't provided any reliable sources, and doesn't provided the convention organizer's response to the criticism. I am also flagging this for a POV-check because of the poorly written criticism section and the external links are tilted too much to webpages that criticize the convention's organizers. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the Criticism section and removed the rewrite tag in that area, the NPOV tag for the whole article is still in place though. As to their responses to the criticism there has been almost none. A long string of posts on a popular message board (which was linked before, both as a footnote and in the external links) has been all I could find. It really covers a lot, with response from HSM and "the fans" and wraps the whole Paradise Comics thing up in a nutshell. I don't know how the article can be made neutral thou, people seem to assign different meanings to the term NPOV. I think an article can still be neutral if it presents both sides of an argument, even if their both opinionated, and how "good" a company or event is is definitely an opinion. As to the external links its hard to link to something that doesn't exists, HSM has received almost no praise in the press for their events, coverage yes, but all reviews I've been able to find of their events have found them middling to poor for manny of the reasons in the critasism section.

Anyway, please define "reliable source". Is the N.Y. times reliable? Because its printed media, long running and read by many people? Or because "it is, 'cause so many people say so"? By the same definition isn't the National Enquirer reliable? What IS a reliable source? How are the sources I quoted before unreliable? Lando242 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:54, 26 July 2006 edit Lando242 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 935 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:57, 26 July 2006 edit undo Lando242 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 935 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:


	: I rewrote the Criticism section and removed the rewrite tag in that area, the NPOV tag for the whole article is still in place though. As to their responses to the criticism there has been almost none. A long string of posts on a popular message board (which was linked before, both as a footnote and in the external links) has been all I could find. It really covers a lot, with response from HSM and "the fans" and wraps the whole Paradise Comics thing up in a nutshell. I don't know how the article can be made neutral thou, people seem to assign different meanings to the term NPOV. I think an article can still be neutral if it presents both sides of an argument, even if their both opinionated. As to the external links its hard to link to something that doesn't exists, HSM has received almost no praise in the press for their events, coverage yes, but all reviews I've been able to find of their events have found them middling to poor for manny of the reasons in the critasism section.		: I rewrote the Criticism section and removed the rewrite tag in that area, the NPOV tag for the whole article is still in place though. As to their responses to the criticism there has been almost none. A long string of posts on a popular message board (which was linked before, both as a footnote and in the external links) has been all I could find. It really covers a lot, with response from HSM and "the fans" and wraps the whole Paradise Comics thing up in a nutshell. I don't know how the article can be made neutral thou, people seem to assign different meanings to the term NPOV. I think an article can still be neutral if it presents both sides of an argument, even if their both opinionated, and how "good" a company or event is is definitely an opinion. As to the external links its hard to link to something that doesn't exists, HSM has received almost no praise in the press for their events, coverage yes, but all reviews I've been able to find of their events have found them middling to poor for manny of the reasons in the critasism section.

	: Anyway, please define "reliable source". Is the N.Y. times reliable? Because its printed media, long running and read by many people? Or because "it is, 'cause so many people say so"? By the same definition isn't the National Enquirer reliable? What IS a reliable source? How are the sources I quoted before unreliable? [[User:Lando242\|Lando242]] 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)		: Anyway, please define "reliable source". Is the N.Y. times reliable? Because its printed media, long running and read by many people? Or because "it is, 'cause so many people say so"? By the same definition isn't the National Enquirer reliable? What IS a reliable source? How are the sources I quoted before unreliable? [[User:Lando242\|Lando242]] 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)