Talk:Fan Expo Canada

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)

That's a normal way of counting attendees: Turnstile attendance vs Unique attendees.

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)

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)

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)

Should there be a note about how both Stophobbystar.com and the blog both point to Allnewcomics.net, and that the head of the Paradise con has now gone to work for Hobbystar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.242 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite the valid turn of events to note. Also of interest is the semi-annual alterations of this article (by employees? Again?) to remove the least flattering information about the event such as the threatening and harassment of dealers and attendees. The youtube link of the weapons bust in 2004 got taken down because of a bot removing it, yet even that news is relevant to the history of how hobbystar operates.

Yes, I used to work on the Paradise show, and now I work on the Fan Expo... that's no secret, so who cares if it is there or not. I'm inclined to, from time to time, add factual information on the next upcoming event. I'm definitely against deleting old news, but I'm also for fair and unbiased reporting. There was a particularly nasty time in Toronto's convention history 2004-2006 and we've all learned from the experience and hope that the lack of complaints since 2007 speaks more loudly than words. It's been over two years since there has been any public issues raised - if I'm wrong, please add the link. I don't think old links should be deleted, but hearsay and opinions need to be backed up by facts. If the facts are out there, it isn't difficult to find the link. --kevthemev (Talk) 03 July 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

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)

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)

Citation on attendance

It is found at www.hobbystar.com in the Fan Expo link under the conventions section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.108.222 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Return of vandalism and unfounded statements

Who ever is making the alterations without merit and placing unfounded and irrelevant opinions in the place of facts provided in reference links to news stories and other documentation should stop. The references available highlight both positives and negatives and are far greater merit than fannish politic opinions without any merit. Links with information from volunteers, attendees, dealers as well as news articles have a far greater contribution than this vandalism. - An observer from Milton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.175.14 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Once see that user "fanexpocanada" does not like to have documentation from attendees and former workers of the event that are critical of their tactics and employee behaviour. This is similar to the same re-tread tactics of user "killerqueenfan" and quite dubious to have employees continue their attempts to withhold information.

Greetings, this is Sid from neoengel.com and I created an account to prove that I am not the user listed as "neoangelsid" who made changes today. For what it's worth, neoangel is the way the proprietor of Hobbystar Marketing, those behind this event as user "hsm" on the comics board spells my user name (see: http://www.comicbookconventions.com/forum/index.php?topic=3085.msg6146#msg6146 or watch for it to disappear soon - though I have screencaps).

Personally I really don't care what goes on here but I take exception to further unacceptable tactics than what I experienced from these people already and if they have a valid argument to make it can be done without false statements, false identity, sockpuppeting or impersonation I created an account so that people can verify my statement and email me through my website domain if they wish.Neoengel (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently added new information about the show and clarified the dates of the links of the news items that Neoangel and other unidentified individuals added to the page to add historical perspective, and twice my updates were removed from unidentified individuals (no doubt it will happen again). Clearly there are other interests at work when one is prevented from adding public domain factual information on the next announced event and who has been announced as a guest at it. kevthemev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Employees of the event such as yourself are hardly neutral and should adhere to the alerts at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.111.63 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The only "Neoangel" (as listed by kevthemev) found to have made edits on the page is the false account listed as "neoangelsid" who made unacceptable changes while impersonating someone else and it looks like a mod removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.168.253 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the wiki COI policies, I still don't see how adding facts such as dates is considered non-neutral and a violation of COI policies. kevthemev (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Facts may be incorrect as per content of links also in history section guests planning to attend have not done so yet, wikipedia is for information, not advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.168.253 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that the two IP addresses adamantly protecting this page from any new updates and/or changes are unidentified? I'd like to hear from an actual Wiki editor/administrator. This page is being monitored not by people with a neutral point of view presenting facts, but by users with a grudge. kevthemev (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Third opinion

I have responded to a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. I have had no prior contact with the editors involved and have not previously edited this article, so am sufficiently neutral to to comment.

There appears to be a dispute about content. Controversial edits that lead to a dispute need to have reliable sources to support them that allow verfiability for other users. If content additions are reverted by other editors please cite them appropriately. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should not be including information that is speculative, we must report fact.

kevthemev, you note on your user page that you organise or help organise this expo. That means you have a strong conflict of interest with this article. You should consider whether it is appropriate for you to edit this article having read the page I linked to.

Finally, a lot of this article seems unsourced. It is not the responsibility of wikipedia to maintain a history of this convention, as mentioned before all information should be provided in verifiable, reliable sources that wikipedia can report on as a tertiary source in its role as an encyclopedia.

I will keep this page on my watchlist to see how the debate develops and I might even come back in a few weeks to take a look at the article in view of the lack of inline citations and seemingly unreferenced facts. This seems like an article with potential but at the moment I think it is falling short of the requirements of wikipedia and should be improved by all the editors involved here.

As a PS, it is not necessary to wikilink every single occurence of a word. Once is normally enough. The Metro Centre is certainly linked too many times! Bigger digger (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Help Identifying a Guest

I attended the Fan Expo in 2001 and spoke to two original Star Wars actors who sat near Traci Lords. One was Paul Blake who played Greedo, the other was an Imperial Officer. I can't remember which one he was or the actor's name. If you've got the info, please pass it along. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

So I made and edit with references and realized that this article didn't have proper referencing. So the links at the bottom may need to be edited to fit in the

. I have a midterm that I have to leave for, so I may consider doing it in a couple weeks (after midterms) if no one else can do it.Mattkickbox (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that CNAnime, GX (gaming expo), SFX (Science Fiction Expo), and Rue Morgue Festival of Fear be merged into Fan Expo Canada. Most of the content is identical to Fan Expo Canada. These events for the most part no longer function as subevents and are now fully integrated parts of Fan Expo. Esw01407 (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. --PatrickD (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)