Talk:Chris Alexander (editor)

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

Merger Proposal[edit]

Wouldn't it be better if this page was merged with the Fangoria page? Considering that the article consists of only five sentences (and most of the info in the article is trivial and could be jettisoned like writing for the Schizoid Cinephile or the Kiss concert magazine), and considering that most of the citations are simply movie reviews from horror specialty sites, I don't see why a merger wouldn't work. The article is rated "Low Importance" and the politician of the same name (who is far more notable) deserves to have his own Chris Alexander page rather than Chris Alexander (politician), I think a merger would be justified.64.230.233.197 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, Alexander is perfectly notable enough to merit his own page. I'd like to politely request that you stop trying to remove portions of the page, as the article is good as it is. Please stop blanking sections and removing bits of the article here and on other Alexander related pages. The sections have every right to be on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as moves go, that might not be a bad idea. I see that there are several Chris/Christopher Alexanders, so I think that it'd be worthwhile to create a disambiguation page for all of them with this as the target (or redirecting to the disambiguation page). In other words, create a main page for Christopher Alexander (disambiguation) and have this redirect there. From there we list the CAs and have this listed as Chris Alexander (director). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then you have to call him either Chris Alexander (editor) or Chris Alexander (writer) and NOT Chris Alexander (director). He's only "notable" for writing and editing Fangoria. He's doesn't make a living directing movies. He does them as a side project when he has spare time on the weekends and films them with his wfie and friends. (Not even real actors who are part of any union). I don't think anyone outisde of his friends even know his film exists since it only has 63 votes on the IMDB and only 3 reviews on Amazon. If it wasn't for Fangoria and to a lesser extant that free newsoaper he writes for he would be out of a job and would need to find some other means to pay the bills, like mowing lawns and painting garages.64.230.233.196 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would he be notable for his films if he wasn't an editor for Fangoria? Maybe so, maybe no. Would he have to do something else if he lost his editorial and writing jobs tomorrow? Probably. That's neither here nor there, as he has these jobs and even if he lost them tomorrow, he'd still be known for them. As for his films being only known by his friends, I'd have to politely disagree about that. I'm neither a friend nor family member of Alexander. For that matter I'm not particularly a fan of Fangoria either, as I think it's overly commercialized and "mainstream" (don't mean to sound all hipster there). However I've heard of his films through various outlets and people that also have no familial or friendly ties to Alexander. His works are known. I'm going to politely ask that you please refrain from making comments of that nature, as they come across as attacks against Alexander and his work. It's fine and well if you don't like the man, but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgement and prejudice you against his pages here on Wikipedia. I'll just come out and say it: you sound like you have a personal grudge against Alexander for whatever reason and you're letting that rule your decision making here on Wikipedia for the most part. If you continue in this manner you run the risk of getting another block if you try to edit Alexander's article as you have been in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, just let whatever opinion you have against Alexander go and just walk away. You don't like him- that's fine. I know others that dislike him as well. However, that shouldn't play into how you edit his article, which really comes across like you want to lessen what coverage and notability he's received. The current state of the article is fine. It isn't WP:PUFFERY nor is it unsourced. There's no reason to remove anything from here at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can make the same argument against you. You seem to be a fan (or perhaps a family member). His movie hasn't got a whole lot of exposure and I supplied evidence to support it. Outside of the IMDB and Amazon points, whenever there was a writeup on it on various Horror sites (which will cover anything horror related) the pages never recieved any comments. It only has roughly 500 likes on Facebook, and since he has about 5,000 friends (a combo of friends and fans) you would have to assume that they are mostly his close friends that are liking the page to support him. Movies like his are shot on a daily basis and get released ad nausem espacially in todays day and age where anyone can make a film with digital cameras (Youtube is full of these things). Like it or not his notablity is for Fangoria. I see that the page was changed to "editor" anyway so its a moot point now. Meanwhile, every time I make an edit I give my reasons but you will undo them and write weak reasoning like "This deserves to be here" and then threaten me or call your administrator friends to come block me. I never once vandalized his page. I just removed trivial info or stuff that in some cases he put up there himself. If you look at the IP number its Chris that's adding most of that stuff up there (next to you). He would even write stuff in the past such as "Chris Alexander is an award winning film director ...". He's trying to use the Wikipedia as a promotional tool. He even did that with the IMDB, since he created and edited all those pages himself. Remember you are talking about a guy who used a fake name (Ben Cortman) to write a good review about his own movie in his own magazine! Chris even did an edit over on the Fangoria page promoting the website and it was removed by an administrator as "shamelss advertisment". So again I ask that you do your job as a powerful entity on the Wikipedia and stop attacking me because I dared to edit a page that you put together with legitimate edits and stop helping your friend/family member Chris use the wikipedia as an advertisment which is not what it is intended for.64.230.233.196 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than his posts on AfD, I've never interacted with the guy. I'm most assuredly not a friend or family member of his. The problem with the various things you removed is that they are things that are typically on Wikipedia. We frequently list a person's filmography and contributions, as long as we have reliable sources for those. And his films have received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Alexander, like it or not. Whether or not he's made promotional articles in other places in the past doesn't mean that we delete everything from his article and try to make it out to where he's done less than he has. I'm sorry that you feel that the article is promotional, but I can assure you that this is not promotional. It's pretty neutrally written and is backed up with reliable sources. We don't delete entire articles or severely edit them because someone's supposedly a douchebag in real life. That really goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 28 January 2014 (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: Moved. Chris Alexander will redirect to Christopher Alexander (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Chris Alexander → Chris Alexander (editor) – I've created a disambiguation page and this might be better redirected to the new disambiguation page, with the target for Alexander's page more specialized to his role as an editor. I'm good either way, really, as there will be a hatnote at the top of the article regardless of whether or not this is moved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only thing to be cautious of is that the main disambiguation is actually at Christopher Alexander (disambiguation), as most of the articles use the full name of Christopher, and that Chris Alexander would redirect to the disambiguation page itself rather than move the disambiguation page entirely to Chris Alexander. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (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.

Controversy[edit]

Rather than engage in back and forth edits that may just antagonize people I thought perhaps we could discuss some recent changes. I respect that Tokyogirl79 seems to be curating this page so I'd just like to talk some of this out and make sure we have an accurate portrayal of the situation on here, I think when it comes to matters of controversy we need to present the best evidence.

That said, here are my concerns. First and foremost I think the original citation of "Who Is Ben Cortman?" from La Politique Psychotronique on the Ben Cortman controversy is the best possible source for 3 reasons:

1. The article establishes the case that Alexander is Ben Cortman in a very careful and well researched manner. Evidence is provided to support the accusation and sources from Rue Morgue magazine are used to help establish the facts. It lays out the case and the evidence. Citing that Hart Fisher interview strikes me as less informative because Fisher merely asserts that Alexander wrote as Cortman and gets some basic facts wrong. With all due respect to Hart, the LPP article makes much more sense as an "academic" source for the facts.

2. Chris Alexander confesses to the whole thing in the comments section of that LPP article.

3. Nobody else will report on this controversy. None of the major horror outlets will touch this story with a ten foot pole. This creates a problem because the story is a fact and I think in the interest of an accurate history of Alexander and Fangoria these facts should be documented on sources like Wikipedia. If someone can find a better source, fair enough, but as it stands the LPP reporting on the subject is the best sourced and most credible. It even includes Alexander's response.

My next issue is that this latest revision of the page says that the piece Alexander wrote in Fangoria #319 was a review when in fact it was not a review, it was a preview news item intended to showcase up and coming films. This inaccuracy was picked up by Hart Fisher and if you cite Fisher that inaccuracy gets repeated.

Finally, I am concerned about the dismissal of LPP as a "blog" and therefore inherently not credible enough for Wikipedia. I have skin in the game of course because I write LPP, but Bloody Disgusting is essentially a blog and that's not a bad thing. It's a very popular one with many contributors and many readers, but those seem to be the key differences. I appreciate wanting to use the most credible sources possible but when reporting on some controversial aspects of the horror mag industry you'll notice that none of the major players will run stories like this or even acknowledge them in public. It's only the smaller outlets that are reporting on this stuff, if at all. I think a blanket dismissal of "blogs" is ultimately harmful to accuracy as we permit big players to dictate reality. LPP adheres to a very high standard of reporting, I'd venture to say higher than Bloody Disgusting, and that comes through in the content. I think the quality of the citation matters more than how many readers the outlet has or how widely known it is.

Have a look at this page on citing self-published blogs here. It's old, I get it but consider what it says for a bit. The author of LPP (me, Dave Pace)is not anonymous, he is known to the community and publishes under his own name. The author wrote for Fangoria for 3 years and worked directly with the subject of the article. The piece is well sourced and fact checked and the subject of the article admits he did exactly what the article accuses him of. The fact is, LPP is the only news source dedicated to reporting on the horror media industry.

I have no problem dropping the "Controversy" section, but since there is more controversy to document I suspect it is only a matter of time before the section becomes necessary.

I don't want to step on toes or mess with community guidelines here. I just want to have the facts that I meticulously gather, analyze, vet and publish at great detriment to my "mainstream" writing career to be included in the historical record of this industry and Wikipedia is a huge part of recording that history these days.

Not going to start reverting changes or anything like that, it's my hope we can come to some kind of understanding about the best way to document these aspects of the subject. I'm very interested in your thoughts.

Dave Pace

70.25.97.35 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that it's still considered a blog/SPS and we can't really verify it in the long run. There are a lot and I repeat a LOT of blogs and SPS that are very, very popular that cannot be used here on Wikipedia. Being popular does not automatically mean that a source is usable. Also, at this point LPP is considered a blog or a blog-type site at this stage in the game. Bloody Disgusting isn't really considered a blog by our site, but a mainstream horror news website. It's gotten to the point where it's become more than a blog. The thing about the WP:SPS criteria about being a known source is that it's expected that the person is so overwhelmingly known that they'd be cited as a reliable source in other outlets, meaning that they'd be listed in books, news outlets, and the like. They have to be very, very established. Being popular isn't really enough. It can help get someone more coverage and set them up as an established person who could be used as a valid SPS, but it's not a guarantee. As far as Alexander posting in the comments section of the article, we can't entirely verify that it's him. FWIW, I think that it is him because it sounds like something he'd say. But on Wikipedia we have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and if the exchange had been mentioned in a place we could use as a RS, then we'd be able to use the article and the comment. On Wikipedia we have to be very, very careful about what we write and what we use as sources, partially because the last thing we want is Alexander trying to sue us or accuse us of having a vendetta. We just have to be extremely careful about this sort of thing.
Basically, right now all we can really add is what's currently in the article. I know it stinks to be told that your site is unusable by Wikipedia's RS guidelines and believe me when I say that I truly wish we could use it. There are a lot of sites that I'd absolutely love to use that I read quite frequently, but I've been told that they're unusable because they are considered a "blog" site. (Example, the book site Dear Author and the horror site Horror Society.) I'll try to run it by the WP:RS/N to see what they have to say, but offhand I can pretty much say that it would fall under the SPS/blog category. Heck, people are still relatively undecided about Daily Dead and that's one of the most frequently read "blog" sites out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's understandable but frustrating. One of the reasons I started my site is that bigger outlets are unwilling to cover these stories and I think they are important to the history of the industry. I appreciate you taking the time to have a civilized talk about it though and ultimately I respect your position and the guidelines of the community.

Dave Pace 70.25.97.35 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's kind of the rub, when it comes down to it. A lot of times when stuff like this happens, the bigger media outlets won't cover it. I have my own words for why I think that happens and I'm sure that you could guess as to why, but that's why it's usually so difficult to cover stuff like this. The bigger outlets can't or won't cover it and the smaller websites don't pass our RS guidelines. It's definitely frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy, Bloody Disgusting article, and how to report it[edit]

An IP editor removed the Bloody Disgusting article, and, when I reverted that, he left an explanation that states the Bloody Disgusting article is factually incorrect. I have softened the wording to reflect this. Previously, the Wikipedia article claimed that the Fangoria article was a review, but I have replaced that with a kind of generic "conflict of interest", which doesn't really state whether the article was a review or not. Wikipedia isn't the place to air grievances or settle disputes, but I think we need to hash out how we're going to cover this. One thing to keep in mind is that the Bloody Disgusting article is a primary source, as it's an interview. We might want to find a secondary source for these claims. Without any secondary source coverage, this may all be undue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Disgusting interview contains false information. Not only did Alexander not review his film, he has freely admitted to using a pseudonym for over 10 years and never concealed this fact. Unfortunately, Fisher seems to have misleadingly quoted another blog in which Alexander had a public battle with a former Fangoria blogger. Apparently that blogger has stated as such above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.37.212 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what to say, except that we should probably try to find a secondary source. Primary sources, such as editorials, interviews, and other first-person opinion writings, are valid sources, but we have specific policies that regulate this. Since we're not quoting court documents or government databases, we're clear of the most obvious problems. However, when one person makes controversial claims against another person in an interview, I think it's important to keep in mind that these claims may not have passed editorial overview. For example, the Bloody Disgusting interview itself says that it has not been edited in any way and is posted verbatim. Wikipedia has several methods of dispute resolution, and I think it might be helpful to consider our options. For example, we could hold a request for comment, which will bring in uninvolved editors and establish a consensus. RFCs usually run for a month, but they are good for seeking input from experienced Wikipedians. Beyond that, I would recommend against any unilateral actions, such as removing the source or changing it to include possibly libelous accusations. If anyone knows where we can find an official statement from Mr. Alexander, we could include that. I did see a response in a Blogspot drama-fest, but I really don't think it's appropriate to link to that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all, this is Mr. Alexander. Unfortunately, as the editor and author of several periodicals in the dark fantasy and horror culture genre, I have a small but dedicated group of people who aim to to harm, to publicly attack, mostly in order to get some attention aimed toward their own work. In the case of this "controversy", Mr. Fisher had been attacking Fangoria and myself for sometime due to the lack of coverage of his work in our magazine. When he heard about a long standing feud between an-ex blogger and myself on his current blog, Mr. Fisher accused me of reviewing my first film under one of my pen names. A blatant untruth. I can ignore Mr. Fisher's antics in most of his platforms, but expect a higher standard from Wikipedia. I suggest, in the interest of verifying the facts, a Wiki editor should in fact get hold of a copy of my magazine Fangoria 319 where the festival preview- not review- of my film Blood for Irina is published. Otherwise, adhering Mr. Fisher's false information and vendetta-fuelled words to a page that is meant to objectively list my public work and life, is certainly...questionable. Again, I expect more from Wiki. I use Wiki in my line of work. I would like to trust that it is committed to fact.

In addition, I notice the page says I am a former writer with Metro News Toronto. I am in fact a regular contributor and have been for 8 years. Thanks for your time and apologies for any drama.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.63.131 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2014

I realize that Wikipedia can seem frustratingly slow-moving and bureaucratic, but it usually works out in the end. You are certainly not without recourse. You can post to our biography noticeboard, which handles pressing matters like defamatory content and untrue statements made in biographies. The reason why I earlier suggested against unilateral edits is that this does have a valid citation, even if the statements are based on misunderstandings. However, I can't stop you from removing it, and the reason why I replaced it was because there was no explanation for its removal. Now that you have explained yourself, you might try to remove it again and see if anyone objects. If nobody objects, then the situation has resolved itself. If they do object, and I suspect someone will, you should go the noticeboard route. If you find this all too bureaucratic and you want to contact an experienced volunteer through e-mail, you can find information at our contact page. I suspect they will redirect you to the noticeboard, as that's what I would do. Let me know if you need further assistance, and I'll do what I can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NinjaRobotPirate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.37.148 (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a couple of questions

1.Is there any evidence to indicate that Fisher has an agenda against you or are you just upset that he is criticizing you and the magazine? Furthermore did your readers know you used the pseudonym Ben Cortman or not? Going by this post you made back in 2006 (as Schizoid Cinephile) http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/mortuarypost.png

It leads me to believe that not many people knew you used the Ben Cortman alias and were indeed separate individuals.

Now if Dave Pace and Mr. Fisher are spreading untruths about you and committing acts of slander or libel then you have a case, but if you are just upset that they exposed an alias you used to promote your own film in your magazine and are criticizing you as such then the post is warranted especially since it uses a legit citation from Bloody Disgusting.

You have to remember that the wikipedia cannot be used for self promotional purposes (like facebook or Twitter) and you can't remove cited info because it puts you in a bad light claiming said individuals have feuds or agendas against you without backing them up.

2. You claim you have been writing for the Metro News for the past 8 years, yet when I checked the Canadian version of the website and looked at the list of authors here

http://metronews.ca/authors/

Your name is not mentioned. Not even as a past writer. So if you are not listed as an author for the publication how can you be writing for them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.27.42 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chris Alexander here once more. Regarding my extensive work with Metro Toronto, well, you can start by contacting the METRO editorial staff, reading the paper and/or researching the hundreds of features I've penned. Easy to do. I am not responsible as to how METRO lists its authors. Perhaps as I am a freelance contributor, I am not listed? You could start however, by looking at a recent feature here: http://metronews.ca/scene/1086178/words-and-pictures-clive-owen-and-juliette-binoche-made-this-directors-work-easy/. Or here: http://metronews.ca/scene/1025068/scarlett-johansson-is-a-humanoid-alien-vampire-in-under-the-skin/. And so on...
Regarding Mr. Pace, his blog entries about my pseudonym, FANGORIA magazine, my work with other companies and even my family are well documented on his blog, as he stated above. I do employ the pseudonym of Ben Cortman, have for more than a decade in at least two periodicals. And I never denied this. Many of my readers have been aware for some time (http://bradleyonfilm.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/thats-entertainment/). Some have not. Any controversy surrounding this stems from a well-documented feud on Mr. Pace's blog between myself and the blogger. Mr. Pace is of course, as stated on that blog, a former blogger on the FANGORIA website.
Mr. Fisher, on the other hand, on numerous of his "Hart Attack" podcasts (http://1201beyond.com/archives/hart-attack/hart-attack-011.mp3) and Facebook rants (https://www.facebook.com/hartdfisher/posts/10201178734966461) has voiced his dissent with me and the company I work for. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but, as I stated, I am only opposed to his manipulation of facts in his Bloody Disgusting interview. If Wikipedia is a source that aims to uphold facts, Mr. Fisher's quote is unfortunately anything but.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.234 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 2 cents on all of this: I completely agree that care needs to be taken in order to be reporting on facts and not potentially libelous gossip. Mr. Alexander is indeed correct to point out the factual error in Hart Fisher's account of events, the article in question was a preview and not a review. Fisher got the story from my blog but lost a bit of the nuance unfortunately. My blog posting on this subject is very well researched and lays out the case very clearly. Mr. Alexander didn't deny using the Cortman name, he hasn't denied it here either in fact he has confirmed it every step of the way. The question my blog posting poses is simply this - is there a problem with the editor of a publication using that publication to promote his own work and not being up front about who is behind the pen? That's the core of the controversy and the conclusions are for individuals to decide. I'm not out to harm Mr. Alexander's career, my agenda is simply to report on facts, mostly uncomfortable ones, about the industry which don't get a lot of attention that I feel are important for readers to understand and judge for themselves. It's important to note that I provided Alexander with an opportunity to respond to my story with his side of things prior to publishing it and he declined to do so, only to attack me on every front possible when the post was published.

Here is how Chris Alexander originally responded to the Cortman story on Facebook. If you want to talk about libelous, read that. For telling the truth about him, Alexander met me with a hateful pack of lies.

I do take issue with Mr. Alexander's claim that Ben Cortman was a widely-known pseudonym of his because I have testimony of many readers who expressed surprise and mistrust after learning of the controversy. His identity may have been known to an inner circle of friends and colleagues perhaps, but not to the readership of Fangoria and Rue Morgue at large. Why bother with the name if everyone knows it's you? Why only deploy the name in situations that are classical conflicts of interest, as he confesses he uses it for?

It should also be noted that Alexander has a history of abusing false online personas to prop up his POV on various websites or to attack his critics. I've documented him doing so several times:

Chris Alexander using fake accounts to attack my blog.

Chris Alexander using fake accounts to defend his own movie on another blog.

My proposal to resolve this is simple - Mr. Alexander is here and seemingly prepared to help resolve the issue. He's confirmed that he did use the Cortman name. His point of contention seems to be that Fisher claims it was a review when it was not. Fair enough, right? So why not use my blog as the source for the story, it presents a factually correct account of what happened that Alexander does not even attempt to deny. Let me provide some links to sources on my blog which feature direct quotes from Alexander:

A comparison between how Rue Morgue handled their coverage of Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh an how Fangoria handled Blood for Irina. Features quotes from Alexander which I think tell the story very well.

More quotes from Alexander about Cortman which, again, are very revealing. Chris appears in the comments extensively with more quotes.

I have overwhelming documentary evidence of what went down. I have quotes directly from the source (Alexander) confirming what happened. If Alexander would like to deny or clarify any of this, he is welcome to and we can hash it out right here.

70.25.97.35 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace[reply]

It appears my ex-blogger is very, very enthusiastic about being recognized on Wikipedia as a legitimate news source, not the one-man attack/revenge blog focused almost exclusively on my work that I have long accused his blog of being. So I leave this with Wikipedia staff to cite what they wish if they think it important. As long as there is proper context about who Mr. Pace is and as long as the facts are there. And again, apologies for the drama clogging up this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.234 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys can you please refrain from attacking each other here. This is an online encyclopedia not a playground at grammar school. Chris, you can put the fact that you write for the Metro News back on the page but make sure you note you write freelance for them since you are not listed as an actual full time writer on their page. Dave, I agree with you in regards of most people not knowing that Chris used Ben Cortman as a pseudonym (it seems he uses quite a few of them) and I do find your blog an interesting read, but unfortunately as Tokyogirl79 stated it can't be used. She happens to be an actual administrator here rather than an editor so she has a better understanding of policies and what have you in regards to the wikipedia. You do make a strong case and hopefully she will pop back in here and will give it another look through before the day is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.26.178 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in this descending into personal attacks, never have. I'm interested in bringing stories to light that are factual and of interest and which I think will contribute meaningfully to the history of the industry. As I stated with Tokyogirl79 I can respect the communities guidelines about sources and accept that my work cannot be included. I only bring it up again because Mr. Alexander disputes the Bloody Disgusting source and since the source of the information from Bloody Disgusting was my blog, an option may have been to use my blog as the source as it is an accurate portrayal of the situation and includes extensive quotes from Mr. Alexander himself on the subject. Even now he doesn't dispute the facts when invited to do so. So if the subject isn't disputing the facts, why is the subject here editing his own page to remove these facts? Because Hart Fisher said "review" instead of "preview"? I get it, it's technically incorrect but doesn't that merit clarification, not excision? If Mr. Alexander wants to avoid reputational harm my advice would be for him to stop engaging in activities which are damaging to his reputation, not seek to whitewash them when they are exposed.

I provided the reference links to my blog not because I'm looking to promote my work here (wiki links do nothing for search rankings and all that anyway, so it would be a wasted effort)but because it is the only place a lot of this has been documented and I wanted to share some of the many direct quotes from the subject which confirm the story and more importantly establish the motive for the act in the subjects own words.

This is a difficult problem to solve, I can respect that. The challenge here is that I'm one of the only people who is actually reporting on any of this stuff and there is a deep reluctance for other outlets to touch this stuff with a ten foot pole. It's just not a practice in the industry for the outlets to report on each other, so what I'm doing is really trying to build that fourth estate which doesn't really exist in a coherent shape right now. Mr. Alexander wants to paint what I do as this tawdry personal attack and I suppose he's entitled to that opinion but my work is not about that and again I'd suggest if Alexander would like to stop seeing his name in articles he finds unsavory he should stop partaking in unsavory activities. As editor in chief of the big granddaddy of the horror magazines his activities and choices are fair game for a free press to examine and criticize. If he wants the attention his promotional activities are courting he needs to appreciate he will have to take the good with the bad, the praise with the critique.

I am pleased to defer to Tokyogirl79 and her judgment on the matter and I encourage her to take a close look at the direct quotes from Alexander in my articles which clearly establish the credibility of the story. Don't take my word for it, you don't need to. Take Alexander's - he does not dispute any of the facts. What he takes issue with is his actions being controversial at all, not the actions themselves. He doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, he's entitled to think that but not everyone will agree. My feeling is that readers should be able to know about these actions and judge their appropriateness accordingly and that's what I am arguing for here. I appreciate everyone's time and consideration.

70.25.97.35 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace[reply]

I concur. Mr.Pace is right. As long as it is made clear that Mr. Pace is someone I once gave a blog to at Fangoria.com, you won't hear any objections from me. I, of course, view his endless, self-published one-man crusade to attack all of my work as personal. But I accept whatever ruling the Wiki team awards. And once more, I apologize to all for this apparently endless disagreement leaking on to Wikipedia. Have a great week, all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.176 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia, we can only summarize what others have reported, subject to our guidelines on reliability. We can't perform our own research or analyze others' research, and we don't include disclaimers in articles. As far as inclusion goes, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air grievances or seek justice. We require verifiability by reliable sources, not truth. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored, and Mr. Alexander should keep in mind his conflict of interest in editing this article. I think that our policy on using primary sources in biographies discourages the inclusion of information sourced only to interviews, but the place to argue that is either here or at the biography noticeboard, not in the article itself. Rapidly undoing the work of other editors is called edit warring, and it can only make a situation worse, no matter how bad it was at the start. If we can find a secondary source that analyzes the controversy, that would be helpful. I was not able to personally locate such an article, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not being here guys- I started vacation and couldn't really get to the computer until now because I was having a stomach bug. Because this is getting some very strong opinions from both sides, I'm going to bring this up at WP:BLPN and get some more opinions in here. I have a strong feeling that since neither NinjaRobotPirate or I could find a second source about the BfI thing in a place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable, they might decide to remove the information or put less of an emphasis on it. I can't say either way which way they will lean, but I do think that we need to get a few more experienced people in on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit]

the detail currently in the biography- "He writes under the pen-names Ben Cortman, Janos Skorzeny and Smitty Allenby" is unverified - I searched the internet and was unable to verify the claim - please verify or remove -

Govindaharihari (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and concur. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also something to take into consideration is that this has been the focus of quite a bit of controversy as seen above. I hate to assume WP:BADFAITH, but there was a person who created a LOT of sockpuppet accounts in order to get this information into the article so I have to say that this is very likely something submitted by this person or by someone affiliated with him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chris Alexander (editor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Alexander (editor). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is out of date and needs more citations and updates.

This page is overdue for an overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.181.171 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make a page for Ali Chappell[edit]

Ali Chappell is a Canadian actor who has not only appeared in many of Alexander's films but also in other popular movies on Amazon Prime and tv episodes on Discovery+. I believe she deserves to have her own page. 2605:8D80:504:8A2C:8888:F80:5F1D:D0B0 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A page should be created. Her IMDB seems fairly large and there are plenty of articles written about her as an award winning filmmaker. Neutralesque (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Alexander_(editor)&oldid=1198380956"