Talk:Alex Reid (fighter)

DoB

I'm guessing from here http://www.mmauniverse.com/news/SS4528 that his birthdate is roughly 16th of July, 1975. Anybody got something more accurate? Mathmo ^Talk 07:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

LGBT?

During a conversation in the CBB house, Baldwin said to Reid "I think you have some homosexuality in you". Reid replied: "Oh yeah, I'm trysexual". Doesn't that make him a self-identified LGBT person? They didn't appear to be joking. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting issue but I suspect we should leave out as there's not much beyond this to suggest that Reid is attracted sexually to other men or has acted on that attraction. I think, however, we're on firmer ground with the T is LGBT. He has been open about his cross-dressing and this is recognised as one of the transgender identities. Cross-dressers are frequently, of course, heterosexual. Can we add a LGBT person from t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2010

Katie Price

The article says "not long afterwards it appeared to remain intact" - they actually got back together after four days. But I don't have a source for it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement, and the Barrett match

I think the section about the Jason Barrett show and the build up to it needs to be changed, it reads a lot like an advert with a lot of the sources seemingly being from UCMMA.com who obviously have a vested interest in pushing that it was a legitimate match. I think it is very clear that suspect editing has taken place, there was no mention of the widely held view that the build up and match itself was staged until I put it in a few moments ago but the rest of the article needs re-writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr1993 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Blantant signs of unethical editing

Again all mention of the widely held belief that the event with Jason Barrett and its build up were fixed have been completely removed. Additionally, the entire article remains worded in an advertisement esque manner and the fact that large sections are apparently taken from a fan club website are clear signs of a complete lack of objectivity in its writing and I highly suspect that the removal of any potentially negative aspects were done in order to fit with the promotional intent of the editor. A lock of some form needs to happen on this article and a member with a history of clearly referenced and objective editing to Mixed Martial Arts articles should be required to complete its re-authoring in order to solve its issues of significant bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr1993 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2012

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alex Reid (fighter) → Alex Reid
• Alex Reid → Alex Reid (disambiguation)

– Come on, he's surely more well-known than all the others (even if only in the UK). Unreal7 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - no benefit from ambiguating the fighter's article WP:RECENT; Also the most notable of the various Alex Reid in G books is Whistler and Van Gogh's friend Alex Reid the Glasgow art dealer. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per IIO -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recentism. However, I would support moving this page to Alexander Reid after the article currently there is moved to Alexander Reid (playwright). I think it's best to move the disambiguation page to the full version of the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "this page" as in the MMA fighter, or the disambiguation page? Your comment seems to indicate the disambiguation page, but this page is the MMA fighter... -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alex Reid (fighter). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flipkart.com/guildford-school-acting-alumni-acting-brenda-blethyn-bill-nighy-alex-reid-michael-ball-celia-imrie-english/p/itme3sxfzt55yzmq
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1043143/?ref_=tt_cl_t4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Alex-Reid-5415
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bamma.net/?q=node%2F5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/155368/Alex-Reid-cage-fight-Jordan-s-late-show-hubby-running-scared
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831021641/http://www.fullmount.co.uk/index.php/mma-news/1-latest-news/1157-alex-reid-retires to http://www.fullmount.co.uk/index.php/mma-news/1-latest-news/1157-alex-reid-retires
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moejackson.com/category/alex-reidernater-reid

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

MMA to the UK.

"He is known as the first man to bring MMA to the UK."

On what basis? No links and also no truth to it what's so ever other than bringing some media exposure due to his celebrity exploits. ClaudioProductions (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

agreed 100&! There are many many outlandish claims in this article with no sources at all? But the one thing the subject is slightly known for has been deleted?Simply-the-truth (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

need sources

Please provide sources for claims, dont just re-insert them. Plus he is known as the ex husband of Katie price, more than enough sources for that, so please dont deleteSimply-the-truth (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

please provide any sources here for any claim in the article so we can get a consensus re what is includedSimply-the-truth (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please can people not just massive reverts. The claims need sources that wiki will accept. Please discuss on here firstSimply-the-truth (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

For example there is not 1 ref for the claimed kickboxing record, and I have looked. Never mind refs for the claim of 51 wins?Simply-the-truth (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit is not looking good... you remove sourced content and left unsourced content like Sex Dungeon in the article. Perphaps actual additions with refs over random removal would work better for you.--Moxy (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there are plenty of sources for the sex dungeon claims, I will add more later today. I have no removed even 1 source that was actually working or allowed by Wiki? I am trying to make this an upto date and accuraye article, but I know unsourced claims arent allowed. He was listed as 3 wins in kickboxing (no active source anywhere) and then it jumped to 51 wins for example? Same with a lot on the articleSimply-the-truth (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Current lead

The article is changing a lot right now, and I only learned about this guy today, but "is mainly known as the 2nd husband" is not what I expect to see in a lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not afraid to say that the article was tarnished by Simply-the-truth. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently it's not just thin air: [1]. It might be reasonable to mention her in the lead. This article is currently a bit heavy on the anal sex, isn´t it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Well of course, a lead should mention in appropriate proportion to the size of the article some prominent bits of info about the subject. Just done in a better way than what I removed. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

firstly, changing my username is not on at all? Please explain? Plus the personal attacks as well. I have simply removed unsourced claims and added sources for others. Do a serach for alex reid, 3.5 million as Jordans 2nd husband, 150K as a fighter. This is what he is known for? Sex dungeon, 3 millions hits. Lots of sources. Please dont just revert to your own npovSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember though that this is a WP:BLP and we should be very careful when using sources: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I have been careful to do that, will try harder still. But there are so many unsourced claims on the page? Re the subject he is best known for, its not for being a fighter as im sure you can see?Simply-the-truth (talk) 12

14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Early Life/Family

It would be nice to have a better source than 8 Out of 10 Cats. I haven´t seen the episode, so I can´t tell if it supports the content or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts. It's a shame that the subject('s management) in question resorted to using legal threats, otherwise they could have cooperated with us. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Found another source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

example, this bit: Reid won his debut at UCMMA 2 - Unbreakable against John Maguire. "He then won the UK1 kickboxing Middleweight title against Jake Bostwick at UCMMA 5 - Heat, and then defended it against Jack Mason at UCMMA 7 - Mayhem.[7] "No sources at all for the 3 wins claimed or titles. The fighters mentioned have no record on their pages or online that I can find that they lost a fight to Reid? UCMMA has no record of him winning these fights or titles either?Simply-the-truth (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks you, but re your earlier warning re pages on living people, I will remove these unsourced claims until the time they can be verifiedSimply-the-truth (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But pon't restore WP:BLP violating text - "perhaps best known for" being somebody's spouse is not the kind of claim Wikipedia should make unless it is well sourced (and probably not even then, not using that kind of phrasing), and the text about whatever sex games he may or may not have enjoyed according to other people is frankly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. There is no consensus that I can see for including that info, so please don't restore it until and unless there is such consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks, but there is no consensus for removing valid sourced clams either that suit your point of view. Simply do a search for the subject and see what he is best know for? And also search for why he divorced twice, both high profile media events that are relevant to the subject. Without these, this page really should be deleted as he is not relevant enough for an entry otherwiseSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Simply do a search" is not good enough, you have to find the sources that can be used per WP:BLP, and then cite them correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I DID, you removed them. You removed sourced material because you think it is not suitable for the page? I will add relevent sources again and reinset. Please do not impose your npov on the articleSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

1st source, all verified and allowed. I will list them all here as I go and then reinsert what you deleted: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/19/alex-reid-chantelle-houghton_n_2159100.htmlSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Guardian as 2nd source, more coming: https://www.theguardian.com/media/lostinshowbiz/2012/nov/01/alex-reid-sex-dungeonSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

3rd souce, more coming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2919070/Alex-Reid-hits-ex-wife-Katie-Price-discusses-past-sexual-antics-Celebrity-Big-Brother.htmlSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

4th source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/18/alex-reid-katie-price-polly-vernon. How many more do I need? These are all proper sources and relevenat to the subject. I will add these sources and info unles someone can explain a reason why they should be added? Not your pint of view, a real reason why these cant be added re Wikis policies?Simply-the-truth (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

unless any reasons can be shown why these sources arent relevant I will update the article with them Simply-the-truth (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has used their own point of view here, and you have to assume good faith from other editors; we all make our arguments based on Wikipedia policy, and I, at least, have no idea who the person (or his wife) is, and no personal opinion about him one way or another. Please do not add this information back to the article until other editors have had a chance to look at the sources; also, the text about these matters that was removed from the article was not phrased in an encyclopedic tone - there was an undue focus on trivial details. I have no time to discuss this at the moment but as I'm sure you know there is no deadline and absolutely no hurry. All I will say is that Daily Mail is not a particularly useful source for a WP:BLP, but I am not going to make any comment about this specific source right now. Please leave the matter for a day or two to give people a chance to weigh in. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(to clarify, I'm not asking for discussion to be suspended until I have a chance to participate - I have a fairly busy weekend - but simply to make sure that more than one or two people are involved in the discussion.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will wait, but if not actual reasons are stated I will add the info. I see that you mentioned the 1 Daily mail ref, but not all the others? Does that not show a NPOV approach by you straight away? To avoid details that YOU think are irrelevant. Thats not your choice im afraid. No offence meant at all in any way, but I was attacked straight away and my edits removed because people didnt like the info stated. I have shown that the sources are relevenat and I did nothing wrong, the edidtors removing the info were in the wrong. Just because people have their opinions on what should be allowed on a page doesnt mean they are correct. At the end of the day I dont know the subject either, but I was drawn by the claim that he introduced MMA to the UK! I then looked into it and wanted to improve the articel and remove all the bogus claims. OMHO this page should be speed deleted anyway?Simply-the-truth (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, the Daily Mail is by all means banned on this website, see WP:DAILYMAIL. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that now, but the fact that both of you ignore the other sources and concentrate just on this one does show a lot im afraid? I will add more allowed sources, there are plenty, and then there can be no disagrementSimply-the-truth (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(←) After several e/c:

Fundamentally, what celeb divorce couples accuse each other of is not interesting for an encyclopedia, that´s what tabloids are for. This can change when courts gets involved. So IMO that she says sexdungeon and he says nuh-huh is uninteresting.

• HuffPo. Can be ok source, has he said/she said sexdungeon stuff. But for WP-purposes, so what?
• Guardian1: This is more interesting, and with the HuffPo it may help some idea that this deserves a short mention. My reading of this is though that Alexis Petridis is quite sceptical that this actually happened.
• WP:DAILYMAIL, someone else might want to read it, I wont. It´s useless for WP:BLP purposes.
• Guardian2: Yeah, I saw this, used it in the "eary life" section. What do you want to use it for? It´s sexdungeon-less(2010).

So based on this, how about "When the couple split in 2012, she accused him on twitter of having turned their house into a "sex dungeon", something he denied.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

in the UK it is actually weel know from what I have seen, and added to it the fact that his 2nd wife said the same things for the divorce, as has the subject himself may mean it gets a bit more mention? But sounds a good start to me! Thanks Grabergs (do you mind if I call you that, keep mis-spelling your full name)Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(←) Grabergs is fine. I note that Reid doesn´t get a lot of text in the articles of his exes either, probably because similar reasons, coverage is mainly in tabloids, and WP really doesn´t like tabloids as sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, here´s another Guardian-on-sexdungeon: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Kickboxing

Simply-the-truth, about this edit:[3]. Listen to the second video, from 5:20. I don´t see the problem? Also pinging CASSIOPEIA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Also, per imdb, still acting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesnt show anywhere that he was champion?Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you listen where I indicated? English is not my first language, but it seems very clear to me. The speaker declares him UK1 middleweight champion [4], he even gets a belt for good measure. And again, why "former" actor? [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

About this edit [6], yeah, that source was crap: [7]. A webshop selling a book of... recycled WP-articles, good catch. Here´s a couple of, at best, borderline acceptable ones on Guildford: [8][9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Twins

According to some sources, there are more children. Per WP:BLP/WP:RSP, are there any non-awful sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't really find one, but edited like so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Active?

As the subject hasn't acted in anything for 14 years, and hasn't been a fighter for at least 8 years, should he be noted as former now? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 12:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead says former fighter, fwiw. IMO, "former actor" is a bit philosophical unless there is a direct statement or something. And imdb says you're wrong:[10] 2021 wasn't that long ago, see also under "Upcoming". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)