Talk:Chris Stokes (filmmaker)

Reliable sources
I'm using the same sources for the molestation allegations that are featured in the Raz B article. Treybien 14:47 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sbaine, 25 March 2011
I would like to make substantive changes to the page is possible. The information under section two is libel and a complete defamation of the character of the article's subject. I would either like to remove the information or at least make adjustments that reflect the false nature of the information provided. Something should be done immediately though because it is unfair and unjust to provide information that is false and detrimental to the nature of the business that the subject is in and how they provide for their family. Thanks.

Sbaine (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: there's nothing libelous in the section, it merely states that Raz B accused Stokes and provides references. Please don't confuse Raz B's possibly libelous allegations with Wikipedia reporting that those allegations exist. — Bility (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please, change the to , it appears at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request
There are at least three notable Chris Stokes, and I would like to move the current article to Chris Stokes (producer). This would allow "Chris Stokes" to be a disambiguation page for: —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Chris Stokes (bobsledder) – Olympian from Jamaica
 * Chris Stokes (footballer) – plays for the Forest Green Rovers
 * Chris Stokes (producer) – current article
 * Could you please let this proposal stand for a few days to allow other editors to comment. If there is consensus, feel free to reactivate the request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Would like to re-add RAZ-B's allegations of sexual misconduct
Based on the fact that notable allegations are often added to biographical wiki pages and I think the public has a right know that the allegations were made. 2601:0:8E80:306:510A:853F:633C:78BD (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Coda Kiara2601:0:8E80:306:510A:853F:633C:78BD (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chris Stokes (director). 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:
 * Added tag to http://dennicasplace.com/fashion_victim_Christopher_Stokes.php.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714210620/http://www.jadoremag.com/take-cover/kim-kardashian to http://www.jadoremag.com/take-cover/kim-kardashian
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703064555/http://brianandbarrettpictures.com:80/ to http://brianandbarrettpictures.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable allegations
There is a video that has Chris stokes on the phone admitting to the alleged sexual abuse to his actual accuser and victim. This has been a documented case. Multiple reputable have commented on this case, both positive and negative. The public should have knowledge of the allegations, he has not been tried in the court of law. Notable allegations are commonly included in a person's bio and it’s really is unconscionable that every edit that has a mere mention, no matter how diplomatic, is erased. That information needs to public 2601:145:502:6F40:89E4:78D1:D298:B263 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * legal filings have been long going with this and accusations have been dropped however as you can see the internet allows things to live forever. Does not make sense for names to be tainted because of false allegations that are outdated. JordanSummers87 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked edit option?
Why is it protected and not able to fix fraudulent info JordanSummers87 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The reason for protection given by the administrator who protected the article is: "Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP". If you'd like to propose changes to the page, please submit an edit request. Tollens (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023
change and delete below and add instead

change to below instead

==Footage Films Bloomberg & Variety articles==

Footage films has seen massive success with their partnership with Tubi. Tubi is a Fox owned streaming platform that has seen a huge jump in popularity as of late. Being able to hold it's own against Netflix and Hulu, Lachlan Murdoch (CEO of Fox) turned down a $2 billion dollar offer for the purchase of Tubi Footage films has played a pivotal role in Tubi's evaluation with The Stepmother being Tubi's most streamed and popular movie. With Tubi ordering The Step Mother 2, released last year and now The Step Mother 3 slated for spring of 2023 release, Footage films is paving it's way as a power player in the film industry. Footage Films is spearheaded by legendary Chris Stokes,Marques Houston and Juanita Stokes.

Earlier this year Tubi announced an exclusive 4 movie deal with Tubi. On the heal of the announcement footage has had 6 consecutive #1 streamed movies on Tubi With more announcements to come this year and into 2024 it is with confidence that footage films will continue to have a push for being one of the most sought-after independent film production companies. Slowsunday (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ Unfortunately the proposed text is too promotional to be included in a Wikipedia article. Superlatives like legendary and sentences like it is with confidence that footage films will continue to have a push for being one of the most sought-after independent film production companies are great for press releases but not for an encyclopedia page. Further, claims like The Stepmother being Tubi's most streamed and popular movie are unsourced, and largely irrelevant to this specific article. We do have an article on Tubi already: perhaps consider if this text - once sourced and made less promotional - might be better placed there instead. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Should recanted allegations be removed?
I recently updated the page including as much detail as possible about the sexual assault allegations. I included citations to the many places where the original accuser recanted their statements and also apologized for any emotional or financial damage it has caused. Weirdly, I noticed there has never been any mention in this article of the accuser recanting the allegations, despite the retraction/apology happening in 2007, right after the initial accusation.

There's no evidence, police reports, and it only has steam because of tabloid journalism. In this interview from 2019 for example, you can see the interviewer bringing this topic up again and again despite the accuser/interviewee saying they don't want to talk about it. When the interviewer won't let go, he again recants and apologizes to the accused. https://www.vladtv.com/article/268821/raz-b-on-chris-stokes-flashback

Inclusion on this wiki gives this topic more credence than it deserves, and adds an appearance of newsworthiness and academic merit that it does not deserve based on any of the citations. In fact, most of the citations on this topic are from Questionable Sources or Biased or opinionated sources. Reviewing Wikipedia guide on Reliable Sources:

''The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.'' ''The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.''

This entire topic is allegations and gossip, which were immediately retracted by the accuser again and again, and appears only to stay in the news cycle every few years because gossip columns want clickbait. Inclusion on this wikipedia page only reinforces this cycle.

Should this section be removed? Lemurtron (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "In fact, most of the citations on this topic are from Questionable Sources or Biased or opinionated sources."
 * I disagree. The entire section is sourced from Yahoo! News, MTV News, Vibe magazine, and Essence magazine. These are reliable sources per WP:RS, with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. By contrast, all but one of the citations you added are from WP:USERGENERATED gossip blogs which do not, and have been removed. The MTV News citation mentioning Omarion's defense of Stokes, however, is a good addition to this section.


 * I do also wonder about any personal or professional connection you might have with Stokes, as every edit you have ever made has been related to him or his businesses. Per WP:CONFLICT: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Rift (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. If I have any additional suggestions for this article, I'll list them here in the talk instead. Lemurtron (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)