Talk:Todd Goldman/Archive 1

Terrible Article

This articles fails to adress anything like his artwork and paintings or even that he's an artist. All it mentions is that he's an entrepaneur (I'm not sure about that), and he makes anti-boy merchandise. --FlareNUKE 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He's not an artist, he's a cancer of the art society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.94.72 (talk • contribs) 12:34, April 7 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's accurate now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.170.29 (talk • contribs) 22:10, April 8 2007 (UTC)

Accurate Article

From reading this thread on somethingawful's forum its fairly obvious that he copied at least one person's work. -- Zeos386sx 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

While the plagiarism claims (my own beliefs not withstanding) deserve an airing, they do not justify any vandalism on this page (which is mostly from IP vandals anyway). I've requested that this page receive semi-protection until it settles down over on the forums. --Pipian 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanie. \u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.85.29 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

How is pointing out that he's a plagiarist/thief vandalism? It's pretty well known at this point that he hasn't produced any original work, and he hasn't paid royalties to the original artists. It's neither opinion nor original research, what am I missing? 74.116.227.229 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people have also been doing a bit more than that, getting into personal insults and the like, like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penquin (talk • contribs) 03:32, April 10 2007 (UTC)

This is accurate, but shouldn't there also be a mention that he sent out an email as a response to the allegations? And that the email had links to images that were arguably pornography? And that the email reached minors? And that's illegal under Federal Law? I think there's more that need to be said. (http://www.fleen.com/archives/2007/04/10/posted-verbatim/) (As a warning: the link inside the email does lead to images that could be considered pornography.) As I said, illegal under federal law, not to mention libel. \u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.119.214 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Subsection for stolen work? (subsections in general)

I'd just like to make a suggstion that you devote a sub-section of the article to possible stolen works and their originals rather than just addressing them in the main body of text. It'd be useful to have a list of all (reasonable) comparisons made between what he's done and other artists. - I for one have noticed a similarity between his fish and Liz Greenfield's 'Blinky' as well as the countless others mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindolly (talk • contribs) 20:43, April 10 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a bit on non-Shmorky plagiarism allegations. Somebody spun that off into a further subsection. Good practice or not? Discuss. --Superluser 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I sub divided the two areas, if you look back in the history it was getting a little convoluted. I think it is easier to read in this fashion. I didn't add the header for the Kelly section, but I agree with that as well. DocGratis 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I did that one. "Other allegations" is going to have people asking "other than what?" I'm not sure if it's good practice or not. Seems like fine practice for now.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Dave Kelly's section in this article will be dramatically reduced in a few months after the drama has subsided, at which point, the distinction may not be useful. I'm just soliciting comments. --Superluser 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, eventually this might be altered, and should be. For now I thought keeping the article organized made sense. Eventually the Kelly portion may be folded back in with the others. DocGratis 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldman's e-mail

Seems pretty accurate. If you send him an email at his business account the auto-reply includes sexually explicit drawings of naked male infants. Go ahead and give it a shot, it's todd@davidandgoliathtees.com. 74.116.227.229 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Did it include so explicitly? In any case, since the reply TEXT (i.e. 'slander') is 'verifiable', there's no reason to not include that info with citation. That being said, pointing out the plagiarism/thieving explicitly is probably POV until proven in court? Not exactly sure where to sit on that. After all, even if it's damning, it's still an accusation and not explicitly proven by a third-party (as his e-mail may not be considered the most reliable source confirming the plagiarism.) I just want to err on the side of caution (see the above warning to keep 'slander' off this article since it's a biography. Until it's proven in a court of law, the plagiarism is an accusation, not 'proof', regrettably, regardless of how blatant it is. --Pipian 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's easily proven with the overlays that the two works are verifiably similar, and the 'Purple Pussy' strip in question has been online and disseminated. As for the email referring to Dave Kelly as an infantalist, the test can probably be included on this site minus the links. If nothing else, there's always Encyclopedia Dramatica.128.61.125.2 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And hey, the email pretty much is his admission that he nabbed the work, right? --Veled 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish. It could just as easily be considered biting sarcasm and black humor. English is annoying like that. Until otherwise 'confirmed' explicitly in some sort of official non-sarcastic e-mail, I'm not entirely sure it can be considered anything other than POV. Here's hoping we get some definitive proof other than the e-mail of questionable content (ref. his previous statements as to why the wording like this probably can't be construed as actual confirmation of the plagiarism). --Pipian 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the thread that it was posted in, theres some question of whether it was him or not. Til it can be verified, it does not belong in this article lest it be slander. --Lendorien 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping it is, since it's pretty damning information that would definitely deserve to be in the article (if not the uncorroborated 'minors' claim)... --Pipian 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:OR

Does this article violate WP:BLP and/or WP:OR? The source is the alleged plagiarism victim's post/hate campaign on an internet forum, hardly objective, do we need a story by a newspaper, an acknowledgment by Goldman or a lawsuit as reliable sources (neither of which has happened as far as I know, not counting Goldman's immature email)? I'm a bit torn between sides, too since I've been following this issue since I first saw the post on Something Awful and I'm personally convinced Kelly is right, it's just that I feel that policies need to be followed too, I'm just not exactly sure how to fix it without upsetting SA and half the internet... -Obli (Talk)^? 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've tried to tone down the language, pulled the unverified e-mail information (which from reading the thread it's posted in seems to me to be dubious and possibly a hoax as well as material that if it's wrong could be lawsuit fodder). There's a fine line here and it's important that wikipedia remains objective. Still, I think that the facts can and do speak for themselves so far as the accusations of plagiarisms goes. I would like to see us expand the biographical information of Goldman and try to add some more details of his work, what he's been associated with, etc to try and balance out what currently is most a bashing article (deserved perhaps, but we still need to be objective here) --Lendorien 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• More importantly, the fact that an accusation of plagiarism was made is an outright fact, and not OR IMHO. The accusation is history and now comparatively wide-spread, and even should it not pan out (and I suspect the core claim will, thus rendering this speculation moot), Wikipedia can always play NPOV with any official counterclaims that can be substantiated to Goldman and the knowledge that the accusation was made (and refuted, should that happen) are facts that don't depend on OR. The two images that include the Purple Pussy image uploaded (particularly the overlay) however, might be a different story (though the original Goldman work not so much)... I definitely favor at the very least leaving the fact that an accusation was made (and what it was made over) in, as that's an unambiguous fact. The other things like Eve L., the nekos, etc... Probably shouldn't be directly mentioned as that *IS* OR, and is uncorroborated by any claims made by their authors. (Though again, the fact that other similarities were 'supposedly' found and/or other works by Goldman were called into question by some might still be notable, and on just this side of OR) --Pipian 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying you feel the images should be pulled? As for as the other accusations, we could tone it back to something like, "Following the David Kelly's accusation of plagiarisms, others in the webcomic community have made similar accusations of plagiarism of other artists." --Lendorien 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why tone it back? [|Todd's 'old' Myspace Page] is already doing a lot more damage to Todd than any wiki page can. I really feel this 'exclusion' of OR just because it's not going through MSNBC or something similar (yet) is doing a real public disservice. --Veled 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is very clear on what sources are not permitted in articles about living persons: "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." In addition, primary sources (i.e. statements by artists who have allegedly been plagiarized) are deprecated in WP:ATT. Moreover, WP:BLP is also clear that material that is reliant on such sources should be aggressively removed. I would say that, with the possible exception of a simple statement that accusations of plagiarism have been made, that entire section has to go (although I would not be inclined to keep any of part of it, at least in the short term).--CIreland 03:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• while you make a good point about not using blogs as sources, the paintings themselves, which are obviously plagiarized, are public in his art galleries. Just because a newspaper or scientific journal hasn't picked up on this yet doesn't mean it's not a fact. It's obvious. -Rebent 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The existence of the accusation is an irrefutable fact, and it's spread to dozens of news websites. It was originally posted on the forum by Dave Kelly himself, so we're going straight to the source by sourcing from the forum thread, but that's hardly the only source for the allegation. [1] comes up on google news, Lying in the gutters has picked it up, and they're far more of a reliable source than your average blog, etc. We need to phrase it carefully to avoid saying the accusation is true, but the accusation is clearly worthy of inclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Claimed to show similarity?

The use of the word claimed seems a bit weasel-wordy. Then again, I am heavily POV on this subject. Ivysaur 11:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to use "claimed" b/c there hasn't been proof in a court of law, nor has Goldman admitted it. Therefore at this point in time it is a claim. If we say that it is a "fact", then we are doing original research, making up our own minds, inserting a POV, etc. We *can* say that "so-and-so says Goldman plagiarized" - and we did. But we can't say it as a fact until it is proven as such by someone else. --zandperl 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. :) Thank you. Ivysaur 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More comparasions avaliable @ http://www.miketyndall.com/todd_goldman/ --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.90.20 (talk • contribs) 02:55 April 12 2007 (UTC)

This pretense of neutrality is hilarious. The plagiarism is a claim, the similarity is a fact. Both images show essentially the same scene with different details. 82.135.73.116 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP/ "It was reported that"

The BLP concern here would be whether Shmorky posted it or not -- if he didn't post it, and the report was possibly false, then we'd have to hedge our language with "it was reported that." But there's no doubt that the accusation was made, and the multiple secondary sources all say the same thing, shmorky made the accusation. So the accusation is not in doubt here, and it's not changing anything BLP wise to say "it was reported that," because the only BLP issue is whether it's relevant to include the accusation in this article. Obviously there's a consensus that it's relevant, so why not phrase it in the most clearly accurate manner? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is using the forum as a source, we're not. We're using the other secondary sources, which report that the accusation was made by shmorky on the forum. We're repeating what they say and citing them with inline references. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I did this same sort of thing to another article, because the report is not disputed. We're not talking aluminum tubes here, the report is not the story. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issue is not whether Shmorky posted it or not - the BLP issue is that because anyone can post anything they want on a blog or a forum without much concern for libel, fairness or accuracy, we ignore them as sources entirely for articles about living people. We do not blindly repeat what they say, especially if the material is negative or contentious. "Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." So what we're doing is hedging ourselves. We're a tertiary source, which means that we publish only what other reliable secondary sources say about an issue. Thus, we report that $RELIABLESOURCE says that $UNRELIABLESOURCE says $SOMETHING about $SOMEONE. This is not an article about railed vehicles. This is a biographical article about a living person, and we must uphold the strictest standards in sourcing. That is policy, but more importantly it's what's morally and ethically right. FCYTravis 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What happens when half a dozen reliable sources all say the same thing though? The issue I have with saying "juxtapoz reported" is that their reporting is really trivial in the whole matter, and they just happen to be one of the several reliable sources that we have available. If George W. Bush calls Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, we don't just say some paper reported it, we say it as fact that he said it and cite the (zomg self published) press release on his website, as well as some reliable secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any, any dispute or doubt over whether what Juxtapoz reported is in fact true? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because the White House Press Office is not Something Awful. (Well, the White House Press Office is something awful, but it's not a Web forum.) I actually don't see a rash of other reliable sources... a Google News search comes up with... well, one, really. Source it to Comics2Film if you want. That'd work too. I don't understand at all your resistance to using reliable sources. If someone really wanted to be a jerk about it, they could delete the entire thing, almost, because it's all blog-and-forum sourced, none of which meets our reliable sourcing criteria. I'm not going to go that far, but someone could if they wanted to. You must understand that biographies are held to ruthlessly strict standards. FCYTravis 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not resistant to using them at all. I'm resistant to using phrasing that treats reliable sources as unreliable when there's no doubt about the truth of what they said. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't get to decide what is and is not the truth, Night Gyr. We just report what other reliable sources say. Juxtapoz said X, so we say "Juxtapoz said X." We don't know what the truth is. We haven't seen any independent, neutral reporting on this issue - just a blogstorm. Let's stick to the facts. FCYTravis 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the truth is that the accusation has been made. and that it has been made is undisputed truth. Not that the accusation is true, but that it has been made. All the sources say the same thing. Juxtapoz said X, and so does everyone else, so why do we need to single them out? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But, as others have pointed out, apparently there are strict standards for biographical articles. Therefore, the entirety of the section is arguably in question (at least until the Las Vegas Sun article comes out). --Pipian 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldman's response via press release:

From Goldman's publicist FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

POST POP-ARTIST, TODD GOLDMAN, CONTROVERSAL PAINTING

CLEARWATER, FL, April 11, 2007- Popular post pop-artist, Todd Goldman who has made a career of making fun of the world with his sarcastic commentary and cartoon icons, has mistakenly used the design of an another artist in two of his recent paintings. Todd\u2019s painting, \u201cDear God, Please Make Everyone Die\u201d, was inspired from a drawing he received unbeknownst to him belonging to an underground web comic artist David \u201cShmorky\u201d Kelly.

In addition to painting, Todd designs t-shirts for his clothing company, David & Goliath. Todd and his design team create and receive thousands of design ideas every month. It\u2019s no secret that Goldman creates a lot of his painting ideas from his t-shirt designs. Goldman says \u201cI made a judgment error and didn\u2019t research the background of this particular submission. \u201cMy intention was not to copy Mr. Kelly. I have never seen his work before and would never intentionally knock-off someone else\u2019s idea.\u201d

Goldman has issued a formal apology to Mr. Kelly and has stated that he will not be using his design again in the future. As a gesture of good faith, Goldman has pledged not profit from his mistake. He will instead donate his proceeds from the painting directly to Mr. Kelly or his charity of choice.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2416213

(didn't realize I wasn't logged in.) (Also - my personal commentary on the press release, since this is discussion - How do you accidentally trace someone else's drawing and sign your name on it?) --DreamTheEndless 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• We can't use that yet, because it was only posted on the forum, and from some random account that while shmorky is vouching for it, has no official stamp on the company's website or elsewhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• To some extent it has been confirmed. The Las Vegas Sun article came out. I've updated things to use its information.--Lendorien 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming this press release is accurate, does this mean that Goldman thought he was passing off the work of one of his employees as his own, rather than passing off the work of a third party as his own? --James 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding ErimM's supposed support comment

The end of the article lists EricM as supporting Todd. But EricM says "If the context of this was part of "Furry Infantilism Series #6" in the "Things I Found on the Internets" show, then OK, sure. But if that e-mail's bullshit, then, OK, he's just another Bootleg T-shirt artist."

At most this suggests that fair use allowances might apply, if it was truely intended as a rework, or series of works based off of random google image searches, etc... I think it support might be over stateing it. --DocGratis 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Todd Goldman goes to court

I just added a couple examples of Todd Goldman's company showing up in court records about trademark infringement. Seems others allege that Goldman has stolen/infringed upon their trademarks.

I would like very much to find out what the Just Born case is about, if anyone has access to Pacer. --Superluser 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

dave schmorkey kelly paragraph 3

this is a big list of people who "criticize" Todd Goldman, but most of the comments aren't really that notable. Summing them up, it's mostly "Todd Gold man sucks, look what people are saying about him here[2]."

This isn't really notable at all, unless we are trying to show that Schmorkie's homies are upset with Goldman. They should all be removed except for ones that show original ideas or different viewpoints. Instead, they should be replaced with other accusations of plagiarism by the original artist. -Rebent 19:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, other people claiming to be plagarized is (at least arguably) notable, but people piling on is not particularly notable. Titanium Dragon 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say critiques from notable web comics, such as the one currently there (PA, VE, OO, S*P, etc.) should be noted. Critiques from random Internet folk shouldn't be listed. GarryKosmos 10:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The MySpace thing and the Porn thing

I'm not sure that we should be having these as part of the article, since it's all hearsay. It's libellous if false, defamatory and incendiary if true, and we don't have any neutral reports to confirm this.

Given the revert wars that I've seen going on, I'm loath to take this out without requesting some sort of comment, but I strongly recommend taking it out.--Superluser 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else (namely FYCTravis) agreed, and took out the text in contention. Anybody got a problem with that? I don't. --Superluser 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Until a news source that can run verify things runs with it, it shouldn't be in. GarryKosmos 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand removing the blog material, but there were WP:rs cited too. Are we going to be allowed to rebuild it with wp:rs ? DocGratis 00:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and notability of topic

This article cites personal blogs, and seems to contain a large element of defamation. As the subject is a resident of Florida, the Foundation is particularly culpable and special care should be taken to remove any material that is not immediately verifiable.

Most of the criticism comes from forums and blogs, which are generally not relevant. This article should be stubbed until materials can be acquired from reliable news sources. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable news sources are cited: the Las Vegas Sun, and Juxtapoz, as well as numerous notable personalities. Every accusation is sourced, and we do not make any defamatory statements ourselves (we don't call him a plagiarizer), we just say the accusations exist, which is sourced, undisputed fact. Goldman himself has taken note of and responded to the accusations, as indicated by the las vegas sun story. If there is anything in the section not supported by its sources, take that out, but deletion of sourced, relevant material is considered vandalism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at my user page before you consider my edits vandalism. While my edits under this username do not constitute an official endorsement by the Wikimedia Foundation, many of my actions, especially with regard to biographies of living people, are done with the foundation in mind. There is, in fact (now that Anthere has mentioned something in her edit summary) external correspondence regarding this article. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your user page, you've got some official roles, I'm an administrator myself. Being an administrator or anything else doesn't exempt people from making mistakes. If it's an office action, that's different and needs to be labeled as such. I called it like I saw it and what I saw was deletion of sourced material. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at a user page before you call something like you see something. You should always ask other established users why they did something before you decide to simply revert numerous edits. I don't remember any notes from you about this on my talk page. Thanks for considering this in the future. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you, I did look at your user page. That still didn't tell me that your action was in any way official, and neither have you. As for talking about it, why should I make notes about an article on your talk page instead of the article's, when there's active discussion and consensus about what belongs in it here? I left a comment here to reply to yours. Finally, I wouldn't classify reverting deletion of sourced material in the same way as reversion of productive additions or modifications to the article as the phrase 'numerous edits' implies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, official action has been taken now. It'd really simplify things if when doing actions under official auspices, you'd say so right away instead of expect people to know. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I questioned whether you looked at my userpage because you made this statement, "but deletion of sourced, relevant material is considered vandalism." Common sense would dictate that I would not be engaging in vandalism, and I would know what vandalism is. Anyway, if you felt lambasted, please forgive me. I made the modifications under user Bastique so as not to draw attention to the issue. The legal matter may or may not have credibility and I did not want to create the perception of a Wikimedia stamp of approval or create a precedent of some sort. I'm sure a lot of this material can be put back up. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I said it specifically because I figured you'd know better. It's just that without the stamp of cause behind it, it looks like vandalism of the sort that's been coming at this article from overzealous defenders previously. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. I understand the issue with avoid anything that is defamation. But is the currently blanked article to be the only sanctioned information? Is it just like this to allow a cool down and then an attempt to rebuild while avoiding defamation? DocGratis 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hahaha cary bass take a chill pill who shoved a stick up your ISP? -Rebent 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs or personal webpages with personal "opinions" should not be used as references. It's like posting gossip or info based on "hearsay". I highly doubt wikipedia will continue to show information taken from angry bloggers, it would make no sense. I for one, would love to see some factual information from reliable news sources... until then, it's all especulation, wiki should not place their "stamp of aproval" this type of news source.

Blogs are typically inappropriate secondary resources, but make acceptable primary resources. In other words, people talking about themselves on their own blogs is as credible and verifiable as any printed interview. \u2013Gunslinger47 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but because anyone with a blog can say anything, we do not source potentially-libelous accusations to them. If the allegation is factually false and defamatory, who is the person going to sue, the person with a tiny blog who said it, or the "encyclopedia" (which is one of the top-10 Internet sites in the world) which reprinted the libel verbatim without fact-checking it? Yeah, that's right, they're going to sue us. We have a responsibility in living persons cases which trumps all else. I can't say I'm surprised by this. The incident certainly deserves some mention, but it shouldn't take up two-thirds (or even most) of this man's biography. FCYTravis 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, obviously. I was speaking without prejudice. I.e. "Scott Kurtz' dog recently suffered a seizure."<ref>[http://hisblog/somedate]</ref> \u2013Gunslinger47 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Question re: what FCYTravis just said: Has there ever been an incident where a Wikipedia editor was sued or forced with legal action? I'm totally curious about this so please leave a comment on my talk page. Thanks :)-Rebent 01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, we weren't using the blogs to say anything about anyone except their owners (that their owner made an accusation). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I support rebuilding the article. Using the Las Vegas sun, and the Juxtapoz articles. Along with the orginal accusation by Kelly. Which the Las Vegas sun reports that Goldman responded to. DocGratis 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. Wikipedia is liable even if the Sun and Juxtapoz are ultimately liable no? I think this article cannot be edited unless it goes to court and is proven? I think it's a moot point and the article stays a stub for the forseeable future. --Pipian 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the Juxtapoz link no longer serves as a suitable source as the article NO LONGER EXISTS (for the same reason). The only source is the Sun, and that is likely in question as well. Again, I think we can't edit this article for the forseeable future, even with these 'print' sources. --Pipian 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about going to court? The Sun article says that Goldman is giving the proceeds from the sale of all copies of the painting to Kelly and that he apologizes to Kelly. DocGratis 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If it does not go to court, then there's no explicit ruling that will exist as to what does and does not consist of libel on the issue (hence why even the original claims agains Goldman prior to the Shmorky debacle are gone). Thus, there is no guideline whatsoever for any 'negative' text to be posted about him, and hence, any claims whatsoever (even of the Shmorky 'resolution') are in question at this time. --Pipian 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that negative information on a living person cannot be added to an article unless a court rules on its legal status? --Maxamegalon2000 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are claims that libellious information has been posted to an article, then this is (IMHO) true about any/every claim posted on the article as of the time that such claims of libel were made. --Pipian 22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How is the Sun article "likely in question as well"? Also, note that a courtesy link being broken doesn't invalidate a citation. If the claims regarding the article's contents are true and were verified by other editors at the time when the link was still up, then it should still be okay for the article. \u2013Gunslinger47 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because we do not know if the LV Sun has gotten a 'cease and desist' letter as well, it may very well be libel to even use that as a source in even supporting the Shmorky claim. Furthermore, there is no record of Juxtapoz even HAVING such an article, most likely because they received a cease and desist letter as well. Just because it was verified then does not mean it is not libellious material. Hence, it cannot be used as a source. Basically, what it boils down to is that this article is under legal scrutiny, so any discussion about what is 'valid' and what is 'not' as a source is completely and utterly speculative, regardless of its source (or, that rules/guidelines about what makes and does not make a valid source for a Wikipedia article no longer hold as any and every source is inherently questionable until it is decided what PREVIOUS sources are and are not such.) --Pipian 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just say that Wikipedia at this point must operate on a 'guilty until proven innocent' principle on any and all claims submitted until the end of legal wranglings with Goldman (which includes such claims that were made prior to the beginning of this rigamorole). --Pipian 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: Take a look at the other WP:OFFICE marked pages. Many of them have not been permitted to change for upwards of 5 months because of (presumably) legal issues. Quit while you're ahead and leave the article as it is, as even admins dislike editing WP:OFFICE articles. Maybe in a few months the issue will be resolved and you can add strictly factual information that likely does not surround the Shmorky debacle (as that will remain contentious and libel-worthy). --Pipian 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are implying that including information on claims made against Goldman is effectively the same as making the claims, and that including information on potentially libelous statements is effectively the same as making them. It is my understanding that if we consider the Las Vegas Sun to be a reputable source, and the Las Vegas Sun reports on a story, we are not obligated to investigate the truth of the story; the information is verifiable by its inclusion in the article, and we can cite the article. --Maxamegalon2000 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin or from the office, but that's the impression I get from the seriousness of the letters going out. It's better to be prudently neutral in this case than 'boldly' neutral. Is there anyone out there who can vouch for relying on the Sun as a reliable source not subject to libel action in this case? I doubt there is, and I'm not terribly certain there's much we can do. --Pipian 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Well put pipian, -Rebent 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no claims even remotely questionable in [the Sun article] that I can see. I do find their referencing of this Wikipedia article highly disturbing, however. The overlay came from and April 10th update by Dave Kelly himself.[3] \u2013Gunslinger47 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Artists and bloggers say Goldman has taken characters from other cartoons." That's what we've said, albeit in more detail. If we can get in trouble for that, so can the Sun. This thus casts doubts on the entire article. Secondly, the circular citation on Wikipedia doesn't make it any more desirable as a reference, and could lead to concerns about the saved HISTORY of the article being libellious, bringing more trouble to Wikipedia than it's worth. --Pipian 22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution: Don't mention what other "artists and bloggers" might be saying. Any of their claims are insignificant compared to Kelly's which Goldman has responded to. \u2013Gunslinger47 22:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What Cary Bass said was "This article cites personal blogs, and seems to contain a large element of defamation." I agree. The article needs to be written without evidence from personal blogs. Except perhaps with the exclusion of the Kelly accusation, all that we should cite from that is that Kelly accuse him. The Sun article is factual and can be cited. The Juxtapose article is now part of the registared users access, but I imagine that if the mag sells print editions it would be there (or if you had paid access you could read it). No one has said that Wiki had received a cease and desist letter. DocGratis 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Juxtapoz maybe did not get a cease and desist letter, but there is absolutely NO evidence that the article exists (doing a search on their website for the article name, Goldman's name, or Dave Kelly turns up absolutely NO articles this month suggesting that the debate ever happened. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist (I believe?). The Sun article is subject to potential libel claims as well, however, and I would rather suggest that we err on the side of caution until the legitimacy of the Sun article is verified by the Office. Wiki very likely did receive a cease and desist letter, as it's justification for WP:OFFICE is "Temporary protect until legal issues can be resolved." (which lasts until at LEAST the 23rd) --Pipian 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No argument, DocGratis. The section was far too long before. There should be only one or two sentences summarizing the situation then Goldman's response to it. \u2013Gunslinger47 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The juxtapoz article is still available in the google cache at [4] I recommend saving a copy before it vanishes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I'll save it; we can cite it as an offline source without problem. GarryKosmos 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can, but I don't think we can as yet. --Pipian 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good job. Here is a better version of the link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:snA6hywEi3wJ:www.juxtapoz.com\u2026

\u2013Gunslinger47 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like some people are saying the mere accusation of libel is enough to make what was a reliable secondary source into one that isn't reliable. I have to disagree with that. Until it's proven in court that the Las Vegas Sun or any other news agency committed libel (and I have severe doubts it will be proven so), we should treat the article as we would any normal newspaper article. After all, we can't say in the Goldman article that he was found guilty of plagiarism because he wasn't; we can only say he was accused of it and confessed to doing so. (His press release can be cited with caveats, since it came from him and therefore can't be libel.)

I agree that blogs and such should not be referred to except to say they exist (i.e. you can cite them to say that people reacted angrily on it, but you can't cite them when describing what happened). One thing that would benefit the article is for some of the reliable comic news sources, like Broken Frontier, to run with articles covering both the plagiarism and Goldman's SLAPP manuvers against Fleen and others. Wikipedia can then cite these as a basis for the article rather than the primary sources of the forum posts and such. Has anyone tried contacting said news agencies to have them cover this? GarryKosmos 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While WP:OFFICE supports the idea of moving 'hardcore' into rebuilding a better and 'sourced' article, what is concerning is that the pre-takedown article was neutrally worded and well-sourced, with no explicit unsourced attacks on Goldman (every 'negative' claim was sourced and indirectly worded to directly implicate the person truly at fault for our referencing them). The fact that Juxtapoz's article, which contained nothing *BUT* the Shmorky infringement issue when discussing Goldman (though linking to sites that discussed far more) also likely suffered a takedown notice implies that Goldman is very likely SLAPP-happy, and therefore, I think it is far more important to be as prudent as possible WITH THIS ARTICLE, and not consider adding *ANY* negative content until it is worked out through the Office, due to Wikipedia's potential culpability and legal responsibilities in the state of Florida --Pipian 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP: R(eliable)S(ources)

So, before we start the article back up (on the 23rd at the soonest), we should try to have a brief discussion on Wp:rs, no?

I'm the guy who added the links to the case argued before the US Patent and Trademark Office, and hosted at USPTO.gov, and the links at Justia (look it up in the history--it was there the last time I edited it), so a lot of this is bitterness that that stuff had to get taken down during this scrutiny.

After the scrutiny, I'm not sure if these links will be notable, but I'm fairly certain that the USPTO one is reliable, and the Justia one is probably good, too.

Blogs and forums probably aren't too reliable, but if the thing is ongoing, it might make sense to link to them with proper caveats that they are biased. Opinions? --Superluser 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the government sources are certainly reliable, but they don't assert notability. I think the Las Vegas Sun article and the Juxtapos article both are reliable and assert notability. For information on the accusation itself, the original Something Awful post can probably be used only to state the claim being made. Because the Las Vegas Sun article discusses the large number of accusations from other artists, I think we can use the blogs of these artists as primary sources as well. I would imagine that the image comparing the two cartoons probably qualifies as fair use. Also, I was looking around on Lexis-Nexis the other day, and there's a lot of stuff about the original controversy regarding the "Boys are stupid; throw rocks at them" line that we can use. --Maxamegalon2000 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. An article can cite blogs and such to state that their contents exist, but cannot use them as a source for narrative description of the event. Likewise, we can cite the post on the SA forum to state that "Kelly's accusation was posted on the SA forum." Unfortunately, since this is a living person bio, you can't get away with some caveats, such as saying "Some accuse Goldman of ___" and linking to a blog. So until an RS documents the MySpace Hacking Goldman's employees performed or the SLAPPs that Goldman has sent out to silence his critics, we can't include it just yet. GarryKosmos 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I even suggested that the Myspace thing and the Porn thing might not even be appropriate even with RS. I'm uncomfortable with adding highly incendiary criminal accusations that have not been evaluated by a judge or prosecutor. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't add them, just that anything that approaches Godwin's Law is probably something that I'll suggest on a talk page before adding.--Superluser 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a proquest search and he turns up in trade magazines like brandweek, too. There are plenty of sources for a solid article, including his criticisms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proquest? Lexis-Nexis? you guys are my new bestest friends. I don't have any real access to legal sources, so most of what I'm finding is just by chance. By the way, as I've mentioned before, if anyone can get some information on what the Just Born v. David and Goliath case is all about, I'd like to know. It would just take access to Pacer, which I don't have.

Also, Maxamegalon2000, I'm not suggesting that the controversy is non-notable, just that I don't know if we need to (for example) list every time Joe Bloggs gets hauled off to the drunk tank. I obviously thought that it was worth mentioning, since I added it, but now that the article is under scrutiny, it might be worth coming to some sort of consensus before the article is reopened.--Superluser 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree. Government records are also primary sources, which are somewhat frowned upon. Once an incident is picked up by secondary sources, though, primary sources are often a good way to get details. The theory is that if secondary sources don't mention an incident, it's not worth mentioning. --Maxamegalon2000 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of the Just Born case, but I would imagine that most cases they bring are for items that use the peeps, as it is their most distinctive product. But really have no knowledge of any cases involving Goldman. (man the more I say that the more it sounds like I do, but I really don't and in fact I am not saying anything about Goldman. Seriously.) DocGratis 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

They also make Mike & Ike, which has a pretty iconic logo.--Superluser 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

List of times Joe Bloggs has been hauled off to the drunk tank - I see a great need. 67.158.77.171 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of times Joe Bloggs has been hauled off to the drunk tank. You got it! --Superluser 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to archive!

Wikipedia's automated scripts say, "This page is 82 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage." They're right. 17 De-protecting Todd Goldman would seem an appropriate place to make the split. Any topic thread that hasn't seen activity since 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC) will be archived in a week. I will also archive this topic, assuming that there aren't any replies. If you've been sitting on any comments, now is the time to make them. superluser_tc 2007 July 10, 05:37 (UTC)