Talk:Todd Goldman/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  And hey, the email pretty much is his admission that he nabbed the work, right? --Veled 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Goldman's e-mail

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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.   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)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:OR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: BLP/ "It was reported that"

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Goldman's response via press release: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion regarding ErimM's supposed support comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Todd Goldman goes to court 

message: 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."
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  dave schmorkey kelly paragraph 3 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The MySpace thing and the Porn thing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  List of times Joe Bloggs has been hauled off to the drunk tank.  You got it! --Superluser 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: R(eliable)S(ources) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Time to archive!