Talk:Bored Ape: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:24, 22 September 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bored Ape article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptocurrency C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Bored Ape, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Accusations of racist tones and dog whistles in the Bored Ape Yacht Club

Would it be worthwhile to document these sorts of criticisms? Specifically the arguments outlined on this article/website:

https://gordongoner.com/

At this point in time it is the only source where I have seen these accusations, so perhaps more sources would be needed prior to writing about these criticisms in the article. Aball85 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a reliable source, but there is quite a bit of criticism from reliable sources that might be able to be added. wizzito | say hello! 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations are also mentioned in this article which is already cited on the page. https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/05/19/ryder-ripps-bored-apes-and-owning-an-nft/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:BA:C200:59EF:7558:5E86:63C0 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are also not using coindesk (or other cryptozines) as an WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Steen has recently added a section on this issue, using first a WP:MEDIUM post as the source and then a YouTube video. While I adviced the user that those are not reliable sources (and have not reverted a second time due to the article's restrictions), I think it would be useful to continue this discussion and have the input of other editors on whether this video can be considered reliable and if reliable sources have covered this subject. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contend that the video described uses lengthy editorializations, makes extremely bold accusations, raises several WP:EXTRAORDINARY red flags, and draws from things that could be considered fringe theories, but it does raise a few interesting points. If more reliable sources have covered it, it'd be important to add to the article. (Note: my personal opinion is in line with the general message being sent, and that the execution is poor.) Lucksash (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article from Reuters mentions the accusations: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/artist-fires-back-bored-ape-lawsuit-with-racism-accusations-2022-08-15/

However, it’s all just repeating Ripps’s words, so not sure how useful this would be as an extra source. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not added by ryder

my sections on the controversy were not added by ryder the “proof” tweet is a reply to me asking him if he knows how to use wikipedia so i could get the references right. you cannot erase a controversy that is recognized by thousands of people 148.75.29.1 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand this message, but I did respond to the controversy suggestions in the next section down here on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding “Controversy”

Controversy is no secret re. cryptocurrency and the entire NFT space. I see a controversy section was added but then removed by someone in Russia. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia but I do feel a controversy section is important. Thoughts? Is this the medium to discuss changed before actually doing them? 67.181.16.67 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can discuss here. Controversy sections are common in wikipedia articles. The easiest way to do it is to create an account. Then put your suggested content in the the sandbox of your account, and post the link here for discussion. Please be advised we are only using mainstream sources (nyt, wsj, bloomberg, fortune, etc) for cryptocurrency articles. We are not using coindesk, theblock, any sort of blogs, WP:UGC, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible free use

The current image on this article uses copyrighted images, justified by the rationale that there is no way to get a free image. However, owners of NFTs get rights to the image. Quoting from this article itself: "Owners of a Bored Ape NFT are granted access to (...) intellectual property rights for the image." Therefore, I see no reason why we can't get permission from someone who owns one of these. RteeeeKed 💬📖 20:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are talking about wikimedia images, this is not the venue. Post your messages over at wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf The image is on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Unless I'm wrong and I should be discussing this on Wikimedia despite this. RteeeeKed 💬📖 04:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally wikimedia hosts all the images, and we just post links to wikimedia here. But any discussion about the image relating to license must go on over at wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got that, this image is hosted on Wikipedia. If you click on a free to use image, it'll take you to a page on Wikimedia. However, clicking on the one on this page takes you to a page on Wikipedia. RteeeeKed 💬📖 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, out of my wheelhouse here on this. I stand corrected. I dont know what to advise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Hi Guydebordgame, the citation that you supplied [1] for this edit [2] does not say what you have inferred and stated it does, and therefore your edit is a WP:BLP violation. Your citation states that Aronow's early-teens addictions ended when he was 15, and that his MFA aspirations followed by his severe illness began in his early 20s, and that his cryptocurrency trading began at some point in his 20s. Therefore, the text you added to the Wikipedia article is false and a serious WP:BLP violation. Please revert it. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention to crack addiction since it made no sense in that section. I can also see the BLP vio angle. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that? It provides important background on the founders past and is an interesting detail that he provided in an interview. Do you not like it because it paints the founder in a negative light? I find it very beautiful that he has overcome these obstacles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guydebordgame: The way it was written it gave the impression the subject had become an addict recently, after the creation of company. I'm still not convinced by the rewriting, which is more in line with the source, but feels completely unnecessary, specially since we are dealing with a BLP. I also think your sentence concerning the ADL needs rewriting. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle: is there any particular reason you don't like these details? The founder himself thought it was important to note in an interview. It seems you are just against any edit thats in a negative light. Instead of clearing these edits how about you suggest a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guydebordgame, you need to get WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before reverting or replacing the content elsewhere in the article. See the information on WP:CONSENSUS and on WP:BRD. Also please read WP:UNDUE. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its extremely obvious that your edits are simply clearing facts that you find put BAYC in a negative light. You have made no other contributions. Guydebordgame (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why is that? I would argue you do, you are the one blanking, I am adding, expanding and improving this article, it seems like you are simply editing inconvenient facts. Please get WP:CONSENSUS before editing any of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guydebordgame: I've removed mention of the subject's addiction because it seemed undue for this article. On that note, I'd like to say that just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean it needs to be added to the article. Speaking of the ADL note, it was my bad not to suggest a rewrite. I think that it merits addition, but it should likely attribute it to the two researchers mentioned in the interview, in my opinion. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood, thank you for clarifying, looking forward to your rewrite. Guydebordgame (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:14, 22 September 2022 edit Pirate Belle (talk \| contribs) 75 edits →‎Recent edit: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:24, 22 September 2022 edit undo Guydebordgame (talk \| contribs) 222 edits →‎Recent edit: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:

	:@[[User:Guydebordgame\|Guydebordgame]]: I've removed mention of the subject's addiction because it seemed undue for this article. On that note, I'd like to say that just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean it needs to be added to the article. Speaking of the ADL note, it was my bad not to suggest a rewrite. I think that it merits addition, but it should likely attribute it to the two researchers mentioned in the interview, in my opinion. [[User:Pirate Belle\|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato\|🏴‍☠️]]</sup></small> 10:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)		:@[[User:Guydebordgame\|Guydebordgame]]: I've removed mention of the subject's addiction because it seemed undue for this article. On that note, I'd like to say that just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean it needs to be added to the article. Speaking of the ADL note, it was my bad not to suggest a rewrite. I think that it merits addition, but it should likely attribute it to the two researchers mentioned in the interview, in my opinion. [[User:Pirate Belle\|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato\|🏴‍☠️]]</sup></small> 10:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
			::Ok, understood, thank you for clarifying, looking forward to your rewrite. [[User:Guydebordgame\|Guydebordgame]] ([[User talk:Guydebordgame\|talk]]) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)