Talk:Bored Ape

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@Guydebordgame: Apologies for the delay. As I suggested above, the section about the ADL should be attributed to the two researchers, in my view, something like: Mark Pitcavage and Carla Hill, two senior researchers for the Anti-Defamation League, commented in an interview to Input Magazine that some of the traits displayed by the apes are "problematic". These included things such as the "sushi chef headband" and the "gold chain and gold teeth". While the section about the addiction should not be re-added. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The Disney edit

Regarding the "many compare it to Disney" edit, Guydebordgame. The sourced articles are either from people directly involved with the NFT market/the company itself and only quote a handful of people. That does not constitute "many" and the bit about "the epitome of cool" is completely subjective and, again, not something that "many" say. I'd argue this information isn't relevant to the article at all and, at most, might be slotted into the 'Reception' section with very careful wording to avoid misrepresenting reality, which is that a few people with a vested interest in the company's success have talked it up. In fact, looking at it from that perspective, it might not be a good addition period. It's prone to bias, heavily so. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ASpacemanFalls' point here, and was about to revert it myself. The cited articles are clearly mentioning the selling point of the NFT people, which are clearly biased towards its success. CNET, for instance, says: If crypto firms want to become the next JPMorgan, NFT brands want to be the next Harry Potter or Disney. That's the idea. I don't think that information merits addition in this article. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ASpacemanFalls Isabelle I hear you, but regardless I think the general public probably needs to understand why these NFTs are worth so much, and how this company just over a year old is worth $5b, so bringing it into context about how they are viewed as the next Disney, a massive company, helps make sense of that no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Guydebordgame: The issue here is that is a misinterpretation of the sources. I've now accessed the Fortune article "Why FTX Ventures' Amy Wu sees Yuga Labs—creator behind Bored Apes—as a future Disney" and it says: "Their North Star is Disney," Wu says. "They see themselves as holding valuable IP that they want to build, essentially, a media entertainment empire with. ... Disney is what it is because of the culture it has created, and that's what Bored Ape Yacht Club and the Yuga Labs team is trying to do." Wu is the head of FTX Ventures, a $2 billion fund that participated in the recent funding round.

Saying that Bored Ape "is widely considered to be the next Disney" is entirely false, as it's nothing more than the company's (and its investors') selling point. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Film

I have re-removed the claim "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." The the first citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. The newly added citation (The Daily Dot) is unreliable as it falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and it links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries". This Daily Dot article, dated 18 August 2022, obviously simply copied the false information and non-verifying citation from the Wikipedia article on the film, where someone had added the false claim and non-verifying citation on 3 February 2022: [3]. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Also, based on advice at ANI, I have now also removed that erroneous claim from Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

“Falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film”

Are you seriously suggesting that this guy took the name from the album and never connected it to the film, just because he said so and a “reliable source” (Rolling Stone lmao) printed it? He’s used the name for years and made a billion dollars off it, no WAY he missed the connotations.

How is there so much benefit of the doubt going around here? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the 4chan race troll memeosphere can see the direct lineage to BAYC. I smell infiltration… 97.113.216.105 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

the film is considered child pornography. google it, read reviews, a man who sold child pornography went to jail for selling it, the film was no longer available after, why are you supporting this?

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/oct/06/desperate-moviegoers/ https://martinteller.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/emperor-tomato-ketchup/ https://mediaclassification.org/timeline-event/emperor-tomato-ketchup-japan-film-censorship/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/45393535 https://www.reddit.com/r/lists/comments/igu1xa/top_10_movies_that_are_banned_in_the_united_states/ https://rinj.org/porn/R._v._Way_2015_ONSC_3080.pdf https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1735441/?ref_=tt_urv https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1119543/?ref_=tt_urv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot is a fully wikipedia accepted source and the direct quote from the article is "Another co-founder, Kerem Atalay, uses the name Emperor Tomato Ketchup, the title of a 1971 film that was banned in some countries for depicting a boy in a facist uniform raping an adult woman. " which is 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"Some countries" is unclear but definitely does not equal "many countries" and there is not a sufficient source to claim that it's "child pornography", IMDB reviews and Reddit posts aren't some expert consensus. Moreover, how is that tidbit relevant to the article at hand?

Furthermore, please do not engage in edit warring and reach a consensus here first before you reinstate your edits. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

the film is 40+ years old, its been published in books to contain child pornography, a child pornographer was banned from selling it according to a court document and there are countless references online describing it as child pornography.. The film had been cut from the original version to remove the child pornography, if you google image search the movie you will see children with naked women tied up, what are you arguing for and why are you doing it on the bored ape yacht club page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm arguing because you are adding content that is poorly-sourced, biased and unnecessary for the page. You are continuously ignoring large parts of the argument to focus on whether or not the movie is obscene, which is wholly beside the point. Please re-read the discussion and understand the points brought against this edit. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• To repeat, the citation Guydebordgame added is unreliable because it merely repeats a fallacious claim directly from Wikipedia and links to the same non-confirming source. The edit therefore breaches WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How is there still no Controversy section? Cmon people

There’s more than plenty out there to at least touch on the allegations of pseudo-nazi memes encoded throughout BAYC content (which, btw, are true, as is abundantly obvious to anyone with cursory familiarity with 4chan/the proto-alt right)

The company has been forced to respond multiple times, Anonymous has declared war on them. Either of those alone is arguably cause enough for notability

https://futurism.com/anonymous-bayc-hate-group-claims

https://www.theboredapegazette.com/post/yuga-labs-and-bored-apes-responded-to-the-bayc-racism-debate

https://medium.com/@team_69582/a-letter-from-the-founders-678e5a3431e7

https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/55223/1/breaking-down-conspiracy-theory-bored-ape-yacht-club-nazi-ties-ryder-ripps?amp=1

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/bored-ape-yacht-club-nft-creator-advances-trademark-lawsuit 97.113.216.105 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, on cryptocurrency articles we are not using any low quality, blog, etc type sources as WP:RS. However, I do think that bloomberg is clearly an RS. Medium is certianly not, nor is boredapegazette, and dazedigital also doesnt appear at first glance to be an RS. I am not sure about futurism. I think the bloomberg article is sufficient to include at least some content. If you can find other sources such as bloomberg, wsj, nyt, fortune.com, etc that would be great. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, "Controversy" sections are deprecated. If there is consensus to add any specific negative or controversial content to the article, it should be integrated into the existing sections. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated addition of "Derivatives"

Pinging @Heresthechill here. A blog post on Medium is not a reliable or notable source (WP:RSSELF), even if it was written by someone who used to contribute to a reputable source. Please remove the section or find an actual WP:RS. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me here. The source here is Jeff Opdyke who's credentials clearly make him a reliable source. In my opinion it's unfair to discredit him as a reliable source because he uses an online publishing platform. If Barack Obama published an article on Medium his words could certainly be referenced on Wikipedia and no one would say that it isn't really him or the source is unreliable because the same platform is available to the public. I'm looking at another medium.com article cited right above this section under "why is there still no controversy section?" We'll just have to call this a difference of opinion. Cheers! Heresthechill (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that the distinction between a copycat and a derivative of BAYC is notable and relevant to the history and future of Bored Apes Heresthechill (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy/Pasted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications Heresthechill (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, point by point.

If Barack Obama published an article on Medium his words could certainly be referenced on Wikipedia

As a rule, Wikipedia uses third-party sources, not direct quotes. Thus, if Obama posted on Medium and his post was notable enough to be covered, it would be used. Not to mention that Jeff Opdyke, whoever he is, is not the President of the United States and unlikely to be the defining expert on the matter. What you're looking at above was another poor source, hence it not being added.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter

I looked up this Opdyke's works for WSJ - all related to finance, not NFTs. By the time NFTs became a thing, it seems that he was no longer writing for WSJ. Has his work on NFTs been published in reputable sources? Provide examples of that, please. The quote you helpfully provided states that his work must have been done in the relevant field. Finance articles from 2009 are not enough to qualify him as an NFT expert. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Finance is extremely relevant to crypto/NFTs Heresthechill (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

From his bio on Forbes.com

I am a former Wall Street Journal Money & Investing/Personal Journal writer, and a former hedge-fund research analyst and trader. I began trading on Wall Street in 1984, and directly in global markets on local stock exchanges on five continents beginning in 1994. I primarily focus on investments that offer value or income, or that fit into a “growth at a reasonable price” framework. I’ve traveled to nearly 70 countries, much of that as editor for an economics/investment-focused newsletter to research investment opportunities or to meet with politicians, central bankers, and economists to build my understanding of the global economy. My fundamental belief: A stock shows long-term ownership of a company, it’s not a lottery ticket you trade in and out of daily. Heresthechill (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

His bio specifically talks about hedge funds and Wall Street trading, not NFTs. Again, please show me works of his from reputable publications that specifically concern crypto and where he is presented as an expert. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're not seeing the correlation between investing, trading, global economics, crypto, and NFTs I'm not sure what else I can do here besides create a vin diagram. Heresthechill (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And if you can't provide proper sources but insist on dismissing and mocking my request that you adhere to the rules, I think it's fair to say I will remove the section and will request a warning from the moderators upon further violation of Wiki rules. It's Venn, by the way, not "vin". ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s just a difference of opinion. I’m not mocking you. If you can’t see the correlation between finance and crypto I’m just not sure we’ll ever agree on this. 2600:1004:B193:FD34:5991:16D0:643F:C193 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)