Talk:Todd Goldman

More Thefts are surfacing!

Put 'em ALL up here. Let the public see that this isn't some anomaly in Todd's 'work'. Veled 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Not all the thefts claimed are necessarily 'legit.' The only one that is clear is that of Kelly, and the others are reasonably similar, but not necessarily so, as they lack definitive sources of the exact images in many cases and also lack claims that the original Goldman illustrations are 'original'. I am not a lawyer, but it is not implausible that the recently unearthed criticism from barkeranimation.com and Roy Liechtenstein arguments offer a possibly legitimate 'out' for Goldman for anything but outright plagiarism (such as in the Purple Pussy case), regardless of his artistic talent (or lack thereof). If we list 'thefts' let's be sure they're pretty much unambiguously stolen (character design AND text), and not just potentially lifted concepts, lest the Roy Liechtenstein issue crop up. --Pipian 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Did you guys even read the court documents? It was a false claim. Do your research... f

Did you see the two new ones I just added? The gnomies one is questionable, I'll admit, but the multiple paintings (especially the one that uses the exact same text down to the apostrophe) seem to indicate he at least saw the source. The "This Sucks" design, however, is just as clear a lift as the Purple Pussy case. If you insist on arguing with me further I'll put up a trace of that one to hammer in my point. He didn't even change the colors on that one. Veled 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

can we create a better-looking display of the pictures? That would help a lot. Also, add the stuff sucks picture comparison too. That would also be good. -Rebent 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the alleged ripoff of Roman Dirge's Lenore covered? 72.224.60.38 11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was listed in a previous revision of the article. Then the article got taken in for WP:OFFICE because of potentially libellous information. When the article got unlocked, Bastique told us that, to preserve NPOV (I think), we should limit the accusations of plagiarism to 5 lines, 150 words. Then Slashdot and BoingBoing ran stories on Goldman, and we had some more vandalism, so it's locked again until the arguments die down a bit.--Superluser 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Purple Pussy has been called non-notable

The section on the recent plagiarism accusation should probably contain a link to the article for the comic he allegedly ripped off. Oh, wait. 67.158.75.233 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Does this make Purple Pussy notable? After all, it was mentioned in the Las Vegas Sun. I've seen lower bars set for notability in the Oxford English Dictionary. (Also, changing the heading to something a little more descriptive) --Superluser 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So what if the Purple Pussy comic was deemed non notable? Does that make Goldman's plagiarism any less of an act of plagiarism (and illegal)? Of course not. Seriously! He plagiarized a comic from Purple Pussy. That's a fact, now established by him admitting wrong-doing. --Lendorien 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point that I (and 67.158.75.233) was trying to make is that perhaps Purple Pussy should no longer be considered non-notable. There's actually a whole bunch of drama over various and sundry webcomics being considered non-notable, and that should probably be kept out of this discussion, but I think it's sensible to ask if this one specific webcomic might no longer be non-notable.--Superluser 04:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Lendorien and Superluser. Just because the lack of a need for a wikipedia article on Purple Pussy, in no way changes anything about this article. And in fact, these events may change the status/importance of purple pussy. On the other hand it being mentioned in the Las Vegas Sun, does not seem important. (Hey, the Las Vegas Sun mentions this wikipage, maybe the page needs it's own page??) Wikipedia recently underwent a deletion purge of webcomics, in an attempt to reduce excessive stubs and non-relevant articles, such judgment does not make the comics unimportant or free of copyrights. DocGratis 04:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As Superluser pointed out, I wasn't talking about the status of Todd Goldman, but about the status of Purple Pussy. I believe Purple Pussy was notable all along, but it's even more notable now. 67.158.75.233 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this whole incident may well make the comic notable; at this point, its at least close. Assuming it wasn't already. Titanium Dragon 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see a Purple Pussy page, if only to see a summary of what it's about (seems to be a misanthropic cat, but beyond that I can't tell from that one panel, and also to see the link. I knew nothing about it before then, and am certainly curious now. I did find the webcomic, but I'm not going to link (Wikipedia makes me to a manual confirm when I link, and sometimes the letters are so distorted as to be ambiguous. I recall one letter which looked very much like a "G", but wasn't.)

A Dave Kelly page would also be nice. The only comic of his I've read is Lizard, but I seem to recall that there were a bunch hed did on that page. And if he were once syndicated, all the better.

There was a Dave Kelly article! It was deleted for not being notable! --KSnortum 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have had written one personally over at WikiFur, if only he hadn't specifically asked me not to. GreenReaper 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the compsulsive deletionist tendencies some people have here are a big reason I left Wikipedia, so I'd be unsurprised to see that neither of these are permitted sometime soon. Wikipedia has a rather high standard of notability. Wikipedia still pretends to be a real encyclopedia, which is a shame, because it does stuff related to the internet well (yet aside from European history, is either incomplete or incoherent on most other stuff). ~Luke --71.192.116.13 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --HanzoHattori 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Purple Pussy now has its own article, and has passed its most recent deletion discussion with a result of "keep" (and only one UnVote for "delete"), I think it would be appropriate for the Todd Goldman article to include a link to the Purple Pussy article instead of just referring to "a 2001 comic". 129.97.79.144 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

De-protecting Todd Goldman

Firstly, let me state that my assumption is that the active contributors on this article have been acting acting in good faith. There is also potentially an element of contribution that may be coming from external sources. In that respect I'm going to advise this article be placed on semi-protection to prevent malicious contribution as the article regains formation.

Except for the Biography of Living Persons issue, there are two other principals that need to be considered:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Also, with regard to leading a reader to a conclusion, I offer my own personal WP:NOT:

• Wikipedia is not True Detective.

The challenge

While the plagiarism matter may be generating a substantial amount of internet traffic, due to its affecting the webcomic community (please forgive me if this is not the correct term), it has still remained ignored by all but a single serious media outlets, the Las Vegas Sun.

In that respect, I don't believe the plagiarism merits much in the article.

My challenge to the editors is to describe the issue in a single paragraph summarizing the issue, no more than five lines (on a typical browser window) not to exceed 150 words, using the guidelines outlined in our policies at WP:RS and WP:BLP.

In summary

The legal notice may still be something of concern, however, it did bring issues regarding this biography to light. While this individual seems to be notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, he's probably not notable enough to merit the length of article contained. In reading the latest talk page thread, I'm seeing a large number of good, positive remarks regarding this article. I have faith now, and am encouraged that my involvement going forward will be minimal.

Cary Bass ^demandez 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and given it a try. I'm wondering what we can do with the list of blogs and webcomics, though. The Las Vegas Sun thought it worth mentioning that "a firestorm of outrage ensued - online," and I think it would be appropriate, considering that it is one of the reasons the Sun article considers it notable, to link to them. A similar situation occurred at Jack Thompson (attorney), and User:Michael Snow, acting in a similar role to yours at this article, Cary, asserted here that "When stating that a bunch of webcomics mentioned Jack Thompson, a bunch of links that take you to webcomics mentioning Jack Thompson is primary source material. Anyone can look at the links and see that a bunch of webcomics did indeed mention Jack Thompson." I find the similarities in this situation to be uncanny. --Maxamegalon2000 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue shouldn't be a flat rule of size, but rather a matter of undue weight. If we expand the rest of the article to a couple pages, than a couple paragraphs on the plagiarism incident isn't out of line. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree except (and might be true in some other person's bio), but Goldman is neither notable enough, nor is there enough information to build a long article, but yes a % of article would make more sense. Of course as time passes that % will shrink. DocGratis 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't split between this article and Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them, I think we'd have a better/more substantial article. I think we need to include information on David & Goliath the company in here too, and as a company making tens of millions a year in sales, there's a lot out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Current articles:

• Todd Goldman
• David and Goliath (clothing)
• Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!

Suggest merging and restructuring, to cut down on duplicate content, since practically every piece of information has been in at least two of the articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think using the word "TRACED" will cause a problem for wikipedia. Goldman never admitted to "tracing" an image

Traced is an appropriate word to use in its current context as that's what Kelly accused Goldman of doing. --Lendorien 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Boingboing.net

Boing Boing continues to cover the subject today (includes information on "cease and desists" sent to several sites, including Juxtapoz): http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/23/tshirt_makes_fun_of_.html Spirou 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Accusations of Plagiarism

From the plagiarism section of the article one would gather that there has been only that one incident of suspected plagiarism. There have actually been many (more so as the scandal grows), and it should be reflected in the text.--24.74.1.139 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many cases of plagiarism, but do they all need to be listed?--Superluser 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest they should all be listed, I merely suggested that the text reflect that the accusations go beyond a single cartoon. Quite a relevant and important fact, I think.--24.74.1.139 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They need to be mentioned and linked. This guy's total hack. See: [1] --HanzoHattori 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The paragraph already leads to the conclusion, as is. Anything more is just part of a pile-on. Nothing "needs" to be in here. Please discuss your changes and come to consensus before making this type of change on the article. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What HanzoHattori said. Also, what Cary Bass said. In my opinion, the guy's a total hack, and I've been sending submissions to the miketyndall site. But at last count, there were something like 33 specific examples of alleged intellectual property violations. (I'm planning shortly to send him something else) Do we need to list all 33? That's total overkill, in my opinion.

There have been a few cases where this has made it to court, or made it into the news, and those should probably be mentioned--though not necessarily every single one. I think that it is worthwhile to mention that quite a few allegations exist, but mentioning all 33 of them--and doing them all justice--would result in an article that would run something like five pages or more. Do we need an article on Todd Goldman that's longer than (for example) the article on Gerhard Schröder?

I say refer to a couple of high-profile cases, and then say that there are more allegations of plagiarism, and then link to a site (such as the Mike Tyndall site) where they can find all of them (making sure that the bias is noted).--Superluser 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This site [2] gives a good example of the sheer volume of possible copyright infringements and straight traces, for the sake of perspective. ProgramPat 05:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I don't believe how the fact that Goldman is issuing lawsuits merits inclusion in this article. Also, I don't believe that miketyndall's site can be used as a reliable source. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike Tyndall's site has been reported on Slashdot, and will probably be reported elsewhere, as having made the claim that Goldman's firm has sent legal threats. The fact that the claim was made is readily verifiable, so I think the real question here is whether or not this is relevant to the article. I think it is; apparently we disagree on the matter, but it seems hardly relevant at this point now that everything's going into lockdown... ah well. By the time the article is actually editable again, we can deal with it, and the relevancy or irrelevancy of such claims will be better-established (and perhaps they will be supplanted information on actual lawsuits, if any occur). Until then, well, good luck. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: is Slashdot considered a reliable source? If so, we can link to Slashdot's coverage. If not, then we have to wait for more mainstream coverage of the other cases. Court documents are certainly reliable and can be used, though. I support having those added to expand the cases of plagiarism. But Ryuzaki's site simply does not qualify on its own as a reliable source. GarryKosmos 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cary Bass, I'm not referring to lawsuits that Goldman is issuing, but rather to lawsuits where he has been the defendant/appellant. I also don't think that the miketyndall.com site is reliable, but I don't think that Wikipedia's shied away from examples via unreliable sources before. For example, we've got a link to Ernst Zündel's Holocaust Denial page. I don't think that's reliable, either. But we have it, because it shows the allegations that Holocaust deniers make. Also, Slashdot (love them to death) is only as reliable as the sources that they cite.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. I'm just providing my perspective, which is necessary to come to a consensus. I'm fine with going along with whatever the consensus is. Oh, and good job locking the article, Cbrown1023. We've had a sort of perfect storm of high-profile linking, legal issues, and revert wars.--Superluser 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been pointing out on a few outraged web comics forums that Wikipedia has to be really conservative about living bios, 'cos we've gotten so much crap about them of late. So mainstream press coverage is the sort of thing we need for the article - David Gerard 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

accusations that "he has taken characters from other cartoons"

It's more like "characters, designs and ideas from other artists and companies". Btw, take alook at this most famous image of his. --HanzoHattori 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Todd's repeated plagiarism has become quite notable

Why is there only one act of many noted in his entry? See the latest here Cowicide 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is there a reputable secondary source we can use? I'm not sure if Boingboing is going to be good enough of a source to make potentially libelous claims. On a more philosophical level, on what grounds are accusations notable if the only sources we have about the accusations are the sites making the accusations? --Maxamegalon2000 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the claims are so obviously true that no reputable source could possibly claim they're false, then all reputable sources will support the claims, and it's going to be very difficult to create an appearance of balance by finding a reputable source that isn't one of "the sites making the accusations". I'm not sure that applies here, but if we're only allowed to cite sources that seem not to be taking a side, then we may be shooting ourselves in the foot. 129.97.79.144 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Our general editorial standards don't usually consider blogs or other self-published websites reputable except for talking about themselves, so we have to stick to things reported in non-blog sources. It's fine for us to cite an editorial from a notable/reliable publication that makes accusations, as we did with Juxtapoz (until it got taken down), but the number of sources that have some sort of editorial controls/standards and have made the accusations are limited for now. Give it a couple weeks and see if any other news outlets pick it up, or even reliable comics commentators. Then we can cite them if there's more to say. BoingBoing is just really weak as far as reliability goes in general, all they do is copy from sources that may or may not be reliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

The article from the las vegas sun says that "Aside from a lightbulb, a bow and the word "please" in Goldman's painting, the images are almost identical. There's even an entry on Wikipedia.com that includes an image of Goldman's painting altered to look more like Kelly's." Huh? I can't see how this was altered. Or was this one of the older versions of the page? --ISeeDeadPixels 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Goldmantrace.png. WP:CSD#I5.

The image was the two drawings superimposed over one another. You can see it as the middle image here:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i234/HappyPepper/KeenspotBox.jpg

–Gunslinger47 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

She (the author of that piece) may have incorrectly assumed that the version above that is Todd, is not, because the painting he sold is SLIGHTLY different. But both the paintings sold and the image above used to superimposed are Todd's. Additionally, some sites have (had) the painting sold and the original Kelly drawing with the painting twisted slightly because the perspective was altered slightly on the second painting by Todd. DocGratis 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Picture?

According to the Las Vegas Sun, Wikipedia.com (by which I assume they mean Wikipedia.org) has posted an article with "an image of Goldman's painting altered to look more like Kelly's". The actual picture apparently looked more like this. I don't know, but if this is the case, the pic ought to be corrected. That's not a good thing to have happening here.

New sections go at the bottom. Not at the top. And we were just discussing this (see section directly above this one). See above the wikipedia picture is not altered. Todd has more than one version of the painting, but clearly they are nearly identical. DocGratis 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lightbox Comparison

A comparison of the two images seems to show a preponderance of identical lines, and thus a high likelihood that part of the image was traced. The three concerns here seem to be originial research, NPOV, and litigation. For the first, it should be fairly simple to find and cite someone else who's done the comparison. For the second, as long as all the evidence out there to Goldman's credit is presented, I don't see why this shouldn't be; in fact, it seems like POV not to. For the third, frankly, to hell with it. Wikipedia is not censored. Twin Bird 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding relevant link

Would anyone object to adding Mike Tyndall's site as a relevant external link? It seems to be the central repository of plagiarism examples, and I don't think you can say it's "unreliable" given that a lot of the evidence is pictorial. Esn 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not I - add away. The most damaging evidence is in the pictures anyway. TheRealFennShysa 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I ask here is because nobody except an admin can edit this page. Since I'm not an admin, I want to know what the "people of power" think about this proposition. Esn 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken off before because it's self-published, and therefore considered unreliable. Since it's the only source of many of the allegations it makes, we don't want to seem to endorse it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That alleged "unreliability" would have to take the form of actively forging the graphic evidence, and creating numerous faked sites where the prior art is on display for everybody to see, and even time travel back to the 80's to create the video game "Neko" just to make it appear as Mr Goldman had swiped the character design 20 years later. I don't see how it could possibly be considered "unreliable" to present two pictures side by side and let the reader decide if one was inspired by the other or not. MeteorMaker 16:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. That site has been removed many times. It is maintained by some guy on the internet who has unknown credibility. The point is that we should be trying to use verifiable content for Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then by all means, come to the talk page and try to convince us to come to a different consensus opinion. After you've given others enough time to respond, then make the changes, if that be the consensus. Do not just make a change when you know that the consensus is the opposite.superluser_tc 2007 July 08, 21:37 (UTC)

I don't get it... you're saying that, because the site is made by a person, as apposed to, say, a government or a news corporation controlled by a well-known person, that the pictures it has collected are therefor unreliable? --Rebent 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We don't know who this Mike Tyndall person is. We don't know how accurate his information is. We don't know if he has a reputation for accuracy or not. There are a couple of images hosted at Mike Tyndall's site that "[have] been removed" from Todd Goldman's site. Do we know if that's true or if Mike Tyndall is just making it up? I personally recall seeing at least one of those images at Todd Goldman's site, but you don't know if I have a reputation for accuracy, either. With the biographies of living people, we are held to a higher standard, and we are told that Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material—whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable—about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. I like the Mike Tyndall site. I've even contributed to it, but I'm just not sure that we need a list like that. I don't necessarily believe that we shouldn't, and I'd welcome an open discussion on the topic, but until we have more opinions on the topic, I'm sticking with the previous consensus.

Also, for those who may not be aware (I'm sure that Rebent is aware), this article has been the subject of WP:OFFICE, and changes to this article should be made in accordance with those rules. I may see if I can't snag an admin to comment a little more about this.superluser_tc 2007 July 08, 22:15 (UTC)

The Tyndall site violates WP:RS. We can waste all our time and energy debating why it violates it (which has already been demonstrated in no uncertain terms), but ultimately it violates the policies of this project. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Something's Going Down Tonight

FYI, Kelly's SA post indicates that there will be a "BIG UPDATE TONIGHT! Stay tuned! Thanks to everyone who helped!" I would recommend we wait until after the update and any potential coverage of it before making any more important decisions about this article. --Maxamegalon2000 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That note is dated 25th of April. 213.10.112.111 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

SF Times

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/08/Tampabay/Artist_s_work_looked_.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for finding that. Now I'm curious; do we get to add another 150 words? --Maxamegalon2000 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it definitely supports the other accusations (like goodbye kitty and the fat kid) and the fact that they got his posters and t-shirts pulled from major distributors shows this is an important event for his business. That definitely needs mention in the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely time to expand. Many of the previously mentioned accusations that were deleted can now be added back using this as a source. GarryKosmos 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how Template:Update was being misused in the article. Personally, I'm waiting to update the article until someone lets us know if additional sources add to our allotment of words. --Maxamegalon2000 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"was accused by Kelly"

I'll admit I looked up this article to see how it had handled the recent flap, since I followed the SA thread.

Is it notable that Kelly DID NOT make the original accusation of plagiarism? Dave Kelly didn't go on SA posting accusations of any kind -- one of his fans drew it to his attention through SA. The way it's phrased, it sounds (to me; YMMV) like Kelly got on SA throwing accusations around, and even a quick read of the early part of that thread shows that isn't how it happened.

If this wasn't a hot article at the moment I'd change the phrasing to reflect what actually happened: that fans noted the similarities between Kelly's work from 01 and Goldman's current "art" and posted their findings to SA, thus bringing it to Kelly's attention -- not that Kelly got on SA and began slinging accusations around in a vacuum. Again, YMMV.

--Parcequilfaut 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Double standards?

Re the blind ban on referencing blog-type sites like Mike Tyndall's in a bio, I wouldn't have a big problem with that if the rule were enforced equally in all articles. Wikipedia opens itself to (in my opinion well-founded) criticism for double standards if well-off American businessmen like Goldman are treated significantly differently than foreigners like Adnan Hajj.

• Both Goldman and Hajj have been accused of undue and possibly criminal image manipulation
• Both Goldman and Hajj have made partial admissions and lost an important source of income as a consequence
• Both cases have been reported in major media
• Both Goldman and Hajj were first exposed by bloggers, who provide ample pictorial evidence
• Only Hajj's Wikipedia article has links to those blogs.

MeteorMaker 06:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Take up the issue on Adnan Hajj. This talk page is about this article. The Tyndall site violates WP:RS. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have merely given one example where an exception from certain rules in WP:RS has been made, in order to show that other Wikipedians have interpreted WP:RS differently. The inconsistency is a potential credibility issue for Wikipedia and needs to be resolved. MeteorMaker 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be resolved on Adnan Hajj. It is being applied correctly here, and most every other article on Wikipedia. The discussion about a policy which is being misapplied belongs at the article where it is being misapplied. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I quote you on that? Users CWC and Blueboar seem quite convinced they have interpreted the guidelines correctly. MeteorMaker 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Little Green Footballs in the Hajj article, and it's unclear if you are, I would point out that the nearest equivalent in the Goldman situation would probably be the Something Awful forums, for which we do have a link. I hope you're not attempting to compare Little Green Footballs to Mike Tyndall's personal site in terms of reliability. One is a blog notable enough to have an article here and that was the original source of the controversy, and the other is a personal site created during the aftermath. --Maxamegalon2000 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no less than six links to blogs in the Adnan Hajj article, some of which appear to have very little credibility whatsoever. In the Wikipedia article on Charles Johnson's personal political blog "Little Green Footballs", there is a specific and quite well-stocked "Claims and controversies" section, which in itself raises doubts of its reliability. The linked article on Littlegreenfootballs contains numerous, easily spotted errors and false allegations. Also, the link to Something Awful requires registration, while Mike Tyndall's compilation of the same material does not. MeteorMaker 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. If you want to discuss this issue in general, away from people reminding you what is or is not official Wikipedia policy, why don't we have it out at one of my user pages? User:Superluser/Reliable Sources for Biographies of Living People There's no need to keep spinning our wheels over here, since I don't think we're going to move anywhere unless WP:BLP changes, and I don't think that you're going to change any minds over at WT:BLP unless you have a well-thought-out alternative. superluser_tc 2007 July 10, 05:17 (UTC)

Nice essay, I'll review it a little later. Official Wikipedia policy has traditionally been shaped through discussions like this, which is one of the great things about this project. I'm confident the potential credibility issues I have pointed out can be resolved through discussion, here and elsewhere, and I'm happy to note that our discussion here resulted in the (announced) deletion of one of the least reliable blog links in the Adnan Hajj article. MeteorMaker 06:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now reviewed it. For the convenience of lazy readers, here's the relevant part: Your argument is "this is not a biography of a living person. It's not about Adnan Hajj, it's about the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy. Which is totally different. I guess". The simple rebuttal would be, "Fine, would it be acceptable to put up a Todd Goldman plagiarism controversy article?" If the answer is no, that further strengthens my argument that Wikipedia may rightly be accused of double standards. MeteorMaker 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I interpret the silence as an opportunity to up the ante and suggest such a page actually be created. Your views? MeteorMaker 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, look. This page is probably stub-class, as it is. If you split it off into a separate Todd Goldman plagiarism controversy article, then it's going to result in two very short stub-class articles for someone who is not that important to begin with. superluser_tc 2007 July 13, 16:30 (UTC)

I agree. Could the original Todd Goldman article be deleted then, if we follow the Adnan Hajj pattern? MeteorMaker 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I said he wasn't very important, not that he wasn't important at all. Todd Goldman contributes something quite visible to the cultural landscape. As much as I dislike the man and his work, his designs are sold all over the country. He is one of the "100 People Who are Screwing up America," according to Bernard Goldberg. It is worthwhile to have an entry for the man, regardless of his plagiaristic tendencies. So if you made an entry on the Todd Goldman plagiarism controversy, you would have to keep this entry as well. Is this a double standard? Should Adnan Hajj's page have been kept, independent of the controversy page? I'm afraid that I don't know enough about Hajj to make that type of determination. superluser_tc 2007 July 14, 17:31 (UTC)

You are probably correct Goldman's notoriety in itself merits him an article in Wikipedia. I get the impression most people here are opposed to including links to evidence collection sites like Mike Tyndall's solely for the reason Wikipedia has these extremely strict rules regarding bios of living people, and few seem happy with that. Could in fact a Todd Goldman plagiarism controversy article, modeled on Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, be a way to cut this particular Gordian knot? It's not exactly a problem to flesh it out if we're not restricted by WP:BLP. MeteorMaker 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd do more than just copy-paste the section from this article, why not? --HanzoHattori 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)