Jump to content

Talk:Nick Bougas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this guy A Wyatt Mann?

[edit]

http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/A._Wyatt_Mann

Seems there's a lot of association between the two online. Their art styles are similar enough it's believable, but I've not seen anything conclusive. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.47.89 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, he is considered the most likely "suspect" and having seen Bougas' illustrations, I have to agree. But no, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing conclusive, just speculation. CrinklyCrunk (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a section should be added addressing this, but I don't think Mr. Bougas has ever made an official statement on this. PromethiumElemental (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)PromethiumElemental[reply]
I did my best to mention the speculations about the Mann/Bougas connection. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, a Buzzfeed article doesn't quite rise to the level of wp:rs. Also, massive undue weight issues with creating paragraphs of paragraphs of whinging rhetoric about a fragment of a cartoon. He himself has not confirmed whether he is or isn't A Wyatt Mann, and we're thusly liable to wp:living. Is he the artist behind those cartoons? Of course he is. It's obvious, but the relevant point here is what is or isn't permitted on Wikipedia, per certain sources. As noted, Wikipedia is not a social justice signaling soapbox. Man draws provocative cartoons 25 years ago... to a thundering herd of internet idealists, that's all that matters but per Wikipedia policies, there are other things that govern what can and cannot go into an article. If whining trash is the standard, then go edit the aforementioned "liberapedia". FactsAndHonesty (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Sorry, but I find it hard to take FactsAndHonesty's arguments seriously, as he considers Mann's blatantly racist drawings to be "Dissident/provocative cartooning". It's not about "a fragment of a cartoon", it's about dozens of such cartoons. As for the "whining trash" bit, that's not even an argument IMHO.
Since A. Wyatt Mann is probably better known than Bougas, and the Bougas/Mann connexion is pretty much everywhere, we definitely have to address it somehow. "WP:Undue" does not apply here, although we may use more details about his career. As for the Buzzfeed source, well it's an article written by a professional writer (i.e. legitimate content) and not the clickbait trash you also find on the same website. When Buzzfeed provides real content, it can be used as a source on wikipedia, and indeed it is quite often. Neptune's Trident (article's creator), CrinklyCrunk and TheZoolooMaster may want to give their opinion about this matter, but I'd say 1) we have to address this matter since it falls into "what can and cannot go into an article" 2) the Buzzfeed article is the best source we have about Mann or Bougas, so using it is not a problem.
Anyway, since Bougas is not that notable, we may also nominate the page for deletion : I wouldn't mind. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't advise deleting the article, I'd say Bougas has accomplished enough as a filmmaker and media personality to be notable. Full disclosure, I am the author of this article and I did originally want to include this BuzzFeed article in the original version of the Bougas Wikipedia entry -- but it kept getting removed by other Wikipedia editors who kept saying that BuzzFeed wasn't a reliable source and therefore the controversy about the offensive cartoons could not be added to the article without better sources. I couldn't find any other than the BuzzFeed article so it wasn't allowed to stay in the article when it was first created several months ago. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune's Trident : buzzfeed is reliable enough when it publishes actual content, written by actual writers who have done actual journalist work. Which is the case here, especially since the article quotes three different people who confirm that Mann is Bougas. It would be nice if we had other sources but, given the relatively obscurity of the subject, it is sufficient. Also, A. Wyatt Mann's "art" may be the most notable thing about Bougas. Not including this info would be ridiculous and may be a reason to nominate this page for deletion. We should not, however, indulge in this kind of whitewashing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzfeed really isn't reliable. That has been discussed elsewhere, feel free to take up that cause but you'll lose. The main issues here are wp:undue and wp:living. That's the bottom line. Also, I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia being a social justice signaling device, which the bizarre histrionics over an almost 30 year old fragment of a cartoon would absolutely be. If Mr Bougas comes out and discusses this, then it might be noteworthy or reliable enough for a brief mention in Wikipedia but even then, probably not enough for its own heading. Buzzfeed clickbait and random accusations aren't really adequate, particularly when its all couched with loaded accusations of 'racism'. Some of Nick Bougas' work is satirical, which complicates things. Again, if he discusses this, if we knew his actual intent, then perhaps it might be worthy of a mention but without any comment from him, we're now making loaded accusations against a living person, ergo wp:living. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a social justice signaling soapbox" "Wikipedia being a social justice signaling device" LOL, are you a real person or just a stale-meme regurgitation machine? 94.217.245.221 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Buzzfeed "articles" (not clickbait trash, of course) are being used as sources elsewhere on wikipedia. This cartooning story might be the most notable thing about Mr Bougas, so not mentioning it would be ridiculous, especially since you consider that it was actually his work. Regarding the "loaded accusations of 'racism'" : if you take a look at the rest of A. Wyatt Mann's work, you will see that the quotation marks are superfluous.
As for all those bizarre arguments about "social justice" (whatever that means) "bizarre histrionics", " thundering herd of internet idealists" or "whining trash" (may I suggest you reread Wikipedia:No personal attacks ?) well, I couldn't care less. Before we delete this, I'd say we should hear Neptune's Trident, CrinklyCrunk and TheZoolooMaster's opinion to see if there is any consensus on the matter.
Anyway, as I said before, we may nominate the article for deletion : since the subject is only vaguely semi-notable, I would shed no tears about it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're now talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're insisting that some cartoon is a critical addition, but then saying that the whole article should be deleted? Point of fact here but you're not really rebutting anything I'm saying. You're just engaging in rhetoric. This article, like all others, is subject to wp:living. If we presume that A Wyatt Mann is Nick Bougas (not an unrealistic presumption) well now the waters get deep as Bougas is a satirist. One of his most provocative cartoons actually says something to the effect of "Work of Satire" right in the beginning. The disconnect we seem to have here is that you think that by saying "racist", that changes the standard we accept for everything else... "... because, RACIST!". Sorry, no. This is more complicated than that. We're dealing with a fairly well known satirist who engages in the sort of sacred-cow slaying provocative satire that most people won't touch. Your own personal opinions what that 'makes him' as far as labels you want to assign might be OK for a discussion at home, but it's not OK for addition, here. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not engaging in any kind of rethoric : that association with A. Wyatt Mann might actually be the main source of Bougas' relative notability. If we don't mention that, I'm not even sure he is notable enough to deserve a page. As for him being a "satirist" : that's a possibility, but that makes the association even more "interesting". You are free to consider that A. Wyatt Mann's cartoons are "sacred-cow slaying provocative satire that most people won't touch", but that's not the point. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have reverted the re-addition of this material explicitly under WP:BLPDELETE; this material is poorly sourced controversial information about a living person. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, consensus is required before re-adding the material. Discuss. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why I started a discussion on the noticeboard. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept this incredibly low standard here, we open the door to accept it elsewhere. As noted, "... because, RACIST!" does not change the standard we accept for everything else. I propose we maintain the same standard with this article that we do with all other articles that involve living persons. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here is saying "because, racist" : the fact is that the - actual - racism of A. Wyatt Mann's cartoons is the only reason of their notability. If Nick Bougas is a somewhat notable figure, then the connection is very interesting, or at least intriguing (if Bougas is indeed A. Wyatt Mann, and if he has been doing that as a "satirist", i.e. making what are really parodies of racist cartoons, all the while taking Tom Metzger's money, then he probably is a bit of a genius : but I find that hard to fathom, and we may never know). The issue here is the reliability of the source for an article about a living person. If there is a consensus against the use of such sources, then so be it, although I think that in that case it would be a pity. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, "...but, RACIST!" does not change the standards for biographies of living persons. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, no one is saying "but, RACIST", except you. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of your position is that normal standards we apply to everything else don't apply here because something-something-racism. Your own reasoning is here for anyone to go back and read. wp:blp has very high standards (which you're claiming don't apply here) and wp:undue makes it kind of absurd to dedicate a subheading to a 20+ year old fragment of a cartoon because a few neurotic weirdos cannot believe such a thing exists... because racism. As noted, we don't even clear wp:blp, there's no need to argue anything else, or, if we are to accept a Buzzfeed piece like this as a standard, then down the slippery slope we go for all other articles. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the other two sources in the material are not suitable - knowyourmeme is user generated, so not a reliable source; and the .pdf of the Parfrey book is a copyright violation (See: WP:COPYVIOEL) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Apologies, the website appears to belong to the original publisher. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
knowyourmeme certainly wouldn't be enough : it's just used here as an example of the memes based on the "Mann" cartoons. The main issue seems to be the reliability of the Buzzfeed article. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is wp:blp. FactsAndHonesty (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed has repeatedly been found not to be RS for claims of fact. The case at hand is, at best, rumour . Therefore it does fall under the strictures of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Buzzfeed quotes three "notable" persons who confirm the story, I wonder if it still qualifies as a "rumour" ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put "notable" in quotes? Do you not find the sources notable? FactsAndHonesty (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's the criteria mentioned by Collect ("Opinions of notable persons, cited and ascribed as opinion, may be used subject to consensus"), which is met by the Buzzfeed article. If the problem is not the reliability of the article per se, but just the fact that it comes from Buzzfeed, we may leave that out of the page for now, and wait for a better source, should there ever be one someday : Buzzfeed may then be used as some "additional" source. IMHO, it is a pity but not a tragedy, since the subject is not that notable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the exceptions. As the people named do not make a verifiable "claim of fact", however, we can not use Wikipedia to make any assertion of a "claim of fact" based on Buzzfeed. The "opinions" exception would be for articles on Buzzfeed written by a notable person in the field on a topic, and then only for his or her opinions thereon. Collect (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still find a bit odd that, when a "notable person" is quoted in a Buzzfeed article, we assume that he is being misquoted just because it is Buzzfeed and, when said person writes an article for Buzzfeed, his opinion becomes notable even though it is still Buzzfeed. Anyway, if there is for now a consensus on that particular matter, I certainly won't challenge it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To give my 2 cents in this discussion, I find it odd to say the Buzzfeed article is not worth citing in this article. Buzzfeed articles, when written by legitimate journalists and who have content outside of Buzzfeed, are in fact considered reliable sources according to Wiki guidelines. I agree with User:Jean-Jacques Georges that, were it not for the notoriety of A Wyatt Mann cartoons, there probably would not be much to support a Wiki page on Nick Bougas. So the references to A Wyatt Mann are worth mentioning when there are verifiable living sources who worked directly with both A Wyatt Mann and Nick Bougas and confirmed that they are the same person. If I can find other references, I will post them.Dr.Lao999 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely the same person, he has the exact same penmanship and handwriting. But that's just obvious objective reality, not definitive and demonstrable proof. Until Bougas comes out and takes ownership of the works of A. Wyatt Mann you can't say they "are" the same person in a reference work. Although they are. 86.175.146.200 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC) and piss.[reply]

I agree that there is sufficient evidence that they are the same person, and I agree that it should be added to this article. Andrew.H3R (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BFFs with Oswalt

[edit]

This is regarding this revert by @Neptune's Trident: Why are we linking to minor mentions from Patton Oswalt's social media? To prove they are friends? I do not see how that's remotely encyclopedic. This seems like the kind of thing WP:LINKSTOAVOID pretty explicitly advises against, and this wouldn't be usable as a reliable source without independent coverage anyway. It just seems like name-dropping. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the removal, without concurring with all of the reasoning. I also note that Neptune's Trident has kindly self-reverted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography issue

[edit]

In comparing the current state of the article with the last version before the subject started editing, I see a lot of sourced items that have been removed from the article. Accordingly, I have a concern with whether the article is fair in its presentation of the subject. A cursory review shows footnoting through the old version, including to the New York Times. The current version has no footnotes and a list of references to books, so it's hard to readily evaluate the sources.

I'm not convinced that a rollback to where we were is necessary. However, I'd like to ask the question and get the input from a wider range of editors independent of the subject. Is the coverage in the article currently neutral, or has the removal skewed it? Conversely, is the coverage in the article currently more neutral than the old text? Were the old sources supportive of the material in the old version? —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, the NYT references point to their "movie" database, which is scraped from the All Movie Guide. Some of them contain reviews that are at least somewhat useful, but it's not the NYT reporting on Bougas or reviewing his works. Huon (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court case

[edit]

This Supreme Court case may be of interest: [1]. 63.231.141.132 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Bougas&oldid=1200289774"