Talk:Nick Simmons

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

Miscellaneous[edit]

does anyone know where nick simmons goes to college?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.90.213 (talk • contribs)

Notability anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.208.120 (talk) 23:04:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

(1) He's famous. (2) He stars in a TV show. (3) He's a comic book artist. (4) He's a comic book writer. (5) He's still famous. Wryspy 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Simmons is now known for his size as well and is joining a blues band. He is 6 foot 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.16.243 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Robot Chicken"[edit]

While I am certain that Nick Simmons has done voice-overs for "Robot Chicken" - he seems to have done his father in at least one episode - the credits as given here are for a "Nicholas Simmons": http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2369021/. I am uncertain as to how to proceed - I know the credits should be removed, but I also know something should be put in its place, since he did do "Robot Chicken" -= I just don't know what to put in. FlaviaR (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources on the plagiarism claims[edit]

Plagiarism

Unfortunately, his comic almost entirely consisted of stolen art from several other manga. A few of the identified mangas include Bleach, Nana, Vampire Hunter D, Hellsing, and One Piece. He also stole from someone on devientART. This stealing is not simple in any, if any, original pages, for every single panel is taken from existing manga, scanned, and photoshopped to be altered very slightly.


The truth hurts.. and his daddy's dollars are hard at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Specifically, this section:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.

Thus, any source for Nick Simmons' plagarism cannot be places like LiveJournal or Twitter, as they are not reliable soruces under Wikipedia policy. I'm aware the plagarism is pretty obvious, but per the sites' rules, we have to have sources considered reliable and are known to fact-check their articles as sources for this section. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~In the case of the tweets, it's verifiable that those are the official twitter accounts of both VIZ Media and Tite Kubo, and as such should fall under the small number of acceptable uses. The tweets are there, I fail to see why we should wait to post the information until it's posted at a "reliable" news site. In the case of the references to the bleachness livejournal community, they all lead to picture evidence. It's not like you can inject opinion into a picture. I'm pretty sure both uses should be allowed. 76.180.19.14 (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make use of those tweets they'd have to be from accredited accounts (as a bare minimum) and blogs are out unless it can be shown they are by experts in the field. This is a serious accusation and WP:BLP applies so we have to be very careful about the sources we use.
Also following WP:DEADLINE, there is no rush to get everything in, we can afford to wait for better sources to become available, as they will given the issues and those involved.
So I;d suggest trimming this back to a smallish paragraph only based on what we can show through reliable sources, it also shouldn't be in its own section (as such "controversy" sections are discouraged). (Emperor (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure on the current consensus about the WP:RS status of Anime News Network, but if it is considered an RS, then amybe we can use this: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-25/nick-simmons-incarnate-halted-over-alleged-bleach-plagiarism --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is one of the ones we've been using and I think we did kick it around a bit and decide it was OK for sourcing (but I might need to check), it is certainly better than most of the ones being used. I have put that one in and the CBR one, which seems reasonable for now. (Emperor (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

~~To that point, I have removed the sentence in the first paragraph stating that he IS a comic book plagiarist. That is thus far unproven. 24.222.162.156 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have semi-protected the page because of the vandalism from anonymous IPs. It is set for 3 days in the hope that the heat will go out of it by then (if it gets picked up by mainstream media then we might have to think again). I have edited out most of the vandalism (like changing his occupation to plagiarist) and provide a trimmed down statement of what has happened, details can be found at the sources provided. This is in line with WP:BLP, which is an important and strictly enforced guideline. If anyone (including anonymous IPs) have any other good sources or want anything added to the article then they can drop a note in here and editors will check it over and see if it is suitable for inclusion. Obviously the level and duration are up for discussion, we'll just see how it goes. (Emperor (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you need an actual news site to see the obvious how about CNN? http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-412749TheObvious (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CNN iReport counts, as that particular service of CNN is basically user-submitted news stories. Unless iReport stories go through some sort of fact-checking before being allowed to be posted, it would fail the verifiability policy. Now if it were the main CNN website reporting this, there wouldn't be much of a problem. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Based on the ANN and iCNN pages it's still in the realm of an acusation. And there are few facts still not in evidence:
  • Which issues/set of work was the Incarnate images taken?
  • Which set were the Bleach ones taken from?
I'm a bit curious about since the sentence here is muddled - Incarnates run seems to have ended in December. If that is so, what exactly did Radical Comics suspend? A second limited series? A trade? Reprints?
Also, the two refs come off as "Fans are accusing..." (ANN) and an Op/Ep piece (iCNN). Neither is enough to justify point blank statements that Simmons "swiped" art from (comics term - Roughly: Using a light box to trace from another source. This can be anything from layout to detailed elements.) or plagiarized sections of Bleach. And the later is a bit more serious since it implies that more that just art was copied.
- J Greb (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radical say: "We have halted further production and distribution of the “Incarnate” comic book and trade paperback until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties" and while it may be they are doing reprints of the comic books it is the hardcover which would be most obviously imminent (although I'd assume they can resolve this one way or the other before it has to ship). (Emperor (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
From what I've heard from those that have read it, it appears it was more of a metaseries and the first mini-series only tells a small part of the larger story (about a quarter), he talks about it as just the first arc and it seems he had more planned, which explains the mention of them halting production on comic books as well as trades. (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Focusing on the main example.

  • Which issues/set of work was the Incarnate images taken? Incarnate issue 3 page 19
  • Which set were the Bleach ones taken from? Bleach 311 page 4

photo of said pages: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1/Mordred_destroyer/1267216108036.jpg TheObvious (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that - it is important for WP:V. Now I don't know what anyone thinks but I think the animated overlay works best as it allows the viewer to see how close the line work is - side-by-side makes it a little too tricky to tell. What about one that just switches between those two images? Or would a transparency fade work best? The flickering between three versions (those two and a composite) is a little too distracting for the eye. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
To be honest? Side-by-side. Any photomanip opens the door to "this supports our POV". Side-by-side, at a reasonable resolution (yes, this would be a case for it being larger than ~300px per side), presents what the fan threads are pointing to and allows the reader here to draw their own conclusion. - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if jumping here out of the blue, but: has anyone multiple reliable sources about such allegations? Otherwise all this stuff cannot really be included in the article. WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP are the policies that come to mind about this. --Cyclopiatalk 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This provides multiple comparisons, both side-by-side and overlaid (often as side-by-side comparison followed with an overlay). --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  1. IIUC, Live Journal blogs are not considered reliable sources. Hence the need to used the ANN and Robot 6/CBR filter - those are considered reliable and they are pointing to the fan-base accusations.
  2. The set of samples/evidence proved for the blog is very hit and miss. It runs from examples that support swiping/light-boxing to those that are wishful thinking.
- J Greb (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations have been commented on by reliable sources, and have been reacted to by the publisher. The point is whether or not evidence exists to back up the accusations, not which exact 'form' of it took place.
The problem is that none of said reliable sources are going to attempt identifying further evidence by themselves. All they did so far is further spread pre-existing comparisons.
  1. There is substantial evidence to tracing entire panels and copying character designs.
  2. Very specific sources have been named - in this case, Bleach and Hellsing. (other suspected sources notwithstanding). The multiple instances where plagiarism is either clearly evident or strongly indicated discount the possibility of similarities being accidental.
  3. Comparisons between scenes which have been copied - while not directly traced - from those same source materials can and does serve as corroborating evidence.
Where we are now is:
  1. Accusations of plagiarism have been made.
  2. They were commented on by muliple reliable sources.
  3. The publisher of the comic book has officially ceased any distribution and further publication of the comic and is attempting to contact the owners of plagiarised works.
  4. Viz Media (allegedly) has commented regarding this on Twitter. [1] [2]
IMO, the correct way to deal with this would be adding a separate section on Accusations of plagiarism, containing a summary of those events and illustrated with one or more of the comparisons which the accusations were originally based on (and clearly labeled as such). They did not originally come from reliable sources, but they did result in reaction from reliable sources. WP:IAR may very well apply here. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the reaction from reliable sources. May you link them? All I see is Twitter, blog posts and the like, which are usually not acceptable sources in general, and they are for sure not when dealing with person biographies. WP:WELLKNOWN applies when multiple, undeniably reliable sources cover an issue. I may be wrong of course, but please point the sources. --Cyclopiatalk 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[3]
First message under "News". --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One source, and a primary one. The source is also very vague: which news? which matter? Really I am sympathetic to your point of view on the issue, but we would need multiple, secondary (i.e. third-party) sources about this incident. I could agree on including some of it in the article about Incarnate, if there is any, but including plagiarism accusations not backed up by multiple reliable third-party sources violates WP:WELLKNOWN. --Cyclopiatalk 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have been reported by reliable sources, the publisher of the comic book and the distributor of the manga hare both taking this seriously and have made statements on the issue (that in itself justifies the coverage). This article and the one on the comic book is semi-protected which has helped us contain the vandalism and address the major causes for concern in the content (this semi-protection can be extended until this is resolved if that is thought to be a good idea) and a number of editors have worked through everything to keep the statement here pretty barebones and the one on the comic book trimmed down to what can be properly sourced (and it is presented in a wider context so it isn't given excessive coverage). I'm personally happy we have the best compromise at the moment and don't think it should be all removed (WP:BLP doesn't say anything controversial should go, we just have to be careful with what is said and how it is sourced - which is what the main focus has been on). It will need policing but, as it stands, I think we have avoided the potential pitfalls in such a case. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
WP:BLP doesn't say anything controversial should go, we just have to be careful with what is said and how it is sourced - which is what the main focus has been on - I agree absolutely on that -in fact, a lot of people often argue with me for this very reason. But again, it's a matter of sources here. WP:WELLKNOWN states that If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. --Cyclopiatalk 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, checked that "Anime News Network" is indicated as a RS by Wikiproject Anime and Manga (I was a bit concerned because the article says "Via Bleachness Livejournal Community"). I don't see Comic Book Resources listed as such anywhere, however. --Cyclopiatalk 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CBR is an Eisner Award winning comics website (the Eisner being the most prestigious comics award) and one of the leading websites for American comic books. There is no problem with its reliability as a source, for example the University of Buffalo's research library calls it "the premiere comics-related site on the Web". Robot 6 is where a lot of writers for Newsarama (another Eisner-winning comics site, it and CBR are really the Big Two for American comics coverage) went after the site was bought out by a larger firm. (Emperor (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Fine with me. :) --Cyclopiatalk 13:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is does it really matter where the story originally broke when all of the evidence is easily verifiable. All you have to do is look at both books to see it.TheObvious (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It matters a lot especially when you are dealing with biographies of living people - it is one of the strictest guidelines as what is said here can have direct impact on people's lives and livelihoods. Extra special care has to be taken to make sure what you are saying is relevant, well sourced, is neutral and doesn't give the issue undue weight - which is why the relevant articles are being put under the microscope, everything has to be just right and only relies on what we can prove or the articles can be stripped back to the bone (I've seen this happen numerous times and try to avoid it happening again if I can). So what fans do or don't think isn't necessarily a concern for us, however, if these concerns get picked up by the comics press (who have examined the claims) and if these accusations are then taken seriously by the relevant publishers then it becomes something we'd want to look at finding a way to include. (Emperor (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edited first line to read 'alleged plagiarist', rather than 'plagiarist' as he's not yet been charged, nor have clams even been verified. 70.176.203.139 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly: This is not a news site. We do not have the luxury of leveling accusation about people. Especially when that information is pushed to the top of the article.
The information about the accusation is within the article, with in context and with in scope. That is enough at this point.
Pushing "Talentless hack", "plagiarist", or "alleged plagiarist" into the infobox or, worse, the lead section is contrary to WP:BLP. It will be point black reverted. And continued pushing with in the article can result in 1) the article getting fully protected and/or sanctions getting handed out to the registers (since it is currently semi-protected) editors pushing it.
- J Greb (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just flagging the fact that the NY Times quote doesn't seem to be the whole statement, which can be seen here. I think it covers the important details and is from a good source but it is worth a mention just so we have everything covered. (Emperor (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Birthplace of Father[edit]

Is it really relevant to put his Fathers birthplace as a hotlink to another wiki page? Its his father we are talking about, not Nick Simmons, and I find it quite frankly kind of bias. To make a point, I don't see anything about Hungary on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.22.220 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little unnecessary but it also mentions his mother was born in Canada. I'm not sure why it would be seen as bias though or what the importance of Hungary is but when all the controversy has blown over we might want to take a look at that as it just seems pointless. (Emperor (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for not being clear Emperor, and thanks for the response. The reason why I say it is bias is because despite their family being of Hungarian-Jewish origin I see no mention of this heritage (on his fathers page its posted clearly), nor do I find the Canadian heritage to be set up as a link. Why one country gets a link but the other doesn't? To me that's like Takeshi Kaneshiro's parents getting one hotlink to Japan but no hotlink to Taiwan/China. That can really rub people the wrong way, as there's no real clear consistency to it. Also to make another point, Israel played a role in his fathers life and it is reasonably searchable via the web and other media that the father is appreciative of his origins. However Nick Simmons, as far as I know, does not show active appreciation or incorporation of his heritage into his professional life like his father *occasionally* does. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.22.218 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be getting over detailed "Israeli-born, to a Hungarian mother, Gene Simmons."
If you objection is that Israeli is linked in but Canadian isn't then we can link Canadian.
If we look at Takeshi Kaneshiro as an example it is clearly mentioned as part of his nationality, I am unsure that is an issue here as his Dad is an American citizen and he was born in America. However, if he has applied for a Hungarian or Israeli passport (as I suspect he has a right to) or had some complex mix of citizenship then it might be worth a mention. As it stands I don't really see why we should mention his parents nationality at all. However, it might be a bigger deal in the US as an awful lot of Americans I know can tell you they are 1/16 Cherokee and an 1/8 German but that kind of thing isn't something a lot of people in the UK give much thought to (although a relative did contact me about family tree information as he worked in the UN and was seeing if he was eligible for an Irish passport).
So I can't see the need to mention his parents' nationalities here at all, it doesn't seem to have any bearing on Nick Simmons, who is an American born in America, and it could make things complicated and unnecessarily messy when his parents' situation is discussed in full (and sourced I'd assume) on their respective articles, so an interested reader can always check them out there. (Emperor (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Canadian citizenship[edit]

He became a Canadian citizen a few weeks ago. I think it should be mentioned somewhere. Norum 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

I find it interesting that there's no mention of the fact that Nick Simmons' manga, Incarnate, is believed to be plagiarized directly from Bleach, Hellsing, and a couple others, to the point that there are some panels that are the exact same (traced). 99.236.97.151 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last two lines of the, second paragraph, "Career" section. With refs for as far as it went. See also #Regarding sources on the plagiarism claims for thee issues raised at the time (early 2010).
Given the article size, WP:BLP, and the lack of additional reliable sources covering the issue in the last ~18 months, pushing it isn't something to try and do.
- J Greb (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nick Simmons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Simmons&oldid=1204331249"