Jump to content

Talk:Bill Day (cartoonist)

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

Updates

[edit]

The following update has been emailed by Bill Day. Please review and add what seems appropriate:

Bill Day is an award-winning cartoonist syndicated worldwide three times a week through United Feature Syndicate. Day has won the Green Eyeshade Award from the Society of Professional Journalists five times -- in 2009, 2006, 2005, 2001, and 2000. The recipient of two Robert F. Kennedy Awards -- 2010 and 1985 -- he has also been honored with the National Headliner Award, First Amendment Award, New York Newspaper Guild’s Page One Award, National Cartoonists Society’s Award for Best Editorial Cartoons, and James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism.
Day’s work is widely reprinted in major national magazines including Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report and Business Week. The defense of the oppressed and their condition is a deep and eloquent theme in his work. “I have great fun drawing and using humor in my cartoons,” says Day. “But when a terrible injustice occurs, I’ll use the most powerful images possible to address it.”
Day grew up in Lake Mary, Florida, and began as a political cartoonist on the college newspaper 'The Alligator' while studying political science and art at the University of Florida. After college, he worked as an illustrator in the art departments of a number of newspapers and drew political cartoons part-time. In 1980, the Philadelphia Bulletin hired him as a full-time political cartoonist. After the Bulletin folded, he moved to the Memphis Commercial Appeal and then to the Detroit Free Press, where he worked for thirteen years. In 1998, he returned to the Commercial Appeal and his beloved South. Day and his wife Susan have three sons.

Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste and new section

[edit]

I was copy-editing some of the excessively promotional language in this article, when I noticed that much of it had been copied and pasted verbatim from various official pages hosted on Cagle.com. Oddly, when I visited the sites a second time to maybe reconstruct some of the mostly benign info into a bio, the sites wouldn't load. Seem they are behind a paywall. I don't know why they loaded the first time I read them. Quite odd. Anyway, rather than add WP:COPYVIO, I had no choice but to leave it more empty than when I got here.

In addition, I added some information on recent controversies. Both items are sourced from The Daily Cartoonist, which is a small site, but appears to me to meet WP:RS.Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism section

[edit]

This is the first time I've used Talk, so forgive me if I'm doing it wrong. I removed the links to the "plagiarism" charges because they were specious and being made by only one or two cartoonists. If you read the news article on Poynter and the Washington Post, you can see it's more a story of cartoonists versus cartoonist than it is an issue of plagiarism.

Charges of plagiarism shouldn't be made lightly, and can effect a cartoonist's ability to get work from clients. His syndicate didn't consider it plagiarism, nor did the cartooning community at large. I just don't think this internal squabble between cartoonists warrants a mention on someone's Wikipedia page.

Harrylime23 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2013

It's not up to you (or me) to say what the cartooning community at large has to say about it. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not our personal opinions or experiences. Sources say it was a significant event, so if you don't think it was, you need to find better sources. It is also not up to Wikipedia to help Day find a job. Cagle might not have considered it plagiarism, but as the article already mentions the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists has taken actions in response to this. Day was scheduled to give a presentation at the annual meeting to answer these charges. This doesn't sound like a minor issue to me. The article isn't saying the accusations are true or false, but it is accurately reporting that they have been made by several outlets. If I don't get a response regarding this, I will reinstate the material. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Poynter article, the writer dismisses the charge of plagiarism coming from a select few cartoonists:

Gardner calls Day’s use of the gun plagiarism. I’m not sure that’s exactly the right word. Unauthorized interpolation? Ham-fisted aggregation? Media-blogger-baiting transgression?

Even in the most liberal interpretation, what Day did was plagiarism. He also didn't try to pass off someone else's work as his own - as soon as he realized it was not a photo, he removed it from his syndicate and re-drew it. I just think it's wrong to tar and feather his page with the accusations of two cartoonists when the reporting done on the incident downplays the charge, and basically just reports, "These guys are saying it's plagiarism."

You mention that the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists has taken action, but all they did was issue this statement, which doesn't even mention Day:

Statement from the Board of the AAEC: The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists Endorses Originality.

Over the years, there have been rare instances where an editorial cartoonist passes off someone else's work as their own. This practice diminishes the cartoonist, their body of work and damages the profession of editorial cartooning.

The vast majority of political cartoonists create imaginative, original art and commentary on a daily basis and are a vital part of journalism.

Passing someone else's work off as your own is not tolerated in written reporting, and it should not be tolerated in political cartooning. Indeed, it is not tolerated within the membership of our association. Further, reselling old cartoons with only a few labels changed is just plain bad for both the art form and for business.

These rare instances of plagiarism should not detract from the thousands of unique, original and well-drawn works created by hard-working cartoonists every year. These fresh, original creations jump off the page (be it paper, monitor or mobile), engaging readers and making them think, talk, argue and act.

New, creative and original political cartoons make a difference in our society. The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists will continue to dedicate itself to supporting and promoting the craft.

Harrylime23 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2013

As I said, the article doesn't state that Day is a plagiarist, it simply says that there was a controversy, and there most certainly was a controversy. Sure, the AAEC did issue a statement, but according to at least three sources I can find, they also held a vote on a code of ethics in direct response to Day's actions. Other than Cagle, all present agreed to put it to a vote. Day was scheduled to give a speech in his own defense, but it was apparently rescheduled at the last minute (by Day himself) to coincide with the presentation on plagiarism in cartooning. This is not just 'two cartoonists', and this is not an accusation that was tossed around lightly. Everybody is acknowledging that plagiarism accusations have been made. My attempt was to include the sources without adding any commentary of my own. I mentioned that Cagle felt it was fair use, and that Day mistakenly thought it was a photo. I wasn't attempting to be harsh towards Day, but The events are real, and as far as I can tell, the sources meet Wikipedia policy. If you would like to propose a way to rephrase the section, I'm all for hearing it, but to pretend that nothing happened, or that it was no big deal, strikes me as misleading. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no additional comments, I have restored the material. It seems especially odd to include the information about the Indiegogo fundraiser without at least mentioning the controversy that immediately followed. As far as I can see, there are more sources for the latter, and many sources discuss both simultaneously. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Day (cartoonist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Day_(cartoonist)&oldid=1201388372"