Jump to content

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs/Controversy

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

Controversy

[edit]

Both Gawker and IMDB are used as sources of information on other pages including: Gamergate controversy and George Lucas, not liking the controversy isn't enough to revert edits. The controversy was presented in an unbiased manner and cover topics relevant to the show and it's creator.FauXnetiX (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS/IMDB, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Gawker.com and WP:Other stuff exists. Incorrect usage on other articles does not set any sort of precedent. The fact that you got this picked up on Gawker does not give it any weight. Need much more than one source of gossip to count this as a notable controversy and even then is off topic for a tv series article and belongs in the bio article of the person involved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided two sources for the controversy and one showing that the film and show are indeed created by the same person. Gawker is used as a source for other articles so you can't claim that it isn't credible in this case. They may be gossip but that is what controversy is. The controversy is not off topic because the show is specifically named in both articles, thus making the controversy specifically about the show.FauXnetiX (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again incorrect usage on other articles does not set any sort of precedent. And need much more than some gossip site that picked up your ramblings to show that this is any sort of notable controversy. See also WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Also see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theroot.com/authors.jason_johnson.html is a professor speaking about it. Not credible enough? I noticed you don't want to talk about that source that was provided. And "my ramblings" seems bit biased don't you think?FauXnetiX (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One person picks up on some wacky fringe theory, doesn't take it seriously and laughingly reports on it. It is more a humor piece. That is in no way any sort of controversy that belongs in any wiki article. Even the report ridicules it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't just one person, we've covered that. He's a respected professor talking about something he deemed worth talking about. Regardless of his views on it he still acknowledged it and I provided sources so readers could see his views while also keeping the section neutral.FauXnetiX (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is reporting that some weird stuff exists and doesn't take it seriously. Neither should we. It adds zero value to this article to have widely ridiculed conspiracy theories in an article about a kids' TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First you say it's fringe and not covered by enough people then you say it's widely ridiculed. Which is it? Not covered enough or widely ridiculed? If it's widely ridiculed then it needs to be covered and readers should be directed to those sources. Other sources talking about it: http://therightstuff.biz/2015/05/24/cuckelodeon-and-denial/ http://www.reaxxion.com/9126/why-is-nickelodeon-airing-a-creepy-cuckold-fetish-show-aimed-at-children http://www.dailystormer.com/bella-and-the-bulldogs-jewish-cuckolding-lessons-for-kids-must-be-exposed/ (whether or not you agree with their conclusion isn't relevant, it was picked up by other sources). His ridicule isn't relevant. The controversy was enough to attract his attention and the attention of others. That's what the controversy section indicates; the issue that was being discussed and the link via the creator. It makes no claim whether or not the other claims are true, but does demonstrate that both the show and the film have the same creator. The topic is easily found via a google search so it's relevant to the wiki and our responsibility to make sure it's covered in a non biased manner.FauXnetiX (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of personal blogs have picked this up and are reporting on it. Where is the coverage in major news sources like USA Today, Variety, any major newspaper with reputation for fact checking - something that meets reliable source guidelines and isn't an opinion piece. Made up controversy that we do not need in a article about a kids' show. Grind the axe elsewhere. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to require a specific source. Check Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline you'll see that I've met the notability requirement as well as Wikipedia:DUE#Due and undue weight. The topic covered is not the view of the minority, but the controversy that was created due to the view of the minority, and in this case part of that controversy was indeed factual and verified by the sources. Opinion piece isn't relevant because the opinion piece isn't being used to confirm or deny claims, only to indicate that such claims were made and that they are notable. Let me ask you this since you're an admin: If I go to the Gamergate controversy article and remove any information using Gawker or it's affiliates as a source will you back me up?FauXnetiX (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) All those guidelines require reliable sources you have provided blogs and opinion pieces, but no reliable sources. WP:GNG is about article creation. The fact that there is racial animus about this show by some fringe groups is not any sort of controversy. It is mostly the butt of a bunch of commentator jokes and even the blogs listed don't take this seriously. If you think you have a case for WP:GNG, start an article about this such as was done for Gamergate controversy and see how it goes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask again and this time don't dodge it: If I go to the Gamergate controversy article and remove any information using Gawker or it's affiliates as a source will you back me up? Give me a concrete definition of "reliable source" that you're using because Wikipedia:RS#Definition of a source states: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Which is exactly what I clarified above. I provided statements by the author and a short summary of their words attributed to them. The sources were used to indicate the controversy, not to indicate if there was any validity to the claims made. I used additional sources to indicated that yes at least on part of the controversy was indeed factual. You say "the blogs don't take it seriously", yet it was taken seriously enough by a Ph.d. to discuss it.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with GP. I don't know that this is an actual "controversy" rather than a flimsily constructed fringe conspiracy hypothesis based on ridiculous suppositions and assumptions. Simply because some people with racist axes to grind have started a smear campaign against a guy does not make that worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Look at the article on Moon landing, for instance. Do you see what weight is given to the hoax conspiracy after 46 years of Flat Earth Society nonsense? Exactly 1/2 of a sentence: "Many conspiracy theorists insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax;" If we were to apply the same balance of due weight vs. undue weight, learned professionals vs fringe racist bloggers, we'd be left with very little of value. "Some people said X, this was ridiculed by the following fifteen professionals with opinions that matter per WP:RS." What value does that have? We're not a news site, and we're not here to report on every aspect of this series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a learned professional. The space used wasn't gratuitous, and one of the claims within the controversy was indeed true. Are you telling me that if one of the claims by the Flat Earth society was true that it wouldn't be covered? The claim about the creators role with the film is notable because it not only lead to concern, but also to people talking about those concerns (whether they dismissed them or not) and to resolution that at least one of the concerns was true.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody who isn't already primed for racial animus is taking this seriously. Even the sources provided don't take this seriously. There is no controversy here, just some weird fringe people trying to stir something up. We don't need to provide an platform and we shouldn't provide a platform. Definitely does not belong in this article. Adds absolutely nothing to the understanding of this TV series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just call anyone who was curious about this topic a racist? I don't think you're in any position to be making such biased assertions about people who may be visiting this page or looking into the controversy. As an admin you should know better. Also: If I go to the Gamergate controversy article and remove any information using Gawker or it's affiliates as a source will you back me up? Additionally I noticed you didn't address any of my statements in my last reply. You just called me a racist. Something tells me that's not part of the Wikipedia SOP otherwise you would have linked it to me already.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was very careful not to call anyone a racist and was just characterizing what was in the opinion pieces listed. If you think this deserves an article such as Gamergate controversy, start one, but it does not belong in this article. This is starting to look like a WP:coatrack attempt to jerk this article to something tangential and irrelevant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because you stated: "Nobody who isn't already primed for racial animus is taking this seriously." Well I'm taking this seriously now, so that must mean I'm primed for "racial animus". Professor Jason Johnson took it seriously enough to discuss the topic. He must be primed as well. Now, let me check the definition...animus: hostility or ill feeling...racial ill feeling...racial hostility...OH! You DID call me a racist! Nice one admin. Nice one.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the issue at the root of the "controversy". It is racial animus at the root of all this and that sort of stuff should not be provided a forum on wiki. Read what you provided as sources. So no I did not call you a racist. Also Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) no administrator tools that can be used. See my user page for more. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to decide what is or isn't covered on a wiki simply because you don't like the origins of a topic. It's related to the show. Regardless of the motives of the person(s) who brought the topic up the fact remains that the topic was picked up by other sources, and at least one of the claims was validated and is directly related to the show via the show's creator, Johnathan Butler. I've seen your user page. That's how I know your an admin. As an admin I would expect more. "The fact that you got this picked up on Gawker..." more possible bias on your end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FauXnetiX (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community does get to decide what is or isn't covered at Wikipedia. Simply being related to the series doesn't warrant inclusion any more than other tangential trivia belongs in the article. We are also not here to be vehicles for the promotion of a fringe opinion that even by your examples has been roundly rejected as silly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I said YOU. This is also not acting as a vehicle of fringe opinion. It's highlighting that a fringe opinion was picked up by media commentators and a professor, which then turned out to have a bit of accuracy to it. That is indeed notable.FauXnetiX (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're personalizing this, and moving the goalposts, FauX. You're here talking about Bella, but asking Geraldo to comment about other articles and defend X in article Y. Not constructive. Now we've got a red herring of "you called me a racist" to contend with. Let's re-focus on the matter at hand. The content you submitted here is inappropriate for a number of reasons, including that you're promoting a fringe opinion, and that you've misrepresented Feinberg's statements. She didn't call the film a fetish film, as you did. She said that the film explored that fetish. That seems like a significant difference. The rest of the content like "Regardless of the motive of the anonymous internet detective" is just totally inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia, and serves to elevate the importance of someone who didn't lob these accusations openly. Coverage of this writer's (Butler's) other works would presumably be suitable for inclusion in an article about him, but there's no indication he's notable enough to deserve one. So even if we were to consider the inclusion of Gawker and the other source as reliable, what content would you find appropriate for inclusion? "Some internet users felt there was a controversy about XYZ, but reliable sources like a gen-u-ine PhD ridiculed these claims and dismissed the issue as non-controversial? Does that content seem better to you than leaving the matter out entirely? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm asking this person to defend their position. If they believe my sources aren't valid then the answer to the question: If I go to the Gamergate controversy article and remove any information using Gawker or it's affiliates as a source will you back me up? should be: YES! ABSOLUTELY! Because those sources are not valid according to this admin. This person has twice refused to answer a direct question relating to these sources. That's cause for concern. I'm not going to bother with your claim about a red herring because the words are very clear. "Regardless of the motive of the anonymous internet detective" was a place holder phrase while I worked on something better. I need to edit in the wiki page because I don't have the commands memorized for citing. I didn't get around to it because 3 people went full out assault on me claiming sources weren't valid which I addressed above. Your second point doesn't acknowledge that the statement about the show's creator was factual. "[W]hat content would you find appropriate for inclusion?" You've read my edit. That's the content I found appropriate. Acknowledgement of a public controversy relating to the shows creator, indication of where commentators in the media believe it came from, and the fact that one part of the clam was true. The rest of your questions have been addressed above in previous posts.FauXnetiX (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My having admin rights on another account is irrelevant to this discussion, but I am well-aware of wiki policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BLP and WP:BLPREMOVE apply to more than bio articles. Material that you desire to be added can be considered defamatory toward a real person so BLP policy does apply and source requirement are strict. And as I did explain, what happens on other articles does not set a precedent and context does matter for sourcing but defamatory content does need real good sources, none of which you provided. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot because it's a statement of fact: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3199719/
Indicating this person wrote/directed a film is not defamatory. If it was this wiki page wouldn't exist.FauXnetiX (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how does BLP policy define what is or is not a valid source for citation? Precedent clearly doesn't hold sway, so that's out, which seems rather ludicrous if the same source is cited elsewhere in arguably similar circumstances as regards BLP policy. So, what definitive traits of a given source validate it for citation comparative to other sources, and how, exactly, does this violate such? It shouldn't be a difficult matter to find acceptable sources to cite in this context - it is a widely acknowledged fact. From what I can gather, the triad of concern is thusly: Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. None of the sources cited espouse original research. None of the sources cited espouse a non-neutral stance/view. None of the sources cited are outside the realm of verifiability. Thus, there should be no issue as regards the validity of these sources. I would also like further explanation as to the definitive properties which differentiate a "fringe concern" from "significant minority view".CleverCabbit (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For details about reliable sources see article WP:Identifying reliable sources. Also please stick to one account in these discussions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at that. Also please avoid assumptive potentially-defamatory remarks such as the one you just made. This is a different user, with a shared concern, and your implications of underhanded activity are not appreciated.CleverCabbit (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CleverCabbit, it is nice to know that we can count on you to fight to exclude potentially defamatory content at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can indeed count on that, when any sort of evidence to such an improper claim is absent - that is, when someone is making an utterly baseless claim for the purpose of defamation. Rest assured of that.CleverCabbit (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one of many people involved in this series wrote a movie doesn't seem any more relevant to this article than the other projects that directors of this series, or producers, or actors, or crew may have been involved in. None of that impacts this article or expands our knowledge of this article in any significant way. Any link between a drama film written in 2009 and a children's comedy TV series that premiered in 2015 needs to be established by reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the controversy is over the creator of a fetish film working on a show for children. The conclusion drawn by outside sources aren't relevant. What is relevant is the media attention that was garnered by those conclusions, and the fact that one point made (that this individual did indeed write/direct a fetish film) was true. That makes the controversy relevant to the show and relevant to the page. If it was found out Ron Jeremy was working on a show for children and it raised eyebrows in the media, regardless of the conclusions of the media, I have no doubt it would be included on the page; not to indicate bias against Ron Jeremy, but to note the controversy.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You calling it a fetish film doesn't make it a fetish film. I haven't yet seen any reliable sources call it a "fetish film". Gawker acknowledged that it was a movie (no dispute here) and said that it "does explore this particular fetish" (no dispute here). But they don't label it a "fetish film" as you have. Your TheRoot source described it as "a film about a particular fetish", but didn't call it a fetish film. These facts are significant because they don't support the connections you are trying to make across these subjects. Maybe we come from different sides of the Internet, but I would imagine that a "fetish film" was a film immersed in the fetish, not simply a dramatic depiction of it. Surely if the matter were depicted on National Geographic's Taboo series, we wouldn't necessarily include that in an article on a children's TV series that he may also have worked on. The facts are simply unrelated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A film that explores a fetish as its primary focus throughout its course is not a "fetish film"? Oh come now, you're becoming more and more disingenuous and abandoning neutrality with each post. The connections made are that a film exploring a fetish of a certain bent was created by an individual, and that individual is now working on a children's television program portraying many of the same subtexts exhibited as associated with the fetish portrayed in their previous work. Maybe we come from different sides of the internet, but I would imagine a "fetish film" was a film immersed in a fetish such that its title is, quite literally, the terminology employed in describing that fetish. The material in question was not a National Geographic series, it was a dramatic depiction of a fetish lifestyle espousing a variety of subtexts which bear striking similarity to subtexts exhibited in the children's work under discussion - hence the controversy which has emerged on the matter. The facts are entirely related.CleverCabbit (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that one of many people involved in this series wrote a movie doesn't seem any more relevant to this article than the other projects that directors of this series, or producers, or actors, or crew may have been involved in." Context matters. This individual participated in the generation of a piece of media which has generated controversy due to contextually-relevant implications associated with the subject matter of the piece of media in question and piece of media currently in production which the individual in question is actively engaged in. If others working on this series have exhibited similar contextually-relevant past participation in creation of controversy-generating media pieces, they too would be worthy of mention in this context - however, we have nothing to suggest such is the case, at present.
"None of that impacts this article or expands our knowledge of this article in any significant way." And utterly biased statement on your behalf, which I'll not address further, beyond to say that it could easily be argued this information impacts this article significantly and expands our knowledge of the (arguably) contextually-relevant aspects of the program which generated controversy across several media/journalistic platforms.
"Any link between a drama film written in 2009 and a children's comedy TV series that premiered in 2015 needs to be established by reliable sources." And it has been, as I'll now demonstrate.
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
"Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context."
In this context, I believe it could be easily argued that the source under examination - whether it be Gawker media (which is cited in several other articles, including those which would be valid for application of BLP policy) IMDB, or any of the myriad journalistic entries on this subject matter - constitute contextually valid summation of the matter under concern as regards the citation of the source in question, the context in question being the verification of the participation of an individual in the creation of a piece of media and/or verification of controversy having been spawned from the program in question's potential subtext relative to the previous works of one of the participants, namely the piece of media which the individual in question participated in the creation of.
"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable *for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article* and *is an appropriate source for that content*." IMDB would appear a valid source as regards the statement that this individual was associated with the creation of this piece of media, and would serve as an appropriate source for that content.
"In general, *the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication*." This only further support for IMDB as a valid source in this context, given that, like wikipedia, it has a vast well-spring of volunteer participants engaged in the content generation and management process, in addition to oversight by site proprietors.
"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Which the IMDB entry does magnificently, given that the information presented is that of identifying the association of the participant in the creation of a given piece of media.
Moving forward, I would ask of those present: What would be a viable source for citation of in the vein of this matter? For example, assuming IMDB were to be viewed as an unacceptable source in this vein as to the end of proving participation of an individual in a piece of media, what would be an alternative source which might cited as regards proving such participation? Could the piece of media itself be cited, given it no-doubt exhibits the participants' names in the credits? There must be a means which the wikipedia community deems valid for the purposes of associating an individual with media works in the creation of which those individuals have been engaged, and if IMDB is not such an source, what source would be valid in that context?CleverCabbit (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The defamatory accusation is that he is adding adult fetish elements to a kid's show for the purpose of corrupting children. There is no evidence of that happening. There are no reliable source anywhere that supports that assertion only that he did in the past create a movie with said fetish a topic. There are some internet musings that don't like the show's casting that see some parallels and they are making a fuss. Nobody is taking them seriously. We shouldn't either and because of the potential defamation of Butler keep them out of the article. We don't need crazy fringe theories in article particularly ones that defame real people. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article never accused him of doing such a thing, and outside sources said the same. The controversy is over his involvement in writing/directing a fetish film and being involved in a show for children.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. There is no accusation of untoward activity being levied here, merely acknowledgement of controversy generated as a result of the revelation of the association of this individual with past works of an adult-oriented bent and now having moved onto children's programming (exhibiting similar subtextual traits to the individual's past, adult-oriented, works). Please try to maintain a state of dissociation in your mind from the accusations that were levied against that person and the controversy which emerged - they are not necessarily one in the same, and acknowledgement of the controversy which emerged is not equivalent to active expression of agreement or disdain in that vein, merely acknowledgement of the resultant controversy (which has been picked up by a variety of online journalistic entities).CleverCabbit (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that there are elements in common and similar subtextual traits is defamatory. He is doing no such thing. Some people making up stuff and other people calling it ridiculous is not a controversy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What an individual user says on a talk page isn't related to my edit of the article. Do not conflate conclusion drawn by individual users with an objective view of the controversy surrounding a writer/director of a fetish film being involved with a show for children.FauXnetiX (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that there are elements in common and similar subtextual traits is not at all defamatory, it is a statement of fact. There are such commonalities and similar subtextual traits, this cannot be denied. Whether they are placed with intent is another matter, and the controversy which has emerged over that issue, the question of intent of similarity in that vein, is worthy of acknowledgement in the context of Wikipedia's article on the subject.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it is a statement of opinion not backed up with anything. There is nothing in common between his adult film and this kids' show. Some people seeing things that are not there and others ridiculing them on that is way off topic for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a statement of opinion at all, its simply a factual statement based upon analysis of the material at hand. To say there is nothing in common between these two media pieces is, quite simply, factually inaccurate. There is no debate in this regard. Whether the similarities are intentional, or even worthy of concern, is a matter of opinion - but that similarities exist is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Some people not seeing things that are there and others noting their refusal to acknowledge fact on that is very much on topic as regards this article - but is not necessarily what is being asked for. Contrary to your statement, the intent is to acknowledge that a large segment of the public has acknowledged the similarities, and a controversy has emerged as a result of conflicting opinions on the matter. You do not appear well-versed on this material - as espoused by your blatantly inaccurate statement suggesting there is, and I quote, "there is nothing in common between his adult film and this kids' show" - and I would advise you to investigate before commenting further.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who did said analysis? What is his qualifications to make this kind of analysis? Is this person a recognized authority? What is the reliable source that published this analysis? You are making an assertion not backed up with anything. What I am reading is people with some amount of racial animus seeing stuff they expect to see. Some stretching in the normal meanings of words to support "similarities". Cosmetic choices in casting is about the extent of the similarities. There is nothing else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? What are your qualifications? You've clearly already made claims - such that the similarities present in the series and the film are superficial and more likely coincidental - that your analysis should be justifiable for exclusion of any sort of commentary on this very-real controversy. Are you a recognized authority? If not, why would you even bother to express such concerns, knowing that you are not qualified to make such a judgment? What I am reading is someone trying to hide behind the claim of racial animus when they have no justifiable stance with which to hold as regards resisting an edit to acknowledge a controversy. For you to suggest the similarities are merely "cosmetic", and entirely relative to casting, is disingenuous on your behalf, as is your belated claim of demand for qualifications in making analytical judgments of a piece of media. There is a great deal else, and if you had bothered to put forth any sort of research into this controversy - which you clearly have not - you would recognize as much. And, even if you did not, whether you do or not is irrelevant, yes? Seeing as you are not in any way qualified to make such analytical judgments? Again, what you or I think as regards the people coming to conclusions regarding this media piece is irrelevant, what matters is that it has generated a controversy which is worthy of acknowledgement. There is absolutely no justifiable stance to take as to resist this edit - it is worthy of acknowledgment (via subjective qualifications for such), can easily be phrased such as to be non-defamatory, you've done nothing to demonstrate it is merely a frine group concern as opposed to a significant minority concern, and you've contradicted yourself on at least two accounts (claiming the shows bear no similarity then going back on that, and now claiming someone must have qualifications to make simple analyses of media entries when you yourself have already attempted to make such claims as though bearing such qualifications). You really have no grounds even commenting on this matter, IMHO.CleverCabbit (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. See: WP:RS/IMDB, WP:RS, WP:TVFAQ. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20110413052051/http://www.mythologicalbeast.com/BuffNewsArt/413392.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20100902073743/http://www.mythologicalbeast.com/index.html Go to info and scroll down to writer/director.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how about those, then?CleverCabbit (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't reliable, either. Also, even if it turned out to be true, again, it has no relevance to the article. Two completely different jobs. Faux and CC, you guys are just going around in circles. Just because someone works for an adult-related thing does not prohibit them for working on a kids-related thing or vice-versa. Trying to create controversy over it is just silly. Amaury (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to 'create' a controversy over it - it has been picked up and addressed by a variety of journalistic sources and journalists themselves. A controversy exists. Nobody has implied - besides yourself - that working in adult-related things should prohibit one from working in a kids-related thing, however, as it has generated controversy, which is undeniable, and is a matter worthy of mention as such, it is worth noting on the Wikipedia article surrounding the piece of media. It should, of course, be permitted for a fetish film director to be engaged in children's media programming, in which they introduce concepts and themes subtextually-related to those espoused in previous (adult-oriented) works; however, it should also be worthy of mention when it generates controversy, as it has, which is beyond debate. I see no valid motivation in claiming this an issue unworthy of mention, nor even that it invokes defamation, as it not necessarily a requirement that Wikipedia imply any untoward activity on this individual's behalf, merely notation that a controversy emerged as a result of the revelation of the conditions at hand.CleverCabbit (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation on your behalf as to how those sources are invalid would also be appreciated - and, if the intent is merely to cite to a page, please be sure to specific exactly which aspects you are citing.CleverCabbit (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does have relevance to the article because the article is about the show and the controversy is about the show as well. Controversy is always created. We're just including what was created by the media in the wiki article. You're going to have to show what they're not credible.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no controversy. There is a fringe group of people trying to defame Butler and others refuting them. Adds nothing to this article at all to cover any of that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, defamation requires claims made to be untrue. In this case it is true he wrote/directed a fetish film, and that fact resulted in a controversy. There's no getting around it.FauXnetiX (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that has not been shown to be true. He made a film about a fetish, it has not been shown to be a fetish film. The defamation is the claim that there are "elements in common and similar subtextual traits" of that adult film carried over to a kids' show. That portion is untrue and that makes it defamatory. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgement that the controversy exists - which it does, something that is, again, beyond debate - is not equivalent to agreement with conceptual basis of the controversy at hand. Claims have been made - factual in nature - that similarities exist between this series and that film, such claims generating a controversy on the matter. Acknowledgement of the controversy is not equivalent to supporting the controversy. This seems a matter of semantics on your behalf - you have no choice but to acknowledge a controversy exists, and so seek to rely upon the notion that any acknowledgement of that controversy is equivalent to defamation, which is simply not the case. Again, a matter of semantics seems to be your primary concern, namely, that the manner in which the controversy is addressed not be portrayed in a manner that is representative of defamation towards the individual, and I would argue there is most-certainly a manner in which such controversy might be addressed without espousing a stance of defamation of the individual in question (even if the controversy itself revolves around concepts which, if accepted as accurate, would represent potential defamation). To summarize, if a controversy emerges over the revelation regarding ones actions, acknowledgement of that controversy and its origin on behalf of wikipedia is not equivalent to potentially-defamatory espousal of a stance in agreement with those participating in the controversy - you can acknowledge someone's argument exists without agreeing with them, especially if you present both sides of that argument in your acknowledgement.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my word order. Well then change my wording from "fetish film" to "film about the cuckolding fetish". I have no problem with clarity. Once again, no claim about "elements" was made within my edit, so that isn't up for discussion. My edit only indicated that a controversy existed because he wrote/directed a "film about a fetish" and moved to work on a show for kids. No claim was made on the page about subtext. Ever.FauXnetiX (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. That was me bringing up the notion of subtext, and it was not in relation to anything that should exist in the edit, merely within the context of our argumentation surrounding the motivations of peoples becoming upset with the matter, thus generating the controversy which does indeed exist. Heck, the specific context of the controversy in such a vein - that is, addressing the subtextual similiarities some have noted, justly, between the two works - does not require inclusion in the article, no resistance forthcoming on that account.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claims have been made about similarities that are superficial at best and much more likely to be coincidental. There is no way this can be covered without defaming Butler basically because the so-called controversy is one side saying he did bad stuff and the other saying he didn't. I see a generated controversy with some attempt to gain traction with its addition to wiki. This does not in any way improve this article with its addition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether such claims are superficial or not is beyond your capacity to judge, for it is a subjective matter - opinion, as you described above. There is most certainly a manner in which this can be covered which does not defame Butler because the controversy is simply that - a controversy, with both sides (to varying degrees) acknowledging the similarities, but with differing opinions as regards the origin of those similarities, some expressing the view that they are placed with intent, and others expressing the view that they are "superficial at best and much mroe likely to be coincidental". Acknowledgement of the controversy does not, in any way, defame Mr. Butler, and implication that such acknowledgement does contribute defamation is ludicrous.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. See: O. J. Simpson#Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman murders and trials. He was found not guilty, however, it is still possible to cover the trial without defaming him. Once again the controversy was caused because he wrote/directed a film about the cuckolding fetish before getting involved with shows for children. Had that not been a fact then there would have never been a controversy.FauXnetiX (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making untrue derogatory statements that could harm someone is far different than factual coverage of a trial. This "controversy" is based on the assertion, backed by dubious similarity analysis, that he can't separate his adult oriented projects to produce kid friendly ones and more that he is deliberately adding the adult elements to this kids' show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No untrue or derogatory statements have been made, nor have any been supported. This controversy is based on assertion, backed by - in your subjective, and poorly-informed, opinion, dubious - analytical evidenciary claims, which even an unqualified observer can pick up with relative ease. The controversy is based on conflicting opinions as regards the potential intent behind the appearance of themes and subtexts which may be viewed as similar between these two media pieces, that is all. Acknowledgement of such is all that is requested, and as you have repeatedly demonstrated conflicting statements and an uninformed (or disingenuous) stance on the matter, you really have no place offering commentary. A controversy exists regarding the views of the public as to whether or not the (factual) similarities between these two media works is intentional, and whether you agree or disagree with that view one way or another is irrelevant - what matters is that the controversy exists, which it does, and thus is worthy of acknowledgement on a wiki page (as much as, say, the controversy regarding Orson Scott Card's view's on homosexuality are worthy of acknowledgement on the Ender's Game movie page).CleverCabbit (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, I believe you have betrayed your neutral stance at this point, given that you address the expression of subjective opinion on behalf of those who disagree with your interpretation of a subjective issue as 'untrue derogatory statements', which is itself a factually inaccurate statement on your behalf, and arguable an untrue derogatory statement itself.CleverCabbit (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: The fact that he is the director/writer of The Cuckold is neither disputed nor derogatory. There is a controversy. The controversy was due to his involvement with a film about the cuckolding fetish prior to working on this show. The controversy covers this show specifically. No implication is made about his abilities to separate his adult productions from kids productions within the wiki article, and no (meaning zero, nil, nada, nothing)is included in the wiki article about him "adding" anything to the show for children (this has been address numerous times, yet you continue to repeat it as if it's the first time you said it). You're clearly grasping at straws, straw manning my original edit, and repeating yourself now.FauXnetiX (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no reason for people to be upset with him working on a kids's show if they believed he could separate his adult productions from kids productions. Why else would people rationally care? Then some people go look for similarities and with some major expansion in the meanings of words find some. Thus this so-called controversy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if that was typical human behavior (for both parties) then there would never be any controversies, but we live in reality and people don't necessarily trust people without proof, thus controversies arise. Please continue to avoid addressing my other points.FauXnetiX (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No confirmation of "fetish film" has been adequately established, so your argument is based on a false premise. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A film primarily about a fetish, titled with relation to that fetish, is worthy for description as a "fetish film". CleverCabbit (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's still subjective. We would need reliable sources for the genre as we would in any film article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a non-subjective definition of a "fetish film". I believe you've failed to do so in any reliable fashion. As such, you have no argument in this context - a "fetish film" is not a commonly employed terminology, thus the definition is, by definition, subjective. A film about, grounded in and titled after a fetish is certainly applicable for such terminology - however, as addressed below (and above), that is not a matter of extreme contention.CleverCabbit (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My response is located approx. 8 lines above. Feel free to address it. Related to word order.FauXnetiX (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the difference see Fetishes (film), a documentary, not a fetish film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The film under discussion was not a documentary, it was a dramatic piece set within the context of the fetish lifestyle, grounded in that subject matter, and entirely surrounding that subject matter. Further, as "fetish film" is not a clearly-defined construct, Fetishes would certainly fall within the bounds of being justifiably defined as a "fetish film". This line of argumentation is irrelevant however, as use of the term "fetish film" has already been addressed above.CleverCabbit (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed this above. You (Perez) have avoided acknowledging it. And no, The Cuckold isn't a documentary. It's fiction about the cuckolding fetish.07:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

break

[edit]
Rather than continue a circular path of argumentation, let us address the concerns thus far expressed.
1. This is a fringe concern, not worthy of mention.
There has been no effort put forth to demonstrate this is a fringe concern as opposed to a significant minority view, the latter of which is worthy of acknowledgement. Any further argumentation in this vein must demonstrate this is merely a fringe concern and not a significant minority view (supported by vast amounts of evidence in the form of journalistic acknowledgement and addressing of the controversy and its origin).
There is nothing been put forward that demonstrates it is not a fringe concern. If I see an article in USA Today for example I might change my mind on that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don't get to demand a specific source. Two were provided, one is from a Ph.D. who decided to discuss the topic.
Yes I do get to demand sources that meet WP:RS requirements and for this issue WP:BLP requirements. This is wiki policy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: You do not get to demand SPECIFIC sources. Period.FauXnetiX (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never demanded specific sources. I have described the type of sources that would be acceptable and gave an example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have, multiple times.FauXnetiX (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. This adds nothing of value to the article.
Entirely subjective. Such information may be deemed extremely valuable to, just as an example, a parent investigating a media piece they are considering allowing their children to partake in, which they might not wish to pursue if they are made aware of the controversy surrounding the series, or which may drive them to investigate further of their own volition.
Yes it is a judgment call. Not everything gets included in article and editors make inclusion decisions. Again nothing has been brought forward to show this adds anything of value to the description of a kids' show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize what you've just done? You acknowledged it was a subjective matter, then immediately turned around and claimed an objective assertion. So, which is it? Is the value of such information subjective and variable depending on who observes it, or is it objective, such that you can make a claim such as that such information adds no value to the description of the show? You can't have it both ways, and you're starting to contradict yourself again.CleverCabbit (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the contradiction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is defamatory.
As has already been addressed, acknowledgement of the controversy is not equivalent to expressing support or portraying the origin of the controversy as inherently factual. Acknowledgement of the controversy is merely that - acknowledgement of the controversy which has emerged in public perspective regarding circumstances at hand, and a neutral perspective would prohibit expression of support or disdain for those generating that controversy, permitting merely acknowledgement of the controversy's existence and its origin.
Then what is the point of this. Butler is being defamed publicly with assertions not shown to be true. We can't cover any of that without repeating was is being said. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, defamation involves claims that are not true. It is a fact that he wrote/directed The Cuckold, a film about the cuckolding fetish, prior to working on Bella and the Bulldogs, thus creating a contoversy.FauXnetiX (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact he was involved in the two projects is not in dispute. The linkage between the two is the point of all this and claims of deliberate corruption of a kids' show with adult themes is the issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed. No one is claiming deliberate corruption of shows meant for children on the wiki page. That is a straw man you have created, and one I have corrected numerous time that you continue to ignore.FauXnetiX (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Semantics.
A significant portion of the commentary and argumentation here has had to do with semantics of the edit, the specific terminology employed, and it should be made clear that the semantics of the edit are open for debate (for example, in/exclusion of the largely-undefined term "fetish film"), if not the primary basis of the edit (that being, acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding this series and its origin).CleverCabbit (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the meaning of words (a.k.a. semantics) matter when you are trying communicate. The issue is somewhat if the film is more porn than drama than documentary. It matters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has also been addressed and you've refused to acknowledge it. I've suggested changing from "fetish film" to "film about the cuckolding fetish" in the interest of clarity and impartiality. You've ceded nothing and continue to run frantically from topic to topic.FauXnetiX (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faux appears to have handled my responses better than I could have, so I'll merely let them stand for themselves.. Correction: I see one worthy of addressing.CleverCabbit (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Bella and the Bulldogs controversy; valid for brief sub-topic within the article or not?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to include, lack of relevance, quality of sources and fringeyness all point to not including this. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources reliable enough and the controversy notable enough for a small section on the main page? All information has been provided under Controversy.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I've gone ahead and added this section to list all sources under dispute. They are as follows:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3199719
https://web.archive.org/web/20110413052051/http://www.mythologicalbeast.com/BuffNewsArt/413392.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20100902073743/http://www.mythologicalbeast.com/index.html
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/07/white_supremacists_look_for_vast_black_conspiracy_in_nickelodeon_kids_show.html
http://internet.gawker.com/internet-racists-are-obsessed-with-nickelodeons-show-ab-1716108536
Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. None of the above sources are even close to reliable. The one exception is The Root piece by Jason A. Johnson, but that article specifically cites the controversy as an example of a fringe theory, and is used by Johnson as a springboard to discuss conspiracy theories and reactionary viewpoints. That is not substantial enough to mention this, and the other sources are not generally usable on Wikipedia at all. This is primarily about Jonathan Butler, and is a WP:BLP issue, which makes quality sourcing especially important. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. An archival link of the official site of the film in question is available, as is a journalistic entry from a reputable source, both identifying the connection between Butler and the film "The Cuckold", as well as the series "Bella and the Bulls" (the article under discussion). No evidence has been presented that such is a fringe theory, contrary to claims, and a wealth of journalistic coverage of this controversy exists.
The question, however, is not in that vein at present - the question as regards these sources is whether or not they demonstrate a connection between the individual (Butler) and his works (namely, "The Cuckold" film), which they do.
That is the entirety of the debate in this context: Whether or not these sources a valid for use in connecting Butler's past endeavors to his present endeavors. Nothing more. Further argumentation can be made, as it comes, regarding discussion of this controversy in the vein of whether or not it represents fringe concern or the like, of which a great wealth of journalistic coverage is extant such as to make a valid argument, but that is not the present vein argumentation, which is merely an effort to identify a means by which to connection Butler to his works via valid source material to be cited (which has been accomplished).CleverCabbit (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — CleverCabbit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's not the archival link of the official site but does the archival link to the IMDB movie summary of "The Cuckold" count? https://web.archive.org/web/20120418104437/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326207/plotsummary --Sd-100 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is no dispute that Butler was involved in The Cuckold and Bella and the Bulldogs The released film and TV episode credits themselves are sufficient primary reliable sources for their contents including crew credits. No other references are required for that piece of info. There have been no reliable sources presented that demonstrate anything other than some bloggers have complained about the appropriateness of his working on these two projects. Nothing that would support classifying any of this as more than a fringe flareup. Nothing has been picked up by any major news source that would meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:BLP for this type of content and nothing that would raise this to notable controversy that should be in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldo I think you should sit this one out considering you're involved in the conversation above. It seems a little strange for you to comment on a request for outside input.FauXnetiX (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how RfCs work. Anyone can comment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and potentially libelous. We should not be giving a soapbox to a non-noteworthy fringe conspiracy. The agenda-driven issue doesn't become noteworthy and important simply because a few sources that are arguably more mainstream have started mocking it. If no other attention had been paid to this matter, we'd have "White supremacists don't like this TV series". So what? We don't include critical analyses from the general public. That's why we don't include IMDb user ratings in articles or quotes from my cousin Lars. Two months ago, some "men's rights" groups were grousing about Mad Max: Fury Road for its depiction of tough women in strong roles. That issue even received significant press coverage, but overall the consensus was to omit this content because this project doesn't care what fringe groups have to say when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources were only interested in discussing the groundbreaking feminist roles. This Cuckold matter does not improve our understanding of Bella and the Bulldogs, since the entirety of the alleged "controversy" is based on supposition and personal interpretation, very loosely supported by facts, and written by people who have no specialty in television criticism. Simply because some people believe in a secret agenda doesn't make that belief valid or worthy of inclusion. The matter is also potentially defamatory to Butler because at its basic, it alleges conspiracy and intention to indoctrinate children into sexual fetishes, which is entirely unsubstantiated, and could open Wikipedia to libel/defamation issues. Any sort of BLP content has to be impeccably sourced and the root of the "controversy" is not a reliable source. Lastly, as I've said before, nobody disputes Butler's involvement in another project. What is disputed is the relevance of that project to this one. There is no obvious connection. One is a comedy, one is a drama. One is targeted at children, the other is clearly targeted for a mature audience. One involves football, one is about a sexual fetish. One is a film, one is a TV series. No reasonable academic connection can be made between these two disparate projects that would be of any use to this article. And please, somebody tell the conspiracy people that they are hypocritically exposing more children to this subject matter than anyone else. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This really shows you're not being objective. All of your complaints are addressed on the talk page which you conveniently fail to acknowledge here and there.FauXnetiX (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Since the RFC seems to mean "everyone involved on the talk page just restates their opinion" I'll add mine. There's been no attempt at defamation which has been demonstrated on the talk page. The sources directly link the creator of Bella and the Bulldogs to The Cuckold. It's a fact; undisputed. There was a controversy created by this fact and the media coverage referenced the show specifically which is why it belongs on the show's wiki page. Everything is clearly covered and explained on the talk page.FauXnetiX (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To re-emphasize Cyphoidbomb's statement: "Lastly, as I've said before, nobody disputes Butler's involvement in another project. What is disputed is the relevance of that project to this one. There is no obvious connection. One is a comedy, one is a drama. One is targeted at children, the other is clearly targeted for a mature audience. One involves football, one is about a sexual fetish. One is a film, one is a TV series. No reasonable academic connection can be made between these two disparate projects that would be of any use to this article. Faux, you're really going nowhere with this and are just going around in circles, making the same arguments you've already received responses to. I suggest you step back and take a break and come back when you have a new argument to provide. Amaury (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not aggressive or projecting in the slightest.FauXnetiX (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions regarding Wikipedia content are decided after discussion, taking into account Wikipedia policies and guidelines - they are not a vote based on what random newly-registered contributors think our readers 'ought to know'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has disputed Butler's prior works. This has been highlighted in normal print a few times, and even in bright green once. The dispute is about the relevance. Your assertion of "parents who look into this show ought to know" is insufficient per WP:NDA because Wikipedia doesn't believe in disclaimers or spoiler alerts in articles, which is what you are essentially proposing. Also, we don't even include MOS:TV#Parental ratings values, because as a community, we don't include arbitrary moral evaluations that aren't universally understood. That seems relevant here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That username is almost certainly based on an antisemitic meme from 4chan and other sites which overlap with where this false controversy originated. (It's been used before as a "jewish" version of Ben Garrison, a cartoonist who's identity and work have been frequently co-opted and modified to convey racists ideas by 4/chan/, 8chan/, etc.).[1] Seems like a WP:SPI might be productive if this behavior is repeated. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't throw baseless accusations around.FauXnetiX (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know whether it is 'baseless' or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Assume good faith FauXnetiX (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked for the username violation. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment was added as part of a protected edit request by someone who obviously did not read any of the existing discussion on this page about the topic. Note that this is the only edit on the project by this IPv6. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that "pornography" was made, which suggests the IP's opinions are based on incorrect information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geraldo Perez and Cyphoidbomb. We've agreed that he's worked on both Bella and the Bulldogs and the fetish film, but there's still no reason why that's relevant to Bella and the Bulldogs. I watched the whole first season while it was airing new episodes and never once saw any sexual indications, and this was before I even knew of this "controversy." Amaury (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaijin42, I recognize that you have weak feelings for your include, but what would such inclusion look like in your mind? From where I'm sitting, if the controversy is WP:FRINGE and not notable on its own, we're basically promoting a non-notable controversy because these other sources found something they thought was ludicrous and produced a snark article on it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Root content but not IMDB The Root names and provides the credentials of the author of this article and they are sufficient for us to call him an expert on cultural matters per WP:USERG. I will add that the Root article says not "This show is controversial" but "white supremacists developed a conspiracy theory based on this show; let's all point at them and laugh." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24 Not everything that a reliable source says is worthy of inclusion, per WP:V's "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" clause. There has to be some direct relevance to this series, otherwise we are coatracking other issues into this article. John Waters' Cry-Baby article, for instance, doesn't mention Traci Lords' porn career, and that's likely because it's completely irrelevant to the film. She doesn't play a porn star in the film, so what do we care what she did before that role? I'm sure that someone has asked Neil deGrasse Tyson what he thinks of Game of Thrones, but that doesn't make his opinion noteworthy in the series article. The people who feel that Butler's involvement in this series is noteworthy are people who have issued a moral decision that that a professional writer who creates artistic content in Moral Landscape A shouldn't be creating artistic content in Moral Landscape B. This is a fringe opinion about morality that is irrelevant to this article and using reliable sources as shills only promotes what would otherwise be WP:UNDUE content. It's a backdoor weasel tactic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bella_and_the_Bulldogs/Controversy&oldid=679757291"