Talk:Behind Closed Doors (book): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:21, 11 August 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behind Closed Doors (book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Animation: Television

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

A fact from Behind Closed Doors (book) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 August 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Nickelodeon storyboard artists created a book with hundreds of pornographic drawings of SpongeBob SquarePants characters?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Behind Closed Doors (book).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Nickelodeon storyboard artists created a book with hundreds of pornographic drawings of SpongeBob SquarePants characters? Source: https://kotaku.com/spongebob-squarepants-behind-closed-doors-lost-media-ns-1850660518
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Berenguela Tower

Created by CJ-Moki (talk). Self-nominated at 06:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Behind Closed Doors (book); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Interesting hook about an interesting article that will undoubtedly draw it more traffic than it's already bound to get, so congrats on that. Earwig says there's a 69.4% chance of a copyvio from the Kotaku article, but it just highlights the quotes and the book's name as the "offenders", so for all intents and purposes copyvio isn't an issue. Unless I missed something, and I'm pretty sure I didn't, this should be good to go. AdoTang (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you guys are fast.

The book was only released three days ago. JosephMarigold (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Editorializing issues

I don't think it's appropriate to cite some pop culture website articles as if they're scientific papers. "Meeks 2023" or "Colbert 2023" is a format that'd be more suitable for sources with more of a reputation than Kotaku or Softonic. The article's language in general seems way too sensationalist for such a trivial topic and full of editorializing. The Softonic article ("Meeks 2023") doesn't even go in-depth as to what the alleged "ethical issues" of the drawings are. DannyC55 (Talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyC55:

I don't think it's appropriate to cite some pop culture website articles as if they're scientific papers. "Meeks 2023" or "Colbert 2023" is a format that'd be more suitable for sources with more of a reputation than Kotaku or Softonic.

I don't understand the issue with using Template:Sfn and Template:Sfnm, similar pages like Fucking Trans Women and Pinky & Pepper Forever also use them.

The article's language in general seems way too sensationalist for such a trivial topic and full of editorializing.

My goal was to reflect the tone used by the sources reporting on this subject, and since most of the coverage was negative in tone, this is reflected in the article.

The Softonic article ("Meeks 2023") doesn't even go in-depth as to what the alleged "ethical issues" of the drawings are.

The article doesn't have to go in-depth as to what the issues are, and the Wikipedia page should just repeat the article's coverage of the book (including the claim that the book has ethical issues). CJ-Moki (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Reception' and tone of article

This article is very strange. Its tone and content seem entirely derived from a handful of low-quality pop culture news sites. CJ-Moki already brought up some reasonable complaints - particularly the citation of nonspecific "ethical issues". Seems like weasel words to me. Ironically I think it's more unethical to give the average reader the impression that the animators of Spongebob have got some widespread reputation as disgusting cartoon pornographers, especially when the comments sections I've read seem mostly to be ambivalent or amused. Hmmmok (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :{{tquote|The Softonic article ("Meeks 2023") doesn't even go in-depth as to what the alleged "ethical issues" of the drawings are.}}
 :The article doesn't have to go in-depth as to what the issues are, and the Wikipedia page should just repeat the article's coverage of the book (including the claim that the book has ethical issues). [[User:CJ-Moki|CJ-Moki]] ([[User talk:CJ-Moki|talk]]) 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
+== 'Reception' and tone of article ==
+This article is very strange. Its tone and content seem entirely derived from a handful of low-quality pop culture news sites. CJ-Moki already brought up some reasonable complaints - particularly the citation of nonspecific "ethical issues". Seems like weasel words to me. Ironically I think it's more unethical to give the average reader the impression that the animators of Spongebob have got some widespread reputation as disgusting cartoon pornographers, especially when the comments sections I've read seem mostly to be ambivalent or amused. [[User:Hmmmok|Hmmmok]] ([[User talk:Hmmmok|talk]]) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)