Jump to content

Talk:Netflix/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Netflix

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 21 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Adding Producers/Production Companies with an overall deal

Since Netflix is really into making overall and first look deals with producers, I think it would be great to list them all under a designated section. Nearly every day news break with netflix making a new deal, many of them are going unnoticed by the public. It would be a nice overview what to look forward in the future. BrightEye87 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Netflix pulls comedy show criticising Saudi Arabia

These references will be helpful

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Content integration to streaming platforms

Hello, the article doesn't mention that Netflix content is available both as a standalone service and integrated into streaming services like Sky in Britain, Movistar in Spain, and Verizon in the United States. Can you add a paragraph about it? --179.28.229.136 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

These are just apps. Like every other platform. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
However, I add a short blurb mentioning this (along with the idea of, a la X1, showing Netflix content as part of search) ViperSnake151  Talk  05:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in section 1.2

In the middle of section 1.2 of the Netflix article, two sentences currently appear as the following:

  • But then the sales of Apple Products finally took off as they became more affordable, selling for about $2,000 around Thanksgiving time, becoming one of that year's most popular Christmas gifts. By early 2002, Netflix saw a huge increase in their laptop business.

Note that I have boldened three words in the above two sentences. It is these three words that seem to me to be out of place here. I believe that instead of "Apple Products" it should probably say something like "DVD players", and instead of "laptop" it should probably say something like "DVD-by-mail subscription". I feel pretty confident about this because the following two sentences appear in the Netflix article's reference number 34 (which is cited at this point in Section 1.2) and thus appear to be what the two sentences in Section 1.2 are trying to convey:

  • Then, a bit unexpectedly, DVD players became the hot gift that Christmas. By early 2002 our DVD-by-mail subscription business was growing like crazy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith1426 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

These errors were introduced by 169.235.208.165 23 January 2019 (vandalism). I have manually reverted the deliberate errors 169.235.208.165 introduced. 45.72.170.23 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Netflix and multiculturalism

Could someone discuss about the many series and movies on Netflix with a specific multiculti, multiethnic standpoint?

Video Games

I think video games made on Netflix originals should be mentioned somewhere in the article too? As of now there are video games: Stranger Things (mobile), Stranger Things 3, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics, Narcos: Rise of the Cartels and Voltron: Cubes of Olkarion. 85.11.107.21 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a relevant game (but not relevant enough to get its own article) about Stranger Things should probably be mentioned in the Stranger Things article. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Speeding up content

Netflix was criticized by some actors & directors about this feature. This is not to be confused with skipping. They said speeding up content messes up their timings. Speeding up content has been available on You Tube for a number of years. This should be in the criticism section. (78.16.154.120 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC))

Can you provide a reliable source for this? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Change "Netflix expanded its business in 2010 with the introduction of streaming media while retaining the DVD and Blu-ray rental business." to "Netflix expanded its business in 2007 with the introduction of streaming media while retaining the DVD and Blu-ray rental business."

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/technology/16netflix.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Anitasvv1 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That article was written before the streaming service had actually begun, and it says the service would be "introduced over six months". For this change to be made, someone will need to find a source that talks about it after the introduction. It's possible, for instance, that they trialed it in 2007 but then stopped due to technical issues, and then didn't do a full rollout until 2010. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

What fresh hell is this? Since when can an editor who isn’t even autoconfirmed move popular pages without consulting the talk page for consensus? Netflix is the common name and the page must remain that way. --Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I undid it. I agree it was disruptive (WP:RM process problem) and I oppose it being done on editorial grounds as well (WP:COMMONNAME). DMacks (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstheman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Scoutstheman, you can see this page's move log here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tax Avoidance - request for edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch.

In January 2020, we published an article on Netflix, claiming the video streaming company had moved up to $430 million into tax havens in 2018.

This research featured widely in the press, in over 40 publications - including The Telegraph, The Mirror,and The Guardian.

The report lead to a debate in the House of Commons of Netflix's tax practices, with calls from MPs to extend the Digital Services Tax to online video services, and Dame Margaret Hodge MP calling it a "superhighway robbery".

I would like for a small section to be included in the Tax Avoidance section of the Netflix page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks, --Alex0190 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Length of Criticism section

It's been pared down before but keeps expanding here despite there being a full article over at Criticism of Netflix. I expect there'll be a push to include the Criticism of Netflix#Cuties controversy here soon enough, so can we discuss exactly what aspects of criticism belong on this page and what belong on the separate article? --occono (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Cuties

I've removed a large section of poorly referenced and highly editorialized material but it's been continually added back by @Doady: repeatedly such as here. Problems with that section include unsourced editorialized statements, and poor sourcing (such as NY Post, Fox News, the Hill's blog, etc).

And here I removed more language that was unsourced or sourced to material such as twitter. The first section cites rotten tomatoes for the claim it's a "softcore porn film" (the link says nothing about that) and also cites twitter, while using very POV language. Here I tried to rebuild the section to summarize the controversy as best I can. It's merely a start, and I'd like others to add to it. But it's better than the previous section because it tries to be neutral and avoids sensationalized editorializing without citations. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement in question is as follows, and it has nothing to do with NY Post, Fox News, or The Hill sources:

Although Netflix did change the promotional poster and description to be less sexual/provocative and supposedly more "representative" of the film, the film itself still includes the three–minute dance scene, the source of the objectionable promotional image, in which the eleven-year-old child actors wear revealing costumes and perform a provocative adult-dance including simulated sex acts and the touching of their genitals.

The sources of this statement and description are Netflix's public statement on the matter and the film itself. The film exists, and Netflix stated the following apology on their official Twitter feed in response to criticism of the image they originally used to promote the film:

We're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties. It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.

@Harizotoh9: seems to contend that media content cannot be summarized unless a third party recognized as a reliable source does the summarizing, and then a wikipedia editor summarizes that content. I find it hard to believe that every plot or content description of media on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced in this manner.
Additionally, Netflix did apologize for the image they originally used to promote the film. Netflix described the image as "inappropriate artwork" and stated that "[it] was not OK, nor was it representative of this... film...." Further, the film itself does contain a dance scene with the eleven-year-old child actors in identical costumes and in identical poses (and many more) as seen in the "inappropriate artwork".
It is not clear how a description of the existing film content in relation to the removed promotional image is "unsourced editorialized statements, and poor sourcing (such as NY Post, Fox News, the Hill's blog, etc)." These facts are very clearly sourced, and the inherent conflict is directly relevant to the controversy.


In reference to the reliable source question: Harizotoh9 removed content here with the summary, "Removing unsourced POV commentary and some flat out incorrect information. I have not seen any sources explaining the MA rating. NY Post is also not a reliable source." Harizotoh9 later removed content here with the summary, "The Hill blog, NYPost, DailyMail, Fox News, are not reliable soruces. The rest is original research, unsourced editorializing, and WP:SYNTH. (sic)"
According to WP:RSP, The Hill and Fox News are listed as generally reliable, while there is currently no consensus for the New York Post. Harizotoh9's statements that these sources are not reliable is false.
I have repeatedly requested that Harizotoh9 recognize their error on source reliability and stop making bulk content removals with ambiguous reasoning, and that Harizotoh9 instead clearly treat each issue they find individually and with clear reasoning. The bulk removals and false claims about unreliability have continued.


On my talk page, Harizotoh9 stated

I would also recommend actually seeing the film rather than just relying on a few short clips. Most of those who have seen the film tend to have a positive view of the film.

— Harizotoh9
Harizotoh9 admits which side of this controversy they are on, explaining that in their view, the source of the controversy is generally from people who are simply ignorant about the film. Harizotoh9 has repeatedly made edits to the relevant pages (Netflix and Criticism of Netflix) to bulk remove any material on the opposing side of the controversy. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that someone should recuse themselves from editing an article where they ideologically disagree with one side of the issue, but for Harizotoh9, I think they should step back. They don't seem capable of including or even understanding both sides of the issue.
The children in this movie are real 11-year-old girls. They are not CGI. They are not animated. They are not adults or even older girls dressed up to look like younger girls. They are real 11-year-old girls. The director herself stated the following in her exculpatory Op-Ed in the Washington Post,

The problem, of course, is that they [preteens] are not women, and they don't realize what they are doing.... The girls [portrayed in the film performing in the local dance contest] don't have the maturity, however, to realize what their gestures and dance moves look like to the audience.

— Maïmouna Doucouré, Director, Cuties
If that is true, and most people apparently agree, then how could the girls involved even have consented to be in this film? The director herself maintains that the things portrayed in the film, including specifically the very dance scene that was the source of the image in the controversial promotional poster, are things that these children do not and cannot understand. In describing the plot, she explains that these girls in the story "don't have the maturity... to realize what their gestures and dance moves look like to the audience." Yet she took real children, dressed them up in sexualized costumes and makeup, and had them do the very things that she is ostensibly criticizing. We are now the audience for those child actors performing the sexualized dance scene, just as the crowd in the film was the audience for the characters in the story. It doesn't matter what the message is, or what the film is trying to say, or whether it is well constructed, shot, edited, etc., or whether someone has seen the film or not. What matters is that the director used real children to make this film, whom she freely admits "don't realize what they are doing."
When you get someone to do something where they don't realize what the are really doing and probably would not do so if they had the understanding and power to refuse, you are exploiting them. When you do this to a child, we call this child exploitation. When it involves sexuality, we call this child sexual exploitation. This is the reason that the people who are upset about this film are upset about this film: Children were sexually exploited to make this film.
I fully support the inclusion of both sides of a controversy. I do not support the intentional censorship and mischaracterization of issues in Wikipedia articles by an ideologue intent on promoting their personal views, especially when innocent children are involved.Doady (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I can chime in a little bit as someone who doesn't know anything about the movie in question and doesn't have an opinion on content, just regarding the first statement.
  • I'm not a fan of "supposedly more "representative" of the film". I would not use the scare quotes or the term 'supposedly' unless you're directly quoting someone, as otherwise you're injecting a lot of opinion and unencyclopedic tone into the article. Wikipedia's voice should be unemotional and simply and plainly state the facts of a situation.
  • Regarding the summary of media content, yes, a third party has to do the summary, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. You can summarize any single reliable source, but drawing a conclusion from reading multiple sources, that doesn't exist in any single source alone, is original research and outside of Wikipedia's purview.
This controversy should certainly be in the article if it has received as much news coverage as it appears it has. However, the language in the article needs to be impartial and unemotional and the content can't be original research. Paisarepa 01:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The key issues are sourcing and tone. We have a source attesting to one thing, then this user disagreeing with it and then inserting their own analysis, which they think is straight forward and objective when it's still their own analysis. In regards to film's plot sections, they should be sourced but often they're not controversial so people don't bother. However, once something has been challenged and removed, it can't be added back until there's sources. And note that this text has been since re-inserted into the Criticism of Netflix article, here. When third party sources have discussed the contents of the film they use much more cautious language and avoid editorializing.

Also, the sources used were things like Fox News, the Daily Mail, NY Post, and The Hill's blog section. Blogs are to be avoided at all costs, and NY Post is an unreliable highly editorialized tabloid. Fox News has been at least cautioned as to be avoided in topics regarding to politics, and this film's backlash has been obviously politicized. Daily mail has been decided to be outright unreliable. And it's even more important in a controversial topic to use only the highest quality sourcing possible. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it. If this material is actually so noteworthy as to justify the breathless claims about it above, it should be easy to find high-quality secondary sourcing; and if we use such sources, we should reflect how they cover it (which is far more cautiously-worded.) We cannot cite such shocking claims to an editor's personal viewing and interpretation of the film itself, especially on a controversial topic like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Especially given that said user has made it abundantly clear they haven't seen the film, which raises how they know this to begin with. It could be their interpretation, or who knows what kind of summary or clips they saw. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

...

Hi guys Kittycat4452 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kittycat4452: Hi. Article talk pages are not for general discussion. Did you have a concern regarding the article? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 12:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


Netflix → Netflix Inc. – The page will talk about how the Netflix company fits into Inc. As it is hard to read about the company itself (or the streaming service) only, this article should be only about Netflix Inc. while there should a new article about the streaming service. Also, this article is too long, as it is about both of them. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Kibble

So... apparently... according to Marc Randolph, he initially called Netflix "Kibble". https://www.quora.com/How-did-anyone-come-up-with-the-name-Netflix

Is this worth adding to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyRRpage (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Trillion Netflixes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trillion Netflixes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Trillion Netflixes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"The Netflix Player" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Netflix Player. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#The Netflix Player until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"The Wrightnows" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Wrightnows. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#The Wrightnows until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Split streaming service from this page

This article is getting longer and longer. It is time to finally move the information related to the streaming service to another article about it. It is even too difficult to find information related only to the streaming service (launch date, etc). — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This violates the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, per that, I think the DVD service should be split out. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The history section needs to be de-WP:PROSELINE-ified. That probably means finding breaks in its history (its era as a mailer, then its transition to a streaming services , and then its transition to making actual content) and working all those "in <date>..." statements appropriately, so that it actually flows. This might take statements out of chronological order, such as keeping all the parts related to the mail service together. --Masem (t) 13:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

people

people are humans witch you are to we are caring kind and sweet i mean some of us are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.60.254 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netflix/Archive_4&oldid=1073167665"