Talk:Cuties/Archive 1

Suggestion: Add controversy

According to several sources like Twitter accounts, the film being released on Netflix has gotten controversy from Twitter audiences due to it allegedly promoting sexualization of children. I am not a Wikipedia professional, so that's why I'm just making a suggestion. 2601:800:8201:2030:2C0C:202E:1A4A:28F1 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is not a source, nor is metro, or anything else. The "controversy" only extends to right wing trash tabloids not reliable sources. I suspect it's a tempest in a teapot and people are over reacting. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, The Independent is considered generally ok. Need not be a separate section, but should be ok for Release and reception. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In my experience the independent is click baity and sensationalistic. It's no shock they're getting in on this. So the trailer has 500,000 views at most, and it looks like tabloids and some right wingers are sensationalizing and clutching at pearls without even seeing the film. I don't consider this to be any kind of a real controversy. At least not yet. I'm not against adding commentary critical of the film, but we need to wait until good sources cover it. And such sources will cover the film in a more mature manner rather than outrage click bait.Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

observer.com is probably also a decent source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The reception ought to be updated and include reliable sources of both points of view. --Dignitee (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a section. However, calling it "Controversy" is banal and uninformative. Something like "Portrayal of sexuality" with quotes from critics (including those who commented on it at the film's Sundance release last Jan-Feb) and referencing The Independent and Observer for recent coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

BBC is now covering it and they have a much more even handed coverage. I changed the focus to be on the poster changing as that seems to be the most significant thing. This is also a decent overview of the film as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's now all over the news worldwide. KHAYRIWOULFE (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In any case, someone keeps vandalizing the article. Can we lock it for the time being? Josh (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I added the bit about the change.org petition since it was mentioned by several soruces. There's good sources covering the controversy and the film so now is the time to expand the article and to avoid sensationalism. The reception section is very tiny and more reviews and analysis need to be noted. Also the TV-MA rating is cited as proof this is somehow a provokative film when it's out of context. The MA rating supposedly is due to the scenes relating to the family. The rating should be included but with given context. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the controversy; there is no mention that the Rotten Tomatoes user score is single digits. This whole page is skewed to tell a narrative. There is nothing encyclopedic about it. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source about the user score being in single digits? We rely on third party reliable sources. And do you have specific suggestions for the page to improve it? Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cuties (It's 11% now, I guess),https://www.metacritic.com/movie/cuties (0.6 on Metacritic);https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/11/21431174/cancel-netflix-cuties-movie-maimouna-doucoure-backlash-petition (Cancel Netflix Article; linking QAnon to Criticism), https://www.cbr.com/netflix-cuties-rotten-tomatoes-review-bomb/ (Review Nuked); Should I keep going? I can, and you knew I could before you asked the question. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

First just so you're clear the controversy is covered extensively in the Cuties#Netflix_release . Also, user review scores themselves are not sufficient to be noted in an article in and of themselves unless third party sources note them. Right now the imdb score is noted and there is a citation to a site for it. However, I'm not crazy about that source or CBR at all. High quality sourcing is essential for any article that is controversial. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Harizotoh9 regarding the importance of complying with WP:RS in order to verify the user reviews and user review scores. We can't rely on user review scores whereas users have been intentionally involving in review bombing. I noticed the opposite of this kind in IMDb where users intentionally gave 9 or 10 out of 10 stars for the film Dil Bechara which was a posthumous release of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput due to obvious reasons. So we can't really trust on the user reviews in these controversial extreme cases. I just googled Cuties again and the user review score is depicted as 2.7 but I was unable to cite it with reliable sources. The article currently depicts the score as 1.7 though. Abishe (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that we as editors don't write articles, the sources do and we simply summarize them in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If third party sources didn't mention the user review scores or review bombing then it's not important to note. For that reason I found a better source to use that specifically mentioned the review bombing, but he source did not mention the specific number. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if you call it review bombing, that would be accurate. The current article is burying the lead. It's not an Encyclopedic article. I will nominate for delete at the end of the month if it's not fixed. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you specifically specify exactly what you think needs to be addressed in the article? What Wikipedia policy is being violated? Second, the page can only be deleted if it is not notable and the film is obviously notable given how much coverage it's gotten. Please do not try to threaten to delete pages to make a point. WP:Point. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given you enough of my time. You're just being contrarian at this point. If the article isn't fixed by 9/30, I'll nominate for delete and you know as well as I do that it will probably be merged into a better article. If you want to save it, do some actual work. I'm done here. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't specific what changes you think need to be made, nor cited which policies you think the article violates. I'm not sure what you mean by "burying the lead". And as I said, whether a page exists or not is determined solely by the whether the subject matter is notable or not. A very badly written article will be fixed rather than deleted. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article is "very badly written" and I prefer it to be "fixed rather than deleted". So, just do that instead of whining at me. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Harizotoh9. There has been little or no substance to the complaints about "burying the lead" or violation of policies. The article needs a lot of work. And that need will certainly continue for at least several more months. As for "nominate for deletion", good luck with that. If this article stayed exactly like it is right now with no changes (it won't and I'm not saying it should) it has zero chance of being deleted. Articles aren't deleted just because they need improvement or even complete rewriting. Some of the worst articles on Wikipedia that are about notable topics and have a least one or two decent sources don't get deleted. The content of this article will be challenged, brutally discussed, likely edit warred, and maybe semi-protected (or full protected) for a long time, but it will not be deleted. Sundayclose (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a mathematical impossibility for any action with more than one possible outcome to have "zero chance" of one of those outcomes coming to pass, but okay. I'm glad that most are in agreement at least that the article needs work. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

0.999... equals one. So probability of 1.0 that it won't be deleted in the reality that we live in now. Sundayclose (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The probability of your subjective opinion of the outcome is 1; actual probability is variable. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Off topic, so let's move on. Feel free to provide the mathematical proof that negates it on my talk page. But I won't hold my breath. Sundayclose (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This article has now reached a quality where a nomination for deletion would be unwarranted. Thank you. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Netflix released the official trailer of the film on 18 August 2020 gaining wide media attention also sparked widespread internet backlash that mainly centered around the film's portrayal of sexualization of minors.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/20/netflixs-cuties-slammed-for-explicitly-sexualizing-little-girls/ 175.157.62.95 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSP. It's not considered the best of sources on WP, but it's better than twitter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not wide spread attention, it's only right wing tabloids and there's currently a moral outrage driven by emotion. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-winger incoming. Oh and apparently I can't be banned for being so. GeraldWL 13:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The title of the film is not actually Cuties but it should be Mignonnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.62.95 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

On fr-WP it should. Here, per WP:COMMONNAME, probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

An Observation

I'm just going to hop in here with the following observation: Outrage against depictions of hypersexualized children in any medium, be it written, aural, or film, is classically bipartisan. If people cannot discuss the topic without drawing lines in the sand, without hand waving other people's points of view as merely the obtuse machinations of "the right wing", then the contributions of such people ought to be reevaluated as against WP:NPOV policies. Treatment of a topic like this is exhausting enough without also having to defend incidental partisan alignments, which have nothing whatever to do with wanting to protect children. --Braidedheadman (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we follow reliable sources in what they cover about the topic. In other words, we summarize disputes as covered by reliable sources. If sources discuss the origins of such outrage, that can be included in the article. We editors should not shape content based on what we see. Neither BBC or Observer mentions political origins at this point, so there is no reason to shape content based on your assumptions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you mistake my meaning. I'm talking about people in this very Talk Page who hand wave other people's contributions as "right wing", as though to disqualify conversation here, or contributions to the article, on that basis. I'm not talking about shaping the content of the article as such but, rather, the manner and tone of this Talk Page. --Braidedheadman (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. Agreed that editors should leave their preconceived notions at the door whenever possible and follow the sources based on their reliability and the weight of coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with Braidedheadman. This is absolutely not a partisan issue.71.220.166.192 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

When released in France it was not controversial, and got positive reviews and several awards. The current outrage is by people who have not seen the film and are basing it entirely on the poster and trailer. They're working from the unfounded believe that this is somehow made to titilate pedophiles and that belief is driving a moral panic about the film. Tabloids and blogs are fueling the flame because it generates clicks and fits their anti-hollywood ideology. Wikipedia should be above all of this and use reliable sources to create a neutral coverage of the film and its release. So cover the controversy sure, but it should be somber without the sensationalism. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please edit and comment based on guidelines and policies and reliable sources. Please don't project your analysis here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. The proper reliable sources lack a lot of the sensationalism of the tabloids. And I'm cautioning editors to not get caught up in a moral panic about the film either. I suspect that when people actually see the film it's going to turn out to be way less racy than they think it is. The critical reception section is tiny and focuses only on racy dance numbers, which isn't a neutral coverage of the reviews which were largely positive and didn't focus too much on that element. So that section should be expanded to balance it out more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I also agree upon the fact that the film received extremely positive reviews from audiences and critics when it was released in the 2020 Sundance Film Festival. I of course understand the real plot of the film as I initially contributed to this article way back in June 2020. It was the Netflix blunder which triggered netizens to boycott the film release through the platform. Ever since the petition was created to drop the planned release of the film, director Maïmouna Doucouré faced backlash which she never shouldn't have received and her article has been protected following vandalism and disruptive editing. But I feel we should stop our leftist bias in the case of finding reliable sources and should start to show some trust on right wing sources and tabloids. I also read the BBC source which mentioned that the film had its theatrical release just recently without saying the date. Can anyone add the correct date of the French date release with support of a reliable source. The article content which I added in June 2020 mentions that the film originally supposed to have its theatrical release in France on 1 April 2020, but the theatrical release was called off due to the COVID-19 pandemic in France. This information has to be corrected but I am helpless to do so due to inability to find evidence. Abishe (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You're analyzing the matter as you personally see it. You can leave that at the door and simply focus on what sources say. If they happen to match what you waxed on about, then that can be included in the article. There's no need for us to play armchair commentators beyond making sure coverage is properly captured and summarized. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I hop unto Wikipedia to get a sense of what the controversy is about and I get blasted with "people that didn't like it must be QAnon supporters" (???). How has American culture devolved so much into making child abuse topics (not saying this movie is) a bipartisan topic is beyond reason. This movie has a 1.9 on iMDB and 4% on Google with almost 9000 votes, an online petition with half a million signatures... are they all "conspiracy theorists" or something? Why are we giving such weight to The Verge and Variety when both pieces read like partisan opinion? How are they stronger than The Guardian? Loganmac (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"This movie has a 1.9 on iMDB and 4% on Google with almost 9000 votes, an online petition with half a million signatures... are they all "conspiracy theorists" or something?" Yes.Awoma (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources covering controversy

• Wait, What’s Going on With Netflix and Cuties?
• Netflix is 'deeply sorry' for 'inappropriate artwork' used for film about kids' dance group

Additional sources that can be used to flesh out the controversy section further. The Vulture one analyzes the public reaction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoever has been adding RT, please stop it. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RT Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am terribly apologising for adding Russia Today sources which I wrongly thought that they are quite reliable sources since it is one of the popular news channels. Abishe (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, WP surprises many people on stuff like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

More sources:

• Tessa Thompson and More Defend ‘Cuties,’ Criticize Netflix’s Marketing for Creating Outrage
• Cuties: how an unreleased Netflix film whipped up a frenzy of fury
• Netflix, Accused of Sexualizing Girls, Pulls Artwork for ‘Cuties’
• The Angry Christian Right Should Watch Netflix’s ‘Cuties’
• The Controversy Over Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ Is Totally Ridiculous
• How Netflix's shocking movie poster landed it in the middle of QAnon's child crusade

Regards, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

With something controversial it's even more important than ever to use high quality reliable sources. So no blogs, no tabloids, or anything like that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. For what it's worth, though, there should be a standalone section about it. (At the same time, the "Critical reception" section should be fully fleshed out.) The above coverage shows additional aspects of it, such as New York Times mentioning QAnon's role, and Forbes comparing it to similar controversies in the recent past. It's likely that there will be further insight comparing the outrage to the film's content when the film itself comes out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I did add reference to QAnon but it's since been removed. The NYTimes mentions how strong the Qanons were and how it fits into their theories. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Advertising Age had an article about the marketing and QAnon. I added it above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Advertising age. Is it a reliable source? I think Q-Anon element should be added, but wording should keep to the sourcing to ensure that not all those who were outraged were Qanon supporters, but that it was popular among the QAnon community. Also, I've used some of these sources to expand the article a bit, but it's just a quick first rough expansion. Others should expand as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

More from recently:

• Watchdog orders Netflix to block 'Cuties' film in Turkey
• ‘Cuties’ Director Says She Received Death Threats After Netflix Poster Backlash; Ted Sarandos Called Her To Apologize
• ‘This Film Is Sounding an Alarm.’ What Cuties Director Maïmouna Doucouré Wants Critics to Know About Her New Film
• 'Cuties' Calls Out The Hypersexualization Of Young Girls - And Gets Criticized

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder that Fox News and NY Post are not reliable sources. You should be using sources like Newsweek, NY Times, Reuters, Washington post, etc. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9:, a note that Fox News was not deemed as a "not reliable source" in the RfC - it had some limits placed upon it. The NYP, however, definitely shouldn't be used. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It does, however, seem that this article has entered the realm of "politics", so FOX is a bit doubtful now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess we should indefinitely stop relying on Fox News and its subsidiary services. Clearly as per Gråbergs Gråa Sång the film has become a target of political backlash. So Fox News would no longer be treated as a reliable source in this article. For example, I also started to doubt about the factual accuracy of Fox News after reading an article about cricketer Duncan Spencer which featured in Fox Sports whereas it mentioned that Spencer is an Australian bowler. But actually he is an English player who played in only 16 first class matches mainly for Kent. He has of course featured in few Sheffield Shield matches in Australia. However Fox News which depicted him as Australian cricketer sounds misleading to the readers. We can't expect reputed sources to make reckless errors like this on basic things. The example which I brought here might be totally irrelevant to this article but just to address the concerns regarding credibility of Fox News. Abishe (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about Reason Foundation, a Koch brothers funded libertarian think tank being used as a source either. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

How does the wiki still not cover any controversy on this film?

It seems like a few wiki editors support the message of this movie and are therefore disregarding any form of criticism as "right wing", "non viable sources" etc. There is an ENORMOUS backlash against this movie, online petitions with large numbers of signatures, the official netflix trailer has millions of thumbs down, many news outlets have criticised this, many famous youtubers, twitter accounts etc have criticised it etc.

There is a massive backlash against this movie, and yet wikipedia has nothing to say on it still after weeks of discussion in the talk section.

People are randomly making up rules about which newspaper outlets are acceptable or unacceptable, which make no sense. Who decides whether independent, observer, telegraph, fox news etc are considered acceptable sources or not?

And some people are trying to downplay it as a controversy merely over the poster, not about a movie with 11 year old girls wearing skimpy clothes and twerking, in a movie that is classified as a 15.

Some people here clearly have an agenda but its not those who want to include something in the wiki over the factual point that there is some controversy over this movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.38.226 (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Release" section covers the controversy substantially. Also please do not accuse of Wikipedia taking sides on the political spectrum. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with what OP is saying, there is nothing inherently wrong in questioning the motives (political or otherwise) of other editors. If you feel an article is intentionally being misrepresented, it would be a disservice to Wikipedia not to bring it up. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Only English Wikipedia doesn't cover controversy but it is there in French version and it is a hall of shame that one of the most visited websites have not been thoroughly updated.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignonnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.80.159 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the English WP-article? It says pretty much the same as the French does in the Polémique section. One difference is that en-WP mentions it in the WP:LEAD, fr-WP does not. 16:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

The movie is almost entirely known for its controversy yet the section is so sanitized and somehow partisan, it's crazy. Loganmac (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm okay if an editor is a leftist but they shouldn't throw their emotions to an encyclopedia. GeraldWL 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A kind request and notice

Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines which is inline with the neutral point of view. We don't add the perception, feedback and reviews of the people here except for critical reviews from experts. People have the rights to criticise the film but Wikipedia is not recommended as a suitable place to do so. We as Wikipedians who are all acknowledged about the principles of editing neither support nor oppose the film and the filmmakers as it's not our business. Yes I agree and understand that there is no separate sub section called Controversy which would allow viewers to easily catch the point. We formed a discussion whether to have separate section to cover the controversy emerged after promotional poster release. Then we formed a consensus not to include it under controversy and instead we covered it under the header Release. The discussion regarding it can be visible on the top of this talk page when you scroll up. I kindly request people to watch the film closely before criticising our editing procedures and policies. I hope the entire 686, 552 viewers of this article will get a clear understanding of the film genre when it drops on the Netflix platform on 9 August 2020. The film genre is related to coming-of-age drama and in case if the film theme is based on pedophilia and child pornography, then we will include it with the help of reliable sources and reviews from critics. Abishe (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Kindly please update the Netflix release date in the infobox (9 September 2020). 175.157.53.117 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This film is not a Netflix original, as it was first released theatrically in France. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest release (in this case, Sundance) and the release date in the country that produced the film. snapsnap ^(talk) 05:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Please remove 'IMDb also issued a parental guidance alert in its film description, and further claimed that certain dance sequences of children were lawfully defining pedophilia.' It implies IMDb as an institution holds this view. Actually the Parent Guide warnings are user submitted and have already been changed . Afer123 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Done--Pokelova (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The source didn't seem like much [1], we'll see if it gets better coverage. Like you said, it's gone for now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's probably plenty of good sources to make this point about child nudity in the film that we need to include in this article, but UGC from imdb doesn't cut it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no child nudity in the film.--Pokelova (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

According to Netflix spokesperson, the film is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. 2402:4000:13C0:BA7D:B9BB:E53D:A07:5A7 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That information is already in the article.--Pokelova (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Please expand the plot of the film to avoid misunderstanding about the film genre which has been misinterpreted by 100s of thousands of people who haven't even watched the film imo.

11-year-old Amy (Fathia Youssouf), a young girl living in a humble Paris apartment with her mother Mariam (Maïmouna Gueye) and two younger siblings. Amy’s father is still in Senegal, where the family hail from, but will soon be joining them in Paris with his second wife in tow. Mariam is devastated to have to share her husband, but is urged by her stoic, old-school aunt (Mbissine Therese Diop) to put on a brave face in front of the community. The aunt also wields a significant influence on Amy, telling her a “grandiose wedding” to a suitable man should be her ultimate goal in life. 112.134.84.168 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add this because I don't have the permission to do so.

(Amy, 11, lives in the north of Paris with her mother, her little brother Ismael and a second baby brother. A member of a Muslim family from Senegal, she helplessly witnesses the suffering of her mother, whose polygamous husband is preparing to return from the country with a second wife. She is also bored during prayer and more generally of the religious values ​​that her aunt seeks to transmit to her.

A little later, Amy befriends Angelica, whom she meets in the laundry room of her building dancing. Fascinated by this universe, she starts to watch Angelica and her friends dancing under a bridge, on the greenway, before being discovered and succeeding in joining the dance group, called "Mignonnes". The pre-teens practice for a competition and do not hesitate to adopt light outfits in the image of their older competitors. Encouraged by success and the quest for recognition on social networks, suffering from her own family situation, Amy plays the one up and incorporates gestures of quasi-pornographic videos in the choreography.

Following a humiliation at school, she loses her footing and sends a compromising photo of her sex on social networks, which arouses the rejection of her classmates. She finally succeeds in dancing during the final competition at Parc de la Villette, where the very suggestive gestures of the choreography contrast with the young age of the protagonists. Amy bursts into tears before the end of the performance and leaves to join her mother. Upon her return, she runs into her aunt who blames her for her outfit and recent attitude. Amy's mother intervenes by telling her to leave her daughter alone and then hugs her to reassure her. Amy implores her mother not to go to the wedding. She replies that she doesn't have to go. Amy then abandons both the traditional wedding dress and her sexy dancer's outfit, and, in jeans and a t-shirt, her hair down, she goes out to play jump rope with a group of girls.)

9Eleven-year-old Amy Diop has just moved to Paris from Senegal with her mother Mariam, her younger brother Ismaël and another little brother. Amy doesn't know when the father is coming, and her mother only gives her vague answers when she asks about him.

At her new school, she quickly becomes aware of a group of other eleven-year-old girls, most of whom strut around in short skirts and cropped tops and look at cutiescall. In the girls' bathroom, they talk about sex and watch porn, but actually they know very little about it. The girls Angelica, Coumba, Jess and Yasmine love to dance and are preparing to take part in a dance competition. Her life plan appears to be in complete contradiction to the teachings Amy hears about in the Muslim prayer meetings she and her mother attend regularly, where women are encouraged to obey their husbands. Amy doesn't want to cause her mother any grief, especially because she knows that her father wants to take a second wife. She should also move into the shared apartment in Paris and live with Amy's father in the lavishly furnished master bedroom, which her mother keeps under lock and key.

The spirited Angelica lives in the apartment above them. Amy often meets her in the laundry room, where she watches them dance unnoticed. She secretly watches videos of the cuties on a smartphone that she stole from her cousin to learn their choreography and movements. She is fascinated by the social media world. Amy and Angelica become friends and tell each other their worries and wishes. Soon Amy is accepted into the group by the other girls and is spending more and more time with her new friends. When Yasmine is thrown from the group after an argument, Amy takes her place and can the cutieseven teach a few new moves. Amy is soon going to school in short clothes and cropped up. She quickly gets into a fight with another girl who is filming her classmates. This is how Amy's mother learns of her daughter's change. She finds out that Amy went on a shopping spree with her friends and stole her money because of it. She collapses. When her father's wedding is approaching, Amy has to help with the preparations in the kitchen. Therefore she comes too late to audition the group, which is nevertheless invited to the final.

When her cousin sees that Amy has stolen his smartphone, she strips in front of him so she can keep it. The cousin reacts angry and ashamed. Before she returns the cell phone to him, Amy quickly takes a photo of her shame and posts the photo. Her friends do not understand this, exclude Amy and take Yasmine back in. Angelica tries to stay her friend anyway.

At Amy's home, preparations for the arrival of the father and his second wife from Senegal are in full swing. The wedding should take place on the same day as the final dancing. Amy runs away from home, pushes Yasmine into the water without further ado and takes her place in the group. While the men in the audience are impressed by the frivolous performance of the girls, there is indignation among the women. Suddenly, however, Amy stormed off the stage crying and ran home. Her mother protects her from her aunt and tells her that she doesn't have to come to the wedding if she doesn't want to.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.84.168 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done I assume you translated the plots of French and German versions. I added German translation with some modifications. Abishe (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The controversy extends far past the "marketing".

The movie has since come out and it has become very clear that it is not just Netflix's marketing that has been controversial. The film itself is. It has been reported to contain controversial sexualized scenes and has faced great backlash from the general public. US elected officials have urged Netflix to pull it and called for legal action. I think it is time to rewrite the lede and controversy section. WPancake (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The page appears to appropriately reference the controversy and drivers of it. The goal of the page is not to cast judgement on the film but rather to present the facts, and the article does that. 10Sany1? (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No one is calling to judge the film, but it is a fact that the movie is far more notable for the controversy it has attracted than anything else. It's not the marketing that is controversial. It's the entire feature. WPancake (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. I changed the introduction and added 2 of your references, as requested. Dante4786 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Added more on this with news of bipartisan denouncing to DOJ Loganmac (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

The film has even surpassed the anniversary of 9/11 and COVID-19 pandemic in US. This has been evident and include this in the intro. 112.134.80.143 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. How exactly has the film surpassed those two things? The information you wish to include is unclear and sounds like trivia, plus you haven't provided any sources. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Oof there is a minor mistake regarding the runtime of the film. The film duration is 96 minutes but the inbox is updated with 95 minutes. 112.134.83.51 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done IMDB lists 96 minutes. Also, there was no source for 95 minute run time to begin with so asking for a source is a bit silly. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The BBFC lists 95 minutes@Harizotoh9:--Trade (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked it up and the film is exactly "01:36:24.629". And the director herself just wrote yesterday that "I wanted adults to spend 96 minutes seeing the world through the eyes of an 11-year-old girl," Source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Please remove the "Update section" template from the "Plot" section. The plot of the film hasn't changed since the article was created so it doesn't need to be updated. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:B596:C046:7F0B:ED21 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. snapsnap ^(talk) 13:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Governmental response

It's clear now this movie has gotten the attention of several govermental agencies across the globe. In the United States specifically there's been news of several senators questioning the film, and a bipartisan group has been formed, including former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, with her explicitly calling the film "child porn" https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/cruz-joins-group-of-lawmakers-condemning-netflix-film-cuties/

I suggest adding a govermental response section in the Controversy section. Loganmac (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NYPost is not a reliable soruce. And the statements by Gabbard and Cruz are already in there. The language about this being "bipartisan" is spin by the NYPost, which is exactly why sources like that should not be used. So far it's several Republicans, and one democrat, Tulsi Gabbard. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Good job.

When the film became popular in US, I also thought of including the controversial poster of the film in the article which was released by Netflix in August 2020. Well I appreciate the inclusion of that poster so that it will make readers especially from USA more engaging. Its because the film poster in the infobox includes the French title which is the original version of the film. I thought the original film poster Mignonnes could be misleading to the viewers and also thought of including the Netflix poster as well in order to avoid misinterpretation by the American viewers. Abishe (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

What happened

someone deleted controversy sectionBaratiiman (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The content is still there, it's just under a different header.--Pokelova (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Politicians are falsely claiming the film has child pornography

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/09/12/ted-cruz-falsely-claims-netflixs-cuties-shows-child-nudity-in-call-for-doj-probe/#3a550affc162 I feel like this should be in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice Stories (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nice Stories: It's there. See Cuties#International release. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice Stories (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a brief mention in the interest of WP:BALANCE. But we need to be careful about two Wikipedia policies/guidelines: WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. The hoopla will die down after a period of time, so the press coverage of the "pornography" aspect right now is overweighted. Politicians are especially suspect because of possible ulterior motives (votes, free publicity). Moral zealots (on either end of the spectrum) also are suspect because they tend not to see beyond a surface impression and are prone to exaggeration. I restored the more neutral heading "Netflix release" that was changed to "Controversy" per WP:CRIT; criticism/controversy sections attract excess because it's a red flag for everyone who's upset by something to jump on the bandwagon and add their personal bias. I am reminded of the controversy when The Last Temptation of Christ (film) was released. It was completely misinterpreted by the zealots. As we usually do on Wikipedia, we should give the most weight to the mainstream film critics, not the politicians or fanatics. My personal opinion is that the film is not pornographic, nor does it "normalize" sexualization of preteen girls. In fact, it is a commentary on the social pressures on girls to behave in a sexually provocative manner. That's not to say the actors weren't taken advantage of; I wouldn't want my daughter in one of those roles. But that's another issue and I don't know any details about the making of the film. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Is that a blog? Forbes runs tons of blogs and I'm kind of confused of it as a source.

2. As written it violates WP:N and WP:BLP since it implies that Cruz, Gabbard, and other politicians are outright lying which would mean they're engaging in libel. ie accusing them of a crime.

3. Whether calling something porn or not is rather subjective. The views those who weigh in, especially those who hold power, are thus valid and should be noted. If Cruz goes through with his claim, then likely a government agency will examine the film and offer an additional viewpoint of the film.

4. The controversy is well covered in the article, and it should stay. If anything the other views on the film should be expanded. The reviews from Sundance, France, as well as those defending the film currently. We might have to wait until more sources from reliable sources come forward defending the film. A lot of the sources defending the film are quite bloggy internet sources that I would prefer to avoid. 04:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes source is not a blog. It was written by a Forbes staff member and is a reliable source. I'm not sure I understand your comment that the article "violates WP:N and WP:BLP". Wikipedia is not accusing anyone of lying; it is simply reporting the opinions of others. Sundayclose (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The byline is "Forbes staff", so it's a staff piece (reporting by Forbes itself, subject to its normal editorial controls.) and not a contributor piece - the contributor pieces are the blog-like things you're thinking of. Yes, it's incredibly annoying to have to distinguish between them, and yes, that one-word difference is literally all we get. Also, regarding Whether calling something porn or not is rather subjective. The views those who weigh in, especially those who hold power, are thus valid and should be noted - sort of. We note significant views according to their reflection in reliable sources, but we report what is true based on how those sources cover it. If Cruz says something, and every single source covering it says he's wrong, we have to reflect that. We absolutely cannot pluck out his statement from the source and present it uncritically in a situation like that. (We could omit it entirely for WP:DUE reasons, but stripping something from its context, especially vital context like "but he was completely wrong", would be misusing the source.) The fact that he's an elected official does not, itself, make him a WP:RS, so for anything about third parties like this we can only cover him via secondary sources, and have to reflect their interpretation and analysis when doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So Cruz in his letter claims that the film contains a scene of child nudity, and it appears that this one particular data point is factually wrong. However, the broader point of whether something is pornographic or not relies a lot on subjective opinion. And nudity is not required for something to be pornographic. So if Cruz and Gabbard believe that the film is pornographic they are entitled to that position. You can't say in a wikipedia article that someone's opinion is wrong. You can list their opinion and then other people's opinions for balance. Whether the film is legally pornographic or obscene or not has yet to be determined in the court of law or by legal scholars.

And having elected federal politicians denounce media is a very big deal and should be noted and especially what their problem with the media is. There is a long history of such reactions such as the Parents Music Resource Center and multiple congressional hearings on obscene media.

So right now only having a random Forbes writer seems kind of weak as the counter-point. The people's opinions that would be most relevant would be those who made the film, as well as legal scholars who could analyze if the film could quality as either obscene or child pornography from a legal stance. They could use the Roth Test or other tests. Once legal scholars chime in on the subject their opinion should be noted and given weight. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but unless a case goes to court I doubt seriously that any independent legal scholars (those who have nothing to do with the film or who are not in any way affiliated with the people who are criticizing the film) really care about this issue. If a case actually goes to court, then we may have some opinions with teeth.

I don't consider the Forbes article a "weak counterpoint"; I suspect others will come forth in the next few weeks. And there are notable film critics who give the film positive reviews (and some negative or mixed). Film critics have seen the best and the worst of films, and they have opinions that are not so biased by politics and knee-jerk reactions; their opinions matter here.

Yes, politician's opinions (especially national and international) merit inclusion in the article with due consideration of WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and (especially for right now) WP:RECENT. When the dust settles after a period of time we'll see where politicians' opinions are "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". But right now Wikipedia editors need to be very careful not to overload the article with opinions on either side of the issue. Sundayclose (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not every day that a sitting US Senator writes a letter to the Department of Justice accuses film makers of very serious crimes. If he actually sent the letter then the DoJ will look into the matter and come up with some kind of reply, which might take weeks or months. If they do not pursue the matter further that is itself notable. It's also likely that media will consult their own legal experts not tied to the film. Once sources like this exist they will be added to the film.

The article does focus on the US Controversy, but rather than trim information, we should expand the rest. The reaction to the film by sitting politicians is unusual and highly notable and we have past examples of sitting politicians leading a moral crusade against the media before. So the answer would be to expand the french and sundance reception, expand the production section, and expand the critical reception as well. I'd like to see more french sources from before the film was released in the USA to provide a more worldwide perspective. WP:NOTUSA Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should have international coverage. But expansion should proceed conservatively per WP:RECENT. It's hard to know but I suspect things will settle down in a couple of months. I'm sure the negative press is actually encouraging more people to watch it right now. Sundayclose (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Though WP:RECENT is a concern, if it was just socially conservative activism groups it would be one thing. But once elected officials in the USA and Turkey ask for the film to be removed and investigated if it has breached serious crimes then it is a very big deal. And most films don't get trending hashtags against netflix or see an 8 times higher than average subscription cancillation rate after its release. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly notable that a wide range of officials around the globe have reacted, regardless of political persuasion, and those should be included. But unless/until these comments lead to official action (e.g., court involvement or legislation) and not just requesting action, Wikipedia's reporting should be succinct. The names, positions, and very brief summary generally is all we need. Most of these officials need no more than a sentence for now, and some who have similar complaints can be included in the same sentence. We can always expand if things escalate. Also consider that in the USA we are in the final, heated days of an election season; politicians love to seek media coverage, which probably will abate in a couple of months. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Silly season? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know the context. Social conservatives have been grand-standing about media they consider obscene for years. Parents Music Resource Center comes to mind. And each time we have neutral encyclopedic articles on them even though I personally think they're silly or overblown. My analysis doesn't matter, the fact that they're getting so much coverage matters. The figures in government and activist groups are getting a lot of media coverage.

Also, just to reply to something stated much further up. We aren't using these figures as reliable sources and plucking out a quote from their statements. We're relying upon news reporting, and the quotes we use in the article are the quotes the media used. For example, there is a 6 minute interview by the director on Youtube by Netflix, and I didn't cite that directly and I chose a quote. Rather the media picked a relevant quote and then I cited the news article. That principle also applies to people like Raphael "Ted" Cruz and others. The sources write the article ideally, and we merely act as a conduit. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020

Anae please let me change the title as marketing controversy 112.134.87.76 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:CRIT. Criticism sections attract excess criticism. Sundayclose (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Related pages

There's a section on the cuties controversy on Netflix#Cuties and Criticism_of_Netflix#Cuties. Editors should review both sections and add both to their watchlists. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Content rating

Could we get the content ratings in the article? I'd like to compare them among nations. I remember reading that in France, the film was rated for All Ages, while in the US it was rated TV-MA. Does anybody have a good source of all the ratings? Thanks.--Beneficii (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

IMDb has ratings, but IMDb is not a reliable source. You may have to go to the website for every country. But even an equivalent of an R rating wouldn't mean much in terms of the issue of child porn because there is adult nudity which generally results in an R rating. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where to go, and I don't know French. So I think I would have a hard time finding the content ratings myself. Does anybody know of a reliable source for these content ratings?--Beneficii (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen any source discussing why the film is rated as it is so I haven't added it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikidata for film ratings. @Beneficii: --Trade (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Trade! I appreciate it!--Beneficii (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Trade. As I stated above, the ratings don't mean very much regarding the involvement of children because there is adult nudity. Sundayclose (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Check out the BBFC rating. The reference links contains additional information. --Trade (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: thanks. Maybe I didn't look in the right place. I see a 15 rating and "sex references, language, bullying". And of course age restrictions on who should be allowed to watch it. Is there anything more damning? Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Click on the 'Ratings info' text. This will open up the panel@Sundayclose:--Trade (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If there's a source, then noting the film was rated MA in USA and I think it was rated much lower in France. Getting a source that explains the rationale would be very useful. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: A rating at the level of R, MA, or similar by itself is not noteworthy, since there are a gazillion films with those ratings. What might be more notable is the official commentary accompanying the rating, as can be seen by following Trade's instructions above. Sundayclose (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You can find some more comments on Common Sense Media (a website often cited on WP). It's worth noting that they actually praised the film for having positive role models despite bing a US website. @Sundayclose:--Trade (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The film having a low rating for everyone, and a high rating in the USA, is notable. There might be cultural differences between USA and France that someone might comment on. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That huge discrepancy between France and the USA really stood out to me.--Beneficii (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well the film has opened to generally good reviews in Senegal. The film itself is based on 11 year old Senegalese muslim girl and the film has some cast members who are of Senegalese descent including director Maïmouna Doucouré. So the film partly captures the Senegalese culture. I am not sure whether the film had a separate independent theatrical release in Senegal. I just got to know that Washington Post has covered about film reception in Senegal but unfortunately I couldn't read that article as I have not subscribed yet for the Washington Post. Hence I managed to read only the headlines. The headlines says "The French film receives praise in Senegal and the reception is vastly different in Senegal compared to the backlash and outrage in US". Anyone who has already subscribed to it could add the necessary information to the article. Thanks. One suggestion:- Is it okay to change the introduction of the film as "2020 French-Senegalese coming-of-age drama film" as I believe the film also belongs to Senegal. Abishe (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Film was entirely financed and shot in France, so it's a French film. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the ratings would benefit and would be noteworthy. I don't think anyone would care to read ratings across the world. Except if you have a source calling the film TV-PP: TV-PedoPhiles. Then that would be noteworthy. GeraldWL 11:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

NCSE label

@Loganmac: You removed the description of the National Center of Sexual exploitation as a right-wing organization, saying in your edit summary that none of the 4 sources mention this aspect of the organization, but the Rolling Stone article clearly does:

Newsweek, for instance, dutifully wrote up a statement from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation decrying Cuties, without noting the organization’s roots as a religious right-wing group.

With regards to WP:LABEL, I might agree in another case but the description of NCOSE as a conservative organization is pretty widespread; journals on sex trafficking list it "among groups on the right", Newsweek describes it as a "socially conservative anti-pornography advocacy group" (article directly about Cuties, so maybe useful for the article somewhere), The Cut says "...the socially conservative group [NCOSE] has also waged an aggressive war on porn...", etc., etc. Describing the group serves an important function because a reader casually glancing across the words "National Center on Sexual Exploitation" in isolation might think a well-known anti-sex trafficking organization condemned the film rather than a conservative anti-pornography organization. I'm thinking you just missed the Rolling Stone article by mistake, so I restored the description, but I'm happy to discuss further if you need. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the characteristics of the organization, I fail to see the relevance in describing them before the statement, specially on matters of religiousness, this could be considered as an expressions of doubt. The Wiki article about them goes well into detail over their views. The mention of the Parents Television Council above doesn't mention they're also conservative. Loganmac (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Multiple sources mention the organization's particular brand of religious conservatism, including when they discuss its response to the film, as I've outlined above. Why NCOSE but not PTC? Well, the PTC is exactly what it says on the tin: a television advocacy council of (conservative) parents. But "sexual exploitation" is a very specific term which literally means slavery. Readers are likely to get a misleading impression if those words are presented in isolation. If you knew nothing about NCOSE prior to reading this article, what kind of an organization would you think "National Center on Sexual Exploitation" was? Probably an anti-sex trafficking org, not just another advocacy org. Sure, you can click through to the link, but most won't: out of the hundreds of thousands of people who view this article, maybe a couple hundred do. It is really important we don't misinform our casual readers, even it's only by omission of info. I don't really get why you think "religious" would cast doubt but I would be happy to rephrase along the lines of "conservative anti-pornography", "socially-conservative" if that's your major objection. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My argument is exactly what you've said, there's no reason to cast least validity by pre-labeling a statement's author, at least not in relation to this movie. A quick search of "National Center on Sexual Exploitation cuties" shows the mentions of the statement regarding the movie, Newsweek doesn't label them, USA Today doesn't label them, neither does Decider, Verily, Yahoo, International Bussiness Times, NBC News Today and Variety. It's also worth mentioning that the article RollingStone links to to say "without noting the organization’s roots as a religious right-wing group.", by Reason, doesn't even mention anything at all about conservatism, right-wing or similar, only about anti-porn views. Loganmac (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel you must be misreading me somewhere. What about my argument is "exactly what you said"? I'm not sure I agree with anything you've said. Yes, the Rolling Stone article chides Newsweek because they didn't mention the right-wing religious thing in that particular article. It looks like they took the advice to heart, because a susbequent article in Newsweek does mention it. This is a just a typical process of media-media criticism leading to improvement: some sources point out details that others fail to. The mere fact that some sources don't even bother to say what an organization is means almost nothing; what matters is how they describe it when they do. As an aside, I really recommend you more carefully prune the results you get from a quick search; IBTimes is notoriously unreliable and Decider is the even less fact-checked TMZesque offshoot of the tabloid New York Post. With regards to the Rolling Stone -> Reason link, it's really not our job to second-guess the descriptions in RS, that gets into OR territory (how do you know that link is the only justification for the statement), but the Reason article clearly does suggest religious conservatism (what are we to make from descriptions like "good old-fashioned Moral Majoritarians")? You seem to be under the impression that attributing any political orientation to an organization at all casts some nefarious cloud of doubt, but that's just not the purpose here; it's just to make an organization with a counterinuitive name easier to understand, just as we sometimes write "the female novelist George Eliot". —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Their name is vague and people might confuse them with National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Rotten Tomatoes user score

User score at Rotten Tomatoes is currently (18.09.2020) at 13%. Interestingly, it rose in about few days by 5%, from 8%. Anyway, that should be shown as a public reception, since critics are now often disconnected with the audience.

To be notable it would have to be commented on by a third party source. The movie being review bombed by people who largely haven't seen the film is noticed in the article. Although it's for the imdb score only is noted. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Netlix failed to fulfill the corporate social responsibility towards the society by failing to remove the film from the platform despite the public backlash. 112.134.86.194 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source discussing that?--Pokelova (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well that's obvious and we don't need to say that; readers will just know that they haven't removed it. GeraldWL 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder that talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What? Are you responding to my answer? GeraldWL 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

British or American spelling

Could we come to an understanding for which spelling to use? Experienced editors several times have changed it back and forth. Since the film is neither American nor British, this should be determined by the first edits when the article was created. That version uses "neighbourhood". But it also uses "sexualize". I'm American, so would someone more expert than I let us know if "sexualise" is the preferred British spelling? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundayclose (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN does state that "[w]hen an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." It's usually preferred to use British English for articles on European subjects rather than American English, and there wasn't much consistency when the article was created. However, per MOS:CONFORM, quotations should retain the original spelling used in the source, regardless if the article uses a different English variety. snapsnap ^(talk) 18:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that could be linked stating that British English is preferred for European subjects, especially if the early edits (after stub status) use American English? That's a new one to me. It has always been my impression that if the subject is not American or British (or a country that uses British English) the English variety to be used would be what was used in the early edits, even the subject is European. That's why I asked whether "sexualize" is correct British spelling? If it is, then there would be some consistency in using British English in the early stages of the article. But if "sexualise" is correct British spelling, then you are correct that the early edits are inconsistent. Sundayclose (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The UK has left Europe, so I don't think there's any need for the article to be in British. GeraldWL 06:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The European Union is not the same thing as Europe.--Pokelova (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically, they have left the EU. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/britain-has-left-the-eu-what-happens-now-guide-negotiations. GeraldWL 08:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, the European Union is not the same thing as Europe – the UK is still a European nation. Anyway, there's no guideline (at least not that I'm aware of) that firmly states that British English is preferred for European subjects. I reckon the only guideline that could be applied here is MOS:RETAIN, which I mentioned above. And yes, "sexualise" is the correct British spelling. snapsnap ^(talk) 09:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone should check behind me, but the article currently has the following words that could vary between British English and American English (not including quotations): hypersexualisation, sexualises, neighbourhoods, neighbor, sexualised (twice), sexualising, criticised (six times), apologised, criticizing. All dates I found use DMY format. I see a strong trend for British usage, so I suggest that we make that official. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make it consistent then. snapsnap ^(talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"erotizing infancy"

@Loganmac: or anyone who wishes to address this issue: This translation from Spanish to English has both misspelling and mistranslation. I would like to know if this edit was made with an actual proficiency in Spanish, or was it machine translated (e.g., Google Translate)? Attempting a translation when you don't have a complete understanding of the language is original research. Sundayclose (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a native Spanish speaker, per WP:TRANSCRIPTION it's not OR. The source says "erotizar la infancia" erotizar is erotize, "la infancia" could be infancy, childhood, youth. Infancia is generally used for any period before adolescence or even adulthood. Loganmac (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:TRANSCRIPTION says "Faithfully translating sourced material into English" (bold added). That's not what you did. I asked two native Spanish speakers (one of whom has served as a court translator for over 20 years) to translate and they disagree, and that's in addition to the editor here who corrected it. And even the phrase "eroticizing infancy" makes no sense in the context of the film; there were no infants in the film. You may be a native Spanish speaker, but your translation error and misspelling suggest that you lack Spanish to English skills. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Please leave the translation to others or post on the talk page first. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We should not translate direct quotes ourselves but rather summarize. So if the original quote is not in English then it should not be quoted directly. If a third party source translates, then we can use that. And in this case, it's clear that he means youth or children not literally "infants". Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Translating by a Wikipedia editor is permissible, but it shouldn't be done unless the editor is expert in both languages. Otherwise we end up with what happened in this situation. I have skills in a second language and can communicate in conversation, but that's a far cry from being able to translate competently because conversational language often is not encyclopedic. The Scots Wikipedia is undergoing a crisis because a prolific editor who didn't have much understanding of the Scots language wrote or edited about half of its articles and it wasn't detected for years. That's one reason I raised this issue. But I would agree with you that a reliable source that translates is preferred. Sundayclose (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image nominated for deletion

The image in the infobox (which is the current film poster) has been nominated for deletion simply because one editor prefers to use a different one even though both images are permitted under fair use. Please see WP:Files for discussion/2020 October 9. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record this is not a personal attack. Now, both of you calm down or reports will start. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the OP's comment, and it does not reflect my views even though I am the editor mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The nomination has been withdrawn, as I do not feel it is worth this treatment I have been receiving from Sundayclose. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Including them now threatening to take me to WP:ANI. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of facts, but this is not the right place for a personal dispute, so I'm not making any more comments about your accusations here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Random unnotable opinions

Right now the article contains two opinions from some random lawyers which would seem to me to be a breach of WP:NOTABILITY. Why are these random individuals notable exactly? PailSimon (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated use of the word "random" does not make something random. The people quoted were not randomly selected from everyone who has commented about this indictment. The Texas defense lawyer is notable because the indictment is in Texas. The federal prosecutor is cited to Rolling Stone, which is a notable publication, especially for cultural matters such as this, and is a widely used source throughout Wikipedia. It's also notable that Levin is a prosecutor and not a defense attorney, which balances the arguments by the prosecutors handling the indictment. And finally, both quotations are quite relevant and reflect an important point of view on this case. Their points could be made without reference to who said them and undoubtedly have been made by others, but naming a source prevents the impression that anyone is speaking with the voice of Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Why those particular individuals specifically? Wikipedia doesn't just quote complete unknowns that have gotten next to zero media attention. PailSimon (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

They clearly got media attention, as indicated by the reliable sources cited. Wikipedia also doesn't exclude someone simply because they did or did not get media attention. Why those two? Why not those two? I don't mean to be condescending but I addressed that. Read my response above about why those two were quoted. In reporting media coverage of an event, we don't include every comment made by every notable person if more than one person makes the same point. As an analogy, if a news event gets a lot of coverage (let's say a political event), why is one political commentator selected to make a point rather than another one who has made the same point? In this case, their comments are representative of notable points of view, and they're well stated. It could easily have been someone else with equal notability making the same points, but there's no reason to select anyone else if those two are notable, which they are. They were not "randomly" selected. If you find the same points of view expressed as well and from as notable people, feel free to suggest those instead. Sundayclose (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

They were quoted by one single media source. That's hardly WP:NOTABLE. PailSimon (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE would be relevant if this were an article about them, but it isn't.--Pokelova (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE then. PailSimon (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. WP:UNDUE has been addressed. These people represent notable points of view; that's not WP:UNDUE. You really have not supported a claim of WP:UNDUE except to erroneously refer to them as "random" and "unknowns", and claiming not enough media attention. And multiple reliable sources are never required on Wikipedia unless one incompletely covers the issue. It is not necessary for them to be referenced in multiple sources, if in fact they are not. But as far as I know we don't know whether they are referenced elsewhere. There is really too much focus here on raising the bar for notability beyond Wikipedia's typical requirements instead of the more salient issue of representing an important point of view. As I said, if you find the same points of view expressed as well and from as notable people, feel free to suggest those instead. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources are not needed for verification which is different to being needed to establish notability. Can you provide evidence that the individuals in question have had their opinions covered by any reliable sources beyond the one single source so far presented? If not then it's quite clearly not WP:DUE.PailSimon (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability has already been addressed. And again, multiple sources are not required for notability. If you disagree, please link the policy stating that multiple sources are required for notability of a topic within an article (not a biography). I understand your points, and they have been addressed. Repeating them is not necessary. In any event, so far three editors (the editor who made the edit in question, Polelova, and me) have disagreed with you. Per WP:BRD and WP:CON you now need consensus here to make the change you request. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The highlighted part is key here. Thus far only one source has been provided and if this is the only source then it is evidently not "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" to include it. PailSimon (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

They are experts being cited by high-quality reliable sources. How could a single sentence devoted to each be undue? If you have cites to more prominent experts, we could replace them, but given that they are experts being cited by high-quality sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (and their statements align), there is plenty of reason to think their views accurately represent the legal consensus and are therefore not undue. If you think that the sources are mistaken in citing them and that their views instead represent a minority position, you have to produce higher-quality sources refuting them. If they were genuinely random people with no expertise, or if they were talking more vaguely in terms of their opinion rather than stating a point of law, objecting to including their quotes might make sense; but as two subject-matter experts cited unequivocally by high-quality reliable sources, saying essentially the same things, it is reasonable to conclude that their views are authoritative, which makes them WP:DUE unless we have a reason to doubt them. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@PailSimon: You are straining the intent of WP:UNDUE. And you are having much difficulty dropping the stick by repeating yourself. The bottom line here: You need consensus, and at this point you don't have consensus. I'm finished addressing this repetition unless others weigh in. Thanks for making your points. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to keep repeating myself because you offer nothing original or interesting. You have the same cookie cutter response to whatever I say without substitantly engaging with or responding to the actual content of my comments. PailSimon (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Two short quotes in this large article from legal professionals covered in reliable sources that give the opposing perspective of that section is hardly WP:UNDUE, there's really not much more to be said.--Pokelova (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I support this message. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Their inclusion in the article seems totally fine to me. They are clearly relevant, and quoted in reliable sources, and keep the section neutral.Awoma (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If all opinions have to be controversial or meet WP:GNG, then a lot of articles wouldn't be as complete as it is. Movie reviews won't be warranted on Wikipedia. Primary sources will be not allowed as a whole. There are many essay pieces cited on Wikipedia that would be reverted. Sadly that isn't the case. GeraldWL 13:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Lede paragraph of controversy

While it is unusual for a lede to contain any information about controversy generated by a film, in this case I agree that it is warranted. However, it should be a summary of the key points of the controversy. It is currently (in my view) poorly weighted, and in places inaccurate. I attempted to fix this, but my edit was reverted. The current issues with the lede are as follows. Firstly, it claims the film and marketing campaign received "widespread" criticism online. This isn't true, and from what I can tell the sources only really justify the statement that there was major criticism in the United States, and very sparse and scatted criticism elsewhere. I think this sentence is fine without the word widespread, or with widespread replaced by "much" or "heavy." Secondly, groups claiming the film sexualises young girls is notable for inclusion in the article, but not in the lede. It is appropriate to have the presence and nature of the controversy in the lede, but we can leave the details for the relevant section. I also think this is true of the twitter hashtag. It is reasonable to include this in the article, but it shouldn't be in the lede. Finally, the accuracy of the line "#cancelnetflix causes subscriptions to drop" is dreadfully inaccurate and doesn't meet encyclopaedic standards at all. Subscriptions haven't dropped - Netflix has gained millions of subscribers since Cuties' release - and while the rate of increase has slowed, it is clearly not our place to be asserting that this came about because of a hashtag. Overall, I feel the paragraph should do the following. It should state that the film and Netflix marketing campaign met strong criticism online, that this led to the Turkish television council requesting its removal, and Netflix being indicted by the Tyler County grand jury. This summarises the key points of the controversy, and is accurate. If someone wishes to find more details, such as statements from individual groups or twitter hashtags, they can read the relevant section. My suggested wording is as follows: "While receiving generally positive reviews from critics, the film and the marketing campaign by Netflix became a subject of controversy and politicised backlash. In Tyler Counter, Texas a grand jury indicted Netflix on a charge of child pornography and in Turkey, the Radio and Television Supreme Council requested that Netflix remove the film." Awoma (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, I adjusted the lead to be more weighted. The Turkish Council thing, I don't think its lead-worthy. "Widespread" basically means "huge," so I see no problem with that. Thanks for the constructive feedback. GeraldWL 13:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The new version still has the falsehood about a drop in subscribers. It's even less true now because it says subscriber numbers have "dropped drastically." As before, Netflix subscriber numbers have risen according to their quarterly report, and even if they had dropped it would be very wrong for an encyclopaedia to be asserting the reason for this. With regards "widespread", I disagree that this means huge or significant. It means spread widely, present in many different areas. A fire that only affects one house could absolutely be a huge fire, but it would only be widespread if it affected the whole street or a larger area. Online criticism for Cuties (and the associated marketing campaign) was definitely vociferous and substantial, but considering that it was limited almost entirely to a single country I think it's wrong to call it widespread. As an important example, there was very little outraged reaction among social media users in native France. Awoma (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, thefreedictionary defines widespread as "Spread or scattered over a considerable extent," and in fact the it is spread or scattered over a considerable extent. I frankly don't understand why it is false for an encyclopedia to say that Netflix subscriptions have dropped (cancelled as sources say) by opposition of the film, who beforehand threatened Netflix that they would cancel their subscription if the goddamn movie's still there. If it is true that the drop has recovered as I can grasp from what you say, then perhaps a past tense would suffice... which it is already written in PT. GeraldWL 10:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that definition is fine. It clearly doesn't apply in this case, where criticism was not "spread or scattered over a considerable extent" but it was instead acutely localised. It's false to say Netflix subscriptions have dropped because of opposition to the film for two reasons. Firstly, because subscriptions have gone up, by over 2 million, over the period being discussed (see Netflix quarterly report: [2] ) and secondly because it is not the role of an encyclopaedia to decide what the reason for something was. Awoma (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is the film's main claim to fame and should not be downplayed in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If the criticism is limited to the United States, say so in the text rather than adding vague descriptions. No objections on removing the line on dropped subscriptions, if there are accuracy concerns. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I definitely agree that the controversy should be present and not downplayed. The suggested wording which I have given is for two reasons. Firstly, it is inaccurate, where the current paragraph contains things which simply aren't true. Secondly, it follows the manual of style as you have quoted it in "summarizing the most important points" rather than discussing the details, which should be further down in the article. Awoma (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)