Talk:Behind Closed Doors (book)

Dang, you guys are fast.
The book was only released three days ago. JosephMarigold (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV/Editorializing issues
I don't think it's appropriate to cite some pop culture website articles as if they're scientific papers. "Meeks 2023" or "Colbert 2023" is a format that'd be more suitable for sources with more of a reputation than Kotaku or Softonic. The article's language in general seems way too sensationalist for such a trivial topic and full of editorializing. The Softonic article ("Meeks 2023") doesn't even go in-depth as to what the alleged "ethical issues" of the drawings are. DannyC55 (Talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the issue with using Template:Sfn and Template:Sfnm, similar pages like Fucking Trans Women and Pinky & Pepper Forever also use them.
 * My goal was to reflect the tone used by the sources reporting on this subject, and since most of the coverage was negative in tone, this is reflected in the article.
 * The article doesn't have to go in-depth as to what the issues are, and the Wikipedia page should just repeat the article's coverage of the book (including the claim that the book has ethical issues). CJ-Moki (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this for clarification because it is self-evidently absurd. Either it was a comment made as a joke, in which case we are misrepresenting it by quoting it as a serious claim, or it is utterly deranged, and we should quote the phrase and attribute/explain it. What kind of "ethical issues" pertain to adults who work at an office drawing silly cartoons of buttholes and showing them to each other? It just does not make sense, and the "childhood-ruining' stuff doesn't make sense either. jp×g 08:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this article suffers from reporting in a completely serious tone what is, in the original articles, comedically hyperbolic language. It is a serious distortion. I also think the sources themselves are low quality. Wikipedia needs higher standards, the tone-deaf codification of cheap clickbait content into settled truths, repeated in an academic tone, is disturbing Hmmmok (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have to go in-depth as to what the issues are, and the Wikipedia page should just repeat the article's coverage of the book (including the claim that the book has ethical issues). CJ-Moki (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this for clarification because it is self-evidently absurd. Either it was a comment made as a joke, in which case we are misrepresenting it by quoting it as a serious claim, or it is utterly deranged, and we should quote the phrase and attribute/explain it. What kind of "ethical issues" pertain to adults who work at an office drawing silly cartoons of buttholes and showing them to each other? It just does not make sense, and the "childhood-ruining' stuff doesn't make sense either. jp×g 08:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this article suffers from reporting in a completely serious tone what is, in the original articles, comedically hyperbolic language. It is a serious distortion. I also think the sources themselves are low quality. Wikipedia needs higher standards, the tone-deaf codification of cheap clickbait content into settled truths, repeated in an academic tone, is disturbing Hmmmok (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this article suffers from reporting in a completely serious tone what is, in the original articles, comedically hyperbolic language. It is a serious distortion. I also think the sources themselves are low quality. Wikipedia needs higher standards, the tone-deaf codification of cheap clickbait content into settled truths, repeated in an academic tone, is disturbing Hmmmok (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

'Reception' and tone of article
This article is very strange. Its tone and content seem entirely derived from a handful of low-quality pop culture news sites. DannyC55 already brought up some reasonable complaints - particularly the citation of nonspecific "ethical issues". Seems like weasel words to me. Ironically I think it's more unethical to give the average reader the impression that the animators of Spongebob have got some widespread reputation as disgusting cartoon pornographers, especially when the comments sections I've read seem mostly to be ambivalent or amused. Hmmmok (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * So glad you said this. Storyboard artists, even when they work on the babiest little thing ever, are adults. And artists - not exactly the most conservative group, by nature? It’s sad some pearl-clutchers are trying to make some huge thing out of this. 172.119.145.96 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by summarizing reliable sources. If there are sources reflecting the views expressed here, please add them to the article. At present, since all the available sources are either neutral or negative in tone, the article reflects that. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Perverts
We should block the creepy old perverts in this talk page trying to defend this nasty ass shit 🤮 2600:6C52:7200:F80D:701C:F12A:18EE:BF67 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We should block the little whiny babies that can't handle the fact that sex is a normal part of life and adult artists will sometimes draw adult things that they don't intend everyone on the internet to see. I literally think every cartoon series probably has a zine (or at least a few drawings) like this. These people gave decades of their lives to a studio that didn't give a crap about them, you see them venting in their spare time and the only thing you can do ia go "ewww, sex"? Grow up. Block me. The tone of this article should be edited. 172.119.145.96 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with sex or pornography (obviously unless it’s with a child or something). It’s just gross when you choose to do it with y’know, anthropomorphic sea creature characters from a fucking kids show? I’d rather be a “pearl clutcher” than lack balls like you. 2600:6C52:7200:F80D:1824:AA55:660B:CDC9 (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if you choose to “vent” your frustrations with your employer, that’s fine, but if your platform is to draw some cringeworthy porn magazine or popular kids cartoon characters, you are seriously fucked up in the head. The fact you do not see anything wrong with this book is a red flag. 2600:6C52:7200:F80D:1824:AA55:660B:CDC9 (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of* 2600:6C52:7200:F80D:1824:AA55:660B:CDC9 (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)