Talk:Cuties

Subsection on copyright claims
My comment here is on the subsection covering a story in which Netflix has ordered twitter to take down hundreds of instances of alleged copyright infringement involving Cuties. I don't think this subsection is notable or relevant to the article. Firstly, the notability concerns are from the fact this story has only really been ran by Torrent Freak (other sources simply relay TF's article), and also the content of the story does not seem notable. Netflix make thousands of such requests a week, and a substantial amount of it is automated. The TF article uses the wording "Netflix targets critical tweets" and this can seem as though they are specifically going after such tweets - such a story may approach notability, but that accusation is not actually made in the article. Instead, it says "the company appears to have targeted only negative tweets" (emphasis mine) and wording to this effect. It acknowledges that Netflix makes many thousands of such requests, and that these requests may be part of that process. The comment reverting my deletion of this subsection says that Netflix "specifically" targets critical tweets, but this may be untrue. It is left as an inference for the reader of the article. If there is consensus around notability, I also do not think this is relevant to the film or backlash. Rather, it is an issue around Netflix's use of litigation. It would make more sense to me for this to be added as a sentence to the cuties section of the article on Netflix criticism, than for it to appear in the article for the film. Awoma (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You selectively plucked out the word "appears" from the sources. Here is a fuller description from the sources: "Netflix has sent dozens of takedown requests to Twitter targeting specific posts that criticize the movie". That's unequivocal. And for that reason the story is notable. You said, "I also do not think this is relevant to the film or backlash". Please explain how news reports about the film Cuties are not relevant to the film. It doesn't have to be about the backlash, although I think it is. The subsection is under "Netflix release", not "Backlash". Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source also mentions the many thousands of takedown requests which are not of this form, which would make it not notable. With regards relevance I think, at its heart, this is a story concerning questions around the litigious nature of Netflix, and not the film Cuties. It is information primarily related to an American company and questions about their behaviour in relation to American law and the American constitution. One gleans no information about the film itself, its plot, its production, its reception, anything, from this story or the related article. This is why I don't think it is relevant, and if considered notable would be far better suited to the page criticism of Netflix. Awoma (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again you have been selective in the information from the sources that you present here. The only reference to copyright claims other than those for Cuties is a mention that, prior to Cuties, most of Netflix's claims have been "related to accounts known for distributing pirated content". It would not be unusual in the least for any major company that provides video and other media service to seek action against blatant piracy. What is new in this situation are the large number of take-down requests for tweets that criticize the film. The sources do not focus on a story that "at its heart, ... [concerns] questions around the litigious nature of Netflix"; nor are the sources "primarily related to an American company and questions about their behaviour in relation to American law and the American constitution". The title and most of the content of the Arstechnica source are about Cuties. And again, information in the Wikipedia article is not restricted to "plot, its production, its reception". The article is about Cuties and anything notable related to Cuties. I'm not trying to defend or criticize Netflix, but you are distorting the content of the sources. I don't have a problem with trimming the section a little and including the information in Criticism of Netflix. But your attempt to remove it entirely from the Cuties article is unreasonable. Sundayclose (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On relevance, you say tbat wikipedia should in this article cover all notable information on Cuties and also anything related to Cuties. This is correct. It's worth remembering though that this chain of relation cannot go on forever. Relevance describes 4 steps of relevance which I think can help us frame this. First is all information directly related to the topic. In this case, this would be the production and plot and structure of the film. After one step of removal, we get information about the online backlash, the reaction of the Turkish television council, and the indictment. This clearly comes in the level of medium relevance - the example given in the essay of disputed characterisation of the topic being especially pertinent for us. The essay says this level of relevance requires greater justification for inclusion in the article, and I think the backlash clearly meets that requirement. Then, this information, about a controversy surrounding the use of copyright takedown requests from Netflix against tweets from said backlash, would clearly be on the next level of removal again. The source itself acknowledges that it will not be discussing the backlash but provides details of it for contextual purposes. The essay says this information should not be included in an article unless the justification for its inclusion is unusually strong. I don't see that there is any unusually strong case to be made for its inclusion, and I hope you will see that my reasoning here is at least not unreasonable! Awoma (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all (and I'm sure you know this), let's keep in mind that WP:RELEVANCE is an essay, not a policy. As such it is much more flexible in interpretation and implementation. You have provided your interpretation of the essay, which is perfectly acceptable. But let's remember, it is your interpretation. Others can have a different interpretation. For instance, I do not consider Netflix's attempts to selectively pursue copyright infringement claims about Cuties (not general issues related to copyright) to be any less relevant than the online backlash. In fact, I consider it to be a direct response by Netflix to the controversy. As far as I know, Netflix has never used such a tactic in the past to try to influence opinions about one of its products. So we have a good faith disagreement about relevance. I'm fine with that, but this would require more opinions than just the two of us to resolve. What concerns me equally as much (and perhaps more), however, is the misrepresentation of sources (which I believe has occurred in good faith). The Netflix action regarding negative tweets is not of minor or tangential relevance to our understanding of the controversy surrounding the film, as indicated in my comments above. So the sources accurately reflect a notable (in my opinion) situation pertaining to Netflix's efforts to manage the public image of the film. Sundayclose (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on DMCA takedown subsection relevance
Making this an RfC due to the previous discussion only attracting one other user. I would like people's thoughts on the subsection Cuties, and in particular whether or not they feel this subsection is relevant and should be included in the article. Awoma (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Editors should refer to the section Talk:Cuties immediately above for prior detailed discussion.


 * My view on this is that it is irrelevant and so should not be included in this particular article. It is really a story about the litigious nature of Netflix and not the film Cuties, and so if considered notable would be suited to the criticism of Netflix article. I think the essay at Relevance provides a nice framework to work in, with examples which are relevant to this article, and I propose that we try and follow that framework. It describes 4 levels of relevance, each separated from the last by a step of "removal." The more steps are needed to get from information to the topic of the article, the lower relevance it has. At the first level it describes the most relevant material. This is information directly related to the topic. In our case this would be the film's plot and production. The next level down consists of information which is "one step removed" from the topic. Listed as an example is facts pertaining to "disputed characterization or opinion" about the topic. They are considered worthy of inclusion only if suitably notable. I think information like the Turkish television council opposition and Texas indictment would come under this category - both clearly meeting notability requirements and so, despite being one step removed, are rightly included in the article. The next level down is information which is a further step removed. This particular section covers such a story - In response to the backlash, Netflix appears to have adopted a controversial policy of DCMA takedown requests. The essay would consider this twice-removed information low relevance, and says it should only be included in the article if there is an unusually strong reason. In this case, I don't think any such unusually strong case can be made. This story conveys no information about the film, or anybody involved with the film. It is a story about Netflix. The subsection also drifts into the very lowest level of relevance by another step of removal - including comments from twitter users about how Netflix's use of DCMA takedown requests may be in breach of the first amendment, which is an aspect of American law. I don't think it makes sense for such information to appear in an article about a French film. A section consisting entirely of information which is two or three times removed, only really supported by an article from TorrentFreak, should not be included in the article in my view. Awoma (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Include - First let me say that I'm trying to achieve balance in the article. My personal opinion about the film is that it has artistic and social merit and that much of the backlash against Netflix has been baseless and unjustified. However, with this recent tweet incident, Netflix has attempted to manipulate public opinion as a result of the controversy. WP:BALANCE necessitates that we include that information as notable. Please refer to the section immediately above this RfC for detailed discussion that includes my response to some of Awoma arguments, which include misrepresentation of the sources (albeit done in good faith). Netflix selectively targeted tweets that criticized the film in an attempt to manipulate public opinion about the film. That's clear in the sources. Prior to Cuties, most of Netflix's request for take-downs based on copyright have been "related to accounts known for distributing pirated content", a routine matter for any company that provides video and media services. The take-down requests became notable when it was apparent that Netflix was selectively targeting tweets that criticized the film. That merits inclusion in the article.
 * WP:RELEVANCE is an essay, not a policy. As such it is much more flexible in interpretation and implementation. I do not consider Netflix's attempts to selectively pursue copyright infringement claims about Cuties (not general issues related to copyright) to be any more "removed" in relevance than the controversy and online backlash. In fact, I consider it to be a direct response by Netflix to the controversy. In terms of relevance, Netflix's targeting of tweets is of equal relevance as the negative reactions to the film. There's no reason it shouldn't be included in the article. The critical issue for Wikipedia's purposes in this situation isn't copyright, American law, or First Amendment rights; those are only tangential. The important (and notable) issue is Netflix's biased actions. Again, refer to the preceding section above for more details. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

1. "It is really a story about the litigious nature of Netflix and not the film Cuties, and so if considered notable would be suited to the criticism of Netflix article." But Netflix is targeting those who are criticizing Cuties. So there is a relevance there. 2. "This story conveys no information about the film, or anybody involved with the film. It is a story about Netflix." Yes, a story about Netflix responding to the controversy about the film-- Cuties. If you think that section shouldn't be included based on the imperial system of an essay, then perhaps ''Ted's response to the controversy ain't notable. He is someone on Netflix, not the film. And he's talking about the First Amendement-- this is a French film.''  Gerald WL  08:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Whilst it would be relevant in article about Netflix, it's also relevant here. --John B123 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is described is not relevance, but a pathway back to the original topic. One can construct such routes between any two topics, but that doesn't give relevance. In order to establish any sort of useful rule here, I think we need to agree on a framework which will help us to establish what is relevant and what is not. I think the essay gives a perfectly good framework for that, but it seems you disagree. In which case, can you propose an alternative one and explain why it is superior? With regards the Ted Sarandos address, I agree that this is of questionable relevance. I think it has a stronger claim to both relevance and notability though. Relevance in that his address was talking about the film. Notability in that he is Co-CEO of Netflix. Twitter users talking about first amendment violations related to DCMA takedown requests from Netflix's legal team, in reaction to online backlash which was seen against the film Cuties, doesn't manage nearly as strong a case. However, if the Sarandos section is also concluded to lack relevance or due weight, then that's understandable. Awoma (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's often quite acceptable, even encouraged, to have a "pathway back to the original topic". If we want to take that argument against a pathway to its logical conclusion, then all of the criticism of the film is a pathway to the original topic of the film itself; that would leave only the plot and the cast. The Netflix issue is no more of a pathway that the criticisms of the film. I also respectfully disagree with the need for an alternative framework if some of us choose not to interpret the essay in the same way that you have; in fact, even if we choose to ignore the essay altogether. The essay is not a policy. Content of Wikipedia articles are not bound by any essay. Essays prompt us to consider points of view, but unlike policies, they do not compel us to limit how we edit. In fact, sometimes essays contradict other essays. The alternative framework is the inclusion of information that is relevant to the film. That's the point of disagreement, not the essay. You think the Netflix issue is too far removed in relevance to be included. Others have different opinions. No framework is needed other than the discussion we are having now. I respect your opinions in challenging the relevance of the Netflix issue, but a consensus to remove the Netflix issue is necessary to remove it, not an essay. Sundayclose (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With regards a pathway to the original topic, I was not suggesting this is a bad thing, but that it is insufficient for establishing relevance. Such a pathway can be constructed between just about any two pieces of information. The issue of relevance is how strained that pathway is, how many steps one has to take. I do think a framework for establishing relevance is very important. It will allow us to agree on key principles for relevance, which we can then establish or dispute in a meaningful way. Without any framework, we are simply left with ad hoc arguments, or even just voting. When you say "the alternative framework is the inclusion of information that is relevant to the film" I think this exemplifies the problem with not having a framework - one cannot really make any meaningful point within this aside from saying "I think X is relevant" or "I think it isn't", which clearly won't get us anywhere. With this in mind, I would like to establish agreement on the essay as a helpful framework to use in this instance. If you feel it is not a good framework, then I would like you to propose an alternative which I will of course be happy to engage with. Awoma (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the basic point of disagreement is how far removed the information is from the film itself. A "framework" is not needed other than consensus on this talk page. You are putting far too much weight on the essay, especially considering that interpretation of the essay is a matter of opinion. "How strained the pathway is" also is a matter of opinion. The reason you're not getting any support for using the essay as a framework is because there is disagreement about the interpretation of the essay. You can't impose your interpretation of the essay and expect others to agree to using it as a framework if we disagree with your interpretation, and as long as we disagree with the relevance of the Netflix issue to the film. To use your words, that argument "clearly won't get us anywhere". I mean no offense, but you're arguing in circles. Sundayclose (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I also support including it for the reasons above. However, I would also support restructuring this information so it does not have its own subsection. (The "Ted Sarandos address" subsection could be restructured too.) Per WP:STRUCTURE, we should try to "fold debates into the narrative". For example, there could be a social media-centric subsection (including QAnon's leveraging #SaveTheChildren) where the copyright claims could go. The Ted Sarandos address could also be merged into an existing subsection. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with restructuring the subsections as long as all of the information is retained. Sundayclose (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Include It is worthy of inclusion due to the discussions made above.Idealigic (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Include per the arguments made above. Netflix's actions are relevant to the article. Some1 (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ALT text
@: I admit I hated the movie. But I don't see what's wrong with the alt texts I added that you reverted. It is in fact verified in the movie that they are splurging and dancing at a stage. That's not the lesst of NPOV— of course, excluding "inappropriate." Do you have better alternatives to the alt texts?  Gerald WL  01:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your captions might be appropriate if the grammar and vocabulary were better. They aren't dancing until they are on the stage. Someone beside the stage is at the stage. Before they were introduced they were at the stage. Then they went on the stage to dance. What does "in inappropriate dressing" mean? "Dressing" is a participle, not a noun, unless you are referring to a sauce (e.g., salad dressing) or something applied to a wound. Please tell us how it is "verified in the movie that they are splurging". The image doesn't show them spending large sums of money in a store. It might be a scene after they made purchases, but that's not splurging. Feel free to present rewrites here before you add them to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , how about these.
 * Infobox poster: "Four jovial girls at the streets carrying paper bags, with confetti around them.
 * Netflix poster: "Four girls posing in suggestive outfits at a stage."
 * USC letter: "Refer to caption."
 * How is this for you?  Gerald WL  01:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The one for the infobox is better. But I didn't have a problem with the phrase "Four pre-teen girls", which better describes them in the context of the film compared to "jovial". For the Netflix poster, once again, they are on the stage, not at the stage. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I've added them.  Gerald WL  02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this for you?  Gerald WL  01:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The one for the infobox is better. But I didn't have a problem with the phrase "Four pre-teen girls", which better describes them in the context of the film compared to "jovial". For the Netflix poster, once again, they are on the stage, not at the stage. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I've added them.  Gerald WL  02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I've added them.  Gerald WL  02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Page protection
Is there any reason why this page has lacked any form of protection since last year, considering its controversial subject matter and frequent vandalism? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because: "Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The poster is pedo bait. Please remove it.
I get the reason for keeping it up, to teach people about the poster... but keeping up the poster is still a problem. It is pedo bait. Sick bastards will see it and be pleased by it, potentially pushing them closer to doing harmful acts to kids - the same problem with this movie's other pedo bait scenes. So, please, I urge you to remove it. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have photos of real naked children on articles like Puberty, we're not going to remove an image of kids in dance costumes that is important context for the article just because you think they're sexy. --Pokelova (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You should. Sick bastards will hurt kids if we don't remove the images. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this sounds cold, but that is not our responsibility. The image is easily found all over the internet, in much higher resolution, and the movie itself remains available on Netflix. The removal of this image from one single website will not make a difference. --Pokelova (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but we should still delete all variations and copies of the poster from existence. Goverments have managed to delete actual CP sites on the dark web, to try and stop the chain and cycle of more harm and trauma from occurring. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Evidently this does not meet the definition of CP. --Pokelova (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that this movie or the poster was CP, but I am saying that they are pedo bait. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed. It does not add to the article.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think given that much of the backlash was specifically related to the poster rather than necessarily the film itself, I think a good case could be made for retaining the image. That said, I'm not hugely invested in keeping the image, and it is easily findable online for the curious reader. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated it at somewhat reduced size. Judging by the note at the top of this page, this has been a perennial subject of discussion, and WP:NOTCENSORED is part of policy. We have a duty of information, especially for visual information that by its nature is impossible to accurately and neutrally explain. I adduce Virgin Killer as another example, where I personally used our coverage to see what the problematic image was (and in that case the problem image was also replaced, but we have it in the infobox). However, consensus—and public opinion—can change, so I suggest an RfC on whether we should include the original poster in this article. (Note: I am pinging only Catfish Jim and FreezingTNT2. Perhaps participants in earlier discussions on this talk page should also be courtesy pinged.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a pic in a WP-article is to aid the readers understanding of a topic, and I think this one does. Agree that RFC is the way to go for those who wish to remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not invested enough to disagree.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that information is important, but kids' safety is important. We should definitely remove the poster, any song covers with nude children, the images on the puberty page, anything that depicts a minor nude, sexually or with revealing clothing. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read this discussion and do not edit war by removing the image again. Feel free to use this talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)