Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dan Schneider accusation's here

(Redacted)

I have moved this part of the discussion over here as it fits over here better. Adding this issue here is very basis as it is only talking about Dan when other accusation's for Nickelodeon have been made public like Chris from the Loud House. I feel that this needs to be expanded before adding it in and more reliable sources should be used. I think this needs to be looked at here as well with more experienced users.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC) I have removed the content that was copy/pasted from Talk:Dan Schneider, as simply moving half of a conversation from one talk page to another makes for confusing reading. --Jpcase (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So I mentioned three things in the edit, that you reverted 6 times - 1. Dan Schneider was let go from Nickelodeon after he was found to be verbally abusive, sourced by the New York Times. 2. Jenette McCurdy said that there was emotional abuse on set and that Nickelodeon offered her $300,000 not to talk about it, sourced by Buzzfeed 3. Actress Alexa Nikolas protested in front of Nikelodeon and made accusations about abusive work conditions, sourced by Buzzfeed. Which of these three things do you take issue with? Anybar (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The main this was mentioning Schneider as it was violation WP:BLP. In addition it only included only Schneider and not the entire history of of the issues. We can't just pick out Schneider as we should be including the other accusation's for Nickelodeon that have been made public with reliable like Chris from the Loud House. The Soources I have issues with are Vox and rolling stone as those aren't reliable sources. In addition some of the information could just be included on the shows page like the information for Zoey 101 as there is already a section about that on the shows page making this section a bit unnecessary. I think this would fit perfectly here. [1] Magical Golden Whip (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If the allegations were only related to one individual or one show, then it might make sense to only mention them in the article for that particular individual or show. But the allegations are, in part, against the network itself, and have been made by multiple individuals from multiple shows. So the allegations are highly relevant to mention in this article. It's fine to mention some of this in the Zoey 101 article as well, but that doesn't mean the information should be omitted here. The allegations can be discussed in more than one place. I don't know as much about the Chris Savino situation, but a quick glance at his article seems to suggest that he wasn't working with child actors. The focus of what Anybar wrote is the treatment of child actors by Nickelodeon. That said, if you feel that something should be said about Savino in this article, then that can certainly be considered and further discussed. Vox is 100% a reliable source. Please see WP:RSP. There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that Vox is highly reliable. Rolling Stone can be reliable in some instances, but not always, so yes, it would probably be a good idea to find an alternative source to use in its stead, just to be extra careful. --Jpcase (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going by Geraldo Perez's and Aoi 's stance on this issue. Unless they agree I will leave it alone. They both have seem to be the ones who want specific sites and rules to be followed. My point was that Nickelodeon has other issues not only towards children, so it is unfair to include just Dan when there is also the Chris Savino situation. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

We all want the rules to be followed. Identifying Schneider as "the creator" could potentially be a BLP violation, although there is no consensus that it would be. And the information that Anybar added to this article doesn't identify the creator as Schneider, so that concern simply doesn't apply here. Geraldo Perez and Aoi have not raised any BLP concerns beyond that one issue, and that issue was completely avoided in this article, because Anybar was careful in how the information was presented. Jpcase (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not "unfair" to include Schneider without mentioning every other accusation. Inclusion in Wikipedia comes down to WP:NOTABILITY and wide coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate, exhaustive collection of information. That means notable/famous people are more likely to get coverage for doing the same things that thousands of ordinary people do every day. Since Schneider is more notable and has received the most coverage from reliable sources, then he can be included. Chris, on the other hand, may not have received any notable media coverage and most people (including me) didn't know about him. — Starforce¹³ 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Savino is a notable figure, and the accusations against him did receive significant news coverage. But I am inclined to agree that the Savino situation is less relevant to this page than the accusations that have been made by McCurdy and Nikolas. Again, I'm not very familiar with Savino, but it appears that he was fired from his show for sexual misconduct. Probably every major television network has had to fire someone at some point for some form of misconduct; there's nothing unique about that, and so while Savino's misconduct is relevant to his own Wikipedia page, it's not necessarily relevant to the Nickelodeon page. What makes the allegations from McCurdy and Nikolas relevant to Nickodeon as a whole is that they aren't simply alleging misconduct by Schneider, they're alleging systemic failures at Nickelodeon that enabled the misconduct, and they're alleging that the network then attempted to cover up the misconduct. It really should be stressed that the information added by Anybar has far less to do with Schneider personally than it has to do with Nickelodeon's overall practices as a network. --Jpcase (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Savino situation is what got the ball rolling on Dan Schneider, so that is why I felt it was a bit unfair to add everything about Schneider and not explain any of the history with Savino. I think I would be fine adding it in if we do a brief history on Savino then going into the Dan Schneider issues. In addition finding a better source for Rolling Stone. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The McCurdy allegations are sourced by both the Buzzfeed article (linked above) and the Rolling Stone article. Rolling Stone was an additional source. Anybar (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph seen in this version of the page was sourced only with Rolling Stone. The Buzzfeed News source that you included supports all of the information in that paragraph though, as do these articles from The Washington Post and Variety, so any of those could be used as an alternative to Rolling Stone.

As for the Savino situation, if a reliable source can be provided that discusses the allegations against him within a broader context of systemic issues at Nickelodeon, then we should consider adding something about that to this page as well. Otherwise, those allegations don't seem quite as relevant to this page as the allegations that have been made by McCurdy and Nikolas. --Jpcase (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right I apologize, I meant that the Buzzfeed article used as a source for paragraph 2 could also be a source for paragraph 3.

And yes, I agree that if any editor wishes to add additional information about Savino or anything else to this section, that is completely fine if it is well-sourced and relevant. All the same, I don't see a reason why the information I added should be omitted. Anybar (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the section (with replacements for Rolling Stone). I am inclined to leave out the details about Savino, but if anyone wants to add them in, they can do so, as long as the information is sourced. If the Savino situation is added here but seems like it isn't relevant for this particular page, then we can discuss further whether to rework or remove the information. --Jpcase (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to only now be allowed on Moved to the main article on mass-media controversies page. Someone else reverted stating this today. Reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magical Golden Whip (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, content can be included in multiple articles and should be included in all relevant articles. This information is highly relevant to Nickelodeon's practices as a network. It should not be omitted here. --Jpcase (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It will stay reverted until we have a clear census on this issue, as it was already taken out of the article to avoid editing wars. I have invited the user to join the discussion. I also agree that it shouldn't bee added here and is a better fit where they user added it. While this is about the network, the article is more the history and production side of things of Nickelodeon. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

When controversial business practices of a company have received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources, those details have to be discussed in the main article for that company. To not do so would be a very serious violation of WP:NPOV. --Jpcase (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Magical Golden Whip, to be honest I am not following your arguments for why this information should be omitted from this article. Are you now saying that this article should contain no negative information about Nickelodeon?  Anybar (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it, this is 1) a massive WP:BLP violation (starting with the header) and 2) is WP:UNDUE here. This is how you handle Dan Schneider at an article like this:

1. Dan Schneider was a producer who created a lot of Nick content over two-plus decades.
2. He and Nick parted ways in 2019(?) (without much of an explanation given).
3. Subsequently some allegations were made against Schneider publically.

That's it – one paragraph, roughly 3 sentences. That is WP:DUE. What people are trying to add is completely WP:UNDUE here. Also, ping Geraldo Perez to this specific discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to reworking how the information is presented, but can you elaborate on why you think any of this - other than the header, which I agree could be changed - is a BLP violation? Everything added by Anybar has recieved significant coverage from the highest quality of sources. Those sources report on direct accusations that have been made not only against Schneider, but against Nickelodeon as a network. The three sentences that you proposed would essentially say the same thing as what was previously added to the article, only in fewer words. So while there might be a discussion to be had about undue weight - I personally do not think that Anybar's additions were excessive - I am struggling to see how BLP comes into play here. --Jpcase (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They were excessively WP:UNDUE here – they don't merit a separate section of multiple paragraphs. They merit one paragraph roughly along the lines I suggested. And all of the specific allegations are best dealt with elsewhere. At this article, nothing more than a general overview of the situation is required. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

And, yeah – the focus here should be on the Nickelodeon part of the story, not the Dan Schneider part. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Both McCurdy and Nikolas have alleged that Nickelodeon enabled Schneider's behavior. McCurdy has alleged that Nickelodeon attempted to cover up that behavior. These allegations relate directly to Nickodeon's own actions as a network and are the most important details to cover here. We don't need to go into exhaustive detail in this article about every allegation of misconduct that has been made against Schneider. But I do think it's best to explain the general nature of Schneider's alleged misconduct. And I think that what Anybar added to the article covered the situation in a manner that was fairly succinct. These allegations began receiving significant coverage from major news outlets in 2018. They have continued to recieve significant coverage four years later. I'm not totally against tightening a few things up, if necessary, but I do not think that three or four sentences would be sufficient to cover a news story that has been reported on by dozens of reliable sources over the course of four years. --Jpcase (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A new section of 4 rambling paragraphs is hardly "succinct". Look, I've laid out the best way to handle this here. I seriously don't see the problem with adding a paragraph, probably under 'Programming' that outlines what Schneider did for the network, and a quick summary of the circumstances of why Nick parted ways with him. We don't need more that that. We certainly don't need to spend paragraphs on what are currently unsubstantiated allegations against Nickelodeon which also get into WP:BLP-violation territory. Anything more than I've suggested is WP:UNDUE, and seriously looks like "agenda-pushing". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks for joining the discussion IJBall, and continuing to participate Jpcase.

I'm definitely fine with combining the information about Dan Schneider into one sentence that contains the three points IJBall mentioned above.

What are thoughts about the additions of these two things?-

• Actress Jennette McCurdy said that there was emotional abuse on set and that Nickelodeon offered her $300,000 not to talk about it
• Actress Alexa Nikolas protested in front of Nickelodeon and made accusations about abusive work conditions and Nickelodeon executives enabling abuse

Anybar (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't even do that. I would include a sentence on Nick separating from Schneider in 2018 (and mention that reasons weren't publicly given). And then I would add on one more sentence – something like, "Starting in 2021, several public allegations were leveled against Schneider's conduct on his Nickelodeon television series, and it was alleged that Nickelodeon did not act or did not follow up on the allegations against Schneider at the time." That is literally all we need to include at this article. The details are covered at the other articles, and would likely be WP:UNDUE here (this also smacks of WP:RECENTISM as well if it's "over-covered") – we could maybe add a link to Criticism of Paramount Global here if people want greater context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The four paragraphs added by Anybar totaled a mere nine sentences - which really isn't that much longer than what you're suggesting. It's still unclear to me which specific content you consider to be a BLP violation. I agree that moving the information to the "Programming" section - or perhaps to the "History" section - could be a good way to go. --Jpcase (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with significantly trimming down on how much information is presented in this article about Schneider, on the condition that a link is provided to the section of Criticism of Paramount Global where the situation is discussed in greater detail. I'm against removing mention from this article of the payment that Nickelodeon allegedly offered to McCurdy, as that is an allegation that has been made directly against the network about an action that McCurdy said was taken directly by the network. The allegation has been heavily covered by major news outlets. Many of those news outlets have asked Nickelodeon for comment on the allegation. Omitting this particular allegation from the article would present a serious POV problem. --Jpcase (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to "oppose" at this time, but I will point out that we need to be very careful in cases like this – McCurdy is alleging Nick tried to pay her off, but there is, as far as I know, absolutely no corroborating proof of this claim. Without that, something like this might be considered slanderous. So we would need to tread very lightly here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I think that it should be okay, provided that we make clear in the text that this is a claim made by McCurdy and that Nickelodeon has turned down requests from major news outlets for comment on the matter. If Nickelodeon ever disputes the claim, then that will be widely reported on and covered here as well. --Jpcase (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

About concept channel tv & channel tv

Nickelodeon Nick Jr Noggin TeenNick Nick@Nite NickNight NickMom NickDad Nick Noggin on Nick(era, old) Nick on Demand Nick Jr. On Demand NickAdolesecene NickTeen NickTeen 2 Nick 2 Nick Jr Too Nick Jr 3 Nick Jr on CBS(era, old) Nick on CBS(revived, era, old, new) NickAunt NickUncle YoutubeHelping (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No one asked you. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NICK2023.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Aquadrawn2010 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Yoshi128k (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

{{subst:trScvfvgrgbrwhbtrhnyrhnryim|1=

}} 2601:3C8:4100:3760:ED21:378D:4F2:32AF (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

RobertFL1992 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Logo

Why aren't we using the fully colored in version of the Splat logo? This also applies to Nick Jr., NickToons, and TeenNick (though it is still tentative for the latter). DarkModeEditor (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There are actually deletion discussions for various logos currently occurring on Commons: c:COM:Deletion requests/File:Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png. So, whichever one you had in mind may not remain. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The one i have in mind is this one (https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/8/8f/Nickelodeon-2023.svg/revision/latest) DarkModeEditor (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@DarkModeEditor We have this on Commons: File:Nickelodeon 2023 logo.svg. There is also File:Nickelodeon 2023 logo (outline).svg which should be more legible regardless of page background color (likely the reason this one is used).

Relevant categories to peruse would be: c:CAT:SVG Nickelodeon logos and the parent (which will likely see many more deletions) c:CAT:Nickelodeon logos. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discovered today we also have an entire category for sorting Nickelodeon RFDs on Commons: c:CAT:Nickelodeon related deletion requests. This may be of interest to some contributors here. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Neat I guess. My opinions have changed on this 2023 Logo matter, so I think we should have the Outlined logo seen currently, or we can switch it out for the shiny version of the 2023 logo DarkModeEditor (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply to the Powerhouse post in Archive 1

Here's the Powerhouse article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerhouse_(TV_series)

This article says it ran on Nick.

2600:8801:0:2B10:DDCD:3270:7029:E74E (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)