Talk:Show Dogs

Child protection controversy

So, what are we doing about this? Ground zero for it is this: https://eastmesa.macaronikid.com/articles/5b017dc3700a6450421ef1c2 which has just been removed here. It's all over the blogosphere right now, it'll be in mainstream newspapers within a few days. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to review citing child grooming removed

Why is Wikipedia trying to cover up the child molestation review regarding this film? The review was posted along with language indicating that it was one reviewer's opinion, but it was nonetheless a serious accusation and is causing controversy. If other insipid reviews are posted, then this review---which accuses the movie of normalizing molestation, using specific scenes from the movie in a convincing argument---should be posted. Unless the editors are trying to hide the pedophiliac content and protect a major studio from being exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.194.93 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite the same issue as WP:Reliable sources, but mainstream reviews from critics are included in the article because they're known individuals with a track record. The problem right now is that one hyper-local columnist/blogger has posted the review, so it's a matter of one random interpretation. If the story is picked up in more reviews, or if mainstream media run stories about this review, then it's easier to include it. Right now, it's on the bubble where conventional policy is to exclude. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly this is a conspiracy theory in the same vein as Pizzagate, so I don’t think we should be giving it undue weight in the article as of yet. Conspiracy theories can have potentially deadly consequences, like when that guy shot up the pizza place over Pizzagate. Not to mention the legal issues with slander/libel. 63.231.135.154 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ROFL a conspiracy theory? The a major plot point of the movie is that "you must learn to relax and allow people to fondle your genitals." This is a kid's movie, for crying out loud; can you think of another for-kids film with genital fondling openly mentioned or alluded to? Even reviewers who didn't make the child grooming connection have noted about how "weird" the scenes are where the dog gets fondled. And there is no slander/libel stuff here; an honest interpretation of the events is not slander/libel, especially when the people you're talking about are public figures, which movie actors and directors are. Quit trying to cover up the pedophilia slipped in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.194.93 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is it comes down to one reviewer's interpretation. In a Google search, I couldn't find a news story on the controversy or another reviewer agreeing. Focus on the Family noted the scene in their review put stopped well short of saying the producers put it in intentionally to groom children. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel this falls under WP:PROPAGANDA or WP:NOTOPINION with the growing amount of opinion blogs on the internet, and this not having major news outlets picking it up, this doesn't even deserve a sub section on this page, let alone on the initial paragraph. There isn't enough reputable sources here to allow it.—falco090 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2018 (CST)

My personal view is that if the recently-added section (added in January 2018) about some non-existent "transgender portrayal controversy" can be edited into the decade-old 'Ace Ventura: Pet Detective' Wikipedia article, for no real reason other than a self-described transgender activist on Wikipedia wanted it in there and decided this movie from 1994 was suddenly controversial, and needed to find some throwaway paragraph from a years-old article (along with some obscure fringe websites) to use as "references" to make it appear to be something more than a dozen people care about, is somehow allowed, than this more than qualifies as acceptable and should be left up. -TimmyTurnerTripFag (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section needs more balance

The article sectton includes only views that support the child grooming accusation without any of the points of view that suggest or argue that the interpretation of the controversial plot point is being overblown or that the critics are assuming children will interpret or take away from the scene the same perception the adult critics did. There has also been the criticism leveled against critics that they are implying if, not outright claiming the scene was intentionally trying to sexually grroom children. It’s possible that the writers simply failied realize just how the scene would be interpreted by many adults. Also, the accuracy of the plot point with regard to real life dog shows has been questioned by those that put on dog shows, who say such genital inspections do no occur on the show floor or during the live show as all. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I included a statement by co-writer Max Botkin, although I have noticed the same paragraph was copied/pasted to his article?-🐦D🌑🌙T🌒RWH🌓42 (🔨) 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Child Grooming or Bestiality?

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, wouldn't that scene be more encouraging bestiality? Unless the dogs in the movie were human children originally, the child grooming accusation seems a bit odd, with bestiality accusations being more accurate to the movie's context. 209.33.19.39 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)