Talk:Soaked in Bleach

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Alternative music: Nirvana Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Nirvana task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

What is the significance of the title? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordreader It is a sentence from "About a Girl". - Joaquin89uy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Soaked in Bleach" is a lyric from the Nirvana song "Come as You Are". Also, Bleach was the first Nirvana album.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Soaked in Bleach is an upcoming American docudrama directed by Benjamin Statler. . ." So, did "upcoming" ever become "released on [insert date here]"? Was this a theatrical release, a TV airing, a straight to disc release, an Internet release, or was it never released at all? It's been over a year since this article's references were retrieved. Something must have happened in the meantime. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm encountering opposition to my attempts to add additional, properly sourced information regarding the cease and desist order filed by Courtney Love in the wake of this film's release. I feel strongly that this additional info in encyclopedic and not "article bloat" as my colleague claims in his reversions. Mention of a cease and desist order absolutely requires supplementary material; this is after all an encyclopedia. Supplementary sourced information detailing what the order stated (as well as what the response to the order entailed) is by its very definition encyclopedic. This requires discussion. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, 173.252.18.173, you have 1,000,000% no idea what you are talking about. The editor in question was not “solicited” but rather was someone who thanked me for reverting your article bloat. The editor also provided additional insight into the fact that your quoted claim, “would only exacerbate the risk that she (Love) will suffer further emotional and financial harm.” was 100% not mentioned anywhere in the cited sources. So to make everyone happy—and to provide true encyclopedic content—I have reworded the section in question so it contains not only real, actual quotes as cited in the reference, but I have also cleaned up the citation as well so it is actually valid, detailed and encyclopedic. So hopefully this ends this nonsense. Happy? Hope so. --SpyMagician (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question was you. At any rate, read the source more closely and I'm sure you'll discover the material you claim isn't there. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor in question and I agree with SpyMagician all the way. The way the IP user has edited it is not as per source and over-bloated. I also find it strange that the IP user claims to have been editing Wikipedia for close to a decade yet is still editing from an IP address and not a username, and does not have the ability to add inline citations that any quality article should have for each sentence. Regardless, the original version that I personally added to the article is all that is needed, and sums up the situation more efficiently.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the editor is question was clearly SpyMagician. See here [1] and here [2]. If it was QuintusPetillius, he's engaged in sockpuppetry which is an entirely new can of worms to deal with. Please guys, can you comply with the guidelines and discuss the article and edits? You guys seem more interested in discussing me, which won't accomplish anything. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is moot. If your goal was to add quotes, then they have been added in an improved form with proper quotes used from sources and citations placed. If you cannot understand I was referring to QuintusPetillius and believe now there is sock puppetry in place, you are exhibiting more and more signs of delusional, non-cooperative behavior with every move. If the goal was to add quotes, mission accomplished… But not in the original form you posted in since that was rightfully reverted by me due to your basic inability—despite repeated claims of 10 years experience here—to actually provide a quote that was citing in the reference provided and even do so in a way that supports your claims. Again, I stumbled across this mess while on vandalism patrol. I have devoted more time and energy to this nonsense than I ever initially wished to. Enjoy! --SpyMagician (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section is written in editorial fashion and lacks sufficient source citation. This should be revised to a more objective POV or discussion of the IMDb voting practice should be removed altogether. --Playhouse76 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me – at least now, several months after the tag was added. However, you're correct that the IMDb rating should be removed. MOS:FILM is pretty clear about this, as user-generated content like this is open to ballot-stuffing. I'm going to remove the POV tag, as the situation seems to have resolved itself through normal editing, and there hasn't been any further discussion on the talk page in months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to cite the Closing credits of a movie? I didn't find any help on wiki sites. The movie has a All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer at the end before all the names appear of the film crew. By adding "fictitious" it might help the readers to distinguish a documentary from a docudrama and especially prevent disruptive editing of this article which occurs from time to time. I wanted to ask before I add something which doesn't fit the Community & editing guidelines. Thx for your help. KaiBasenberg (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First four references are not correct or invalid. No Internet Archive available. Thx for your help. KaiBasenberg (talk) 16:18, 3 April, 2019 (UTC)

The opinion from John Fisk seems. irrelevant. Nowhere in Soaked in Bleach does John Fisk give his opinion on the matter. Not only is the sentence about his opinion awkwardly placed but when I read it I thought ... ok ... who cares. The documentary doesn’t have anything to do with his opinion, he is in it to recite facts. Plus he has no expertise to give his opinion credibility or standing as to why it’s relevant . A simple one line recitation of part of his opinion is meaningless and actually misleading as it doesn’t include his nuanced ideas. I’m sure other factual witnesses from the documentary have opinions too but why should we add those? Are we going to start adding their opinions too? Finally, the quote mischaracterizes the tone in the article as well as he indicates the documentary made him change his view on the matter as he states he believes the investigation should be reopened. Another editor who owns this Wikipedia page told me to add these thoughts to the talk page. He must approve edits. Opinions as to whether this bit should be in the article might sway the owner that the bit is irrelevant or at least needs needs clarification to fairly express the opinion given in the reference. Can anyone else chime in on this matter? DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think John Fisk's opinion is helpful. It's under the section labeled controversies correctly. Other people's opinions are under the section as well. He has some expertise being often at the scene of suicides, as a first-responder. Do you want to include his "nuanced opinion" where later he stated that maybe an investigation should be opened with... " ‘Yeah’ out of curiosity if nothing else...” ? No one owns this article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes I think that would be a necessary addition to fairly represent his opinion. It indicates he became more curious about the matter rather than believing the official report was what happened end of story. What do you think?DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a ref-name problem within refence no. 2 movieweb.com (link is dead / new link is available) but I have trouble with the containers ref-name someone built (ref name Orange2014). I get errors in preview. Appreciate help. Thanks much. KaiBasenberg (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ref names like "soakedin01 or soakedin02" would make more sense on this page, so nobody gets confused and the references won't blow up with double references at the end. KaiBasenberg (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

issue solved by myself KaiBasenberg (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new ref-name container "soakedin01" not "soakedinbs01". writing error; can be used now for multiple references to the same article. corrected author and publishing date. KaiBasenberg (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]