Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury/Archive 1

Archive 1

Can someone link the Japanese wikipedia page to the language section?e

The Japanese page is available here:

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A9%9F%E5%8B%95%E6%88%A6%E5%A3%AB%E3%82%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%83%80%E3%83%A0_%E6%B0%B4%E6%98%9F%E3%81%AE%E9%AD%94%E5%A5%B3#/ Unknown123Known (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Destiny Ninja And Gundam Iron Blooded Orphans Slayer ThreeQuel

Black Knight And Purple Ninja Superhero Mask Anti Hero 2400:AC40:620:C2F4:925:293C:E157:6EA2 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Re:Suletta and Ericht

There is currently no proof in the anime that Suletta and Ericht are the same person. They were listed separately on the official website and Episode 6 stated that the events of the Prologue took place 21 years ago, meaning Suletta couldn't have been Ericht because her age doesn't match. M-Tails-P (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll need to wait for more info before we change the article. Episode 6 spawned a lot of fan theories that they're separate characters, but we don't actually know that. At this time, even the fandom page regards them as the same character. I'm sure by the end of the series there will be secondary sources to cite to clarify this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The Fandom page means nothing. It was completely written by fans and has absolutely no bearing on anything. What we do know is that both the official WfM website and the Japanese version of this page listed Ericht and Suletta as two separate characters. Since there is nothing in the show confirming that they're the same person, they should be regarded as different characters until it's confirmed that they're the same person.M-Tails-P (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the Fandom page is a source, I only mentioned it to make the point that if there was reason to believe they're separate characters, they'd probably be quicker to mention it than Wikipedia. The Japanese version of this Wikipedia article doesn't have any bearing either. Could you link to the official website?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's on the page under external links. M-Tails-P (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting to see them listed as separate characters on the same page, but they're not listed separately because Ericht isn't even listed as a character in the series. Ericht is described on the prologue page, but the show (likely intentionally) leads viewers to assume that Ericht grew up to be Suletta so it's not really evidence that they're separate people. Seems like the confusion about the two characters is purposeful from the writers. I say we just wait for the show to inevitably clarify this and default to the status quo for now instead of making changes based on fan theories.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The keyword is "assume", it's an assumption that's never actually confirmed in the show. And it's not the job of the Wikipedia page to actually make that connection. I still believe they should be listed separately until they're confirmed to be the same person. M-Tails-P (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources also state in no uncertain terms that Suletta == Ericht, and it's still more of a speculative theory that they're not the same person. For what it's worth, I too think they're probably not the same person, but that's still just a fan theory while the canon so far is that they are the same person. Again, deliberate ambiguity. Not really any value in further discussion unless and until we get clarification. Just be patient.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless those secondary sources have some kind of information that we don't have, they are as speculative as this Wikipedia article. This article should really be updated to reflect the official character descriptions instead of adding fan speculation about Elricht and Suletta being the same person. Hamuko (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Souletta is officially the first female protagonist in mainstream gundam show history.

Official sources unequivocally name Suletta as the first female protagonist among the TV versions of the show. Should we remove all these fan references to various OVAs, ONA and spin-offs that had female leads? Solaire the knight (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Spaceian/Spacian

I've no clue why this is the subject of an edit war, but despite one user's declaration of "Do not attempt to bypass the discussion" aimed at the anonymous IP user, there has been no attempt whatsoever prior to now to open any such dialogue, neither on this talk page nor on the IP user's as-yet nonexistent talk page. Regardless, the answer in this dispute is easily solved by some cursory research.

The official website for the show contains a glossary of in-universe terms and their meanings, as well as their offical spellings in English. One such entry, titled, Spacian and Earthian, reads as follows:

The inhabitants of space are called "Spacians," and the inhabitants of Earth are called "Earthians." The economic disparity between these two camps has widened with the growth of space industry, producing division and strife between Spacians and Earthians.

As such, the page should go with the official English spelling of "Spacian" rather than "Spaceian," which, as the anonymous user points out, doesn't really make sense in English anyway. I will be adding this glossary as a source to the page shortly, and hopefully we can all stop wasting time on this. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 00:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it quite logical that the one who started this conflict and whose edits caused disagreement should start the discussion of their edits. Because it turns out very strange, the anonymous person kindles the edit wars and communicates exclusively through comments on the cancellations, but I'm the only one who should start a discussion (which is not yet a fact that a person will join) and look for sources for it. Especially considering that this page is half dead, and I opened the topic a long time ago in the discussion of the anime project. But one way or another, the issue is resolved, so I see no point in further discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight good job publicly embarrassing yourself, now there's a useless reference on the page that only serves one person and is completely obvious to anyone else with an understanding of language 70.120.198.81 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

An ironic comment from whoever started this in the first place, stubbornly waging an edit war and ignoring any calls to resolve this through discussion. Also, if you passed to get personal, I will contact the administrators about the obvious violations of the rules of communication. Which are obvious to anyone who has knowledge of the rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

“Criticism of Capitalism”

There’s text linking to “Criticism of Capitalism” in the intro.

None of the characters on this show have made any remarks criticizing capitalism. In fact, the protagonists even do a startup. Capitalism simply exists as a part of the setting. It’d be better to just say “Capitalism” without the “Criticism” part.

If one of the show’s creators said something about “criticism,” then that should be cited.

Otherwise this genuinely comes across as communist propaganda. Citation needed. Rstrug (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus Bandai sells Gundam merchandise! It’s on this page! Gundam shows came into existence to sell Gundams! Why would they criticize what they do themselves. Makes no sense. 😂 Rstrug (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You're clearly new to the media, because shows critical of capitalism from big brands are so frequent that it's even a running gag. This is first. Secondly, anyone who has watched this show will obviously understand that the characters started the startup not out of love for business and capitalism, but out of necessity to save Gundam and protect the MC. This is even directly discussed in the plot. Thirdly, if you continue the edit war with such highly formal and forced excuses and a clear conflict of interest, judging by your complaints about "communist propaganda", I will demand your blocking. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Y’all started the edit war.

Then cite the scene. Cite the exact dialogue.

The rules are on my side: “Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.”

This has been challenged. Cite it. Rstrug (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop exploiting dry formulations and shifting the burden of proof. The edit war started exactly at the moment when you ignored my answer and silently reverted your edits. Secondly, Gundam has always been a leftist social commentary franchise. You can see this as "communist propaganda" as much as you like, but removing the mention of capitalism criticism from the article based on your political opposition to it is simply destructive. And stop writing posts in a pile, these are not social networks, you violate the readability of the thread and complicate the answers to it. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

“Always been leftist”

There it is. If you want to claim that, then you need a citation. You don’t speak for the brand. Stop projecting.

You’ve been lying constantly throughout this entire experience. There’s a paper trail that points out all of your lies. Rstrug (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Read any interview with Tomino about the ideological content of the franchise, as well as his views on the world. However, since you continue the edit war provoked by a conflict of interest and now even directly insult me, this no longer makes sense. I wrote to the administrators asking for your blocking. Goodbye. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

An attempt to resolve the issue

Ah, I've seen your attempt at compromise, and I want to go meet you. If the overly general "critique of capitalism" looks too vague and controversial, then I'm willing to withdraw all charges if you find any page that describes corporate monopoly or criticizes it. This will solve all the problems and I will help rewrite it.Solaire the knight (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

From episode 11 @ ~15:35:

Miorine: “Now I have to run a company, listen to my father’s infuriating criticism, and bow my head!”

Suletta: “I-I’m sorry!”

Miorine: “You’re the one who doesn’t get it! Don’t you see I’m happy like this?!”

The Benerit Group is commonly described as a conglomerate, or a collection of companies. I don't believe we know enough about the rest of the story's universe to say it's a monopoly. I recall some dialogue about trying to increase the Benerit Group's profitability and that's why they're giving the Gundam a shot because they need it. A link to conglomerates would be ok. Rstrug (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is literally a show about the harm that corporations bring to society from excessive influence on politics and power. The authors directly talk about this in an interview (one of the interviews even directly calls the arms race between corporations a "secret war") and the creation of the Gundam corporation as a forced way to save Suletta is directly discussed on the screen. Simply linking to some article about corporations will not change anything. This is literally and obviously criticized. As for the conglomerate, you may not be familiar with this area of ​​fiction, Japanese gun and technologies conglomerates, in other words Zaibatsu, are the most popular metaphor for overpowered corporations in science fiction and are always depicted as a bad structure with excessive power. Also, once again I ask you to stop writing in columns. If you don't stop, I'll start correcting them into normal lines myself. It's terribly awkward to read. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Then can you link to your interview and we’ll cite it. I went through the Japanese version of this Wikipedia page and they don’t even mention the word “capitalism.” TV tropes mentions mega-corps, Zaibatsu and conglomerates. I’m fine with all of those. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Anime/MobileSuitGundamTheWitchFromMercury I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding “columns.” I’m hitting reply with the Wikipedia app. I’d rather you not edit other people’s talk page posts. Rstrug (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

TV Trops is not an authoritative source and is written by people like us. And with dominant left views, which is very ironic with your right bias. Moreover, if we turn a blind eye to this, both the pages of these tropes and the page of the Witch describe these organizations in a negative way. You are just wasting my time. This is literally a critique of the consequences of capitalism as it is, and your attempts to hide it under various simulacra is simply pointless. As well as the Japanese Wikipedia, which is not only the same section of Wikipedia as we are, but generally almost does not touch on the political aspects of the work. Moreover, the interview I mentioned is cited in both Japanese and English Wikipedia. You can click on the link and see the full version. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not linked or cited an interview. Come back to reality here. If you want to leave it as it is and move on, I won't object. But it's not a critique of capitalism at all. The protagonists started a company and she said she was the happiest she's ever been. This is not a page for your head canon. It's whatever the author or the work says. Other Gundam shows have evil governments. They replace them with good governments. It's not a criticism of government. It's just the setting and the characters. Gundam in other shows will criticize war and they express this by explicitly calling for peace. Phrases that are ok: capitalism, mega-corp, Zaibatsu, conglomerates, startups, economic disparity, economic systems (there's a quote from the official website about economic systems and the economy disparity between spacians and earthians) Rstrug (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Government is too broad a concept and government is not an economic system, unlike capitalism. I'm tired of trying to prove and argue something, only to see later that you just ignored it. It doesn't even work according to your logic, because the setting with overpowered evil corporations is literally an anti-capitalist dystopia. It's as pointless as if you were trying to prove that an evil cult show that criticizes religious propaganda is not anti-clerical. If you continue to simply ignore those parts of the plot or article that you don’t like, choosing only what you like and repeating the changes in the article that are convenient only for you, ignoring objections, I will simply remove the compromise version and again I will demand your blocking from - for walking in circles and arguing for the sake of arguing. The characters literally discussed the creation of the company as a forced act and you can literally find the information in the article and a link to the original interview where the writers discuss the ideological content of the show. This is my last reply, further attempts to go around in circles will be regarded as destructive behavior with a corresponding request to the administrators. I warned you. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Images

I added this [1] image to the episode list article and this [2] to the character article. @Blackgaia02 removed both without explanation, didn't respond to my talk page thread and now has again removed them both as WP:NFCC violations. I don't see how the images violate NFCC as they both have clearly defined rationale and purpose in the articles. Blackgaia, could you elaborate on that? The images follow the standard seen on every anime episode and character featured list. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You are reposting one picture that isn't needed to be posted again, and posting another that really doesn't need to be included as it already had one image to represent an article. IDGAF if you had sentimental connection to them, one is enough. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Both articles currently have no images, while the standard is to have one as a header in those types of articles. Same image can also be used in multiple articles, but if you propose better images we could use those. You cited WP:NFCC, so could you elaborate what part of that was violated? -- CandyScythe (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Again Suletta's casting

And so, since the administrators believe that I have enough free time to spend it talking in a deliberately silent anonymous, I will again have to continue this. Dear Anonymous and the users who patronize him, what exactly do you dislike in the first text so obsessively deleted? If you look at the source, it directly links the choice of an "unrepresentative" actress for the role of Suletta to the fact that Crunchroll made the decisions mentioned in the deleted text. Perhaps it is worth rewriting it a little to better understand the connection, but nevertheless the fact remains. I'm more than sure that the anonymous person will ignore the discussion and continue the monotonous edit war, so I want to at least hear the opinion of those users who put me under blocking, trying to keep their edits in the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

the text doesn't link the complaints to the show. The complaints are about the company dubbing the show.

They are not critical of the show, nor are they from Critics. They aren't about the show they are about a policy made by crunchyroll. The connection is incidental but since the policy isn't about the show, it doesn't matter.

So I disagree at minimum with it's placement, and at worst I disagree with it's inclusion since it is just an attack on crunchyroll. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think the complaints that the show didn't get the "needed" VA for the MC role due to the crunchroll's controversial decisions are irrelevant to the show? Above, we even found a direct quote from one of the complainants. P.S. By the way, I may be wrong, but do I understand correctly that you and Rstrug above are the same person? Solaire the knight (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, please stop being unnecessarily sarcastic. It is counterproductive and reflects poorly on you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

But didn't I take that out of my line when I noticed it sounded ambiguous? Or do you think it still gives that vibe? Solaire the knight (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Don't have an account.

The section I edited out was unnecessary because it was ONLY about Crunchyroll and then went further off topic by discussing Texas being a right to work state.

none of that section is about the show, it's solely about Crunchyroll. It isn't needed and is just an attempt to attack crunchyroll.

Furthermore the line says that "voice actor professionals" without listing any of them, and the article in question is sourcing random tweets.

It even says that their comments aren't directly about G-witch, so how is it at all needed?

And it isn't a critical reception to the show, it is to the company and it's practices that apply to all of it's shows, not just G-witch 174.164.163.141 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked this because your way of posting comments is almost the same as the user above. But I will not insist, because this does not affect the essence of our dialogue in any way. I understand where you are coming from and this point of view is already being discussed here. So in connection with the our last edit war, I want to ask if you, like other users, are ready to wait for an uninvolved administrator to take stock and issue it as a consensus on the outcome of the discussions? If you have any new arguments, then please state them here so that the summing up can take them into account. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Suletta's VA Controversy

Should I add that Suletta's sexuality and ethnicity was never stated on the show other than a brief comment about her skin color in early creator interviews? This is true and it makes the debate about her VA somewhat pointless, but I don't want to create an original study. Also, what do you think about this in general? Do we need a separate section with a more detailed narrative here? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure if this section is WP:DUE any weight. But setting that aside, I wonder if this section (if it is due weight) would be better in the "production and release" section since the media section is usually meant for basic information about the series' release; MOS:ANIME states [media] sections should, in general, include the original release and broadcast information, and English license and release and broadcast information where applicable. I am not sure whether this falls under "English license and release and broadcast information" as while it discussion of the casting choices, as of now it has yet to actually affect the series. Perhaps some information on casting in general should be in that section too; looking at the Japanese article, it cites this Mantan Web article, which may have some useful information. On that note, the Japanese article has quite a bit more creation information than this article does, so perhaps relevant information should be translated. Link20XX (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Japanese section is much more complete in terms of creating and developing the show. But unfortunately, what I managed to read in the past discussed her ethnic roots no more than what I quoted. Perhaps at the moment we should wait and see if this conflict will have a continuation and, accordingly, more authoritative sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A little late to reply to this I know, but I don't think it needs a separate section. Suletta's ethnic heritage is a minor point at best (especially in the context of a show where most characters aren't from Earth), and has not been brought up outside of the voice actor issue so far. Even the source on Anime News Network itself is quite weak, only stating that "viewers have shared" there's an "interpretation" that "Suletta is Middle Eastern or North African-coded".

I'm not planning on making any edits as I know there's back and forth on this and it's a touchy subject, but based on the linked source, I think even the current statement in the wiki that "Suletta Mercury is implied to have Middle Eastern or North African heritage" is quite strong for something that even the writer of the article has essentially only said is an opinion of some viewers. If it was expanded slightly (after the show concludes perhaps), maybe it should be something along the lines of this for balance:

Some viewers feel that Suletta Mercury is implied to have Middle Eastern or North African heritage, which is supported by her father's name being Nadim Samaya, which has Arabic, Hebrew, and Indian origins (ANN reference). However, Suletta's ethnicity is never stated, other than a brief comment about her skin color in early creator interviews (with the relevant interview reference). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is too strong. In fact, the whole thing might be UNDUE. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That is, you most likely complained about all this as an "edit war" and prevented me from removing the anonymous vandalism only because of a conflict of interest and a negative attitude towards information? Actually, as I thought. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you were already temporarily blocked for an edit warring on this topic, which administrators upheld as "Very obvious edit warring. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM", so your claim that previous edits were vandalism doesn't seem to hold weight. Others in this discussion seem to feel it may not be WP:DUE any weight. You yourself said "at the moment we should wait and see if this conflict will have a continuation and, accordingly, more authoritative sources", which it doesn't seem to have.

I'd be in favor of removal personally as it was a very minor point that essentially boils down to a few VA complaining. Though as noted, the current statement is too strong and doesn't reflect the content of the source it links to. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If you blindly believe the administrators and the user, who, as it turned out, complained about the situation due to a conflict of interest, then it is possible. But in fact, it was a systematic removal of the entire section first (so zealous that even breaking the markup because of this), and when the anonymous person realized that this would not work, he proceeded to remove the most "woke" part. This is not the first time I've met this anime here, and judging by his edits from other addresses, all this is dictated by purely political reasons. For example, you can see above how they tried to remove the mention that Suletta is the first female protagonist or that the show has more or less left-wing political accents. And all this without any argument, just monotonously repeating "this does not apply to the article." But the user took advantage of the fact that during the removal of the vandalism I made more than 3 undoes (although the anonymous one did them first) and complained about it as an alleged edit war to prevent me from returning the text that he did not like. And do not even try to impute me to defend the text with accusations that it is vandalism. If you carefully read the beginning of MY topic, you will notice that initially I myself questioned this and suggested rewriting. But that's enough for me, deal with it yourself. I understand that removing vandalism is punishable here. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's worth noting, because it's rare for dubs to garner much if any comment at all, and ANN is a reliable source. But I agree that the current wording is very strong and makes it sound like a bigger story than it was. On the other hand, I do think that the sentence about Crunchyroll being criticized over their remote work policy is out of place, as it's not actually about this show — the ANN story is clear that that policy predates this dub, and it was included in the story to give an idea of the broader discussions surrounding dubbing work. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This criticism has a clear connection with this show, as critics of the localizers' decisions are precisely thanks to it inferring their complaints that G-Witch, in their opinion, has lost the opportunity for a representative and diverse cast. If not for the controversy surrounding the casting of the actress for the role of Suletta, this simply would not have happened. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

ANN is a reliable source typically, but looking at the article itself, it doesn't really make strong claims or show much evidence of any controversy. It essentially boils down to this: Two VAs posted on Twitter upset about the casting choice. Some other VAs RTed. Some viewers feel that Suletta is MENA-coded (viewer opinions not being particularly notable). Then the rest of it isn't directly related to this issue. In terms of dubs not getting much comment, Anairis Quiñones who was one of the VAs commenting often discuss the topic of diversity in anime casting 1, 2, 3, 4, (and frequently on Twitter) so it doesn't feel too unusual for them to mention it.

We don't discuss how serious the VA's complaints are or how good the source is. We discuss whether a piece of text is relevant to the topic of the article. People directly complain that due to the bad decisions of the licensor, the show did not get as representative and diverse casting as they wanted. What connection do you need? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

How good the source is directly relates to how relevant it is considering we're discussing whether it's relevant for inclusion or not. It's been brought up that this is an 'interest piece' by ANN, which WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK states "may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used".

For example, if the article was discussing a widespread issue with multiple VAs making statements, resignations in support, etc, it would be due more weight than a couple of VAs tweeting.

>People directly complain that due to the bad decisions of the licensor, the show did not get as representative and diverse casting as they wanted. What connection do you need?

Can you direct us to an exact quote for this? The article mentions the topic, but does not seem to *directly* link it to the casting of Gundam: The Witch from Mercury. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There is literally a quote from one of the initiators of the dispute, where they complain that due to the decision of the licensers, they could not take queer and brown VA to represent the Suletta. It is because of this that I mentioned not only complaints about the color of the skin of the casting, but also sexuality above. Another reason to complain about the removal of the link to BiC due to contradicting the political views of users, since the articles there really revealed the topic due to more quotes and descriptions of complaints in more detail. This dispute has a clear link to the Suletta casting. And even if not, I don't see a problem with expanding a paragraph to better show its context. But if for some reason the removal of this fragment has become so important that anonymous people monotonously provoke an edit war in the article, and I become the object of complaints and almost receive the label of an enemy of society, then I will not mind if someone rewrites it in their own way taste and we will forget about it like a bad dream. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you specifically mention which quote? None I can see directly mention the Texas/moving to in-house aspect in relation to the Gundam casting and diversity. I'd be happy if there's evidence to support it, but it seems it's a stretch. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

See the tweets cited here from the creators of the very discussion ANN refers to. You can even read the article itself. The site has already been rejected as a source, so I don't offer it as such. Just take a look at the direct quotes from the participants in the dispute. If after that you need something else, then just do what you want. I'm not going to completely kill my nerves and ruin my life because of the text, with whose author I even argued at the beginning. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I will say that most of those tweets don't relate to the issue of Texas talent, but you are correct for one of them:

“Pretty lame that CR’s strong preference for local talent affects authentic representation in a major role. Casting a wide pool for the biggest anime show of the year and not a MENA queer lead in a major franchise says a lot.”

As you've said, it's been rejected as a source, so it makes it difficult to backup the point by Wikipedia standards though. It's one tweet from one VA which hasn't been reported on by a reliable source. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, if that's not enough, then I just don't care. Delete this if you like. I'd rather keep my nerves and my sanity than keep revisiting the issue that has made me the target of attacks and constant accusations. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree on the remote work policy being out of place. It's not about this show specifically, and the article just mentions that the Suletta casting has reignited discussion on it as the only direct link to the topic. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, more detailed reasoning. All these "I agree" with the repetition of the thesis are not an argument. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think criticism of the English dub is tangential to the reception of the show itself and the casting decisions of the dub even more so. WP:COATRACK could be relevant here. @Kawnhr I'm not too familiar with ANN sections, but WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK states that "The "fan interest" pieces, however, may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news is the "reliable" feed." and the piece here is indeed from the "interest" feed, so I'm not sure we should be using that. Are there any other RS mentioning this? Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, didn't realize this discussion sprouted back up again in the past few days. I hashed out the current wording with Solaire here a few months ago. I don't think it's UNDUE weight to mention in the reception section. It's a part of how the show was received and it's from a relevant industry source, not user-generated reviews. To respond to some of the points brought up in this discussion, 1) it's not its own section, it's just one paragraph, so that addresses Darkeru's original objection above, 2) just because one voice actor talks about diversity often does not mean any individual instance of it happening is less notable, and 3) the reliability discussion about ANN's "interest" feed is 13 years old and was based on the first two stories ever published there (and involved only two editors boldly making the determination). I'm looking at the current feed and see plenty of reliably and competently reported articles so I think it's worth revisiting that determination. CandyScythe removed the paragraph based on the "consensus" here, which stood at two-to-two prior to my response just now, so I don't think it's fair to say that any consensus to change was achieved. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Axem Titanium. I read it as 4-2 (me, Darkeru, Link, IP) and thought Solaire had withdrawn their objection based on the above I just don't care. Delete this if you like comment with the other keep being "should note, but too strong and remote work policy is out of place". I also thought there was a more global consensus about ANN's reliability, but if that has changed then it is of course a different matter. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Shame that the discussion you mentioned wasn't linked here earlier (or I just missed it). Best, CandyScythe (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Link20XX's comment is mostly about which section it belongs in if it belongs ("I'm not sure if this section is WP:DUE any weight. But setting that aside, I wonder if this section (if it is due weight) would be better in..."), and about translating some JP sources. I read it as overall neutral. I discounted the IP's comment because this particular IP has been hopping across different IPs over the past few months trying to get this paragraph removed. I brought the topic of ANN up as a reliable source here. Please comment, if you like. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I find it excessive to remove the entire section, not just the controversial text . As for the rest, as I said above, let the participants of the discussion will decide. Judging by the latest edits, I think that the final result of the whole discussion summed up by someone would be a good decision that would close the topic completely. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My issue isn't with ANN explicitly here, but that the article in question puts more weight on its connection to the show in the title for the article than in the body of the text.

The way both the article and the section addresses it places the issue on crunchyroll, and that it is purely tangental that CR ended it's Remote Work for all shows that it affected any casting.

And I stand by that it isn't a critical reception of G-Witch but of CR itself and because of that the bit I removed is irrelevant. I think the section about criticism of the casting could have a place somewhere, but the discussion of Texas being a right to work state comes across as just attacking Crunchyroll as an edit, rather than information about G-Witch.

(Sorry if I don't know y'alls lingo and what not, I don't usually feel the call to submit edits on wiki) 174.164.163.141 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My perspective on this is that the criticism of G-Witch from a relevant source (voice actors) only makes sense if you include the context that CR changed its remote work policies. Without it, it just sounds like voice actors complaining about not getting roles, which unfairly characterizes the VAs as whiny, which is not representative of the actual situation. Things don't just exist in a vacuum. If there's a way to convey that proper context more succinctly, I'm open to it, but the paragraph is only 3 lines long to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My perspective is that the complaints themselves are not very notable. Particularly if there's not enough to say about it in an article without adding in comments about remote work policies, which only have a tenacious if any link to the complaint about a MENA role not receiving the part, so shouldn't be in the wiki entry on the show.

To expand, while I give Anairis Quiñones the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't her using that topic to complain because she (as a MENA Queer VA) didn't get the role, it's still essentially only a couple VAs complaining online. On top of that, her identifying Suletta as MENA/Queer is only shakily supported as it is. Another view on this is that the writer didn't have enough to make an article on with just that because it's so little, so they instead made the article more about issues with Crunchroll and hiring VAs with that as the hook, but including it in the wiki implies it as part of the reason for the issue, which doesn't have adequate support or just is unnecessary because it's unrelated. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the identification of Suletta as brown-skinned or queer is debatable was mentioned by me at the very beginning of the thread and, as far as I can see, is not in doubt (even the Gundam fandom wiki decided to leave this until the end of the show to avoid conflicts and empty discussions). But as far as the section itself, I think the question depends on whether we consider it sufficient that the casting of G-Witch was the main trigger of the question in order to detail it in the article. I think so, but as I said, I'm pretty tired of the dispute and will not insist if you decide otherwise. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Reading into the unstated motives and subtext of an article is a form of original research or original synthesis. We have a valid source so we report on what it says. Notability is a quality required of article topics, not sources. Sources need to be reliable, not notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies - notable in a Wikipedia context would not be correct, so you are correct that I shouldn't have used that term. I meant that it's not due weight. That by not notable, I was using a more general context, meaning it's essentially such a minor point that it's not worth inclusion.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In this case, we have two VAs complaining and some 'viewers'.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

It's only been reported in one reliable source that has been presented here, and even then it makes it more about VAs and Crunchyroll as a whole.

We do have to keep the Reliability rules in mind too though, even for sources that are approved.

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Specifically on 'directly support the information' in relation to the inclusion of Crunchyroll and it's policies in this article. No direct statement in the source notes this as responsible for the casting of Suletta. You've supported this with "Things don't just exist in a vacuum", but judging that it is linked to this topic seems to me as "Reading into the unstated motives and subtext of an article", which as you've stated is original research or original synthesis. If you're not claiming it's linked, I'd say including it in the Wiki article seems to present it as linked to Suletta's casting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

When I say "things don't just exist in a vacuum", I was referring to the specific context described in the article, not original research that I'm making up. The article is drawing that conclusion, not me. With respect to due weight, it's not clear to me that including one source on MENA representation out of 12 sources in the Reception section constitutes undue weight. Per WP:BIAS, there probably aren't that many MENA voice actors working in North America so including their minority perspective as one out of 12 sources is not likely to be disproportionate relative to their actual prevalence and thus would not be undue weight. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hate to invoke WP:ONUS, but it's for those seeking inclusion to prove due weight, not for others to prove undue. It's also your responsibility to achieve consensus for inclusion, and (even after this very long debate) I see none. My proposal for breaking the stalemate is below, but as it currently stands the disputed content has to go as a matter of policy. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCON, the result of a no-consensus discussion defaults to the status quo, which in this case is inclusion. The passage was first added in February, shortly after the original reference was published, and has stood more or less continuously since then, with multiple editors adding and expanding on it. The current discussion was effectively started on May 10 by Darkeru. As you can see above, the thread was dormant since February so Darkeru's comment might as well be the start of a new thread. Thus, consensus to include was de facto achieved for the past 3 months and this discussion should rightly be framed as a removal discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that slow-paced discussions with longer breaks between replies are really not that unusual on talk pages (looking at WT:ANIME I see one split discussion for example), and one reply doubting its weight and placement is not even a de facto consensus. CandyScythe (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to this, part of the discussion was moved away from the talk page to Axem's user page in February, where Axem hashed out the current wording with Solaire alone. I couldn't say whether @Link20XX was specifically invited as someone previously commenting that it may not be due any weight, but not having the discussion on the G-Witch page where everyone can see it could contribute to the conversation going quiet for some time too. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I was not invited and had no idea there was a discussion there until now. Link20XX (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire approached me on my talk page about what was effectively an English grammar/word choice issue, since Solaire is not a native English speaker. I don't think it was intended as a way to forum shop a discussion, nor do I think it had that effect. I didn't even know that there was a discussion here at the time; I just did a driveby edit of the passage because it sounded like it misrepresented the source, after which Solaire approached me on my talk page. You're welcome to read it yourself and see that it was just a question about word choice, not a discussion about inclusion of the passage. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay first up the article itself doesn't consider the complaints meaningful. "Voice actors and fans were quick to point out that the decision not to hire a MENA voice actor for the role seemed like a missed opportunity and one that rarely arises in anime. However, most comments on the situation were veiled and didn't directly reference the Suletta character or allude to ongoing unionization debates."

So even the source being used here says the complaints being cited aren't meaningful.

Furthermore, there hasn't been any indication that Sulettas casting was done in regards to the timeline of when the policy went back to normal.

The line in the wiki page says it's a long standing policy, but it was just a change in policy for covid.

Like, I'm team Suletta should have had a mena voice actor, but to blame a crunchy roll policy for the change is pretty thin.

And Crunchyroll being located in a right to work state really has no baring on the issue. Voice actors are contract workers to begin with, so whether someone would speak out isn't changed if the company was in LA or Texas.

This all goes back to being a critique of CrunchyRoll not of G-Witch  174.164.163.141 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@174.164.163.141 I want to remind you that we are discussing a case within the boundaries of an encyclopedia and its relevance to a particular article, not the case itself. It may be justified or not, I do not presume to judge. But we, as editors of Wikipedia, are interested in writing an article according to our rules. But if your thoughts are supported by any authoritative sources that directly express such a point of view, then I or other users are always ready to listen to you. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is akin to talking about casting choices on any other show since there are no sources directly talking about the connection between the policy and WfM. Furthermore, the lines regarding them being in Texas is even further out of place.

So far, you have provided no justification for it's inclusion.  174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, we do not discuss the case itself as such and our personal opinion about it does not matter. That's why I asked if you have sources that consider the issue in this way? Or is it still your personal opinion about it? If so, sorry, we can't use it somehow. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't source a negative.

You still have not provided any justification for it's inclusion. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, you have not provided any sources from your side, only discussing the text itself on the merits. Whereas the original text always had a source. I don't understand what justification you are talking about. That's why I'm asking if you can support your position with any source? If not, then it looks like we have nothing to talk about. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight - you appear to be missing IPs point. It's not about whether the text has merit, but whether the part of the text mentioning Texas has a justification for being included in the article when talking about Suletta's voice actor and casting controversy.

For example, the article also says "Jason Lord is directing the English dub", but that hasn't been mentioned in connection to Suletta's casting in the article. The article doesn't say it's connected, so this is correct.

There seems to be nothing in the source text directly saying 'Crunchyroll's decide to hire primarily from the local Texas area or their union policy affected the the decision to have Suletta Mercury be voiced by a white voice actor', so IP would like you to provide a source for that. Instead the article only says the more general that it 'would limit diversity in casting', not mentioning any effect on Suletta's role, but more the effect on the anime dubbing industry generally.

In other words, it's not up to IP to prove a negative, it's up to you to justify a positive, otherwise people could throw *any* text from the article in there, even if not directly talking about Suletta's casting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, you yourself do not understand the point, not to mention that I am not even the original author of this text. As far as I can see, the anonymous participant is not so much discussing the location of the fragment in the article, but the event itself and its importance. That's why I asked if they had a source for it. This is what you need to do if your arguments are not based on rules, but on your personal understanding of the information from the source. Arguments both for and against the inclusion have already been made repeatedly above, so I find the abstract "you never substantiated your inclusion" just a meaningless accusation without any specifics. What is the point of discussion if anyone can come here after weeks of discussion and just say "you have no arguments"? Again in the next circle to repeat the same thing? I don't understand it. At the moment, we are just uselessly marking time in one place, all sides have already expressed their arguments several times and are not ready to make any compromises. Below, again, more than once, reasonable proposals were made to call a person from outside to conclude the total, but nothing has changed. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that you are misinterpreting the article if you feel that we do not understand that point. If the article clearly stated a link between the Texas decision and the Suletta casting, then you could easily say The article says "...." to justify it, rather than just pointing at the article and saying it's in there.

I do think it should be either opened for external comment or everyone who has commented on the topic should be invited for a strawpoll here to resolve. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

By saying that the abstract "opponents have not provided evidence" will not help the case, I urge in any way to prohibit new people from commenting on this? There is no connection in this. I only urge to finally sum up all this, because we are just marking time with the same arguments, endlessly repeating the same claims. If someone can update this with new arguments, then the road is open, I don't mind. But I doubt that repeating what has already been said many times in a new circle to someone who has previously made no contribution to the discussion, and now simply places general accusations, will somehow help the cause, and not even directly harm it. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

this is correct. I'm saying the source and Soliaire have provided no justification for the contents inclusion.

My source is that there are no sources stating this, including the article included. But It does directly say

" In public Twitter threads and private conversations at the time, actors complained of roles being recast from remote actors to Texas-based ones, with directors in some cases reportedly told not to cast outside of Texas. ANN did not find anyone willing to go on the record with specific examples"

And

"most comments on the situation were veiled and didn't directly reference the Suletta character or allude to ongoing unionization debates."

and I'll add that not a single tweet linked in the article directly addressed G-Witch. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Looking at the length of this discussion I suggest we either advertise this at WT:ANIME or start an RFC. CandyScythe (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

The discussion seems to have devolved into whether the ANN editorial is a valid source. And when you scrutinize the source of that article (two tweets that lack any context linking it directly to the show and not simply allusions) it becomes questionable.

I find the argument that no one noticed the error until recently not a justification for it's inclusion on the G-witch page.

And if it is kept, there are subsequent details of crunchyroll being in Texas which is also out of place, even if the original ANN article is valid.

 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Spoiler categories or information

This information was already brought up at the beginning of the second season, but I'll ask again to make it somehow "official. What do you think about the categories and information in general, which can be gross spoilers for the plot of the show? Should this be indicated? If yes, then how to format? For example, should I add a category like "clone sci-fi" after a fresh episode? In the past, there have been attempts to instantly add all new plot updates to the character description, including spoilers, so I don't want this to become into a mess. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Your problem is you gatekeep any new information that is presented here that is now officially confirmed in each episode. You totally don't get it when some people are just getting it through the anime itself. You're totally helpless at this point.

Also regarding your reply on the clone thing, It doesn't work that way in Gundam logic when the father is dead in the beginning of the series. First of all, refrain from calling her a clone as the term used in the anime is Repli-Child. This was now confirmed in the very episode and all you do is remove the very instance about it just because it is not the term in your head. Second of all, we had no proof that Nadim is the father as even Suletta's bio had no variable information who her real dad is. All we got confirmed so far, is that Prospera is her mother and Ericht is the one who originated her DNA from. Lastly, cloning without using egg cells and sperm cells exist, especially in modern genetics, you totally got that one missed. The anime is the only source of all info coming out right now until we get further info in certain series bibles released. And so what, you're also being confrontational too. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

First, please stop this defiant passive-aggressive tone. I have already seen how you communicate rudely with other users, so I warn you that the continuation of such a tone of communication will end with messages to administrators. Secondly, I once again remind you that we doesn't trying to inform the viewer of sensational information, especially to "reveal" something. All information should be neutrally and calmly described, with no attempt to convey anything to the reader as hot facts. Your accusations of "gatekeeping" just don't hold water, because after reverting your edit, I immediately put back two-thirds of the information you added, but this time in a more neutral tone and at a more appropriate paragraph location, rather than right at the beginning of the character description. Thirdly, your attempt to explain fatherless cloning is original research and a clear attempt to explain a desired thesis in hindsight. The term repli-child is literally a local term for clone (please google the word replicant). And her status as a clone is easy to see by the way we were trying to believe that Suletta was Eri grown up or how Elan thought that Eri he saw was Suletta. For example, it is enough for them to save Eri's DNA and simply clone it, as I said earlier, for cloning it is not necessary to re-conceive the child and you can always store genetic information. Again, this is not something complicated. Nothing in the show told us that Souletta might have a different father than Eri, and that the claim of her father's death was not a legend to hide her status as an Ericth clone. It's all very simple and intuitive, while other information just complicates things and doesn't go through Occam's Razor. Hope for understanding. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read this reply several times and I'm not sure what you're getting at. You say she's not a clone but then everything you give as evidence suggests she's a clone. Are you in favour of the category? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I would probably hold off on the category for now, not because it's a spoiler but because it's still not a key part of the story. If I'm browsing "clone sci-fi" I'd expect the stories within to use that as a central plot point — the ethics of cloning, existential crises, etc. — but as of now it's essentially a background detail in this show: it hasn't been explicitly addressed (or, I think, explicitly confirmed) yet. That said, I'm not clear on exactly what the threshold for categories is, so I won't object if someone does go add it. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I myself refrained from adding a category. Subjectively, it seemed to me that as a shocking twist this plays (or will play) an important role further in the story, but as you can see from the somewhat "hot" dialogue above, we are not even sure yet how cloning works in the show and how it should be called in within the universe. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Strawpoll - Removal of Crunchyroll Local Hiring Policy

This topic has gone on too long and has spanned multiple topics, so I wanted to invite people to make their views clear regarding this. I would suggest we ask people to vote one way of the other, with the view on the 1st of June, 2023 taken as the majority view. Despite all discussions, the potential actions brought up have only been 'keep it' or 'remove it', without any proposals for alternate wording.

Edit Note: 'Polling is not a substitute for discussion' was brought up, but I note again that discussions have been had repeatedly, edit wars have gone on over this article, and a claim that there is 4-2 majority support for removal has been made but 2 were dismissed by Axem as a neutral comment and discounting IPs comment. This is not a substitute for discussion, but a way to evaluate whether a consensus exists, in line with Straw Poll Guideline No.1

>Professional voice actors criticized Crunchyroll for changing their longstanding remote work production pipeline to hiring primarily from the local Texas area, which they said would limit diversity in casting. They also noted that Texas is a right-to-work state, which would limit actors' ability to join a union or bargain collectively.

The above line is included in the wikipedia article. It has been debated on because there are both views that the source article from Anime News Network does and does not link this to the casting of Suletta. One view states it does and/or that it provides important context. The other view is that while it is included in the article, it's a comment about Crunchyroll overall and not mentioned as involved in the casting of Suletta and to that mention it there implies a link to the casting.

I'd encourage you to read through the discussions for further arguments, including that the entire thing isn't due any weight or that to not include it misrepresents the source.

@Solaire the knight, @Link20XX, @CandyScythe, @Kawnhr, @Axem Titanium, @Cullen328 @174.164.163.141, and myself have all commented on this previously. There are multiple discussions in the topics on this page that people can read through, along with the source article itself.

I ask anyone interested to comment below with either Support Removal or Oppose Removal clearly stated.

Note that this is just for the lines about Crunchyroll and the policies changes noted above. Let's get this part out of the way as the most debated element. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally Support Removal - reading the source article, I can't see that it links it to the casting of Suletta specifically. It's more general background information about the other issues that voice actors have with Crunchyroll's casting decisions. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said above, I will support any decision, the main thing is that it be a clear consensus, which will be confirmed by the administrator. I was extremely annoyed by the last monotonous removal of text from the article, and you know it, but I do not want to waste my time and nerves on text that I did not even add. Any solution that will be supported by interested users and properly documented. What is important to me is not so much the text itself, but the proper work within the framework of the rules and regulations of the resource. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Consensus happens as quickly or as slowly as it needs. I'm also not thrilled by the non-neutral framing of this straw poll since it does not adequately explain why these two sentences in question are included. In including a source, we have a duty not to misrepresent the source or disparage its subjects (WP:BLP). These two sentences provide context and explanation for why CR might have been unwilling or unable to cast Suletta with a MENA actor, a protection that might be provided by a union, without which the subjects may come across as whiny or petulant when in fact their concerns are reasonable. On this basis, I oppose removal. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

i support removal because the source used says that there is no direct link between the comments and the G-Witch. Therefore the comments can not be confirmed to be about the show and have no relevance to the show.

Furthermore, part of the text referring to the state the company resides in has no proven barring on the hiring decision. It is correlation not causation.

Additionally, the reaction to this casting decision is Fan Reaction, and not a critical reaction. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

To expand, the inclusion comes across as a political attack since the state and it's laws have no proven barring on the show or the fan reaction. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

From the article in question:

"most comments on the situation were veiled and didn't directly reference the Suletta character or allude to ongoing unionization debates." 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I remind you that we are discussing the compliance of the text with the Wikipedia rules, and not the case itself or its political context. And by predicting your response, the rules don't regulate whether the criticisms described in the text are valid or politically correct. If it is described in an authoritative source, it is worthy of mention and we only discuss where. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support removal as undue. It's certainly not "critical response", and would need to be moved to its own section. Section for a Twitter complaint from two American voice actors reported only once in a tabloidy section of the ANN would be UNDUE. As I noted above, criticism of the English dub is tangential to the reception of the show itself and the casting decisions of the dub even more so, so this would really need to be something more substantial to warrant a mention.

Also, if a lot of unrelated context is required in order to not "misrepresent the source or disparage its subjects" then the source is probably not due any weight on its own. CandyScythe (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Support removal. The problem I have is that neither of the voice actors that ANN quotes for the story actually draw a line between the casting of Jill Harris and Crunchyroll's new policy on remote work: their criticism is that it's a missed opportunity to not cast a MENA woman, full stop. Sure, the criticism on Crunchyroll's new dubbing policy is implicit — which is why the ANN journo links it to recent criticism that Crunchyroll has faced — but it is still not the case that this show marked a change in policy and/or kicked off a round of criticism about the new policy. I don't really think it's necessary to provide the full context for this criticism — I don't think leaving that out makes the voice actors come across as "whiny and petulant"; whether you agree with them or not, it's obvious where they're coming from. Nor do I see how it's a BLP violation when they aren't even mentioned by name in our passage — but if it truly is necessary to note, then I think it should be worded in a way that makes that clear that this is contextual information. Something like "AnimeNewsNetwork linked the controversy to other criticisms of Crunchyroll's dubbing policies".

The second sentence here, about Texas being a right-to-work state, is not relevant to this criticism at all. At best it's providing context for why Crunchyroll changed their policy, but then we're really getting away from this show, and the criticism directed at this show. Regardless of whether the first sentence stays or goes, this one absolutely should go. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

So we have 4 support, 1 removal. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot summarize the discussion because you are an open participant of it. We are all in an equal position and will wait for the decision of the administrator. The text will most likely be deleted anyway, so be patient. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I counted.

Please stop replying to me, you add nothing of value. 174.164.163.141 (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, everyone is equal here. You can't specify who can comment on it or try to sum it up before the admin does. I know you're impatient. I'm also impatient. But please be patient and constructive. Nobody needs new conflicts. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So, can someone summarize things based on the discussion? The show itself ended a few days ago along with the spring season, but the discussion is still at a standstill. Despite the subjectively chosen decision. This is starting to bother me, as some users are already tired of waiting and are trying to delete the entire section bypassing the discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Another request to refrain from ship speculation one step away from the final.

I once again ask users of the editors to refrain from speculating about ships, especially from geek resources that base "confirmations" on scenes taken out of context or shippers tweets on twitter. There are two episodes left until the end of the show, with a couple of days left until the penultimate one. This is quite a bit to wait until the finale, which will dot the i's. Otherwise, only direct confirmation from the authors or unambiguous confirmation in the plot. You can take a cue from the Japanese wiki, which even delays some things for a few episodes to give them a more adequate description in connection with the development of scenes in the following. Hope for understanding. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)