Talk:Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage!

Vandalism and distortion

The IP address I reported to Blue Riband is a vandal who previously vandalized the section controversy the same some months ago and returned probably because it was suspended previously and uses an anonymous IP address. So please, let me fix it back to how it was before he/she came back. 151.36.156.109 (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Done it for you.Mr. Razorteeth (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Mr. Razorteeth, I see that you edited the article in response to a request by 151.36.156.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had last reverted the article to the August 21st version by Yiosie2356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). "151" has described this as a "vandalized" version. I've asked him/her to please state specifically what was wrong with it.

It is disappointing that you intervened without further investigation. Wikipedia is built on consensus and when there is disagreement there needs to be discussion. You are very new and probably don't yet know that reverting without discussion is seen as edit warring - defined as constantly reverting an article back to what you think it should be. At this point I'm going to ping the editors involved and ask them to join this discussion. If an agreement cannot be met this may have to go to dispute resolution. Blue Riband► 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It explained the reason of why it is vandalism. Why don't put semi-protection to the page for security?Mr. Razorteeth (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

1) Please finish this sentance: "The Yiosie2356 August 21st version is vandalism because:______________________________."

2) identify the suspended user:_________________

3) and which ISPs are the suspended user's suspected socks: ______________________.

Specifics please. Blue Riband► 02:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Yiosie 2356, but the IP address who edited before and after it, I also wrote to him/her. The user has also explained why it is vandalism from suspicious user also in the post-edit explainations. Seriously, why not semi-protecting the article to be sure not to have further disrupting and suspect activities that cause useless edit warring?Mr. Razorteeth (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My take on the section in question:

Bounding Into Comics: a relatively comprehensive summary of the controversy. Probably the most objective of the sources here, and should be included.

Kakuchopurei: it's an opinion piece that explicitly argues that the controversy is overblown. This source should only be used to support the "some believe" statement regarding gyaru and ganguro styles, and not used otherwise.

GamerBraves: this article covers the apology and removal of the video and summarizes the controversy pretty concisely. It does state that the removal was "due to a blackface depiction", the denial of which is the crux of the controversy, so I can't say that it is entirely objective on this topic. Regardless, it should be fine to use as a second source to complement the Bounding Into Comics article.

The difference between the two versions of this section seem to hinge on the claim in Kakuchopurei's article that the darkened skin tones and lion costumes were intended to be gyaru/ganguro style. Seeing as that article is an opinion piece and none of the other sources state that claim, the "some believe" version of this section is most appropriate. The Bounding Into Comics and GamerBraves sources should be used to support the description of the controversy, while the Kakuchopurei source should only be used as I described above.

I will also note that the use of "Western viewers" to describe the outraged responders is used by Bounding Into Comics and Kakuchopurei, but I don't see anything to support this assertion other than the fact that the tweets were in English (a reminder that English is a global language). I would therefore discourage that description and simply stick with "some viewers".

I'll leave the vandalism claims aside for now, though I think this situation is more a war of opinions than vandalism. Yiosie 2356 03:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356, @151.36.156.109, @Mr. Razorteeth - I've rearranged the above responses so that they are in chronological order.

As of the 3:36 timestamp on the article the difference between this latest edit is that the characters "...wore costumes of stereotypical African tribal outfits..." where the August 21st version used the phrase "...wore costumes that were similar to stereotypical African tribal outfits..." So this boils down to point of view pushing - editors feel strongly on whether or not the creators intentionally depicted a racial stereotype or whether it just appeared to be such in the eyes of some viewers.

On Wikipedia we have to follow reliable sources which are broadly defined as publications and sites with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Yiosie2356 had given a summary of the three sources where boundingintocomics.com is the most objective, bravergames.com summarized the controversy, and kakuchopurei.com is mainly an opinion piece. I'm inclined to accept that analysis unless somebody can specifically say otherwise.

I've asked that one of you tell me precisely why the August 21st version is "vandalism". Instead of a concise one sentance answer there is obfuscation that "it's been explained". Either tell me where I've missed it or stop calling the version you don't like "vandalism".

I've checked each user who has edited this article since June 1st and not one of them is under an active block. If they had been blocked before and that blocked expired or was lifted they are free to edit unless they do something to get re-blocked. (Again, tell me which editor is banned and which ISPs are their socks.)

Mr. Razorteeth, you suggested page protection. Of which version? The one you prefer? Page protection is temporary and intended to protect articles under significant ISP vandalism. Except in extreme cases, such as unpopular political figures, it's not intended to be permanent and thus keep ISP editors from contributing to Wikipedia.

Finally, Mx. 151.36.156.109|151.36.156.109, you are complaining about ISP editors when you yourself are an ISP editor. I believe we had a conversation on my talk page earlier this year where your edits were coming under a different ISP with different edits depending upon which devices and/or wifi spots that you used. You are welcome to continue editing by ISP but your choosing to do so makes it difficult to connect an ISP with you vs. the editors that you claim to be vandals. Blue Riband► 12:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Mr. Razorteeth was blocked for being a suspected sockpuppet. Given that no other comment on this matter has been made for over a week, I will go ahead and implement the suggestions I made. Yiosie 2356 00:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I remove the "Western" word from edit. And I want to use the Kakuchopurei source that I think is a very good one. The GamerBraves is not good, seems too biased if not even defamatory against Japanese developers and animators and doesn't mention once the gyaru concept. Now can I go on with the edit without having it all reverted and start an edit war, please? Yiosie2356? 151.34.158.249 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As I stated above, the Kakuchopurei article is an opinion piece that pushes the point of view that the controversy is overblown, which makes it not a reliable source for definitive statements of fact on this matter. I also noted that the GamerBraves source had a slight bias but still covered the controversy without pushing that point of view much (also, why do you think it should have to mention the gyaru concept? What exactly constitutes it being "too biased if not even defamatory"?).

It seems to me that you are determined to edit the article to support the point of view that Sega deliberately intended to illustrate a depiction of gyaru/ganguro inspired fashion. The Bounding Into Comics article raises this as a possibility, which is why I included "may have been intended to mimic gyaru fashion", but going further than that would require a reliable source. Yiosie 2356 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 Blackface is still a mostly unknown thing in Japan, and the ganguro fashion is very popular there, and the original scene of the episode resembles more the ganguro style portrayed in anime (including the tan of the same color, more on grey-brown than actual brown or even black and the makeup). Plus, it's not very reliable and appropriate a source/article that calls the Japanese developers/animators "racist" with no evidence to support that, very hazardous. Kakuchupurei source is good for one thing particularly, it exposes graphically and accurately the difference between Japanese ganguro and American blackface. It says also this at the end of the article just after the graphic comparison: "The fact that the Petit Sekai anime short started with a girl who has a ganguro hairstyle to lead in to the lion ganguro punchline is further proof that the joke has absolutely nothing to do with blackface". P.S. Whoever reverted this response, we were having a conversation here and that was very disrespectful! 151.34.158.249 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I got thrown off by the ping. Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from the GamerBraves article, "fans have harshly criticised Project Sekai (the Japanese name for Hatsune Miku Colorful Stage) for the blackface depiction and being racist." It is stating that fans criticised the episode for "the blackface depiction and being racist" and lists some tweets from fans stating just that; the article itself does not take an explicit position on that matter, which is why it is acceptable as a source for coverage on the controversy. As for the gyaru/ganguro fashion intention point, that is a position that the Kakuchupurei source explicitly argues to support with opinionated language despite Sega's apology and retraction of the episode – that's why it's an opinion piece. Sega has never explicitly made it clear what its intentions were regarding the scene in question, so the best we can say impartially is that gyaru fashion may have been the intended depiction. Again, unless you can find a reliable source stating Sega's intentions, we cannot go further than "may". Yiosie 2356 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 I took the advice, I hope you find my last version better. 151.68.156.94 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 Wait, but if there was any deprecated source, why have I not been informed about it before posting? Works this way on Wikipedia. If you're posting an edit with a source considered deprecated the systems warns you before posting it. If it was deprecated why it didn't happen this time? P.S. I wrote "many fans" because one source stated "most viewers". 151.68.156.94 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 I know this is a month old and has been mostly dealt with, and the current version stable for that same amount of time, but I wanted to mention that I remember previous discussion on either RSN or some other Project Reliable Sources board that Bounding Into Comics isn't considered a Reliable Source, because of it's editorial slant (pro-Comicsgate, which informs everything they publish).

I need to remember where I saw that discussion though, I can't find it off the top of my head. A quick search informs me that it's cited 42 times across Wikipedia, so I should double check my memory on this and probably ask around. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cover songs?

Should the song table include the specific characters covering each song? Like, noting that Charles is covered by Mizuki and Ena instead of just having it under Nightcord at 25:00 with no further elaboration. Axolotlanarchy (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)