Talk:Twilight Out of Focus
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Controversy on the titles
editI heard that people are making "cruel comments" on this anime adaptation via Crunchyroll, which lead to the comments section went disabled permanently after that occurred.[1] Can we include that as one of the controversy for this article or leave it behind? VernardoLau (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's WP:DUE here. For the Crunchyroll article it makes sense, but here it hasn't affected the series airing so I hesitate to say it's DUE. Link20XX (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source you provided also only speculates that this series was the cause, While the removal of Cruncyroll's comment section seemingly came out of nowhere for users, anime YouTuber Geoff Thew theorizes the decision came in the aftermath of a homophobic review bombing of Twilight Out of Focus, which premiered on July 4 during Anime Expo weekend is all the article says regarding this series, which is speculation from a non-expert and is thus not definitive enough to say this was the cause (I personally don't doubt that it was, but we need a WP:RS explicitly stating it was the cause to say in wikivoice that it was). Link20XX (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Colbert, Isaiah (July 9, 2024). "Crunchyroll Announces the Removal of Its Comment Section Across All Platforms To 'Reduce Harmful Content'". IGN. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
Controversy section
edit@BaldiBasicsFan: I don't think these sources should be used to back up the statement that this series was the cause for the removal of the comments. While these sources are probably generally reliable, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says that Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. In both cases, the mention of this series was made in passing, and was sourced to a random Twitter post in the first source and a YouTuber in the second source, neither of which have any indication of being reliable individuals. Thus, I think these statements in the sources aren't verifiable from reliable sources. Link20XX (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The user from Twitter who made that comment seems to be reliable, given verified checkmark. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- A verified checkmark is not enough to establish someone as a "subject-matter expert". WP:SPS defines one as [someone] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The verification comes from being a member of a talent agency (primary) and it doesn't seem like they've been published that much; just a couple of times in ANN is all I can find in a search, which I think falls short of "established". Link20XX (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)