Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 Anime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Anime State: Closed Requested By: Selmo Other Parties: Ned Scott, TheFarix, Nihonjoe. Mediated By: Jsw663 Comments: Case abandoned by requestor

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-25 Anime 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-25 Anime

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: -- Selmo 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Anime

Who's involved?

Me, and Ned Scott.

What's going on?

This all started when I read the Anime article, and found it to be heavily biased. "anime is great." I checked the talk page, and apparently, other contributors slashed out the criticisms section because it's "POV". I thought "hey, they're anime fans. Perhaps from their perspective it's POV, but to the netural reader, it's just information". So I said "just because you disagree with the opinion it's self, it dosn't make it "POV". In other words, a critism section isn't doomed to be biased. Ned Scott said said "but to criticize all of anime simply for the sake of having a "criticism" section is just silly". I tried to negotate more, but all I got was "fix the bias via WP:PEACOCK.

What would you like to change about that?

I want to add more critism to the anime article someway without it being stripped out agian. You can check the talk page for the my ideas I thought would be legit.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No thanks, but please leave a message on my talk page when you have reviewed this.

[edit] Mediator response

So far, a criticism section for the Anime entry has been agreed on. The content and manner has not.

• I can make a compromise proposal if both sides are willing to hear it. Jsw663 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that a critisism section for the article has been agreed to. I think what has been agreed to are two things: That a critisism section *might* be included if it includes sourced and verifiable critisism that applies for *all* Japanese-made animation. And that some "peacock terms" can either be transformed into sourced information or be removed. --GunnarRene 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Response to GunnarRene: Thanks for your reply, but please can you place it in the discussion section next time - technically this section is only for mediators. As for your specific point, Anime is included under the bracket 'Japanese-made animation' (and non-Japanese anime being in a very similar style), so a criticism section for that specific entry also fits into the above, does it not? It's basically a principle of a criticism section that has been agreed on, but not the content. Regarding the peacock terms / weasel words / bias, that really fits into the content of the Anime entry itself, and thus slightly overlaps into the issue that is being mediated. Jsw663 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo has abandoned the case, therefore it is closed. Jsw663 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

I propose that a criticism section be written by any editor, but instead of being deleted wholesale, can be improved on constantly? I would like to also remind all parties to make sure their criticisms are SOURCED - this applies to the rest of the entry too. As the article is being improved by several editors as I speak (some of which have made statements on this page), I'm sure this case's issue will be mediated on its own. If there are any objections, please state why. Thanks. Jsw663 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

First, I have not deleted any content on Anime, and the last edits I've done were to images being displayed there. Second, I'm not opposed to any types of criticism in the article, but I do feel that a generalized criticism won't be in a global view. Anime is used to describe animation from Japan, and just like books from Japan, there is a wide range of styles, methods, themes, and so on. I'm really confused as to why this is a mediation case. As I said before, I haven't edited the content of the article, and so far I've only offered my opinion on the matter. There seems to be a misunderstanding here of some sort. You can't mediate my opinion and since I'm not forcing anything on the article... I'm... not sure what this is supposed to do. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While I stand by what I said that a generalized criticism of anime is just too broad, I have been thinking about how else we could offer reaction and reception information. Basically, what I would like to suggest is not calling such a section "criticism" but something to the extent of "Reception in the American market" with nation specific reactions. Even then, I'm not sure if Anime is the best place to put that information.

While all of anime is too broad, it could likely be shown that most popular anime that is placed on the American market can be commented on, since what is officially licensed in English speaking countries (and widely known) is actually a minority of anime. Even then, this is usually criticism about English versions, where scripts are changed for a dub version, thus the commentary wouldn't be about the original work. I have seen criticism towards specific animes, towards genres within animes, towards specific animation studios and creators, as well as the dub process of anime. Again, these are specific criticisms, and would be inappropriate for a general criticism of anime. -- Ned Scott 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why a mediation case has been taken out on this relatively minor issue. Selmo hasn't even contributed anything to the article in question and refuses to pointed out specific areas that he thinks are too "positive" even after Ned Scott asked him to do so. Instead, he wants a criticism section come hell or high-water regardless of how poorly written and unresearched it may be on the simple bases that the article has a POV without one. Yet at the same time, he doesn't want to write one himself. Instead, he tries to pawn it off onto editors to writing one for him, then opening this mediation case when that fails.

Now let me bring up two previous criticism sections that were removed. This edit shows the "typical" attempts to add criticism into the article were not a single statement was referenced. At best, it's poorly written original research. At worst, it's an editor on a soapbox. It was also the last time someone attempted to write such a section. This version also had POV and sourcing problems, cherry-picking three sentences from a Washington Post article and a bad review of Viewtiful Joe's unique animation style. On top of that, it was busting at the seams with weasel words with a smattering of original research. While it may have been salvageable with solid references and better writing, no one was making the attempt and there was already a minor edit war with an anonymous editor over the two tags on the section.

As I said on the talkpage, I'm not against a criticism section, but it needs to be well researched, well sourced, include no original research, and avoiding the use of weasel words. However, including criticism for criticism's sake is no way to achieve a neutral point of view for the article nor does the absence of a criticism section meant that the article does not have a neutral point of view. If Selmo wants a criticism section so badly, then he need to do the research and write one himself instead of passing it off onto other editors who clearly are not interested in the task. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to write a critism section, but you would strip it out agian. I'll poin't out a specific point in the article: the reader is reminded at least 5 times that anime is unique. Another POV statment is "... legendary master of the art, Osamu Tezuka (1928-1989)". If he we're a huge legend, I'd be doing a big research assignment about him at school. Finally, TheFarix violated WP:ASG and WP:NPA when he accused me of being "to lazy" to wirte it myself and slandered me by saying I'm a "POV Pusher"

I could'nt reply sooner because I was in Seattle, and I couldn't find a internet cafe.

-- Selmo (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to write a critism section, but you would strip it out again. If you are willing to write one, then write one. But you automatically engage in a bad faith assumption that it will be removed, or is that just your excuse not to do the research yourself and write one? You also refused to point out any use of peacock words when Ned first ask, and only do so now for the very first time when you've been backed into a corner. That is why I called you lazy. You criticize the work of other editors on the article, but you don't do anything to help.

Actions speak louder then words, and all you've done is whine and complain and only now give us the sorry excuse of what might happen as justification for not doing anything. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one more thing, mediation should be used to resolve disputes over content that has already been written, it should not be used to initiate a dispute over content that has yet to be written. You've but the cart before the horse. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the very first time I pointed out the weasel words. Have you read the talk page? I pointed out the "legandary" term before. I'll copy the quote here in big letters so you don't miss it.

But I still feel this article is biased. (i.e the creator of anime is a legandary artist sounds to me like an opinion, not fact).

Also try not to violate WP:NPA agian (this includes slander). -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't take criticism at all or you wouldn't have gone on your little campaign to "report" me on the administrators.[1][2][3] First of all, criticizing your actions is not a personal attack, nor is it harassment. Yes, I was harsh with my tone, but then again, I haven't met an editor who has been so completely uncooperative with fixing a problem they perceive to exist. And not slander or libel either because what I said is a reasonable representation of your actions.

Again, I will reiterate my point. You've done nothing so far but to complain about the perceived bias of the article, Anime—then claim that other editors are "harassing" you when they criticize your complaining. But instead of taking action to fix these problems you perceive in the article, you open a mediation case when you couldn't prod the other editors to make the changes for you—within 60 hours (2 1/2 days) of first complaining about it followed with light discussion. You didn't allow time for anyone to do anything. On top of that, you, have made statements that can be viewed as personal attacks on the editors of anime articles, first in your opening comments in the mediation case—...from their [anime editors] perspective it's POV, but to the netural(sic) reader, it's just information. [4]—and again when you gave your excuses as to why you won't write a criticism section for the anime article—I'm willing to write a critism(sic) section, but you [anime editors] would strip it out again.[5]. Neither of those statements have absolutely any bases in fact.

But as has been repeated to you before; you see the problem, you should try to fix it. But don't make demands on other editors if you are unwilling to do the work yourself. Nor should you complain about it when they don't fix it either. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be some confusion, Selmo did point out a PEACOCK / WEASEL issue, and my response was that the best fix would be to correct those specific issues rather than putting a bandaid on the article in the form of a criticism section. I'm all for removing POV from articles, but there's more than one way to do it. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Selmo: Is your "legendary artist" comment above referring to this sentence?

This occurred as a a result of the growing popularity of manga comics, which were often later animated, especially those of legendary master of the art, Osamu Tezuka (1928-1989).

If so, it's well known, even outside of anime fan circles, that Tezuka is considered a legend in the same vein as Walt Disney. He's often called the "Disney of Japan" in mainstream articles about him (or that refer to him). This is a completely verifiable statement. If you're referring to something else, please give specific details. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording could be turned down some. Perhaps using "criticly acclaimed" instead of "legendary master of the art" would be a better choice. You are in a much better position to back the former up with the references. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it from a statement that he's a legend to a statement that he has been called a legend. I included references, so there shouldn't be a dispute over it now. As for the whole "criticism section" concern, I agree with multiple others here (and wherever else the disucssion was taking place...I forget) that it would be very difficult to find credible criticisms of anime as a whole (which is the topic of the article), just as it would be difficult to generally criticize books, films, or any other medium. People almost never criticize the medium as a whole, and when they do, they almost always (if not always) slide back to criticizing specific shows or specific genres rather than the entire medium as a whole. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

*swats Nihonjoe with the {{cite web}} clue stick* --TheFarix (Talk) 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, an apology is due, but I don't take harsh tones too well. The reaswon I requested mediation in the first place is because I felt like I wasn't going anyware; Ned kept debunking what I said. I don't like to argue. Also, when I wrote that personal attack, the manager of the place I was at was giving me a hard time, but I shouldn't have tooken it out on you.

I'll start the research on the critisms section. this (mp3) is the first thing that comes to mind (seriously).

So can we be friends, everyone? -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that a podcast would be considered a reliable source. But I'll wait until others weight in on it first. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I listen to it, it's satire, not criticism. But definitly not a reliable source. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not acceptable. Again, I point out my point that anime has a huge range of styles, and criticism for how people are drawn cannot apply to all styles of anime. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously Selmo, you really need to look for sources of actual criticism instead of resorting to satire and a self-evident blog troll (hint: he/she has only made one post) as sources. That makes twice now that you've used questionable sources. Remember to read WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources and ask yourself if the source you are trying to use even comes close to what that section sets out as reliable sources. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Update Most of the peacock terms have not been removed. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Not" or "now"? :-) --GunnarRene 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)