Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury

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)

First LGBTQ protagonist

I remind you that the existence of queer characters in the franchise as a whole, fan interpretations, and Tomino's mention of wanting to make homoerotic tension between Char and Amuro for fujoshi, in no way contradict Suletta being the show's first LGBTQ PROTAGONIST. We are talking about the latter, and not about the fact that she is allegedly the first queer character in the franchise in general. In the same way, we specifically point out that this is the first TV show with a female protagonist, and not the first Gundam with a female protagonist in general, as such have already been in the manga and spin-offs before. Attempts to continue an edit war based on a confusion of these fairly simple things will be treated as an edit war based on the original research and will naturally end up with a request to the administrators. Of course, unless you provide a sufficiently authoritative source on the canonical queer identity of the protagonist of any TV show in the past. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Its best of interest to leave this blanked for now, as this is one can of worms some people will not want to tackle. This is one thing that could spiral out of control if you just want to debate on this thing so much regarding sexuality of the main protagonist. --BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is going to argue, Suletta is the first canonical LGBTQ protagonist in the franchise. Which has been widely discussed even outside of specialized anime resources. This is debatable if you have sources on the existence of other similar leads, but I still don't see it. Fears that this may cause some disputes or misunderstandings are not sufficient to remove information. Please don't turn this into another pointless personal conflict around this article. This article has already caused an alarming amount of edit wars around it. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Then FULLY clarify it. Edit it that, add some sources instead of saying that she's a "LGBTQ" protagonist. It still won't fully justify that addition at all unless it is fully explained or sourced instead of adding it because to appeal to the woke people. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I return to my questions. Do you have any sources on other queer protagonists on the show? Do you think that the first queer protagonist in old cult franchise is not significant (this has been described in a whole bunch of sources that you can add at any time (not to mention that you did not have a problem with this when you restored the information that I deleted due to lack of sources)? I'm the last one here who you can blame for appeal to woke people. But even if I wanted to, "you're just pandering to woke people" is not a rationale for deleting meaningful and canonical information (there is nothing to clarify, my text literally says that she is the first queer protagonist, not the first queer character in the franchise). Solaire the knight (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, gays and lesbians already already existed in the franchise for more than 42+ years that its gonna be daunting to list each of them per series if you totally want to be totally precise. I mean, ALL of it, every single one. Second of all, the significance of this series is having its first LGBT protagonist is notable but this was done way before gundam did it (Cross Ange did it first), but the main theme is mainly vengeance, capitalism and corruption not identification, AKA the whole show is basically The Tempest Gundam version. Also, ever heard of Yuri/Yaoi subgenre which Japan is good on, Gundam is also full of those in certain shows, WFM just fully embraced it just because they can do some yuri subtext. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, what does the very existence of gays in the franchise, as well as the existence of queer mecha in general, negate the fact that Suletta is the first queer protagonist in an old and very iconic franchise? Seriously, I'm really trying to understand your logic, but at this point it seems completely unrelated to the statement in the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Solaire has it right. Gundam has had plenty of homoeroticism and subtext over the years, but there is a massive difference between subtext and text. No Gundam protagonist has been explicitly, undeniably LGBTQ before WFM. Ans far from "adding it because to appeal to the woke people", WFM having a lesbian romance at its centre has been discussed in basically every English-language source. This is not a fringe reading. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if we forget about the subtext (00 and IBO already had canonical gay and bisexual characters, plus Tomino was always grateful to fujoshi for loving his show), I don't quite understand how this prevents Suletta from being the first PROTAGONIST of this kind. I mean, can't a bisexual character be the first queer protagonist on the show because the franchise already had a number of secondary gay and bisexual characters? I don't see any logic in this. Plus, as Kawnhr rightly pointed out, this is the first show in the franchise to literally have same-sex relationships at the center of the story. Why it was made and how well it was written is another deal. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine for that except the whole capitalism theme is being swept under the rug over so called gender politics. See the whole problem here when excluding what theme is to be featured or represent a show just because of that. So ok if she is the first gay protagonist, when the other themes are left being discarded for certain agendas even if the franchise is more war and capitalist focused in its core. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the gender politics? What is sweeping under the carpet? Stop seeing here some kind of political motivation and conspiracy. The themes part was removed because they didn't contain sources and clearly didn't fit with the show's last season, where half of the themes were dropped in the direction of hyper-fixation on girls' relationships (not to mention that, as with gay characters in other shows, the existence of some themes in other Gundam only applies indirectly to G-Witch). We are not writing an article about the entire franchise, only about the Witch. In addition, you yourself wanted to delete information without sources, why now we have to restore something just like that? If you have sources that look at the themes of the show at least based on interviews with the authors, then there is no problem. But please don't turn this into an argument about political views. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh no it is confirmed, the capitalism part was confirmed by Okamoto himself if you missed that one issue of Gundam Ace released in March (Or January). Do remember this line in the article:

They based it on the tech companies competing for profits and control in the industry alongside elements from William Shakespeare's play The Tempest and the witch trials in the early modern period, reflecting the theme surrounding the GUND-Format technology and the people involved in its research, comparing it to a "curse" by the normal people.

The source itself wasn't been corrected since it was outdated and it will need to be updated as the JP wiki is much more up to date. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then if you don't add it to the preamble yourself, I'll add it myself later using the link from the Japanese wiki. As you can see, it's much easier than blaming each other. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Some misinterpretations of citations in article

Preamble

Preamble of article states this series is "the first TV series in the franchise to feature a female and LGBTQ protagonist" based on the Paste citation. The actual article however claims Suletta is "the Gundam franchise’s first female protagonist" except "this is the first time the Gundam franchise has centered a queer relationship" (not character). There could be opportunities for misunderstanding here because Kudelia and Atra from IBO were repeatedly confirmed to be in a same-sex marriage, just that the relationship was not centred. Is it possible to find another source that unequivocally states that this is the franchise's first LGBTQ protagonist without using relationship as a crutch? Otherwise the preamble wording would just lead to the creation of a later controversy section given the recent Gundam Ace censorship issues when it comes to detailing the character relationship.

Reception

The latter half of the section on Tagashira's reaction needs a rework. The phrasing of "she hinted that 3-4 people could not finish their work along with everyone" is wrong, not just in the numbers (which was 2-3). The CBR citation, which says she "confirmed the series' mismanagement in a tweet that thanked the anime staff for their completed work, except for an unnamed few" does not mean that the "unnamed few" failed to finish their work, but that she was not thanking them (the inference would be that she's blaming them, thus the "airing her grievances").

A proposed rewrite integrating the source that links back to the section header would be "One of the credited character designers, Marie Tagashira, praised her colleagues for completing a difficult and impressive work, but excluded an unnamed few from her celebratory tweet. This was taken by fans and journalists as a hint animators involved in the creation of the show suffered from mismanagement that was forced to be addressed via human-wave tactics and overtime." Thoughts? ZigZagZoug (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The sexuality of the Orphans girls has never been confirmed and it was implied that it was a fake relationship to protect Mikazuki's son. Plus, they weren't technically protagonists, only female leads. As for the Suletta, I think it's obvious and very easy to google (for example, as far as I remember, the addition of Suletta to one of the Gundam games was headlined as "adding the first female and queer protagonist"). It's just that following a discussion on the anime wiki progect, it was decided to take this source, since most of the sources were either very rudely speculating before the show's finale, or simply were not authoritative. We even really tried to remember any of the queer protagonists of the franchise before her, but we couldn't remember anyone. As for the second, there are no problems on my part personally. If there are no other sources with the study of this point, then I will not make a big deal out of this rewrite. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The same-sex marriage controversy section

Upon reading that section, it seems to be very poorly sourced; all but one of its sources are primary sources, being the series' website and Twitter accounts. The only non-primary source is to Medium, which per WP:RSP is an open blog and unreliable. I'm not saying that this section is unwarranted, but in its present state I find it hard to believe it meets the very high bar for controversies to actually be included, especially due to the lack of reliable secondary sources. Link20XX (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite a few sources have already written about this controversial case, ranging from fan "blogs" to geek resources. Because this kind of action within the first queer Gundam looks pretty very loud. I also want to draw your attention to the fact that what you called links to primary sources are used to confirm the fact of the statements. So I don't see a problem here. In addition, I had to remove a couple of your source requests, as this is very easily verified by simply viewing the account's tweets or checking the official YouTube channel. You don't mean to say that we need a secondary source to confirm the fact of an official statement that is in the public domain? I'm not going to accuse you of being too picky about sources, just please take a closer look at the context in which someone refers to a particular source. Not to mention, the situation is obviously quite significant if the case required a formal statement from the publisher via the anime's official twitter. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the use of primary sources for non-controversial statements, but something like leading to angry or confused responses from fans and general viewers is something that needs a secondary source and more than just a bunch of Twitter posts from random people. Regarding Quite a few sources have already written about this controversial case, ranging from fan "blogs" to geek resources, can you provide them? Because I looked in English and Japanese and couldn't find anything reliable. It's also worth noting that animanga controversies are often discouraged from inclusion, especially if the series in question was not affected by them; looking at the GAs and FAs with controversy sections (School Rumble, Attack on Titan, My Hero Academia, Tenjho Tenge), in all of them the series or its distributor was affected in some way, like SR's broadcaster getting fined, AoT and MHA getting banned in China, and TT getting censored in North America. While the controversy has been acknowledged by Bandai, I'm hesitant to say it meets the high bar from precedent. Link20XX (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No one uses primary sources for controversial claims. All primary sources in the section are cited for direct claims such as confirmation of character relationships in the epilogue and final stream outside of the plot, or that an official twitter was heavily involved in defending the romantic reading of the characters' relationships. Of course, we can say that once again we are dealing with an excessive initiative of the western official resource, as was the case with the official western MHA twitter teasing Midoriya x Todoroki during the second season (and most likely it is), but this is already true will be original research. If you don't like the "fans claims", then you can simply replace it with "despite the fact that the characters' relationship has already been directly confirmed both in the epilogue of the show itself and on the final stream after the end of the anime". I am also somewhat surprised by your statement about the difficulty of finding sources. A quick search finds an article on the Sankaku Complex quite easily, for example. Not an authoritative source, I admit, but this is clearly not "no references to be found." Anyway, do you still insist that it doesn't matter when even the publisher and official outlet were forced to release statements after massive fan complaints? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said there was anything wrong with the what primary sources are citing, but my problem is that the controversy section is written almost entirely based on primary sources, which is certainly not enough make it warrant mentioning by itself. Regarding I am also somewhat surprised by your statement about the difficulty of finding sources, I said I was having trouble finding reliable sources; anyone can post whatever they want on a blog, but that doesn't make it reliable at all and regarding Sankaku Complex I suggest you check out WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable, where it is listed as an unreliable source. Finally, as for Anyway, do you still insist that it doesn't matter when even the publisher and official outlet were forced to release statements after massive fan complaints?, the reason I'm so hesitant is that controversy sections are generally discouraged and it's important to remember what's undue weight. While it is something that they acknowledged it, I'm hesitant to say it's worth giving any due weight unless the series itself is somehow affected, especially given the lack of reliable independent sources covering this. Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a GA-nominated article, don't read it so zealously and overly attentive to simple questions. You also seem to have ignored the point where I explicitly said that Sankaku is not an authoritative source, but I'm using it to demonstrate that the coverage of the topic is pretty easy to google. Needs a separate answer for now to understand what they mean by their answer, but Bandai's official response asking fans to "interpret things" has already caused quite a bit of negative feedback from fans, as it potentially erases their originally canon relationship to the point of openness. for interpretations, which within the context sounds quite problematic. Again, this is a pretty hot topic that I don't think you'll have a problem finding a couple of sources on top of the ones in the section. Personally, I'm fine that we have a one large secondary source and a couple of primary sources on the claims of the people involved, but since you're coming out with a critique of this, I suggest at least looking at how it's covered in other sources first. You read them, judging by your page, didn't they write anything about it? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding I'm using it to demonstrate that the coverage of the topic is pretty easy to google, what unreliable sources do has no effect on this article as per WP:V, which explicitly states that reliable, published sources [are required for] all material that is likely to be challenged, which is the case for Bandai's official response asking fans to "interpret things" has already caused quite a bit of negative feedback from fans. As for this is a pretty hot topic that I don't think you'll have a problem finding a couple of sources on top of the ones in the section, I have stated (three times!) that I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources to back up this controversy and you have yet to provide any, so clearly finding sources is harder than you claim. Link20XX (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, once again I ask you not to distort my comments, presenting them as answers to the theses, which they did not concern. Several times I specifically emphasized that I am talking about coverage of the topic in general. Not only did I not suggest using these as sources, but I even said bluntly that I did not consider Sankaku to be an authoritative source. You seem to completely ignore the meaning of my words. I also have no choice but to repeat my words about the ease of finding sources. - for example, 2. Not to mention the coverage of growing complaints about homophobic overtones in the way the show covered homosexual or potential homosexual relationships, talk of which was previously considered "hate the show". Now I'm wondering what do you consider to be the authoritative source in this case? Only large mainstream resources? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I am misunderstanding your comments; they seem a bit broken at times and I can tell you're not a native English speaker. But anyways, regarding Several times I specifically emphasized that I am talking about coverage of the topic in general, I don't understand why this matters at all. Just because something is popular or well-known doesn't mean it's worth mentioning. As for Not to mention the coverage of growing complaints about homophobic overtones in the way the show covered homosexual or potential homosexual relationships, talk of which was previously considered "hate the show", this is something that still remains unverified by reliable sources. Speaking of, what makes a source reliable isn't how "mainstream" it is (after all big websites like Daily Mail and InfoWars are unreliable while The Fandom Post, a smaller website is considered reliable), but rather its contributor or contributors and what experience they have in the area of question, as well as its editorial practices; see WP:RS for the full criteria. Speaking of, a discussion at WP:VG/RS found that source you found to be likely unreliable. Link20XX (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We are just once again marking time in circles and I'm already frankly tired of the next disputes around this anime. I created a thread about this on the Anime progect discussion, suggest leaving your post there to get more users and opinions on the issue, and leave this thread for now in case they decide to participate in the discussion. I just need to restore my emotional background. I'm sorry if I sound rude, it's just that the endless controversy surrounding this show is already starting to burn me out. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I don't like discussing controversies either, which is why partially why I'm so hesitant to include them in the first place. Likewise, I wouldn't mind more perspectives on this section and would welcome inviting others to this discussion. Link20XX (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then please mark me if something gets off the ground here with new people. I'll try to follow this through the watchlist to the best of my ability, but I'll try to clean myself up first so I don't start a conflict or edit war here again. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)