Talk:4Kids Entertainment

I'm back!

This article was my old stomping grounds, so I've decided to come back and clean it up. When I left, it suffered from some serious undue weight issues, and was something of a general mess. I've come back, and fixed it up - very little actual content has been removed; most was either condensed, or moved to a related page. This version reflects an encyclopedic merit much more than then the previous - and it much less prone to POV vandalism. --Haemo 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose protection for article

I recently saw two cases of vandalism to this article I think it is wise to semi-protect this article.71.128.114.22 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree - we've only had two cases of vandalism in the last week, and both were by the same user, on the same day. We've also had good, constructive edits by anonymous users in that time period. I'm loathe to semi-protect an article on such a basis, and cut out all their helpful contributions. --Haemo 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm I think that Swastika vandalism has gone over the edge right there, I propose immediate semiprotection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.238.72.145 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-19.

It seems that vandalism to this article is getting pretty frequent. Therefore, I agree that this page should be semi-protected to ward off the vandals. However, I would like to reach a majority consensus among the users discussing here before I resort to formally requesting that this page be protected. --Andrewlp1991 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: As I monitor the history of this page I want to cover my eyes, simply because I notice that vandalism is increasing as the days go by. Look at the most recent (but reverted) edit to this page and you'll see. --Andrewlp1991 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the goat.se image has crossed the line. As a devil's advocate, I propose immediate semi-protection. Worlder 03:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I knew it! This page was gonna be semi-protected one day or another! The vandalism surely did progress from "isolated" to "perpetual". Geez, why can't those otakus just get a life and do something that won't make them vandalize Wikipedia? Seems that people like Stephen Colbert and Weird Al sure have contributed to the increase of vandalism to Wikipedia lately, huh? --Andrewlp1991 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok who here thinks this article should be semi-protected indefinitely? Because those anime zealots are not going to get discouraged by a temporary protection, even if it lasts for months.Worlder 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add another semiprotection. :) WhisperToMe 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is already semi-protect just be longer, like forever. Because those anime fundamentalists just won't give up their useless annoying crusade for cartoon riceballs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlder (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just proposed indefinite semi-protection for this article. So those that wish to vandalize 4kids Entertainment's article,get a name, ya extremists.Worlder 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I told you that the first moments we life protection those racist asshole Otakus would come flooding back in to butch the company. Worlder 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Look. Stop it with the uncivility and personal remarks, will you? Yes, there is vandalism. If the vandalism increases, we just ask for semi-protection again. This is nowhere near being one of the most vandalised pages, and not all animé fans are "racist asshole Otakus" or "anime fundamentalists" on an "annoying crusade for cartoon riceballs". If you have an axe to grind, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you, Dreaded Walrus. Keep a sense of civility, everyone. Don't descend to their level. Goldy496 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

4Kids TV and the YA market

Hi. I recently had an edit reverted. The edit in question was regarding the demographics of 4Kids TV, which does not aim toward the YA market obviously. I do not wish to trigger an "edit war", but I'd rather make a good negotiation over an apparently "misleading" sentence. For now I've reverted the sentence AGAIN, because "4Kids TV is aimed toward...young adults" simply does not make sense. --198.189.198.2 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, posted only a minute before I told you to take it to the talk page. No matter. I reverted your edit for the last time, and please leave it that way until the discussion here is complete. You've provided no solid points as to why you should remove that phrase, and all you're running on is your own opinion, which is not a reliable source. Also, the sentence is not misleading, as 4Kids programming is geared towards the 8-13-year-old market, if I'm not mistaken. I think there are some who call children in their early to mid teens "young adults" these days. But, as for this, please leave the article at the original version until a concensus is reached, mm'kay? Lychosis ^T/C 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If you look up young adult on Wikipedia, it will say that it is between the ages of 18-25, while on google the definition is 16-25. Jezebel Parks 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering they specifically in their market prospectus say that they're targeting more of their material towards the young adult market - typically, this means in the ill-defined area that includes teenagers and tweens - I think we should take them at their word. --Haemo 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jezebel Parks about the definition of "young adult" and do agree on the "correct" definition of young adult. Therefore, I would like to remove the "young adult" part if I could, but I am not budging to edit until I see some agreements when I check back here later. I have good reason to question the inclusion of "young adult" in the sentence regarding 4Kids TV. Go to the actual 4Kids TV article, and it does not mention young adults anywhere. So why should this page regarding its parent company claim so? Besides, look carefully at the company's name: 4KIDS. Not 4teens as if it would be if aimed toward the YA market. Besides, I can tell you that the average 16-25 year old who has even heard of 4Kids Entertainment before might have contempt for it based on the "criticism and controversy" section of the 4Kids Entertainment Wikipedia article. Therefore, I would like to have the "young adult" part removed, as it clearly does not make sense, but for now I will not rush to edit it out because chances are it was included there for a reason. So far reading this talk page I am not thoroughly convinced that "young adult" should stay. I am giving it once last shot before I remove it. --Andrewlp1991 05:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just edited out "young adult" - but I hit Enter just before i was about to finish my edit reason, it was because the article for 4Kids TV does not say young adult. --198.189.198.2 17:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly agree, as I searched "young adults" on 4Kidsentertainment.com via google [1] and there was no mention of 4Kids actually intending to aim 4Kids TV toward the YA market, though "Young adults" is ocassionaly mentioned on their site in other contexts. --Andrewlp1991 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Majority of shows done by 4Kids are definitely aimed at the younger crowd. I don't have the time to look up the information, but I don't believe anything worse than Y7 is in their showcase. Goldy496 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I found these while working on Tokyo Mew Mew about 4kids' changes. I believe these can be used in this article instead, as I dont see a mention of them:

4kids orginally intending to release all their shows uncut: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2005-04-24/alfred-r-kahn

then they changed their minds: http://www.mewmewalliance.net/content/view/78/2/

THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that second source meets our reliable sourcing guidelines. --Haemo 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing controversity section

I propose that this article be removed of the controversity section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlder (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion. --Coconutfred73 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else that controversity section is a deformity upon this company and it wiki article. I say that it be removed so it so no one will ever be reminded of this again.Worlder 23:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is a deformity, then it means that controversy sections are abnormal, no? The controversy here is actually mainly fan criticism. I do not know whether other companies have much fan criticism, but if other companies do not also have much fan criticism as much as this one, then this abnormal controversy should be noted, and thus not removed in my opinion.--A 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine but I feel that this controversity section acts an auxiliary magnet for vandalism and constant fuel for hatred towards the company. I feel that that the wikipedians defending the integrity of the article (and the company as we've became devil's advocates through this article) would have a alot less work if we removed the this section and put the article on indefinite semi-protection. Worlder 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if many people hate this company, then of course that is the controversy, isn't it? It should just be monitored to see that it is about what is popularly hated about this company rather than to have the intent of propaganda.--A 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Also, some have vandalized this particular section, but certainly not the majority of vandalizations are localized within this particular section. Even if it were, removing pertinent information would certainly not be constructive towards documenting pertinent facts.--A 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Worlder) The Paris Hilton article was vandalised a lot around the time when she was in jail, and yet we kept mention of it in the article. Whenever someone famous dies, the article is vandalised a lot, and yet we still mention the death in the article. When an article is on the front page, it is usually vandalised a lot, yet we do not delete the entire article ;). If this article is vandalised, we revert the vandalism, and place the appropriate warning template on the talk page of the particular vandal. If this article is vandalised a lot by a particular vandal, we go to Administrator intervention against vandalism, and they get blocked. If this article is vandalised a lot, every day, by lots of different users, we take it to requests for page protection, and get it semi-protected. The company is one of the most criticised of all localisation companies, due to the methods it uses, and the section is well-sourced (five different references for the section, though more would always be good), and relatively well-written. The section should not be removed simply because of the vandalism it causes. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine that section stays but I hope to see indefinite semi-protection in the near future, because don't you think it is a burden to put up with all those annoying attacks by these extremists against the company for reasons that it committed misdeeds in the past. Besides those otakus got what they wanted, their "crusade" is over, all that is left now is fear and prejudice with the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlder (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is their problem, so we just have to be vigilant for vandalism.A 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--

Indefinite semi-protection is very, very rare, and for good reason. Please remember to try to stay civil with regards to other editors, even vandals. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took this out: Let the following facts be submitted to the candid world of One Piece fans.

They have sidestepped around death by throwing scenes around clumsily and paying little or no attention to continuity. They have changed religious symbols that would have no meaning to the audience at large and wasted mney on paint edits. They have Made crappy writing and attempts to make stupid puns. They have given Don Krieg Poison suction cups that make no sense in their delivery. They have given Monkey D. Luffy an annoying voice, as was done to Sanji and Usopp. Thay have given Luffty Dumbass jokes. They have replaced the BGM and Opening with a stupid rap. They have onitted nearly 40 episodes in order to get to the chase of something. They have committed Racist edits. They hae put music in that has no point to the storyline. They have replaced Onigiri with cookies and ruined the oint of the salt/sugar edit. They have made Naval marines carry toy guns. They have blacked out writing on covers no one will read. They have removed shout and confusion marks from the charachters. They have replaced technique names and confused them to hardcore fans. I could go on and on about this.

I see POV and language issues. At least He's specific. Tommy 11111 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Worlder,just because we want anime,and not knock offs,doesn't give you the right to call us otakus.That is a personal assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.7.41 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Tommy; it wasn't just One Piece they ruined in this way. Put in the controversy section, if only as a means to show the world how much 4Kids are destroying anime. Hikari Tajiri (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CW acquisition

I think we need to expect a rush of vandalism because of this. Worlder 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just keep watch, and if a wide level of vandalism occurs from multiple users, then be ready to take it to WP:AIV. I would keep watch myself, but I'm going to sleep in a short while. I'll keep watch when I do get back, though. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaand, it's been protected for two weeks, so you're safe. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

However when the vandalism lifts, this article is going to be under even more attacks by those AnimeTojos! The good thing though is that if they vandalize enough within one timeframe we can call for indefinite semi-protection. Worlder 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We're open for an attack quickly get an indefinte semiprotection. This page is low management it, doesn't require unregistered to contribute (in fact most of the unregisters are vandals to this page).Worlder 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I told you! The moment we lift semi-protection, those Otakus start flooding back in!Worlder 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See my response at the bottom of #Propose protection for article. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Worlder,stop making personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.7.41 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackface picture

Does that really need to be here? It doesn't really have anything to do with 4Kids' itself and all it does is make people think they're racist even thought it was to prevent racism. It doesn't even say in the article that it was to prevent racism. If anything I think it should go in the editing of anime article.Bryanoftoons (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But, it was an edit done by 4-Kids to remove potentially offensive material from the program when it was rebroadcast in the United States. I don't think it implies that they are racist, and given the fact that there is controversy over their editing of television programs for content, I think it illustrates the type of edits done very clearly. --Haemo (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's the only time they've ever made an edit like that. It's a a poor example. Not only that, but there's no mention in the article about the edit at all.Bryanoftoons (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. The article explains that they remove material which American audiences would find offensive — I think that's an excellent example of that, since most Americans find blackface very offensive. Why does it matter if that's the only time they've removed blackface — the example clearly illustrates (1) the problem 4Kids faces and (2) how they deal with it. I don't know how it implies 4Kids is racist, even remotely. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that there are dozens of people I've seen who think 4Kids is racist just by looking at that picture. Could you put something that implies it was to prevent racism in the caption under it?Bryanoftoons (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would be WP:POV and original research. Leaving the image to speak for itself is the best thing. Currently the image's caption doesn't imply anything, and it is left to the reader to decide. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added a little note, explaining that blackface is judged racist in the United States. The reader can draw their own conclusions about why 4Kids removed it. --Haemo (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Perfect wording. It's my inability to word things as well as that which prevents me from editing articles. ;) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They should have left it unedited. I've been over this discussion many times before. Its much more racist to change the color of the skin than leaving it to "prevent" racism. Gune (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of people would disagree with you on that one, which is probably why they changed it. However, we've decided to simply say "they changed it" without going into specifics of why. If anyone can't see why blackface is offensive to an American audience, this isn't the place to do so. --Haemo (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was better how it was worded. People could have came to either conclusion by how it is. How you worded it now makes everybody think that 4Kids edited it to prevent racism. Gune (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, people can draw their own conclusions about why it was made. It makes perfect sense to state the social connotations of blackface in an article which discusses editing for social reasons. Like the fact that it's racist, and offends people. Since we don't have a reliable source for that, we can't just say it — but we can explain what happened, and what the social connotations of what was removed entailed. --Haemo (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It should say "blackface can be viewed as racially offensive in the United States" or "this picture can be considered racially offensive in the United States" Instead you list it as "This picture IS racist." Gune (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It says "blackface is viewed as racially offensive in the United States". You may not like it but blackface is viewed as racially offensive. Our own article on the fact should convince you of this. --Haemo (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its the picture itself. Not the actual blackface. Not everybody considers it racist but your wording makes the picture sound like it is. Gune (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking to change here. I appear to have misunderstood your objection to the caption. --Haemo (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual picture. Not everybody will consider it a blackface or that its racist at all. It needs to be reworded so that somebody can come to their own conclusion. If somebody reads that captain the way it is right now they will think that it was purposely made as a blackface and that it was originally made to be racist without coming to their own conclusion. Gune (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) It's clearly blackface. (2) We don't say the image is racist. It was purposely made as blackface in the Japanese version of the show because they have a long tradition of using blackface in a cultural context which is different than America. We aren't telling anyone that it's racist — where just telling people that it can be considered racist in the United States. All of these statements are completely accurate. --Haemo (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Give evidence that it is. Can you also provide evidence that they have a tradition of using blackface? Gune (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Popo from Dragonball Z Worlder (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Read our own article on the subject. There's two paragraphs about it. --Haemo (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Popo was actually completely black. As in the color black. Gune (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People in blackface also painted their skin black. --Haemo (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is a completely moot point considering the edited character is an actual black character. Mr Popo is nothing like him. Gune (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you're arguing — that blackface isn't racist? That the image isn't of blackface? That Japan doesn't use blackface? Who knows, but they're all wrong. --Haemo (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Second one. You don't have proof that it is. Gune (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackface is an easily identifiable style. Anyone can recognize it. Use common sense or read any of the massive literature on the subject. You're being disruptive simply to make a point and it's wasting everyone's time. --Haemo (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its already been stated that in order for it to be Blackface it must be the actual color black. Obviously it isn't which means you are the one who is making it up. Gune (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true. It's meant to imitate the skin color of black people which can range from brown to coal black. In fact, Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarves is a famous example of this kind of racist imagery in film. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying its actually racist of them to use a black person in an anime? Gune (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Black people don't actually look like blackface, as you've probably noticed. There have been many black characters in anime who look like actual black people and not racist cultural stereotypes. --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your own opinion that it is. I've asked multiple people including black people and they have all said the edit is more racist than the original. Gune (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not my opinion — that's practically the definition of blackface. It's a racial sterotype which is used to demean and make fun of black people. I'm not going to get into an argument about whether or not it's racist to remove it, but suffice to say that your argument that removing blackface from films is equivalent to removing black people is totally vacuous. --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't even arguing that before. I don't even know how we got on this subject.I was arguing the fact that the sentence itself should be reworded. Gune (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How? --Haemo (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I already said in this discussion earlier. Gune (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you made a general statement that we discussed for a while with little profit. Do you have a precise revision suggestion? --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Gune may have the notion that blackface is a form of representation (as in tokenism) for black people. An offensive form of representation, but representation nonetheless. So by removing blackface, one has removed an instance where blacks were shown in anime; thus, the removal of a black character, even if it is a blackface character, is racist because it denies a representation of blacks in this particular form of animation, or at least, in this show. Worlder (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackface is only racist in America.That is not blackface.He has brown,not black,skin.He doesn't have googly eyes.His lips aren't pink.Blackface is used in Japan as a form of respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.7.41 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Moral conservatives

I just read that part in the controversy section regarding the Parents TV group criticizing "4Kids' dubs." They're not doing that, actually. It seems like the entire articles were criticizing the shows themselves, not whether or not dubbing is involved. They've drawn comparisons to other shows, and they've never mentioned 4Kids. Whoever inserted this part into the article must have misinterpreted it. 71.146.76.206 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should clairfy that. It's confusing, currently. --Haemo (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

4Kids on Fox to End Broadcast in 2009

TGS = 4Kids: The Game Station (Fox)/CW = The CW 4Kids (The CW)

Well even though i've seen the edits that 4Kids have done to One Piece and the rants that followed on Youtube and other video-sharing sites, I might say that it's about time that TGS pulled the plug on its broadcast on Fox, even though 4Kids isn't gone completely since their other broadcast station CW is the only remaining one left. I haven't seen TGS's final broadcast last Saturday (12-29-2008), but at least some anime fans are celebrating its demise.

One of the 4Kids columns is knocked down, but one still remains.

I mean, after all, if TGS didn't acquire the rights to One Piece in the first place they would've never did their controversial and ridiculous editing practices that gave the company a very bad name, and TGS would still be broadcasting in 2009. I guess that this could be chalked up to karma, or something similar I guess.

But as I said, the demise of TGS isn't the complete demise of 4Kids overall. 4Kids is still alive with their other broadcast station, The CW. --72.155.175.144 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Where's your actual source for this poppycock? --Coconutfred73 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)