Jump to content

Talk:Nijisanji

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mysidia (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 14 February 2024 (→‎A seperate page for a comprehensive list of controversies.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Graduations

Nijisanji (particularly its English-speaking branch, as well as what used to be the Indonesian branch) had a plethora of graduations throughout the last year, starting with most recently with the graduation of founding talent Pomu Rainpuff, with other major talents such as Nina Kosaka or Mysta Ryas, having graduated beforehand.

The high amount of graduations has been noticed by some sources discussing them,[1][2] with one of them going as far as an calling it an "exodus". [3] The same source has also covered allegations about Nijisanji being a "black company",[4] as well as fears of a domino effect following previous graduations.[5]

With so many graduations occurring, I believe there should at least be a mention of the topic in the article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that EVERY graduation should be put at least in the History section,as that is and should be considered as "History" Lightmaxifrvr (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Additions Removed

Some new additions included Graduations.


This is when talents and the like, leave the company.


Many pages include former and current members.


Many members have left the agency and should still be cited. The notes about the company firing people for suspicious reasons, should stay here.


"Black Company" usually refers to certain types of companies. The allegations and reasonings have no reason to be removed.


Many public companies have allegations against them on their Wikipedia pages.


The edits calling the company a "Black Company" outright, should be removed. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits calling the company a "Black Company" outright, should be re-instated. 46.123.252.157 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@46.123.252.157 While I get the outrage against Nijisanji, we should wait for more people to come out against them and more reliable sources(not Dextero) to report on it before labeling it as a black company, Additionally, such a thing would be best put under a controversies tab imo. KoP152 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... it IS kind of silly that page for THE most controversial major VTuber company has, for most of it's existance, had no mention of controversies, no mention of their hilarously bad turnover rate for talents and recorded (several times!) shady tactics, and attempts to add these are for the most part wiped completely within a couple of minutes as 'vandalism' with nothing but praise for the company allowed. All the proof you would realistically need for a halfway decent start to a controversies tab can be found by going to Selen's announcement and seeing screenshots of the Community Notes it has accumulated that were deleted for no good reason (one of them literally pointed out they said they privated the video, then said that Selen saying they privated the video was a lie and slander/libel from her)181.189.25.81 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of this matters without a Reliable Source to cite all of this to. I know the drama roiling Nijisanji is indeed notable, but without sources, it’s going to be removed. And no, Dexerto and stuff like animecorner.me or dotesports are not Reliable Sources. Also, calling Nijisanji a “black company” in Wikipedia’s voice, again without any attribution, is not going to fly either and will be removed as vandalism. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 03:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations against the company should definitely be noted, they should however be listed as allegations until verified. These pages are supposed to be a source for all relevant information, including the bad. 2601:985:4480:5660:F2:A72F:15EE:18B5 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not how this works. Allegations still have to be cited to Reliable Sources, and you have to keep BLP in mind as well. The ANN source now used in the article is considered an RS, so as long as you cite based off of the information in that, it should be fine.GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 07:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
screenshots of the Community Notes that user generated content, which is mostly a no-go as a source for topics like this. – robertsky (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the outrage.
But, if you want to make a good edit and add valuable tabs.
If you call Nijisanji a black company or place "Black Company" in front of their companies name or groups name, this will result in Admins and the like stepping in.
Nijisanji hides behind NDAs, so most claims are difficult to prove.
But, theres enough claims from current and former members and from those who have worked with the company, to make an allegations page or something similar to it.
Dont make edits calling them a Black Company, outright.
People come here for reliable information and data on things.
That claim is unproven and people aren't adding it properly either.
So, those edits should be removed.
A controversies tab, would probably be fine. They have quite a few of those, and many of them are similar to past occurrences.
Some Twitter posts of fellows who were given NDAs, and a now former member had to pay them out of pocket, because their NDAs had the wrong names on them.
And they company kept on sending the wrong ones.
There's now two cases of that happening, but one was paid.
These were claimed on their Twitter pages. Thus, Twitter would work for primary sources for those accounts.
Sometimes people confuse things with rules regarding reliable sources.
Taking random claims from whoever, would be unreliable. These are artists, those who have worked with Nijisanji.
Nijisanji paid at least one person, thus they'd probably be considered contractors.
Despite this, going on about "Black Company", will anger those who check these pages for facts. If someone wants to edit the page, keep those out.
People may actually look at the edits and consider them. If someone still revokes the edits, talk about it.
Others could lock them out for page vandalism.
Not showing things, which discredit the company, would look bad on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't work for any company and is meant to be unbiased.
And there's good reason to add some of these mentioned things.
While looking through the edits, I did see something about sources being removed for an illegitimate reasoning.
Former talents or members of the company, was the reason.
I believe that the users profile indicated that they likely aren't someone who speaks English as a native language.
In other countries, former talents or members of a company can be seen as biased, or they're just removed as sources - that sort of thing.
Here, thats not the case.
I'd have to go back and check the edits, but I saw a few things which were fine, but got removed and nobody revoked the changes.
I also saw edits which would've been great, not taking the "Black Company" into consideration.
A user also didn't submit what they were adding or changing. This flagged them, I believe.
Bot got them. Admin likely stepped in afterwards.
My point is simple. Just follow the rules when making edits / additions. If you don't, the staff here may become a bit biased and just shut down any changes here, because people are doing more than adding information.
You also need to cite sources and link them to each line, properly.
Another controversy, could be that the company hires its members out as contractors.
Its been leaked by a talent, that the members aren't paid.
They make commissions off of donations during streams. Their merchandise profits are meager and they are likely given a lump sum for the merchandise.
The company mentioned that they'd continue to release Selen's merchandise, even with her terminated and that she had already been paid.
This means, that she likely doesn't get paid per sale or anything.
Other companies don't do this. Similar ones.
Things like that, would beef up a controversies tab, and add a good reason to even have them.
I've simply mentioned these things, so that others can research the mentioned topics, and maybe find proper sources - make a proper edit.
Wikipedia should save unfinished edits.
Just make sure that you know how citing works on here, and how to properly do things. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There at bare minimum needs to be a section for the controversy and allegations

Even if it has to be talked about simply as public controversy and allegations and we pretend their are no reputable sources (which there are several artists who have previously worked for the company as well as the creators now know as Dokibird, MatraKan and have talked about it and just because they can’t officially say who they used to be doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t know) the public outrage on twitter must be at least mentioned as a thing that happened. 99.24.220.57 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Twitter itself is not a reliable source except for non exceptional claims not involving third parties, and linking (for example) Doki to Selen without an official source constitutes Original Research and will likely fall afoul of the BLP policy as well. I agree that the Twitter backlash after their most recent announcement, as well as former creators cutting ties with Niji over this should be mentioned, plus the hits to their stock prices, but we unfortunately can’t until an actual RS covers this. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is literally a primary source in the modern day how is “(person) tweeted (content)” not allowed! Are you not allowed to quote speeches? Can you not for example quote deSantos president candidaty announcement because it was on twitter live? Can you only requote from news articles about it? 2600:1700:2210:6A40:DCA8:5241:953:F8E7 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:TWITTER about sourcing from there. Non exceptional claims not involving third parties can be sourced to Twitter, but this situation is all but non exceptional. But yes, generally we need a third party RS news outlet to report on something before it can be cited in an article. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a terrible policy. Those new site are going to be citing the exact same tweets so why do they have to be copy and pasted to a news site before they can be copy and pasted again to Wikipedia! The things I’m talking about citing are “(persona) tweeted (content)” that is an objective statement why does a new site have to say it first. Especially on niche but important topics major EN news is not going to even of the terminations themselves are being announced on twitter. Doki bird isn’t going on TV to be interviewed she’s talking about it live on YouTube. YouTube news channels are successful because they can afford to report on niche topics. If you invalidate those as primary sources you make it impossible to write articles on anything that major news channels don’t report on. 2600:1700:2210:6A40:6C4B:94B4:6624:67FD (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:V is a core policy. You’re not going to be able to get around that. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP Policies, especially regarding sourcing, before attempting to wade in to edit articles like this. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it policy and I’m not going to be able to change it. That doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to give my opinion (ie. “Wade in”) on it 2600:1700:2210:6A40:6C4B:94B4:6624:67FD (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By wade in, I meant editing this article when it comes off of semi-protection, not expressing your opinion here on the talk page, and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GhostStalker isn't quoting the policy correctly.
In the cases of some people's claims, Twitter is viable as a first party source.
It works for the NDA claims and the like. Those are the artists personal accounts.
They're just the same as someone making public statements on the news or on Facebook. Those types of quotes are used elsewhere on Wikipedia.
I could probably get someone to make a short story on the tweets, which are first party sources.
Technically, thats not required.
Reading that rule, twitter is viable as a source - but not for rumors, propaganda or he said / she said sort of baseless things.
Some fellows, can be quoted from these websites.
It just seems that some people misread the rule.
I spoke with a fellow. Asked some stuff.
Another fellow already did some recent stuff here, so its their turf, according to them.
I dont know much about Wikipedia's internal rules.
But, I reached out to someone, because it seemed like people were applying that rule, incorrectly.
It seems like if things arent being shown, and favortism is being shown / important events and controversies aren't shown, that there would be a little group chat or discussion.
But yeah, if the twitter messages and things were made by those affiliated with the company, and its known that they are, its a fine source and can be used here.
Primary sources are allowed, especially confirmed primary sources.
It's an editors responsibility, to find out if the quoted source is valid or not.
People dont need to post actual articles. They are more ideal, especially since they would act as archives.
If these don't exist, twitter can be used.
Once a better source comes up, that old one should be removed. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this suffice as a reliable source? 99.248.79.175 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Dexerto, per WP:RSPSS, "Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability." HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well as of current that’s the only website I can find that’s covering it so either that, twitter and YouTube are allowed as sources or Wikipedia is unable to even mention the massive controversy and backlash that is going on. 2600:1700:2210:6A40:386B:69FF:FB0:A4D4 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, the previously linked Anime News Network article is a Reliable Source. However, it unfortunately doesn’t cover much of the controversy and elides most of the information surrounding Selen’s termination. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I said as of yet no source that Wikipedia deems “reputable” as of yet has talk about this and thus it is impossible to write about on Wikipedia 2600:1700:2210:6A40:386B:69FF:FB0:A4D4 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article that shows the official Twitter/X account for the Indonesian Wikipedia appearing to reference the controversy/incident in a post on 5 February, in addition to another post the following day. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this source is deemed valid, it also has both community notes (with the supporting evidence for said notes), references the connection between Selen and Doki, the Niji IR message, Lilypichu's tweet, and the Anycolor stock price drop. Rockman1159 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m unsure if animecorner.me would count as an RS, because I do see that they have an About Us page referencing some kind of editorial control, but their writers seem to just be fans of some sort. I don’t see it listed on WP:ANIME’s Reliable Sources list (WP:A&M/RS), so probably best to ask around there or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ((WP:RSN). GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 12:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found 51 articles that already cite animecorner.me as a source, including this one. Rockman1159 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I would still run it by RSN or WP:ANIME just in case. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polygon just released an article that covers much of the controversy, as well as linking Doki and Selen, and they’re an RS:
https://www.polygon.com/24065311/vtuber-selen-tatsuki-nijisanji-termination-dokibird GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is polygon on the WP:ANIME approval list? I couldn’t find it there Businessential (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s listed in WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, so Polygon is good. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do we have to maintain the vtuber “kayfabe” on this article? Businessential (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent events

Social media, such as Twitter and YouTube are no reliable sources for any Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to vent your anger and frustration.

There is no reliable source that labels the corporation as a Black company nor do they cover the current controversy, so I am strongly against including those in the page at the moment.

  • In any case, No matter the source: a Wikipedia article should not use the biased language that would suggest a controversial allegation is accurate, and should use unbiased language instead (Provide information about notable allegations, but don't label the company while the truth of allegations are also challenged and controversial). Twitter is not the publisher of any article but a website that distributes articles posted by various publishers who are mostly unknown individuals, But there are also a few reliable publishers who do post there: It is the reputation of the actual publisher of information that need to be ascertained to assess reliability, and not just that of their current hosting provider. Even from Twitter there don't appear to be postings regarding this from an account where the reliability and independence could be established, however.. as far as I can tell it is currently Not yet Verifiable that allegations against the company are notable. --Mysidia (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The page is now semi-protected, that should prevent most of the vandalism we've seen in the last few days. Anime King (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

In § Controversy, replace 

Per ''Polygon'', "Nijisanji followed up with a second statement concerning the termination of Selen, sharing that it believes that the decision will negligibly affect its finances. This is the first time the agency has gone to such lengths to defend the termination of one of its talents. (Polygon reached out to ANYCOLOR for comment on the situation, but our request for an interview was declined.)

with 

Per ''Polygon'', "Nijisanji followed up with a second statement concerning the termination of Selen, sharing that it believes that the decision will negligibly affect its finances. This is the first time the agency has gone to such lengths to defend the termination of one of its talents."

to add a missing quotation mark and remove the part in parentheses since the company declining an interview doesn't seem very important to mention.

(I think that section overall needs some rewording to reduce the amount of directly quoting the sources and make it more readable, but I don't have specific ideas for how to word it, so this is not part of the edit request.) 91.129.100.162 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – robertsky (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page Revisions Hidden

All of the page revisions I made yesterday have been marked hidden from the version history citing copyright violation. I'm not sure how my edits could have violated the copyright policy and would appreciate an explanation. If my edits do not, in fact, violate the copyright policy, I would ask for the records of them to be restored. Thank you. Rockman1159 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockman1159 It is not your edits, but earlier ones that contains text that were lifted from a news article. Since your revisions also contains the copyrighted text as a result, they were also hidden, up to the revision where the copyright material was removed/reworded/minimised, that also include some of my own edits as well. – robertsky (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for the explanation. I was worried I had done something wrong. Rockman1159 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

So last night, I tried adding info on the current controversy, but didn't realize there was already a now-referenced section covering it, since it was separate from the section on the history of the company and far further down the page. I did check the history and notice some stuff had been removed (unsourced, I think) but somehow missed it was already a separate section. I think it would make more sense to list the controversy under history from a chronological perspective, but it also seems like the rather long section may need some clean-up in of itself, since there's a lot of one-sentence long paragraphs and also stuff that solely lists debut dates, which I think would be better covered under the liver list (like including debut date with each wave) rather than just throwing dates around without much further context. Iostn (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove controversies?

It’s clearly related to the brigading that’s been happening the past few days and contains information that is not that relevant to the company overall and cites subpar sources. Businessential (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It it very relevant to the company overall and the source is Polygon. Wikipedia is not entitled to host only the information that you find agreeable. Rockman1159 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Boyohboy231 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this comment to serve as evidence that further attempts to remove content from the article by this user are done in bad faith. Rockman1159 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of controversy being put up is bad faith Businessential (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is up shows bias as there are no other controversies that can be found related to vtubers on this site. Having a bias is poor for the integrity of this site. Businessential (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article is bringing up jokes posted by the Indonesian Wikipedia Twitter as relevant information, where do we place the line for relevant information? Should we also quote the anti-Selen comments from Yahoo Japan? Businessential (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they’re sourced and relevant and meet WP:DUE considerations, why not?
Sure, the current controversy might be very much influenced by WP:RECENT, and probably could afford to be cut down a little bit, but the entire section shouldn’t be removed. Should probably revisit this in a month or so when things have blown over a bit to reevaluate what is necessary to be mentioned here. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely affected by recentism. There is more details describing this event than years of the companies history. It’s the only in depth portion on the whole page and it involves random users cited from Japanese message boards and Twitter. I do not see how this does not constitute as brigading as it’s the only company in the vtubing hemisphere that has a controversy page, let along the manga and anime sphere. The same issue is also happening with the vandalism occurring on the black company(Japan) page. Businessential (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other agencies have had controversies prominent enough to have been covered by enough sources to qualify for inclusion in their wiki page? Rockman1159 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In vtubing only, or the anime manga sphere? Businessential (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to adhere to [Wikipedia:NPOV]], which this is not. Businessential (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that while the content of the section definitely needs work, the existence of a controversy section is needed.
I think the page should be left as is until all information that will come out about the situation has come out. Then do a full edit pass over the section. Rockman1159 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I semi agree with that stance, nijisanji is by no means a perfect company, however having a significant portion of this article over one controversy and then allowing the controversy section on this page is a slippery slope for what then can be added. The controversy is the most in depth thing related to anything relating to vtubing on this whole site. In my opinion it should at most be a paragraph that goes under 2024 for the history of the company. I do not see how anything more will adhere to wikipedias standards. Businessential (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, that speaks more towards a need to expand other vtuber related pages than a need to reduce this one. I do agree that some of the information in the Controversy section is superfluous. The posts from Indonesian Wikipedia, while incredibly funny, aren't really relevant to the overall controversy. Rockman1159 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the information is superfluous. Why do we need a third party’s document related to the companies stock. The Hololive Taiwan incident which shut down a whole branch is less than half of this incident. I don’t even watch this corporation but if you look at the article as a whole in context it qualifies as undue weight. Businessential (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hololive Taiwan incident is not relevant in any way to the Nijisanji wikipedia page. Whataboutism is not a valid argument. If you feel that the The Hololive Taiwan incident should be included in the Hololive page, then make your argument there. Rockman1159 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Taiwan incident is cover on the Hololive page and it is shorter than the controversy section on this article. Personma (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the one who asked about other controversies before did you not? You can’t ask for an example and then claim whataboutism. I’m just bringing up the point of how this qualifies as undue weight in the grand scheme of things. There is no reason why it should be this long.
I’m just trying to apply what this “Wikipedia:Reliable sources” is to here Businessential (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add controversies to Hololive, Phase Connect or other pages.
I agree that they should have a similar tab.
This one should have one as well. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full agreement from me. Rockman1159 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is all undue weight in comparison to everything else in the vtubing sphere. Businessential (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has clearly been taken hostage by opinion, I’m even accused of doing pr now. This does not fit what Wikipedia should be. We are literally making the controversy area the most documented case in vtubing on this site. Articles that reference tweets are being used. This would never happen in sports, anime, or other sectors of entertainment. Businessential (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of claiming brigading when you've done nothing contstructive to the page but remove relavent information 78.16.85.7 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know my opinion as an anonymous IP won't be considered too much, but can the user Businessential be investigated? The account was created specifically to revert edits made to this page only and another immediately related one (which, while I approve the removal of the original vandalism, became an edit war), with no other notable contributions. 2001:1388:A45:ED6C:D4D:3AD4:DBD4:FD1 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without the WP:CHECK bit, there is nothing to pin on the user at the moment yet. The user has yet to revert any content on the article, and thus far has contributed constructively on the talk page. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking to a user called Adalax on another site.
There obviously appears to be brigading going on. The initial bad eggs were on one side - in favor of edits.
They made a few bad edits.
Some sources being used, are viable.
Those complaining, should help to create edits for the other Vtuber pages. I agree that they need pages as well.
Hololive's CN branch had an entire controversy. Kiryu Coco showed up in newspapers and was pressed as anti-china in some places.
Making edits here, before other places isn't bad. But, others should be making edits elsewhere.
Other places not having a controversy topic, doesn't mean that this one shouldn't have one.
Not having one is biased.
I can try and talk to others who can do stuff here, but once an admin is involved - its usually up to that admin's discretion unless a noticeable issue or bias is shown.
So, just save the logs of changes, so that you can improve them once better sources are out. Give it like a week.
Make sure they're your own changes.
Some controversies are semi new.
I was trying to ask someone who I know elsewhere, about the rules and things here.
Brigading in either direction isn't allowed.
If relevant information was added and was removed, someone broke the rules.
I haven't fully checked the twitter stuff, but some sources are primary ones.
I saw a claim about football coverage and things.
Vtuber things, don't get as much coverage as football or some other things.
Some sources may not be as good as others due to that.
But yeah. Whatever the admin right now is saying, just go with that.
I would try again in a week. Things could die down by then. 65.183.108.158 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

Can we please remove the controversy section or at least limit it to one paragraph and put it into the history section. It has became a joke on multiple sites and does not fit the criteria for something that should be on this website. In my opinion this qualifies as undue weight as it is the only piece of vtubing history that is in depth. We reference jokes on Twitter accounts and random people on message boards and a former vtuber who has no relation to the situation. Businessential (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

You seem less concerned with the integrity of the article and more concerned with protecting the reputation of Nijisanji. As this is a controversial edit, you should have gotten consensus before even posting this request. Rockman1159 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s too big and it qualifies for undue weight. Those last two paragraphs for it are the greatest offenders of this. They contain info that is of minor relevance to the thing. We are bringing up a former vtuber who worked there over a year before this incident and a joke posted from a country that the company got rid of thier branch. Businessential (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was protecting the or of the company I would’ve said, “add Goldman Sachs rating the company as a buy (https://en.p2y.jp/goldman-sachs-maintains-investment-decision-on-anycolor-after-vtuber-selen-tatsukis-terminated/) but I did not as it has no long standing relevance to the company. I could’ve also linked messages from the same forum that support the company from citation 58 but I did not as yahoo finance message forums should not play a part in any article, especially if we cite no one. Businessential (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Finance forums are cited in the Polygon article. As you can see from the in-text citation in the wiki page. Rockman1159 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that message forums should be able to be cited as sources. We are opening up a Pandora’s box that should remain closed in regards to secondary reporting of sources. Why is the Twitter page also cited as it is a joke/opinion. Does that mean we can cite anyone else on Twitter? Businessential (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Yahoo forums are cited in the Polygon article. They would not be valid otherwise. Polygon is a reliable source. WP:RSPSS We are in agreement that the Indonesian Wikipedia posts are superfluous. Rockman1159 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we also do something regarding the zaion/sayu part. It’s like saying that a wrestler under a mask is not that wresteler. Now it is quoted as them being separate people in the polygon article but that is because the author is a vtuber himself and follows the “kayfabe” of vtubing. Businessential (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section referencing the posts made by Indonesian Wikipedia. I also edited the section about Zaion. I'm unsure whether or not the changes to the Zaion section should remain as there are no sources to cite on them being the same person and even Sayu herself did not claim to be Zaion. Only claiming that she was highly familiar with Zaion's situation. We both know that they're the same, but the legal fiction must remain. Rockman1159 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 (2)

In the Controversy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph has a citation needed request. The sentence is: "The last statements posted on her page on Twitter stated that she had been hospitalized at the end of December 2023." The Twitter post in question is currently unavailable due to the company locking her twitter account. However the Twitter post was archived at the following link: https://archive.ph/ZXmCv Gotyourcitationbro (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rockman1159 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A seperate page for a comprehensive list of controversies.

I have a genius idea, make an entirely seperate page for the controversies, as they would take up a lot of space on this page. Note: keep the Selen stuff on this page, as it made them lose a lot of money and reputation making it is very relevant, but include the redirect at the top of the controversies sections. 2600:1700:41C0:1E20:E47D:6386:500C:DFA3 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segregating negative points of view into a single article or section is a poor idea; please see WP:NPOVFACT and the rest of the neutral point of view policy. A separate issue is finding reliable sources to back up the article content that aren't just gossip rags or twitter posts. Inclusion on Wikipedia generally requires reliable sources, doubly so for biographies of living people. If you can find sources for the information you want included, you are welcome to post them here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. The company article should not fully omit and segregate all controversies or negative events surrounding a company, as that would be a biased presentation to have no mention in the article. However, most controversies are not so significant or important that pages and pages of detailed coverage in the main article will be appropriate. Very possibly some of the recent controversies are Notable subjects within themself and merit their own additional article with the detailed coverage, And the article about the company only discuss the controversy briefly - within the appropriate weight regarding the company as a whole, then hyperlink to the article about the Notable event or controversy for the more detailed coverage. --Mysidia (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nijisanji&oldid=1207220610"