|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
So. I'm considering adding a bit to this article about the Accelerated Evolution forum. Why does this matter? Well, partially because AE is a splinter forum which was taken up by many heavy users of Animenation. Also, directly after AE was created, major changes were undertaken in the way that AN works.
Also, the AE article was deleted and we are bitter about this. Atinoda 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a verifiable claim to this degree, but if you have one, please show it at the AE Forum's AfD page. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- You know what? I think my fellow AE members forgot they weren't on AE anymore and got a little immature. As such, I'm not going to spend the time to write up anything about it here. But I don't think it would be a terrible idea.Atinoda 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Reverting the article every time something unfavorable but documented and factual (i.e. John Oppliger's controversial support of Lolicon) is mentioned does not support the NPOV mission of Wikipedia. Propagandistic editing of articles turns them into insipid, information-free advertisements for this company and its website. What use is that to a community like this? Catsonmars 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- That info wasn't removed. It is verifiable because it is on his Q&A page. May you be referring to the image I removed, which had no source information nor copyright status? — TheKMantalk 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the Accelerated Evolution forum's site is? Thx.
I believe that this article does not conform to Neutrality guidelines.
This article does not conform to neutrality guidelines as it only attempts to be purely positive propaganda for AnimeNation. Editors routinely edit out negative information and thus, does not conform to the neutral point of view that Wikipedia attempts to maintain.
Similar things can be said about otaku.
- Opplinger's biography is especially gushing ("encyclopedic knowledge", "thorough and objective"). --Rev Prez (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no real vested interest in anime and the such, but I am willing to help mediate this. What are your specific concerns about this article? — TheKMantalk 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've just been through the edit history and can't see how you got to the conclusion that "editors routinely edit out negative information". I can only find two edits that can even loosely be described that way:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AnimeNation&diff=26406858&oldid=26406612 removed the assertion that "The site is also notorious for banning people for simple, easily resolveable issues, such as posting of gifs, and very minor flame wars", added by an anonymous user.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AnimeNation&diff=24285151&oldid=24266916 reverted an anonymous edit that changed "(John Oppliger)'s column has earned him a loyal base of fans worldwide" to "his vocal support of lolicon and column have earned him..."
- The first of these pieces of 'deleted information' is false - although the site's forum is probably more strictly modorated than many other internet forums, this mostly takes the form of deleting links to fansubs and other illegal content, and the forum is certainally not 'notorious' for its strictness. And while the latter statement is true in that Oppliger does support lolicon, it's not a major part of his column and has little to do with his popularity.
- Ironfrost 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The previous comment was made more than one week ago. As I don't see any 'positive propaganda' in the article, and the editor who added the tag did not reply to say what he thought was non-neutral, I'm removing the NPOV tag.
- Ironfrost 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
10/4/2006- I think this entry may have had a fame-seeking vandalize it, in regards to the sudden addition of the "Zhong" subsection. A examination of the user's profile indictates he joined the AN forum on October 1st, not "late September" as claimed by the entry, and having only made two posts, which have little to do with John Oppliger, they have generated no controversy at all.
To the commentator above, for pointing out that the date of his sign-up was one day off, you should probably get his name correct (Zyohn as opposed to Zhong). In my opinion, it will be a controversial issue in the near future, if even a minute one. You are indeed only being hurtful to Wikipedia by deleting information straight-off, without contesting it, because it is not propaganda, nor was it not backed up with a reliable source.
In addition, I do believe that the entry of AnimeNation as a whole is biased. How about certain posters (like Zyohn, or Pickles) and the dissatisfaction with Mods and S-Mods, as well as the deletion of the Polls Battles and Games threads? Seeing as AnimeNation is a business, it is very likely that this article is their brainchild, in any case.
re: re: zyohn
As the person who typed the above post, I apologize for the 'double-post,' but I realize my IP address (being that of my school district) has been repeatedly banned for vandalization. I have created an account to avoid this confusion in the future. By doing this, I hope you will not consider my contribution's regarding Zyohn and continuing support of keeping it up further vandalization.
Contradiction in the article
The following paragraph from the article doesn't make sense:
"In 2003, AnimeNation announced its intention to license and distribute anime directly under the name of AN Entertainment. The first title the company licensed was Risky Safety (now expired), which was followed in 2004 by Miami Guns. Their third release was Haré+Guu, which was released as a joint venture with Bang Zoom! Entertainment in February 2006.
ADV Films was the distributor of Risky Safety and Miami Guns (though its logo only appeared in trade ads). With Haré+Guu, distribution was switched to FUNimation Entertainment."
If AnimeNation licensed and distributed Risky Safety, Moamy Guns and Haré+Guu, how come these series were also distributed by ADV Films and FUNimation? Please clarify this confusing contradiction. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)