Talk:4Kids Entertainment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Kids WB is not a production company---it's just a kids programming block. Ryanasaurus007 21:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Former Properties

Just because a show isn't part of the 4kids lineup, doesn't mean they don't own the licence still. The former properties section should be revised..

4kids One Piece butchering is quite well known around the internet, so I suppose the dispute is nonwithstanding.

Removal of the Neutrality Dispute

I see no discussion as to why this section is in dispute. However, I will add info that should balance the section abit more.

Restoration of the Neutrality Dispute

Wiki policy advocates impartiality, of which this section of the article, however factual, is extremely biased. There must be much more information explaining 4Kids actions and motivations before this can be declared a neutral article.

How can it be partial when 4kids has admitted to heavy editing anime, and admits that some fans do not like this? Of course, if anyone wants to add a counter argument about how art should be defaced so more money can be made off it should be welcome to do so.

Anime News Network linkage to his interview has proven that Al Kahn really doesn't care about keeping the originality of Anime series and is completely aware of the heavy backlash to his companies policies. Neutrality Banner removed. --Cantthinkofausername 09:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have placed the banner back because without any decent criticism this article is biased in favor of 4Kids. Removing notable documented FACTS, in the name of neutrality is the exact oppisite of neutrality. I am not suggesting placing back the massive section of criticisms but the "Kids don't read" comment earned Khan the ire of many and belongs back in there. The links to well written essays explaining why the anime fandom loathes 4Kids belong back. Examples of the sort of things they edit and the reasoning behind those changes are needed. The current state of the article in no way shows the venom the mere mention of their name carries in some circles. The Truth is 4Kids has won awards for their licensing by like minded corporate types, but they have also been cursed and criticized and loathed, and that is just as notable. Finite 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

4kids article cleanup - January 2006

After the article merger several section got rearanged and cluttered up a bit. (Ke5crz 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Did a basic cleanup. Will do more in the future. --Cantthinkofausername 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to think about doing a bit more "cleaning up" to your own work. I can see several spelling / grammar errors, as well as one factual inaccuracy (It's "MARINE," not "MARINES," and only the emblem was changed; it's always been a Navy). --Julian Grybowski 06:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I thought this was Wikipedia, a place where people can edit articles, not Online Peer Review School where you can go ZOMG, YOUR GRAMMAR HORRIBLE, YOU SUCKORZ!! Why don't you clean up instead of posting such nonsense? You do have that ability y'know. --Cantthinkofausername 08:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something not too long ago, and they were talking to a guy who works on the shows at 4Kids. And ... this isn't a direct quote, but it get's across. "Since we've changed the voices, we might as well change it all." <- that was the gist of his answer to the question "why do you change the music that's already there.". Also Mr. Kahn's statement of. "One we get done with it, kids have no idea it even came from Japan." and also his "Children don't read." <- his views on manga, and why he believes they wont succeed. I personally don't have anything *against* the company, but some of the things they do is infurriating. If they released more unedited Dvd's of the anime shows they do have, I wouldn't care what they did to the show for televison. But becasue they don't, that is just terrible of them. I honestly don't know how an artical can be written about what they do to the Anime cartoons that they have, and not have it sound bad for them. They willingly talk about it, and in some cases boast about it. And not including an artical about 4Kids and Anime is removing so much. Maybe there's a way of wording things nicely? 64.231.8.232 11:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Elisa Ardell (lledra)

Racial edits need references.

Some of the "racial edits" noted in the article need further verification. Many seem to be purely opinion rather than fact.--Cantthinkofausername 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon

Please do not revert the fact that Pokemon is not going to be produced by 4 Kids, it is. --Pikachu9000 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=8081 Until you can find me a link that counters that news, Pokemon is moved from current to past productions. -137.186.165.143 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And so, Pokemon ended up being produced by the new company. Controversy cleared. -User:Yashouzoid

On the Digibase sites

Just letting you know that the Digibase.ca server is not really stable, so forgive the occasional blackouts on rattleman.digibase.ca and others. :P

--N3X15 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kids don't read?

Do we really need a section devoted towards Kahn's remark? It was reported all over internet forums for a week after the fair, but other then that I don't see how it is notable. --155.246.126.73 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be left as-is, as it is a source of major controversy that people should know about. --Gaming King 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But how is it a major controversy? Like I said, I saw it discussed all over internet forums for a week and that was it.--155.246.126.73 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is history and should be recorded as such. What if people/young kids that are new to the internet never get to hear it? I say it should be restored along with the rest of the criticism against Al Khan and 4Kids Entertainment. The page right now isn't neutral. Neutral means you include both sides, not getting rid of entirely one side just because it is "bad press" or there is too much of it. It is not the Anti-4Kids fanatics' fault that Al Khan has done so many terrible things and is so open about it. That is the problem with America today, using censorship powers claiming it is for the good of the "family oriented people" when in reality it is taking away our freedoms, one by one until it rivals a capitalismistic dictatorship. --64.107.38.167 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You, dude above me, you rule! Please get a Wikipedia account; people like you are always welcome. Also, someone please do as he said and restore the criticism, or tell me how to revert stuff. (I'm a bit new.) :P --Gaming King 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, neutral means not favoring any position, which is different from including all positions. tregoweth 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See that's what I mean. A lot of people don't see 4Kids marketing decisions as "so many terrible things" done to anime. It isn't anti-4kids fanatics' fault that Al Kahn has done these things, but it is their fault that it is getting recorded as "taking away our freedoms". Anyway, I'm just saying that Kahn's remark isn't historical in my opinion, and not very notable.--155.246.126.73 05:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting it back in, because it does illustrate this point:

• Kahns comments didn't incite anime fans alone, it also incited Librarians and memebers of the Publishing community. Far from otaku gripes about xenophobia and it did affect a group not normally associated with Kahn bashing.

Also, if a news article from Publishers Weekly (concerning PUBLISHING, not ANIME or MANGA) isn't authoritive enough, then please explain your reasoning as to why it should be deleted.--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright if Publisher's weekly reported it then, yes, it would be notable and verifiable. It still needed to be cleaned up.--155.246.126.73 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism & Controversy

Putting the criticism & controversy back in. These are not "fanboy opinions", 4Kids is arguably known mainly for the changes it makes to anime when they dub it. That's why the neutrality dispute banner was removed in the first place and this is a major and valid point that should stay in the article. There are plenty of criticism sections in other articles, this one should stay. mad_cat_42 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the criticism has become noteworthy (i.e., gone beyond message boards), or has affected the company in some major way, it shouldn't be included. tregoweth 15:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticism has defiantely gone beyond message boards and the company's profit went down 60% last year. It's noteworthy. mad_cat_42 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the criticism and the profit drop connected? tregoweth 05:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See, I can't prove that. At the same time, you can't prove that they're not connected. mad_cat_42 19:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can't prove it, then adding it is just speculation. Also, it's impossible to prove a negative. tregoweth 23:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, every single type of criticism and/or controversy section for every Wikipedia page should be deleted. Is it true that 4Kids has heavily edited anime? Yes. Is it true that Haigney said things like "I’ve never played the game, seen the series or read the comics."? Yes, it's cited. Is it true that Kahn said "U.S. kids don't read!"? Yes, it's cited. This stuff, what 4Kids is doing and the criticism that followed, is very important to the company. 4Kids is "an American company specializing in the acquisition, production and licensing of children's entertainment around the world." It's what they do. When criticism arises because of what they do, it's noteworthy because it's directed against the sole thing that they do.

Incidentally, it is possible to prove a negative. mad_cat_42 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not all critisism is noteworthy. In this case, the critisism brought against the company would be noteworthy if it affected the company somehow. You are citing this year's drop in net revenues as proof that it has, but we need to see something that shows that it was caused by what anime forumers are saying. As in, proof that it is proof.--155.246.126.73 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Read what I posted on 1 May instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction. mad_cat_42 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, that's what I was responding to. You need to show that 4kid's loss in net revenues was caused by poor dubbing or editing of theri anime properties. Kahn himself attributes the loss due to the "expected decline in revenues from the Yu-Gi-Oh property and the cost of paying off debts to the Fox network that were not completely offset by the revenues from their Winx club and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turltes properties", and they expect better results next quater because they are now debt-free and plan to control expedentures, along with the expected revenue increase from the TMNT movie and their Microsoft deal.--155.246.166.77 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of whether or not it affected the company, I do think the critisim section needs to be shortened a bit. The pages for the individual shows go into enough detail as to how they were edited, so we don't need to go into detail here.--155.246.126.73 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to shorten the Controversy section; we need to add more other stuff. Any suggestions? --Gaming King 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about adding to the Critisism or just adding to the page as a whole?--155.246.126.73 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The page as a whole. --Gaming King 00:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this has been brought up cosntantly, and reverts have been done, banner removed per past history.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The main reason reason Al Khan and his little company are well known is their constant mishandling of japanese properties. Why the hell has every single criticism, cited or no, about this company been removed? Factual well-cited information about this company's reputation is ABSOLUTELY neccasary for this article and the Truth should NOT BE CENSORED in the name of neutrality! Finite 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think the critisism section needed to be trimmed down, not deleted entirely. Revert it so we can go over what sections should stay.--71.255.31.49 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, I don't think a section on the interview with a script writer are needed.--71.255.31.49 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it is specific to Sonic X, I think it could be trimmed down and then moved over to that article. Does anyone agree on that? Finite 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the interview is nessecary that the image Kahn upholds for his company is crucial, and noteworthy for an honest critique. What someone, whom represents a business, does in public(Such citing "Dont read.") reflects on 4Kids as a whole. Hence, the critism shall remain important. Blatantly remarking their renewel to products they dubb stating "It should be more American," will in turn excite people and negative attention.Red13utterfly 5:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if people didn't cut chunks on information in the name of NPOV. If it's noteworthy but POV, keep it and add the tag so people can be warned, instead of cutting stuff so some information is lost.

"Can't" or "don't"?

Someone edited it to "can't read". Which is it? --Gaming King 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kahn said "Kids, they don't read". Or something to that effect. It was definately "don't"--155.246.126.73 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted in Publishers Weekly reference mark. "Don't" not "can't".--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[citation needed] marks/cleanup

I would like to see noted references to anything marked with [citation needed] tags. I do know that one of them can be found on ANN, plus the entire paragraph citing misconceptions betwen 4Kids and other companies is subjective, given that no references are made to Dragon Ball or Dragonball Z, and thier distributor FUNimation. Also, please clean up the section more. Otherwise, I will come in later and clean it up myself.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Article to remove one-sided criticisms

I reverted the article back a ways to remove one-sided criticisms(Ke5crz 20:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Criticisms Needs to be Included

Most of the information that Ke5crz keeps removing should be included somewhere. Perhaps under a new article. Maybe the language needs to be cleaned up and perhaps more opposing viewpoints should be added, but it should be included somewhere. I am not going to add it myself since I don't want to start a editing war. 07:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverting it back with the editing tags included so we can at least pare it down and format it to be encyclopedic. I also warned him that if he eliminates that entire section again, it maybe considered Vandalism. Plus, i'm also reporting him because it seems that he has also made massive edit to two other articles. And finally, i'm gonna petition the Anime guys to include this in their realm as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sort of off-topic, but where on earth did they come up with the name for their company? Anyone who's ever -been- a kid knows that the most un-cool and lame thing a tv show can be is 'for kids'

Well, censoring and dumbing down the shows is also extremely un-cool and lame, and they do it all the time. Why? Because, you see, they ARE un-cool and lame! :P - Stormwatch 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one is saying that the critisism should be removed, they shouldn't. I just think that it needs to be trimmed down, it gets redundant and the entire scriptwriter interview section isn't really notable.--69.141.190.230 08:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please re-note above text, otherwise the next massive edit you make could be considered to be Vandalism, as you have not consulted the rest of us if the text is acceptable or not. However, if you wish to pare down the section even more to a reasonable edit, then such actions won't be considered to be Vandalism. Thank you.--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I stated a decent reson to remove the section on the talk page two days before making the edit, so I am somewhat miffed that you would call it vandalism without trying to talk about it first. Anyway, I don't think the scriptwriter interview section is necessary because, well, he doesn't say anything new or notable. For example, he is quoted about having never played the sonic games or read the comics. If anyone considers that suprising or shameful, then they don't really know much about the people working in the animation or dubbing industry. I garuntee you that at least 80% of the japanese animators also never played the games or read the comics. He is also quoted on having to abide by FCC standards, a fact which I do think is important to include on some of the pages about the individual properties because most fans don't realize this and instead put the blame on 4kids.--69.141.190.230 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that you edited out a significant portion of info from the text without there being a consensus. To some Wikipedians, that could be construed as Vandalism, because your deleting a huge tract of info without some sort of consensus reached by those concerned. Your more than welcome to edit it down, however, unless you can provide a reason that is agreeable by those concerned, anymore drastic actions like that could be construed as vandalism. 2 days and then edit is not an acceptable time limit. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how much time should I give the talk page to give reasons to keep the section?--69.141.190.230 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm for paring it down, because it provides needed insight on how 4Kids edits Anime. But not outright deletion. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the interview do you think provides the insight?--69.141.190.230 05:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, how many days should I expect to wait before getting someone's approval to trim the page?--69.141.190.230 05:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its been two weeks now. I'm going to remove the writer interview section a week from now, and if there are no disagrements until that time then I will assume that I have 100% consensus from the concerned. Don't want to make it look like vandalism.--69.141.190.230 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And with that, the section is removed.--69.141.190.230 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And i'm putting it back in, due to the fact that it's a verfiable source. Also, you failed to noticed that the section was massively reedited from blocks of quotes to prose. Also, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability because the excised section you edited has a valid link to the source of the section. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is a verifiable source doesn't mean that is belongs in a encyclopedia. The interview simply doesn't provide any notable information. Also, I'm not sure why you mentioned that I edited out a link to the interview, there is a link to the interview still in the external links section of the page.--69.141.190.230 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. See, when you cite references, you use <ref>example reference</ref> near the portion of the text you want to cite. This ensures that what's written is verifiable. Plus this section is noteable (which I cleaned up and you are failing to notice) is that anime fans who are vocal of 4Kids have often complained about the editing practices of 4Kids, and the interview provides a rare look into the editing process of 4Kids. In particular, it focuses on the Sonic Franchise, which has it's fair share of vocal fans. It's noteable, and thus shouldn't be edited out. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If some section is redundant to the preceeding (or the following), it would be best to remove redundancies. The idea that the Michael Haigney interview incited (more) negative fan reaction needs to be sourced itself; it's not sufficient to just say "anime fans were aghast over his comments and 4Kids' editing policies," as this interview seems to only bolster pre-existing notions. I've had some frustration with at least one series coming to the U.S.: Slam Dunk, which has a different distributor (I even saw a Chinese-dubbed [or subtitled, I can't remember] VCD of the series--I have no idea what they're talking about but I saw major differences between the Region 1 and Chinese versions.), so I can sense the pain.

It would be best for 69.141.190.230 to show, point by point (perhaps again), what is redundant with the Haigney interview and other sections of the article, and also the non-notable points of the interview. And hopefully, an inline reference can still exist in the article, if that's what you're aiming for. Tinlinkin 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll argue on these points:

• The interview has some relevance to the Controversy section and 4Kids as a whole. Namely, it provides a look into how 4Kids edits "properties", which many anime fans have a beef with 4Kids about.
• The fact that it's someone that has a hand in said edits (and not Kahns mouthpiece) is a noteable point.
• Most of 4Kids noteability has been the vocal opposition of Anime fans and the edits they did with Anime properties.

I'm all for cleanup and edits to make it better, but not outright deletion. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the interview is redundant and non-notable, because the article already goes into extensive detail of how 4kids edits its properties. It also lists the fact that Haigney never played the games or read the sonic comics as "suprising", when it isn't suprising at all. There are very few adults who have read the Sonic comics. Translating Sonic X isn't exactly something that requires research. If anything, it makes anime fans look irate, and with unrealistic demands.--69.141.190.230 05:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of it isn't verifiable and would be hearsay except that the interview provides verifiablity. Plus now that you mentioned it, the main section needs a massive cleanup. But again, the article is a noteable section because it intrviews someone related to 4Kids and it provides an insight into 4Kids.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What parts of the article wouldn't be verified without having the interview in the article? Their edits can be seen on television.--69.141.190.230 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pretty weak arguement. "It's shown on TV" isn't the smoking gun finale. You also need supporting evidence to help bolster the claim as well. Why did they make the edits? How did they do it? What is the process? What external factors (if any) caused the edits? For example, notice the article Final Fantasy X-2, which combines references from the game and other media to help give the article credibility.

Let's use your arguement for example concerning FFX-2 if we strictly used the video game itself as the sole source of reference in one instance: In the game, there are two instances where the video game designers target the male demographic. During the Hot Springs Episode, Rikku makes advances to the other girls, hinting that she maybe a bi-sexual. In addition, one of the side games where Yuna has to massage Leblanc hints at possible Lesbianism.

And if you add a combination of references and not solely rely on the game as reference: Moreover, some reviewers felt that the outfits worn by the main characters are too revealing and aimed at making the game more appealing to Final Fantasy's largely male audience.[34][43]

I suggest you find a better arguement to fall back upon, or just quit this charade and move on. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

These edits were on national televion. I saw them, thousands of others recognized the edits as they saw them on television, and I don't see how that isn't a smoking gun finale. The article makes it very clear that 4Kids edits their anime properties, and it covers nearly every example of them doing so. It is the accumulation and summary of comparisions that fans have made, and the words of employees of 4kids. These sources should be linked, but putting this particular writer interview doesn't do anything but repeat what is already explained. So, what parts of the article wouldn't be verified without having the interview right in the article?--69.141.190.230 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And how would you verify those edits, hmmm? Think about it this way: say a person who has no knowledge of 4Kids edits comes onto Wikipedia, accesses this article, and finds out about the edits. Now they have a question on what the edits are, or how they did them. But they only have the American version to look at, and no access to the Japanese version. How would the article address that if that info wasn't there? Your arguement is along the lines of Original Research, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Your continued insistance to excise such info is smacking the Wikipedia: Verifiability and your arguement is getting extremely tired. Find another arguement to use or end this debate now. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are external links, at the bottom of the page, that point out in excruciating detail the edits done to every one of their shows. That is the proof, and all of these pages were written by people who watched both versions, and provide screencaps of the original japanese series as proof. Because the wiki article here can't list every single instance of an edit, the page provides just a general summary that encompasses all of 4Kids' practices. The writer interview isn't the basis of the page, it is just an official verification of what is already apparent, and so there is no reason to have a section on it that comes off as redundant and condescending. So, we should have it as an external link or a citation.--69.141.190.230 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Either make a coherent arguement, or i'm dismissing it altogether and ignoring it. I couldn't understand your last comment.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the interview itself just doesn't need to be part of the article to act as a verification, as you said. My last comment stated that the interview should just be an external link or a cition for the critisism section.--69.141.190.230 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So for that reason, I will remove the section in a few days. --69.141.190.230 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting it back due to lack of a reasonable arguement as to why it should be edited. Simply making a link to it is not encyclopedic. Stop it with these edits, they are unconstructive. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sources that are linked in this encyclopedia don't have their own sections in articles. If you can tell me how this interview is notable enough to warrant its own section in an article about 4Kids Entertainment, then I would like to keep it. As I (again) see, the section doesn't provide any new or important information that isn't already in the article.--69.141.190.230 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in response to your nomination for Anime collaboration of the week, I personally don't think this page is in as poor of a condition as you stated. The article does a good job of conveying the key information about the company, and is currently the only article on the entire internet that talks about 4Kids editing practices in a neutral manner. I'm satisfied with most of it, and have mangaged to get rid of much of the fancruft, while at the same time keeping in the information about 4Kids' handling of anime properties. Granted, there are some parts that make anime fans look bad, but they can be fixed.--69.141.190.230 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at virtually most of the Anime articles here on Wikipedia. Many have very poor to non-existant references. Cowboy Bebop has one lone reference mark. And it has a lot of info that is unverifiable. 4Kids makes Cowboy Bebop look more like a poorly written fansite than a proper article. Your arguement still doesn't hold water. How is making a link to an article that provides a look into 4Kids editing practices any different than just simply linking to it? 4Kids edits anime: How do they do it? Why do they edit it? Anticipate such questions. The section either stays or properly intergrate it into the section itself. And I mean properly intergrate it into the section itself --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying with "How is making a link to an article that provides a look into 4Kids editing practices any different than just simply linking to it?". How is making a link to an article different from lining to it? Anyway, the writer's interview does not need to have its own section in the wikipedia article to act as a reference. It can still act as a reference by being linked to in the external links section along with all the other websites that provide details on the company practices from first and third-hand sources.--69.141.190.230 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal as I see it:

"We don't need the info, a simple External link nod is sufficent, end of discussion!!"

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, it's a repository of information. Either the section stays, or properly intergrate it into the section itself. Your last attempt was unconstructive at best, where you deleted all but one paragraph and called it a day.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the interview isn't providing any new information, just repeating it.--69.141.190.230 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So it is for that reason I will be removing the section in a few days.--69.141.190.230 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And just to let you know, i'll revert it back in. Your reasoning is unacceptable.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So far the only reasoning that you have put foreward for including the section is that it acts as a citation for the summaries and information provided in Criticisms section. Of course, the interview can act as a citation just the same by being linked. Why else you insist that it has to remain on this page, I don't know.

Why is the fact that the interview is devoid of any signifigant or new information not a good enough reason to remove it? There is an infinite amount of information that has been excluded from wikipedia for the same reason.--69.141.190.230 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And why do you constantly insist on just deleting it and never suggest how to incorporate such info into the section itself reasonably? Your main reasoning is "just to delete it all" and provide a link, which is unacceptable. Your merely deleting chunks of info, not suggesting how to "intergrate" such info. And your last edit deleted all but one paragraph, which was poorly intergrated into the section itself. By that action, I question your ability to even come up with a valid reasoning as to why the section should be deleted. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the section should be deleted because it is redundant and doesn't provide any new or signifigant information to the article. I am willing to repeat this any number of times until you can recognize it as a valid reason, or until you can explain why it is not. How and why 4kids edits anime is already described in detail in this article, and the interview repeats that same information. The job of integrating the information provided by the interview is already done.--69.141.190.230 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And i'm telling you one last time and thats it. It provides a second viewpoint on the editing controversy. It goes into further detail about why the edits are made. It's verifiable information outside of newsources like Anime News Network and general fandom.

The only way i'll agree to your arguement is if you properly take the interview section and merge it with the existing controversy section. As it stands with your editing history, you've either deleted entirely the section, or did a very bad job of trying to merge said info. Your edit history of articles is sparse compared to your talk, which comprises mostly of this page. If you had a few more notches on your belt with editing articles, I'd at least meet you halfway, but as it stands, I think your chewing off more than you can take. To me, it just looks like your either reckless with editing, or your not "experenced" enough to handle such edits. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My editing history has nothing to do with the validity of whether or not this section should be deleted or integrated. Personal attacks aside, if you think that there is some information in the interview that is notable and isn't already stated elsewhere in the article, please bring them up so we can determine what can be integrated.--69.141.190.230 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I find offense in your implication that I personally attacked you. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, next time don't reject edits on the basis that the editor is "reckless" or "not experienced enough" to do so. Rather, reject them on their individual merit. Also, in your last post you seem to have forgotten to bring up the information from the interview that you consider to be notable enought to be merged into the article.--69.141.190.230 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I demand an apology for your last comments insinuating that I personally atatcked you. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I demand a car made of diamonds with a top speed of 400 mph --69.141.190.230 09:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this as an outsider, I see way way way too many external links. And it's definitely tilted heavily towards the people critical of 4Kids. Please trim the # of external links. 3-4 is ideal. Not 10+. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but could you have at least tagged it rather than just willy-nilly went chopping? I agree wholeheartedly that it should be edited, but I think you jumped the gun a wee-bit too fast there. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the link to the poorly-made deviantart flash movie because it is devoid of any merit in an encyclopdia. There are a few other inane links, but this should be the first to go.--69.141.190.230 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Reverting it back. It maybe a poor flash animation, but it's a well-travelled one among anime fans. Plus it helps break the links to text articles. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The flash cartoon is nothing but a cartoon that got passed around anime forums a year ago. Its can barely be called satire. It presents nothing that belongs in an encyclopedia.--69.141.190.230 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I like most of the edits and integration that you have done. I still don't think the statement about the script writer not reading the comics is notable, but that can be handled later. First, why do you keep putting in the link to the deviantart flash? You removed the websites detailing the anime edits, which contained actual factual information, and has far more merit in an encyclopedia then a flash cartoon.--130.156.198.35 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Looking at this as an outsider, I see way way way too many external links. And it's definitely tilted heavily towards the people critical of 4Kids. Please trim the # of external links. 3-4 is ideal. Not 10+. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I read his comment and I somewhat agree with him. Many of the critisism links are long, somewhat inane and poorly structured essays, but some of them do manage to hold a mature perspective of 4Kids. I haven't seen anything else on the internet that can better represent the anime fan community's critisisms. I think one or two should be removed. The links to the edits, however, aren't critisisms, they are pages that list exactly how 4Kids adapts its properties for the North American audience. They contain signifigant information and should be linked to.--69.141.190.230 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So now you want to preserve a list of links, yet wanted to outright delete a section that would've been more appropiate thru intergration that had proper verification. I don't get you.

Those comparison sites are nothing more than fansites, and lack verifiability. Also, Wikipedia isn't a repository of links, and needs neutrality. Something which the page lacks. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the links contained relevant information along with the interview. The information presented by these sites have all been included in the article, so giving them their own sections would be (again) repeating the same information. Granted, the sites were written by fans, but how are they not verifiable? They include detailed comparisions of the japanese and english episodes, and even include screenshots. They act as verification of 4Kids editing methods. Also, what verifiability does the flash cartoon have thath these websites do not?--69.141.190.230 05:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats why the section is called Select Critisim, and the flash cartoon is a unique critique of 4Kids. And as for the other sites, since their are fan sites, if their included, so does the flash cartoon. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, what verifiability does the flash cartoon have that the removed websites do not possess? What relevant information does it provide?--69.141.190.230 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is due to the reasons that I have explained above that I will remove the flash cartoon and re-insert the edits links in a few days. If there are any objections to this, please let me know--69.141.190.230 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fair warning BTW. I'm abandoning this article due to this one users edit. Taking my attention eslewhere. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with Mushroom in the fact that three of those websites are mostly long-winded editorials, but they best express the critisisms coming from the anime fandom, inane as they may be. I'll remove the flash movie and re-insert the pages listing the edits and see what happens.--69.141.190.230 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Necessary links

This article needs links to sites that lists and compares the butchering *cough* I mean changes that they do on the cartoons. - Stormwatch 05:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas J. Kenney is the VP of 4kids, NOT the comedian Tom Kenny!

The Tom Kenny that we all love, who plays Spongebob, is NOT the VP of 4kids, it's a entirely different man named Tom Kenney! I even created a page of him and put him as the real VP of 4kids! - Hero of legend 8:53AM, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If Tom Kenny WAS the VP of 4Kids, i'd have burned all my Spongebob stuff, and my bro's by now.Centurion Ry 11:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)