Talk:She-Ra and the Princesses of Power/Archive 1

Wrong statement in synopsis of episode 23

It is stated that Mara stranded Etheria in Despondos in order to hide the planet from the Horde and protect it from that dangerous army. But this is not at all what Mara says in the episode. What she says is that she sent Etheria into Despondos in order to hide the planet from the rest of the Universe in order to keep everyone safe and that Etheria must remain in Despondos for the good of the Universe, not in order to protect Etheria from the full might if the Horde. In fact, she makes no mention whatsoever about anything to do with Horde (and so far we have no idea whether the Horde was even around in Mara's time, one thousand years in the past). Actually, what is strongly implied in what Mara said, and in her mention that Light Hope used some sort of weapon, is that it is Etheria itself (or rather, what the First Ones turned Etheria into, after they meddled with the planet's magic and intertwined it with their technology, apparently weaponizing it in the end) that constitutes a terrible danger to the rest of the Universe and must thus be safely kept hidden away where it cannot be found. 62.57.98.51 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. AJD (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited claim or just the editor's opinion?

"But what seems to be forgotten in the outrage, is the simple fact that the entire franchise of Masters of the Universe, has always been a media franchise by Mattel, aimed at children." [no citation]

I didn't click the article to read what you think has been forgotten in the outrage, fellow editor. I only want to know what sources elsewhere on the internet are saying about it. Valjeanlafitte (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was my opinion and the fact. But yes I am sorry about my poor wording.

LuMb3R (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content removals by LuMb3R

@LuMb3R:: At [1], [2] and [3] you have removed, without explanation, sourced material that appears relevant to the article. This material includes the source's description of those who complained as men, comments by the original character's creator, and a description of the complaints as concerning insufficient sexiness. I'm asking you to please explain why you consider these edits an improvement. Sandstein 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: [4] Why I changed "men" to "people" is because, it has not been gender based. Might have been someplaces twitter but not over all of social media. So it was an ill representation. Not for a gender but for the overall debate. Hence why I changed the word. The changing of the wording from "understandably" to "tried to" you might not agree with and in hindsight, was not needed. And the whole "But what seems to be....." was me being stupid and editing, trying to be the sense of logic, and it has no place on an wikipedia site.

[5] In this edit it was as mentioned above. Not the main focus of the debate. So I pasted in what someone else had written in yesterday. The "understandably" I have clarified above. The last part I "removed" was a far too long quote, that if you wanted to read, another editor had left a link to an article. Why there wasn't provided a link to the original tweet instead [6]. But I didn't change that part

[7] The last edit/part. Was probably my fault, because I didn't provide reason to the earlier edits. If I had provided it, someone wouldn't have changed it back. So that falls on my shoulders.

But I stand by my edits of the "people" and the "controversy/debate" has never been gender based. Yes there are always vocal minorities in all the corners of the internet. But that should not be highlighted on a professional site, that provide facts, citations and references. I thought Wikipedia was about those 3 cornerstones.

I am sorry if it has seemed like intentional disruptive editing, but it was not. Far from it. LuMb3R (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuMb3R: Thanks for your response. Yes, here on Wikipedia, we write articles based on references to reliable sources, and not based on our own impression of the circumstances. This is described in our policy WP:V and WP:NOR. That's why I am surprised that you changed "men" to "people": The source we cite, Vox, explains in the title that the complaints were made by men: "The fight over She-Ra’s Netflix redesign, explained: Some men are mad she isn’t sexier." If you disagree with this, you would now have to provide other reliable, published sources indicating that persons who are not men complained also. Do you have such sources? Sandstein 22:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not responded, I have changed "Some people complained that she was much more masculine than the original series, with broad shoulders" back to the original "Some men complained that she wasn't as sexy as in the original series". The source cited in the footnote clearly says "men" in the title, and dies not contain the words "masculine" or "shoulders". Sandstein 13:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "men" in the title of the source, but the rest of the text does not back this up, does it? Tigerboy1966 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article is providing a very specific point of view on the matter. The headline says "Some men are mad she isn’t sexier" but the tweets the article actually quotes does not entirely support this interpretation by the author of the Vox article. I'm not saying this isn't an unreasonable interpretation but the Vox article seems to have jumped from Twitter comments moaning that the new She-Ra looks like a boy, to then saying men were complaining she wasn't sexy. Some of the quotes are clearly sarcastic responses to the original moaners. Towards the end of the article there is an unattributed quote “She-Ra should be sexy” which doesn't seem like an actual quote but the author of the article making an attempt to condense the discussion and putting words into the mouths of the original moaners. Yes they are idiots to moan about She-Ra on Twitter but the article is subjective and clickbait.

The text "according to Vox" should be restored, it was recently removed just now but as the Vox article is so subjective and interprets the tweets to mean "sexy" it is necessary to keep that qualifying statement at the very least. -- 109.77.234.79 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The NYT now also writes that "a vocal group of online fanboys complained that she was not sexy enough". The exact same assessment is also reflected in other sources ("The new She-Ra cartoon isn't sexy enough for some men"; Daily Dot; "some men were upset that the new She-Ra wasn't sexy enough", Hornet). This is more than sufficient sourcing to make this point directly in Wikipedia's voice rather than to qualify it as just one publication's view. We write what reliable secondary sources write, not what our own interpretation of their primary sources is (see WP:NOR). Sandstein 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole controversy is yet another ridiculous Twitter storm. It is only notable that JMS dignified it with a response. When animated shows are rebooted there are invariably a few complaints about the change in animation style, Turtles, Thundercats, Flash Gordon, and many more. People also tend to complain when shows change to use younger or childish versions of existing characters. (With the possible exception of My Little Pony, almost everyone seemed to like that reboot.)

Yes there are articles subjectively interpreting the complaints but without actually showing any actual complaints that say She-Ra isn't sexy enough. An encyclopedia should be more objective and not perpetuate the straw man outrage generating clickbait articles on this subject. The Vox article includes the sentence "The show has now become part of a familiar internet outrage cycle" knowing full well they are also perpetuating the outrage cycle. The Vox article interpreted the complaints and rephrased it as "not sexy", then the Verge linking back to that very same Vox articles uses the link "isn’t as voluptuous and glamorous" further interpreting the subjective interpretation of the Vox article and escalating the outrage cycle by characterizing the complaints as worse than actually were. The Verge does at least point to another article which includes screen captures of out a lot of dumb things people said on Reddit, but the Verge were clearly taking their lead from the Vox article.

It would be better to shorten the section, not to give the complaints undue attention, and only explain enough about them to give adequate context to the comments from JMS. Ultimately if the show is any good the so called controversy will not be notable at all. -- 109.79.174.44 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a tertiary source, we follow the judgments made by secondary sources. If they decide that this is the issue they want to write at length about, then so do we, whatever our own view about the merits of the issue may be. We can be only as objective as our sources; if we decide to be "better" than them we commit the heresy of WP:OR. Sandstein 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

@G. Capo: "It doesn't take away from the veracity of the statement. A number of the reviewers have issues with the plot."

Even if they do, every film or tv show no matter how acclaimed will have review that have issues with the plot. It wasn't enough for them to give it a bad review or affected the show's overall rating. To add it seems to be giving it undue importance. There are statements further in on the section directly quoting reviewers reservations. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the "though with some reservations" because it is uninformative: there is no TV series that people do not have some reservations about. What these are here becomes clear immediately in the section. Sandstein 19:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a closer look at the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, yes it got 15 positive reviews, but a number of these reviews were not particularly high scores. A number of these very reviews voiced concerns about the plot. This is in contrast to films like The Dark Knight or Titanic, which proportionally saw very few criticisms of the plot. If we're trying to give a fair and balanced account of the reception, including this observation makes it more accurate. Otherwise, the reception reads like propaganda for the show, and this entire article loses credibility.G. Capo (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a closer look at the reviews. Few of them actually have any significant criticism of the plot and those that do can be easily included in the second paragraph of the reception section as the EW criticisms are already. Furthermore, wikipedia format is to generally post the review scores and review summary, not add your own interpretation on to it. Specific criticisms are covered in the sections below as they are in this article. The criticisms are in the reception section. They're not hidden, any reader can see them. To add that sentence gives a misleading impression of the show's reception, that critics uniquely have more and deeper reservations for this show. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airing on the BBC?

Apparently this is airing on the BBC now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000f1qv/shera-series-1-episode-1

Just looking quickly, I can't find any source announcing that that was going to happen, but it seems like something that should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article if something be found for it. Alphius (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Livestream comments controversy' section is too long

This minor incident does not need a lengthy three-paragraph section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, as I said when I wrote it, feel free to chop it down. I think reducing it to one paragraph may be a bit extreme, but two paragraphs would be necessary I do think there should be a section about it, however, as its an important part of the discourse about the show presently, and because Noelle and Rae both issued apologies, with Rae having the longest explanation. Not having a section about it would be a shame as it is more than a "minor incident" for some people. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, its one paragraph shorter now. I think making it any shorter would minimize the issue too much. You may it is a "minor incident," but it was a big issue, especially for POC fans of the show. If the critical reception section can have 16 sentences, why not have nine sentences about this controversy? --Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, I agree with Piotrus and have further edited the section to make it more concise. At the end of the day this is a social media spat of which there are very many. The media covered it, which means that we should also, but in proportion to its importance: the critical reception of the series spans years and very many outlets; this, not so much. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but getting rid of Geiger seems wrong, especially since they drew the image in question! Keeping only Noelle in there makes it seem that she did the drawing, when she did not. Additionally, Geiger gives the process that led to the "joke." Historyday01 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use they pronouns, not she, for Rae Geiger. AJD (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just corrected it. I dumbly didn't read their about page. Anyway, I would say that this section is important. I'm not really on board with making it shorter as I'm not sure it is a simple "social media spat," although that is part of it. Of course, its not on par with the cancelling of a show, but it was very meaningful moment for POC fans. But, I don't want an argument on the topic, so I'll accept this version for the time being. Historyday01 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, I've removed the mention of Geiger because that content was sourced only to a tweet, i.e. a primary source. Our content especially about living people must be based on secondary sources, see WP:BLP, WP:RS. Sandstein 07:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mis-pronouning Rae Geiger. Anyway, the point others are making is that, if Geiger published their post the next day, and no secondary sources thought that was important enough to say anything about, then it's not important enough for us to say anything about. Again, I don't know if I agree, but that's the actual argument. AJD (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, again. That is the actual argument, yes. As I said before, I disagree with the removal because Geiger drew the illustration in the first place. By the logic of those like Sandstein, I guess we couldn't accept adding in the recent Twitter thread by Noelle (published yesterday) where she promises further action. Its not surprising that there haven't been articles which mentioned Geiger's post, because those who wrote about it did so in response to Noelle's tweets and the ensuing controversy on Twitter, but missed Geiger because they published their post the next day. I am surprised that none of the articles I have read on the topic have noted that the illustration was posted on Twitter in May 2019 and NO FANS said anything negative at the time (you can read through the tweet then and see the small number of responses, with most of the quote tweets after August 26...). I'm not saying that makes it right, but rather that fans bear some of the responsibility for this too because no one stepped in and said "uh, what about this?" I don't think we need to mention that, but I do find it interesting.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, we are not the news media. We are an encyclopedia. We do not report on what fans or others do or say because we think it is "interesting". We establish a lasting record of knowledge as reflected in reliable sources. That means we do not normally cover events until reliable secondary sources have considered it important enough to report. (Also, Ajd, mispronouncing? This is a written medium. We don't, uh, actually say anything out loud here. At least I don't.) Sandstein 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "mispronouncing", I said "mis-pronouning". AJD (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AJD was right to call me out on that and is talking about pronouns, not pronouncing. Jeez Sandstein, you are not tracking this conversation well. Anyway, as for your other comments, Sandstein, yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not "the news media." I was never saying that we add in anything about the fact that no one criticized the drawing back in May 2019. Rather, I was making an observation. Jeez. In terms of the Geiger post, I do think it is worth mentioning. Honestly, I don't think it should matter if there is a secondary source or not to prove it is "important enough" in this case because Geiger is a character designer on the show. If its some random person, no we shouldn't cite their Tumblr blog, but why not cite the blog of a person who worked on the show? Why not? After all, the main page cites Geiger's blog in the "LGBT representation" section. Why is it acceptable to cite their blog there but not in this section on the livestream comments? It doesn't make any sense to me. Besides, secondary sources are sometimes not available when it comes to LGBTQ rep, even with the increased number of publications, and GLAAD, writing about it.--Historyday01 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to strike the balance between interesting details and WP:UNDUE trivia (or POV). The incident should be mentioned, but I think the current one paragraph is more reasonable (particularly as the prior version included references to some unreliable sources, such as Twitter.... errr.... those are still present, per WP:PRIMARY, they probably should go). Thank you for improving this section and discussing this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]