Talk:High Guardian Spice/Archive 1

Unbalanced edits and reliable sources
The new section under "Post-Release" is almost completely unsourced, only linking to the trailer and not specific reviews. It reads like the editor just wants to bash the series. While the reviews have not been very positive, specific reviews should be cited to describe the reception. This section needs a heavy retool, especially since many people are bringing in controversial opinions about the show's diversity. 100.12.180.56 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately there aren't that many reviews of the series, so I've tried to add the ones I've found ones from reliable sites so far, but adding in what random people say on IMDB or Crunchyroll really wouldn't work. Additionally, the show, the last I checked, isn't even on Rotten Tomatoes. But, if I find more reviews, I'm more than glad to add them. Trying to make sure this page is much more balanced than the review bombing by certain people. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, can you add veridic links (since not even the host page satisfies you) to more realistic reviews? Adding negative things about the series is not equal to troll, but too much positivism in a Wikipedia page about a largely hated series will attract haters to edit it harshly and badly, as has happened before. And let's be honest, they have good points not even related to being "too diverse/inclusive". Editors have to be realistic with the information, and that includes adding the bad reception, because that's a fact. (I'm not a fan of the series, but you have to keep it balanced in order to make it Wikipedia-worth it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.73.212.184 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. Unless it is mentioned in a reliable source, which is NOT reviews on IMDB or Crunchyroll, it isn't being added to the page. If haters edit it harshly or badly, I could care less.Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, YOU don't care, but this is not about what you think or care, it's about providing realistic stadistics, pros and cons, and Crunchyroll MUST be added since is the host page, not a random page where they upload videos of series to make fun of them. If you don't like to be realistic just because you like a series, you shouldn't be editing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.73.212.184 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. I don't mind Crunchyroll being added as the official link for the series, but it should not be added to the reception section. It isn't added to the reception sections for other Crunchyroll shows, so why is this show somehow different? I can say here and now that if there are "realistic stadistics, pros and cons" on reliable websites, even if they are negative, I will add them. For instance, if the show was added to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic (its on neither right now), I'd add in that rating, even if it showed the show poorly. Historyday01 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how Crunnchyroll and YouTube is specifically less official or reliable than these lgbt blogs that around 5 people actually care about. YouTube and Crunchyroll reviews provide superior viewer feedback because they aren't being specifically pandered to by the show itself. Feed321 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos and Crunchyroll comments fall under the Wikipedia rules for self-published sources, that is why they would not being included. If more critical content is found in a reliable source, then I'd be more than glad to include it, its just that most of what you speak of is in self-published sources. Just as we can't cite some random Tumblr blogger who writes a review about a show, the same applies to an anonymous Crunchyroll comment or a YouTube video, as often neither have any way to verify how reliable they are, especially if the person writing it is anonymous, as they usually are. Checked again today and still, High Guardian Spice isn't on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, the same as I found the day before. Historyday01 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to "Post-release" reception section
The pre-release portion of the reception section makes mention of mixed reception but then proceeds to describe only positive articles and reviews. It should be mentioned that viewer ratings of the show on various platforms are low, such as imdb, and that there are numerous YouTube videos describing dissatisfaction with the shows writing and it's animation quality. It should also be worth mentioning the twitter discourse that has erupted, the official Twitter account blocking users who make comments regarding the perceived low quality. Such a homogenous response seems too relevant and large in size to ignore. Various videos that popped up when I simply put 'High guardian spice' into the search bar of YouTube; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthritic Walrus (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all great and all, but those YouTube videos are NOT reliable sources, and neither are IMDB ratings. Until it is mentioned in a reliable source, this stuff will NOT be included. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Review_aggregators ~ Eidako (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Eidako, that changes nothing as that is ONLY for Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, not Crunchyroll or IMDB, which Arthritic Walrus incorrectly claimed were "credible" for reviews. They aren't. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "If another website can cover critical reception better than these two (such as overcoming one of the limitations) and is vetted as a reliable source, it can be implemented instead." Last I checked neither had reviewed it, ergo any other aggregator has better coverage by default. While we're on the topic though, what makes Gayming Magazine, Anime Feminist, et. al. credible by comparison? ~ Eidako (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why opinion videos by Youtubers with hundreds of thousands of subscribers can be discredited as not credible while an opinion piece on Anime Feminist, with 6 blog likes and stating "Those problems aside, High Guardian Spice looks like a chill time. And with all twelve episodes premiering at once, this will likely be a binge watch for me on my second monitor while I work later this week.", potentially implying they have not watched the whole show, can be considered credible. Lobuttomize (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially agree. In all honesty, neither IMDB nor YouTube are encyclopedic levels of reliable. On the other hand, neither are a bunch of LGBT special interest websites created within the last several years and with stub/nonexistent Wikipedia articles. Particularly when the show in question is overtly reflective of LGBT interests, said sources are obviously going to be biased in favor of it. If the reception section is going to be a point of contention, perhaps all citations should be excised until an established, legitimate source -- the kind that publishes glossy magazines found in stores, and has been around for more than a decade -- chimes in on the topic. As is, the article reeks of editorial slant. ~ Eidako (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, truth be told, this guy (Historyday01) likes the series, so obviously will put only good reviews from obvious pro-lgbt sites. You can tell because of how active is in this page but refuses to give realistic information about it, which, like it or not, has been negative and had a massive backlash for good reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.73.212.184 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to mediate a neutral compromise without slipping into ad hominem, but yes. Historyday01's behavior is in WP:OWN and WP:WAR territory, and user page reflects a clear conflict of interest in editing this article. Without triggering moderator arbitration over a dumb cartoon, can we just agree not to quote any critics on non-objective statements unless they have proven work histories for mainstream, high-revenue media outlets like CBS, NBC, etc? ~ Eidako (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if credible sources can be found, they SHOULD be added in to the reviews section. I do not oppose that and I have searched for reviews for this show every single damn day. But, YouTube videos are NOT reliable sources. They never have been and never will be. Eidako, while I feel your edits were restrictive, I have tried to trim the section and other parts of the article significantly this morning. I would argue that Gayming Magazine and Anime Feminist are more credible than some random YouTuber. However, Lobuttomize, if you feel they are not reliable enough, then feel free to remove them, and add in sources you feel are more reliable, in line with discussions for those sources listed on WP:RSPSOURCES and common sense. I don't want an edit war here. I will say that we should be careful of what sources we use, while not citing IMDB, YouTube or Crunchyroll in the reception section. So there should be a balance there. As it currently stands, there are not that many reviews out there about the show on credible websites, so the ones listed in the reception section are some of the only ones out there. Hopefully this changes in the future, although I doubt it. Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article -- much better. We Got This Covered is on the WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list for general unreliability, but I'm perfectly fine with it because it's counterbalancing the praise and acknowledges the show's widespread notoriety. As long as that balance remains, I see it as an acceptable compromise. ~ Eidako (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it having a balance too. And if there are some negative reviews, I'm totally fine with adding them in, but a lot of reviewers seem to have not reviewed the show from what I can tell. I can say that YouTube videos are not reliable sources and neither are ratings on IMDB, which WP:RSPSOURCES describes as "the content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors...Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking." The same logic, I'd argue, applies to ratings and reviews on Crunchyroll. And while WP:Review_aggregators is helpful when it comes to Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, it is only an essay and is not Wikipedia rules, so we should keep that in mind. I do wish those proposed guidelines on television series would go into effect, as it would help pages like this one, but it seems that Wikipedians will reject that... Historyday01 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem that I see with this is looking for "credibility" in opinion pieces. Reviews are inherently opinions on a work and, aside from a video made in bad faith, I don't believe that written opinions of somebody hired by a niche magazine should hold any more weight than freelance digital video opinions. Obviously, including every youtuber that makes a video on a topic would be absurd, but, including a few that have large subscriber bases when something doesn't have a number of reviews by big-name media outlets shouldn't hurt. Even large media outlet reviews are still just opinions; it's very difficult to establish true "credibility" in reviews. Lobuttomize (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still disagree when it comes to adding in YouTube videos. Feel free to ask on the reliable sources noticeboard about it, and they will say the same thing, that YouTube reviews are NOT reliable sources. We should not be adding in ANY YouTube video reviews to the reception section, whether they are positive OR negative. And I stand by that position. In fact, WP:RSPSOURCES says, in their summary of YouTube, that "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." None of these reviewers, like the ones originally posed by Arthritic Walrus, are news organizations. If there are more reviews, whether they are positive or negative, on credible websites, they will be added to the reception section of the article. Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPSOURCES says, in their summary of YouTube, that "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Bold added for emphasis. These three videos are made/posted by verified accounts. Clownfish TV, It'sAGundam, and KorewaEden. The only one that I would suggest using is the one by Clownfish TV, but using their website and not YouTube. Tagno25 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagno25, WP:RSPSOURCES is talking about NEWS organizations which have YouTube channels. NONE of those which you listed are news organizations. YouTube videos should not be included, period. I thought I already made that clear. They aren't included as reliable sources in reception sections anywhere else on Wikipedia and this page is no different. We need articles from reliable sources and YouTube videos are clearly not that, no matter how you slice it, and I am willing to add in negative reviews from credible, reliable articles, as I have said earlier in this discussion. However, adding any those YouTube videos, or any YouTube videos, to the reception section, whether positive or negative, would lead to an unbalanced reception section, which is not what this page should have. Furthermore, the Clownfish page you linked to is literally one paragraph summarizing the video and a link to the YouTube video, meaning it is no different than the YouTube video, which is not credible, as I previously noted. This is in part because no author information or anything to verify the website authors is provided on the website, only on a Facebook page, which means that reliability would be determined by a self-published source, going against guidelines outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS at minimum. At the same time, adding that Clownfish link would not provide a perspective that is missing from the reception section, as downvoting by users is already mentioned in the reception section of the main page. In sum, adding such videos would be a waste of the time of editors and not help with this page, leading to inevitable edit wars, something which we should prevent, especially on a page such as this one. As WP:VIDEOLINK notes, "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context," and in this case, the YouTube videos you listed, Tagno25, are NOT appropriate and none of those videos meet the requirements for a reliable source outlined in WP:RS. Historyday01 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This show has poor voice acting, poor written story and bad character development. Its also painfully predictable and cliché, bordering lazy-writting, with some reviewers even accusing it of using stock images for some frames... are we really arguing about sources or some of us are trying to follow an agenda here? If representation was the goal, there are better pieces of media to fight over than this one in my opinion. Lucashc90 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion about the show and we try to be neutral on Wikipedia, not letting our biases or opinions affect the articles we edit. I'm not the one who started this discussion about sources. I would rather not have the discussion at all, but it already began and I was just engaging in it, based on my understanding of the Wikipedia rules.Historyday01 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Know Your Meme considered a reliable source?
According to Media Bias Fact Check, Know Your Meme has a high factual reporting rating and is least politically biased.: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/know-your-meme/ I am asking this because this article from the website talks about criticism against High Guardian Spice: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/high-guardian-spice Sarsath3 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sarsath3, I wouldn't say it is a reliable source, no, as it seems to just use sources on the main page for this article. The summary of the website on WP:RSPSOURCES (there have been four discussions so far on that Reliable Sources Noticeboard) says "Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series." But, thanks for asking. I'm so glad this page got protection yet again, as people would definitely try an add stuff in, resulting in disruptive edits. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Nevertheless, it gives a general idea of how audiences feel. Sarsath3 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I've said before there really aren't that many reviews on reliable websites of the show. I'll see if I can find more, but it seems right now that a lot of the big sites, like A.V. Club, Polygon, and so on, haven't even any reviews of the show whatsoever. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Metrics and reliability
Since this page is a prolonged argument about reliability, I put a table together with some metrics. Feel free to add to it. ~ Eidako (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) Contested. (2) This article is an English translation of https://somoskudasai.com/noticias/cultura-otaku/high-guardian-spice-debuta-como-la-serie-peor-calificada-en-crunchyroll/, which is apparently a blog with one contributor.


 * Thanks. I have added a column for policy/guideline/consensus-related issues, with two obvious first entries (Know Your Meme and animesenpai). The "Potential Biases" column is strange; at least describing "LGBT author" as an issue by itself seems problematic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * High Guardian Spice is a cartoon created by people with a history of extremist LGBT views, and the cartoon itself heavily incorporates LGBT themes into it. Therefore pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT viewpoints are a potential source of bias. ~ Eidako (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, hm. Do I correctly understand that because the linked author page uses singular they pronouns, the author must be "LGBT"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The profile pic was a bit of a giveaway, but in the interest of objectivity: https://twitter.com/LiteralGrill . Self-described non-binary. ~ Eidako (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't take this to heart without checking if these tweets exist—since I haven't—just thought I would link it to explain the "extremist LGBT views" comment. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDdlWBkagAA2vgP.jpg:large Lobuttomize (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence whether thegeekiary.com falls under WP:SPS. The author doesn't appear to be directly connected to the site's admin. On the other hand, they describe themselves as "We are a news website as well as a blog." If We Got This Covered is WP:SPS (tagged by ToBeFree), then they probably are as well. ~ Eidako (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"EvergreenFir...Reverted 1 edit by Eidako (talk): No, those are not SPS." - "That is why self-published material such as...personal websites...personal or group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources." -- WP:SPS - Gaymingmag has two staff members I am able to identify and one is the direct owner. The author of the Anime Feminist article is an administrator for the group. Please identify how this is not SPS. ~ Eidako (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some strange misunderstanding of the basic of WP:IRS. AnimeFeminist has editorial oversight and is not SPS. The Geekiary does as well. Feel free to argue about their reliability or suitability for this article, but stop conflating SPS with WP:QUESTIONABLE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing the owner of Gaymingmag has editorial oversight over himself? ~ Eidako (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote once more. I did not mention Gaymingmag. The edit I reverted removed four sources and related text.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I am going to delete it. ~ Eidako (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, now let's examine Anime Feminist. From the team page: "Chiaki Hirai ensures payments are sent to contributors and staff members on a timely schedule; she also helps out with translations, contributor edits, and seasonal reviews and recommendations." In addition to being on the administration team, the author of the article is an editor. The founder of the website is gone, and there are three people on the staff listed above her: a technical editor / comment moderator, "contributor liason" whose job is to connect writers and editors, and a content editor. Can we argue she has editorial oversight? ~ Eidako (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, WeGotThisCovered is SPS per Wikipedia consensus. You didn't raise an objection on that so I'm going to nuke it too. ~ Eidako (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I feel this table of reliability, and discussion in general, is a bit of overkill and seems to be bias, with Eidako describing the show as a "cartoon created by people with a history of extremist LGBT views," which seems to be a biased statement, from what I can tell, relying on an image Lobuttomize noted which supposedly provides "proof" of what Leth said. Personally, I think it would be more neutral to just call this a queer magical girl show. Apart from that, I don't mind WeGotThisCovered or gayming mag being removed, as I only kept them based on previous discussion on this talk page, in the "Mixed reception" section, based on a past discussion with Eidako and other editors. Speaking about reliability of sources, it does NOT appear that akibamarket.com is reliable, so I removed that line until a reliable source can be provided, as I don't want a "citation needed" tag in the reception section. If there is a reliable source for that statement, I am totally fine with that remaining there. In any case, I'll continue to look for reliable sources, when I have time, and add them to add to the reception section, although I am not at all confident that mainstream review sites like A.V. Club, Gizmodo, and Polygon, to name a few, will review this show. I do hope this article remains protected because I'm afraid that when the protection ends, ip addresses will swarm in and try and make disruptive edits, as they have done in the past.--Historyday01 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of the term "review bomb"
We both disagree on whether the series was review bombed. Let's discuss this and come to an agreement.

I believe that the series was indeed review bombed. Review bombed means a lot of people leave negative reviews, whether trolling or not. It does not necessarily have to be malicious. CringeButSerious (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, yeah. I looked over the article on the topic and it isn't necessarily implying malicious intent. ~ Eidako (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my impression as well and including it balances the article. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether there was review bombing or not is open to personal interpretation as there's no established standard on what constitutes review bombing and what not, something that even extends to the talk page of it's very own wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Review_bomb That said, even if there was review bombing, malicious or not, it shouldn't be used as counterargument against a section/paragraph about the fact that this show has PRETTY LOW average user reviews on it's airing platform, imdb and the show's verified social media accounts. https://www.crunchyroll.com/high-guardian-spice/reviews/helpful/page1 https://www.facebook.com/HighGuardianSpice/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13635348/ https://twitter.com/GuardianSpice Currently the article's wording is somewhat misleading on that topic and requires a more neutral presentation. While the authenticity/fidelity of said reviews can be disputed, the fact that they exist still remains. Any review bombing claim at best should be part of a different paragraph/section, more so when it's listed source comes from an arguably biased outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.26.201 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 201.208.26.201, it can still be said to be review bombing. I would not say that the comments on Crunchyroll, nor the comments on the Facebook page, IMDB reviews, or those in response to the official Twitter account can be cited in the reception section, as all of those would fall under the rules like WP:SPS and others on self-published sources. I don't think there enough sources to put the comment about review bombing into its own paragraph. And the current text in the reception section is a compromise between many editors as the above section on this page asserts, even different from my original text, and I don't desire to change it back, as it would cause an edit war between users, so I am accepting the current wording as a result. If you are interested, there was a recent discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about IMDB, where it was said the site consists of user-generated content and it is only accepted as a "use as an external link" at the end of an article, like the main page already does. Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

False citation for claim that the show has been "review bombed"...
Under the "Release" section and the "Post-Release" sub-heading, the article states that "On many public review sites, the series was review bombed", and cites the following article (citation #39): https://thegeekiary.com/spicing-it-up-high-guardian-spice-is-a-cute-and-magical-coming-of-age-story/102114

Unfortunately, nowhere in the article does "review bombing" come up, and no "public review sites" are mentioned. I'm not sure where this "review bomb" claim comes from, but it certainly isn't sourced from the cited article. I suggest the entire sentence be removed, or a legitimate citation supporting the claim be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.94.152 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.83.187.81 (talk)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:B01D:CC72:95E4:AA5A:11FC:6252 (talk)

Why isn't there a Reception section
Almost all Wikipedia entrys for pop culture media have a section that summarizes published critical responses to said media; Why is it lacking here? 74.104.130.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This question is patently false. There IS a reception section. And it includes MANY perspectives. There obviously are MORE perspectives than the ones listed in the article, but that's the case with every film, TV show, etc. Historyday01 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)