Talk:Momoiro Clover Z

Section to discuss article content
Would someone wanting the article changed please respond to the questions raised earlier: Is everything mentioned in a source required to be in an article? How is the text (diff) helpful for an encyclopedic understanding of the topic? What impact did the incident have on the group? How was their career affected? Was it good or bad? What reliable secondary source has provided an analysis of those issues? Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The group's TV performance was cancelled as a result of the incident. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article says. The whole incident is barely a blip in the group's history, as has been shown exhaustively in the previous discussions.  Spacecowboy et al. are not editing in good faith, which is why they keep editwarring, making up numbers, and spreading FUD.  Spacecowboy barely escaped an SPI, and avoided a block for 3RR due to a technicality.  Johnuniq, scroll up and you'll see the stats I've provided more than once showing this incident to be barely noticed and to have had virtually no affect on their career since.  Remember, Spacecowboy was earlier editwarring to keep this in the lead—can we please stop entertaining the idea that he even might be editing in good faith? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Spacecowboy barely escaped an SPI" haha, now that is funny. I didn't escape an SPI - the SPI was closed because I wasn't using sock-puppets, duh.
 * You really seem to be concentrating on me today, Kuru-kuru turkey-kun - what's up, mah nizzle? Slow day? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Only sick of your soul-numbingly endless trollery. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that you consider my constructive reply to someone else's question to be trolling. Perhaps if you take your attention away from me (especially when I'm not addressing you) then you might not feel so offended by my comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not respond to Johnuniq's questions (rather dodging them and answering a separate question "What was the immediate, short-term impact?"), while CT did, as far as I can see...? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that your TBAN and has been lifted and the article still protected, would you mind responding to JU's questions?
 * Ditto.
 * I basically agree with CT's answers above, pending some reliable sources that contradict them.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the content included by Torsodog the circumstances of the blackface incident in more detail and also explains the consequences ie. cancelled TV appearance and statement from Fuji TV. I think Torsodog made a good edit, but I'm all ears to different opinions and suggestions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you liked the edit, and CT, MC and I didn't -- we already knew that on Monday. Opinions don't really matter for much here since this is a fairly niche topic as far as en.wiki is concerned and a straw-poll of whoever randomly showed up is not going to mean anything.
 * The question is whether the content added was (a) justified by equivalent coverage in reliable sources, and (b) added to our encyclopedic coverage of the topic in some way. The two sources that were cited in the edit didn't do much to answer these questions since they are both news sources dating to the week of the "incident" (the USA Today article has some stuff to say about the history of blackface in Japan, but only mentions our present topic -- Momoiro Clover Z -- in passing; the same is basically true of the Japan Times article). The fact that the only sources that have been located are news sources dating from immediately after the whole affair actually supports CT's assertion that it was just a blip on the radar of the group's career, and the fact that said sources barely mention Momokuro actually indicates that they were peripheral even to the news coverage of this affair (McNeil's name appears three times as often in the main text of the JT article as Momoiro Clover's.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Answer to (a) = yes, I think it was justified. Answer to (b) = yes, I think it did add to our encyclopedic coverage of the topic in some way. But, I'm not going to be replying any more until after this weekend (or maybe after Tuesday?) so this will all have to wait. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions imposed
Greetings to all. As indicated by the template at the very top of this talk page, as well as the edit notice, this page is now under a WP:1RR and a civility restriction. Please consider this to be a clean slate for everyone. I would strongly recommend that any difficult disputes go directly to WP:BLPN or WP:RFC. All involved have failed in letting disputes cross the line from civil collaboration, so please do not waste time in endless debate and argument going forward. Resolve disputes over disputed edits via a compromise solution, or a formal consensus, but if this doesn't work out I will be forced to implement the latter as a mandatory requirement. S warm  ♠  08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm. I'm sure that even if we do have different opinions on article content, we can all get along just fine. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of polls by Oricon
Apparently, the editor, whose also disruptively reverting the same information from the Japanese idol article, does not understand, not respect nor edit according to editing policy. Violates PROMOTION, BALANCE, WEIGHT, NPOV among others. According to WP:LEAD, information which is not found in the body cannot be featured in the lead, as well not every information should be in the lead. Also, the editor removes reliably sourced content by Oricon, as a counter-balance "MCZ has been ranked as the most popular female Japanese idol group from 2013 to 2017 according to surveys by The Nikkei,[70][71][72][73][74][75] however, according to Oricon polls of 20,000 people for "Favorite Artist Ranking" which is held since 2004, they are not featured in Top 50 and Top 20 acts between 2013-2017, with the exception in 2013 when placed as 14th.[76][77][78][79][80]", because is reverting to a revision in which the surveys by The Nikkei are not attributed to The Nikkei, making it a general claim, while removes more authoritative polls by Oricon, the organization focused on the trends and sales in Japanese music industry, because these polls neglect the results by The Nikke surveys. This is a blatant subjective PROMOTION, CENSORSHIP and OWN behavior which is not supported by the editing policy.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to blow up. Moscow Connection, it's true that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, so (with a few exceptions) there's no supposed to be info in the lead that's not in the body.  That also means usually we can keep the lead uncluttered with inline cites, as they should be in the body. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't analyze his edit as thoroughly as you did. The anonymous editor has been edit-warring over some photos in the "Japanese idol" article for several days now. And then he came here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice he added something about Oricon polls. If that's what he did, then, surely, the information can remain. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See: Talk:Japanese idol Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, the editor admitted that makes WP:POINT reverts without analyzing what he's reverting. I wasn't edit-warring only over some photos, don't twist the truth.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't notice. I saw you removing some information from the lead, so I reverted. Your edits to the "Japanese idol" article were unconstructive, you were removing a photo and some reliably sourced sentences and I saw that you removed the same information here too, so I reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no "didn't notice" - you don't make disruptive WP:POINT reverts. My edits to that article were constructive, while you with your edits and reverts are violating multiple editing policies!--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Members table
I cannot fathom why Special:Contribs/2400:2413:8340:BA12::/64 thinks it's proper to, against WP:BLP, imply that the two former members are currently members by merging the tables in the members section. Because of this BLP violation I am claiming an exemption to the 1RR restriction in effect on this article, with the IP in violation as they have reverted my previous revert. Jasper Deng (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)