Talk:Odex's actions against file-sharing/GA1

GA assessment (8 December 2007)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reasons for putting it on hold:

• Does not abide WP:NPOV as follows
  • "It has specifically singled out AnimeSuki torrents as a source, in spite of AnimeSuki stating on their website that they neither support nor include licensed anime in their lists"

The action is for Odex enforcing R3 Singapore licenses, as pointed out in the various sources and article itself. AnimeSuki itself states any license outside of R3 is considered by them to be freely listed on their site. As such, it is possibly listing anime which may be licensed in Singapore which is what Odex is going after. The current Wiki article's statement is presenting a twisted logic.

 Done

• Very few cases have been granted a waiver or reduction due to extreme financial difficulties.

Unsourced statement. In fact, the presented sources and later parts of the article present a different picture. e.g. ""Bearing in mind that the enforcement drive is still at an initial stage, conscious efforts have been made to keep the amount claimed to a minimum.", "Additionally, downloaders who face genuine financial difficulties have been allowed to pay significantly reduced compensation amounts, or to pay in instalments.", "There have been reports stating that Odex has charged 10% on compensation sums where the downloader was allowed to pay in instalments. This is not true – Odex has not asked anyone to pay interest on the compensation sums paid."

 Done

• "several fans attributed this to the inferior quality and late arrival of its productions that were sold compared to the downloaded versions."

Those are the opinions of the fans and not a fact as presented by the statement.

 Done

• "The company's main source of income originates from licensing fees from television stations, and earns little from consumer VCD/DVD products."

Does this reflect the income situation of the company before or after the case, or throughout its history? Verifiable source please.

• "with some fans preferring the costlier option of importing the anime directly from Japan"

Nowhere in the cited source was this statement or its meaning found.

 Done

• "quarter-page article in The Straits Times on 22 August 2007, which attempted to justify their actions"

I believe the cited article is entitled "clarification" which is a neutral in tone and states to explain. Why is "which attempted to justify their actions" used in place of "to clarify their actions"?

• Inappropriate images and captions
  • Captions are over lengthy, e.g. the image of Odex's office could simply have been "Odex's head office where the settlements were made"
  • It is also questionable why a picture of the office is required (a link is already there for the company concerned), or what purpose the cartoon serves at all

I am putting this on hold for a week. If the issues are not addressed, the article's nomination as a GA shall be failed. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Jappalang! As Mailer diablo, the primary contributor to the article, is currently serving his National Service, I will try to address your concerns to the best of my ability.

• "Very few cases have been granted a waiver or reduction due to extreme financial difficulties" has been removed.
• The word "justify" was changed to "clarify". Should I also remove the words "attempted to"?
• "with some fans preferring the costlier option of importing the anime directly from Japan" has been removed.

Regarding the images:

• During a Google Talk conversation between Mailer diablo and me, he defended the inclusion of the image of Odex's office because "the office is where the settlement took place...people go there and settle the lawsuits [sic]". He does have a point, so I will not remove the image - yet. Nevertheless, I changed its caption per your suggestion.
• Since the "Xedo Holocaust" animation, a notable example of the anime community's backlash against Odex, was featured in a show on Channel NewsAsia, a screenshot of said animation definitely belongs in the article.
• However, Mailer diablo does not object to the screenshot of Odex's defaced website being removed. All I need is your instruction to get rid of that screenshot.

To address the other issues and have access to offline sources, I will need to contact Mailer diablo. It is currently 11.30pm in Singapore and I need to sleep. I await your response.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J.L.W.S. The Special One,

I have indented your answer for easier follow-up, as well as marked what I felt was completed satisfactorily.

Yes, please remove the word "attempted to" as well. Using "to clarify their actions" will state their action. Whether their action has succeeded is another matter, which perhaps would be revealed in time to come.

In regards to the image usage,

• Odex's office image

I think I should have phrased it as "why does the article need a picture of a glass door of the office?" When a picture of a location is displayed, it is to give an idea of the location at which an event (generally the topic of the article) occured, e.g. murder cases, protests, battles, etc, so as to give the reader a better conceptualisation of the place and event in question. An office is however pretty much easy to picture with text alone (in fact, the simple term "office" yields the whole picture) unless it is a unique structure or location for the event to take place. Unless there is a pretty strong case for why the picture of a glass door with the Odex logo is needed, it would be considered an inappropriate illustration WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The cartoon

1. In the cited source, it only mentioned an internet video. No name is given. The main article is about the negative feedback over Odex's actions, not about the video itself. In this case, there is the burden of evidence on whether this Xeno Holocaust is the concerned video as per WP:PROVEIT.
2. The title "Xedo Holocaust" itself only generated 2,410 hits on Google. It only garnered 27,000+ hits in 3 months. Those figures fail to signify notability of the video itself.
3. As per WP:NOR#Neutral point of view (NPOV), "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research."
4. Thus the video itself and its associated images are non-notable events. The mention of the video in the article is more than enough without giving it undue weight. However again there is a need to prove the video is the one mentioned in the news article.
5. If there is a wish to present a comedic take on the event, more notable cartoons should be looked more, e.g. those in newspapers, or by notable cartoonists, e.g. Hup, or Cheah.

• The hacked website image

Actually I have no issue with this image besides the lengthy caption. However I would suggest that a blown up image only focusing on the site address and the the two titles "Server Takeover" and the smaller title be uploaded. The current image is too small and unclear to ascertain if the defaced website is of Odex's.

However I have to advise to consider if this image serve a purpose which could not be conveyed in the article itself. Images are to illustrate contents which are hard to describe with only words or which would enhance the contents if put up.

I have another suggestion to make. In re-reading the article, I noticed the usage of "local community" right after a sentence cast in the international light (e.g. in the lead). In this case, one is led to ponder which "locality" is the community in. In such cases, it is best to explicitly replace the "local" with "Singaporean" to clarify the region in focus.

Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference 33 explicitly mentions "Xedo Holocaust" by name. Use your browser's "Find" function to search the reference for the word "Xedo". That the video itself was featured in a show on Channel NewsAsia (which you can view on YouTube) suggests it is far from a "non-notable [event]". Finally, proving that the image is a screenshot from the video is easy; just watch the video on YouTube (01:25)!

I removed the words "attempted to" and changed "local" to "Singaporean" in two places, leaving the "Legal opinions" section untouched as I am not sure whether to remove the words "the local newspaper". In addition, I changed "several fans attributed this to the inferior quality and late arrival of its productions that were sold compared to the downloaded versions" to "fans responded that its productions were inferior and arrived later than the downloaded versions". Please tell me whether the new wording is clear, grammatically correct and meets NPOV.

The other two issues (the twisted logic and statement about Odex's history) must be addressed by Mailer diablo, who has access to the offline sources in this article and knows far more about the controversy than I do. Do extend the hold if necessary. If he addresses those issues after the hold expires, should I file a GA reassessment request?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The cause I pointed out above on WP:NOR#Neutral point of view (NPOV) still holds for the cartoon. Is it a notable majority viewpoint? Is the author a notable person him/herself in the case concerned? If not, then it is likely OR which is not for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sincerely, it is a insignificant minority viewpoint judging by the numbers. A content on Youtube itself is not notable. Anybody can upload a video on Youtube. What would make it notable would be how widespread was its reach, and the impact it has on the community. Reliable gauges would be as I pointed out, the number of views and the Google hits (or several established newspaper reports). In this case, both are them are pretty low, hence suggesting non-notability.

I really doubt the article's case for its sentence pointed out in "twisted logic" since AnimeSuki itself directly pointed out on their policy page that they will host anime licensed in other countries as long as it is not licensed in America. Odex is going after anime announced for Singapore on behalf of itself and its associates. The current statement in the article simply has no ground to stand on regarding the case in question.

I have taken the liberty to alter the "but fans responded that its productions were inferior and arrived later than the downloaded versions" to "but these fans claim a preference for downloading fansubs which are available much quicker than licensed releases. They also felt fansubs were superior in quality." which I feel is a clearer depiction of the situation (since we are referring to the fans who are interviewed in the article only, and who have professed their preference is the fansubbed item which are definitely faster in release but subjective in quality). Is this agreeable?

I understand the NS process, so it is likely Mailer diablo is available on the weekend on his nights out (unless he gets 'duty') to verify the statements, I can certainly wait till Monday to close out the assessment. Cheers. Jappalang (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely articles in The Straits Times and The New Paper, as well the show on Channel NewsAsia mentioned above, are "several reliable newspaper reports" that indicate the notability of the video? Remember that Singapore is a tiny country and only a few reliable English-language newspapers are published here. The Google test is not a reliable indicator of notability.

Moreover, Mailer diablo managed to convince NCH (the creator of the animation) to release the screenshot under a free license. Getting a free image of the "wanted poster", anti-Odex T-shirt or the action figurine protest will be very difficult, if not impossible. If you still feel strongly that the screenshot of the video should not be included, you are welcome to request a second opinion or take this to GA reassessment.

It appears that Reference 38 is available online, but is not linked to. According to the reference, "The unauthorised downloading is motivated by the fact that licensed copies are not available in the local market, or that they are of poor visual quality or that they do not contain English subtitling." Therefore, our attempts to make the clause "several fans attributed this to the inferior quality and late arrival of its productions that were sold compared to the downloaded versions" should be undone, as "poor quality" and "late arrival" are facts, and not merely the opinions of fans.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misintepreted Burton Ong's statement. The "fact" only refers to the unavailability of the licensed product. Note the comma indicating a separation of statments after the first "or".

The unauthorised downloading is motivated by the fact that licensed copies are not available in the local market, or that they are of poor visual quality or that they do not contain English subtitling.

There is no comma after the second "or", indicating the second and third clauses are independant from the first clause ( Ref. It cannot be an Oxford comma, since the second and third objects could not possibly comprise the first object. Furthermore, the second object is definitely an opinion since there are many anime reviews/reports/editorials on professional anime websites/magazines stating visual quality of DVDs surpassing fansubs. The third object is not fact as catalogues (online/printed/labels) and reviews of DVDs state the existence of English subtitles. Stating an audio/visual story as "poor quality" simply because of an opinion of "poor visual quality" is a misrepresentation of facts as well.

Regarding Google hits to notability of Straits Times, etc. Yes, generally established news media are notable sources of reports, but we are referring to the notability of the cartoon itself. Even if the New York Times reported for a day on common "Mr Jones" getting whacked on the head with a salmon by a orafactory-challenged individual, that would not make him notable enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia. Why should the Xedo cartoon be printed with this much detail for something or someone without much notability even in Singapore, besides just a mention for a day? Google hits for "site:*.sg" + "xedo" = 43.

As for WP:GAR, it is a request for re-assessment. This article is currently going through assessment. Re-assessment would mean waiting for this article to be passed or failed as a GA. I have volunteered to assess this article. If this article is failed or passed, it would up to someone else to bring it up to WP:GAR for discussion instead of me. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Google hits, this is why Google Hits can be used for this instance as stated in WP:GHITS.

The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.

In this case, for an island of 3.5+mil with 20+ in region 3 (possibly a conservative minimum of 800,000 anime interested viewers based on demographics of teens), and a worldwide anime audience of millions, one would expect a higher number of hits than stated above for a cartoon regarding this case to be notable. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wake up your idea! Three independent, reliable secondary sources from Singapore's mainstream media are out there; why are you using arbitrary numerics and an essay to question its notability? How many hits in your opinion would meet your standards of notability? In that case, please {{subst:{{afd}} this article becuase 'odex lawsuits' give 2,390 hits and 'odex settlement' gives 3,120 hits.
• "anime reviews/reports/editorials on professional anime websites/magazines stating visual quality of DVDs surpassing fansubs" Verifiable sources, please (and Odex DVDs, not general DVDs).
• "Even if the New York Times reported for a day on common "Mr Jones" getting whacked on the head with a salmon by a orafactory-challenged individual" You're confusing with biographies of living persons. We are talking a caption that contributes to the whole legal action, not a separate article.
• The original wording is accurate. I agree that it is not a fact that Odex's product quality is inferior compared to fansubs. It is, however, a fact that several anime fans have expressed that they feel that Odex's product quality is inferior compared to fansubs. And I will adduce the sources (several; takes a while from the Factvia dump). And the altered wording on the article right now in is no way honest nor reflective of what verifiable sources indicate.
• I will respond to the other two points in a new indent. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would first put in a reminder of WP:CIVILITY to indicate that the tone taken is inadvisable. "odex lawsuits" yields 2,390 hits but "odex court" yields 15,900 hits mostly regarding the case.
• AnimeonDVD on Hellsing, DVD Times on Hellsing, AnimeonDVD on FMA, on Handmaid May Animetric on Handmaid May, etc
• My point is that article or just a point in the article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information WP:IINFO. Just because something happened within the course of an event, it may not deserve to be shrined in eternity in the event's records in Wikipedia. How relevant is this cartoon as per WP:NOR#Neutral point of view (NPOV)?
• My apologies, I have missed out must have been "blur" when reading User:Hildanknight's edited sentence regarding the fans opinions. The "fans responded that" definitely shows it is their opinion compared to the original "several fans attributed this to the". I have reverted back to Hildanknight's corrected statement. However I took the liberty of inserting "several" before "fans" as this opinion is not all encompassing.

Since the two primary contributors are back and in force, I believe we can stick to the original schedule for this assessment and close it up by Sunday. I will now followup further below with what I believe is still left to resolve and what are the issues with them. Jappalang (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, your standards of notability are too high. We are not arguing whether Wikipedia should have an article on the Xedo Holocaust animation, but whether a screenshot of it belongs in this article. I will not be online tomorrow as I have a chess tournament. Please extend the hold as originally planned and request a second opinion (regarding the inclusion of the Xedo Holocaust screenshot). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The cartoon issue is more of its relevance in the article, as per the questions I posed below in the current state of assessment. The cartoon is the opinion of just one unknown person, with accordance to verifiable sources. As per WP:NPOV#Undue weight,

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Based on these, the text statement regarding the cartoon in the article is more than enough. Compared to text, the few images in the article means each image becomes a prominent part of it, and per WP:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity and WP:NPOV#Undue weight

Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Is the cartoon that significant (relevant) to the article? Does the opinion of an unknown person and of little weight (the number of people holding the opinion) warrant a major highlight in the article itself? Be careful in assuming all points of view must be represented in the article, and how they are presented, as per WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone.

Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially.

I am agreeable on extending the GA assessment deadline to Monday. However I am not partial to requesting a second opinion, as Wiki-policy regarding NPOV is clear on the stance of giving undue weight to a non-notable opinion (number of people), of a questionable source (the author). Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• On AnimeSuki  Done Benefit of the doubt. Removed. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Current state of assessment (14 Dec 2007)

All except one of the text issues above have been resolved, the exception being:

• "The company's main source of income originates from licensing fees from television stations, and earns little from consumer VCD/DVD products."

Does this reflect the income situation of the company before or after the case, or throughout its history? Verifiable source please.

Issues regarding the image usage

• The Odex office door image

How does an image of a glass door with the Odex logo help this article? It is almost identical to any office environment. It is not a picture of a settlement between a downloader and Odex employees in progress in its office. How would it help readers frame the article in their minds?

• The cartoon

What purpose does the cartoon serve? Why is the cartoon shown? Is the viewpoint of the cartoon a majority viewpoint (meaning that a majority of people envision Odex and its actions as that in the cartoon)?

• The defaced webpage

Preferably a cutoff of the image where the address and evidence of the defacement (without the defamatory/inflammatory material if any) can be clearly seen. The question remains however if textual descriptions could not do an equal or better job than that of showing the webpage.

Suggestions

• Regarding images, I believe images of Odex's press conferences, or a single collage of DVD covers (can be covered by fair-use rationales) of their products (or licensed) they claimed the offenders have downloaded can help the article.

Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Verdict: Failed GA (17 Dec 2007)

This final assessment is based on this version last edited by Orphic on 17 Dec 2007.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

By the deadline, an unverified statement regarding the composition of Odex's income was left unresolved. While the images of Odex's glass door and its defaced website have a certain degree of pertinence to the subject at hand, it is tenuous and could have been easily substituted with pure text or left unillustrated. The cartoon is however a key contention (as per above discussion). While brought up for mention in the media, it was only in passing and by no means the representative opinion of a sizeable number. It was created by an unknown individual whose degree of expertise/notability in the concerned subject raises doubt. The event is thinly notable (being brought up for mention in a reliable source), but the content is not (self-published cartoon of unknown authorship, and low popularity — WP:SPS, WP:NPOV). Putting this content in the article's spotlight (i.e. as an image) gives it undue weight WP:WEIGHT, text mention of its mention in the media would have been more than enough. To clarify, the cartoon itself is OR, but the newspaper mention of it is not. The newspaper's mention does not qualify the cartoon's contents as non-OR. The article can certainly state an OR was used by a reliable source, but should not give undue attention to the OR itself as was done with the image.

As such, I am failing this article as a GA. I am marking the unverified statement with {{fact}}. For the cartoon, there is no template regarding inappropriate use with public images, so I would have marked it with {{or}} in its caption. However the caption is correct (it is the content which is inappropriate), as such {{syn}} can be representative as an inline in the caption. If there is a standard in handling the public cartoon image as OR, please proceed. If the issues are addressed in the future, please bring the article up again for GAC (where another assessor should go through the article again to spot if I had left out anything). If you however feel this current assessment is in error, please feel free to bring it up at WP:GAR. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify how the cartoon screencap violates WP:OR? I understand the WP:WEIGHT concern but I'm a little confused how OR, which relates to publishing new ideas and opinions in wikipedia, applies. It seems to be basic, encyclopedic activity to plainly relate what a pre-existing work of art/commentary states, which is all that is happening here. To my knowledge there's no OR or Synthesis required when describing, say, Cheers as "a sitcom set in a bar." --Orphic (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With reference to WP:OR#Original images, Wikipedia in general accept any image in the opinion that "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments", however this is not the case for this cartoon. The cartoon is expressing an opinion on the events of the Odex case, with certain baseless imagery (just from the screencap alone, are we to believe Odex has employed militant tactics and "muscle" to have parents squeeze out their purses to pay for little Timmy?) Note that in the same policy, Wikipedia does state that images can be OR.

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

Are we to believe all settlements (participants, atmosphere) are as portrayed by the cartoon? I understand it is a cartoon parody and is not an exact representation of the event, but is the screencap's viewpoint representative of the case in concern?

In the OR page under related policies, WP:OR#Neutral point of view (NPOV),

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder, has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Based on the fact that the cartoon is not even a majority-held view, and there are no prominent believers, it is the third case we should be looking at. Like I said, mention of the cartoon in the form of a short sentence is more than enough (a report of a minority view is barely notable), but to openly display the contents/ideas of an OR? No. Jappalang (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in all the policy you've cited, OR is always taken to mean that the editor/contributor is the one doing the original research/synthesis, ie, in your example the uploader is the one theorizing a new structure of the hydrogen atom by creating a new image. The screenshot in question is not the creation or opinion of the editor, it's the creation and opinion of the satirists who are being mentioned in the article. I still don't see how it's OR to screencap a pre-existing image from something *outside* of wikipedia. The "original" in "original research" means just that, after all, and there's nothing original about the image - it's taken directly from someone else's parody and viewpoint. Whether or not this opinion is true or not is beside the point, as its presented in the entry as an opinion held, without endorsement, just as all qualitative or otherwise subjective opinion is treated elsewhere in the site. Wikipedia validly documents research, theory, and supposition all the time, but it's pre-existing research that verifiably exists out in the real world prior to Wikipedia documenting it. The principle is the encyclopedia ideally merely acts as a scribe of what other people have theorized, instead of coming up with original ideas of its own. It sounds like your contention is that the particular viewpoint represented in the screencap is too "fringe" to be given the spotlight of an image, and that would to be an undue weight concern. --Orphic (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the OR policies are only restricted to the editor/contributor. As per the statements I quoted above, "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." As long as reliable sources do not report a self-published opinion as of a significant minority, it constitutes OR as per WP:OR#Neutral point of view (NPOV) and WP:SPS. If an editor finds him/herself agreeing with an OR, does that mean act of the editor (who is not the author) uploading the OR makes it non-OR? OR in Wiki-policy does not mean "new findings/discoveries/opinions" but "unverifiable opinion of an extreme minority" (I believe there has been debate over defining this policy under the label "OR" in Wikipedia talk:No original research). I would agree part of my contention is with the relevance of the image. Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewer kayu! Once the sentence about Odex's income situation is dealt with, I will file a GA reassessment request. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After a Google Talk discussion with Mailer diablo (who has since left Wikipedia), I have removed the unsourced sentence about Odex's income situation. Since there is a dispute over the allegedly inappropriate inclusion of the screenshot of the Xedo Holocaust animation, I filed a GA reassessment request. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)