Talk:Editing of anime in distribution/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It seems this article is going baised again! According to the refrences, most of the infomation to this article comes from "uncensored" sites. Do reaslise, that "uncensored" sites are effectivly "flame" sites who just flames dubs to try and decive people into thinking the sub is better (which too, has its own faults.). Wikipedia is not a proganda machine so don't force your opions on to this article. Start refering to pro-dub or neutral anime sites in future. -Dynamo_ace Talk

I must disagree with you there. Uncensored sites do NOT flame the distributor of anime, instead showing the differences between a Japanese series and its English counterpart. Using Uncensored sites as information is perfectly fine- we take great pains to detail the cultural and other differences between the original anime series and the dubbed version in America. John D'Adamo 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, a word of warning, don't assume that subs are better than dubs. Also, is there any real proof behind any off the "Uncensored" claims. I bet that 75% of what they say are false. Finally remeber who has "the last say" in a product (unfortnatly), the company at the end of the production chain.-Dynamo_ace Talk

I strongly disagree. Not only do I assume that subs are better than dubs, they ARE better- the drama of the original anime is kept, along with the beautiful Japanese music and dialogue that isn't stupid. This is especially true with Yuugiou. I'm sorry, but if you think the dub Yuugiou is better than the HK sub Yuugiou, you need your head examined. Believe me, I've done thorough analyses on both versions. John D'Adamo 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should put up a warning at the begining of this artical to say that in todays market alot of anime is not edited on the dvds, animes only get edited for tv, that only a few animes are edited in todays market. 4kids is one such anime editeding company. So if you guys could put up a warning at the begining of this article saying that in todays market most anime is only edited for tv and gets uncut dvds, it is only a select few that dont get uncut dvds. You guys already have the links for the uncensored sites at the bottom of the page. so if you guys could do this it would help out alot. thanks

Hypothetical situation - suppose if a season of South Park was censored for one of Kenny's deaths - would that be acceptable or unnacceptable censorship? His deaths bring nothing to the plot except to glorify death and violence (the very problem that is trying to be solved with censorship of violence), and are completely gratuitous and unrelated to the plot.

As for "subs better than dubs" - from what I've seen, and what I've read on the web, the dub of Bebop is much better than the original version. Thoughts? (Not to mention that subbing it, especially fansubs, are not so much more "accurate", and look very ugly there at the bottom of the screen).128.211.177.166 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And yes, we should be using information from pro-dub sources - the market itself has shown that in a lot of places, dubbing and editing are preferred.128.211.177.166 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the perception is that subs are "better" dubs is because generally dubs are what show up on TV and their accuracy compared to the original in certain areas is majority lacking. Voltron was particularly bad in this regard when they had voiceovers that basically said 'character so and so recovered from his injuries' even when it was blatantly clear the character in question had died. Say what you will about Robotech's editing but at least it kept character deaths intact without that kind of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I've marked it in need of serious copyediting (for POV and for poor English in many places throughout the article) and marked it POV for many of the reasons already listed on this page, above. --nihon 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as I thought after monitering the recent changes and realizing about how some of the subjects are being repeated too much. I would suggest about working to tone this page abit. --Adv193 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs a partial block against anon users. The history log shows that they bear the bulk of the problem. However, such drastic mesaures need to holded on a refrendum basis. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Not only is this Fan Centric, this is US-Centric. KyuuA4 05:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course its US-centric, the title of the article is Editing of anime in American distribution.

If nessesary similar articles could be created to cover the censorship of anime in other regions although in my amature and relatively inexperienced opinion its not as common as in America. (For example I know for a fact that the UK version of the Pokemon TV show did not replace food items like rice balls with a more westernised equivilent.)

But discussing censorship in other regions in an article specifically discussing America would be going completely off-topic. Danikat 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to edit more than one word at a time, and is preferable to having a whole page of edit history filled in one day by one person. Shiroi Hane 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. What brought on this sudden epiphany? (^_-) --nihon 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just go through the article or section, find one mistake, go through it again, and find another mistake, etc., and maybe come up with something new the next day. The only reason I edit this article so often is because I think that it is SUCH an important issue; I am TOTALLY against editing in anime, and I want the public to be best informed about it (but I am always unbiased...or is it biased, I don't know, which ever one is the good one), as there are very little articles on the issue, but I know that, with the number of edits I do to the article, many of you probably think that I am obsessed about the article; no, I am really obsessed about the issue of anime editing. I'll do my best to do as little editting sessions at a time as possible in the future. --User:Pitman6787 04:24, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on cleanup. Please make sure that I did not change the intended meaning anywhere. I concentrated entirely on clarity and good English, and did not attempt to deal with POV issues.

The article's title is really inaccurate, as it deals only with American distribution. -Jmh123 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we need to get some Australians, Brits, Canadians and South Africans helping out, to get more information from English-speaking countries outside the US. (^_^) --日本穣 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! -Jmh123 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A British view - There is a 9pm watershed for all TV shows. Anime shown after 9pm is usually uncensored. The only problem for fans is the general lack of anime being shown (Toonami with lots of repeats, plus a couple of slots on some other channels is about it). Oh, anything with hardcore content (eg. hentai) will not be shown at all. 217.134.72.238 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, problem is Toonami is hard to get (I won't go into details since this is Wikipedia) -Dynamo_ace Talk

I was the one who originally added this section to the "Current state" section but found later that it was taken out. I thought it was taken out because whoever took it out thought that I could have been randomly selecting American anime companies, but I wasn't. The list is the exact list found on List of anime companies (and I made a note of that in the article), except I, of course, discluded those companies which do not produce anime for the United States, due to the subject of the article, and the Japan-only Animation Studios; I couldn't find ANYTHING saying that Dark Horse Comics even produces anime for the United States at all, along with KSS and Pony Canyon, and, so, I couldn't include those either. I also couldn't include Streamline Pictures, as the company doesn't exist any more, and the section is about current companies. So, if you're going to edit the list here, please edit the list on List of anime companies, so that the choice of anime companies here still has credibility. --User:Pitman6787 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When referring to the relevent location in the world of this article, it SHOULD be the United States and not the West. The "West" also includes Western Europe, which has nothing to do with this article, so I changed all places referring to the West back to the United States. --User:Pitman6787 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, typically, the West also includes the United States and Canada. When referring to "Western animation", it is generally considered American and European animation. KyuuA4 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the section listing petitions of people who don't want anime edited. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on (Oh! They aren't even printed on paper!...my comment still stands.) They offer nothing other than evidence that a very small minority of anime fans don't want anime edited. These petitions are not scientific, nor do they try to be balanced in any way. They do not belong here as a reference or even a minor note of interest. They offer nothing to support anything in this article. ···

I agree. No one listens to online petitions. The comment I disagree with you on, however, is the comment that it is only a minority of anime fans who don't want anime edited. There are many who understand dubbed versions are vastly inferior to the original Japanese. Take the time to compare just one episode of the anime of your choice in Japanese to an episode in English. Very few dubs stand toe-to-toe with their original versions in terms of quality. John D'Adamo 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who view this page with the cut-off after the first "Trivia" bullet, I apologize, as this happened while I was editing. If one goes to edit this page, a warning shows up at the top - and what this warning describes happened. I was the one who thought, "it won't happen to me." If you take the time to read the warning, you will know that this is not directly my fault, but it happened by chance, but I still apologize. I'm not really sure what to do at this point. --User:Pitman6787 01:13, 16 July UTC.

You just forgot to close the "ref" tags (</ref>). No big problem, it's just that some tags render pages broken if they're not closed. :) -- RattleMan 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For a while, and it is still done, Anime and Japanese Video Games would age the characters up to 18 , in the US versions, if there was sexual content to avoid it being classified as child porn in the US. This was due to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that included depicting anyone under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activities even if they were older than 18, even if animated, as child porn.

The US Supreme Court did overturn this law though in 2002 [1] . This practice still exists.

Sakura Diaries is an example[2];

Eg;

Original See? I'm a "grade A", authentic, high school girl! US Edited Version See... I had my eighteenth birthday last month.

Apparently the Canadian law has a similar provision which is still in effect. At least one man has been convicted in Canada for importing hentai Manga [3].

I removed this:

Pornographic anime and manga (hentai) may be prohibited by law especially if they depict characters under the age of majority under US obscenity and child pornography laws.

I removed this as it is not true. The law that got struck down banned depicting people under the age of 18 engaged in sexual situations. The age of majority in the US varies for different things and between different states and in the case of alcohol consumption is 21.

Actually the age of consent in the US is not hard set at 18 (It varies from state to state with some states adopting an age difference law, one state in the US is as low as 12, under certain circumstances) and the marriageable age is as low as 13, under certain circumstances, in one state and 14 in several other states. In 2 states the marriageable age without parental consent is over 18 ( Nebraska 19 and Mississippi 21). Then again the national age of consent in Japan is 13 but local laws vary from prefecture to prefecture often setting it higher (None of them over the age of 17). In addition all municipalities and prefectures in Japan have their own particular laws such as Tokyo’s “Youth Protection Law” which prohibit adults from having sex with youths who are under 17 years old. What we have in the US is a set of state laws that allow marriage and legal sexual conduct nearly universally under the age of 18 but depictions of this activity illegal. We also have a strong movement to censor all depictions of teenage sex, even though it does happen, from the viewpoint that depicting it condones it. This is very odd because the age in which 50% of the US youths report having sex is 15 for boys and 16 for girls. What we see is the anime depicting youths having sex, which is happening, and US censors/The congress trying to ban such depictions, by classifying such as child pornography. The Supreme court then overturned the law by pretty much saying that congress had fallen off its rocker by passing such a law as teenage sex is a reality and has been the subject of significant works of literature and art for hundreds of years, pointing to the Shakespeare play Romeo and Juliet as an example.

This also needs to be edited

Although Japan also has laws governing the use of underage imagery in Anime, Japan has a lower age of consent than the US, and its laws define a lower range limit for the purposes of child pornography. Japan also has a more relaxed attitude towards nudity that separates contextual nudity (bathing, transformation sequences) from sexual nudity (physical sexual contact or nudity for the purpose of arousing the audience).

As the US does not have a unified age of consent and one state actually allows sex between minors at age 12, which is lower than the Japanese national age of consent of 13.

Just to be 100%, the aging up is NOT related to the age of consent. Under US law, anybody who appears in any kind of media is considered to be a child (for the purposes of pornography) if they are under 18. This means that even in states where the age of consent is 16, you can't show a 16 year olds boobs on TV except in special circumstances (for example, sex education videos in schools).

perfectblue 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! That is why the article needs to be changed. The article states that the aging is due to age of consent law differences and incorrectly states Japan has a lower age of Consent than the US. The issue is that Japan does not disallow, neither does the US anymore as the law got overturned, animated depictions of individuals under the age of 18 in sexually arousing (Doesn't even have to be nude) depictions/situations. The problem is many animes, not even hentai titles (Naruto even has a scene albeit very mild and in silhouette), depict teenage (14-18 year old) nudity and sexual activity. And I just edited the article.

"Occasionally series from outside the United States will inadvertently use what some people on the left might consider "politically incorrect racial or ethnic stereotypes." Other sensitive issues might be altered as well. Those with a sense of humour and those who are more conservative are generally not bothered by this." - I think that cultural and religious censoring in anime is stupid, but personal attacks are not the way to counter it. I think this section needs to be edited to be more politically correct, but am not sure what to write. Shinhan 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the various things I changed on Aug. 1/06. I'm pretty liberal but I think I'd be offended if, say, a character walked on screen wearing a swastika and I didn't know what it meant. Anime doesn't have the luxury that manga does of providing footnotes on things like that. - HKMARKS 23:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against censoring (whats the point, this is article about censoring), but about wording (note the bolded text). Btw. fansubs do sometimes provide footnotes for which I was always grateful. Shinhan 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just saying that people at any point in the political spectrum, with or without a sense of humour can be offended by things... especially if they don't understand what's going on. --HKMARKS 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I was almost brought to tears over the effort being brought forth in this article. It is high time the most popular informational source in the world wrote an article about the editing of anime, and to have it be of this caliber is incredible. As the owner of Yuugiou Uncensored, a website that tries to highlight the changes made to a great Japanese series, I applaud your efforts. John D'Adamo 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. This is one of the more cleaner anime anime related articles around. KyuuA4 05:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John D'Adamo for telling the commuinity that we have a very long way to go to stop flamers like you abusing Wikipedia. We are trying our very hardest to salvage an article that shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Here we go again. Not only should this article be on Wikipedia, I'm surprised there was a time where it didn't exist. How am I a flamer, anyway? I always use careful judgment in my comparisons and the opinions from my website that are linked here are from respected article writers like Jaya Lakshmi. John D'Adamo 14:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS: [4] and then reply. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Outright false. CCU closed down because the founder was sick of running it, not because of the subject manner. John D'Adamo 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles that are used as reference in this Wikiarticle come from my website, Yuugiou Uncensored. They were originally hosted on DBZOA however we have had a falling out with them and moved to the Anime Cauldron website. I've changed the article links to reflect this. John D'Adamo 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the logo comparison from

I have decided to

I forget which cartoon it was but on Fox Kids, there was a scene where a completely naked monster (resembling a man) attacks another man (you see the monster's buttocks) and after that monster has transformed into a human again, you see part of his butt crack! 156.34.215.54 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it that was an animal, not a human (at least if I'm reading you right).

There are no hard and fast rules. You see buttocks in several episodes of cartoons like Sponge Bob squarepants, Billy and Mandy and Dexter's lab, which are shown on during children's TV time on cartoon network, nick and Fox, yet later on in the day Fox blur actual buttcracks out on shows like family guy.

It's kind of stupid. Especially when other countries can show much more and nobody gets upset. An episode of Southpark aired in Britain showed a penis, and nobody freaked out, and Japanese and Chinese cartoons show regularly non-sexualized prepubescent male and female nudity and they are both more conservative countries than the US is on a lot of issues.

perfectblue 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan is more conservative than US on the question of nudity? ... Now I heard everything ^_^ Shinhan 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said. I said that they were more conservative than the US on "a lot of issues". Not nudity, other things. Plus China IS more conservative than the US on nudity, and it regularly shows pre-pubesent male and female nudity in animation.

perfectblue 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my addition, it reads a lot better now. The thing I was talking about, they showed nudity before and after the man transformed into a human. : ) 156.34.208.219 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that Anime is sometimes left without a capital "A", and sometimes it has one given to it? Is it Anime or anime? Sorry to waste your time. 207.35.41.4 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not you view it as a noun or a proper noun. I view it as a proper noun for a distinct Japanese art form, so I capitalize, other people often see it the Japanese word for cartoon/animation so they don't.

perfectblue 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what, if you were to ask any English teacher whether or not "anime" should be capitalized, they'd tell it wouldn't. When I get time, I'm going to change all of the words "anime" to lowercase.

Instead of saying the 'censored version' of an anime, why not say 'edited version', or even better, 'unlocalized version'? I realize that anti-editing fans would prefer to use the emotional term of 'censorship', but what's really going on is localization, and is a bit more neutral. Scumbag 02:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in this instance, censorship is often being used not because it is emotional, but rather because it is the most accurate phrase to use. Edited would apply in cases where items were changed for prosaic reasons (such as clipping a show to a smaller time slot). Localized refers only to the process of Americanization (for example, removing Kanji and replacing them with English, and changing the names of things/people to more familiar ones).

However, in a lot of instances the term censored is used here because the changes are actually carried out under FCC or network guidelines on decency, appropriateness for the audience/time slot. This officially fall into the boundaries of broadcast censorship (as in "You can't show THAT on TV").

For example, renaming two generic towers in Tokyo to "the world trade center" is localization because it makes the scene more familiar to the audience, but deleting one of the towers because of 9/11, or editing out a smutty poster on the side of one of them is censorship because one is for reasons of audience sensitivity to a culturally difficult reference point, and the other is for reasons of morality/decency laws which forbid the display of nudity on children's television (if it's forbidden to show something, changing it is always classified as censorship). perfectblue 08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no difference between removing the Kanji and removing the other things you mentioned - they are both things which need to be adapted for the market its being sold to. You remove the Kanji and replace it with english. You replace Japanese Culturally Acceptable Display Of Nudity with American Culturally Acceptable Display Of Nudity. You replace the Japanese Culturally Acceptable Display of Violence with American Culturally Accceptable Display of Violence. It's localization. Scumbag 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely not the same thing. Removing Kanji is optional and done for the benefit of the audience. Removing violence and sex is a legal requirement for screening on kids TV.

I don't know what it is like where you come from, but, for example, in the US it is illegal to display any image of an under 18 that could be construed as being sexualized. This legislation is enforced by both the FCC and other state/federal authorities. It therefore MUST be removed in order for the franchise to be broadcast. It is not an option. :::perfectblue 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the violence and sex is done for the benefit of the audience to. This is especially true in the case of most anime ported to the US, as the bulk of it is consumed by little kids. I also disagree with the 'it's not an option' bit. Sure, your choice winds up making it so that you can't air it over here except in horrible time slots. The other option, of course, is to realize "hey, I might want to show this to kids over in America!" and not draw all the non-localizable content in the first place. Scumbag 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look at FCC and network regulations. Particularly the bits about showing smoking, drinking and under age nudity. For example, no matter what the time slot, you can't show a 17 year old girl having sex. [The bulk of anime being consumed by little kids] only because it is censored. If it wasn't censored there would be a larger adult audience. The 6-11 demographic is artificially brought in by companies who dumb cartoons down to that level. I give you Family Guy, South Park and Drawn Together as examples of a natural demographic. I'll remind you of that the next time a Muslim country bans an American film, or the Europeans complains about all of the gun violence in American shows [next time someone suggests they not write content that would be removed]. :::perfectblue

I know the FCC rules, thanks. Also, we know that unlocalized anime is a flop, with poor DVD sales and rare late-night showings. Unlocalized anime has no audience in America. You cite Family Guy, South Park, and Drawn Together - all of which are much, much more popular than unlocalized anime. Anime is children's programming, and all localization is doing is replacing Japanese Culturally Acceptable Display Of Nudity and/or Violence with American Culturally Acceptable Display Of Nudity and/or Violence. Scumbag 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anime is children's programming? Haven't seen Perfect Blue or Grave of the Fireflies, have you? ;) M3n747 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unlocalized Anime is extremely popular. It's only the specific "uncut" distributions are a flop. Largely, this is because the unlocalized Anime is released so late that fans have either already brought the it from a professional importer (often from Japan, or a multilingual place like Hong Kong), or have obtained a pirate copy on DVD or over P2P file sharing.

Take Yu gi oh. Anime fans started out getting the fansub straight from Japan when it first came out (often within 48 hours of an episode being broadcast), then a couple of years later they saw the cut version on TV, a year later the cut version came out on DVD, then a year later the uncut version came out. It's since been several years, fans have already see the series a hundred times, have gotten bored, and have moved on to the next series. If I were to release the DVD for LOST 5 years after it had been on TV, I'm sure that it would flop too.

Besides, if uncut Anime is a flop, why do companies like ADV often sell ONLY uncut versions, and why were the Anime Network and Adult Swim started for distributing it? There is a lot of neo-con propaganda, which I advice you to take with a dose of salt.

"all localization is doing is replacing Japanese Culturally Acceptable Display Of...."

Actually, the FCC itself describe the removal of media content for reasons of moral objection to sex or violence as being censorship. Washington defined this, not me.

perfectblue 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal remarks, such as, "You've been listening to too much Neo-con propaganda," and, "You're fighting Washington here." --Raijinili 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments directed towards a specific user are not the same as personal attacks. I am not using bad language, issuing any threats, or implying any inpropriatery. I am merely stating the personal opinion that said user has been misinformed by conservative media with its own agenda, and informing them that the scope of the terminology that I am using (eg censorship) was defined by a government body, and so any disagreement (said fighting) over its use should be directed towards the government as it is something that is out of my control.

perfectblue 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was recently a revert ((cur) (last) 07:50, January 17, 2007 Perfectblue97 (Talk | contribs) m (Sorry, but some of this breaks wikirules on advertizing RV)) on one of my edits that basically stated that I violated a guideline on advertizing. Yes, I DID put The Otaku Alliance back on the site, and, yes, I AM an administrator of The Otaku Alliance. But I edited this site before I was associated with The Otaku Alliance and thought the The Otaku Alliance should be linked before I was even associated with The Otaku Alliance. Because of this, I don't think was violating anything. People, let me know what you think about adding it back on. Oh, and

perfectblue 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which ones to include has been fought over before. But I think I came up with a method that may work and be agreeabe. I have a list of basically ALL of these sites.

In order for a site to make the page in my opinion, it had to fit this criteria: 1. The site had to have a good amount of information on it. I didn't want a site with only a few episode comparisons. 2. The show of the site had to have no official uncut alternative in the United States, as, if there were one, it would make the comparison site less important, as people COULD GET the uncut alternative, anyway. 3. The show of the site had to either be on DVD (only edited of course, fitting the first criteria) or, it still had to be on TV. If a show fit my first criteria, but not the second, the only way a a comparison site for that show would be helpful is if someone taped all of the episodes - which I don't find it likely that many did. 4. I limited it to one site per show.

I didn't check to see if "The Edit List" fit this criteria, but it is ONE link with SO many comparisons, that I put it up there, anyway. Pitman6787

List looks good. Good criteria. Nice job! -- RattleMan 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am taking out the

I agree with this statement only because a few sentences are all thats need to explain the Disco Guns and it doesn't need that large amount of material. -Adv193 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the examples in the article seem to be from 4Kids Entertainment. Are the practices of one company considered to be a general trend? —Frungi 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they'd be the easiest to get examples from and would be the most relevant since they seem to be the dominant dubbers for Saturday mornings nowadays. As neutral as I am to 4Kids' edits, I say it should stay. Matty-chan 02:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I know, 4Kids seems to be on the more extreme end of the editing spectrum, censoring not only offensive things like blood and nudity, but often innocuous Japanese influences, written Asian characters (not translating them, but simply removing them entirely), and entire soundtracks. They make the most edits per capita that I know of; that’s why I asked whether they should be considered typical. —Frungi 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not typical, no. But they ARE by far the most notable, and in all probability more people have written about their changes than anyone else's, lending itself nicely to sources usable in the article. At any rate, we have plenty of other examples in the page. I don't think DBZ or Sailor Moon were done by 4Kids, were they? Not to mention the whole Warriors Of The Wind fiasco. Really, 4Kids stands out in the pictures more than anything else, because their blatant graphical edits make for excellent illustrations and other people, most concerned with that particular company, have already done the hard work for us and found several equivalent frames in both versions, making their use more convenient. Jaimeastorga2000 21:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, many fans have generally forgotten about the work of Streamline Pictures. KyuuA4 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To settle this issue, this large article should be merged over with

Can't we just call them "people" or something? That's what they are. 38.98.223.57 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I partly agree to where this would affect American Censorship in general and not just the anime community because I know a couple of guys who agree with me that censorship is too restrictive. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  Albeit true that 'Anime Fans' can carry a more or less negative connotations, I can assure you they call themselves way more derogatory terms, ex. "Otaku, Anime geeks, Fanboys, Japanese culture Gregs..." I see no need to change this. And, I can also varify that 3/5 anime viewers prefer uncensored anime. Again, it's true, I stand by it. PotatoTheThird (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Within Controversy

• One common myth that is that editing is done without consulting the original creators of the anime that are edited. Voice Actor Greg Ayres has attempted to dispell this myth several times in his panel regarding the truth about anime and anime distribution.

     "You think the Japanese don't know what's going on, they do.  If they aren't 
      making money, they aren't making anime.  They know that getting their shows 
      on American television is a way to make sure they can keep going." 
                                               Greg Ayres, AnimeFest 2007

Within Original creators' thoughts

• The original creators of the anime that have been edited are usually not directly notified of the editing. It is up to the studios/copyright owners of anime as to whether or not to allow editing in their anime, and the ample number of anime edited for the United States would seem to indicate that the studios/copyright owners normally do not object.

Or does the "directly" in the latter rectify it?

Also, I don't think the Greg Ayres quote verifies that it is a myth that "editing is done without consulting the original creators of the anime that are edited."

What do you think should be done here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitman6787 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that his words are pretty much misleading. The point is, that original creators, with the sole exceptions of producers, in most cases do not have a say in anything what is done later with their work. It's the way the anime is made: there are animation studios, which are mostly tiny basement establishments, trying to scrape a hard living in a notoriously competitive industry, and then there are TV channels and big distibution companies, which usually commission these studios to make some anime. This might go the other way, when studio people thing that they've got a nifty idea, and then they go asking for sponsorship. But, in a nutshell, the situation is that the people who did the most creative output and care about it most, in 90% of all situations don't have the money and leverage even for production, not to say dstribution. So, the majors have the most say in such matters, and they usually just don't care about it. If those gaijins wanna cut it up -- it's okay, just make sure thay pay it up front. So let me reiterate the point: Japanese distributors might not object much, but they are not the original creators -- they are just publishers who often commissioned the work and thus hold the copyright. There are exceptions, but they are pretty few and far between. --Khathi (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be worth pointing out that Japan--to my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong--hasn't had that sort of large scale "creator's rights" movement like you have seen in the American (etc) Comics industry. To my knowledge--based on what I've read on the subject--anime and manga artists are treated as "work for hire" grunts whose only job is to churn out pages for the publisher. As such, while a creator's name can be a draw to the series (like "Stan Lee", "Jack Kirby", "Todd McFarlane", etc), their work is still treated as property of the studio they're working for. My understanding is that it's very rare to see a creator simply up and leave and take their work with them (examples do exist, like Yukito Kishiro taking his series "Gunnm/Battle Angel Alita: Last Order" with him as he switched from Shueisha to Kodansha). Therefore, I understand it's commonplace for a manga/anime creator to simply accept what is done with their work by their editors and distributors, because "shikata ga nai". Of course, anyone more knowledgable than I am on this matter is free to correct me on this, as I'm basing this on my limited, outsider observations of the things I've read by manga/anime creators on this subject. -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As they are now, edited left, unedited right? Or vice-versa? I can readily and easily edit it them, switching them around and updating them. Since we read left to right, the "more important" image should be on the left. And I thought the order they are in now was appropriate, as the edited image is kind of more important, but I could see the argument of the fact that, in order for the comparison to better make sense, the unedited should be on the left, as it gives us our only point of reference as to see how the other image was edited. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.116.46 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Isnt it the Pentagram that is occultist not the Hexagram. Wouldn't it be antisemitic instead? (Due to it being the star of david) 23:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pentagram and hexagram are such old and basic symbols that they were used countless times for countless purposes. Yes, occultism was one of these purposes, for both symbols. --Khathi (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many forms of "-gram" polygons are symbols of para-normality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoTheThird (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject, & parts of this article are very good. Some parts not so good. I will do some rewriting when I have more time for this, especially the parts about Miyazaki. These are currently written backwards for some reason - the article mentions his "no cuts" stance on Princess Mononoke first, then rambles on inconcisely before mentioning Nausicaa / Warriors of the Wind last. This misses the point that his experience with Nausicaa had a big influence on his "no cuts" policy with later films.

The comment that Studio Ghibli's works that include "partial nudity, death, violence and other more adult concepts/moments" seems more than a little exaggerated. I do not recall any "partial nudity". (If this is a reference to Nausicaa's bottom, it is inaccurate - she wears beige leggings which may look like bare skin. If it's about Pom Poko's balls, that's animal nudity, and is mentioned elsewhere in the article). Princess Mononoke is mildly bloody, as mentioned elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, however, Ghibli films are only "violent" to the extent that, for example, Star Wars is.

The section on "Fifteening" is puzzling. It seems to suggest that profanity is inserted into translation scripts in a deliberate attempt to get an age-restricted rating, but does not explain why a restriction would be desirable. Film distributors do not usually seek to restrict their audience in this way, especially with animations, which tend to appeal to a young demographic.

The fact that Princess Mononoke is given as an example just confuses it further - this film is a PG-13 in the USA & PG(age unrestricted) in the UK. It is only PG because of the level of blood and violence in the film, not Billy Bob's use of the words "donkey piss". The idea that Disney might deliberately want to change a children's film into a restricted film is pretty laughable. Also, the article claims that Fifteening "happened in the earlier days of anime releases in the United States", but the Mononoke dub is from 1999, not really that early in the history of anime. Consequently I am removing this example. I have left the rest of the Fifteening section, but still think that somebody with some knowledge on this could explain concept better.

I have now rewritten / edited this section as per my notes above. —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fifteening is a common practice in anime editing, and can be traced back to Astro Boy, where you can here a character clearly say "Sh*t." As for Mononoke, it is actually quite gory by western standards, with mutilation, ample bloodloss, and practically no Disney taboos left unbroken. So, yes, the article was correct. PotatoTheThird (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Does a worldwide view of "editing of anime in American distribution" even exist? I don't see how the rest of the world is relevant here. I suggest a detagging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.155.72 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide" doesn't necessarily mean in a geographical sense. The tag means that the style &/or content is overly subjective & not encyclopedic. Follow the link on "wordwide view" in the banne & it will explain more. I think that, in this case, the tag means that the article looks like it is written by & for anime fans, whereas it should be in a more levelled encyclopedic style.

talk

) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be changed to editing of anime in English dubs if there's not already an article called that. Americans are not the only nationality to watch anime dubbed into English. Indeed in England they show nothing but dubbed anime; never subbed and is censored as in America. Sioraf (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ThisguyYEA (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Sailor moon is frenquently used in the article,mainly in sexual-homosexual topics.I wonder why sailor moon is frenquently used as an example.

Winx Club is an Italian animated series, not Japanese. But when it came to America, 4Kids Entertainment edited it as they did with their Japanese imports. How to treat this case in this article? -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 03:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that in Japan, they frequently use the term "juice" to refer to any and everything from actual juice to soft drinks. They generally use it to describe anything carbonated. In the new manga translation of Sailor Moon they also use the term "juice", but it is used in the Japanese context.The wiki entry for Japanese soft drink names confirms this. Basically the way the scene plays out in the original version is that Usagi was looking for something to drink, sees the champagne, and calls is 'juice' since she doesn't know what it is and it looks like the type of stuff she would normally call juice. Then she gets drunk. I'd make a note of this except that in the US release DiC clearly used the term in order to keep from showing that Usagi/Serena was drunk. It kind of gets confusing, so I wasn't sure how to clearly and efficiently enter this into the system.

This is an important article; but this is a total train wreck. Anyone object to using industry sources, primaries, in this article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)