Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is it dangerous to watch the video?

Is it dangerous to watch the video in the article? --Jarlhelm (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If you watch the video, you do in fact risk having a seizure. Please consider trying to remember if looking at a strobe/flashing colours has ever given you a migraine... If such is the case, I wouldn't suggest watching the video at all. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 10:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but it may be a wise idea to mention that fact in the caption. People may assume that the video has been altered so that it is safe (I know I did until reading this). MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the speed is slower (due to converting and uploading it on the computer) than the real thing. (O'erTheRampardos (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Yeah the speed is slightly slower due to conversion. However, people with a history of seizures may still be triggered from it. It's not 100% safe. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and it does not use ad-hoc disclaimers because it already has a generic risk disclaimer that covers this situation (as well as other disclaimers). The caption to the video already says it's a scene that caused seizures; that makes it more than clear that... it may, uh, cause seizures. --LjL (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alpha's Arceus says:It should be much slower.So we don`t get the seizure!:The caption notes that the video may cause a seizure if you watch it. If you have a history of epilepsy or other triggers of seizures then don't watch it. It is a slightly slower speed so the risk of seizure should be somewhat reduced, but if you're that worried about it then I can't say anything other common sense: don't watch it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

e:OK,But people who want to watch it,and refuse to not watch it,make ot slower if you can.But I think they know not to watch it anyway. This needs no more edit. :D.

I think some people would still watch it, so I've put up a warning. Tell me if you have any objections. Mackatacka123 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. People might think "oh, I won't have a seizure, it's okay...." Especially if they're younger kids. The video needs to either be slowed down or taken down. It's not our place to punish people for stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.119.105 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd rather not... 154.20.194.233 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010

(UTC)...

Do you think it is wise to kep this up? people win big in court for spilling hot coffee from the mcdonalds drive through all the time. frivolous law suits have become... unfrivolous, when compared to what used to be considered frivolous. Do you want to risk a law suit from the parents of some small child who had a seizure just for wanting to see a part of his favorite television show he had never seen before? just because someone has never showed signs of epilepsy or other seizure disorders before doesn't mean it can't happen anyways. I dont think Wikipedia would want to be responsible, or held responsible, if a medical emergency were to happen due to something on the site.69.61.179.241 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to resort to using legal liability, you're best off getting your facts right. What are usually cited as "frivolous lawsuits", like the Liebeck case, actually aren't, as attorneys can get in a lot of trouble if they take on these cases repeatedly. That said, we more than cover our ass with the risk disclaimer and content disclaimer, the second of which outright warns that Wikipedia contains potential epileptic triggers. That said, the clip is alongside discussion about the epilepsy, and the video quality is such that triggering a seizure is more likely to be a sign of confirmation bias than anything. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like a small child will know what all that technical hoo-hah and political mumbo-jumbo says. and dont say "dont let your kids wander the internet", because kids sneak into it. and dont say "there's software to prevent that, or to monitor" or whatever. by the time the parents saw what their kid was doing, it would be too late. It's sad that we risk people health to be politically correct. paint it whatever color you want. a rose by any other name smells the same, or rather, an article by any other liability causes brain damage the same69.61.179.241 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED - Wikipedia is not censored. And that is that. The movie is a reduced quality video that will have less chance to cause a seizure. If people know that they are prone to seizures, and watch the video anyways, KNOWING it causes seizures, then that is their problem. We can't be responsible for people's stupidness, and won't remove encyclopedic information just because some people don't have common sense. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet

Should we mention somewhere that the episode in its entirety can be found all over the Internet (especially on Youtube)?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it's pretty obvious that it can be found, but it will still need to be cited. Other than that, I see no problems with it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the video be a second or two longer?

This is just a matter of taste, but I think it should let the musical cue finish instead of stopping so abruptly right before it does. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My head hurts

I watched the video and as previous user said, I assumed it was slowed down for the user safety... it wasn't. I think it's about morality, to ensure the safety of the curious ones you should get a slowed down version of the gif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.236.25.205 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alpha`s Arceus says:Well,I don`t watch it,so you shouldn't.....XD.But it`s True!

Wiki: WHY? IT CAUSED SEZUIRES!

AIE...UH, I MEAN, GROH!!! Wikipedia, that scene caused SEZIURES! Arceus493 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Beta Wiki!

Previous discussion here. Also note Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Article readers (and for those click, watchers) are appropriately warned in the caption, in the reaction section; indeed, the whole article is basically one big disclaimer. If you're still concerned, I'd recommend bringing it up at the WikiProject, since more people will see the discussion there than they will here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the video in this article have a disclaimer?

It seems odd that there is no disclaimer for this video, it is a serious health risk especially when thousands of people who saw it ended up hospitalized, and now we are showing it on here without warning. Ive been around long enough to know what WP:NDA says, however according to WP:PG, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is a case where such an exception might need to be applied, showing a video like this without a disclaimer is dangerous. There is likely a reason why the video has never been shown again since it's premiere. So, Should the video in this article have a disclaimer? This also might seem like an odd RfC considering I have not been in conflict with any other users nor even posted here before, but there have been many heated debates on this in the past (mostly on this page) with no true resolution. I find it important that other editors who don't normally come here add input into this issue to help better establish a community established solution. --Marcusmax(speak) 04:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The caption says "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures." How much more of a disclaimer do you need when it is explicitly stated that it is one of the scenes responsible? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the quality of this video is much lower than the original. There's a big difference between watching the scene on a television and in a small .gif on a computer. Theleftorium 14:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of the users from a previous discussion mentioned, what if an oblivious child watched the video? Others on here have also complained about headaches after watching it, though they could be lying or trying to get attention we should WP:AGF and believe them when they say this video caused them to have health issues. Also according to this book, "Any animation with a repeating pattern that can cause the monitor to flicker at a frequency between 2 Hz and 55Hz can cause such a seizure." So what Hz is the animation we have on the page? What im going to do now is invite all users who have ever commented on this issue in the past here to weigh in again and offer insight. (Both those for and against a warning message) -Marcusmax(speak) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What Hz is the animation? You'd have to ask the editor who uploaded the scene. If an "oblivious child" were to watch the video, I don't see how adding a second disclaimer to the one already in the sentence would make any difference. Either they watch it or they don't, but it is hardly our fault or responsibility if they ignore the part which says "this is one of the scenes which caused the seizures". I don't see how it is even possible to say it any clearer. "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures"; it's pretty damn obvious what that means. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I never thought about it that way with the child you definitely have a point there. However just because it says that it is the infamous video, doesn't mean that people will know that it could still cause a seizure. What im trying to say is that someone who didn't read through the entire article might just assume that the scene was fixed, and put on Wikipedia. Or they might assume that we slowed it down, so getting a seizure is less likely. Im not advocating for the videos removal, as it is a very valuable thing to have here but we should still look into adding a disclaimer. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As the uploader, I should mention that I did everything I could to retain the original framerate and bitrate of the show as it was broadcasted. Of course, in the re-encoding process, it lost a bit of that, but that is unavoidable. I believe that people could be harmed by this video, should they watch it too much or watch it with their eyes on the screen. I was a little worried (if you check the history on the upload) about having all of the original seizure-inducing scenes included, as that seemed excessively dangerous, so I shortened it to the one. Again, as the uploader, I feel that my comment under the video is substantial, but can see why you might want more than just that. Wikipedia *is* uncensored- true- but this might be a special case. Maybe make it look like my example to the right. Hopefully we can come to a compromise that everyone is happy with :3 ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If editors decide that the video is dangerous enough to introduce a disclaimer but not dangerous enough to delete, they ought to make the disclaimer far clearer than the proposed format. Three suggested guidelines: write the disclaimer in plain text rather than in a small-font graphic; place the disclaimer above rather than below the video file; repeat the disclaimer in the caption in a more succinct wording. Also, keep the video in its current vertical position, where it isn't visible immediately upon opening the page. My opinion on the question is that such a disclaimer would duplicate Wikipedia:Content disclaimer; further, I would note that past discussions on a policy about files triggering photosensitive epilepsy have been predicated on the absence of any such files from Wikipedia, which obviously doesn't hold any more. I don't feel qualified to decide whether the best route is disclaimer, no disclaimer, or deletion altogether of the video. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How can this even be a discussion!? We are talking about people’s health and safety! Fuck the rules, the protocols, the aesthetic. I want to keep the gif, but to maintain that information without being completely irresponsible, a prominent warning is crucial. People are stupid, we can’t count on them to make the right connection to the meaning of the current caption. If some prudes view objectionable content because they don’t understand the lack of censorship on certain topics, or their kids see sexual content and strong language because parents can’t be bothered to monitor Internet use, that’s one thing. They had it coming, it’s even kinda funny. If people might have seizures and be hospitalized? That is another matter entirely. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From uninvolved user. I'm not seeing any persuasive argument to include the video. We include images because they are informative and attractive, but this link isn't. We have loads of articles about films and videos and hardly any of them have links to the videos themselves. So just take it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An image can't convey the same information that this video does, IMO. I'd prefer this video over a simple screenshot. Theleftorium 15:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things: One, this isn't a gif, therefore it's location in the page is irrelevant; the user has to click play. Two: The likelihood that anyone would actually get a seizure from this is rather low. Most people wouldn't, and those who would obviously would be more wary because they would know about their condition. At any rate, a small disclaimer is acceptable, but deleting the video really isn't. The point of the matter is that it's just as useful, if not more useful, than just a picture. This is a special case, people want to understand how or why it was so bad, and here you can see the red and blue flashing over most of the screen, it wasn't just a little thing. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea: how about I preface the video with white text on a black screen reading 'Warning: may cause seizures.' Just a thought. ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that might work well, could you find a way to preview what that would look like. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing my comments and the concerns of other editors, I think I can safely say that I'm willing to back down and that I'm amenable to that suggestion. That or alternatively adding "View with caution" at the end of the caption, since some will argue that having already clicked 'play' they would be too slow to avoid seeing the clip.. Though I still wonder what the hell people are expecting to see when this whole article is about that video causing seizures. It's really obvious to begin with. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Theleftorium 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lets get the facts straight.

1. It caused seizures and other problems to some people.
2. You won't know if you are vulnerable, until it happens.
3. People will skim through the article, be curious and will try to watch it, to see what the fuss is about, before reading the article thoroughly enough to see just how many people were injured. They might not even think they are vulnerable.
4. There is no possible reason to need to show that.
5. It is a copyright violation. Since when does Wikipedia show video clips of things anyway? We don't normally allow this, but since it might cause seizures for some people, we decided to make an exception, because we're secretly very evil and want to harm your kids. Honestly now. This isn't just a screenshot from something, but a video clip. I'm sure that violates copyright rules.
6. Wikipedia is libel! What happens if someone sues after injury? Someone out there knowing they or their child is vulnerable, might watch it just to have an excuse to sue and make money even. Dream Focus 07:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 5 (and 4), the video meets the fair use criteria because the article is discussing the clip itself; you can give any amount of textual description or screenshots without getting the full encyclopedic value of showing people what it actually looks like (whether that's worth the health risk is a separate question, of course, but I disagree that there's "no possible reason"). The fact that it's a clip and not a still picture makes no difference to the copyright status. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete An encyclopedia should be about learning and shouldn't be here to cause ill health through seizures, even in such a small segment of the population. Since most people do not know they could be affected until it is too late the warning system is limited in use, and since the actual moving pictures do not add much to the article that isn't explicit in the text it is far safer to simply remove the animated section. Include the screenshot - that is normal for a segment of video. There is no overriding reason to have the animation in it's entirety and doing so is highly irresponsible. Weakopedia (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Can the video cause seizures at the size it has in the article? It seems significantly less dangerous than a full-screen version to me. —Кузьма^討論 10:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• (ec, Kusma beat me to it) I'm not an expert on the subject, but isn't there a pretty darn big difference between watching the clip in full-screen and watching the clip in a rather small part of the screen? As far as I know the latter isn't nearly as dangerous. One thing we could also do is to slow down the scene significantly to reduce/elimiate any possible risks. --Conti|✉ 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If the description of the original broadcast version is accurate, I don't think the makers could have made it much more dangerous if they'd tried! The small version on the article may be less dangerous, but still poses significant risks. I will not attempt to watch it myself because I know it is likely to cause me harm: I suffer from photosensitive migraine, and trust me, it is not necessary for a trigger to occupy the whole screen to cause illness.
As someone wisely pointed out above, we are not here to punish stupidity. If the file's inclusion without consent of the copyright owners can be justified using fair use rationale (which I consider questionable in this case), we should at least do everything we reasonably can to ensure fair warning. Can we hide the video clip in a collapse box so that at least 2 mouse clicks are required to view it? Computer users are generally used to safeguards which prevent potentially regrettable actions like deleting files or spending money from being accomplished by a single click: I don't think it's unreasonable that one should have to click twice to expose oneself to a potential health and safety hazard. Also, a specific disclaimer in the caption should be bold, clear and explicit, starting with an unambiguous word like "WARNING!", preferably in red. We all know that Wikipedia's general content disclaimer is "small print" which people ought to read but few actually do. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The file can be downloaded and played full screen and is at 30 fps.

Due to the expanse of red, it is unlikely that the area will be shaded any differently to the original and there is no deterioration in the red shading
The fact that children may be hurt is surely more important than a libel suit ?
A warning is needed and I think a big red one - that would also mean putting it in various languages incase all children of the world do not speak english ??
Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see your argument for a warning on the file page (where it is possible to view it full screen), but not really on the article. "The video that caused the seizures" is as clear and obvious as a warning as I can imagine. —Кузьма^討論 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please see Benjamin Radford#Pokémon Panic. Adding a warning is not only misguided, it is actually the exact opposite of what should be done if the aim is to reduce reactions to this infamous (but not at all unusual) video sequence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just one doctors opinion on the incident? -Marcusmax(speak) 22:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the generally accepted explanation, and that is also more or less what this very article says. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original 2001 article, if anyone is interested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I have an easy solution to this. How about somebody takes the video off from the article as it doesn't necessarily add to the information and anybody who actually wants to watch it can look it up in the internet and find it with ease. --Trrri333 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like copyright infringement as well as a risk to health.

It is available in other places on the internet and some have had it removed for copyvio.

I personally agree that it should be deleted and there is already a jpg of it available on the Photosensitive_epilepsy article that should be used instead.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement? Hardly. The clip is marked as being fair use which means that, while the uploader does not own the copyright to the file, it's usage is permitted so long as there is no commercial profit from it. Wikipedia is non-profit, and no profit is being made from the usage of the clip; that proviso does not apply. In addition to that, usage of non-free media is okay so long as it does not exceed a certain amount of the material in question; this is usually around 10%. Wikipedia has added to this in their media policy by adding that audio or video clips must be a maximum length of 30 seconds or 10% of the original file, whichever is less. The clip runs for about six or seven seconds; this falls beneath the 30 second threshold, and well below the 10% level since the original episode ran for about 22 minutes. Sorry, but there is no copyright infringement here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From a copyright perspective, we're completely in the clear here. This is a classic example of fair use: the article is using a small portion of a copyrighted work to comment on that work. If there's a reason to remove the video from the article, it isn't related to copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The founder of Wikipedia said on his talk page [1] when I asked him about this, that "It should simply be deleted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)" Others seem to agree. Its a potential health problem. You can't show the flashing lights without risking health problems to some people, and if you edit it somehow, then you eliminate what you are trying to demonstrate. Dream Focus 03:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow its pretty big when the founder of Wikipedia thinks it should be deleted, out of the safety of the public. But im still not sure thats the right path. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But did he read the full discussion on this page? Or did he just take a cursory glance at what you wrote? Your post on his talk page was very POV and mentioned only your fears regarding the clip; not, for instance, that most of the reaction was caused by general hysteria after the fact, and the justification for it's use as has been posted several times on this page. If Jimbo has not been presented with or chose not to read the full discussion, which includes the points and facts of both sides, his opinion can hardly be construed as the end of the argument.

In any case, this RfC is not about whether the clip should be on the page or not; it's about whether the caption should include a second disclaimer. Either we stay on this topic, for which several possibilities have been proposed, or a second RfC be opened to deal with whether it should be on the article or not. I repeat; this discussion is about the addition of a disclaimer, not the inclusion of the video.

Though Wikipedia is not a democracy and so votes do not count in place of consensus, I would like to propose a strawpoll to see which of the options regarding the disclaimer be implemented. The proposed solutions are presented below; if you would like to register your opinion on the poll, please sign your name in the relevant section. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Delicious carbuncle's earlier comment: Radford's analysis is fundamentally flawed in that he discusses only two possible explanations for patients' symptoms. He omits any mention of photosensitive migraine or other relevant medical conditions which fall outside his binary diagnostic menu. He also ignores the question of discrepancies between occurrence of symptoms and reporting of symptoms, which strikes me as particularly relevant here. How many of us have experienced temporary symptoms such as headaches and nausea triggered by sensory stimuli and not sought medical advice since the symptoms quickly subsided? If a child complains of feeling unwell during or after a particular cartoon, their parents might not normally even connect the two events or trouble their doctor with a minor ailment; however, if it is then widely reported that the cartoon has caused serious health issues for some viewers, symptoms which would normally be shrugged off are likely to be reported.

If we accept Radford's analysis and Delicious carbuncle's interpretation of it, then we actually have a serious problem here: this would mean that

1. The cartoon is believed to have induced epileptic seizures in some viewers (albeit a tiny proportion), so showing it with no warning at all would be unacceptable;
2. There is a possibility that adequate warnings may increase the risk of symptoms in the wider population by leading viewers to anticipate adverse reactions.

If we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, surely the best solution would be simply to avoid using the clip at all? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article discusses the incident and the video already has a caption identifying it as an example of the seizure-inducing sequence. People who are aware that they are prone to seizures or other conditions induced by flashing lights, etc, will likely not watch the video. People who are not aware that they are susceptible may watch the video and experience ill effects. My sole concern here is that we do not set up the expectation of ill effects, which may have the effect of making the video something that becomes a dare or temptation to watch, and may cause people to imagine that they have had an adverse effect when they have not. Removing the video entirely may be the best course of action here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: "Jimbo says so" is a really weak argument, ironically because Jimbo said so. Unless he's speaking in an official founder-of-Wikipedia capacity, it's just another editor's opinion. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Proposed solutions to the addition of a disclaimer

1. Leave as is; the article is about the clip and the present caption is enough of a disclaimer.
2. Add a disclaimer above the caption, as presented in the example above.
3. Add "View with caution" at the end of the caption.
4. Hide the clip in a drop-down box so that users may take more caution before viewing.
5. Modify the video to either slow the speed or add a disclaimer at the beginning.

Remember this is a straw poll, not a vote. It is purely to see where users stand regarding the addition of a disclaimer for the video. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The straw poll is fine, but the opinions of those who wish the video to be removed and, say, substitute the jpg as used at Photosensitive_epilepsy are ignored. As you say it could be taken further but it is not my intention to make wikipedia dismiss NFCC, just that in this case NFCC may lead to harm.

I am sure that there are other ways this matter can be resolved and a disclaimer admits there is something to disclaim...

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote myself above: " this RfC is not about whether the clip should be on the page or not; it's about whether the caption should include a second disclaimer. Either we stay on this topic, for which several possibilities have been proposed, or a second RfC be opened to deal with whether it should be on the article or not. I repeat; this discussion is about the addition of a disclaimer, not the inclusion of the video." The inclusion of the video in the article at all is a matter of separate discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Option 1: Leave as is

1. Our content disclaimer and guideline regarding disclaimers in articles are clear about this: Wikipedia may contain videos that cause epileptic seizures, and we should not include disclaimers in articles; it's not a huge leap to extend that to disclaimers in images in articles. I may be comfortable with reducing the frequency of the strobing to safe levels, but nothing else; going further creates a derivative work that I think would not be defensible at FFD (unlike cropping and montages). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Sceptre. The video caption is clear enough, and the whole seizure thing was mostly due to mass hysteria. Nothing to do here. --Cyclopia^talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   If you read the reoprt there were two reactions, 1 Ill effects caused by the original showing of the video 2 Mass effects hours after the first showing which are after the fact as the second showing was some hours afterwards and word may have spread. The others were seen the next day after the effects and conditions resulting were publicised and children had the chance to discuss at school.

   The important thing to remember is that discounting the mass hysteria aspect still leaves children who were affected by the first showing of the video

   Chaosdruid (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   To add onto that, it couldn't possibly be pure mass hysteria. If people were rushed to the hospital immediately after watching the show or even the night it aired the the media probably hadn't picked up on the story yet. So those people had no reason to suspect they were having a seizure. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

3. The current caption is actually better IMO than the black-on-red (which is harder to read) proposed above. (Of course I'd happily support deletion of the video along with all other non-free files per WP:VEGAN). —Кузьма^討論 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   Even if the video has a tiny chance of creating a seizure, there is a big huge caption below the video that tells you exactly what it could do. We can make it a bit more explicit, maybe with a bold "Warning!" , but the video is essential to understand what the article talks about. --Cyclopia^talk 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Frankly, the "dangers" are grossly overstated and based more on hype and hysteria than anything else. But also, we should trust the reader's comprehension skills. If the reader is that oblivious to the current caption, then no warning, no matter how obtuse it is, will be sufficient. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
5. As with Contains Mild Peril, I am signing for two choices. Though my inherent opinion is the the present form is fine (the article itself is about the seizures; how much more of a disclaimer do you need?), if people are that worried then I am fine with adding the sentence "View with caution" at the tail end of the caption, as signified by my earlier signature below. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Hum,.... the current caption already leaves clear that the video sequence caused seizures on people? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
7. The existing caption should be clear enough with anyone with basic reading skills. I can't see how anyone who read the existing caption would not know what to expect so an extra disclaimer on top of the existing caption seems redundant.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Option 2: Disclaimer above caption

1. Signing two options. This is not a mistake: I think double precautions appropriate. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2. This in my opinion is the best option although modification is close behind in my mind. Total deletion of the video might be a tad extreme. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
3. "Should the video in this article have a disclaimer?" Well, why the hell not??? People have clearly suffered from it, for example http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100129145003AAfJmXN 154.20.194.233 (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)...
4. I agree that it should have a caption. What harm does that do? It is better we take precautions even if they might be unnecessary than give adults and kids alike seizures and headaches, resulting in possible trouble for Wikipedia. --Half Price (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
5. It should have a caption either way. Either tell us that the clip is too small or that the frame-rate is too slow to cause seizures, or warn people that it may trigger a fit. As an example of the confusion, this discussion page has people forwarding both views. As it stands, visitors might be apprehensive at playing it when there is no need to be, or else they may assume that it's fine cause it's a lower quality clip or because it's on Wikipedia and then seizure. Don't bother quoting Wikipedia's general disclaimer at me, that's fine from a covering-your-ass-legally point of view, but of course the overwhelming majority of visitors to the page will have never seen such a disclaimer (I've been using Wikipedia for God knows how long and I had never known of such a disclaimer until now.) I honestly don't see why some sort of caption cannot be displayed. TheLopper (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion was to add a disclaimer in addition to the existing caption and not the removal of the caption. I don't think that anyone is arguing that there should not be any captions at all but simply that we don't need an additional disclaimer since the caption mentioning the clip has triggered seizures is sufficient. I personally don't see what use a second warning would be because anyone with basic reading comperhention would already be aware of the risks with the current caption.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise I think that almost anyone with a history seizures who sees a caption stating that this clip has been reported to trigger seizures would have enough information to make a informed decision about whether or not to see the video without the need of something else like watch at you own risk etc.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Option 3: "View with caution"

1. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Option 4: Hide clip

1. If only one option is used, this should be it: however I also favour an additional disclaimer. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Option 5: Modify video

1. Slowing down the video and adding a disclaimer at the beginning seems reasonable. If it is agreed that the video fails the non-free content criteria (#8), then I'd support deleting it. Theleftorium 15:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied content in the article

The following sentences in the article need to be rewritten as they are copied from the source: "Scientists believe that the flashing lights triggered photosensitive seizures in which visual stimuli such as flashing lights can cause altered consciousness. Although approximately 1 in 4,000 people are susceptible to these types of seizures, the number of people affected by this Pokémon episode was unprecedented." My English isn't the best so I'd appreciate if someone else could rewrite it. Thanks, Theleftorium 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Video clip should be removed

I have removed the video clip from the article as it poses a danger to people's health. The video caused seizures in many children in Japan (as the article mentioned), and many children today may play the video without realizing what risks it poses, especially since there is no warning. I played the video myself. It didn't give me a seizure, but did give me a headache. There is no reason for keeping the video in this article. The article talks about a video that made certain people ill, so why would you want to show that video to others? Please don't reinsert the video without a really good reason for doing so.
PS. I actually work for the NHS, and have mentioned this to a few other people high up, and they too think it should be removed. I am not a person who knows nothing about health.Healthsafety (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a disclaimer cover items such as this. The topic has been discussed numerous times. Your "profession" is of no consequence here. Finally, the video, in it's small size and slowed speed poses no more risk then any of the stupid advertisement banners on other sites. SpigotMap 15:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The speed doesn't look slower to me mate. Please tell me why it is necessary for this video to be included, as there are no good reasons above. It doesn't seem to make a huge contribution to the quality of the article. Until someone comes up with a good reason, I think the video shouldn't be there.Healthsafety (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; however it is obvious that the video has informative value in that illustrates the (possible) trigger of a notorious incident associated with the article subject. There are plenty of warnings and, as SpigotMap says above, the topic has already reached consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. The video clip is one of several that is being commented on in the article, thus including the clip is appropriate under the terms of fair-use. The video also helps the reader better understand the issues mentioned in the article. Also, a recent request for discussion has reaffirmed the inclusion of the image in the article. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What da you mean Wikipedia is not censored? Wikipedia censored the would-be disclaimer that never came up despite many people wanting it to be up there.66.183.59.211 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that Wikipedia is censoring by not censoring. That's rather nonsensical logic. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See also confirmation bias. Because you expect to get a seizure, you have a little bit of a headache. I don't think the video is of a good enough quality to cause seizures, especially in a lightly lit room. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I can't resist; as a 19-year-old presumably student of God knows what, Scepter, tell us how you're qualified to judge the likelihood that a video will cause seizures. Go on. Cyclopia, as a 29-year-old molecular biologist, tell us what you know about neurology; I imagine quite a bit, but not nearly as much as a neurologist. Melicans, as a presumably twenty-something student of politics, it would be interesting to hear your experience in the field of neurology. Perhaps it's your hobby when you're not writing about politics. And so forth.

See, when I was a kid I was convinced that my scant knowledge of computing made me a genius in all fields. As I grew up, I realised that this was not the case. The rest of you will undergo the same metamorphosis in the years to come, and hopefully you'll be better people at the end of it. And you'll look back at this - probably you'll have forgotten it, but humour me - you'll look back and this and you'll be thankful you didn't use your real names. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever said anything related to neurology in this article. If you can point out an instance where I have, I would be pleased to know of it. I do not base my arguments on topics that I have no knowledge of. If you'd checked the article's history, you'd have seen that I did add in a disclaimer several months ago, against consensus, which was quickly reverted. In fact, if you'd care to read all of the previous discussions on this topic above, you will see that I have frequently advocated for the addition of, at the very least, a warning in the caption. Truth be told, I do not even particularly care about this issue anymore; a reason why, aside from the occassional reversion of vandalism or tightening of the prose, I have frequented the article and this talk page so little in the past little while. Do whatever you will; it doesn't bother me in the least. Just do me one favour: kindly keep the subtle threats ("And you'll look back at this - probably you'll have forgotten it, but humour me - you'll look back and this and you'll be thankful you didn't use your real names.") out of it in the future. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually work on neurodegenerative diseases (even if from a molecular physics point of view). My real name is readily available, even if I don't like to disclose it explicitly. That said, I do not get what my (lack of) background in neurology has to do with all that. You don't need a degree in neurology to see that the actual impact of the video, if any (it seems it was mostly due to mass hysteria) was numerically insignificant. Also, you don't need a background in neurology to understand that Wikipedia is not censored. Bye. --Cyclopia^talk 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Im removing the clip. Do not put it back. ----iSquishy (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the consensus has been to keep the clip in the article. So I've restored it. So unless you can point to a specific policy that the clip is violating, an WP:OFFICE action, or gain a new consensus, the clip is here to stay. Otherwise, removal of the clip falls into WP:DON'TLIKEIT territory. —Farix (t | c) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the copyright? This may be another reason that the clip should be removed. --79.244.8.165 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See fair use and WP:Non-free content. There's no pressing reason to remove it from a copyright standpoint. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The image passes WP:NFCC for fair use media. The scene is specifically mentioned as one of the scenes believed to have triggered the seizures and including it helps the reader understand the context of the article better. —Farix (t | c) 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for making the point clear.--79.244.20.76 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone really opposes

The straw poll was confusing, as most people who choose leave as is only gave reasons to not remove it and gave no reasons to not add a disclaimer. They stated that there is little reason to add a disclaimer, but there being little reason for a disclaimer itself is not a reason to not add a disclaimer. See it this way: a man wants to scratch his head. Then he tells himself, "there is little reason to scratch my head," so he does not scratch his head, even though in reality there is no reason to refrain from scratching his head. So now, I want to hear from everyone who believes he/she has a real reason to not add a disclaimer. See what is really at the base of this. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One reason would be the guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles There is also the fact that we already have a caption for the video that reads One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures. I would think that would almost anyone would have a good idea whether they fell safe watching the video without the need for anything more explicit. If person chose to ignore what the current caption says I don't think an extra disclaimer would make much of a difference.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not rewrite the text into something more obvious (i.e., This is the scene that caused the seizures?) (208.124.87.208 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Because it already says that. "One of the infamous scenes that caused the seizures." _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Im pretty sure it would be unnecessary just because its reduced quality in the format its in (a youtube video), compared to its TV appearance. Im not certian, but I dont think the version posted here can actually cause seizures, due to said quality reduction. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding or editing one small sentence to a notorious video's caption seems like such a minor thing that the impression here is people are keeping it from being altered "because they can" rather than any solid reasoning. This entire talk page has left a very unfavorable impression on how Wikipedia guidelines complicates and makes convoluted what should have been a small edit done by an individual years ago. I suppose the consensus speaks for itself, but I have to wonder what people for keeping the video unchanged have actually gained. Who cares about the casual readership, so long as the frequent contributors of the page are appeased, I suppose? 75.207.246.103 (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Video

I know this has been discussed a million times already, but i think that the video shouldn't be there at all. First of all, videos are rarely used anyway as a medium to use for wikipedia articles. So why is one video here? Simple. Because somebody thought it would be cool to have the seizure-making video on the article. This is just my opinion...--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's there because it has encyclopedic value. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And what value is that?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Psh, how can you get a seizure from just watching flashing lights?... oh... like that @_@" _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Especially considering how we self-censored the Lin Jun murder video. Whether that video will cause harm to viewers is subjective (simply not seeing it doesn't remove it's horror anyhow), but medical science can prove the potency of this video. Furthermore this video give no extra information whatsoever. Still, we should consider a disclaimer before censorship. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see a video of a person murdering another person to be on a completely different level than this so I don't think that they can be compared. Also since the caption already mentions that the scene from the video causes seizures I don't see any reason that a disclaimer is needed since the caption already does that job.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, so if some young child is smart enough to google for pokemon/porygon (whatever), and smart enough to know to to click on a video to play it, but not smart enough to know what "may cause seizures" means than that's okay. And if they *are* smart enough and get a seizure does that somehow "serve them right"?! If there is any risk, this video obviously should not be here and it's incredible that this is even debated. Sheesh. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New file

I think that as Wikipedia we should not be using an illegal fansub to have produced the video we use on this article, not to mention it includes a digital watermark. There are other (illegal) digital copies that are not fansubs that can be used to produce a video file necessary to adequately provide information on this episode. I have found one such copy on Veoh, but their proprietary software to download it may cause issues, but I digress. We need to replace File:Denno.ogg with a version without the fansubs and that "For Evaluation Purposes" watermark.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"For Evaluation Purposes" is a bit of a red flag for Wikipedia, anyway. We can't really argue for fair-use if we have that legal disclaimer stuck to the video in the form of a watermark, even if the video itself does meet NFCC criteria, and then continue to fool ourselves into thinking that we are a free (libre) content encyclopedia. The file should be changed ASAP. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Urban Legend

No internet content has ever caused anyone to have a seizure. The reason for this is because the computer monitor is what is strobing, not the content being displayed on it. The content cannot physically strobe any faster or slower than the computer monitor itself. A specific brand and model of monitor may cause a seizure, but not the content it is showing. If someone claims to know otherwise, ask them to cite it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The original content was from a TV show. I am not sure if that would make a difference but it was not originally internet content.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The seizure gun

This might be of interest to mention in this article; it is about how the US Army planned on creating a "seizure gun" and apparently they got the idea from this episode. --87.251.199.11 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Difference between the text of the article and the sources

The article says "To prevent any similar incidents from reoccurring, the Japanese government made the decision to remove the episode permanently from future re-broadcasting and it has not aired since, not even outside of Japan.[1][11] According to Maddie Blaustein, the voice of Meowth in the dub, the episode was dubbed and altered in the United States by 4Kids Entertainment to slow down the flashing lights. But this was abandoned after the Japanese government banned it, and was never broadcast anywhere else in the world.[23] Coincidentally, the episode aired around the same time Pokémon was being adapted for American audiences. Unlike other flashing lights, 4Kids Entertainment took extra precaution in bright and flashing lights in the show, and altered lighting, and speed of lights for earlier episodes of their American release". Most of this doesn't seem to be supported by the cited sources: for once, neither source 1 or 11 says that the one who banned the episode was the Japanese government. The information about Maddie Blaustein saying that 4Kids edited the episode is not supported either in source 23 or in the original two quotes by MB (which can be found here and here): she just said that they dubbed the episode (she was probably misremembering things, but that's beside the point); source 23 just reports her statements and adds "If the dub exists, it has not aired" without mentioning editing by 4Kids. The statement "the episode aired around the same time Pokémon was being adapted for American audiences" is unsourced, but according to the audio commentary of the Pokémon 4Ever they starting creating the American dub in April 1998, that is about four months after this episode aired, a relatively big amount of time. Finally, the statement about 4Kids editing previous episodes is unsourced, but according to source 23 it was the Japanese who did those edits. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)