Jump to content

Talk:Yasuke (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Instead of a traditional historical anime series"

[edit]

The claim that this is somehow innovative seems somewhat questionable -- it seems like virtually every anime set in pre-Meiji Japan does this -- so a non-primary source should be found in the long term (this is not sufficient). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is not the source that references that in the article. The actual source) says directly from the creator: "I didn't want to do what everyone else was going to do, which was most likely a hardcore biopic," he adds. (Before his death in August 2020, actor Chadwick Boseman was set to play Yasuke in a historical biopic.) "I didn't want to be trapped by the elements of history, so to speak, and I wanted to add a sense of fantasy, a sense of romanticism to it, much like the Japanese do with their historical figures." The link is literally right there next to it. Stormshadows00 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're agreeing with me that the present wording is problematic? "Hardcore biopics" are not the same as "traditional anime series". Moreover, the source you are linking now is not "right there in the text" -- the source cited for the relevant text is this one, which doesn't appear to include any of the text you quote, and the source you refer to here is cited for the following sentence, which begins According to Thomas, marking it about as clearly as is reasonable as coming from a different source. You seem to be actually agreeing with me but going out of your way to be combative about this anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not do the whole "so you're agreeing with me" because I'm not. Let's stick with facts. The article doesn't say "traditional anime series" as you stated. It says "traditional historical anime series", which does includes "hardcore biopics". It's literally another way of saying that anime that is not a traditional historical type of anime series in the vein of Hyouge Mono when you obviously have mechs and magic in this series. And that source you have (which btw I was the one who put that site on the article to begin with)? Clearly states that this is not a "traditional historical anime series" when it's a "reimagined take on this historical figure" and "In a war-torn feudal Japan filled with mechs and magic". Last I checked, no mechs nor magic or anything in that trailer for the series was during the actual Yasuke's time so a traditional historical anime this is not. The link I provided, which came from the article itself in the sentence afterwards, is the creator's own words in full detail stating how his series is different from a typical historical piece and how he is trying to be innovative with the series. Which is why the mention is there in the first place. It's not "questionable" when the creator said it's not traditional and why. And everything that both sentences in the article stated matches both links especially the EW link. Your claim of a series not being innovative is on your personal opinion and not based on the creator stated. And your claim that "virtually every anime set in pre-Meiji Japan does this" isn't true as there are period anime that are not even close to having mecha or technology or even supernatural. My suggestion would be to read the sources. There are a number of them with several behind the scenes information of the anime that back up the wording and what the creator is trying to accomplish. Stormshadows00 (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a single "traditional historical anime" off the top of my head. The popular "historical" anime of the last thirty yeas (Afro Samurai, Sengoku Basara, Rurouni Kenshin, Samurai Champloo, Seven Samurai, etc., etc.) all do some variation on the fantasy, sci-fi, steampunk "anachronism for anachronism's sake" schtick. If you could name a single exception, I could likely point out how (i) it's super-obscure and therefore doesn't invalidate my point or (ii) was noted for being the rare exception to the rule.
Anyway, are you at all interested in using the talk page to actually respond to what I'm saying rather than setting up straw-men and continuously edit-warring? What about your latest insertion into the article text the claim that the historical Yasuke lived in Japan during the "Sengoku period"? Do you actually believe that the majority of reliable sources support this assertion, as your edit summary claimed? Daijisen, MyPaedia, the Bōfu-shi Rekishi Yōgo Jiten and the Ōbunsha Nihonshi Daijiten all disagree, and the only one that even mentions the 諸説ある thing while still prioritizing the consensus view is the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can do without all the accusatory comments and so on, thank you.
The creator said he didn't want to do a traditional historical anime series. That's proven up there. Whether one can or can't think of an historical anime doesn't mean 1. The creator's point in wanting to make something innovative isn't valid or 2. That traditional historical anime doesn't exist. He obviously didn't want to "be trapped by the elements of history, so to speak" and he "wanted to add a sense of fantasy, a sense of romanticism to it". So there's still nothing wrong with the wording of "traditional historical anime series" when it reflects what the creator is talking about.
Afro Samurai isn't a historical anime at all. Samurai Champloo isn't the same thing as Yasuke in any shape or form as it added anachronistic elements to history but not based on sci-fi. Samurai 7 is not a historical anime at all but a reimagined take on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai with mechs. Sengoku Basara is an exaggerated take on Sengoku era history but tone isn't the same especially the first series. Rurouni Kenshin is a historical anime with fictional characters but not anything like Yasuke's take. There are other period pieces that are not like the above. The bottom line is that you feel it's not innovative based on examples you have and what's popular or not to you. But that is a personal opinion. The creator saying what he set out to do is a fact because the man actually stated it.
Oda Nobunaga lived and died during The Warring States Period, 1467 to 1600's. This is time frame used in the article of Sengoku period, the Azuchi–Momoyama period (considered a part of Warring States), and others. Some very much use Sengoku as a blanket turn for all of the period of Oda, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa. That is a fact from literary to entertainment to video games. Some list 1603 as official end or list 1573 as the end of one period because Nobunaga and the beginning of another. The Wikipedia article itself uses 1600's and so does Wikipedia Japan's pages on this topic. Yasuke and his entire story takes place in the Sengoku period stated in article as sources stated he arrived in 1579 and served in two major battles before and after Nobunaga's last day at Honnoji in 1582, in which Yasuke was present for. He wasn't "In Africa" as you claimed in the edit summary. Stormshadows00 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. But all I accused you of was edit-warring, which is an objectively true statement. You have not once indicated that you intend not to revert me again if I remove the "Sengoku" thing again in accordance with the half-dozen sources I presented you with.
Yes, the director said he wanted to do a reimagined "enhanced" historical anime -- like virtually all major historical anime of the last thirty years.
Yes, exactly. Your descriptions of why most of these shows are not "traditional historical anime" could be applied to this show as well. Most anime that are "historical" in one way or another fit this description, or at least most well-known anime of the Heisei/Reiwa eras.
No. Just, no. Not only is "The Warring States Period" very problematic for a variety of reasons (which have been well-known since Sansom's day), but you are citing other Wikipedia articles are they are currently written as justification for not fixing this article (you are not even attempting to hide this fact, as you have yet to cite a single reliable secondary source). Saturday is due to be rainy where I am, so I might stay in and rewrite the Sengoku period and Azuchi-Momoyama period articles to conform to the standard historical consensus, but I should not have to do so as a prerequisite for removing the problematic classification from this article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can do without all the accusatory comments and so on, thank you. You have done more than enough of that.
  • This is about the words "Instead of a traditional historical anime series, the story was developed as an reimagined take" in the article. You said "The claim that this is somehow innovative seems somewhat questionable -- it seems like virtually every anime set in pre-Meiji Japan does this". But this part of the article isn't about an opinion on what LeSean Thomas is doing. This is about what Thomas said he set out to do with his series and how he didn't want to do a historical period piece. And there is a source quoting his exact words that backs that up. I think it's very fair to show the creator's intention in the article and whether I think it's innovative or not is a personal opinion.
  • The fact that historical anime without a sci-fi slant or a reimagining slant exist, just like live action examples, disproves your claim that "virtually all major historical anime of the last thirty years" have done what Thomas is doing. That is not true. Some have elements. Some don't. I listed an anime that had no scifi and was historical. You listed some anime that are neither historical nor based on real historical events (Afro Samurai) or have anachronistic elements but not outright scifi or in a reimagined world (Samurai Champloo, Rurouni Kenshin, which is during Meiji era and not pre). Sengoku Basara has a bit of scifi elements in a historical piece based on history yet done differently from Yasuke as it is not full on scifi (and have you watched any of Sengoku Basara before? Comedy and a giant hotpot in the movie). And Samurai 7 is still different as it doesn't even say that it even takes place in the Sengoku era. Does it even matter than there have been other anime that have been historical but with sci-fi exist? What matters is what the creator set out to do by his own words and his own beliefs. Which is the whole point of saying he wanted to do something non traditional in the first place.
  • "Some very much use Sengoku as a blanket turn for all of the period of Oda, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa"? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. 'There have been many cases besides these 19 and even more examples exist in media (Two of the biggest Sengoku media franchises...Sengoku Basara and Sengoku Musou aka Samurai Warriors). This example, TV Tropes's piece on the Sengoku era, pretty much state what I've been stating. "Because it straddles several periods, the Period itself is generally placed within the context of the "official" historical periods it takes place in (Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, and Edo)" . Every link is evident of that. And this is the EXACT rationale I used and hence the links to said articles actually showing where the rationale came from. The Wikipedia pages I referenced matches that rationale too. And if you actually click on the source from Anime News Network, it says that too. "Yasuke, a samurai of African origin who served under Oda Nobunaga during Japan's Warring States period in the 16th century.".
Let me make it clear what my "intent" is. No I am not "citing other Wikipedia articles are they are currently written as justification for not fixing this article". No I am not "going out of my way" when I responded with a direct quote from the creator of the anime. That is false and, quite frankly, rude. And it's one of many accusatory comments you've been making. In any event, actually talk with editors in a civil manner, not accuse people of random, and actually hear what someone has to say instead of making your own interpretations of what someone means by something. Especially when you accuse people of edit warring when you are directly involved in a dispute. Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with WP:3O for a neutral view on this. Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting me. The fact that some reliable sources (and some very unreliable ones, like TV Tropes) use "Sengoku" in the broader sense doesn't contradict my statement that most do not, and therefore we should not, except in the main Sengoku period article where we can "teach the controversy", so to speak. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 April 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke (anime) → Yasuke (TV series) – I proposed this change earlier at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime and manga, but it went ignored so I'm listing it here as a requested move. Almost all anime TV series and film articles are disambiguated as "Title (TV series)" or "Title (film)" over "Title (anime)", so I fail to see how this is any different just because its a web series. In addition, the web series disambiguation is already fairly widely used on Wikipedia, so I feel that this article should adopt that standard too. Link20XX (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: original proposal was Yasuke (anime) → Yasuke (web series), which was altered by the nom. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the reason stated by the nom and also because this isn't even technically an "anime" as defined in the lead of our article anime but rather would be anime-influenced animation. I'm not personally a stickler on these matters, but Wikipedia should be consistent across its articles on related topics. As I've stated elsewhere, "anime" is a poorly defined term that typically refers to animation from Japan, but in Japan it just means "animation", resulting in awkward situations like people asking their Japanese friends if such-and-such "is anime" and getting a confused response (because for Japanese-speakers it's a non-question). The people behind the show (at least according to our infobox) almost all appear to be American and possessing of no particular connection to Japan, with the exception of a supposed co-director named "Takeshi Satou" (who for all the information I can find on him might as well be 4th- or 5th-generation Japanese-American, and his name is so generic in Japan that even figuring out what the kanji for "Takeshi" is is difficult) and the animation studio (and if the animation being produced in Japan makes a show "anime" by Wikipedia's definition, then ThunderCats (1985 TV series) would be as well). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a portion of my comment has been used as a rationale to !vote against this proposal, so I'm striking that part. I still think it's accurate, but it's not important enough to potentially undermine the RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Support. This series isn't a web series. It's an original net animation also known as Web Anime or Original Web Anime. That is in the exact same vein as an original video animation, which was straight to video instead of broadcasted, and both fall into the anime category as shown in the Anime and Manga portal. An actual Japanese anime studio, MAPPA, is behind this series so the claim that it is "anime influenced animation" (non-Japanese works of animation) is false (Castlevania has "anime influenced animation" from a Western Studio. Not an actual Japanese anime studio). Nor is this series an USA endeavor that outsourced Japanese studios for animation so that eliminates comparisons to shows like ThunderCats. The series was developed in Japan as an anime series with the creator LeSean Thomas, who is actually based in Tokyo, stating that this series is an anime series. The character designer, Takeshi Koike, is a veteran in anime. And every single staff member listed so far, including the directors, have anime backgrounds if you look at their resumes. And looking at them, you can see that the individual staff has had experience with anime such as Dororo, Attack On Titan, Your Lie in April, A Certain Magical Index, Cowboy Bebop, Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Trigun: Badlands Rumble, and MANY other anime series. Flying Lotus is American and did the soundtrack, but an American doing the soundtrack to an anime series is not unheard of (see Samurai Champloo). And the executive producers being American does not change the fact that this is very much an anime production developed in Japan (with one EP based in Japan) and is advertised correctly as such. It shouldn't be changed when it's not a web series and it is an anime series. Stormshadows00 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an established consensus that we don't use the somewhat niche/colloquial/technical/whatever term "anime" as a parenthetical disambiguator. The nationalities of the various parties involved in the show are irrelevant, and the other articles you link don't include parenthetical disambiguators to begin with. Actually, you linked to the wrong article in at least one case: Attack on Titan is about the manga, and the anime article is titled Attack on Titan (TV series). See also Dragon Ball (TV series), Sailor Moon (TV series), and so on. There is no other webseries to disambiguate this show from, so concerns about the proposed title don't really matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any show that releases on the internet first is a web series, regardless of its origin. Link20XX (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By definition and by what the creators have stated, this is not a web series. It's an original net animation. And no ONAs are listed as "web series". Stormshadows00 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"original net animation" as a countable noun is WP:SLANG in English (the same technically applies to Link20XX's use of "release" as an intransitive verb, but no argument is being made for that language to be included in the article space). It makes sense in Japanese because of the way Japanese grammar works, but this is English Wikipedia. That, I am sure, is why the lead sentence of this article currently reads Yasuke is an upcoming original net animation series (emphasis added). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Original net animation" and "Original video animation" are not WP:SLANG. They are accepted terms used to describe an series released online or on direct to video instead of broadcasted or filmed. And it is not a "it makes sense in Japanese" thing when it is used in English as well as Japanese (which uses the term "Web Anime" ウェブアニメ). A term created to designate what an anime series broadcasted online instead of by traditional over the air or direct to video. I am very much aware that this is English Wikipedia, I am very much aware of what English Wikipedia is, and I am very much aware of what has been edited. And the lead change doesn't change the fact that "original net animation", which is what the anime is and I said that ad nauseum, has been there & doesn't change a thing about my stance that this is not a web series by definition. Stormshadows00 (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormshadows00: Slang or not, it depends on whether Japan's classifications fit with Wikipedia's naming conventions. And at the moment, according to WP:ANIME and WP:TV, OVA and ONA aren't clear enough disambiguations. It doesn't matter if it is officially labeled ONA or OVA. If you don't like the MOS, you could challenge it in a different discussion as to why you think we should disambiguate articles as (ONA) and (OVA). Film/TV series is much more clarifying for readers on what type of series it is. So (TV series) or (web series) are the options.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for (TV series) It doesn't matter if it's an anime or not, WP:MOSANIME follows similar naming conventions to WP:TV. Perhaps in the past WP:ANIME named articles with (anime), (ONA), or (OVA), but that's no longer supported in their current version of MOS. This is going to be a series that is being introduced on Netflix and according to WP:TV should be labeled as (TV series). As for it being anime, based on the information, but if they outsourced animation similar to Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, and is going to debut to western audiences, then I'm going to incline that its not anime.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the series has currently no known plans to be aired on TV, I don't feel the "TV series" disambiguation fits. Link20XX (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to air on a TV network to be a TV series. But it's now more common to see web series on TV with Smart TVs, or even on other devices meant for TVs such as Xbox and PlayStation. I brought this up at WP:TV and see if this causes a bigger discussion on how Netflix series should be labeled.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, I would like more perspectives. So for now, it appears we are in agreement to move this page to something else, we just haven't decided on what. Link20XX (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I even started the article in the first place was because the red link was "Yasuke (anime)" in the Yasuke article. I just started from there. I feel that there should be some distinction when it comes to what the series is and "web series" is not what it is. When you look at sites like ANN and etc, they do make that distinction of TV, ONA, etc. "TV series" usually means "traditional over the air" broadcast, but it can mean other ways and streaming on TV is valid. While I have thoughts on that, "TV series" would have been the route I would have gone when it's an anime studio creating an anime series through Netflix. This I definitely agree with. Stormshadows00 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for (TV series): I remember that "anime" isn't a valid disambiguation and it's automatically "TV." lullabying (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think part of the hesitation here w.r.t. "TV series" vs. "web series" stems from the traditional classification of anime into three categories: TV, OVA, and ONA. With an eye towards a future convention discussion with NCTV, I just wanted to let out some of my thoughts on this:
    • Anime TV series can always be disambiguated with (TV series) -- I don't think there's any contention here.
    • OVA series are more complicated. There's been some heat here in the past as the best choice ("OVA" vs. "film series" vs. "direct-to-video" or some other solution), but I think there's general agreement that (TV series) is broadly inappropriate to describe an OVA series.
    • ONA series can either be more similar to a (TV series) or a (web series). I would classify something like Inferno Cop (YouTube release, 3-minute-long episodes) as a web series, while Yasuke is much more like a TV series (Netflix release, 30-minute-long episodes).
When disambiguating (rather for naming articles in general), we should all keep in mind as editors that consistency is important, but that recognizability is equally so. I think this calls for tailoring, as can be done in this area. — Goszei (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Goszei for your thoughts! Alright, I think that Yasuke (TV series) is an appropriate name and I Support moving it to that instead. Link20XX (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you – Inferno Cop sounds like a bona fide "web series" in the traditional definition. But any 30-minute-episode or 60-minute-episode series, especially if released on a streamer like Netflix, is just a simple standard "TV series". There is a reason why WP:TV deprecated "web television" in favor of "streaming television" – the former isn't a real "thing", and the latter is just a new way traditional TV series are distributed into homes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Goszei: I don't think there's a reason to disambiguate to OVA because it's not clear enough. The clarification can be done on the prose of the article if it's really necessary if we want to use OVA/ONA but OVA/ONA can range from long series to miniseries, to short film, to feature-length film, to bonus episodes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"OVA" has long been contentious – I would like to see it deprecated as a disambiguator because it's "too inside baseball": only hardcore anime fans even know what that means, which means 95% of our readers have no idea what that is. But our readers understand what a "TV series" or a "film series" is, so "OVA" disambigation should be replaced by one of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to feel like a separate discussion that should be held in a more appropriate place (like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime and manga). Link20XX (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone finally holds an WP:RfC on that, please advertise it widely, as I will surely want to add my comment... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
only hardcore anime fans even know what that means, which means 95% of our readers have no idea what that is I'd go even further and say that only a small subset of hardcore anime fans know what it means, since it's closely tied in with the (lack of a) distinction between countable and uncountable nouns in Japanese. I suspect whoever penned the opening sentence of our article on the topic noticed the problem, though, and consequently tried to hide the fact that it literally reads Original video animation ... are Japanese animated films and series. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SYNTH

[edit]

@Stormshadows00: Regarding this edit, would you mind segmenting the citations so it is clear where each peace of information comes from? When I clicked on the link you name claim the information comes from (it still doesn't support the WP:SCAREQUOTES, mind you), it just brought me to the Netflix login screen, but now having logged in I see that the ... synopsis? Premise? Tagline? ... does appear to loosely support this content. Anyway, you still haven't justified, in your repeated attempts at communication through edit summaries, referring to a pre-release statement about the show's premise as a plot outline. Anyway, for all the sources you have cited, this information could all be backstory established in a flashback at the end of the second episode and be completely unreasonable as an outline of the actual plot of the show. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)][reply]

Clicked the first link with no login required whatsoever. This appears: A peaceful boatman once known as the Black Samurai is pulled back into conflict when he takes a little girl with mysterious powers under his wing. . Matches plot description typed in article. Clicked the second link with no login required whatsoever. This appears: About YASUKE: In a war-torn feudal Japan filled with mechs and magic, the greatest ronin never known, Yasuke, struggles to maintain a peaceful existence after a past life of violence. But when a local village becomes the center of social upheaval between warring daimyo, Yasuke must take up his sword and transport a mysterious child who is the target of dark forces and bloodthirsty warlords. Matches the plot description typed in article. All follows [MOS: Anime and Manga] and [Plot summaries in Writing About Fiction]. And for the record, press releases also include a brief plot summary telling what the series is about. And Wikipedia articles here include the plot or a brief plot summary telling what the series is about. So why are you claiming it doesn't support the plot when it states the plot? Why are you claiming "it's possibly this and that" when it's not? That's exactly what it is on the site (where the series came from) and every single source listed quotes this, references this, and reflects this including the creators. It's very justified and WP: SCAREQUOTES have nothing to do with this. Stormshadows00 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, if I click the link in a different browser on which I have never used Netflix and never logged in, I can see ... well, I can see a quite free Japanese translation of the text you quote, and knowing that was there (because you condescendingly insinuated it at me in an edit summary) I clicked the link again on my main browser, told Netflix who was "watching", and then I was able to see that Yasuke was apparently known as the Black Samurai (no quotes). However, it goes without saying that the above quote does not verify all the information currently attributed to it. I asked you if you would be willing to do me and others the courtesy of breaking down the citations so it's obvious what information comes from each source. It is obvious that you are not. And no, a series premise stated in a pre-release press statement is not the same as "plot summaries". Please stop edit-warring and explain your actions on the talk page rather than engaging in this strawmanning and evasiveness. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear. I have explained my changes. I have made sure my editing is sourced before I typed and put up a majority of sources. I have explained my stances. My edit summaries stated why I reverted you blanking text from the article, removing sources, and so on. I have detailed what happened when I clicked the Netflix links when you said you couldn't. I have quoted (multiple, not one). I have posted why I edited and there were not saying "what they probably mean" and so on. I have put up the actual text from the official site stating what the plot is. I explained WHY I put that in plot (I said "a brief plot summary". Brief. Small.). I have explained my actions in edit summaries on this and in here. Look up what strawman is because that isn't it. And there has not been a trace of "evasiveness" from me when I have been VERY direct in here and in edit summaries. So no, don't try to paint me into something I am not. And btw "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring". I reverted you twice on your lead change. WP:3RR that is not. I reverted you on the lead and I still didn't exceed two reverts. "Edit warring" that is not. And I'm going to do exactly what should have been done in this deadlock. I'm seeking a third uninvolved opinion on this. Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here to provide a third opinion. I have no interest in the subject. Pinging you both for a courtesy; please ping me back for responses as this is not on my watchlist. @Hijiri88: and @Stormshadows00:

Starting simple because this is a fairly complicated dispute with multiple points. I believe Hijiri88 is correct with the fact that the references need to be segmented. I was told that references should be as close to information as possible, and it's okay to repeat them in the same paragraph. There's no danger of WP:OVERCITE right now.

Both of you are edging towards personal attacks, and I ask that you refocus this on the dispute at hand with content. Can you both explain your sides as if there was no other editor involved? Sennecaster (What now?) 02:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sennecaster. I have already said what I was hoping to convey on these matters, which I believe to be three (the use of the wording "instead of a traditional historical anime series", the citation style in the plot summary, and the description of the historical Yasuke as living in the "Sengoku period"), so I would be most appreciative if you could read what both of us have written and, if any of it is unclear (the second matter in particular relies on Japanese-language sources) please ping me and then render an opinion. It may be a good idea to wait on addressing the second issue until next week, as I intend to rework our poorly-sourced Sengoku period article, which at present seems to be based primarily on pop culture rather than historical scholarship. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over 24 hours and I have not gotten a response from Stormshadows00. I will wait another 24 hours, but after that I'm afraid that a third opinion won't be of much help if I do not have any communication from Stormshadow. This seems a little time-sensitive as the article topic seems to be upcoming and I would like a resolution of this dispute as quickly (but also consensually and neutrally) as possible. Stormshadows00, I look forward to what you have to say. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first and third issues are very minor ones that I don't care all that much about, and they aren't really affected by the release date of the show; the second, meanwhile, will be made redundant by the release of the show, since the main issue was that as of my last edit it called itself a plot summary despite no one actually knowing the plot of the show yet... but that seems to have been fixed two days ago and not been reverted this time for whatever reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: I can definitely explain my side on this starting with this topic you replied to. I worked on this yesterday, but I had to take a serious breather from all of this.
  • The plot section: In the Wikipedia [Manual of Style's Anime & Manga section], which follows [Manual Of Style's "writing about fiction"], succinct summaries are encouraged and there are headers that editors choose according to the latter: "Plot", "Story", or "Synopsis", which all tell the plot descriptions of a work in some shape or form. In the sections of anime articles on Wikipedia, they range from full blown detailed story analysis to very brief plot summaries that don't go into detail like the former. It's not required to put a source, but can be added if there is a direct quote or adds to the plot summary. Netflix's announcement of this series came with a brief plot summary, which you can see here. As with all their other shows, Netflix's main site has a brief description of what the series is about here. The two were combined to make the plot summary of events and I added both Netflix links and IGN's coverage (here) as sources. I reverted a blanking of the plot summary with the explanation that sources have stated what the plot of this series is. I reverted a later edit that removed text with a direct quote from the source material that stated the removed parts to show that it was very much attributed when it was claimed that it was not. The issue for me is that the plot summary with official press releases as a source is being treated like it's not telling what the series is about on the page (when there is not a single thing in either MOS that states "plot summaries sourced from official press releases are not allowed.") The company made it pretty clear what they were doing when the release was made and that is a brief summary of events that make up the story. When the series comes out and more detail is added, that's all well and good. But from the creators and releases, they do tell us what the series is about.
  • Content issue: In the "Concept" section of the "Production" section of the article, there is the sentence "Instead of a traditional historical anime series, the story was developed as an reimagined take of feudal Japan set in a world of science fiction and fantasy elements such as magic and mecha.". That is both in reference to what creator LeSean Thomas stated in the link here and the "Redefining What Anime Can Be With 'Yasuke'" Netflix announcement linked above. It's not a period series that examines real world Yasuke's life beat-by beat and the creator made a note of that and how he didn't want to be trapped in doing a period series. There is a claim that the sentence is questionable because "virtually all" historical anime have done sci-fi and fantasy. There have been historical anime with just magic, just fantasy, a touch of both, or none at all...the latter being a "traditional historical anime series". My position is that it's about what the series set out to do and what the creator envisioned his project to be so it is a true statement especially when the words match the creator. Whether something is innovative or not or a series may or may have done it before is an opinion and doesn't have any bearing on what was said by a creator.
  • The mention of the Sengoku period: In the lead, the series is described as loosely based on the historical Yasuke, which text describes him as "a warrior of African descent who served under Japanese daimyo Oda Nobunaga during the Sengoku period of samurai conflict in 16th century Japan." In several notable sources, books, and comments from historians, the Sengoku period is a period that begins in the 1400's, ends in 1600's and encompasses several other periods in that timeframe to which several parts are considered "Sengoku era". The Sengoku period wikipedia page does make a note of this timeframe as well as other pages. But most important, there are sources that back up the assertion. One of the sources on the Yasuke series article, [Anime News Network], mentioned that the historical Yasuke was "a samurai of African origin who served under Oda Nobunaga during Japan's Warring States period in the 16th century." Similar description to the lead so seems reasonable enough. I reverted an edit claiming that 1570 was the start and explained one the grounds that the Sengoku period encompassed several periods ending in the 1600's and that there was information reflecting this. A link with four sources was provided in Japanese, but only one says "around 1570" was the end. I provided 19 links reflecting the 1400's to 1600's timeframe from sources ranging from Japanese origin to English with books sourced in some articles. The content issue is that there is not only proof that historians using this, but it's fair to put that mention in the article especially when a notable source did so.
Those are my issues with the content. Each one of these I did explain beforehand and I've been very upfront. Stormshadows00 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the most part this has resolved itself (in terms of any hard feelings of the dispute). I don't edit in WP:ANIMANGA's scope but I am fielding questions to some editors off-wiki about this just to get an idea of what's done.
Sengoku period; I see your point Storm, but I think the language needs to be clarified in the lead to specify that the in-universe time is in the Sengoku period since the out-of-universe time is under contest. No comment on the historical accuracy but that may also not be relevant until later. Plot summary; yeah MOS may not tell you that but RS prolly will say PR statements and Netflix are a bad place to get anything. I recommend waiting until the show comes out and watching its entirety before making a plot summary regardless, as those little PR blurbs only cover about ~ 1/4th of what I would expect. Also been told that it's got RS/neutrality issues; Netflix wants the show to do well. No comment on the concept conflict as I don't even see one right now and Hijiri said it wasn't important so keep it in.
As for conduct in this; I think you both crossed the line to edit warring, but am pleased that you sought out 3O and kept this focused on content the entire time. If you do not agree with my 3O, I ask that you stop editing the article and return to it later, or start an RfC for more ANIMANGA-knowledgeable people to comment on. I hope this helped however, and thank you for reaching out before escalating this further. No comment on conduct otherwise. Courtesy ping Hijiri88 Stormshadows00 Sennecaster (What now?) 11:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply) Sennecaster (What now?) 11:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sengoku period

[edit]

This is a bit of a problematic issue. Japanese historians seem to prefer to say the "Sengoku period" ended around 1570, years before Yasuke's arrival in Japan. Some historians argue that it should be extended to 1600 or 1615, and popular culture seems to prefer the latter minority view, since for Japanese schoolchildren, saying a show is set in the "Sengoku period" sounds a lot more exciting than saying it is set in the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The Japanese version of this show's premise on Netflix says it is set in the Sengoku period, so if we want to say that in the fictional universe in which the show is set the Sengoku period unambiguously lasted long after Nobunaga's death, that would be fine, but the problem is that in the lead section "Sengoku" is used to refer specifically to refer to the period in which the historical Yasuke lived, which is problematic for a variety of reasons (it essentially turns this pop culture article into a WP:POVFORK in contrast with our articles on Japanese history). I changed it but was reverted (twice) with the explanation that all I (someone who took several Japanese history classes in college and has probably read more on the subject than 99.9% of English Wikipedia editors) need to do is [l]ook at any Sengoku era, book, resource, or even the Wiki to see that I am wrong to say that the Sengoku period ended in 1570; I have explained, with multiple sources, that this is not the case, but have yet to receive a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Katemeshi101: Would you mind explaining this edit summary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, you are the only one on this talk page who supported the removal of the phrase in question. @Stormshadows00: offered lots of sources supporting inclusion, and at least one other user endorsed his cogent arguments. I am of the same opinion. You shouldn't change text that is well established from cited sources and talk page consensus. Stormshadows00 responded multiple times and thoroughly refuted every aspect of your argument above, so you can't say that you didn't receive a reply. For this article, the most relevant sources are those that also mention Yasuke, and by that definition, most of Stormshadows00's sources are far superior to the sources you brought. However, even if we do use sources that don't mention Yasuke, the majority would still support the consensus text. Stephen Turnbull is a leading expert on samurai warfare. He's widely cited as a reliable source throughout Wikipedia, and he's never cited a Wikipedia article as a source for any of his books. According to Turnbull, the Sengoku period lasted from 1467 to 1615, and "With the final defeat of his rivals at Osaka in 1615, the Tokugawa shogunate took over where the Ashikaga had left off, and the Age of Warring States gave way to the long Tokugawa peace." 1467 to 1615 includes the time when Yasuke was alive. Katemeshi101 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, you are the only one on this talk page who supported the removal of the phrase in question. That's not how it works. If I make an edit, someone else reverts it with an "I don't like it" rationale, I take it to the talk page, and no one else responds once I've presented my rationale, then my edit would normally be restored. Stephen Turnbull is a leading expert on samurai warfare. Do you have a source for that claim? It seems to me that his professional academic qualifications are all in the field of religious studies, while he writes pop-history books about "the samurai". (Prove me wrong. Seriously, I would love if you could convince me that the guy whose books I read and instinctively trusted in high school but then learned not to rely on once I got to college actually was a leading expert in the field.) Anyway, every encyclopedia/dictionary entry for "Sengoku" on Kotobank can be reasonably assumed to have been compiled by an expert in the field, and they all say "Sengoku" ended around 1670. The Nipponica article on "Sengoku Jidai" seems to have been removed from Kotobank and what's left doesn't attribute to named authors, but the Nobunaga article was written by Wakita Osamu, who Japanese Wikipedia tells me was director of the Osaka Museum of History and professor emeritus of Osaka University; he says Nobunaga, who was dead before the start of this show's main plot (I guess technically you could say he dies in the first episode), was active in the "Sengoku" and "Azuchi-Momoyama" periods -- are you saying that the Azuchi-Momoyama period was before the Sengoku period? The Nipponica article on Hideyoshi was written by Hashimoto Masanobu, who according to Japanese Wikipedia is a historian and professor emeritus of the University of Tokyo (the most prestigious university in Japan!), and he refers to Hideyoshi as a figure of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, not the Sengoku period. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, no one reverted with an "I don't like it" rationale. Other people repeatedly responded to you and demonstrated your arguments to be wrong. Just because you waited a few weeks didn't change the consensus or the facts. Turnbull's work is widely cited by experts. Prominent historian Paul K. Davis called him the "leading Western expert on samurai warfare". But regardless, the fact remains that neither of us found any source that states "the majority of scholars believe that the Sengoku period ended in X year". Yes, there are hundreds of good sources that place the end of the Sengoku period in 1600 or 1615, and indeed, there are probably some good sources placing the end of the Sengoku period earlier, but none of them explicitly state what the scholarly consensus is. You can't just make an assumption about what the scholarly consensus is unless a source says "the scholarly consensus is X". Therefore, the best solution is to only use sources that mention Yasuke, i.e. sources that are actually relevant to this article. All of these sources, without exception, do agree that this was the Warring States period. Because of that, we ought to note this in the LEDE. Katemeshi101 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're better off expanding the actual Yasuke article with information on what period he was around to reflect the contrast easier from the TV series.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, no one reverted with an "I don't like it" rationale. Other people repeatedly responded to you and demonstrated your arguments to be wrong. You've said that over and over again, but the history of both the article and this talk page seem to clearly indicate otherwise. See how this section begins with a comment signed by me and dated 08:39, 13 April 2021 and then the comment immediately below that is also mine, is addressed to you (Katemeshi101), and is timestamped 06:38, 26 July 2021. There was one person who opposed my edit (in edit summaries and in the wrong talk page section); he did not provide a coherent argument (indeed, even if he had it would have been lost in a wall of text that was mostly about either the validity of calling a pre-release synopsis a "plot summary" or using the phrase "traditional historical anime series"), nor did he provide any reliable sources to indicate that most professional historians use "Sengoku" to refer to the period in which this show is set (1590ish?). He eventually requested input from one other person, who suggested (in a definitely non-binding manner) that we compromise just to end things (at least that's how I interpreted it...?). But then he seemingly left right after that. The fact that one person, who is not editing this article any more (after having WP:OWNed it for about a month), didn't like my edits is not by itself a valid reason for someone else to come along and repeatedly undo them months later.
Turnbull's work is widely cited by experts. Citation needed. Prominent historian Paul K. Davis called him the "leading Western expert on samurai warfare". Are you talking about western military historians or historians of Japan? Military historians who don't read Japanese or Chinese would not generally be regarded as experts on anything to do with premodern Japanese history, as they can't read primary sources. Yes, there are hundreds of good sources that place the end of the Sengoku period in 1600 or 1615, and indeed, there are probably some good sources placing the end of the Sengoku period earlier It's actually the opposite. Seriously, I want you to prove me wrong, but you're giving me nothing to work with.
You're better off expanding the actual Yasuke article with information on what period he was around to reflect the contrast easier from the TV series. Perhaps. But the "actual" Yasuke article is a viper pit. There was a historical figure named Yasuke, but that's about all that can be said. Pop culture, to some extent Japanese but mostly (like this show) western, positions Yasuke as much more prominent and important than he actually was. Professional historians treat Yasuke as an interesting sidenote in a variant text of Nobunaga's official biography, if that, so hardly any reliable sources are available on him; popular media might treat Yasuke as a "Sengoku" figure, but that's because popular media get their information from Wikipedia's Sengoku article. I guess I should fix that article, but I think that turns the onus on its head when it comes to whether it should be allowable to fix the relevant portion of this article, doesn't it?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Katemeshi101: Your behaviour here borders on trolling. It's been the better part of a year, and you have not found a single source that says the majority of historians use the term "Sengoku" to refer to the period depicted in this show, while I had already cited numerous sources saying the opposite before your first edit here. If you do not cite a source that says the majority of historians use the term "Sengoku" to refer to the 1580s/1590s within the next week (sorry, I'm busy IRL; 24 hours would normally be reasonable) I will revert you again to bring this article more in line with the highest quality academic sources on the topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of specialist sources have already been provided on this talk page by myself and @Stormshadows00:. Like I said, one good example is Stephen Turnbull's book, which is obviously a specialized source and is in fact the gold standard for this period of history. And also, all the sources Stormshadows00 put forward that mention Yasuke and this TV series, also include him in the context of the Sengoku period. I don't agree that you can disrupt the consensus formed here just because you disagree with what the reliable sources say. Katemeshi101 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai

[edit]

I would venture to guess that what's happening on the main Yasuke page is also happening here, in that all references to him being a samurai are being scrubbed from the page for whatever reason.

What's the best way to settle this? It's hard to find a source anywhere that says he wasn't a samurai, and virtually every source says he was. natemup (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Samurai" is often thought to be a generic term for "Japanese warrior" but this is not true. Samurai is a hereditary social class of warriors known as 'buke(武家)'. While they often worked as retainers to the local Daimyo during times of peace, a job that Yasuke did, the hereditary, social nature of the term can not be ignored. I haven't watched the TV show, but if the fantasy version of Yasuke in the series is called a 'samurai' then probably it should be retained in this article, but if it refers to him with some other term for warrior such as 'ashigaru(足軽)' then this article shouldn't refer to him as such. Fullmetalalch (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers a work of nearly pure fiction with only loose references to actual history. There is no "main Yasuke page" and "here", as the two are separate topics, only connected in the minds of those not familiar with Japanese history (etc.) who only heard of most of these topics from this show and other recent American pop culture properties of which the present show is the most prominent. I have many problems with describing the historical Yasuke as a "samurai" (since both English common usage and English Wikipedia's article on that topic use it as a translation of 武家 or 士農工商の士 rather than the how the term 侍 is used in Japanese -- more information at wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment/"Samurai" vs "Bushi") in our article on that topic, but this is an article on fiction (moreover one written by Americans who clearly got some of their information on Japanese history from English Wikipedia), so it's significantly less problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of changes made to the historical Yasuke page, but I'm very much aware of a few editors trying to remove any mention of "samurai" (including the removal of "samurai conflict"). The truth of the matter is that majority of samurai were of the noble class, but not all of them. A notable example happens to be the most famous one in Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was born the son of a farmer and became samurai, general, and daimyo himself. And Hideyoshi's rise in status, same as Yasuke's time, was during Nobunaga's time. So the idea of "Yasuke can't be samurai because he wasn't of noble birth" is 100% flawed when you literally had it happen in Hideyoshi. I've seen people play "what they really mean" and try to discredit sources when it comes to the issue and if sources say that he was a samurai and historians say this as well, then it should be a foregone conclusion to add sources. If you have a good source that says it, by all means add it. Removing "samurai" or wholesale removal of sources to reflect a non-consensus POV or bullying a POV push is not even close to right.
As far as this article goes, the source material states that he is samurai, the creator said he is samurai, the sources say that he is samurai, and so on So any removal of that or sources reflecting that is just wrongheaded especially when the sources back up the source material. Stormshadows00 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't remove sources just because you don't believe they're accurate if they were verified and credible sources. What you can do as an alternative is add more information that counters it in order for it to have due weight.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stormshadows00 is completely correct here. I read in WG Beasley's "The Meiji Restoration" (page 33) that daimyos could grant samurai status to commoners for a wide variety of reasons. Historian Thomas Lockely has written in his books that Yasuke was almost certainly granted such samurai status. But the idea that samurai status is strictly hereditary is obviously wrong. Constantine Nomikos Vaporis, a very prominent historian, notes in "Samurai : an encyclopedia of Japan's cultured warriors" that there were many parts of Japan where most of samurai were those who recently purchased their rank. In Tosa during the late-Tokugawa period, the large majority of the samurai had purchased the rank within their own lifetimes. Anyway, the reason why every available source describes Yasuke as a samurai is because he obviously was a samurai. Katemeshi101 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Onna-bugeisha"

[edit]

[1]

I know. It's in-universe WP:JARGON that doesn't make sense in the real world, and needs to be translated ("lady samurai") in order to be understood. What is the reason for including it here in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let us use facts here. This is not a case of WP:JARGON. I said in response to your original removal that "Onna-bugeisha" is actually stated in the series. Word for word.". 1. Is it in the series? Yes it is. 2. Did the creators use it? Yes. 3. Are there sources that say it? Yes. 4. Is it explained in the work? Yes. 5. Is it used a descriptor for a character? Yes. 5. Can a quick search online find a connection with that word and the character? Yes. Whether or not it "makes sense in the real world" has no bearing on a work of fiction (especially one with robots and magic) and an article can use the descriptor just as much as a Marvel article can use Dora Milaje and explain it, a Star Wars article can use Nightsisters or Mandalorian or Ewoks and explain it, an Avatar: The Last Airbender article can use Kyoshi Warriors and explain it, and so on. Long story short, there is nothing here that breaks WP:JARGON at all when you read the WP:JARGON article. The character Natsumaru says she's an onna-bugeisha in this show. No different from Din Djarin saying he's a Mandalorian.
And speaking of "doesn't make sense in the real world"...it's been documented that you have a problem with the word "onna-bugeisha" ever since you actually had a hand in changing the historical Onna-bugeisha page to Onna-musha (a move that was done without consensus ). When it comes to this article, it is within in the work of the fiction. Having a problem with the word doesn't give one the right to "police" articles with that word & change based on a POV. WP:SOAPBOX. If it's in the actual work, it counts. Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not remotely comparable to cases like Ewoks (TV series), The Mandalorian, or Avatar: The Last Airbender, where the titles of the works contain in-universe terminology that needs to be explained for the title of our article to make sense. The title of this article is "Yasuke", which is a reference to a nickname that an otherwise-unknown African man was given at some point after his arrival in Japan. This nickname does have a quite complicated etymology, but this problem would only be apparent to those who are already familiar with the topic: for everyone else (99.999% of our readers), it can just be assumed to be his name. As for the use of the word "Ewoks" in, say, our Return of the Jedi article, there is no real-world equivalent of the term (it was invented by the writers of the film, to denote a fictional alien species); in this case, "onna-bugeisha" refers to a real thing, but appears to not exist outside one hoax Wikipedia article and a few derivative sources.
it's been documented that you have a problem with the word "onna-bugeisha" ever since you actually had a hand in changing the Onna-bugeisha page to Onna-musha (a move that was done without consensus ) You appear to be trolling: I opened an RM to seek consensus, and presented a substantial number of sources and reasonable policy-based arguments, and no one opposed the move for over a month -- that is not the same as a move being "done without consensus". (As an aside, now that you have brought this up, you wouldn't happen to know anything about the several SPAs who have shown up on Talk:Onna-musha to troll me over the matter, would you? I wouldn't ask, but you have now just very explicitly aligned yourself with them without actually providing any reliable sources that contradict what I said.)
Now to the small portion of your comment that is actually relevant to thisI don't know what you mean by "within the work of the fiction" means, but we don't use in-universe terminology when real-world equivalents are available. As noted in both my preceding paragraphs, the real-world Japanese term for what this show calls "onna-bugeisha" is onna-musha, and we have an article with that title; the English equivalent would be "female warrior of the buke class", "female samurai", "woman warrior", or some such.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with what was actually stated. You're talking about titles when that wasn't the point. You're giving background on Yasuke when I've been on this project long before you even edited in here...and that wasn't the point. You got the comparisons wrong and none of what you are saying has anything to do with the point.
Simple question: In this anime series, does the fictional character Natsumaru say she is an "onna-bugeisha" or not? If the answer is no, then it can be removed with no issue from me whatsoever. The answer, of course, is yes. Episode 2 of the series. And those descriptions you claim that are "not comparable" are comparable as they are descriptors of what characters are in the realm of their respective fiction. That is the point you miss. The Dora Milaje, Kyoshi Warriors, and Nightsisters are fictional female warriors. The Mandalorians are fictional male and female warriors. The Ewoks are fictional words to describe their species AND a band of warriors. The Onna-bugeisha are female warriors in THIS fiction as well as historical. "Based on a real thing" doesn't change the point that this anime is a work of fiction and the word was used to describe a fictional character's warrior class in a historical fiction with magic & robots. All are valid grounds needed for putting "onna-bugeisha" in the article and there is not any drop of WP:JARGON contravention whatsoever. You attempted to remove that word based on a guideline that was never broken. And that is not cool.
You pretty much confirmed that you do have a problem with the word "Onna-bugeisha" and its reflected in your actions and your overall stance...so who's "trolling" when your own words back it up? Some editors don't agree with your opinion of that word since it's currently debated and no one made up anything about non-consensus in the move when it's argued in the very talk page of it! It's called "observing the talk page and reading". Your opinion of what is or isn't the "correct word" to use has no bearing in this article when the series, which is what the article is about, used that word for Natsumaru. Whether it "not make sense in the real world" or "based on a real thing", the point still stands that the inclusion doesn't violate any Wikipedia guideline like you claimed. If it wasn't stated in the work, then it's very easy to remove the word. Just like it would be easy to remove "kaishakunin" if it wasn't stated. But in both cases, they were both stated from the lips of characters in Japanese and in English dubs. Your POV or bias against something doesn't trump the actual work that this article is about. And BTW, accusing people (trolling, SPAs) and twisting things based solely on ppl not agreeing with you with no other evidence whatsoever is not a good look. Stormshadows00 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasuke_(TV_series)&oldid=1200306108"