Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sankaku Complex and Anime Motivation

Speaking of the edit wars in Black Bullet The Rising of the Shield Hero wiki article, are Sankaku Complex and Anime Motivation the reliable and independent source for cite the references of any anime? Kurogaga (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fan websites for basic facts

I was trying to find sources for the release date of the March 2003 issue of Monthly Afternoon, where Historie debuted. I was searching on various archived websites, but I couldn't find enough results from Kodansha or other online bookstores. However, I found this link [1] which is a Yukinobu Hoshino fan website. I was wondering if it is allowed to use it as a source for a simple basic fact like a release date. I know that they should generally be avoided, but I feel that is always better to support that kind of information with some source. Xexerss (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Bringing up Sankaku Complex

I see that the topic of Sankaku Complex was brought up nearly 8 months ago, now I want to bring it up again. I recently saw the article for Reincarnated as a Sword, and saw that there was a controversy section, and in it I saw a reference to Sankaku Complex and removed the entire section. I want to know whether we add them to the page as an unreliable source or not. SimonLagann (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added it to the unreliable list since no one seems to be opposing this. Link20XX (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Three new suggestions

I have three suggestions for new websites to be listed as reliable:

1. Otaku USA's website. Otaku USA needs no introduction and I think the reasoning for that addition is self-explanatory.
2. Anime UK News. They have been cited by Anime News Network frequently (1, 2, 3, 4, etc)
3. Taykoban. According to their about section Taykobon receives products (books, etc) from publishers, developers, retailers and other sources free of charge on occasion, which means publishers are willing to work with them. The back cover of Kodansha USA's release of Sayonara, Football also features a quote from their review of Your Lie in April. Link20XX (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Otaku USA definitely should be included. Personally, I think that Anime UK News is a reliable source, but to be honest, I don't know if it should be added as General or Situational, mainly due to much part of its staff that just use nicknames instead of their own names,[2] making it hard to know about the background of each contributor. I haven't checked yet Taykoban, but if it has been cited by reputable websites and publishers, I think that it should be included. - Xexerss (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Anime UK News: Their website's about section does list a lot of contributors, though taking a brief look over their articles, it really appears like only the users with a profile picture write most of the articles, so maybe only articles by those users are reliable? Link20XX (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know anyway, their news at least are based on primary sources or reliable secondary sources, never based on leaks, random Twitter rumors or something like that. The nickname thing maybe it's just me being nitpicking, so if no one has an issue with that, I see no problem with the inclusion. - Xexerss (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on that Otaku USA is a no-brainer to include. Opencooper (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

CBR, Comicbook.com, Screen Rant, Game Rant

I want to know if any of these websites can be considered reliable sources. SimonLagann (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

For Screen Rant, see WP:RSP. For Game Rant, see WP:VG/RS#Situational sources. Regarding CBR and ComicBook.com, from my understanding the general consensus is that their columns and reviews are reliable, but their listicles and clickbait/reaction articles are not, though it could also depend on whether the writer has worked for another publication. Link20XX (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

For CBR, I think that is a case-by-case situation; Hannah Collins, for example,[3] has written for other websites like Anime Feminist and Digital Spy, which are considered reliable per WP:A&M/ORS and WP:RSP, respectively. Generally, for reviews at least, this, Screen Rant and Game Rant are fine sources I guess. On the other hand, Comicbook.com, especially those articles by Megan Peters (which are not few), are usually based on leaks, unconfirmed rumours, random posts on Twitter and similar stuff, so I don't think that they are reliable. Xexerss (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@SimonLagann As long as Comic Book Resources (CBR), ComicBook.com, and Screen Rant do not obtain information from unreliable sources, they can be a fine third-party reliable sources. Centcom08 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Centcom08: @Xexerss: Since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement over how to treat Game Rant and Screen Rant, would there be no issue with WP:BOLDly adding them to the situational section (which should also be converted to a table), correct?. Link20XX (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Xexerss (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Link20XX Yes, there wouldn't be an issue. Centcom08 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that that's settled, let's discuss ComicBook.com and Comic Book Resources. For the latter, a discussion at RSN in 2022 came to the conclusion that the website was situational and should be treated in similar ways to Screen Rant, which I think makes sense. For ComicBook.com, there aren't many prior discussions, though there was this at RSN, which felt it was situational. I admit that I'm more hesitant to say situational on this website given its churnalism and frequent use of Twitter as a source, so perhaps with an even greater caveat that it shouldn't be used for news? Not quite sure about this one, so I would like to hear what others have to say. Link20XX (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that citing ComicBook.com is fine as long as their reports are not based on leaks, comments, and posts from random people out there. I personally just know them for news articles, so if better, more reliable sources reporting the same stuff are available, I don't know for what other purpose they would be useful. Xexerss (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Link20XX I'll say the same thing about Comic Book Resources and ComicBook.com: as long as they do report on an information based on reliable sources then they are good third-party sources. For the ComicBook.com using a tweet as their source, as long at it meets WP:TWITTER then it's okay. Centcom08 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Centcom08: Oh I have no problem with citing official accounts (even Anime News Network does it), what I have a problem with is them citing unofficial accounts like SugoiLite, which they have done quite often, even sometimes passing it off as official in the headline. Link20XX (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Link20XX I support adding these websites and only using their news based on reliable source (hope editors in the future read their news first to judge their source/s). These two will be another case of situational sources. Centcom08 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Centcom08: @Xexerss: I added both websites to the situational section with wording based on how I feel the consensus has shown over various discussions. Feel free to tweak or revert my addition if you have a better wording in mind. Link20XX (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Xexerss (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Erica Friedman/Yuricon still reliable?

Erica Friedman is listed here under "Individuals" described as someone reliable for yuri topics, who is not to be used to cite any controversial statements or BLPs. Earlier today I presented Friedman as a potential source at an AfD, and was disputed, on the grounds that the RS/N discussion consensus is too old and based on flimsy justifications. After a look at the discussion in question, I think I agree on that front. As such I think it's probably worth asking the question of if Friedman (and the yuricon site overall) still qualifies as a reliable source for such topics.

I looked around a bit and, in addition to what's already stated in the RS/N discussion, she wrote a book on the history of the yuri genre, which was published in 2022 (may or may not be reliable; I don't know anything about the publishing house), has written reviews and articles for ANN and Anime Feminist ([4] [5], [6]) and been cited by others ([7] [8], [9], [10]). Her bio on her website claims she wrote for various other sources including Animerica Magazine, Eureka, Slate, Forbes, The Huffington Post, and so on. I did some searches to verify her contributions to these publications, but haven't yet found them (it doesn't really help that her bio being copied everywhere into the footer of articles she wrote for other sites already mentions means that searching for them tends to yield those articles). I'm also not sure how much of them I'd be able to access since at least a few of the purported sources that she's supposedly written for or been reviewed in might be print sources or paywalled journals, but I'll keep looking on that front.

So anyway, I think the questions I have would be:

1. Is Friedman still a reliable individual source of opinion and okay to cite for reviews and the yuri topics she (and the websites she contributed to) says she's an expert in- and, if the answer is "yes", then:
   1. Are articles on her website admissible as evidence of the notability of article topics?
   2. Are the "guest reviews" on her website written by others whom she vetted considered reliable opinions by extension, or is only Friedman herself permissible as a source?

My take would be that she's probably fine as a source of opinion, at least, and maybe okay as a source of facts in interviews, so long as they're not about anyone uninvolved, but likely wouldn't count towards notability. Still, I'm not completely certain, especially since I've not yet been able to turn up the other sources she says she's written for (although maybe those don't matter if her contributions to ANN and Anifem are enough). No strong opinion on the guest reviews, but I'm assuming for the time being at least that they're not usable. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Checked the "about" page of her website again. Apparently she's responsive to emails, so I'll try asking later if she has a list of the things she's written and report back on what that turns up. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 21:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say she's probably fine as a reliable source (assuming she actually did write for the sources listed) along with her fairly-sizeable contributions to ANN (even as a podcast host), Anime Feminist, and Yuricon. It is also worth noting that she wrote a book that ANN reviewed, so that book might be notable if another good review is found. I would agree that the guest authors are (unless they can be shown to be subject-matter experts) unreliable. But that's my opinion. Link20XX (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I did a bit more searching. I did find Friedman's Mary Sue article here, and even another article on the site that referenced her here. However, the only references to her on Slate, Forbes, and The Huffington Post that I can find are these: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

The thing is, these aren't articles that Friedman wrote for these sites, per se, but rather answers she gave on Quora which were then apparently republished by those websites between 2012 and 2017. A couple of them are actually two different repostings of the same answer ([18] [19]). I think it's a little misleading of her to say these count as "writing for" those outlets, but whatever. The Quora answers are also totally unrelated to her media reviews, mostly consisting of her espousing her views on social topics, and the original listing of her did already caveat that she's generally only reliable for anime/manga-related reviews and interviews and shouldn't be used for controversial topics, so this might not really change anything. I guess I'll leave that to others to have an opinion on.

If we discount those, that mainly leaves The Mary Sue, ANN, Anifem, and her book, as her reliable sources, along with her manga editing work and the CBLDF manga guide. Only missing things are her Animerica and Eureka contributions, but I'm not sure those would make too much of a difference. Overall, I think my opinion is generally unchanged. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I did eventually find a proper bibliography on her website! For some reason it didn't click that her title of "writer" was a link to her writing credits. This doesn't include the Quora answers, but it does seem to include all the other things, so, there we go. I guess I can still email her if we need a fuller list, but that's probably unnecessary at this point. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I updated the wording of her entry on the list; hopefully there's no issues. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that she is reliable per the reasons mentioned above. I also think that we should just consider her articles valid for Wikipedia purposes but not the guest authors contributions. Xexerss (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite get it, do you have any doubts about her? With an eye to Erica's healthy skepticism and subjectivity like any other reviewer or author, I think Friedman is one of the best yuri experts in the English speaking space. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding a sentence about the use of Anime Feminist

Hey all! I noticed that WP:RSP usually includes the following sentence on entries about sources with a bias: Take care to ensure that content from [publication] constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Would there be any objections to adding a similar sentence to Anime Feminist's entry? Link20XX (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion we should be kind of doing that anyway, for all of these sources, but yeah, I see no issue with adding such a clause. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an openly political resource with a rather open and clear intention of reviewing and studying the media from the point of view of a certain ideology, then the question is obvious. But at the moment I haven't seen them being cited around that as an undeniably objective source, so I don't quite see the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

No objections to this. As Silvia noted, we should be doing that for all sources, but considering there's a clear bias and they often get cited when speaking about the reception of an anime / opinion-based topics, it would be good to have a clear reminder. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving Anime News Network to 'Reliable'

The following discussion 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.

---

Hi folks, based on the prevalence of ANN as a source across the encyclopedia, and the numerous references to it on this talk page as a standard against which to compare any other source, I feel like ANN is being treated as de facto reliable, with the exception of its user-submitted encyclopedia section. It seems like it would be more effective to just include it as a full entry with explanation in the main table, with a warning not to use the encyclopedia section.

The other facet that made it situational is the presence of the "fan interest" feed, which was deemed to be unreliable in a discussion 13 years ago. However, that discussion was based on just the first two articles posted to that feed (which happened to be of low quality), and only one person in that discussion (Dinoguy1000) affirmatively said that warranted a label of 'unreliable'; everyone else was either just bringing up the question for debate (Farix) or providing contextual information (AnmaFinotera, Shiroi Hane, Calathan). Looking at the human interest feed today, I see plenty of articles of comparable reporting quality as the main news feed (e.g. [20], [21], [22], [23]). They also all have attributed bylines, as far as I can tell, so there's no more issue on that front.

Based on these two points, I think it's good practice to promote ANN to the main 'reliable' table (with the warning against the user-submitted part) to more prominently display it as a usable source for editors. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this change, as I see no issues with it for all the reasons mentioned. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As a participant in that discussion and a frequent questioner of ANN as a source, I don't mind as long as it is sufficiently attributed and objectively described. I mean, I don't mind using the site as a news source, a source for original articles like Frog-kun's stuff, or a source for reviews, but Im against the using subjective opinion of the editors of a site (known for a certain political orientation) to substantiate any subjective issues. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Using subjective opinion for the author's opinion is standard practice per WP:RSOPINION, there are no issues there. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In theory, yes. But last year I discovered that many lists like "animated shows with gay characters" are based on the fact that one of the editors of ANN considered, even openly in jest, a certain character as gay. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no issues in general, but I'd be much more comfortable if there was at least a minimum of caution against their advertorials (in addition to the already outlined warning against the encyclopedia). I've seen one occasion where an advertorial was being treated as if it's an authoritative source and not, well, an ad. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

LMAO I opened that link and it appeared as a completely blank page for me. It turns out that uBlock Origin had blocked the entire page's content because it was just all ads. Similarly, their advertorial archive page loads the website header and news sidebar, but the entire space where the archive would be is blocked as an ad 😂. At any rate, I have no objection to this additional warning, and it's probably already covered by RS guidelines against advertorials. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally support this, with the various guidelines that Wikipedia provides kept in mind. While I do have some concerns, ANN is one of the more prolific sources and is known for reliability. It's a source I often use.

Potential concerns would be:

- ANN was recently acquired by Kadokawa. While they have stated that they will remain independent, it may be worth keeping an eye on if approved. Both for increasing the ads and pressures to be positive about Kadokawa work. This isn't anything new for a website to be owned by an industry company or otherwise to receive money from them such as advertising, but issues have occasionally been highlighted before for other sites. A notable case being the Kane and Lynch scandal.

- While not an issue with ANN itself, the writers there do seem to typically fall politically left and are often negative about sexual topics or fanservice. This isn't a problem with ANN, but some articles seem to almost exclusive cite ANN without providing any opposing views to the point that there has been at least one (presumably false!) claim of ANN staff being the one adding them. This could be a concern for comprehensive reception sections and misrepresent it.

- Just generally that as with any source reliable or not, it should be scrutinized and used carefully when it comes to evidence for points to include on the Wiki page - that something being on ANN doesn't mean it's the definitive fact, and that it does report on opinions and based on limited sources in some articles. The ongoing G-Witch dispute that I imagine triggered this is essentially whether the article does or does not support the points written on the wiki / whether it's due weight based on the ANN article as an example where it's caused some dispute. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried finding ANN's or some third party's characterization of differences between the different feeds, but couldn't find any. Based on the staff section, they do appear to be different "departments" with different editors. Every article on the "News" feed reads like it was taken directly from some press release with headlines like "X anime cast announced", "X released Y date", and "X manga goes on hiatus".

The interest feed on the other hand seems to report on more tangential subjects and those not deemed notable(?) enough for the news feed. Examples include reader polls, and reporting on products like "Oshi no Ko baking soda", "Persona 5 Royal LED Lamps", Street Fighter Keyboards, and my absolute favorite: Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid Limited Edition Whiskey Blend. It does occasionally feature obviously newsworthy topics like the piracy report. Maybe include a word of caution about ensuring the content constitutes due weight if the feed is whitelisted. CandyScythe (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of reader polls, I think Wikipedia does a poor job of reporting and summarizing general audience reaction to a work, focusing only on professional critic reactions to the exclusion of all else. Any reliable sources that report substantively and accurately on what regular people think should be welcomed. As for the random licensed products, there's a clear line between that and advertorial in that the latter is literally paid for as advertising, whereas the former is just "something cool/interesting that the writer found and wanted to share with their audience". I can envision valid use cases for the former in a Merchandising section along the lines of "[Anime] was a popular source of licensed products including water bottles, computer cases, shaving razers, foo, bar, and baz.[cite][cite][cite][cite]" Axem Titanium (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support making both the news and interest sections reliable. They're definitely one of the web's pre-eminent anime news sources at this point. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Per Axem. I've been using it under the premise that it was reliable, without issue, for the last decade. I use it for video games, not anime, but still. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a note regarding interest and advertorial pieces and its encyclopedia. While from my experience ANN and its contributors tend to have a liberal bias, I don't see that as much of a problem (as per WP:BIASED). And while it is true that Wikipedia perhaps relies too much on ANN, I think this is just simply a case of ANN being really the only major anime-dedicated website in English. Regarding their recent partial acquisition by Kadokawa, while I am skeptical, ANN has been partially owned by Bandai for quite awhile and still reports fairly neutrally on that, so I am giving ANN the benefit of the doubt for now. Link20XX (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding ANN being relied upon too much, I think you're correct for the reasoning. My concern is mostly around editors seeing ANN now marked as Reliable, and increasing this even further. This isn't a reason for ANN not to be included, but just a concern that some editors may treat the list as gospel, using sources from it as acceptable and anything not mentioned on it as unreliable without further scrutiny. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I think a way to deal with this is to say ANN is good, but it is also good to rely more on academic sources when possible. ANN is useful especially when there's something with relatively little coverage in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Heart-shaped pupils in ahegao

In the Ahegao article, you also have to include in your description that some images have some characters with heart-shaped pupils, I mention it because I've had problems. Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

When Is A Source Reliable for Anime Project?

Looking at the lack of sources for anime topics, I was wondering; what do you consider as the factors of reliability of a source for the anime project?

Speaking with @BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 over on the Onimai Talk page, it was mentioned that what the Video Game Project Editors think of reliably may not apply here. Considering that over there things such as hiring university students as writers would be used as a factor of unreliability, but also apply to our main sources such as the Anime News Network (one example being Kim Morrissey, who is well regarded by many here), along with their Managing Editor not having a journalism/writing related degree which is another issue sometimes brought up over there to dismiss a source as unreliable. I'd agree. It seems that their standards don't really apply here. In general, a lot of their reliability criteria also comes from a dynastic view of having worked for another website that's deemed reliable, which would make things more difficult in this more niche area, but is also sometimes done here.

So is there a clear outline of what makes a source worth considering as reliable for the anime project?

For example, Anime Corner has often been cited, has a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues that I can see. But it seems to be staff primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere. Would that disqualify them here. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the general issue is just that we don't have a great selection of sources in general. This goes not just for anime but also topics on all sorts of niche pop culture topics (while there's undoubtedly a better pick of sources for gaming topics, I'm sure if you held IGN to the standards of The New York Times, you'd find the former quite lacking). More "generalist" sources, which may be considered of higher editorial quality, don't tend to take a big interest in these culturally niche topics (and when they do, they tend to get things wrong about them a lot more often than the the specialty sources), so we can't rely on them for our sourcing. What matters, ultimately, I think, is that the people working on these sources have at least done a basic degree of due diligence and they get the things that matter to us right, most of the the time, when it comes to their focus. What we have isn't perfect, sure, but it's good enough, and sometimes for some topics on Wikipedia, good enough is what you have to settle for when it comes to sources.

And particularly for opinions (which is what was initially being debated at the Onimai page), I'd say that there's generally a lot less to be concerned over in practical terms- the verification for the writer of a review having an opinion on a piece of media is self-evident in the review itself, after all. The concern in that case is more that we don't want to let in particularly low quality sources with no standards whatsoever, because then that sets a precedent for citing those sources elsewhere generally, thus poisoning the well. That's my feeling on the matter, anyway.

Anyway, I don't know about Anime Corner, specifically. I'll leave that judgment up to more experienced editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible anime reviews

Since Kenshin 2023 still didn't have reviews by the most common sites, I've been searching other sites but I'm not sure if they are reliable:

• Animecorner seems to be related to the Anitrendz site which is often acknowledged by winners of awards.
• Sequential Planet might be unreliable but the title reminds me to Sequential Art which we use so I wonder if it's reliable.
• There is also Latest Anime News but this is the one I doubt the most.

Any idea?Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Latest Anime News is definitely unreliable; in its apply page, it states that as a volunteer writer for our LAN (LatestAnimeNews) blog, you will not receive monetary compensation for your contributions. Sequential Art seems unreliable too; I couldn't find any other major work from its writers or use of the source in other reliable sources. Anime Corner is the only one that has a chance, but I still don't believe it meets the bar for reliability. While it has been used in Anime Trending (which is marginally reliable), it has not been used in any other major sources and while its contributor page boasts about the degrees of its writers, I couldn't find anything by them from other publications, though I didn't check super thoroughly. Link20XX (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

> it states that as a volunteer writer for our LAN (LatestAnimeNews) blog, you will not receive monetary compensation for your contributions

While I understand payment for articles does add a level of professional credit to a website, is there anything in the guidelines to say this is required for reliability? A lot of anime websites run on volunteer writers, to the point that if it doesn't directly state that it does pay, it might be more likely that it doesn't than it does (and most don't seem to state either way). The same issue exists in gaming, with many websites 'paying' by sending review codes, if less so there with sources we might look at outside of niche ones.

I'd not want to dismiss a source immediately for something along those lines unless it's necessary, and considering some of the common practices in academia and the occasional self-published website that's considered reliable, it does make me wonder if anything directly states that only paid writers should be considered reliable when considering a source.

All that said, I don't really see any indicators of reliability for Latest Anime News.

On Anime Corner, as I mentioned here, it seems to be staff primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@DarkeruTomoe: Regarding Latest Anime News, I dismissed it as unreliable because their contributors are completely unverified and it seems like they allow anyone to write for them, which means they have little to no editorial control. As far as Anime Corner, I admit that I am not very familiar with this website, so I might be okay considering them to be marginally reliable but definitely not a "high-quality source" for controversial claims. Link20XX (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that Latest Anime News are unreliable. There's no statement of editorial control, there's a lack of consistency in some ways that imply a lack of editor (for example of three news writers, one always links Youtube, one Twitter, and one nothing for videos), no experience or qualifications are mentioned and it all seems pretty unprofessional generally.

It also seems a leap to say that anyone can write for them. Anyone can apply, yes, but not necessarily be approved. And I imagine they're at least turning away the people who can't spell, as a certain minimum quality is there when looking through their posts.

I'm not putting forward that they're reliable as said - just want to make sure a precedent isn't set and that we don't dismiss all sources that don't provide monetary compensation, as that was stated as the initial dismissal reason, but doesn't necessarily seem required for reliability. There's few enough quality anime sources as it is. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said above, my problem with Latest Anime News is not that they don't provide monetary compensation, but rather their (pretty much) lack of any real editorial control. The way their apply page is worded makes it sound like they let pretty much anyone write for them without any experience in writing or the anime industry. Link20XX (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I won't use them.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

anime review site?

Are these three sites reliable for anime reviews?

https://honeysanime.com

https://theanimeview.com

https://www.heroic-cinema.com/ M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 14:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As for The Anime View, I would lean unreliable; upon researching the website, they seem to be fairly new and still trying to obtain proper editorial standards. Their contributors also seem to have a lack of other experience as the only one I could find that had written for any other website was Peggy Sue Wood (their editor-in-chief), who wrote four articles for Comic Book Resources, which is not very definitive. For Heroic Cinema, I would have to conclude the same as it has unverifiable authors and describes itself as a loosely-connected community. Honey's Anime is the only one I balk on since that website has been discussed in the past, but I still can't find any real credentials for its writers, so I would have to lean unreliable. Link20XX (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd personally not even count Peggy Wood's four articles for Comic Book Resources towards potential reliability, both since they're all listicles so not exactly quality journalism, and as Comic Book Resources itself may not be reliable. I know we have different standards here, but there's an ongoing discussion over on the Video Game Project that seems to be going the way of their recent content being classed as unreliable between recent quality and business decisions/focus on AI content.

For Honey's Anime, I've not fully looked into their writers, but I am aware that Brett Michael Orr is listed as writing for Honey's Anime, Anime Corner, a non-related content writing job and having briefly worked for J-Novel Club. No academic credentials, but a couple relevant websites, a writing position with a company and an industry position. Zeke Changuis has various other journalistic experience. The outlet also seems to have industry access with a good number of interviews, which doesn't always mean reliability, but is a good factor. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Honey's Anime, I did some more looking and apparently Rod Locksley, one of their writers, has written for Univision (not sure how reliable that is but I think it's worth noting) and its editor-in-chief, Alfonso Ortiz, was a Judge at the 2021 Crunchyroll Anime Awards. The website has also been mentioned twice by Anime News Network. Not sure how much those add for reliability, but it is certainly more credibility than just "I like anime". Link20XX (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

They've also been used as a reference here:

https://kotaku.com/dragon-ball-pachinko-machine-probably-wont-happen-1828571545

https://www.siliconera.com/snk-heroines-tag-team-frenzy-will-surprising-characters-yet-announced/

https://techraptor.net/gaming/reviews/sword-art-online-fatal-bullet-review-fatal-mistakes DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also on Vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdy73/hikikomori-hiding-from-society-hong-kong-japan DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering all that, I don't think I see any reason not to consider it at least situational, though I would say I support listing it as generally reliable at least for non-controversial news or opinions. Link20XX (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Link20XX, What do you think about this site? M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the person you were asking, but IMO it's not a good source at all. It's just a random person's blog. No particular editorial standards/professional experience/assurance of quality/etc. Unless it happens to belong to someone who is relevant elsewhere, I'd not use it.

https://thepenandthebook.wordpress.com/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

DarkeruTomoe said pretty much everything I would have said. Also worth noting their about page and most of their articles don't mention the contributors, so it's almost always impossible to know whether they have any actual experience. Link20XX (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

anime.com and fulvuedrive-in.com

These two website should be in the list of Anime/Manga reviews sources.

manga Jouhou, also i think should in the list, but I'm not sure. the reviews on manga Jouhou website appear to be reliable and cover the news as well. What do you think? M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 07:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the notable domain, at first glance Anime.com seems like it'd be difficult to verify reliability? There's a mention of it here, but it's not exactly a glowing recommendation. I can't see the main staff writing anywhere else relevant and the EiC seems to be an ICT person, while the owner seems to be about Product Design/content marketing/branding and is currently working with AI. No posted editorial standards, etc. The content does appear to be better than the others mentioned, but Wikipedia standards for reliability would presumably want some other positive markers.

I can't find much info on fulvuedrive-in.com and I can't see the owner's LinkedIn details. It doesn't look like they've covered much anime in any level of detail, but their website design is terrible enough that it makes finding it difficult and much of the stuff listed under reviews are actually just release blurbs. That said, some of their reviews aren't much more than a description with few lines of opinion added either. Is there further information that suggests it's reliable in the Wikipedia sense?

Manganews.net looks like a no go unless I'm missing something. Can't see who is behind the site and reviews are just attributed to 'Jason'.

Unless there's more information you can add, I'd not think any of them would be marked as reliable? DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Shefu has been the owner of Fulvue Drive-In.com for 14 years. He has done a lot of reviewing and has experience. he has also reviewed a number of anime.

Some Wikipedia articles have also included his reviews

So it is not so unreliable. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 22:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to wait for others to weigh in, but I wouldn't have thought any of that mattered much... at least in terms of how Wikipedia tends to look at what's reliable.

In terms of doing it for a while, any with enough dedication can post something for years, such as Angry Video Game Nerd who started in 2004, but is said not to be a reliable source, despite being rather notable.

In terms of existing links, there are currently 256 links for NicheGamer.com on Wikipedia, far more than the 40 for fulvuedrive-in. NicheGamer has repeatedly been declared as not a reliable source (and has been around for 10 years). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Here you can read all the history and information about Manga Jouhou site. the site has been discussed in the past, According to insidescanlation, Begin asking for public review submission, which eventually led to the birth of the Editorial team. MJ Review Team officially formed, it was later renamed to the MJ Editorial Team, with Firedog heading the team as its Editor-in-Chief. On April 17, 2006, Manga Jouhou launched ComiPress, a spin-off site to expand its news coverage

As mentioned in the discussion it was a project started people ComiPress, link to InsideScanlation from ComiPress. ComiPress is a spiritual successor to and branched of the site Manga Jouhou; a quick google search shows references to Manga Jouhou from two English-language manga publishers Dark Horse [24] and Icarus Publishing.Manga Jouhou was a hub of the scanlation community according to the InsideScanlation page on it. ComiPress has it's own editorial team, of which some of the editors are notable experts in the field, information for which can be found on their about page. The site has also been mentioned by Anime News Network, Also mentioned by mangabookshelf in the reviews section, here too on American Public Media Website. M.A.LasTroniN910^t@lk 13:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry didn't get back to this sooner - I'm not seeing anything in the history link for MangaJouhou that helps make it reliable. Just the nature of scanlation and anonymous staff makes it difficult, since they're not qualified in a measurable way or in professional positions. It doesn't really confer any relevance from being posted on insidescanlation either, since that itself was discussed before as you mentioned and seemed to be deemed as only a self-published source.

>ComiPress has it's own editorial team, of which some of the editors are notable experts in the field

Experts in the field seems a little strong to me... but they do have a few people like writers of a publisher OEL manga. Only three of the team (two retired and non of the current editorial) mention involvement back when it was still MangaJouhou though.

In terms of the ANN mention, that's a positive side, though it's rather minor. MangaBookshelf I'm not familiar with, but it seems just to be a dead blog run by two people? The American Media one, a radio show by John Biewen and Chris Farrell called Japan's Pop Power?

It'd be good to have a more experienced editor such as @Link20XX chime in though. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Bounding Into Comics

I think it's time we list Bounding Into Comics (BIC) as unreliable. This website's reliability has come up twice (1, 2) at WP:RSN and once (1) at WP:VGRS. The website is a notorious supporter of Comicsgate, which itself is not enough to make it unreliable (WP:BIAS), but it also does not work in its favor. Regarding its coverage, it has described Viz Media as "displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media and has written that Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime; the former claim is objectively false and the latter claim is not inaccurate but is misleading as the censorship is actually done in Japan to comply with TV broadcasting standards and not by Crunchyroll (1, 2). They also have some questionable reporting on topics not related to anime (1, 2). Honestly I think that's more than enough to depreciate BIC. Link20XX (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It should be added to the unreliable section. Xexerss (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this one. More than anything, I'd be concerned that some may immediately dismiss it due to the controversial opinions.

They make sweeping statements showing their bias and my gut feeling is unreliable after reading the articles unrelated to anime that were linked, but I could see arguments against it being subjective rather than unreliable as the actual information the anime posts are based on seems to be correct for examples I've seen. ANN has a very left-bias as does a lot of media and we have biased sites such as Anime Feminist often used, so it can be useful to have sources on the other side that discuss censorship, fanservice, and adult content.

> it has described Viz Media as "displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media

This one shows extreme bias when referring to the 'disrespect' and judgements on why the changes were made. It seems to accurately report about changes between versions though, with video examples, so the information doesn't seem to be incorrect.

> has written that Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime

It's worth noting that the gendered language in the subtitles are the main topic of the article. The censored video elements of Onimai were done by Japan, but the subtitles may be another matter, so this may not be inaccurate. @tomoyo_0810's portfolio doesn't list whether they work for Crunchyroll as a contractor or a Japanese company. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Those were just some of the first search results I saw, though upon looking into the website, they also described criticizing Crunchyroll's casting in Witch from Mercury as "neoliberal whining" ([25]). But anyways, looking into their anime articles, it seems like the vast majority are written by John F. Trent and Nerdigans Inc. However, for Trent I honestly could not find a single other publication he has written for (which is bad considering his page claims he is their editor-in-chief) and for Nerdigans Inc, they wrote one article for Comics Beat ([26]), which is a reliable source but one article is not enough to indicate reliability. While I would not be opposed to having more conservative sources, this one should not be it. Link20XX (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)