Talk:Yashahime

Controversy section

Per WP:CRITS, the controversy section created by @FloRodrick: should be removed or at least moved as a subsection to the reception section. Secondly, I still don't know what exactly does make "blog.esuteru.com" and "myjitsu.jp" reliable sources. The fact that the latter belongs to Nihon Journal Publishing Inc. doesn't prove anything to me personally, and these two websites based their reports on simple tweets/user-generated comments, there is no major controversy outside of that. This source[1] is literally a comment section from random users, there is no some kind of analysis whatsoever and should just be removed. - Xexerss (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree there. The series received complaints by reviewers if I recall but I don't remember there being such commentary in general.Tintor2 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a hot topic among Japanese circles. That yahoo tv source could be removed but myjitsu had made a report based on the comments by viewers. This is what a controversy means: conflicting discourse with multiple perspectives from viewers and commenters. I am not sure how else to indicate a source that shows controversy. This issue is controversial because people are talking about it, particularly in Japanese circles. Myjitsu made a report on the fact that people are discussing and disagreeing about it. That makes it a source that shows that this controversy exists. Regarding the reputability of Myjitsu, it is a branch of 株式会社日本ジャーナル出版, a Japanese publishing company that has been around since 1958. Esuteru has been cited by ANN on multiple occasions, and ANN is cited as a source on wikipedia multiple times as a reputable source with no issues.FloRodrick (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@FloRodrick: In general, from what I have seen at least, a controversy is notable in anime/manga articles when the backlash is so big that the series ends up being censored, banned, canceled or the author ends up apologizing, for example in My Hero Academia, Record of Ragnarok or Digimon Tamers. I don't see the controversy here or at least it doesn't seem to be that big as you say that it is. These tweets and user comments are rather incidental and I don't even see any reliable source, in English at least, talking about this alleged controversy. On another note, regardless its reliability, the fact that ANN has cited a website from time to time doesn't make it automatically reliable. - Xexerss (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

a comment section is NOT a reliable source, nor is a blog in most cases, and as @Xexerss said, they are also just basing the reports based on user comments as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@FloRodrick: I agree with the others and their reasons. Let’s add two more. What you are posting is what a subgroup of English fandom is saying. Rin being the mother was widely accepted in Japan and other Asian countries. They already believed it was her and is the reason Yashahime has Rin and Sesshomaru as a couple, for the fans. It is a massive popular ship. Furthermore, in that interview she says Hogosha. Hogosha (保護者) is a Japanese word that refers to a guardian or protector. Yes, in one interpretation Hogosha could mean parent. But if you take Rumiko’s whole sentence or whole comment instead of half of a sentence, the parent interpretation doesn’t fit. She meant guardian or protector. Please watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) where Michelangelo is calling April,”his girlfriend”, a Hogosha. The seventh quote on this link. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291150/characters/nm0001724 (For you to see, link is not a reliable source) Truthseeker1022 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: I was browsing Japanese threads when I came across discussions on this controversy and thought it was an essential point that was missing from this Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon article. However, I seem to have inadvertently attracted fans of the series who are responding emotionally, as can be evident from the above anonymous message with baseless and inaccurate information. My sincere apologies regarding this, I will stop attempting to add this section to this article and I will make sure to support my edits with English language sources in the future. My apologies for my bad English. FloRodrick (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@FloRodrick: I think you need to read some of Wikipedia’s policies. Please don’t assume. I have not watched it to be a fan of Yashahime. I translated the interview for my friends who are fans and I have many Japanese friends. I was not responding “emotionally” either. In addition, what I put is not baseless or inaccurate, I can find sources to backup both claims. However, we both know what I wrote is the truth hence the personal attack. Please read the policies. And the problem was not being in Japanese, just the sources are not reliable sources.Truthseeker1022 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as the show being controversial, that's really a non-issue as far as I can see. A quick search for reviews brings up multiple articles talking about the sequel being controversial. https://animemotivation.com/yashahime-accused-of-child-grooming-pedophilia/ https://unitedsquid.com/yashahime-where-did-the-inuyasha-spin-off-go-wrong/ https://animesweet.com/anime/yashahime-the-controversy-is-unleashed-on-the-web-the-anime-that-is-accused-of-promoting-pedophilia/ https://comicbook.com/anime/news/yashahime-sesshomaru-rin-mother-towa-setsuna-inuyasha-sequel-reactions/ These are all Western reviews and reactions granted, but it looks like the section of the article that is in dispute has already tried to provide sources from the Japanese side of the fandom in regards to their opinion of the show and whether it is controversial.2601:603:167F:B306:906F:53E2:599D:1051 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Those links have the same issues, they're just based on tweets and user comments and the websites don't seem reliable at all, Comic Book reliability, for example, has been questioned before and the other websites don't even have an editorial staff to know who are the people who wrote the articles. - Xexerss (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The controversy stems from hate. Hate from a small group in the English fandom who had imposed their perspectives on something from a different culture which contradicts the canon story. So they lie. There is no pedophilia or grooming. He didn’t raise her nor did they have a father and daughter relationship. In addition, just because the comments are in Japanese on a Japanese blog does not mean they are Japanese or Japanese reactions. I am with Xexerss on this.Truthseeker1022 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If it wasn't controversial, there wouldn't even be much of an argument here. Perhaps that section can be brought back with some additions to account for those who support the show. For example, the sentence "Fans argued that Rumiko Takahashi had earlier depicted [...]" can have the word "some" added at the beginning. After that sentence, another sentence can be added: "Others interpreted Takahashi's comment differently, believing that her original wording (保護者 or Hogosha), meant protector instead of parent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123apoptosis (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: The same issue still prevails. The discussion here on the talk page is not about the controversy itself but about how big or notable is in fact the alleged controversy and the reliability of the websites addressing it. Their reports are just based on some tweets and user comments and there is no evidence that this matter is bigger than that. - Xexerss (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: The reason they are interpreting hogosha as parent is they are only focused on the first part of the sentence or just taking the word out of content to match their perspectives that contradicts the canon story. http://wiki.sessriniscanon.com/doku.php/translations/weekly-youth-2021

I am against the "controversy" section as well, from a in-depth view it seems pretty clearly to be a minority of scorned fans and if we put sections of controversy everytime geeks have an issue with a piece of media we would be making a mess in many articles. At absolute best fan grievances could be mentioned in the Reception section, but pretending there is a sizeable mainstream controversy is just surreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.3.50.10 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles. How "big" does a controversy usually have to be for a controversy section to be added? 318 people have signed a petition on change dot org (for some reason Wikipedia doesn't allow links to that website?) requesting that the rating of the show on streaming platforms be changed from TV-14 to TV-MA to protect minors from inadvertently viewing harmful content. To me, that sounds like a lot and definitely deserves a mention. It doesn't matter to me though if it has a controversy section of its own or simply be included as a subsection to the reception section. As long as it is somewhere in there, parents would be informed of the potential issue and can do their own research before deciding whether to allow their own children to watch the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123apoptosis (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: The controversy is made up by not understanding the story to not wanting to see the real story or just hate. There are zero reasons to change the rating of the show and 318 is a low number. Please look above Xexerss gave three examples and they are completely different from this.Truthseeker1022 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: As I've mentioned before, based on what I've seen in other articles that include paragraphs about controversies, they're usually notable when the backlash ends up with the series being censored, banned, canceled or the author ends up apologizing. At most, I think the issue warrants some mention in the reception section if the issue is addressed by reliable secondary sources or the take of reviewers from WP:A&M/ORS. Change.org was blacklisted on Wikipedia some years ago. I honestly don't know the details but it has something to do with WP:NOTOPINION. The website is just user-generated content, so I would oppose to use it as a source anyway. - Xexerss (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: Controversies notable enough to appear on articles require weighty popular culture and social media zietgeist. A Change.org petition with such a small number that failed to cause a ripple is just not comparable to the kind of weight the situation needs to get to be notable enough. In all honesty, not part of the objective argument, but the fact that a quick google search instantly directed me to the person behind the controversy edits (who attempted to do the same edit at the same time to Italian and Spanish pages) makes it look very much suspiciously like a group of fans trying to impose their grievances on this article, and that is something we should avoid since, again, every single work of media floating around has fans that find it disagreeable and detractors too and we don't allow those in articles precisely under the danger of fans trying to wage war using the encyclopedia site's material.

@Xexerss: It's definitely not just a small group of misinformed extremists complaining about a non-existent or trivial matter. From what I gather by looking at social media, the proportion of people for and against the show's portrayal of the relationship are comparable. In the reviews section of ANN, James Beckett briefly expressed concern over the possibility of Sesshomaru impregnating "his tiny adoptive daughter figure" (https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/yashahime-princess-half-demon/episodes-1-3/.165326), but did not delve into this awkward topic. Years ago, the English voice actor of Inuyasha (the lead male character in the original show) had expressed that a future romantic relationship wouldn't be "healthy" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cac0SCANqe4).

I understand where you're coming from. Thank you for the links. I also looked around at more Wikipedia articles and turns out even the Bunny Drop article didn't mention controversy. Unlike Yashahime where there is an ongoing, heated argument between the two sides, the situation with Bunny Drop is rather one-sided. Though there are supporters, it seems pretty clear that the majority of viewers agree that the ending is horrific. The anime adaptation even left out the ending entirely, likely due to the backlash. Yet the Wikipedia article completely ignored the elephant in the room.

Overall, it seems like my disagreement isn't so much with this Yashahime article alone, but with Wikipedia norms in general. It seems like Wikipedia emphasizes traditional sources more, ignoring how huge social media is nowadays. Therefore, if news companies haven't picked up on the issue and the anime company chooses to ignore it, then it can't be included regardless of how heated the controversy is. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia would fail to provide important information just because those companies failed to address the issue first

I, at least, am unbiased about the controversy itself, but as someone said before, if we were to take into account tweets, comments or petitions from fans about every complaint that they have about a series, the articles would be a mess. The episode came out 10 months ago and the most reliable coverage I see is a casual mention by an ANN reviewer. There was no banning, censorship or responses to the backlash from the creators/producers. Based on Wikipedia policies, this "controversy" fails WP:NOTE. - Xexerss (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that was @123apoptosis: comment above since they removed sine-bot ‘s adding a signature from an IP address. I am unbiased to Sessrin. I am against the hate and lies in a fake controversy. It is either from not understanding the timeline or just hating to hate. It is a Japanese story with Japanese perspectives and reviews and voice actors from a different country would have different perspectives and not view the source material correctly without taking time to learn. The Japanese, the Japanese voice actors, and Rumiko supports Sessrin. On Facebook, there are three Sessrin groups. The members of the three groups are 1.7K, 7K, and 11K. 11K members for “Sesshomaru and Rin Shippers”. For the antisessrin’s one group had only 98 members and the other only had 668 members. 668 vs over 11,000 members. It is a small group of misinformation extremists complaining about a matter that never existed but in their own interpretations. Canon: Sesshomaru and Rin never had a father and daughter relationship. Canon: Sesshomaru never adopted Rin. Canon: Sesshomaru never raised Rin. Canon: There is no child grooming or pedophilia. In addition, Bunny Drop is nothing close to Sesshomaru and Rin. If someone was to compare them, it shows misinformed extremists complaining about a non-existent matter. There is no real controversy here and no where close to what Wikipedia considers a controversy. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Sorry for bothering you again, I'm still trying to learn what is reliable and unreliable.

In an article on CBR, Sage Ashford wrote a subheading "Yashahime Confirmed A Problematic Couple" and described that Yashahime "confirmed the worst suspicions of some fans: that Sesshomaru eventually married Rin, the young girl he’d been essentially raising for a large portion of the series. That was one of the most skeevy pairings the creators could have done, which turned off a lot of fans" (https://www.cbr.com/anime-sequels-ruined-original-series-how/). CBR isn't listed on either the reliable or unreliable list of sources. However, Soliloquy in Blue is listed as a reliable source, the evidence being "Michelle Smith [the owner] was a senior editor at PopCultureShock, and has written for CBR." If the owner writing for CBR is evidence for another source being reliable, then I would think CBR itself is reliable too.

In an article on But Why Tho?, Olive St. Sauver wrote that Yashahime "confirmed many fans’ worst fears." She went on explain the issue: "Rin is the little girl who followed Sesshomaru around, that he essentially raised and protected AS A SMALL CHILD. Yes, he is a demon, and the supernatural element nullifying the age difference argument can be made (eh), but it still reads uncomfortably of grooming. [...] Unfortunately, the elements are there, in a piece of popular media, and I feel it would be wrong to not address it in this write-up" (https://butwhythopodcast.com/2021/01/16/review-yashahime-princess-half-demon-episode-15-farewell-under-the-lunar-eclipse/). The author's Twitter profile (https://twitter.com/allofthemanga) indicates that she works for both But Why Tho? and Anime Feminist. The latter is on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. In fact, the author addressed the same issue on Anime Feminist too, albeit very briefly. It was in a review of the first episode, in which she mentioned that Yashahime "is still holding the unanswered question of 'did Sesshoumaru bone his surrogate daughter to produce the new cast' ominously over our heads" (https://www.animefeminist.com/yashahime-princess-half-demon-episode-1/).

To sum up the sources: We have two confirmed reliable sources (reliable on Wikipedia's list), ANN and Anime Feminist, that briefly touch on the issue. We also have two possibly reliable sources (albeit one of them was by the same author of the Anime Feminist article), CBR and But Why Tho?, that go in slightly more detail on the subject.

@123apoptosis: Ok, it seems that there are enough sources to at least include the reviewers' comment on this issue in the reception section. Thanks for the links. If no one opposes to this, I'll go ahead and include a few lines of their take. - Xexerss (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: They are reliable links and should be added. But I only oppose because the claims are just claims and don’t stand to the real facts of the canon story. So if you add them try to make sure it only their take, (which is just them being misinformed.) Sesshomaru and Rin never had a father and daughter relationship and he never raised her. I am asking my friends, if there are any reliable sources that would refute the ones who are misinformed and forcing two characters to be father and daughter with no canonical evidence.Truthseeker1022 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Truthseeker1022: I wrote some lines about their take on this, making it clear that this is just their opinion. - Xexerss (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Oops I made a minor error, no difference to overall outcome though. The author of the article on Anime Feminist is another staff member, Vrai Kaiser. It still holds true that Olive St. Sauver also works for Anime Feminist. Sorry for the mix-up.

Thank you for adding the criticism to the article. 123apoptosis (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Truthseeker1022: You seem to have a strong opinion on what was canonically portrayed in Yashahime for someone who "have[has] not watched it." However, the discussion at hand is regarding the magnitude of the controversy, not the controversy itself. The statistics part of your comment does contribute to the discussion so thank you for the input. My concern with those numbers though is that they were not taken from a random sample of viewers. Fandom statistics are skewed in favor of those participating in the fandom. Those disturbed by the content are more likely to distance themselves from the fandom and not join any groups at all. Statistical analysis is more complex than meets the eye. In any case, my current understanding of Wikipedia's policies is that we would need a reliable secondary source that has done the analysis for us before we can use it as evidence.

@123apoptosis: Sesshomaru did not raise Rin. She only travelled with him about 5 months and then he left her with Kaede who raised her. He had zero moments with raising her. My “opinion” is based on canon facts, interviews, and Japanese society. This is not just about Yashahime which is the sequel to Inuyasha. Inuyasha which had 56 volumes, 559 chapters, 4 movies, 193 episodes, and Drama CDs. Then there are interviews and guide books. My knowledge is from this foundation and friends who have watched Yashahime. They asked me to translate for them. The false claimed he “raised” her and the other false claims center around the series Inuyasha when she was a child which none of that controversy was portrayed. Yashahime is when she is an adult not a child. The controversy is from misunderstanding Inuyasha. The magnitude of the controversy is not as big as it looks. The point in showing how big Facebook groups were and comparing them to anti groups was completely missed. Those numbers was to show you it just a small subgroup in the English fandom that caused the controversy which they would band together not avoid the fandom if they want to be apart of it as they have. It does not show favor, it shows the truth. Sessrin is more accepted in the fandom as whole. Accepted not meaning they ship Sessrin, they could be neutral like me. It does not need to be a random sample in what I was saying. And it should be clear by now, I was not using that as a reliable source for Wikipedia as evidence. Where did that even come from? My major is in Data Science. I am aware of statistics. Sessrin is highly popular in the fandom has been for years or Yashahime and the Drama CD would not had exist and Sessrin as big as InuKag in Japan. Ps: If you want to sign your name to your comment put four ~ together at the end. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Truthseeker1022: Please do not debate the controversy here. Once again, the discussion here is about the magnitude of of the controversy, not the controversy itself. Regarding the statistics, yes, the Sesshomaru and Rin couple is very popular. However, popularity and controversy are not mutually exclusive. My point was not that the member count of the Sessrin group overestimates the number of supporters of the relationship, but rather that the member count of the antisessrin group underestimates the number of viewers disturbed by the content. Those are fandom statistics, not overall viewer statistics.

Thanks for the technical tip. 123apoptosis (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: Please take a step back and re-read your comment before your last comment here to me and analyze why I made that comment. Because I was not debating the controversy. I was explaining why your assumptions on me does not fit. I have not watched Yashahime but I am an Inuyasha fan. Most of this controversy comes from being misinformed or placing non-canon values on the story of Inuyasha. I am sorry you viewed that as debating the controversy. The magnitude is insignificant to the whole viewer statistics. Maybe only to the English fandom side but as a whole it is insignificant. Your point is irrelevant to my comments and why I pointed that out. Once again, please step back and read this over and see how your last comment was went off topic and was irrelevant to my last comment and what I was saying. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Truthseeker1022:Calling people on one side of the controversy "misinformed" while advocating that the opinions of the other side are "canon" is, in fact, debating the controversy. This is not the place for that.

We reached a consensus here and the controversy was mentioned in the article with its due weight. Now, please, we should just move on and leave the discussion since the main issue was resolved. - Xexerss (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't censor the controversy

Taking the controversy section off the wiki is really pitiful. It should be there. Many fans of the original were horrified and continue to be disgusted at how their favorite characters are being completely butchered. Sesshomaru has literally regressed as a character. Season one was a huge dumpster fire and i won't be sticking around for season two. Talking the controversy section out is clearly a power move by shippers who can't accept that it can be perceived as child grooming. 72.191.33.43 (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia’s policies, it does not need to be there. Many fans wanted this and rejoice, only a few were against it. And no not a power move from shippers. This is not about a ship. I am not a Sessrin. There is no child grooming in the show. If all facts are taking in, this can’t never be perceived as child grooming. There is no child grooming in this story. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversy? Rin was confirmed(2 times) as 18 years girl when the twins born in Season 2.

Stop with this Nonsense. We are almost 1 year later since the Episode 15 release. If you do not like the serie because is not what you were waiting stop watching it and not wasting your time like this.

I do not see any problem with the serie when Yashahime even received a 2nd season. Only a small group of people hates the serie compared with those who like it. 90.160.29.226 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sunrise recontted on Rin's age fron 14 to 18 by --223.178.84.8 (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No. (speculation:Sunrise had to confirm her age to people falsely claiming she was 14 for not understanding the story’s timeline in the series.) Sunrise confirmed what most of the fandom already knew. There were many timelines that had her 17 or older that understood the Japanese culture before it was confirmed in Yashahime. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You notice that you talk like those crazy persons who say Rin has 11, Rin has 12, Rin has 14.(They are not even agree with the age). Persons that insulted the studio and even Inuyasha creator Rumiko(A woman allowed Pedophilia in her serie? What a Joke) and tried to sabotage the serie after episode 15? The Episode in that you are focused.

I also made calculations after that Episode(that made it possible) and as TruthSeeker said 17-18 was the approximated age that appeared.

Make a favour to yourself and others and simply leave and ignore Yashahime. I left Dragon Ball after Toriyama ruined me it with Minus. When more obsessed you are with this less seriously the people will take you.

It´s Over. Rin had 18 canonically. You are ridiculing yourself for one simple anime serie. Leave this serie. There are A LOT OF ANIMES to enjoy. 185.120.45.75 (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Truthseeker1022 seems to think that the backlash was strong enough that Sunrise (the anime company) had to state Rin's age. I haven't seen any proof of a causal relationship between the two, but if there was proof, would that indicate that the controversy is big enough to warrant a mention in the article? I'm just asking for learning purposes, as I highly doubt we'll ever actually find the proof.

@123apoptosis: No, I didn’t say that. If the backlash was strong they would had addressed it when it happened not casually included her age in the series about a year later. They wanted to clarify her age to stop the non-sense. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Truthseeker1022: You're still saying that the backlash was loud enough that the anime company not only took notice, but also eventually decided to respond in some form. In any case, this is just speculation. 123apoptosis (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: I would say that if the media itself or it's developers in the anime studio verbally aknowledge a controversy then, yes, it would be notable enough to be mentioned in the article, but of course said aknowledgement would have to be one that signals they took grievances seriously and noticeably, the statement about the character's age itself is not evidence of them being aware or affected of controversy since stating ages is often a mere plot point and often a narrative signal of the passage of time. Again, the important thing here is making sure Wikipedia cannot be used by invested fanboys to wage digital conflicts be it with one another or with media.

Thank you for the information. I recognize that there is currently (and I doubt there ever will be ) no proof that the statement of Rin's age was a result of the backlash. 123apoptosis (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: Please don’t take everything at face value. Only that one line was speculating in that one comment. I was just saying Sunrise did not recon the timeline, everyone had that age for over a year. Either Sunrise just verified her age for many reasons or it would had been there regardless. One reason many fans been wanting her age for years. So no I am not saying the backlash was was loud enough for them to add her age. I agree with “ the statement about the character's age itself is not evidence of them being aware or affected of controversy since stating ages is often a mere plot point and often a narrative signal of the passage of time.” Which goes with what I have been saying And as you said it was just speculating in why they added her age. Please stop saying I said something that I didn’t even mean especially after I already told you. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Kara Dennison's review

When mentioning Kara Dennison's review, I think it should be mentioned that the review is of the first two episodes only. I also think the mention of her review should be shortened so that this first-impression review receives less weight than the more conclusive review (the one ANN published on Mar 29, 2021 after the entire first season aired).

I also want to point out that Dennison's blog (http://karadennison.blogspot.com/) indicates that she also works for Crunchyroll. I'm wondering if there could be a possible conflict of interest on her side, since Crunchyroll is streaming Yashahime? Her article even ends with a direct link to watch the show on Crunchyroll, despite it actually being available on multiple websites simultaneously.123apoptosis (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@123apoptosis: I shortened the lines about her opinion. About the conflict of interest, I could be wrong but that link is her only article about her impressions on the series and is merely based on the first two episodes. She's not actively recommending to watch the series on Crunchyroll and a simple link to the website at the end of the article cannot be that suspicious, can it?. - Xexerss (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xexerss: Thank you for for changing it! Yeah I wasn't sure about the link part. To me, it would have seemed more neutral if she also linked Hulu and Funimation simultaneously, or none at all. Or I'm just overthinking and she simply linked the only one she knew or had a url readily available.