WikiProject iconAnime and manga Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bounding Into Comics[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree. It should be added to the unreliable section. Xexerss (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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" ([1]). 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 ([2]), 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)[reply]

Comic Book Resources (CBR)[edit]

Just wanted to note that it was discussed over on the Video Game Project and pointed out that much of their recent content has not been reliable. A quick summary with a couple of quotes:

> CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism

>This is very much rumor mill right now, but this morning on Twitter, CBR founder Jonah Weiland shared a post, shared by another former CBR editor, of the CBR account, which was apparently removed, claiming that most of the news editors who had not already resigned had been fired as the site moved further into AI-driven content.

I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the listing should be updated to something along the lines of "pre-2016 reliable, 2016–mid 2023 situational, mid 2023–present unreliable". While in the time before AI but after the Valnet acquisition it did resort to a lot of churnalism, it did have some alright columns that at the very least do have some good perspectives (like maybe [3]). Link20XX (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be a fair statement for the listing DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural Aristocrat[edit]

I noticed that Thestylesclash (talk · contribs) has been citing The Natural Aristocrat in several articles. At the moment, I am neither for nor against citing this site, but I'd like to know if anyone knows better about the background of this site and whether it can be considered reliable. On the other hand, however, I have a slight suspicion of WP:CONFLICT regarding the user. Xexerss (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The website seems to cover a variety of topics that happens to include anime occasionally, so I think a more general discussion at WP:RSN would be better. Link20XX (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, On Japan Society's official Press Page (https://japansociety.org/press-coverage/) you'll find that they link to The Natural Aristocrat for the following three articles:
"Bill Gates talks Global Health at Japan Society NYC (Video)"
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/09/22/bill-gates-talks-global-health-at-japan-society-nyc-video/
"Japan Society NYC: ‘Sailor Suit and Machine Gun’ Film Review"
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2023/04/29/japan-society-nyc-sailor-suit-and-machine-gun-film-review/
"Japan Society NYC Film Review: ‘Fireworks Should We See It from the Side or the Bottom?’"
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/12/08/japan-society-nyc-film-review-fireworks-should-we-see-it-from-the-side-or-the-bottom/
On Japan Parade's official press page (https://japanparadenyc.org/media-coverage-2022/), you'll find they linked to an interview The Natural Aristocrat did with George Takei:
“George Takei Interview: Japan Parade NYC Grand Marshal”
https://thenaturalaristocrat.com/2022/05/10/george-takei-interview-japan-parade-nyc-grandmarshal/ Thestylesclash (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expressing any opinions towards whether this website is reliable or not, but I do note the first link lists a WP:FORBESCON article and a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article which are considered generally unreliable and situational, respectively. The second link lists a website titled "Sailor Moon Fan Network", which would definitely not meet WP:RS. But anyways, just a list of articles that mentions every time an organization was covered by any website is not indicative of being a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Natural Aristocrat has been sourced by websites like Yahoo, Express, and MSN just as a quick example:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cormac-mccarty-author-heavy-books-225042597.html
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/5-choses-%C3%A0-savoir-sur-nico-tortorella-la-nouvelle-star-de-the-walking-dead-135347521.html Thestylesclash (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo is a news aggregator and just copies articles from other websites, which is no indication of anything. Link20XX (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second provided link is an original article from Yahoo Entertainment France which sourced an interview by The Natural Aristocrat. Thestylesclash (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to evaluate reliability of source[edit]

Due to it not showing up on the current list, I'm wondering if everyone would be able to evaluate whether animecorner.me constitutes a reliable source. It is currently present on several pages, and is currently in discussion for possible use on another article pending an investigation on its reliability. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its reliability was discussed before, although without a clear consensus. I personally am more leaning towards calling it unreliable. Xexerss (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some checking and animecorner.me is currently cited as a source on over 50 articles. I think that should lend some weight towards it being credible. Rockman1159 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an indication of reliability. I mean, for example, a lot of articles continue to cite the Anime News Network encyclopedia, even though it's expressly listed as unreliable here. Xexerss (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, there are currently 262 links to NicheGamer, which is specifically listed as unreliable as a website on the video game project. So I'd agree that amount of links don't really add creditability, but are more of an indication of amount of views/popularity as a website.
On Anime Corner, as I mentioned here, it seems to be staffed primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant to use them if there's a better source, 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. Considering the niche nature of anime though and approved sources (such as ANN) also having inexperienced/younger writers without qualifications / EiC without journalism qualification / etc which seem to be used as arguments against in other areas, I'd consider using them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds fair to me, but I'd say that we should be thorough with their posts, as I recall that some of them were based on some tweets from randoms users and other unofficial accounts. As long as their reports are based on official sources, I agree with citing them. Xexerss (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been able to find one example (this one), though I suppose there may be some I'm missing. I'd suggest that it's relevant in that particular case too, as they're using multiple 'victims' affected as a primary source, rather than the 'aggressor' who'd be extremely unlikely to issue a public statement.
But yes, we should be thorough and take extra care if citing them. Their news posts seem to list the sources clearly, so it's just a matter of scrutinizing them. Interviews cite the interviewee and reviews are more a matter of extending a level of trust regarding accuracy of information and that it's a relevant person from a relevant source.
I did find one issue. I went through reviews of some titles I'm familiar with and noticed that while they got most things right about Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire, they said there's no fullscreen on PC which there is. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI notice
A few of the other writers/contributors do have some experience. From my memory, Jay Gibbs wrote for ComicsVerse and Marcel Kober who has written for the German-language Deadline Magazin publication (he did a Makoto Shinkai interview with them). I think besides some of those cases, ANN is a good comparison since I think a good number of the writers from there gained prominence/"notability" through their tenures with ANN rather than already having experience (even some of the older writers are probably in a similar boat), and I think it's a similar case here.
Re, the COI notice: I've contributed a few articles (interviews and reviews; also this one) to the website as a freelance writer, though I'm not part of the team itself. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories