Talk:Chiaki J. Konaka

Real name
Actually, his real name is 小中千昭, which has a literal translation of "Konaka Chiaki"; the argument here is over what the canonical romanized form should be. "Chiaki Konaka" gets 569 google hits, and "Konaka Chiaki" gets 280, while "Chiaki J. Konaka" gives 954 hits, and Chiaki J. Konaka is the form he uses himself, as evidenced by his website. The "real name", by which we mean the canonical form, should be either the most popular form or what he refers to himself by, which in both cases is "Chiaki J. Konaka".

It would probably be a good idea to keep the paragraph explaining, because most people are going to look at this and think "what the hell, Japanese people don't have middle names". It's sort of similar to how Paul Erd&#337;s's real name is Erd&#337;s Pál, but you would just be being contrarian if you actually refered to him as that (and weren't Hungarian). -&#8472;yrop (talk) 05:58, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the Wikipedia policy on this or even if it exists. But if you want to make edits go ahead, I don't think I'm going to edit this article again. If the article is to start with "Chiaki J. Konaka" then it should also be called that.

I still think it is dubious though. I did a google search on 小中千昭 and it had 523 hits. Together with "Chiaki Konaka" this is 523+569=1092, more than "Chiaki J. Konaka". Also, even though in English he refers to himself with "Chiaki J. Konaka", he would not do this in his own country. So even though your arguments are correct for the English speaking world, they are not necessarily correct worldwide. We need to watch out for cultural bias. The English language wikipedia is not to describe things only how they are in the west, but worldwide. S Sepp 11:25, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you add the hits for "Chiaki J. Konaka" with the hits for the kanji you get 954+523=1477 hits. What's your point?

Now, we have the article Leiji Matsumoto. Now clearly, there's no L in japanese, so under your thinking, the article should be at Reiji Matsumoto. But clearly, Leiji is the more common form; [www.leiji-matsumoto.ne.jp the japanese website on him] even uses it in the URL. Also clearly, the Wikipedia community has agreed on this more common English form.

This isn't a question of cultural bias, this is a question of writing in English. It doesn't spread cultural bias to call a cat a cat instead of a neko when anyone in Japan would be calling it 猫 anyways. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 16:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiaki J. Konaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050107063603/http://www.animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=546 to http://animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=546

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Digimon season or Digimon anime?
While it was valid that Digimon Tamers was considered a season for the western world (as the third season of Digimon: Digital Monsters), I don't think the definition of "Digimon season" in the first sentence of Chiaki J. Konaka's page would fit, especially for someone that only oversaw the Japanese original and not the dubbed one. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 15:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That big paragraph about a blog post
I'm very concerned about that paragraph, as it currently stands. It's the largest paragraph in the article, and currently makes up roughly one third of the prose. I have no interest in whitewashing the views of a person who supports conspiracy theories, but we need our coverage to be commensurate with the importance of that blog post in his overall career. I'd suggest trimming it down to a sentence or two in which we say that he expressed a view, then apologised, but the apology was criticised for containing untruths, or something like that. It's also very recent - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. Would you consider revising? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well tbf the writer causing international backlash with his script is pretty much the most relevant thing hes done in 15 years.Muur (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, so the person who left the last message has just had their IP range blocked for a while. I'm not going to block over content stuff now that I've got myself WP:INVOLVED, but they've been leaving creepy threatening messages around here for too long.
 * When I removed the paragraph, it was just sourced to the blog post itself; now it's sourced to a single article on Anime News Network. We're presenting this as the defining feature of his career: if that's really the case, the sourcing would need to be very solid, and I'm not sure that it really is at the moment. Again, I don't say that we don't mention it, or that we whitewash it, but I feel the level of detail is excessive given the overall size of the article, and the fact that it's coming from a single source. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * isnt there a comic book source as well? and really, the apology isnt *too* relevant compared to the original drama cd in the first place. this shit is defo the most relevant konaka has been in about 15 years though, dude hasn't really done anything since like 2005.Muur (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "He particularly became interested in the views of conspiracy theorist James Corbett, stating that he had lost trust in academic professionals, and was disappointed when Corbett's YouTube channel was terminated.[2] Other events that affected his views included the limitation of Google's services during the 2020 United States presidential election and the 2019 World Economic Forum's panel on information control" this stuff is unessesary IMO, and was added by someone else. we just need to mention him supporting anti covid stuff, 9/11, and then the drama cd getting backlash + his pretty bad apology.Muur (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my revision before the full on WP:EDITWAR started. I tried summarizing the main points but keeping the words neutral. I do not think it is necessary to say the play was "for Japan only." International netizens can access it, as well as English-speaking people in Japan or English-speaking expatriates. Saying that it was "for Japan only" is a talking point that implies all Japanese people agree with his views when they most likely do not. lullabying (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * tbf, that was konaka's words itself. konaka is the one who implied that (and was called out for saying it for pretty much the same reasons you said). (note that the event was region locked to japan, only reason the west got to see it is because an american living in japan leaked it to everyone on twitter). also there were more sources included than just animenewsnetwork which must've got purged by the angry anon? Muur (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , DO NOT say things like that about the subjects of our articles. You can think what you like, but you cannot say that here. WP:BLP applies to all spaces, including talk pages - please read it. Now, on with what I was trying to say before I edit conflicted like five times...
 * , I don't want to get myself too involved here - it's a subject I know almost nothing about, I just came here because of a report at WP:AIV. I think I've zapped all of the abusive IP addresses now, so you ought to be able to discuss this between yourselves and come to a compromise? If the edit warring continues, please report at WP:RfPP; if more abusive IPs show up, it's WP:AIV.
 * My advice is to ensure that the content is reliably sourced, ensure that we're not going overboard with current controversies (again, WP:10YT is really worth looking at), and read and consider WP:DUE. If you can't reach a consensus, WP:DR is the next step. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  21:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that saying this is the most relevant thing in 15 years is very wrong, not only because he only stopped working on anime in 2009, but he still works to this day in live actions, such as the Ogamiya Kaiden mini series and the VAMP movie, he is only irrelevant in the western world as his new content is not currently translated, so i don't know if it would be fair to threat this event as "the most relevant thing he done in the last 15 years" to warrant a whole paragraph for it, specially considering the backlash was mostly contained in niche internet circles. I will not mess with that article until the drama has died out though, there are too many eyes on it now so it could easily make another shitstorm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.252.211 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, even with all that this situation is still relevant enough to be on here.Muur (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe there are two issues with the current paragraph; one is that it should not even be classified as "personal life", it would perhaps be more adequate to give it's on subcategory or instead have it moved to the next section since it's the controversy is related to the themes of his work. Two, is that the writing itself is not neutral and uses a single source (ANN) as basis. I've looked around other sources such as    for comparison, and there are significant diferences between them (due perhaps to mistranslation of the japanese text of the blog being discussed). As the primary sources are freely available, i'm fairly confident I would be able to put together an article with accurate and neutral wording if I were allowed to.Lgcruz (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bounding into Comics is a known Comicsgate supporter and their reporting has been agreed to be biased; they are not considered a reliable source per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293, so I would advise against using them. Niche Gamer is also not considered reliable per discussion at WP:VG/RS. lullabying (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do to end this is get an translation of the blog post itself and base it from there, whic you can find here, and also use other source that relates purely the controversy it caused, like the ANN one or some Japanese news coverage. I unfortunately don't know Japanese to translate it, but it seems more desirable than relying solely on one source that barely covers what is said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.252.211 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The current paragraph looks fine to me as of now. I'm assuming is fine too because there have been no other edits after the anonymous IPs have been blocked. lullabying (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the two parties are fine with it I would argue there is still some discontent with the paragraph in question though, it's not on the level of vandalism it happened previously so it's not that urgent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.252.211 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the edit you made, IP, I revised it because dedicating one paragraph to summarize one blog post is WP:UNDUE. I feel as the current paragraph sums up all key points in a succinct manner. lullabying (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The current paragraph is unrelated to personal life, objectively. As for not being considered a reliable source means it doesn't get automatically considered trustwordy by itself as a reliable source, not that it is banned from being a reference. Nor that reliable sources are immune from verification on a per article basis either. I won't go with the sofism that nichegamer were deemed untrustwordy only with respect to videogames and comicbooks, and thus they can be valid for anime related topics; instead i'm going to analyse content that's properly sourced. All sources mentioned broadly agree with respect to the stage play itself, which would correspond to the first three paragraphs in the [first ANN article] . The most detailed and verifiable source would be [boundingintocomics], as they provide sources for every statement made and the quotes match with the sources.

When it comes to the japanese personal blog mentioned, while it wasn't referenced by the stage play itself it could be understood as contextualizing piece. However the statements made in the article do not agree with the source presented by ANN. For example the japanese statement: ''その後、2010年代に入って、9/11はどうして起こったのか、少しずつ調べ始めた. アメリカだけではなく日本にも、世界にも大きな影響を与えた事件なのに、有耶無耶にされている事が多いとは感じていた. しかし、早くから陰謀論として語られていた仮説の数々は、興味深いとは思ったものの現実的ではないと排除していた. ただ、もし、本当に9/11直前に株式市場で大きな動きがあったとか、ろくに崩落事故現場の検証もされないまま瓦礫が撤去されていたのだとしたら、疑う部分は拭えない.

冷静に論理的な観点で9/11を検証した人物は何人もいる. 9/11の真実探求者 Trutherと呼ばれた. しかし観点や論理の積み方は相反し、Truther同士が争う様な醜態も見た. いずれにせよ、日本人の私には真実は見えないのが今も現状だ. ''

is translated as: ''In a post from May, he wrote that when writing the original Digimon Tamers series, there were certain depictions of violence and the use of guns that he avoided due to the political climate around the 9/11 terrorist attack. Later, in the 2010s, he began to look into the background behind the incident. Although he thought that the early conspiracy theories were "unrealistic" and was critical about the 9/11 "Truthers," he admitted to maintaining some suspicion around the circumstances in which the attack occurred. ''

Which is not at all accurate. The suspicion about the circumstances in which the attack ocurred were what motivated him to seek other people that have analysed the situation (the cause, not the conclusion), and the conclusion is that he was unable to determine the truth.

This is could have been a simple error, but rest of the text makes other serious mistakes. Most serious of all is perhaps the following paragraph: He expressed dismay in seeing Corbett's YouTube channel get removed last year, and said that he has personally lost faith in academics and medical professionals, especially when it comes to the topics of epidemiology, bacteriology, biology, information technology, and social engineering.

Looking at the original text:

''そのジェームズ・コーベットが、今年2021年の春にYouTubeのアカウントを削除された. 有名なアレックス・ジョーンズの様に、声高に陰謀論を喧伝していた訳ではない. 理性的に状況を判断し、2020年春から世界で起こっている事の危険性、それは単に病そのものだけではなく、社会状況について警鐘を鳴らし続けていただけだ.

2020年は異常な年だった. アメリカの大統領選挙をコアにして、ネットとメディアで起きていた一連の出来事、そしてパンデミックとその対策について、私は60年生きてきた中で、最も価値観も何もかも崩された. 国際機関というものについて、医学についてのプロパガンダをする学者、医師、そして主には疫学とか細菌学、生物学、またIT技術やソーシャル・エンジニアリングなどが向かう方向について、いとも簡単に信用を失ってしまった. 私が信用出来なくなったのではなく、信用されまいと振る舞われたのだ. ''

It becomes obvious that his dismay in seeing Corbett's youtube account being removed is unrelated to his loss of faith. Actually he specifically mentions that he didn't have a complete loss of trust despite international organizations, medical propagandists (not just academics and medical professionals) behaving in ways he found untrustworthy.

The next lines are no better.

''年が変わる頃から、私も今現在（5月中旬）の様な状況になるだろうと覚悟し、それでも私はフィクションを考えるしかなく、それも私の場合は現実そのものは反映せずとも、何らかの対称性、象徴性は持つものしか考えられない――という覚悟も出来た. ''

Is referenced as:

He remarked that the situation has inspired him with his fiction, and that he has been looking for ways to portray it through symmetry and symbolism, even if it does not exactly match reality.

It's not "the situation" it's his current situation in which he is writing fiction. It's his fiction that's portrayed through symmetry and symbolism even if doesnt match reality, not "the situation".

The rest of the japanese blog references suffer from similar translation problems, while the final paragraphs are factual statements that match their sources.Summing up, this ANN article is not up to the standard you would expect from a reliable source and should be considered questionable. Maybe someone could contact the editing team at ANN so they can revise it? As it is now, at best, you could use it as reference to the contents of the stage drama itself (taking precedence over less trustworthy sources that agree with it). Unfortunately this also reflects on the [following article], since it copies text from this one.Lgcruz (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we cannot use Bounding into Comics as it is not a reliable source. One user states that if it is used, it cannot be on anything related to politics, which in this case this is, as the stage play clearly references political terminology. lullabying (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Niche Gamer is considered unreliable by WP:VG, and it's still a reference to draw by through other Wikipedia projects. If you want to have WP:ANIME consider Niche Gamer and Bounding into Comics as reliable sources, you need to open up a discussion at the talk pages on WP:ANIME/RS on WP:RSN. But for now, consensus from other discussions show that they are not good sources to use.
 * Furthermore, using the original blog post is fine but keep in mind that it's a primary source. lullabying (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The current state of the page does not mention anything about James Corbett at all, nor any misinterpretations from the semantics of the article, so I think the current article is fine as is. It gives enough background context and states what actions happened. lullabying (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah it should be fine with the current trimmed down version. also its not just one blog post, konaka ran this blog for a year and only now has stopped due to this controversy he caused when people learned what he had been writing after going WTF at his stage play/cd drama/whatever the correct term isMuur (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you link down the other blog posts that talk about things like this please? As far as i know he discussed mainly the production of the episodes in that blog, and stopped even before the controversy when he reached the last episode. I only found that one blog post that cited conspiracy theories, and it seems to be the one the other articles use as a base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.252.211 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It still has some of the misinterpretations implied in that article, specially the 9/11 part, but even if it didn't have those, it is still using it as a base to describe Konaka's beliefs, and considering it has shown to be as unreliable of a source as the other articles, which come from rightfully banned sources, plus the aforementioned bias shown in it and the unaddressed fact that it should be it's own category, makes it, at least for me, not a satisfactory paragraph at all. Regardless, there is no context in which the use of an source with blatant misinformation should be used, especially when used to describe an event. As the other articles seems to be not any better, i think the best would be to use the blog posts or other blog posts that cite his conspiracy beliefs, and rewrite this and the apology section based on them, even if it is a primary source, while using the ANN article or other similiar source only to describe the event itself, since that part seems to be what gets it right.

I don't know why Lucas hans't changed the paragraph already though, considering he is a registered user, but regardless, those are my personal views in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.148.252.211 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What bias is there? How would you reword the paragraph? It should not be longer than it already is. lullabying (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the ANN article is biased in the way it only takes certain snippets of what's being written to describe konaka's beliefs. That by itself doesn't exclude it as a reliable source, as the article is verifiable. The problem is that when it concerns the blog it is verifiably wrong, as i've shown above. And to avoid repeating myself, not being a questionable source is not the same as being [blacklisted or even deprecated]. It's not a question of making ANN unrealiable or declaring bounding into comics reliable over a single article. Questionable sources are acceptable if their sources are verified and if there isn't a more reliable sorce that reports the same. Lgcruz (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the rest of the article, the [ANN article], although clearly biased considering how some statements are ignored and rearranged, it is mostly accurate so it can be used. However the paragraph itself is wrong; konaka issued a statement, not an apology; and within that statement he apologises for causing a divide amoung the fans, he did not apologise for the script or even for "writing a devisive story", like ANN claims in it's article. As such I have to reference [nicchiban], which does report this point correctly. As such i'm editing the article. If the editors absolutely reject these questionable sources despite being properly sourced in this instance, I guess the compromise would be to reference the primary sources instead.Lgcruz (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get involved in this, but I will make one comment. An unreliable source isn't reliable or acceptable for usage because they have or state information in a way no other source does. Unreliable sources are unreliable regardless of the content. As for biased sources, WP:BIASED states that biased sources are still perfectly okay to use. Link20XX (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, although I dont see it that way since that particular content was presented properly, I reverted back to primary sources on those occasions. I hesitated a bit with the wordpress article, but it is not excluded on the grounds that it is talking about a living person since it doesn't actually talk about konaka, just the stage play.Lgcruz (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * why does it now say "presumed"? he literally talks about covid and 9/11, and this current version doesnt even talk about what he said in the blogs. this has been edited by a konaka supporter it seems who wants to try and avoid people knowing about his conspiracy theories.Muur (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It says presumed because as I've shown above, the contents of the japanese blog were not correctly translated by ann, either by honest mistake or deliberately. For the record, the way I understand it konaka is a fan of discussing conspiracy theories, even if he ultimately disagrees with them, as is the case with 9/11 thruthers and james corbett (in his blog he doesn't name a single corbett theory for example, he ony cares that he took the effort of trying to present his arguments with reason), and ultimately that's the reason he is against deplatforming conspiracy theorists, it's not because what they say is always right over the conventional sources (although he does think sars-cov-2 wasn't isolated, despite saying covid-19 is real and caused by it-I don't think he realizes that he needs to accept the former to consider the later proven). I didn't say all that in the paragraph because it's supposed to be a neutral piece about the controversy itself.Lgcruz (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

controversy
He did not say "he had concerns about conspiracy theorists getting deplatformed " do not put words in people's mouths. And the backlash against him was not from China, Middle East or Africa etc. it was mostly American/Western centric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoisi210 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "international" already encompasses this because it's not exclusive to Japan. Furthermore, there were South Koreans commenting on this too, so it's not necessarily an "American/Western centric" thing. Regarding the deplatforming, he did have concerns. In the June 29 post on his blog, he stated that his source of "honest coverage" were terminated, and the "honest coverage" sources he stated are conspiracy theorist channels on YouTube, who have been suspended, most likely due to spreading false information. lullabying (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A few others commented but majority of the backlash when it came to being critical of cancel culture was from American/Western. And he might not have liked certain channels that just happened to be believed to be conspiracy theorists by some,  being terminated but that is not the same as him personally saying that "he was concerned that conspiracy theorists were being deplatformed" which is what you are making it out to sound like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoisi210 (talk • contribs) 08:04 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's still "international." The criticism wasn't domestic but came internationally. Furthermore, he stated he wrote the play out of criticism for mainstream media suppressing the voices of "counter perspectives." Said "counter perspectives" that he followed were circulating conspiracy theories and misinformation, some of which were known to have been debunked. lullabying (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not backlash from China, Middle East, or Africa it was mostly America/western and i am making it more specific. And do not put your own personal bias in there. There's already statements about conspiracy theories as some believe it to be, but it is NOT the same as him PERSONALLY saying that "he was concerned that conspiracy theorists were being deplatformed". Very different.
 * This article by ANN specifically states that one of the channels that Konaka followed, run by James Corbett, is a "prominent 9/11 and COVID conspiracy proponent." ANN is a reliable source per WP:ANIME/RS. lullabying (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the dictionary meaning of international: "involving more than one country". there was more than one country pissed of at konakas comments, therefore it was international. whether it was american/british/aussie etc, or russia, kenya, and brazil, or san marino, andorra, and azerbaijan it counts as international.Muur (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)