Talk:Kimba the White Lion

Unfair
I felt that the part of this article about the Kimba/Lion King controversy is somewhat biased on the Tezuka's side. I acknowledge that most of this article is probably written by Tezuka/Kimba fans and as such, dislike Disney, and what they "did". But come on. Grow up. This text could be written by a prosecutor in a court of law just as well. Wikipedia isn't here to slate any person or company. Wikipedia should list the both sides of things. Read this, and edit that part. Massively. Simba means a lion in Swahili either way, so it's quite enough to merit a weird coincidence and I see no reason behind Disney changing the name of Simba over Kimba. How many movies are there out there that include a talkative bird, a wise monkey and a villainous uncle? And there's nothing in both of them standing on a rock - that's what lions do in real life, they stand on rocks. Big deal. There are white lions in real life, and in the name of equality, Disney wants some diversity in their character span. No concept art is to prove anything. Get real, Disney did not rip the movie off from Tezuka, it's just the blind fans talking, and you all know it. --88.112.82.41 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. When I was a kid a watched The Lion King first. I loved the movie, and I still think that's a good movie, but... Few years later I watched the Kimba and I taught "What a Lion King plagiary". Then I find out that the Kimba is much older and I was very disappointed. I'm not Kimba fan either, but The Lion King is obviously a plagiarism. --Lošmi 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations you're a liar. You didn't watch anything to prove that Lion King ripped off Kimba. You watched a movie that came AFTER Lion King for many comparisons and a show that is just a generic show with little to no similarities. 98.169.34.69 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm replying to an one-year-old comment but, man, you replied to a comment from 15 years ago... 2804:14C:87B5:845E:A1AF:DF7E:173E:2F6F (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I love Lion King to but really get over it, IT ripped of Kimba. Will- —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillTheWitch (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"How many movies are there out there that include a talkative bird, a wise monkey and a villainous uncle?" I don't know... maybe you could enlighten us. Right now you come off as an ironic shill, and your trolling skills need work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombman (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If something in our world exists it can be found in Kimba. The show is total mess of everything. Of course there are some scenes similar to The Lion King. Anime fans' attemts to find a plagiarism in other genres already produced some jokes. In case of TLK\Kimba they see wicked design even in scene where Sarabi licks new-born Simba. All lioness lick their cubs. OK Simba eats bugs like Kimba. But suggest any other way to survive for little lion cub. Not much room for maneuvers. And there is no word if Simba changed his diet later or not because it's not important for the plot. And so on. 217.66.28.169 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Disney only adopting the "Hamlet" angle after the controversey developed is inaccurate. As early as Spring of 1990 (4 years prior to release), on the the tour of Disney MGM Studios, references were being made to a film being concerning lions and being loosely based on Hamlet. Either they recognized they had a problem early or their story was correct all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkchap (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think the content of that Simba/Kimba part is sort of one-sided, or at least, needs amendment. More materials should be included. In fact I did a personal research on this issue and wrote a long essay about it but I think it is not the place to post my personal research (the same to all of us) so I would just talk about something that is provided in the news report or publications instead of my personal research.

First, I have seen that we already have Ref.22 "Welkos, Robert W. (July 13, 1994). "A 'Kimba' Surprise for Disney : Movies: 'The Lion King' is a hit, but reported similarities to the Japanese-created American cartoon of the '60s are raising some questions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 30, 2015." in the references, in which Takayuki Matsutani, president of Tezuka Productions in Tokyo, was interviewed, and he said: --- "However, quite a few staff of our company saw a preview of 'The Lion King,' discussed this subject and came to the conclusion that you cannot avoid having these similarities as long as you use animals as characters and try to draw images out of them," Matsutani said. "If the Disney Co. had gotten a hint from 'The Jungle Emperor,' Osamu Tezuka, a founder of our company, would have been pleased," he continued. "And, we feel the same way, rather than making a claim. "Therefore, our company's general opinion is 'The Lion King' is a totally different piece from 'The Jungle Emperor' and is an original work completed by the Disney production's long-lasting excellent production technique." --- I mean, this is kind of an official declaration, and it is of great importance to have it included in this page.

And another source:

"Tezuka was a big fan of Disney. In fact, Tezuka did a 45 minute featurette in which he used characters that looked like the seven dwarfs. So, when Disney proved to be an admirer of Kimba, the studio did not retaliate. When they were called about this, they said that they were sure that Mr. [Don] Hahn [The Lion King's producer] did not deliberately do this, and that, 'We are sure that Disney would not deliberately do this and it's all purely coincidental. Our leader [Tezuka died in 1989] would have been very flattered."" citing from https://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.5/articles/deneroffladd1.5.html --

Second, maybe this interview can be added to the second paragraph together with Rob Minkoff's words:

'Although there are some similarities in the characterisation of the animals, it cannot be helped,' Mr Matsutani said. 'For example, a monkey appears as a smart animal in both stories. But when you think about the monkey's cleverness in real life, it is natural he would be clever in the film also. And we remember Mr Tezuka's personality very well: he hated all kinds of quarrels, disputes and controversies. . . I am sure if he were still alive he would not take any legal action against The Lion King.' citing from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/japanese-get-animated-over-disney-cartoon-1383466.html

Mr Matsutani was the president of Tezuka Productions, so this is another rather official declaration.

Third, if the last but two paragraph aims to show the connections between Tezuka and Disney ， it may be better if we get into details about Tezuka and Disney's friendship.

“Tezuka met his hero,Walt Disney, at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. The American allegedly told Tezuka that he admired Astro Boy and wanted to create something like it. A framed photograph of the two shaking hands still hangs in the entranceway of the Tezuka home.” citing from Kelts, Roland. Japanamerica: How Japanese Pop Culture Has Invaded the U.S. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print. (Page 44, can be seen at http://lkcontroversy.blogspot.com/)

"Tezuka was a big fan of Disney. In fact, Tezuka did a 45 minute featurette in which he used characters that looked like the seven dwarfs." from https://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.5/articles/deneroffladd1.5.html.

“Still smiling, he excuses himself,and then returns with two handsome hardbacks featuring Bambi and Snow White. He leafs through them, showing me some of the pages. The illustrations are definitely Disney-like, but something about the lines is a bit off—a little shakier, perhaps, less assured, but also more complex. Tezuka loved the Disney stories and illustrations so much, he copied them line for line—not from comic books, but by going to the movie theater and sitting with his sketch pad through several showings of the Disney films. The books he produced were originally sold on the streets of Japan in the 1950s, without Disney’s knowledge or permission.”  said Yoshihiro Shimizu, who created the anime series Kimba the White Lion. citing from Kelts, Roland. Japanamerica: How Japanese Pop Culture Has Invaded the U.S. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print. (Page 45, can be seen at http://lkcontroversy.blogspot.com/)

And also further connection between them, mainly the influence of Disney on Tezuka can be found at http://tezukainenglish.com/wp/?page_id=2557  &  http://tezukainenglish.com/wp/?page_id=3039  &  http://www.tcj.com/tezuka-osamu-the-rectification-of-mickey/

Fourth, maybe the summary of Tom Sito and Mark Kausler should be amended. The original words of them are: - “I can say there is absolutely no inspiration from ‘Kimba,’” animator Tom Sito told HuffPost Entertainment. Sito’s resume includes classic Disney films such as “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” and, of course, “The Lion King,” to name a few. “I mean the artists working on the film, if they grew up in the ‘60s, they probably saw ‘Kimba.’ I mean, I watched ‘Kimba’ when I was a kid in the ‘60s, and I think in the recesses of my memory we’re aware of it, but I don’t think anybody consciously thought, ‘Let’s rip off ‘Kimba.’”

Other filmmakers on the project confirm Sito’s comments. In 1997, Mark Kausler, who has a story credit on the film, told author Fred Patten that he had watched “Kimba” as a kid, but during the production process the animators were focused on creating a story that was more like “Bambi” set in Africa without the “animals versus man” theme:"Nobody ever mentioned “Kimba,” and if any of us who knew of it thought about it, I guess we figured that since “Kimba” was always about the animals trying to get the humans to accept them as equals, the absence of humans in “The Lion King” made it obviously a different plot." - And it turned into "Animators Tom Sito and Mark Kausler, who both have story credits, have admitted to watching Kimba, and assumed many of their colleagues had too, especially if they grew up in the 1960s." I cannot say this summary is wrong, but this summary seems more like a confession than an explanation which their original words were supposed to be. And I don't see "assumed MANY of their colleagues had too" in Ref.29 (maybe in Ref.28, well, I would try to get access to Ref.28 later) However, according to the interview with the directors and producer in The Pride of the Lion King, the documentary, the animators working on the Lion King are probably mostly less-experienced and younger since the studio think Pocahontas would more likely to be a hit and placed less attention to the Lion King, and the directors and producer said they were "begging" others to work on the Lion King and even most of the animators leading the characters were first given chance to lead a character. (can be found partly at https://www.tor.com/2015/06/19/the-lion-king-was-the-most-unlikely-success-story-you-will-ever-hear/ but it would be better to watch that documentary)

Fifth, the page wrote "Other similarities are thematically deeper and more pronounced, such as that both feature the theme of the circle of life." It has no reference, and I doubt it is a personal research, while I think this resemblance is very strained.(I have watched all of the Kimba series several times) And I think it should be discussed about.

I don't think the problem is so serious that we have to put a POV template in that part immediately, but I think that the neutrality of this part need to be inspected and this part should be amended. Timelimitexceeded (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the page mention that "The Lion King contains numerous SEQUENCES that closely match Kimba′s. ", while I think "various individual scenes being similar in composition to the show." (quoted from the Lion King page) may be more accurate. Since the similar scenes are sporadic and random as what I found out after watching both the Lion King and the Kimba series. (Well, this is a personal research, so it is not reliable according to the Wikipedia guide, just ignore it. I just doubt what the original words are in Ref.20) And I will try to get access to Ref.20 to see what the original words are. I hope it can be discussed about, too. Timelimitexceeded (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Debunked Information, poor sources and completely made up facts
So according to user CaptainEek, the Adam Johnson (YMS) video is "not a reliable source" and "poorly sourced content" even though Adam Johnson clearly showed his sources including Kimba the White Lion show itself. At the same time Wikipedia uses the poorly source book made by Madhavi Sunder a lawyer who clearly did not watch the original 1994 The Lion King film nor any Kimba the White Lion and ironically she uses another Youtube video from 2008 as a source. Everything is shown here. I find did very ironic that Wikipedia accepts as reliable source a Book that uses a Youtube Video as one of its sources, but another Youtube Video is deemed unreliable, only because its a Youtube video.

Another debunked information is about director Roger Allers living in Japan in the 1980s while The New Adventures of Kimba The White Lion was airing in Japanese Television. Well Wikipedia sources again Madhavi Sunder. But there are sources that say that Allers only lived two years in Japan in the early 1980s 1 2 3. According to the last two of this sources, he return to the US in 1985 and joined Disney working on Oliver & Company. The New Adventures of Kimba The White Lion was released in 1989, 4 years after Allers leaved Japan. I think that Wikipedia needs to delete any mention of Allers living in Japan while the remake of Kimba was airing in Japanese "prime time television", as it's clearly false information invented by Sunder. --190.215.25.76 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some great points here, I just want to add the case of Ahoy and Polybius. This also has a single YouTube video being used as a source. Why hasn't that been deleted? JorWat (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What happened to actual research? I agree that Adam Johnson's video is very good and well researched from the looks of it, and probably should be included in this article.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a disgrace. Still false information based on speculation and lies including a book that uses a awful YouTube video made in Movie Maker as a main source. Books are not reliable per se, a lawyer is not an expert in Animated shows and movies. Also Roger Allers was not living in Japan when the Kimba remake aired. It’s been proven false. He was living in the US in 1985. The Kimba remake aired in 1989. Gosh. --186.11.82.245 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

How about we just add Adam's video back anyways or just remove the other unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgdhyh2000 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think some lawyer's book is any more reliable than a video essay by a movie critic OrsonKrennik51 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adam Johnston watched all of the versions of Kimba and even streamed his researching/editing process on Twitch. Johnston directly cites clips from the Kimba the White Lion series in his video essay. He shows how many of the images used to prove that The Lion King copied have been pulled from parts of the Kimba franchise that were released after The Lion King. Madhavi Sunder references YouTube videos with low quality screenshots and she also undeniably misstates what actually happens in The Lion King in her book. The inconsistencies between what Sunder describes and what Johnston clearly shows is why I believe her book should be considered an unreliable source. TJScalzo (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we also bring up that the 1997 movie is a huge befuddling factor in all this? So many videos on the topic use the movie as a source of comparison, when, if anything, it seems that it was deliberately evoking Simba to stoke or ride on the controversy. --Leafsw0rd (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of Wikipedia is not to make the most truthful content, but actually make obedient articles that clearly follow Wikipedia's guidelines, orderly standards, and policies. In short, this website is about making lawful pages. If you write something that this wiki's principles would like then you should remember that veracity is never the point of the article, and the point of the article is to discuss a topic using the capabilities and limitations of Wikipedia's overall key law-and-order structure. Simply put it, an article should be within restraints and stay below the law. Sometimes you should explore the capabilities of the restraints, but still remain inside limits. « I ias! :,,.: usbk I » 14:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care about truth. Got it. 68.14.191.180 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

They label this well put together, well thought out, well researched video as an unreliable source, and just another YouTube opinion, yet they're not above showcasing YouTube like Angry Joe on various articles for his basic opinions on media. Stay classy. SamuraiMaster (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The protection for this page has expired as of today and the section on the YMS video is back. Based on the discussion below, I'm making the following additional changes to the The Lion King controversy section: • Removal of the section that directly quotes Madhavi Sunder and states "both films feature the protagonist looking up at clouds in the shape of his father lion" which is untrue.

• Removal of the quote and citation from the Hollywood Reporter which cites Sunder and the 1997 Kimba film.

• Removal of the citation from the Huffington Post which again cites Sunder and the 1997 Kimba film. These are the extent of the changes that were discussed in the semi-protected edit requests. Feel free to discuss other removals from the section but I feel like this was the extent of what has been debated thus far. Cheers! --Bayou Tapestry (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not used to how wikipedia works and I don't know english well enough to attempt an edit, but I want to point out that Patten, the writer of the book used as a source for the whole intro of the controversy section later backpedaled from his position in a 2003 interview on a DVD. Yes, the book was released later, but it's actually a collection of his past writings, the part regarding the Lion King / Kimba controversy was actually written in 1995. ᛗᚨᛋᛏᛖᚱ 151.68.94.129 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also yes, my source is the unreliable youtuber YMS, but apparently no one else has ever done research about this apart from quoting other people quoting other people and I'm not going to buy some old DVD specials just to have a different source that's not on youtube ᛗᚨᛋᛏᛖᚱ 151.68.94.129 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: I've added this DVD feature to the article. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes protection request
Just in case the situation escalates again, this article should have a pending changes protection template. I wonder if it works. « I ias! :,,.: usbk I » 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: YourMovieSucksDOTorg
Should this YouTube link be included as a source? © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Background
On 27 May 2020, YourMovieSucksDOTorg released a video called: "YMS: Kimba the White Lion". The video last 2 hours 27 minutes and Adam Johnston: "polemicises many previous arguments on the controversy and concludes that previous authors mischaracterized the Japanese series when comparing it to the Disney film, and that there is in fact no credible evidence to suggest plagiarism."

Since its release, there have been several instances of IPs and new accounts trying to add YMS as a source, to the point it got protected. And as apparently this won’t end in the near future, I am opening this RFC even though it should be the other way around.

Note that per WP:RSPYT YouTube is a "generally unreliable source": "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability" and per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

As multiple editors at Kimba the White Lion and this talk page have been new accounts, single-purpose accounts and IP editors, this is a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a democracy; the consensus is reached through discussion supported with policies and guidelines, not mere voting. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * In my opinion, it should be excluded. Reasons, there are multiple:
 * a. This video is more a "this is my opinion concerning the Kimba/Simba similarities" rather than exhaustive academic research users have persistently said here on the talk page.
 * b. This is just a WP:USERGENERATED source. Although Johnston sporadically shows images of real sources on-screen (for example at 9:32, 17:06), he rarely cites the sources in the video, but none are mentioned in the YouTube description.
 * c. Does this video fall into fair use? 94% of the video consists of copyrighted footage. Fair use allows using copyrighted material for critical commentaries, like Johnston's video, however, there is a limit for such usage. The only moments non-Disney/Fuji TV material appears is at the end, at minute 2:18:15. This can easily fall into WP:ELNEVER.
 * d. After watching part of the video, I divided into:
 * Minute 0:00 - 7:32: Johnston makes an introduction about the video, which includes his opinion on the topic.
 * Minute 7:32 - 9:27: Comparison between Simba/Kimba name, including the following material used to prove that Disney didn't copy Kimba's name: machine translations of The Lion King's characters from Swahili, a Wikipedia research of Franz von Werra (who had a lion called Simba) and Simba: King of the Beasts.
 * Minute 9:27 - 11:30: Comparison between Pumbaa and Gargoyle. Johnston merely gives his opinion between how Gargoyle appearing once is not proof of plagiarism. No sources are provided, just an opinion.
 * Minute 11:30 - 19:40: Other Kimba/Simba characters and situations that Johnston considers prove their plots are different. Quora (user-generated) is quoted at 16:59. At 17:06 another quoted text appears but doesn't cite the source.
 * Minute 19:40 - 22:01: Simpsons Did It-reference to prove Disney did not copy the film. Quota (a user-generated website) is cited at 22:00 but never sourced. All opinions, no sources used.
 * Minute 22:01 - 23:15: Kimba+Lily (whatever her name is) vs. Simba+Nala relationship. All opinions by Johnston.
 * Minute 23:15 - 24:00: Johnston quotes fragments of sources, yet they are never cited. Now, 23 minutes later he cites his first source: Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews (2004) by Fred Patten, where Patten makes "insane comparison criticisms that I mention in this video", said Johnston at 23:30-36.
 * Minute 23:56 - 27:00: Patton and Watching Anime: "Now Fred Patton actually has a lot of credibilities when it comes to being an anime and manga fan", citing his career from 24:00-30, to later say that he disagrees with Patton's opinion on Watching Anime about this controversy. Johnston gives his opinion about why Patton's Kimba-Simba comparison is reductive and simplistic.
 * Minute 27:00 - 31:50: Simpsons Did It, part II. Several examples of other alleged plagiarisms in media. Some quotes appear on the screen, never cited, but Johnston gives his opinion about them.
 * Minute 31:50 - 33:20: Hamlet references.
 * After this I stopped watching it because I know the remaining will go on like this: footage -> opinion about the footage -> quote -> opinion about the quote -> footage-opinion about the footage, repeat. Several users at said that not only this video was trustable, credible, well-researched and a reliable source, yet this is a video of a person merely giving his opinion on a topic, no more reliable than anyone's opinion on any subject, occasionally quoting sources that think that Disney copied Kimba and commenting on them. Because of that and the persistent addition of that source I support the exclusion from Kimba the White Lion and The Lion King (franchise)-related articles.  ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion without an independent source. Is Adam Johnston (Canadian movie reviewer) notable?  If yes, allow mention of his review, but if no, Wikipedia should not be responding to individual YouTube reviews.  On the review, while interesting, I am not impressed.  Sure, I can accept that Simba is influenced by Kimba, but both belong to the prehistory human story-telling archetype of the high-born but orphaned child hero that grows with the readers' journey in the story.  For a serious treatment of character and story telling archetypes, you really need quality academic literature, not YouTube.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If this is included, it should be in the reception section along with any other reviews, with no more than 1-2 sentences. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Recommend exclusion unless third-party sources talk about the review, and even then, that's questionable. I know of the case for RedLetterMedia being notable for the "Mr. Plinkett" reviews of the Star Wars and Star Trek films which actually drew attention (before even more attention) but even with that, we ddn't include those "reviews" on the films, just discussed the reviews in context of the work. Right now, without a 3rd party source, this is just a random youtube reviewer. --M asem (t) 23:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll alert WP:Film to this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see that they were already alerted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but leaning toward a weak oppose. I personally found the YMS video convincing. While there don't seem to be many cited sources, the video was based largely on comparisons of the source material. But that's kind of the point. While I understand that a YouTube Video is generally not a reliable source, I came to this page to discuss the possibility of bending those those policies in this instance. But, the video is still explicitly an opinion piece. While the Johnston seems to have done his homework, all this still boils down to "but this guy on YouTube said..." and I don't want to open Pandora's Box with sources like this. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NOT include as a source!! This vdo is clearly a commentary, and if at all linked to, then only in a section External links. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion The video itself is not a reliable source, and we would need third-party sources to either mention it or summarize its conclusions. As it is, it lacks impact on a decades-old controversy. Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of self-published reviews. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of a random person's online opinion. If the video draws significant attention, that is a different story.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe a lot of you have failed to understand what the video truly is, what it is doing, or what it is about. You claim that it is merely someone giving their opinion. That is not what I saw when I watched the video. I understand and will admit, that the video does not really fit in Wikipedia's guidelines of a reliable source, and understandably so. Hence why adding it into a Wikipedia article is questionable and does not seem like the best idea. But I'd just like to say that logically speaking, I am very sure that the video does do a good job of shedding light on the truth about the controversy. He doesn't give any links in the YouTube description, but he does mention where he is getting the info from, and even shows video examples when he needs to. Some of the things he points out (such as common tropes in movies) should already be common knowledge. If someone doesn't believe him still, he or she CAN go watch the Kimba movies and TV shows for themselves to see just how different they are. With that truth in mind, I can see no reason why what he said in that video isn't true. He is not just giving his opinions. He is definitively debunking these accusations. Claims, for example, that the storylines and characters are nearly identical, but when you actually look at and watch the Kimba content, you will clearly see that that is not true. The storylines are NOT the same at all, and neither are the characters, truly. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. When you can see it for yourself, it is most definitely a fact. Also, removing the source from the article because “it is YouTube and therefore not reliable” is almost kind of biased and a double-standard, because one of the sources that argues that the Lion King DID rip off Kimba, it was a law professor's book (Sunders, I think was her name), well, she literally uses poorly made YouTube videos as at least one of her sources. So, going by Wikipedia's own consensus, that book is therefore an unreliable source because it uses an unreliable source, therefore info obtained from that book should be removed from the article also. Lastly, a lot of the comparisons people make between the Lion King and Kimba are misleading and dishonest, because the Kimba footage that they give is actually from the 1997 Kimba film, which came out three years AFTER the Lion King. So, information regarding those visually similar designs and shots should not be included either. All in all, I suppose what I'm trying to say is, don't be close-minded. Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I refer you to this discussion on your talk page. YouTube videos are not generally considered reliable sources. No matter how much you argue about it, they are still not generally considered reliable sources for anything. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda strange to target YouTube videos specifically and not self-published material in general. Go-Chlodio (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not being targeted specifically. There is a general policy that user generated content is not considered a reliable source. YouTube at the forefront of the discussion because the source in question is a YouTube video. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If user-generated material is not considered a reliable source, then all self-published books, blogs, and articles should be banned off this site. Onuzurike424 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I understand and will admit, that the video does not really fit in Wikipedia's guidelines of a reliable source" Exactly. We typically seek published sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Online videos by random people were never what Wikipedia had in mind as reliable sources, no matter how well-made they are or how their arguments sound true. Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Johnston's video isn't a reliable source, but on the Lion King article Sunder's book, which he showed to use "evidence" from even less credible sources, is? I think this certainly shows a bias in wikipedia toward "traditional" media, which is basically irrational. either both are credible or neither is. 128.114.255.33 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Madhavi Sunder's book was removed from this article because editors were convinced that it was pretty obviously unreliable. Just because it is still cited in another article doesn't mean it's considered reliable, just that at some point someone did. It just happens that no one (including yourself) removed references to it on that article. If you think that's appropriate, you may boldly remove them yourself or start a discussion on its talk page. ~ Bluecrystal004 ( talk · contribs ) 14:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, new user here. I'm not sure that a video-essay qualifyies as a source, especially one that strays so far from the structure and tone of an actual essay. However I was pretty confused at not seeing it mentioned anywhere. With its 6+ million views it is a lot of people's first point of contact with the controversy. It was mine... A short sentence such as "In YMS's video "YMS: Kimba the White Lion" re-ignited the online debate about the controversy surrouning the two IPs" at least as a side-note is owed to any reader who wants to get an accurate overview of the situation. Gancho Campanella (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, doesn't this site enforce a strict policy on original research? Adam's essay may be well put together, but it heavily falls into this category as the essay itself is littered with sources he accumulated that are trying to support his personal thoughts rather than have a meaningful say in the Simba / Kimba debacle. His YouTube channel is also not a reliable source for information as it primarily concerns his personal thoughts on various movies and TV shows, making this topic beyond what he usually does. Zucat (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)