Talk:Lycoris Recoil/Archive 1

Anime Corner - Top 10 Anime of the Week
Is this a reliable source? Thanks. -Hijk910 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Character descriptions are a potential WP:COPYVIO
They come mostly verbatim from the copyrighted official website. Might need to get it fixed soon, I could do it tomorrow — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 11:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Queer potential of the series
I ask you to be more careful when adding or describing something like this in the text of the article, because despite the expected interest of yuri fans in the show, this has still never been officially stated by the authors themselves, nor directly and unambiguously shown in the show itself. So while the show does have canonical gay male characters, since we all know the "woke" reputation of Anime Feminist and ANN, thoughts like that should be described as a third speech and not the actual content of the show. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure where the "woke" reputation of Anime News Network and Anime Feminist comes from, but it's of no interest nor relevance to Wikipedia's coverage. See WP:NPOV and furthermore WP:A&M/RS, the latter of which specifies that Anime Feminist and ANN are acceptable sources for the Animanga WikiProject. All I have done in using both sources to flesh out the reception section is neutrally describe the facts of the reviewers' assessments, one of which happens to be that a reviewer believes there is queer subtext. Your belief that this is controversial is not necessary nor appropriate to include or consider in the page's coverage, as it is not neutral nor verifiable.
 * The article is already fairly neutral in terms of describing both the opinions of the reviewers in the reception section, and the relationships of the characters in its plot summaries (colloquially, a "date" is a perfectly neutral term which aptly describes the events of episode 9, it does not imply romantic tension), and your removal of any wording that you perceive as possibly being remotely able to be contrived as potentially queercoded, especially when you replace it with such inscrutable language as "walk through the same places as last time" and "spend together her possibly last day with her"(???) is not an improvement to the article.
 * Additionally, I'd like to note that your edits suggest that you are on Wikipedia to argue with people about what ships qualify as canon, which is not the purpose of the site. I'd implore you to consider editing at TV Tropes instead, as your apparent purpose of editing here may be better catered to there. Joyce-stick (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where? ANN has literally been the source of many political conflicts in the western anime fandom, from the infamous Shield Hero controversy over the depiction of a rape slander to certain editorial staff who are memetically known for describing any show featuring female characters as gay. The literal complaint that this show is contrary to ACAB speaks for itself no less. The anime feminist literally declares its political affiliation in the very idea of ​​the website, not to mention how the site censors people's comments because of criticism of their articles (like when they deleted comments complaining about their idea that teens won't be attracted to the opposite sex if they weren't taught the idea of ​​straight relationships) or releases materials where Lupin's authors are accused of homophobia due to a joke scene where the characters do not like that their mistaken for gays. At the same time, I literally ask you to be neutral and be careful when writing about a show that falls into the category that can suffer from bias due to shipping, but I myself am accused of violating NPOV. No, I'm not going to discuss ships on wikipedia and my topic is literally about wikipedia not being used in this way. TV Tropes allows this and you can see how controversial the content of many articles can be due to people trying to pass off their ships as real. If they had a real date, it wouldn't be any coding anymore. Moreover, it is obvious that the scene was meant to be their last time together after Takina returned to the organization. And the show also clearly emphasized that she was repeating all the places from their last walk in order to repeat it. I try to remove any ambiguity because I know how shippers like to overuse potentially ambiguous words with possible romantic interpretations when they can't directly write that the characters are a couple. And please refrain from commenting on my "obvious" goals, that's rude. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think Anime Feminist and Anime News Network are inherently biased sources and do not belong on Wikipedia, and wish to argue this case on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, then be my guest. However as it stands, the reliable sources listing for our WikiProject lists both Anime Feminist and Anime News Network as reliable sources, again, see WP:A&M/RS. This has been decided by WP:CONSENSUS and I do not think you'll have much support in getting that changed, but again you're more than welcome to have at it. Once you have, and once you've got the policy changed, which you most likely won't, then feel free to go and revert my edits to the reception section.
 * Your response to my assessment of your edits appears extremely hostile, and gives the impression that you do not have constructive intentions but are rather here to push your own point of view. Joyce-stick (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not verifying these sources or starting an argument about their content, I am simply asking that you treat them more carefully. Moreover, as has been repeatedly discussed, quoting the opinion of a source does not mean treating them as the truth, and not their opinion. This is first. Secondly, you were the first to start a passive-aggressive attitude towards me, including openly suggesting that my goal is to discuss the ships or even directly accusing me of deleting the text because of homophobia. I'll reiterate, Wikipedia shouldn't hint at anything and trying to turn the defense of it into an edit war and arguing about motives will definitely not save the day. Also, I would ask you to avoid excessive reference to the rules, bypassing the substantive argument. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologize for entering this discussion, but I have been responsible for many of the terms that appear within episode summaries and character descriptions, and I have attempted, at all costs, to avoid descriptions that allude to an un-comfirmed queer relationship amongst characters. The term "date" that is described by Joyce-stick, for example, caused me trouble, as I did not originally intend to use it to allude that the two main characters are already under any romantical involvement, but I appreciate that it was seen as a correct usage of the term. As for the "mood" of the article, and how much it discusses the uncanonical relationship of out main characters, I will have to agree that, under WP:A&M/RS, sources such as ANN have been identified as being reliable for the coverage of both content and reception regarding anime series. Obviating their at times controversial statements, including their in the article content is not inherently wrong.


 * However, there is something deeper here. Solaire the knight is not making revisions to the content or vocabulary present in the article to push their point of view in their way of writing, or under an homophobic limelight. They are simply maintaining the article clean from non-factual information, or unproven information, regarding the current status of Chisato and Takina's relationship. And that is perfectly fine, and perfectly aligns itself with what Wikipedia articles should be: sources of sufficiently trustable information, provided voluntarily by us people. As such, I oppose any exclusion of sourcing that has been proven to be compliant with WP:A&M/RS, and I will not see with good eyes that a user is being accused of serious allegations just because they are maintaining neutrality within an article. Things should clear up a little bit as the season comes to its climax. Mjeims (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating in the discussion. Well, I didn't suggest deleting the sources. My whole request was to use them more carefully if they start to describe it too subjectively. For example, use a citation instead of a simple description to make it clear that this is the reviewer's opinion. Also, as you already implied, I wouldn't mind if the finale of the show or the writers would bring some clarity to this in the future. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel that I already used them carefully enough in the first place. I apologize for so quickly jumping to the conclusion that you were trying to push an agenda, but I'd like to point out that your language, this entire time, has not made your intentions clear, and I really don't think I can be blamed for making this mistake when you said things like "we all know the "woke" reputation of Anime Feminist and ANN". At no point did you, with clarity, propose any actionable change (I still am not sure what you mean by "use them more carefully"), and you still haven't... what does "use a citation instead of a simple description" mean? The sources are already cited, like, that's the whole point of including them. It already is clear that this is the reviewer's opinion by virtue of it being in the "reception" section and constantly specifying it with words like "perceived" and "believed it" and "described it as." (And no, perceived is not "too ambiguous", it's simply an accurate description of the fact that the reviewer perceived the anime as containing subtext, which is just that, a fact.) While the misunderstanding is my fault in part for not requesting clarification, I'm sure you must understand that I didn't believe it was unreasonable to infer that you were trying to argue for the removal of those sources because you disagreed with them. This combined with the fact that your edit history suggested a narrow interest in removing any mention or implication of queercoding in anime and other media from pages, led me to the conclusion that you must have been trying to push such an agenda- but you're right, this assumption doesn't have much basis other than my own perception and inferences which no one has backed up, so maybe I'm just a retard.
 * Anyway, I did my best when writing the reception section to give due weight to all the views on the anime series from every reliable source I could find. It's simply that all available sources happened to be slanted towards a liberal point of view, which, I represented accurately, as the NPOV policy isn't intended to exclude views for the sake of appearing "neutral", but rather to represent them neutrally without editorializing. If I had written something along the lines of "Caitlin Moore accurately described the show as glorifying violence" or some such, then that would be a problem, but I didn't, I wrote, factually that she held such an opinion, which should be perfectly careful enough- at least as far as my interpretation of the policy is concerned.
 * Had I known of another reliable source arguing something contrary to what the ANN and Anifem writers opined, I'd most certainly have added it and just as neutrally described their opinion, but I knew (and know) of no such source. If you think you do, then by all means be my guest in including that viewpoint. But as it stands, the Reception section here only may appear biased in a liberal way solely because that is the bias of the available sources, and that is an issue which is, at least at the moment, beyond the scope of Wikipedia to correct. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 05:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I warn you that continuing edits like this could be considered trolling and take that! in the space of articles addressed to your opponents in the dispute. I can understand why you're being salty, but wikipedia, let alone articlespace, is not the place to settle scores. Also, you've been told several times that no one is going to remove sources or question their right to be credited. Your attempts to persistently discuss this as an attack on the sources will also not help the cause. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Now, this is going too far. ostensibly singular userpage makes an interesting point, and is that there are literally no sources currently available that pose a point of view that opose, or rather, shows a different opinion that the predominant liberal viewpoint of the current sources available. If there is not such source available, then there is really not much we can do but include the perceibably biased opinions, because that is what is available right now. And even if there are sources that do present points of view that are more neutral or opposed to the current ones, there is no reason to exclude them if that is the case. I'm pretty sure ostensibly singular userpage is not painting the trimming of content as an example of an attack towards the sources, but simply is defending the fact that there are literally no other sources that can be used at the moment. I still stand with the fact that neutrality should be maintained but only with factual information, and currently including sourcing from the ANN, a network with a liberal viewpoint, is not wrong, as there are no other sources that can properly provide full neutrality within the article (multiple viewpoints helping the writing of the article to achieve a "middle" section amongst two or more factions). This not "settling the score", it is simply building an article with what we have. For the time being, neutrality should be maintained all throughout the article, but in the "Reception" section, it is simply impossible to do so, if there are no sources that can make it happen. Mjeims (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a big enough problem. It is enough to simply describe an opinion as an opinion and that's it. We do not describe scientific theories or any controversial events, just someone's opinion about the content. This was already discussed during the debate over the list of LGBT characters and then it was decided that if we do not have canon information, then it is simply worth describing the opinions of the sources in a neutral way (for example, "the source interpreted the characters' relationship as homosexual") and that's it. And I will repeat it again. I'm not suggesting removing ANN or arguing with it. I ask only not to describe the opinion of the authors as a fact. I consider the user's attempt to stubbornly turn this into a struggle with the sources themselves as a substitution of the topic of conversation. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Coming here from WP:ANIME here; I agree that unless the creators/staff confirm any intent here, any sort of interpretation of media should be confined to reliable sources only to prevent WP:ORIGINAL, and even then, state things like, "[source] interprets X character or scene as..." I see there's an effort to do this already in Reception, but the Reception section is overblown with A said B and should be condensed. lullabying (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reopening this discussion after 's edit. Just a nitpick, but the reception section is already filled with subjective opinions, and rephrasing the sentence as "possible queer subtext" seems to go into WP:WEASEL territory. No one is arguing that the creators never gave an explicit statement stating any of the characters' orientations. I think the sentence should definitely be rephrased if you insist on keeping "possible" in there, because at this point it comes off as practically denying any reviewer who interprets the characters to be queer. Going through Solaire's history, I am very concerned about your edits in particular regarding queer characters because of your activity on List of lesbian characters in anime. lullabying (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to reformulation. But I don't think that this particular phrase is overloaded, since the text "praises queer coding" formally implies that it is in the show. And if you're trying to use my edits to the article as a future argument against me, don't worry, I've mostly removed explicit speculation based on subjective opinions, wishful thinking, or outright misinterpretations. For example, many examples were added based on gay jokes or gay shiping from ANN's thrash talk blog. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we put it in quotes and thus not make a judgment either way? "Caitlin Moore described the series as strong entertainment, praising the action and visuals, and remarked on the 'queer subtext' in the main characters' relationship." (The criticism part should be split to another sentence.) Enterprisey (talk!) 05:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think rewording would still be a better solution than quotation marks etc. For example, "she also found queer undertones in the series by interpreting scenes like" etc. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)