Talk:Tite Kubo/Archive 1

Kubo Tite
Doesn't he actually go by "Kubo Tite" ?

I deleted the entry for the Bleach anime because it was 1. confusing 2. redundant and 3. linked to the manga page. I included the information about it's popularity and becoming an ongoing television series in the manga entry. MardukZero 01:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, he goes by the Western arrangement, Tite Kubo. --Iriseyes 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

lawl
I find it quite interesting that authors hardly ever reveal much info about themselves when almost the half the world knows who they are and adore them. oh well.

hmm.. didn't know Zombie Powder started out like that... I wonder what was in the original version... actually... i don't want to know. User:iluvuzumaki 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KUBOTITE
In the Japanese tankobons for Bleach his name is romanized as "KUBOTITE" (using all caps) for volumes 14-20, and probably for other volumes that I haven't checked as well. Maybe we should just stick with KUBOTITE only? —Tokek 12:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's just for prettiness. His name is Tite Kubo. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual content?
What's wrong with the sexual content in Zombie Powder? I've seen worse in many other shonen jump titles..
 * Zombie Powder contained sexual content? I didn't notice. --tjstrf 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

expansion
I think a section on Kubo's style could be added. A review on Zombie Powder says that the faces he draws are uniquely geometric. He also uses hatching to shade, which I haven't seen anywhere else. Music seems to influence his art too.-22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hatching for shading isn't unique to Kubo by any means, but it is uncommon in a lot of manga nowadays, as many artists make much more use of screen tones. --ACDragonMaster 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spurious unsourced material
The main body of this article is highly suspect and I have removed it per biographies of living persons policy. The information in question was added by anonymous user 169.237.206.68 as follows:
 * He started drawing manga in High School, where he was a member of his Anime Club. It was in High School that he originally wrote his first manga, "Zombie Power," and had a few editions published. Later in his career, Kubo created a new manga, called Bleach, and submitted it to Weekly Shonen Jump in hopes of having it published. Bleach was originally rejected from Shonen Jump due to similarties to another manga being serialized in the magazine, known as Yu Yu Hakusho. Although Bleach did extraordiarily well when presented to a control group of readers, Kubo was disheartened by the rejection of his manga. This all changed, however, when Akira Toriyama, creator and artist of the manga Dragonball, sent him a letter of reassurance and inspiration. Bleach was eventually serialized by Weekly Shonen Jump, and has currently exceeded over two hundred chapters.

This information is highly suspect for several reasons. It contains outright false material, which throws major doubt on the rest of it. First, it claims that Zombie Powder was published while Kubo was in high school. This is false, as he was 21 or 22 years old when Zombie Powder began running in Weekly Shonen Jump. Second, it claims that Yu Yu Hakusho was running in Weekly Jump when Bleach was proposed. Yu Yu Hakusho ended its run in 1994, so this information is also incorrect. Now, what is publically known is that like almost all Weekly Jump serials, Bleach began as a pilot short story that ran in the magazine. Each issue of Weekly Jump has a survey card where readers can vote for their favorite stories in that issue; short stories which receive enough popular support in these polls are then expanded into series some months later. That happened with Bleach just like other series such as Naruto and Hikaru no Go. I have read the original pilot story. These facts do not jive with the tale of a "control group of readers" and Toriyama's letter of encouragement, statements which are highly unlikely and unsourced. Further edits have fixed some of the details of this myth, such as removing the statement that Yu Yu Hakusho was currently running, but removing the outright untruths does not throw a favorable light on the rest of 169.237.206.68's additions. If there are verifiable, credible sources for these statements, please reinsert them with references; until then, per living persons bio policy, these highly suspect statements are removed. I have rewritten the article based on the Japanese article, which included no such statements. (I have also removed, for now, the picture which was listed as public domain with no source or fair use rationale. It should not return until these are supplied.) —pfahlstrom 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored your edit. The biography that was on the page was either completely lifted off tv.com 128.227.34.235 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The tv.com entry was probably taken from the old version of this article, which was definitely hogwash. —pfahlstrom 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the false information again. It is as false today as it was 14 months ago. None of the references cited by supporters of this information can be reliably traced back to anywhere other than Wikipedia itself and fansites. —pfahlstrom (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversy section added by Sesshomaru has been deleted. As stated before: tv.com's content is a copy of the earlier content on Wikipedia. There is no point in writing "According to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article" in a Wikipedia article. Also, the other sites mentioned, such as BleachExile, are fan sites that are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. —pfahlstrom (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's just blatantly wrong, and has no place in the article. Doceirias (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make it clear to the layman how the data is wrong. How is someone else, unbeknownst to the discussion here, supposed to know the truth? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By reading the discussion here? I know what you were trying to do, which is why I didn't take it down myself, but it really shouldn't be necessary. What we should be doing is trying to get those other sites to correct the misinformation as well. Doceirias (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Though I was just trying to help, perhaps it would be best if someone can create an account at TV.com and elsewhere needed to fix these mishaps. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (INDENT RESET) Well, this article seems to have stabilized (thankfully), but the spurious material crept into the other language versions...at least Catalan, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, and Turkish. Anyone who speaks those languages enough to contribute to those articles might do the world a service. —pfahlstrom (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Solomon article a mix of good material and spurious material
I wrote to Solomon and the LA Times at the time the article came out, but they did not print a retraction. His article contains direct wording lifts (such as "the son of a town council member") from this Wikipedia article and from other articles scattered throughout the Web that contain the false information previously in this Wikipedia article. I have removed the sentence about Toriyama writing a letter of encouragement—there is no corroborating evidence for this claim. There are no quotes in the LA Times article from Kubo indicating that this was the case.

This article is another instance of bad information begetting bad information. Please don't perpetuate the cycle. —pfahlstrom (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE FOR THE RECORD: I actually heard back from Charles Solomon yesterday, and my suspicion of lazy journalism was completely wrong. Instead, Solomon sourced the non-interview information in the article from press materials provided by Viz, which was completely reasonable for him to do. This doesn't change my belief that this information is wrong (based on the chain of provenance as I argued above), but instead I now believe the one who used dodgy information was the person at Viz who put together the press materials. However, this can't change the lesser consensus reached by everyone in the discussion below, as I still can't provide a reliable source to prove this negative. It will just continue to bug me in the future, but at least it was nice to hear from Solomon about it. —pfahlstrom (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, then we can't use LA Times as a source for anything on this page. Are you 100% sure that the Solomon article is entirely a copy of an old Wikipedia revision? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, much of the LA Times article is good information and original research from Solomon's personal interview with Kubo Tite which he conducted at Comic-Con. However, when finishing the complete article he filled out some details using sources such as Wikipedia and fan sites. I realize that sorting out which of the information in Solomon's article is good and which is bad is not a straightforward task, but all the information currently in this article which is sourced from Solomon's article is good information. In fact, only that one paragraph in Solomon's article was problematic; everything else that wasn't a direct quote from Kubo's interpreter was already reliably corroborated elsewhere.


 * (Note: Charles Solomon is generally a good source; he can be heard very often on NPR. But even the best journalists sometimes take shortcuts.) —pfahlstrom (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like that idea, at all. How are we supposed to interpret what information is libel? For all we know, half the stuff in his article is not true. Unless there is confirmation from the editor himself, I'll be against using LA Times as a reliable reference (at least here). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a bit of an overreaction. But it would be fair to limit the information accepted from the LA Times article to the information included in the quotes from Kubo himself. This information would be reliable. There is no reason to believe that any of these quotes were invented by Solomon or anything like that—he's a pro journalist and we know the interview took place. —pfahlstrom (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the original version. Without actual reliable sources disputing the statement, the entire article is WP:RS and meets WP:V. It is not the place of editors to pick and choose which parts they feel are true and which they feel are incorrect per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, did we just add material we know to be false because it comes from a reliable source? That's a logical fallacy at work, and not at all reflecting the intentions of the policy. For starters, we are not required to summarize the entire content of said article just because we're using it as a source; picking and choosing what bits to use in the article absolutely is part of the process of editing, and including material that is of little real consequence and which has had its accuracy called into question seems genuinely bizarre. Was there really a strong contingent insisting this material was accurate and verifiable? Or are we just perpetuating a hoax for no real reason? Doceirias (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, how do you KNOW it is false? Without a reliable source refuting the claim, you can't claim to know anything except that you personally believe it is incorrect. How do you KNOW that Solomon didn't ask Kubo if it was correct before publishing it? Has Kubo or Toriyama actually publically stated that it was false? Did Solomon say he used Wikipedia to fill in some details and the article may not be correct? Or is it all based on the personal belief of a handful of editors that he did without actual evidence. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) - Doc, how do you *know* it's slander if that's what you *believe*? Whatever facts pfahlstrom stated have yet to be confirmed. To doubt some parts of a reliable source and say everything else is valid definitely violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR as AnmaFinotera said. As far as selecting content that is of "little real consequence", saying Kubo received praise from Toriyama to continue Bleach is anything but "little real consequence". If segments of that LA Times article really were fraudulent, they would've obviously printed a retraction. Nobody in their right minds would risk facing civil action now would they? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between slander and probably cribbed from an inaccurate source, particularly since we know the material originated here, unsourced, and was then spread around to other sources as fact - without being verified. You're right - I don't know the people involved personally and am privy to no inside information here, but we have evidence that suggests the material in question may not be accurate. Since it is hardly necessary to the article, it seems better to err on the side of caution. Like I said, we're under no obligation to include all material from this particular source, any more than we are required to do the impossible and prove that this information is not true - the burden of proof lies in those who would add questioned material to an article. Short of one of us grabbing Kubo at a convention and demanding to know the true story, we aren't going to prove it isn't true; a reputable Japanese source reporting this information (less likely to have been cribbed from the suspected hoax) would easily corroborate Solomon's article, and lay to rest the doubts we've voiced. Doceirias (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just it. You don't KNOW anything, you presume, you believe, but without a source, for Wikipedia purposes no one knows anything. There is no evidence to the contrary, only people's personal beliefs. No, we're under no obligation to include any material, much less all, but there is no valid reason to leave it out and it could be seen as life changing and instrumental (would he have dropped the series if not for the letter). And yes, the burden is on those who would remove it to prove it to be false as it is reliably sourced. So unless and until it is disproven, it remains. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not need proof - we need a reasonable doubt. This is easily obtained by tracing the history of the incident, and by looking at the lack of any Japanese languages sources for this information. Like the policy says, truth is not something we can discuss in any sort of objective manner. Verifiability is, and there are at least three editors here making the case that this particular information is still not adequately verified, and therefore cannot, by policy, be added to the article.
 * The LA Times is a reliable source...yet journalists makes mistakes all the time, and fact checking is not the religion it once was. An error in the article in no way implies the rest of the article is bunk; the all or nothing attitude you can Sesshomaru expressed earlier is not really supportable. Doceirias (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In short: we all know LA Times information is wrong and was taken from unreliable source, but we can't prove it. -- DEERSTOP ( talk ). 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More like the other way around: we don't know if the LA Times data is incorrect and if it was taken from an unreliable source. You're right about the "we can't prove it" part. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See if you can e-mail the author and ask Charles Solomon - I don't know what his e-mail is, but it may be somewhere WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, pfahlstrom claims to have written to the author. Try asking him for the e-mail. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've written to the LA Times again (Their Reader Representative contact form for reporting errors). We'll see if they respond this time. —pfahlstrom (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear from the phrasing and ordering of the words that that paragraph of Solomon's article was written using the fraudulent information as a base. And it looks to me like there is support among editors here for recognizing that and keeping the information out of the Wikipedia article. —pfahlstrom (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that is NOT enough to claim a reliable source is invalid, and as no one can provide this proof, do NOT continue removing this statement until such proof can be actually provided to refute it (and even then, it shouldn't be removed by rewritten to note this). Support for removing it doesn't not equal consensus and certainly doesn't override WP:V which no one supporting its removal has done with their claims. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)0
 * I would have assumed that removing the content under discussion until things were settled was the standard operating procedure in situations like this. Regardless, at this point both sides seem to be repeating the same arguments without making much headway on convincing the other side, so I've asked for opinions on the biography noticeboard. Doceirias (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were not sourced, yes, it would be removed. However, the LA Times and Solomon himself have both been upheld as a reliable source by both sides. If one statement from the source is removed as unreliable, then the entire article must be considered unreliable, which then claims that both Solomon and the LA Times do not meet WP:RS when both do. This is a reliably sourced statement, and therefore should not be removed if it can not be shown to be false (and even then, again, it should not be removed, but modified to note that Solomon reported X but Kubo says Y or but later recanted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, this argument that a mistake in the article discredits the article, the author, and the newspaper is not really logical at all. Assuming we're right, it was a simple mistake, and in no way threatens the reliability of anyone involved. As for the rest, I'm going to sleep on the discussion, wait for the advice of the biography experts, and suggest we all do the same. Doceirias (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? You basically are saying that because that part is uncorroborated by other sources, its false. In which case, logically, you should want the ENTIRE article corroborated, otherwise its NPOV to pick and choose which parts you want to believe. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more fan site sources with extremely similar phrasing.
 * Kubo later began working on the series Bleach in hopes that he would finally get one of his own manga accepted by Shonen Jump, but it was sadly rejected as well. This was due to its similarities to the series Yu Yu Hakusho by Yoshihiro Togashi. Times got very depressing for Kubo at this point until he receive a letter of encouragement from Akira Toriyama, the creator of the hit series Dragon Ball. It was then that Kubo found renewed hope and in 2002 Bleach was finally published and began serialization in Shonen Jump.
 * Following the cancellation of his prior creation, Zombie Powder, Kubo submitted Bleach to Weekly Shonen Jump hoping that it would be published; the story was rejected, however, as the editors claimed it was too similar to Yoshihiro Togashi's hit manga YuYu Hakusho.[1] Akira Toriyama, creator of the Dragon Ball series, sent a letter of encouragement to Kubo which inspired him to continue working on Bleach and, as of 2002, the manga has since been printed and serialized in Weekly Shonen Jump
 * Later on, Kubo started a new manga, entitled "Bleach" our beloved manga about Shinigami and Hollows. When Kubo first presented Bleach to Weekly Shonen Jump it was rejected due to it being similar to Yu Yu Hakusho a very popular a still very popular manga. Bleach was shown to a group of independent readers, and it was accepted enthusiastically, but Kubo was still disheartened by the initial rejection by Weekly Shonen Jump. However, the amazing Akira Toriyama legendary because of the Dragonball Series' sent Kubo a letter of reassurance and inspiration. This letter gave Kubo the inspiration and motivation required to try again, eventually his work paid off and Weekly Shonen Jump serialized his manga.
 * Later in his career, Kubo created a new manga, called Bleach, and submitted it to Weekly Shonen Jump in hopes of having it published. Bleach was originally rejected from Shonen Jump due to similarties to another manga being serialized in the magazine, known as Yu Yu Hakusho. Although Bleach did extraordiarily well when presented to a control group of readers, Kubo was disheartened by the rejection of his manga. This all changed, however, when Akira Toriyama, creator and artist of the manga Dragonball, sent him a letter of reassurance and inspiration. Bleach was eventually serialized by Weekly Shonen Jump,

Now compare Solomon's paragraph:
 * Shonen Jump initially turned down “Bleach.” Kubo grew discouraged, but a letter of encouragement from Akira Toriyama, the creator of the landmark hits “Dragon Ball” and “Dragon Ball Z,” buoyed his spirits. The editors at Weekly Shonen Jump soon realized their mistake and published the first installments of “Bleach” in 2001. It scored an instant hit.

The genealogy of that paragraph is quite clear. —pfahlstrom (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fansites are NOT reliable sources, period. All you have provided is your own original research, not a single legitimate reliable source refuting the claim. Also, none of those are even dated except one. And the phrasing is irrelevant. It is still YOUR personal belief that he lifted material, which means all of you are basically slanding a report for plagiarism without any actual proof. He himself has never printed a retraction. Again, NO reliable sources have EVER refuted that the statement was false, either Solomon's versions, nor the statements made by fans (unreliable though they are). If it were false, don't you think someone would have noted so by now? One of the authors, a reporter, someone?? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fansites are not reliable sources, and that is exactly where Solomon got his information.. Listen to reason, people. You're asking me to prove a negative. A reliable source is not going to say anything about it, because it's fraudulent information in the first place. It would take someone going to Kubo and asking him if he received a letter of encouragement from Toriyama, and there's no reason anyone would do that except to disprove the information here. Now, I've written to the LA Times, but who knows whether they will respond.
 * I've reached my RR limit, so I invite others to revert AnmaFinotera. If you choose to report me for edit warring anyway, perhaps we can get a reasonable judgment on this case. —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking others to revert in your place is BEYOND improper. And you are being asked to prove that something is false. If its false, there should be evidence, not just your personal belief. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Doceirias said above, reasonable doubt. And it is not out of line for me to ask others who want this Wikipedia article to be legitimate to see that it contains legitimate information. —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to decide. You did not ask others to voice an opinion, you specifically invited others to revert in your place to avoid 3RR (which is still reportable, FYI). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to AnmaFinotera's edit summary: "removing entire source then - either you have to accept the interview as accurate or not, but can not refute part as false/stolen but claiming rest is fine." Not so; it's not any part of the interview that's not accurate. It's part of the article text surrounding the interview that is not accurate. Solomon did not claim that Kubo said this information about Toriyama in his interview. (However, for good information if this entire article is deemed suspect, perhaps more references could be added to the About.com interview which was done at the same time. —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have posted a request at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard for outside views as well. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if the information originated from a fansite, that doesn't mean that the LA Times article is dubious because it included the information or that the information is false. All of this has to do with why fansites are considered unreliable while newspapers, like the LA Times, are considered reliable. It has to do with having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The LA Times has that reputation, fansites don't. If the LA Times did take information from a fansite, we must presume that they have verified its accuracy though fact-checking. Only when the information is contradicted by other reliable sources can the information be legitimately removed. Pfahlstrom, you haven't provided any evidence that such a contradiction exists between reliable sources or verify that the information is false. --Farix (Talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, BLP disagrees with you: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Regardless of whether or not the LA paper is a reliable source, when they make shit up reprint fansite nonsense and its contentious like this is, remove it until we can back it up with collaborating sources. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you have that the information suspect, other then that a fansite had reported the same information? --Farix (Talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, lets see... a US paper scores a huge scoop featuring two prominent mangaka and it does not get printed in any Japanese source or any reputable US manga news site. Yeah, thats not suspicious at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem all that suspicious to me. And it doesn't seem like a big scoop either. --Farix (Talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What grounds do I have? To someone who has been following this for the last 2 and a half years, it's a straightforward case of GIGO. Person 1 puts an article on Wikipedia containing information A, B, C, D, and E. Around the same time, Fans 1 through 17 find this information and copy it to their websites. (It is also copied to tv.com.) (These could happen in any order.) Person 2 comes along and sees that A is verifiably false and removes it from the article. Person 3 comes along and sees that B is verifiably false and removes it from the article. Person 4 comes along and sees that C is verifiably false and removes it from the article. Person 5 comes along and sees D and E, knows E is verifiably false and knows that D is almost certainly false but impossible to prove because of the difficulty of proving a negative. He wonders where it came from, goes into the Wikipedia history and discovers that it arrived with information A, B and C, which other people already pointed out the errors in and fixed or removed. The source is just bad, and cleaning it up a little doesn't make the one unprovably false statement true. Person 5 rewrites the entire article from verifiable Japanese and English sources and all traces of information A, B, C, D, and E are gone. However, this information still remains on the websites of Fans 1 through 17 and on tv.com.
 * Flash forward two and a half years. Journalist 1 is interviewing Subject 1 at Convention 1. Journalist 1 needs supporting text for the article that will contain selections from his interview, so he goes to Wikipedia. He finds some biographical information there. He incorporates some of it into his article. He goes to one of fansites 1 through 17 and sees information C and D. Perhaps he goes to multiple fansites and tv.com and sees information C and D multiple places and believes the number of repetitions lends credence to the story. So he uses information C and D in his article, not knowing the provenance of this information and not knowing how unlikely it would sound to anyone in the industry. Because of that ignorance, he does not verify the information with Subject 1 personally, and also because Subject 1 has flown back to Japan already and is extremely difficult to contact. Journalist 1 will likely never speak to Subject 1 again.
 * Charles Solomon is guilty only of sloppiness. The information in his paragraph can be traced back to a made-up source. Just because it has now appeared in the LA Times does not mean we should ignore the history of this information and its connection with Wikipedia. I doubt that many Wikipedia editors would be comfortable with the idea of dubious information gleaned from Wikipedia being published in a usually reliable source and then the Wikipedia article citing that source after the fact. A circular reference like that does not contribute to the integrity of Wikipedia. No, in cases like this where this history is plain for everyone to see (and if you want date-verifiable versions of the fan sites indicated, use the Internet Archive), an untainted, unconnected third-party source must be found to corroborate the information—and an especially reliable source would be one in the article subject's native language. (At this point, though, with how long this information has hung around and how it has been translated to multiple other languages, it wouldn't surprise me if one day a Japanese person did write an article containing the information because he/she got it from an English article. However, I expect the 2ch posters more familiar with how the manga industry works in Japan would rip such a story's credence to shreds in seconds.)
 * What reliable counterevidence is there, that this did not in fact happen? As I said, proving a negative is difficult unless you can ask the specific people that specific question. But how Bleach was published can be verified: Zombie Powder ended in a certain issue of Weekly Jump. Kubo published a Bleach pilot chapter (which I have read) in a certain issue of Weekly Jump or Akamaru Jump. (Inside each Akamaru Jump and Weekly Jump is a survey card that the readers can fill out to indicate their favorite stories in the issue. This is how Jump editors judge the popularity of series.) Shortly thereafter, the Bleach serial began in a certain issue of Weekly Jump. Now, I don't have those issue numbers to hand, but they can be found. If Bleach had been rejected after its pilot chapter and Toriyama had written a letter, how would anyone have found out? Neither Toriyama nor Kubo had serials running at the time, so they could not have written this information in their little end-of-magazine comment boxes. Blogging was not in vogue at the time. Kubo could have written it in the author notes at the end of Bleach volume 1, or on the cover flap, or on the bonus pages or anything. He did not write any such thing. He could have mentioned it in an interview. No such information has ever been found in any interview he has given, and he has given a decent number of interviews, several of which have made their way to the U.S. This story is the kind of thing a manga creator would not keep to himself, and Kubo is the kind of person who's willing to talk about even his own feelings of depression on his jacket flaps. No, there is just no evidence that this story ever happened. I am not saying there is absolutely 0% chance that it did happen, but due to the deafening silence, the way manga pilots work, and the blatant falseness of information A, B, C, and E which accompanied information D, I would call the chance of this story being true infinitesimal. —pfahlstrom (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this dispute has gotten out of hand. Doc, pfahlstrom, show some damn evidence, or kindly knock it off. Both of you are not assuming good faith by repeatedly suggesting the Toriyama bit is refutable. Have a read of Verifiability; as obvious as something might seem, it has to be confirmed by a reliable source before anything else. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping we might get some outside opinions to help resolve things; probably should have done so a day before, since the conversation got a bit too heated a few minutes later. I find your accusations here rather insulting; I have consistently assumed that you are both speaking in good faith, and are simply taking a broader interpretation of those policies than was ever intended. You have suggested that one minor error must invalidate the entire article; you have suggested that a minor bit of background trivia is so important it must be in the article even if the story is apocryphal; and you have repeatedly asked us to do the impossible and prove a negative - while then accusing us of suggesting the bit is refutable. Like I mentioned before, contacting Toriyama or Kubo or a representative thereof is the only way of refuting this outright, and they are unlikely to respond. I think assuming good faith means assuming experienced editors who work in the industry are making an informed guess, and are not attempting to cause trouble. It means attempting to find additional sources - particularly Japanese ones - when further verification is requested. Truth is not the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, but Verifiability is, and the verifiability of this information has been challenged. The ball is in your court; find additional verfication, or stop working to prevent an honest attempt to keep Wikipedia as accurate as our best judgment allows. Doceirias (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apocryphal? Try unethical. The only reason this thread continues is because a few bias Wikipedians want to question a known fact from a reliable source, without verifying why. I was taken aback when I noticed there was an edit war which resulted in removing the LA Times reference, then having a nonsensical page protection. Whatever, I just can't wait until this event blows over. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We didn't ask for page protection. We asked for further evidence to back a claim we had reason to doubt. Rather than listen to our concerns and address them, you simply repeat that your source cannot possibly have made a mistake; make exaggerated arguments that A. A mistake in the article invalidates the rest of it and B. Suggesting a mistake has been made is libel; and refuse to even attempt to refute our concerns by providing the corroborative evidence we are asking for. And when we press the issue, concerned about the implications of false material in Wikipedia, you resort to personal insults and accusations of bad faith. You should be ashamed of yourself. Doceirias (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that this information regarding Toriyama's involvement with Kubo has been around Wikipedia since 27 August 2005, when added by an anonymous user without citing it to a reliable source. By 20 February 2008 it was being sourced with sites like TV.com and BleachExile --sites that, undoubtedly, picked up this tidbit from this article. And six months later, it appeared in an LA Times article. It seems that Wikipedia started this, for lack of a better word, "legend"... a legend that became "fact" when it was printed by the LA Times.--Nohansen (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached?
There has been no additional comment here for 9 days. Does that indicate that progress has been made toward a consensus? (Note: I have heard nothing further from the LA Times.) —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not; even when we asked for outside advice it pretty much split evenly in both directions. Doceirias (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically it's just stalled then? —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. -- DEERSTOP ( talk ). 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How long should the article go with no discussion and no progress before it gets unprotected? The point of protection is so that the differences can get worked out, right? —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I say we just erase those fact-tagged sentences and call it even. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of those can be sourced from elsewhere like the about.com interview done at the same convention. —pfahlstrom (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)