Talk:Wendy van Dijk

I think that the controversy section should be removed unless a more reputable source can be found. See WP:BLP.Andries (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to a review from a Dutch daily paper that is critical of the new Ushi film and the character. Constablequackers (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The movie has received miserable reviews in several newspaper. This has nothing to do with controversy over stereotypes. This controversy does not exist in the Netherlands. (In my opinion, which I admit is not relevant for Wikipedia, only a mentally retarded Dutch person, not just an uneducated Dutch person, would really think that Japanese are like Ushi.) Andries (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After more thorough reading of reputable Dutch sources, I have to admit that Ushi was criticized because of racial stereotypes. Andries (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I switched the sentence about the film's release date into the past tense. If we agree on nothing else here, it should be that the film was definitely released in Dutch cinemas on Feb 14th. Constablequackers (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the controversy section, I think it should stay. I know you're taking issue with the credibility of the blog posts but consider this. I'm making the statement that bloggers, especially Asian bloggers, find Ushi offensive and I'm citing their statements from their blogs. I'm not using flimsy citations as traditional citations to prove something outlandish. For example, I'm not saying "cancer can be cured with M&Ms". The statement being made is "Bloggers are saying _____." I hope this makes sense. Furthermore, while the controversy may not be huge in the Netherlands, Ushi has caught the attention of an international audience and they aren't too keen on the character. I think three citations is more than enough to prove this. Constablequackers (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also restored the direct quote, translated into English, from Mike Peek's review in Het Parool. I believe you've misrepresented the content of the review. If you wish to tweak this passage further, please have another look at the review. Thanks. Constablequackers (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article just came out today in the Netherlands. It has become a controversy. http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/02/15/ushi-net-zo-fout-als-zwarte-piet-waarom-zwijgt-nederland/ Nevertheless, I continue to hold the opinion that bloggers should have no place in a biography of a living person. Andries (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new article. I'll work it into the text here in a moment. Bloggers/blogging continues to fall into a grey area on Wikipedia and I know they've been widely discussed elsewhere on the site. With legitimate journalists now blogging and credible news orgs like the Chicago Tribune and The Guardian now running blogs, it's become increasingly difficult to ignore them around here, especially given how widely disputed Wikipedia itself as come as a source among reporters and academics. Constablequackers (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)