This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
Comic Book Resources (CBR)
Just wanted to note that it was
discussed over on the Video Game Project and pointed out that much of their recent content has not been reliable. A quick summary with a couple of quotes:
> CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism
I saw them recently mentioned for
an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 10:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the listing should be updated to something along the lines of "pre-2016 reliable, 2016–mid 2023 situational, mid 2023–present unreliable". While in the time before AI but after the Valnet acquisition it did resort to a lot of
churnalism, it did have some alright columns that at the very least do have some good perspectives (like maybe
[1]).
Link20XX (
talk) 22:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think that'd be a fair statement for the listing
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Natural Aristocrat
I noticed that
Thestylesclash (
talk·contribs) has been citing
The Natural Aristocrat in several articles. At the moment, I am neither for nor against citing this site, but I'd like to know if anyone knows better about the background of this site and whether it can be considered reliable. On the other hand, however, I have a slight suspicion of
WP:CONFLICT regarding the user.
Xexerss (
talk) 21:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The website seems to cover a variety of topics that happens to include anime occasionally, so I think a more general discussion at
WP:RSN would be better.
Link20XX (
talk) 22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi, On Japan Society's official Press Page (
https://japansociety.org/press-coverage/) you'll find that they link to The Natural Aristocrat for the following three articles:
"Bill Gates talks Global Health at Japan Society NYC (Video)"
I am not expressing any opinions towards whether this website is reliable or not, but I do note the first link lists a
WP:FORBESCON article and a post-2013
WP:NEWSWEEK article which are considered generally unreliable and situational, respectively. The second link lists a website titled "Sailor Moon Fan Network", which would definitely not meet
WP:RS. But anyways, just a list of articles that mentions every time an organization was covered by any website is not indicative of being a reliable source.
Link20XX (
talk) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Natural Aristocrat has been sourced by websites like Yahoo, Express, and MSN just as a quick example:
Yahoo is a
news aggregator and just copies articles from other websites, which is no indication of anything.
Link20XX (
talk) 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The second provided link is an original article from Yahoo Entertainment France which sourced an interview by The Natural Aristocrat.
Thestylesclash (
talk) 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Request to evaluate reliability of source
Due to it not showing up on the current list, I'm wondering if everyone would be able to evaluate whether animecorner.me constitutes a reliable source. It is currently present on several pages, and is currently
in discussion for possible use on another article pending an investigation on its reliability.
HapHaxion(
talk /
contribs) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Its reliability was discussed
before, although without a clear consensus. I personally am more leaning towards calling it unreliable.
Xexerss (
talk) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I did some checking and animecorner.me is currently cited as a source on over 50 articles. I think that should lend some weight towards it being credible.
Rockman1159 (
talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's an indication of reliability. I mean, for example, a lot of articles continue to cite the Anime News Network encyclopedia, even though it's expressly listed as unreliable here.
Xexerss (
talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to add, there are currently 262 links to NicheGamer, which is specifically listed as unreliable as a website on the video game project. So I'd agree that amount of links don't really add creditability, but are more of an indication of amount of views/popularity as a website.
On Anime Corner, as I
mentioned here, it seems to be staffed primarily by young writers, with little in the way of qualifications or experience elsewhere, so I'd be hesitant to use them if there's a better source, but they do have a clear editorial policy, a mission with a good focus on accuracy, influence to get interviews, and no major issues I can see other than the lack of experience which are positives. Considering the niche nature of anime though and approved sources (such as ANN) also having inexperienced/younger writers without qualifications / EiC without journalism qualification / etc which seem to be used as arguments against in other areas, I'd consider using them.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, sounds fair to me, but I'd say that we should be thorough with their posts, as I recall that some of them were based on some tweets from randoms users and other unofficial accounts. As long as their reports are based on official sources, I agree with citing them.
Xexerss (
talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've only been able to find one example (
this one), though I suppose there may be some I'm missing. I'd suggest that it's relevant in that particular case too, as they're using multiple 'victims' affected as a primary source, rather than the 'aggressor' who'd be extremely unlikely to issue a public statement.
But yes, we should be thorough and take extra care if citing them. Their news posts seem to list the sources clearly, so it's just a matter of scrutinizing them. Interviews cite the interviewee and reviews are more a matter of extending a level of trust regarding accuracy of information and that it's a relevant person from a relevant source.
I did find one issue. I went through reviews of some titles I'm familiar with and noticed that while they got most things right about Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire, they said there's no fullscreen on PC which there is.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
COI notice
A few of the other writers/contributors do have some experience. From my memory, Jay Gibbs wrote for
ComicsVerse and Marcel Kober who has written for the German-language
Deadline Magazin publication (he did a Makoto Shinkai interview with them). I think besides some of those cases, ANN is a good comparison since I think a good number of the writers from there gained prominence/"notability" through their tenures with ANN rather than already having experience (even some of the older writers are probably in a similar boat), and I think it's a similar case here.
Re, the COI notice: I've
contributed a few articles (interviews and reviews; also
this one) to the website as a freelance writer, though I'm not part of the team itself.
Sarcataclysmal (
talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The Fandom Post's reliability was
discussed by the project in the past. I'm not going to read through the entire AfD, but what ferret said about them not having a staff page is incorrect (
see here, found under about and
here) and they do list credentials for their staff in articles they write and their credentials were also discussed in the linked discussion above. Specifically, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by
Anime News Network (
link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even
cited it as a source on occasion, like
here and
here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at
Anime Boston (
link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion (too lazy to reproduce them all).
Link20XX (
talk) 23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is on the list as "The Fandom Post".
Link20XX (
talk) 02:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just following up. I missed the About Us page at first and found it afterwards, to which I already replied at the AFD. I think this source is very close to essentially being just a blog for Beveridge at this stage, but we do treat some authors as sources in their own right. --
ferret (
talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply