Talk:The Rising of the Shield Hero

Added CBR article to reception

I added a paragraph referencing a Comic Book Resources article to the reception section. I hope i did everything correctly. If i made amistake, plese let me know. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is quoting at length from a critic's review really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be sufficient to include CBR in the first paragraph without extended quotations? i.e. "Several Anime News Network and Comic Book Resources reviewers..." and then provide the associated articles as links in the footnotes? It is one thing to quote the producer of the show, but reviews by critics are opinion. The edit itself even uses the word "speculates", as if to underline that the statements have no basis in fact. The award that the show won was given a single sentence, while there are three entire paragraphs about controversy, quoting two critics' opinions at length multiple times. For what it's worth, these opinions seem to be at odds with the reviews given by users on multiple different platforms for review (4.7/5 on Crunchyroll's site, 8.1/10 on IMDB, 8/10 on MyAnimeList). Yes, we can verify that the reviewers did in fact write those words, but does that make their statements in and of themselves verifiable facts regarding the show and the audience? 173.71.171.58 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What individual viewers say about the show is irrelevant; what we care about is what established critics in reliable sources say about the series. If most critics in reliable sources gave it negative feedback, that is what the article should show. If you have a reliable anime-related or other website that praised it, you are more than welcome to add it. I noticed you just added an "Asian Movie Pulse" website, however this doesn't look like a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The "controversy" section has been subject to edit wars, and it's easy to understand why - the critics comments are speculative about the audience and intentionally inflammatory in nature. While the opinion of "individual viewers" is irrelevant, the aggregate review of hundreds of thousands of viewers is a relevant fact, especially when it is in such clear contrast to the critics here, whose opinions are presented without the slightest pretense of balance. A casual reader who finds this wikipedia page would have no idea that this anime is actually quite popular among viewers - if you Browse Crunchyroll by Popularity, it is currently ranked number 30, just after Naruto and Bleach.

Furthermore, you reverted the edit so quickly that I must wonder if you did any due diligence on the reliability of the source. They have existed since September 2015. They have dozens of writers on multiple continents. They have seven sponsorships. They review a wide range of content, including not just anime but manga and books. The LinkedIn page for this particular author of the review shows at least six years of experience in the industry and that he is a staff writer for several other publications. Please elaborate on how this source is unreliable. 173.71.171.58 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the Reliable Resources links you provided. Comic Book Resources is listed by neither of those sources. Using your own criteria, the entire quote from CBR should be removed. UPDATE: Additionally, Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source according to what you provided, and the author of the review is recognized by Rotten Tomatoes as an approved critic, and not merely an "individual user". https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/panos-kotzathanasis-23482/movies 173.71.171.58 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If found in reliable sources, including information on popularity of a title is definitely something I recommend (like how Crunchyroll wrote an article on their most watched series of 2020), though I wouldn't use Crunchyroll's popularity tab on their app, as it fluctuates very rapidly and I have even seen it place series in different positions when I view it on a different device. As for reviews, user reviews from aggregator websites are non-verifiable and should not be used, regardless of how many of them there are. Especially from MyAnimeList, where for instance Interspecies Reviewers was review bombed to be the highest rated title on the platform after Funimation dropped it. As for the website, can you find the writer(s) of it writing for other reliable sources or the website itself quoted in other sources? I admit I have never heard of the website, and when I have never heard of a website I usually don't take it to be reliable right away. How many writers a site has and where, as well as how long the site of the person has been writing are generally not of very much importance. I would trust someone who has been writing in The New York Times for 1 year far more than someone who has been maintaining a blog for 5 years. As for Rotten Tomatoes, see WP:ROTTEN. Just being included in it doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. As for CBR, there is a discussion on the talk page of the anime sources article for their reliability, which is currently looking like it will be considered situational, dependent on the writer. Link20XX (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand why I mention Crunchyroll, IMDB, and MyAnimeList. Of course Browsing by Popularity has its faults, but I am providing multiple different resources that point toward the objective popularity of this anime, which should ease any concerns about "review bombing" tainting the results. These other measures of popularity are in stark contrast to the critics response, who are being quoted at length here about their opinions on this anime. The critics' reviews mislead a casual reader because they are not representative of the viewers in aggregate.

"Don't take it to be reliable right away" implies that you were going to make some attempt to verify the reliability of the source before reverting the edit, but you did not make any such effort and instead seem to continue criticizing the efforts I have made to investigate the reliability of the source and its author. You refused to accept my research on their reliability without a solid explanation, and provide no concrete criteria to determine what *you* consider reliable, while exempting the review from CBR of the same scrutiny. Your words imply the author is just some random person; his critique is not a mere "user review" as you incorrectly stated. The author is a recognized critic approved by Rotten Tomatoes, not just a "user", and he works for multiple publications in the industry.

You even acknowledge that CBR is not listed as a reliable resource, that it is unlikely to be considered a reliable source in the future... and yet that review's text remains on this page. I honestly don't see how you can justify reverting the addition of Panos' review while allowing the review from CBR to stand. Arguably, Panos' review is more reliable; the page you linked above states "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present", and while there is no mention that Asian Movie Pulse and/or Panos Kotzathanasis are an unreliable source for critical reviews of anime, by your own admission the reliability of CBR is explicitly in question. It looks like a double standard. 173.71.171.58 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for misleading you. I admit I haven't taken a serious look at the CBR article because it was added before I started editing this website. I did some research into its author and I couldn't really find anything else about them on the internet, so I will remove it too. Also, I did check the website before reverting it, just not a thorough overview. If you can, please provide specific links outside of Rotten Tomatoes of this website or author being quoted in or writing for other sources currently considered reliable (you can see WP:RS for a more in-depth reliable source criteria, I thought you already knew about this with that comment, sorry I was wrong). I did not mean for this to seem like a double standard, sorry for that. As for the consensus of viewers, from the websites you mentioned, the opinions are primarily by users, which are generally unverifiable, and as such not reliable. The amount of these reviews is not important. Link20XX (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I did my own digging. The author of the CBR review has a LinkedIn page indicating he is a "Sales Administrator". Not quite "writing for the NYT for a year", eh? It's harder to find details on Panos Kotzathanasis. Using Asian Movie Pulse as the connection, it seems his LinkedIn page is connected to the full name Panagiotis Kotzathanasis, so I can see why he might prefer to go by Panos (and to wit, I actually know someone who is nicknamed Panos for this very reason). He came from Greece, which is why it is unlikely that you will recognize the publications that he has worked for, nor are they likely to be on the list you are referencing because "publications that review film in Greece" are likely to be niche.

Regardless, the site continues to get many interviews with directors and actors within the realm of Asian movies, they have sponsorships with several film distributors including Third Window Films and Arrow Films, among others but I chose those two because they have their own wikipedia page in the hopes that I wouldn't have to also argue about whether those sponsorships are meaningful. Panos was also a member of the jury for multiple film festivals. Rotten Tomatoes approved him not as a mere "user" but an actual critic. All of this is not exactly what I would call "someone who has been maintaining a blog for 5 years".

Your skepticism was derisive and biased against one source and for the other source. This, despite previous awareness that CBR is questionable, and not even so much as an attempt to ascertain the reliability of my source before casting aspersions upon it. Ironically, the situation was the opposite, and we only learned about it because I decided to waste an afternoon pushing the issue over what was obviously unfair and inflammatory content that has lingered on this page for a year and a half in spite of multiple edit wars specifically calling out this portion. WP:ROTTEN shows that the average score and number of votes from a reliable aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes is acceptable to use in an article, and I only brought it up to further call the CBR critic into question for making bold proclamations inconsistent with aggregate user reviews. While I appreciate you finally acknowledging the irrelevance of the inflammatory content, I shudder to think of how many visitors left this page with an unwarranted bad taste in their mouth after reading the words "incel fantasy" - which is honestly ironic, since Naofumi ends up protecting Filo from the creepy Motoyasu, and doesn't express any kind of sexual interest in any of his party members (much to Raphtalia's dismay).

I've already wasted too much of my time on this to bother going to the Anime sources Talk page and trying to prove that AMP is a reliable source for such reviews. If you're genuinely sorry for misleading me, since you are more engaged with the wikipedia community than I am I would consider you forgiven if you might put forth some amount of effort to take the fruits of this research and somehow argue for the reliability of AMP where it is appropriate as at least a possible source of acceptable critic reviews. 173.71.171.58 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I started a conversation to its reliability on the talk page, which is what we do when considering a source before adding it. Anyway, I have an article to create. By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I've wasted a lot more than an afternoon on this website. Link20XX (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

the controversy part

Seems like a straw man to me, when I found those who disliked the criticism they called the controversy indeed a double standard, but the article just says nonsense you cannot really understand, write it something along the lines of fans of the show attacked the critics on grounds of double standards and what they viewed to be a mistaken social standard that women cannot be villains who lie about r*pe for their own gains, the article also implicitly sides with those who criticised the show for the two topics, quotation marks as well as the less formal language, when the article does not use quotation marks for the reviewers. Let us be frank here, whilst wikipedia should be neutral, if it has to side with someone, at least side with the quite clearly reasonable ones, these aren't far right extremists, these are probably just a bunch of libertarians, all over the political spectrum, who aren't the dunces that reject vaccines and believe Qanon, the judgement that Naofumi was guilty of rape, without trial, or evidence for that matter is quite a horrible thing, and frankly there should not be an issue with that, the slavery point is much less arguable, but the show does not seems to argue for or against slavery, it just has it as a feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.242.223.233 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

AnimeMotivation article

What it takes to convince you to keep the AnimeMotivation article on Western reception in said section and to convince it deserves to stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.78.100 (talk • contribs)

Can you show that their website has been mentioned or cited by other reliable sources or that their contributors have written for other, reliable sources or are an industry-expert in some way? Link20XX (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)