Talk:Shigurui

message: I deleted the parenthetical very, as in "(very) loosely based on." The word is clearly being used as a weasel word in this context and the parenthetical is unnecessary here, being used simply to augment the "weaseliness" of the word. I also deleted de-facto from the phrase "would eventually be put to death by forced de-facto seppuku." This is a misuse of the phrase de facto. It is understood that the seppuku is implemented de facto (no hyphen in de facto, by the way).
Weasel words abound in this article. For example, the sentence, "The series is noted for its brutal, unflinching look at violence and depravity of its time period..." contains the weasel phrase "is noted for." Noted by whom? Sure, the series presents unflinching violence, but you must attribute a statement like that to a reliable source. And, who says that's accurate to the time period. I, personally, think it is more accurate than most shows of this genre, but I wouldn't say that unless I could cite a credible expert or source. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia prohibits original research. If you would like to express opinions on other people's work of art, please refer to this section on Wiki neutrality policy that explains one of the only situations in which editors are permitted to express subjective views on Wikipedia. Thanks. Cheers, ask123 01:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, if the information before the "Story summary" section is from the manga itself and not from history, then it should be placed outside of the lead section. There are guidelines for writing lead sections in WP:Lead section. Second, if it's not historical information, then that should be made clear. You can't count on readers to just know that. Third, if it's from the manga itself, then it still needs to be properly sourced and should not be taken word for word, as that would be plagiarism. (Is it here?) There are guidelines for writing about fictional works at WP:Writing about fiction and guidelines for writing about manga and anime at WP:Writing about manga and anime. Fourth, just because the manga says it's story is accurate to the historical time period does not mean it is so. If you source that statement, you can write it, but you cannot claim it without sourcing. Fifth, if so many reviews cite the story's violence, then include a citation with that claim. If that opinion is so widespread, then it shouldn't be hard. Also, please note that, yes, the story does depict violence, but is the level of violence accurate to the violence of the historical time period? That's another matter. It is my personal opinion that the show depicts hyperbolized violence -- violence that is more accurate than most historical fiction but still hyperbolized nonetheless. Cheers, ask123 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words and Original Research 

message: I replaced "shonen" for "seinen" in the "demographic" category of the info-box. This series is definitely seinen and I think this does not need citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.165.241 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This manga ran in Champion Red, which is a shōnen magazine. Unless you have some other reliable source stating otherwise, the verifiable demographic is shōnen. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being sold as seinen. There is no way the demographic for this is shonen with as much nudity sex and violence this manga has. Here is a reference. Somebody please update accordingly. But personally I don't really care what wikipoopia does either way. http://benippon.com/en/shigurui-10 -- 69.207.4.244 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in that link that verifies that it is seinen. So we go with the demographic of the magazine it was serialized in. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So if seinen aka ADULT ANIME (a demographic) is not defined by blood and boobs, then please educate me what you define seinen as. This should be good. Please take your time, I'm all ears.. --69.207.4.244 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seinen, Shōnen, Shōjo, and Josei are simply the audiences which a manga is targeted for. The most reliable way to determine this is by what manga magazine the series ran in. However, the demographics are not determined by the content of the manga. Using the content to determine the targeted demographic is pure original research. —Farix (t | c) 10:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay, my fault. But although the official label is shōnen indeed, this series is definitely not appropriate for "boys" but only for a mature audience (by common standards). So how about calling it "shōnen (adult)"? I am just a little bit concerned about people expecting a nice manga for boys and getting this instead... But that is subjective, of course.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.57.254 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shōnen vs Seinen 

message: * Anime News Network:
** Box set review
** re-release review
* T.H.E.M. review
* The Fandom Post/Chris Beveridge
* DVD Talk
* Mania:
** Mark Thomas
** Dani Moure
Copied from the main article per WP:EL. —Farix (t | c) 12:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: That’s the only way seinen would be added to the demographic. Couldn’t find it in any English sources and Japanese Wikipedia didn’t mention it. If anyone wants to do further google searching in likely Japanese to confirm this, then go ahead, or else I think it may warrant a removal soon. Barely made one (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Champion Red Ichigo? 

message: — Assignment last updated by BartonRei (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu