I'd like to make a glossary of Japanese terms, such as hentai, used by Western anime fans. Wikipedia uses far too many of these loan words, and I feel it obscures understanding for those who are not immersed in field. Too much jargon is the enemy of understanding. --Ed Poor Talk 08:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, leave me a message on my talk when you get started on that glossary; I can probably help out a bit. Stryker 09:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
- I doubt it's that confusing; Wikipedia has articles on the majority of the loanwords it uses...
- Besides, can't have an entry on hentai here. Hentai isn't family friendly, last time I checked. Kazumaru 22:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Might be misleading.
"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, with a heavy emphasis on violence and romance which blends seamlessly into softcore porn (and beyond)."
This, in my opinion, gives the impression that if you look towards anime, you'll always find violence, romance, and porn. Although cetain anime types are just this, anime is much more broad than violence, romance,and porn!
This is like saying:
"Motion pictures have a heavy emphasis on violence and porn (and beyond)." --Funnny 21:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
- Not exactly: they do have a lot of violence and sex, though. Anime tends to have much more of this than Western animation, though.
- If you have access to studies which shed light on this, please reveal these!
- If you know anything about Japanese animation, please tell us how much of it is violent (or not), and how much is romantic, soft porn, or ecchi (i.e., porn). For example, how would you classify Sailor Moon? Have you seen even one episode without a romance or soft-porn aspect?
- The most popular anime in the US for children is all about training "pocket-sized monsters" (Pokemon) to fight each other. It looks pretty violent to me. What do you think? --Ed Poor Talk 10:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I've changed it to:
"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, much with an emphasis on violence, romance, pornography, and beyond."
I thought it unfair to say "Anime is". I'm very aware that a large portion is devoted to just what the article says though. Hence, I've changed it to "Much is." --Funnny 20:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
There is a serious need for updating.
>_> Why are there, like, 3 sentances about anime? Why DOES it need to be /i/ all the time?
And instead of being terribly vauge about anime, get specific. Don't tell people what they should think about it, give them the facts! >_<
If people still want the anime and manga pages updated and expanded, I don't mind pitching in, self-proclaimed otaku that I am. Welshman 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to add details about popular Japanese folklore, next... I am tired of people saying Goku is inspired by shaman masks. ProserpinaFC
Nicer page than I expected
I actually expected Anime to be torn appart and burned, but this is the most neutral page I have seen. I'm going to do some reserach and find some Conservative leaning Anime and Manga for suggestions for people to check out. So long and everyone understand the line between fantasy and reality with these. They are just stories, don't cha know. Infact, I just thought of one. Code Geass. It is basically the American Revolution placed in Japan. Aside from violence (It is a war.) And apparently the anti-hero using his mind control power on a sentient being described as 'God', the Anime is very good and worth a look at. MHarris
I reverted the most recent edit because the tone was incurably un-encyclopedic. The content seemed fairly reasonable, but it was all worded like a talk page entry rather than an article. Jcw 14:58, 2 June 2011 (EDT)
- Ya, apparently I'm still new to this. I keep reading up on what other articals are doing and what the help pages said but I guess I can't organize my words like an Encyclopedia... Oh well.
- I'm not in a position of authority here, but I'd say the content I reverted would be suited to an essay - encyclopedia articles need to be balanced and factual, but an essay can express a point of view in a more discursive style. Jcw 15:27, 2 June 2011 (EDT)