Talk:Doujinshi convention

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doujinshi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sokubaikai are not conventions / Article should be moved

From the fan convention article: "an event in which fans of a particular topic gather to participate and hold programs and other events, and to meet experts, famous personalities, and each other". Sokubaikai are completely different things. To pull up a definition: "商品や作品を展示し、その場で販売まで行う催しのこと" - "An event where people display products or works and sell them". There are no "programs" or other events "meeting famous personalities" at these. Referring to events like Comic Market as "anime conventions" is mostly a result of people who know nothing about doujin culture trying to force a foreign concept into something they already know about. I would like to propose that this article be moved to doujin sokubaikai (not doujinshi) which would also allow it to cover the wider topic of sokubaikai for all doujin, not just doujinshi - Limiting it to doujinshi would exclude events for other doujin media such as doujin soft.　2404:2D00:5000:841:8CB2:62BA:1B51:E83C (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 07:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Doujinshi convention → Doujin sokubaikai – As detailed above) 180.131.214.215 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, "sokubaikai" is a word essentially unknown to English readers, even hardcore otaku, so not a recognizable name. Second, I disagree that "convention" is a bad translation of the word. Plenty of events called "conventions" largely consist of people showing off stuff to sell. Search for "art convention", you'll find a lot of art fairs with people hawking their stuff in Anglophone countries. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As SnowFire stated above, English readers probably won't know what this is. If you're going to rename it, maybe "Doujinshi event" might be better? lullabying (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. Not a name most people will understand. Link20XX (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also, the term is accurate as it is in the sense of convention (meeting), which is what the proposer described in the above section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire. --Thibaut (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose while some Japanese terms like anime and manga have been adopted by the English language that is not the case for sokubaikai.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the revert by Thibaut120094

"Fan convention" is factually wrong. Maybe not "convention" depending on how one takes the definition to be, but "fan convention", which the article defines as "an event in which fans of a particular topic gather to participate and hold programs and other events, and to meet experts, famous personalities, and each other" is clearly wrong. "Display and sale event" is a factually wrong translation. There is no "display" in the word at all. A literal translation would be "direct sale event" (as in the people who create items sell them directly to purchasers). I previously stated why the statement about "event" is factually wrong in the page history. 2404:2D00:5000:701:C501:6495:5BC:9072 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"How it works" section

The first two paragraphs seem largely accurate if outdated in some points, but the complete lack of citations makes it questionable if this should be here. I'm not sure if the tone is appropriate either. And some of the stuff in the third paragraph seem highly questionable even though they DO have sources, namely: "Erotic game producers also allow artists to sell sketches as doujinshi" - Sketches are not doujinshi in any way. This sounds like the culture of having artists draw in a person's sketch book, but this is something done by artists in a personal capacity and I can't see how "erotic game producers" are involved here at all; referring to companies participating in Comic Market's corporate area as "mostly media companies"; and the statement about "doujin printers". I would like to propose removing the section entirely. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there are no citations, I don't mind removing the first two paragraphs but I’m more reserved about removing the third paragraph that has sources.

This page is not watched by a lot of people so I asked for more opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and Manga. Thibaut (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the worst part, being patent nonsense. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The nonsense in the third paragraph comes from a single paper on ResearchGate. I checked and Wikipedia's stance on ResearchGate is: "Generally Unreliable: ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)". "Has sources" is not a valid argument here, and thus I will be removing the section entirely. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

That article is published in Mechademia, a peer-reviewed journal (the article in question is here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41510966). What you quoted says—"verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)"—which is exactly what was done. If you have concerns about the factual accuracy of the article, one thing you can do is double-check the source to make sure that the article correctly represents the source or if there was a misrepresentation. Another thing you can do is find a different source that is more accurate. Sandtalon (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The paper does not seem to be readily available: I checked both ResearchGate and Project MUSE and could not access the paper. As for finding a more accurate source, "erotic game producers" claim being sourced to this paper is so outlandish that it isn't even something that anyone would even address. It's patent nonsense. You referenced an Aoki Ume rakugakibon in the edit history in reference, but rakugakibon are not sketches in the vernacular of doujin events: Sketching refers to the tradition of artists doing sketches for fans in sketchbooks (owned by the fans, who bring them to the events). Rakugakibon are doujinshi that are filled with sketches instead of manga, rakugaki in this case only refers to the content, they are still doujinshi. Whichever the case, however, there is no situation in which an artist would need the permission of "erotic game producers" a loaded and practically nonsensical term. Needing anyone's permission would go completely against the entire point of doujinshi. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the statements sourced to that paper: I updated the statement on professionals participating to a more recent one (2004>2011) with a better source. The "erotic game producers" claim line is patent nonsense as stated above, and I have removed it. The statement about corporate involvement is badly written (the use of "allow" being especially nonsensical), and already covered earlier in the article (Art supply companies~): It would be better to expand on that previous statement then to leave this in. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You may not have access to the paper on those platforms because you don't have institutional access. I assure you that when going through a university library or something similar, you can access the paper there. But not having access on JSTOR etc. is precisely why the author uploaded it to ResearchGate, so they could share their paper with the public. In any cases, you can remove or modify the statement about sketches, but the source is still a reliable source, and even if the author didn't use the precise terminology of doujin culture or had awkward wording (remember that they were likely writing in part to an outside audience who might not understand that "permission would go completely against the entire point of doujinshi") , it can still be included as a source. Sandtalon (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The vernacular regarding sketches is extremely misleading and also inappropriate, because professional artists do not release only rakugakibon at doujin events, they do whatever they want. And the statement regarding permission is complete nonsense because there is no reason at all that anyone at a doujin event would need permission to do anything, that's the entire point. Copyright holders are covered in a better written and sourced statement elsewhere on the article. I find it extremely inappropriate to force this source and its statements, which even if one were to assume the absolute best of is still extremely badly written and misleading, into the article. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk)

@IP editor: I have access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia library. The relevant quote is Similarly, it is common for erotic game producers to allow their underpaid artists to sell their drafts and sketches as dojinshi , giving the artists a second wage and the company free promotion.. It has a cited source as "Iwata, Dojinshi baka, 61-2". I have no idea what that means but seems to be Iwata Tsuguo, Dojnshi baka ichidai: laemonga nokoshita mono (Lifelong a dojinshi idiot: What Iaemon left) (Tokyo: Kubo Shoten, 2005). Ping me here if you need further detail. I could even email you that whole article — to make contact, email me via my User Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the source is exactly the same as the one freely available on ResearchGate...I don't think that's the issue at this point. Sandtalon (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sandtalon: I was just responding to The paper does not seem to be readily available: I checked both ResearchGate and Project MUSE and could not access the paper. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Turnbull: Thank you for the quote. I would retract what I said about the source being unreliable: It seems that whoever was quoting it did not understand what was being said and warped it into something nonsensical, but the source itself is accurate. I have no objection to it being included in further reading in this case. However, I want to note that the previous text supposedly attributed to this source still is a load of outlandish patent nonsense that was never appropriate at any point.

I will not be editing this article in the near future as I feel harassed by Thibaut, who previously made wild claims (that they were made to retract) of me being a sockpuppet and has seemingly followed me to other articles before. (WP:HOUND)

As someone who has a lot of experience and first-hand knowledge with the topic (which I think should count for more than random Kotaku articles and papers written by western academics who might have never been to Japan and may not understand the language), I find it deplorable that an article on a Japanese topic like this is allowed to present false information for years on end, and that the moment a native Japanese with intrinsic knowledge on the topic tries to fix it, which requires some drastic measures due to how bad the article was (WP:BOLD), someone turns up and seemingly tries to disrupt the effort at every step. I would also note how they seem to have completely lost interest in the article, making no effort at all to improve it themself, almost as soon as I stopped editing it, further making me feel like they were only here to hinder my work on it. 2404:2D00:5000:701:48A0:25B4:BE46:8139 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Doujinshi feature prominently in countless Japanese works due to their significance in culture here. There would be no end to listing works that feature them, let alone tangentially ("has several scenes"). This seems to be one of those list sections added by a user who just wanted to insert the name of something they like into random articles, and feels highly inappropriate. There are plenty of works actually about doujinshi conventions such as Komike Douwa Zenshu (ASIN : B0779P9SRR) that would belong on such a list far more, but I think the section itself is inappropriate and should be removed. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding primary sources.

First of all: The primary source would be the authors themselves. Those are not primary sources. Second: I quote - "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot". Even if Toranoana was a primary source, it lists the author (professional creator) and source material. These are straightforward statements of facts. 2404:2D00:5000:701:B9D2:5B05:FC57:BA04 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a primary source, as it is a document that is neither interpretive (secondary) nor summary (tertiary). A primary source could be the authors themselves, but it can also be a webpage like that. (See Primary source for a more detailed elaboration on the concept.) Using those sources just to state the author and source material, as you put it, would be fine. For example, from https://ec.toranoana.jp/tora_r/ec/item/040030953557/, it would be okay to say, "Fate/GOMEMO6 is a Fate/Grand Order doujinshi by Wada Aruko." However, the claim you use those primary sources to support is not a simple, easily evaluated claim like that. You say that "Due to the nature of how copyright is treated at doujin events, professional creators do not require permission to create doujin works based on things they did not work on, or things that they worked on or are affiliated with." Neither of the sources state this claim directly; it is an interpretive claim based on those two sources. Interpretation of primary sources like that is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. (Even if you gave the more specific claim that a creator worked on this media property and also worked on this doujinshi, those sources do not work for verifying that claim because to verify it requires special knowledge that the person worked on that media property, knowledge that is not found in that source itself.) Sandtalon (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

...You know what, thinking more about it, I can see an argument about it being a secondary source (the distinction can be ambiguous), but whether primary or secondary, the main thing is that you cannot make claims that are not explicitly found in the source itself. As I wrote, the claims you use those sources to support go far beyond the information that is directly found in the sources themselves, and this kind of original research is not allowed. Sandtalon (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly interpretation from primary sources. Thibaut (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

To add some more context: since 2021, this IP editor with "15 years of doujin experience" is known to try to push their personal views in Japan-related articles (see their complete list of edits, [1]and Talk:Comiket#Name) by replacing or removing entire paragraphs although they're based on reliable sources, dismissing them as "articles written by ignorant people in the West [and] white people's playgrounds", and replacing by what this user thinks is the WP:TRUTH and original research.

While we appreciate to have a native speaker on this wiki who knows the doujin culture very well, articles have to rely exclusively on WP:RS (not personal experience/knowledge), so please provide them.

@Sandtalon, Michael D. Turnbull, and Cullen328: Hello, what do you think about these changes? I see that one entire paragraph sourced by the paper mentioned earlier was removed. Thibaut (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

My concern was the removal of this article in an academic journal from the "Further reading" section, with an edit summary saying that the article is unreliable. Where is the consensus for that? Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, before these changes, that article probably shouldn't have been in the "Further reading" section anyways, since it was already in the references (MOS:FURTHER). But if it isn't going to be cited in the body, then yes, there's no reason for it not to be in the Further Reading, since it is published in a peer-reviewed journal (moreover, the predominant English-language journal for Anime and Manga Studies). Even if there may be one or two factual errors or incorrect uses of specific terminology, it may be reliable or useful as a whole. Sandtalon (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor did more than just removing the article from the "Further reading" section. Thibaut (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, hence why I wrote, "if it isn't going to be cited in that body"—I was referring to the removal of the source from the main text of the article. Sandtalon (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

About this edit, I don’t have access to the paper, is the paper really saying what the IP editor wrote using Toranoana as a citation? Not that I doubt it but the citation shouldn’t be here if it’s not in the article. Thibaut (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just found out I can access for free with an account, here’s the extract:

“Companies accepted the existence of unlicensed parody dojinshi using, copyrighted material (albeit in a transformative and thus arguably fair-use manner) since they could now sell exclusive goods at Comike or use it as a marketing place, attracting to the convention people who were not interested in dōjinshi.”

It could use a bit of rewriting to closely match the article, but looks okay. Thibaut (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)