Talk:Manga/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Archives

I've moved the old conversations to the archives. More will be archived as needed. --nihon 03:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Archive 1, Archive 2

About OEL Manga

Yes, it is an alternative manga format. I'm very well aware of objections from the fan community. Nevertheless, they follow the very same type of manga formmating as described in the Manga Format section of this article. KyuuA4 07:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

external links?-- tutorials pages

what would define a tutorial page link? i submitted one not but an hour ago, and someone erased it. the site was gaining a large amount of popularity, and is now a hub of sorts for the japanese artist, with user submitted tutorials. at least, its better than how to draw manga site. much more origional in my sense, but then again, that is my sense, my opinion. at least, who and why are they changing it? i really dont want to get into some war with someone over a link. heres teh page http://www.mangarevolution.com Pandy 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwishiwashere (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

There have been huge link spamming problems on this page, so if you post a link without first bringing it up here, it is likely to be removed without getting a glance. That said, I think three tutorial links is a nice number and the site you linked to doesn't splatter my screen with ads, so I guess we can leave it in. Shinobu 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fans of Manga?

That section really should be removed it sounds like an unsupported opinion by someone who sits on a blog all day writing about how much they dont like people who like manga with out much reason about it. 220.253.99.140 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "The manga style" section

Actually, it is best to keep it. While it explicitly says that manga style is non-definite, like any other art medium, it expresses the viewpoint of many voices - that manga is not limited to Japan. The quote from Tokyopop CEO sums it up. KyuuA4 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, but that quote comes from a fool. Manga is not a "lifestyle". Manga is "Japanese comics" - as in, you know, comics from Japan. If it's not from Japan, but uses moe style, it's simply moe-style comics, not Manga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.130.41 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

"Ugh, but that quote comes from a fool. Manga is not a "lifestyle". " Tell that to a mangaka. KyuuA4 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this section for multiple reasons:

• First of all, this is no set "manga style". Most of this section is only talking about the moe style of manga, which is what we English speakers are most used to seeing.
• The section is too listy. See WP:LAUNDRY.
• Completely unreferenced and violates WP:OR.
• Not notable enough for the subject at hand. Clutters up the article and draws focus away from what's important.

I have replaced the section with the "Manga as a style" as a style section. The old section can be viewed here. It may contain information that can be reworked into the article, but should not simply be readded.--SeizureDog 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the elided section is large enough and interesting enough to deserve its own article: Manga iconography. To a westerner, the Manga iconography of sweat drops, anger lines, strength lines, etc. would be unfamiliar. I've seen that iconography over a very wide range of manga types, not just moé. I will note that I found it very strange that such a section was not in the article. As for reference, I know Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics had a short section about it, and I'm sure there are more comprehensive guides on the web, such as the manga wiki and here. --IanOsgood 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem still remains about sourcing. As it is, the article seems to mix manga specific symbolism with symbolism that could be used in any medium. For instance: "Sakura(Cherry) blossoms indicate a sweet or beautiful moment." That's something that's in every art form the Japanese have. "Characters push their index fingers together when admitting a secret or telling the truth to another." That's like saying "blushing is a symbol for embarassment", it's just something people do in real life. It's not really part of manga icongraphy. Also, the page needs to reworked to be 'Iconography in anime and manga', since I think they use the exact same symbols.--SeizureDog 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The only problem here is that a "western" point of view isn't exactly neutral, and is unnecessarily western-centric. We don't talk about how American comic styles, in the article or in a separate article. That just gives me an impression that people think that the U.S. comic book is the "norm" and everything else is different. ColourBurst 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very Western-Centric indeed. It's to the point where manga is viewed as Japanese exclusive. The aspect of any entertainment medium or art is -- that is spreads. The manga style is not contained within Japan. As more and more members of other consumer markets become inspired by manga, more will ultimatlely develop their own. Therefore, the most neutral stance is to view manga as an art form with a specific style and set of rules. Defining those rules and describing a style is by far very difficult. But it is still do-able. KyuuA4 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bambi?

I read somewhere (can't remember, long time ago) that modern manga owed the big round eyes to Disney's Bambi. Has anyone heard this thing or was I just dreaming? Vicco Lizcano 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Might want to read the Osamu Tezuka article (though it's heavily under-referenced itself). Disney does seem to have had a pretty big influence on the moe style though.--SeizureDog 16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronouncation

Is it pronounced "mAHnga" {like mom-gaa}} or "mAInga" {like main-gaa or mango}? --DTD

I pronounce it Man (rhymes with hang) ga (with a short 'a'). But I'm Australian-Chinese and have a strange accent. A Japanese person would pronounce it man (like in 'da') ga, with the syllables having assonance. In hiragana that's まんが or ma-n-ga. Hope that helps. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DTD, I'm a native speaker of Japanese. As Yuanchosaan said, every Japanese pronounce the word as "Man (rhymes with hang) ga (with a short 'a')". There are no Japanese who use other pronunciations for the word as far as I know. --Kasuga 12:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rhymes with 'hang'"? I don't know if there's multiple pronouciations of 'hang' or what, but that's completely off. That's like saying it's like mango with an 'a'. (Interesting thing I just found out though: the English word 'mango' comes from the Portuguese word 'manga'. Completely unrelated though.) I find a tad strange that the question is even raised though, considering that we have an audio clip right at the top of the article. M-W.com also has an audio clip for the word. --SeizureDog 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pronouced "monga" it's NOT pronouced like it's spelled but most people perfer to do that.Mooncrest 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it pronounced any other way. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 03:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Manga is huge

In Japan, comic books, manga, make up 60% sixty percent of all books and magazines sold. The reference is an essay in the Art/sociology book edited by Takashi Murakami titled "Little Boy: The Art's of Japan's Exploding Subculture". I do not own this book and just returned it from an inter-library loan, so if anyone else cares to look up the exact reference, there is where you can find it. As a side note, he argues that popular art(the otaku art found in anime, manga, video games, etc...) and "high" (my quotes) art in Japan have merged into one and is a wholly original indigenous art "movement" and calls this Superflat. And while much covers popular art it is not a Japanese version of pop art. (I hope I got that explanation right) VeriGGlater 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I've also read some of that very book, also from a library loan. It would be good to directly reference though.--SeizureDog 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

40% forty percent of all books and magazines purchased or published in Japan. I made a mistake. Upon rereading parts of the above said book, Murakami states that manga make up 40% not 60% as I put down. Sorry for my mistake. VeriGGlater 10:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Osamu Tezuka section

I really just couldn't stand for it to stay any longer and removed it. Granted, he is important and should be mentioned, but in no way does he deserve an entire section in the main article on manga. It just seems really bias to me. The removed text can be found at User:SeizureDog/removedOsamuTezuka Some of it should probably be worked back into this or other articles.--SeizureDog 10:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The root of Manga is Tezuka Osamu though being insisted by a lot of Manga critics.You must not blot out Tezuka. You should correct the article. (For instance, when it explains the movie, will the name of D. W. Griffith be necessary?) Thank you.--Azukimonaka 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Manga wikis

I found two version of manga-specific wikis, one from wikia and the one listed in the external links section of this article. Maybe it's better if they both merge as one so that collaborators can pool their time and resources together in order to create a good wikisite. I mean it's very confusing with so many manga info websites. Can anyone help?--Janarius 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Manga Publishing

are mangas published in paperback size or regular size? the mangas printed in north america are paperback size, are the mangas printed in japan paperback size, or regular book size?

Sir aaron sama girl 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When the chapters are serialized in magazine, the page size is about the same as a standard magazine or comic book page. (See the US version of Shonen Jump for a good example.) Later, when the individual chapters are printed together as a tankōbon, they approximately are the same size as their US counterparts. --Farix (Talk) 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese and American manga are the in paperback but some koren mangas tend to be bigger then hardbook covers but they are still in paperback.Mooncrest 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive external links

I've replaced the rather long list of non-notable external links with a link to the appropriate Open Directory Project category per WP:EL, WP:NOT a web directory, and consensus of the Wikiproject Spam. This is to prevent "playing favorites" with links, WP:COI link insertions, and spam. Thanks. Leuko 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs cleaned up?

Last night Repku added the {{cleanup}} tag to the page but didn't explain what was wrong with the article. There's nothing I could see that is obviously wrong with the article, such I've removed the tag pending an explanation. --Farix (Talk) 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

link

this word Suiri thats for crime and mystery goes links to a article on a fish

• Everyeye.it Italian Network: news, reviews and more on anime & manga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.35.72 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominic Deegan

Is 'Dominic Deegan' a manga? Also, a friend of mine claimed Crayon Shin-chan is not a manga. Is he right? 瀬人様 18:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dominic Deegan is about as Manga as the current X-Men comic is., Shin-Chan however was originally published in Japan, (and possibly still is) so I'd have to say it would classify as Manga.

Publication

I was told the average manga comes out at 11 pages once every week, unlike american comics (which are standard at 22 pages every month), can I get a verification on this?

The latest issue of 週刊少年チャンピオン (Weekly Shōnen Champion, No. 38 in 2007) shows that almost all the manga there came around at 20 pages. I think this is standard as to the pages of manga in the Japanese weekly comic magazines. Shaxshan 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is something that should be mentioned in the article and would fall into the realm of OR if it was. --Farix (Talk) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kern references and verifiability

(a) I'm not sure why Adam Kern's book on kibyoshi is being used as a reference to Hokusai's manga. Kern hardly deals with Hokusai, but focuses on earlier "comicbook" style kibyoshi. This article still needs material on Houksai's manga, which are not manga in the modern (that is, post-Tezuka) sense.

(b) Kern edited a long symposium on kibyoshi and therefore the antecedants to manga. The reference is Kern, Adam. (editor) (2007). Kibyoshi: The World’s First Comicbook?” Symposium. International Journal of Comic Art, Volume 9, Number 1, Spring 2007, pages 1-486.

Timothy Perper 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability: How to Contact People Involved in this Article

{{helpme}}

Is there any way to contact the people who wrote, contributed to, or edited this article? It has some serious errors in fact, not merely of verifiability, but of fact and interpretation. It's a good first stab at the subject (see my user page for my credentials for saying that), but it needs more than minor corrections. It needs a major rewrite.

Here's one example.

"... they imported foreign artists to teach their students things such as line, form and color, which were never concentrated on in ukiyo-e..."

First, the word "they" seems to refer to Japan, which is singular, so we have a grammatical error to start off. Next, it isn't clear who these Japanese were who "imported" artists, and who "their" students were. Students of the *foreign* artists? Students in Japan? So we have confusion.

Second, if there are any features characteristic of Japanese art since the time of the toba-e prints (which aren't mentioned), they are "line, form, and color." Japanese woodblock prints include some of the world's great masterpieces of "line, form, and color." Have you ever seen a so-called "brocade" print, or studied the linework of Utamaro? Do you even know what and who these are? This statement about line, form, and color in Japanese art is not merely wrong; it's worse than wrong. It records the uneducated opinion of someone who has no business writing about Japanese art -- a someone who did NOT do their homework.

Here is one of many, probably hundreds, of books on the subject.

Smith, Bradley 1964 Japan: A History in Art. Garden City: Doubleday.

What can we do about this? Probably very little, because I don't have the time to rewrite the article, and unless the people (Wikipedians, I mean) who are involved in these areas of manga, anime, and Japanese art have the scholarly pride and intellectual commitment to rewriting the article, it's going to stay here, another Wikipedia monument to what seems like invincible ignorance.

I do not want that to happen. The article can be rewritten, but it needs work and a *serious* recognition that Wikipedia is not the place to record one's uneducated opinions, but can be a place to put some good work.

Is there anyone out there who cares about this, or can help?

Timothy Perper 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article page history reveals who has edited this article. Alternatively you can be bold and go ahead and edit it yourself, after all Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Otherwise, I'm sure someone will come along and improve this article as you has indicated. KTC 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KTC. I am cautiously optimistic about it... Editing this article is NOT a small job, at least not if we try to bring it to the level of professional scholarly (academic) writing about manga and anime. By that, I mean the work of people like Susan Napier, Antonia Levi, Anne Allison, Patrick Drazen, Brian Ruh, or the authors who contribute to Mechademia, which is a scholarly journal about manga, anime, and the fan arts.

Now, to be sure, someone might object that Wikipedia is not a scholarly encyclopedia, but a kind of general, open-to-everybody kind of place where all sorts of writing and opinions get a space, a kind of "polyblog" with some posting guidelines. That's a nice idea, but we still have to make sure that whatever is posted is factually accurate or represents a reasonable approximation to what scholars and experts have concluded.

So it's not a matter of "boldness." It's a matter of accuracy and precision in assembling the literature and synthesizing it into readable, opinion-free (as in NPOV) essay. Yes, I could do that, and I know other people who also could -- like the people I mentioned above. That's a lot of work, and I have other jobs to do. Am I passing the buck? In a sense, yes.

You see, as much as I admire Wiki's "anybody can edit anything" policy, it's also obvious that it causes a great deal of very bad feeling. That's not a matter of being Wiki-uncivil; it's a matter of triggering off people's angry defenses of what they've written. So, no I am NOT going to replace the sentence I quoted.

I do NOT know what the author intended and wanted to convey. There's a kernel of an idea in that sentence, but the author, not me, has to be the one who gets it out and puts it in plain, clear English. I can't do that for him.

But, by the same token, Wikipedia articles need a kind of external editorial vision or eye. I don't mean an Evil Editor who rejects your writing; I mean an editor, critic, or commentator who can say, "C'mon, guys, this is serious nonsense, seriously untutored nonsense." When I read over the archives to the manga article, I was struck by how often people raised questions that needed that kind of avuncular warning.

Now, it may be that Wikipedia has no place for such experts. If so, then it will become very popular among kids who can quote it in high school and college term papers, and think they're doing research, when they're actually just quoting misinformation and opinion snuck past the NPOV and NOR guidelines. And outside of Wikipedia, it will be treated as one more "You Can't Quote Wikipedia in Your Term Paper" warning to the undergraduates. And, yes, I know several academic colleagues who say exactly that to their students: "Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. You can't use it in your term paper." (And, no, I am not a student, not for a long time.)

Yes, I have some ideas about how the Manga article could be improved. But I will not and cannot work alone at it. It's necessary to understand what the intentions and purposes are of other writers. I just read an essay on Twooars' talk page about consensus. He points out that genuine consensus is never possible, but general agreement among a majority of people IS possible, I agree with him.

Now, I'd like to talk about the Manga article with some of the people who put it together, and see if we (a group of people) can achieve the kind of general agreement that Twooars is discussing.

Timothy Perper 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you do any serious editing. I advice you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Also, you should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position section of the latter one. These three policies make up the core standards for Wikipedia. Based on what you have just said, I fear that you may end up running afoul of two of them in the "quest for accuracy". You should also read Wikipedia:Five pillars to better understand Wikipeidia. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you read what I said before quoting Wikipedia guidelines. I said I was NOT going to make changes in this article. In fact, I said it several times. And I repeat it *again*. I am not going to rewrite the article.

You say I will run afoul of a "quest for accuracy." I doubt it, because that quote didn't come from anything I said. You made it up and put quotes around it. Who are you quoting? And why?

What, exactly, *are* you trying to say? BTW, I suggest you read my User page.

Timothy Perper 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll change my mind... I still find it puzzling that Farix seems to be defending the Manga page against someone (me) who thinks it should be accurate, or at least as accurate as we can make it. So I think what I'll do is copy the introduction (just the introduction!), put it in my User page sandbox and try to edit it, adding references and clearing up problems. I'll also work offline on it. That'll take a week maybe? Then I'll put the revised section here, into the Discussion page and let people comment and make suggestions and changes. And once all that is done, and we have general agreement, then we can replace the Introduction.

And I'll post some of the references here too.

How does that sound? Is that a way to create consensus?

Timothy Perper 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're kind of right about wikipedia, but we are working to be more authoritative. You've probably seen them, but the Wikipedia:Featured articles have massive referencing. I read on your userpage that you don't like to edit pages, so if you want to add some referenced sentences or paragraphs to this talk page, I can add them to the article. Look at Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book for a couple of way to cite refs, if you don't already know how (in combination with ref wikimarkup in the box below where you edit). Ideally, you should learn to correct the articles yourself. I'm not trying to fix this whole page by myself, but I added a couple of references yesterday see here. It's taking a while to teach people who've never heard of this weird internet/html style of referencing to do it, but we're getting there. If enough small reference adding edits happen, then all that's left is one big copy edit to make a good article. Please help in any way that you feel comfortable. - Peregrine Fisher 17:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- I will try to help. For starters, here's a "must-use" reference for Tezuka

Schodt, Frederik L. 2007 The Astro Boy Essays: Osamu Tezuka, Mighty Atom, and the Manga/Anime Revolution. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press.

Anything that Schodt writes is worth reading. For people who don't know his work, Schodt, together with Toren Smith, is one of the deans of manga translation. He and Toren Smith translated Masamune Shirow's "Ghost in the Shell" in the mid-1990s for Dark Horse, and if THAT isn't credentials, I don't know what is.

Here are two more very useful references.

Kern, Adam. (editor) (2007). "Kibyoshi: The World’s First Comicbook?” Symposium. International Journal of Comic Art, Volume 9, Number 1, Spring 2007, pages 1-486.

Ito, Kinko 2005 A History of manga in the context of Japanese culture and society. J. Popular Culture, 38(3):456-475.

BTW, we have GOT to get a good source for sales figures for manga in the US. I don't mean journalistic stuff; I mean material from Diamond, ICv2, or something like them.

One of the best websites I know of for manga history is <http://www.dnp.co.jp/museum/nmp/nmp_i/articles/manga/manga1.html>. It's from 1998, but it's excellent for anything earlier.

I'll post more stuff here in the next days, and let everyone know how it's going with my proposed revision of the introduction to the Manga article.

I'm slowly learning the Wiki markup language, but for a while, I'm going to have to rely on you experts!

Timothy Perper 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft Revision of Introduction, with later note

Here are the first paragraphs (WITHOUT formatting) of my revision. Please add comments here or on the Sandbox of my user page at User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox

Manga (ñüâÊ, Manga?) listen (help·info) (pl. manga) is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku). In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II (Kinsella 2000) but have a long, complex history in earlier Japanese art (Ito 2005, Kern 2007, Schodt 1986). In the past two decades, manga have become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry (Kinsella 2000, Schodt 1996) and have become increasingly popular in the US and worldwide (Patten 2004, Wong 2006), representing a multi-billion dollar global market (Masters 2006; NEED BETTER SOURCE!!). In Japan, manga are widely read by children, adolescent boys and girls, and adult men and women (Gravett 2004). Manga themes include action/adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business and commerce, among others (Gravett 2004).

Manga and manga-like comics exist in Korea (“manhwa” [citation needed]) and in the People’s Republic of China plus Hong Kong (“manhua”; Wong 2002). In France, “la nouvelle manga” is a form of bande dessinée drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga [citation needed]. In the United States, manga-like comics are called Amerimanga, global manga, or original English language (OEL) manga [citation needed].

MORE COMING.

Gravett, Paul 2004 Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Harper Design.

Ito, Kinko 2005 A history of manga in the context of Japanese culture and society. J. Popular Culture, 38(3):456-475.

Kern, Adam 2006 Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyoshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN-10: 0674022661; ISBN-13: 978-0674022669.

Kinsella, Sharon 2000 Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Masters, Coco August 10, 2006 America is Drawn to Manga. <http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1223355,00.html> NEED BETTER SOURCE

Patten, Fred 2004 Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge.

Schodt, Frederik L. 1986 Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Schodt, Frederik L. 1996 Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press.

Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2002 Hong Kong Comics: A History of Manhua. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Wong, Wendy Siuyi 2006 Globalizing manga: From Japan to Hong Kong and beyond. Mechademia: An Academic Form for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts, 1:23-45.

Please note that this is an EARLY revision, now replaced by later versions. You can find them on my user sandbox, Timpthy_Perper/Sandbox -- and you are invited to comment, make suggestions, and help.

Timothy Perper 19:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised Introduction is Ready to be Put In

The revised Introduction for the manga article has now been completely written and formatted. It is on my user page Timothy Perper/Manga.

This is ONLY the Introduction, since we’re working on the article section-by-section.

Please look at it if you’re interested, but please do NOT make editing changes directly on the draft. Instead, put comments, suggested changes, questions, and problems onto the DISCUSSION page. This procedure avoids a set of complex and messy glitches in how the Introduction is edited.

In a few days, after people have commented (if they want to), we will REPLACE the present introduction of the manga article – that means the main article – with this new, *revised* introduction. The next sections will be replaced later, so, for a while, the main article will have revised and older material in it.

We have already started work on the next section, which deals with the history of manga, but that section is NOT yet complete.

I want to thank everyone for their help! I mean that most sincerely!! Thanks!!!

Especially Wikipedian Peregrine Fisher!

Timothy Perper 10:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New introduction and new history section

A new introduction that was written at User:Timothy Perper/Manga has been added (diff). A few editors are trying to get this article to featured article status, and any help or suggestions would be appreciated. - Peregrine Fisher 15:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the new introduction, but it needs internal links (there are only two!). Cattus ^talk 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A comment about the new reference list. The references that we added stop at #21, and from there on are from the older entry. There are some minor glitches in the original references from #22 onwards, and we'll fix those when we work our way down through the article. Thanks for all your help, everyone, and please come and join the effort at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox2 and User:Timothy Perper/Manga2, where we're now working on the introduction to the Origins section.

Thanks, Cattus, for your suggestion. We're planning on adding internal links when we have more of the revision in place. Wikipedia has a good many manga articles, and we want avoid drowning the Introduction in a surfeit of links! Does that make sense?

Timothy Perper 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's nothing worse than overlinking. Keep up the good work! Cattus ^talk 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Timothy Perper 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Manga = graphic novel

I'm thinking about removing the sentence saying that manga is a japanese graphic novel. See discussion at User_talk:Timothy_Perper#Going_live. - Peregrine Fisher 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussion there the best comparison is with comicss. In the West this can cover the comic book, comics anthology, comic strip, original graphic novel, webcomic and trade paperback. The specific meaning of graphic novel is very specific, it is also used as a more general marketing term for trade paperback but you want to avoid getting into that. The lead as it stands is misleading - the first source is actually to a definition of graphic novel and the way it is laid out seems to suggest that a graphic novel is a story told in words and pictures, as is manga so manga is a graphic novel.

As the second paragraph makes clear, while there is no exact analogue, they are largely published in book length anthologies and collected into the equivalent of trades later.

In fact it might be better to just be specific in the lead rather than trying to draw parallels which may be inaccurate or misleading. (Emperor 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

I have removed the sentence. I'll put it here so that we can discuss it further, or use the references somewhere else in the page.

is a type of graphic novel, depicting stories with a combination of text and art. Explicitly, it is a Japanese graphic novel. Sometimes, it also refers to

-Peregrine Fisher 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can explain why retail bookstores should not categorize "manga" under "graphic novel" sections, then I may be deterred away from this technical interpretation. KyuuA4 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is that the US bookstores had graphic novel sections first, and were looking for a place to put manga. It's not a big distinction to them, but we're trying to describe what manga means to the world, and Japan in particular. I think we can use your references in a later part of the article when we talk about manga in the US. - Peregrine Fisher 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's logical. Manga is a visual story combining art with text, which is exactly what a graphic novel is. What else could it be? Yet, it just happens that manga is the Japanese variety. KyuuA4 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Emperor. I agree with you and Peregrine Fisher about this. I think Peregrine Fisher's new version is more accurate and reflects the way the word "manga" is used by people in the field. BTW, Emperor, have you looked at the work pages on this material? They're at Timothy Perper/Sandbox and Timothy Perper/Manga, where several people have been working on them. Your comments and contributions will be most welcome.

Timothy Perper 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did have a quick look at things like the history section and thought it looked very good (it certainly provided more information than I had to hand ;) ) and I will have a more indepth look later. I do have a copy of this paper:

Ito, Kinko: A History of Manga in the Context of Japanese Culture and Society. Journal of Popular Culture (38:3) [Feb 2005] , p.456-475.

If it hasn't been gone through with a fine-tooth comb yet. I had a quick scan through a while back and it looked very interesting. (Emperor 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the kind words. We're looking forward to hearing your comments! Timothy Perper 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Japanese Manga

Just wondering. How will that be handled here? KyuuA4 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering too <gr>. What I mean is, we have a section planned on the subject that comes later, but we're not up to it yet. It comes under the general heading of "transnationalism," which will soon make its first appearance as soon as Peregrine Fisher inserts the newest set of changes.

My *general* take on it is that in a GREAT many forms of popular culture, there is cross-border flow and exchange as young people = international youth culture discover that the internet in particular connects them all over the world. There are many examples -- Lolita started as a novel by a Russian writer; it became an American film; it was adopted by high school girls in Tokyo who created the Japanese Gothic Lolita look, which is now be RE-imported to America via Japanese fashion magazines. The same is true of hip-hop and other musical forms. My favorite example is Japanese baseball.

I think manga belongs to this general process. It was invented in Japan, but as the history section we're working on now shows, manga was influenced by American, British, and Chinese art (in reverse temporal order). Now it has been imported into the US, where US artists started drawing in what they saw as "manga style" (Ben Dunn, Adam Warren, among others), and then, when TokyoPop started its "Rising Stars of Manga" series, attracted even more American artists.

Yes, purists have flame wars with each other saying that THAT isn't REAL manga. But, to me, that misses the point. Changes in style, flavor, emphasis occur INEVITABLY as a medium as rich as manga crosses borders. My own view is therefore that manga is transnational or global.

So that's the kind of thing we'll deal with in a section late in the article, where we'll try to put international manga into context. But at the moment, I don't know exactly what will go into that section. One thing is for sure: we are NOT going to say that OEL manga isn't "real" manga.

And I think we can do this without violating NPOV.

Timothy Perper 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. Just to let you know, I pretty much agree with the pointed noted here. Few tend to realize the general nature of art media extend beyond cultural borders. Yet, purists remain to contend with that notion with the maintenance of a "Japanese only" viewpoint. Indeed, this is very much do-able within NPOV guidelines.

OH, and regarding the history section, perhaps it would be a good idea to revamp the History of manga article as well. Not to add extra work or anything. Manga history can be more elaborate within that article, while history section in the main manga article is simply a summary of that. KyuuA4 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article covers Japanese comics, commonly called manga. If you want to make an argument for "manga style", that's missing the point. This isn't an article about a style, it's an article about comics from Japan. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had my eye on the History of Manga entry for a while. But one thing at a time! The revision will deal, at least briefly, with the worldwide effects of manga, and that, I think, may be the place to deal with non-Japanese manga. Timothy Perper 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Next Section of Origins

We're in the final editing stages for the first part of the new "origiins" section, and people are invited again to visit TP/Sandbox2 and add comments, suggestions, and observations.

I have also created User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox3 for the next section of "Origins." Please make comments, observations, and so on.

Oh, can someone make a SINGLE entry for these revision comments, X.1, X.2, X.3, and so on? I have no idea how to do that.

Timothy Perper 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Timothy Perper/Combined to see how the rewrite is going. I think a critique or two, and it will be ready for prime time. - Peregrine Fisher 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made a few cuts where it says "cut this," but it looks good. Can you check the hyperlinks or did you do that already? Timothy Perper 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peregrine, for adding the new material. Comments and observations are welcome! But may I make a suggestion? Perhaps instead of deleting material, editors could put their suggestions on the talk page first? That way lots of people can comment, and I, at least, learn a lot!

I exclude, however, the loon who just now vandalized the whole page. HE can vanish into a sewer.

Timothy Perper 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Manga#Origins section has been added

Please comment on the new section if you want. - Peregrine Fisher 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine. Please see the previous comment, right above, for a little more.

Timothy Perper 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete Rakuten Kitazawa's name from origins section? Don't you know comic and manga history in the early 20th century at all? Do you think that manga started suddenly in 1945? The answer is "No". Many important mangaka existed before WW II. Rakuten Kitazawa is one of them. He introduced many techniques of American comic strips into manga, and influenced directly Osamu Tezuka. You can confirm easily it if you examine sources in Japanese.

• 清水勲 『マンガ誕生』 ISBN 4-642-05475-8
• 清水勲 『図説・漫画の歴史』 ISBN 4-309-72611-9
• 手塚治虫『手塚治虫 漫画の奥義』 ISBN 4-06-175991-4

Sorry, your edit is seen only destruction that deletes important facts and adds nonsenses...--Kasuga 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the new version gives a broader overview of how manga started, without really going into detail on the individuals. The old version said

During the late Meiji period to the period before WW II, notable mangaka include Rakuten Kitazawa and Ippei Okamoto. Rakuten Kitazawa trained under Frank A. Nankivell, an Australian artist, and joined Jiji Shimpo newspaper companies after being invited by Yukichi Fukuzawa. After that, Rakuten published such famous comic strips as Tagosaku to Mokubē no Tōkyō-Kenbutsu (田吾作と杢兵衛の東京見物,? "Tagosaku and Mokube's Sightseeing in Tokyo") (1902) and Haikara Kidorō no Shippai (灰殻木戸郎の失敗,? "The Failures of Kidoro Haikara") (1902). Rakuten's works were inspired by many American comic strips include Katzenjammer Kids, Yellow Kid and Opper's works. Ippei Okamoto is the founder of Nippon Mangakai, the first cartoonist's association in Japan.

but it doesn't have references, and most of us can't read Japanese. Maybe we could decide what we would like to say about Rakuten Kitazawa, and you could provide references for it? I think mentioning a few of the important mangaka who helped create the field would be good, if we can find refs. I don't think we should just be listing his comic strips, since you can find those on his own page. Maybe something like

Rakuten Kitazawa drew many editorial cartoons and comic strips during the late Meiji Era to early the Showa Era and is considered "the founding father of modern manga" because he promoted many younger mangaka and animators. His works were inspired by many American comic strips include Katzenjammer Kids, Yellow Kid and Opper's works.

One issue with Rakuten is that he seems to be a comic strip artist instead of a mangaka. Thoughts? - Peregrine Fisher 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The source of the paragraph is clearly cited in the end of the introduction about Ippei Okamaoto, "<ref name="Manga no Rekishi">Isao Shimizu "Zusetsu Manga no Rekishi" ISBN 4-309-72611-9</ref>". This book contains the source of Rakuten too.

Unfortunately, I have only printed materials in Japanese, but you can find English sources in Web.[1] Perhaps, you can search the other English sauces of Rakuten much more easily than I.

One issue with Rakuten is that he seems to be a comic strip artist instead of a mangaka.

You forget that all comic strips, cartoons, and comic books are called "manga" in Japanese. Of course, Rakuten was called "mangaka" at that time, and his works were called "manga" by his readers. To begin with, a man who begun calling the art-style that called "comic strip" and "cartoon" in English "manga" is Rakuten.--Kasuga 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns, Kasuga-san. Please be assured that Rakuten Kitazawa and other pre-World War II artists have only disappeared temporarily. He and others will return very soon.

Our approach is to divide the Origins section into several parts. The first section is already in place. It is an overview putting scholarly views of manga history into two categories: those who see it primarily influenced by post-WWII events, and those who (like yourself) see it influenced strongly by pre-War, Meiji, and pre-Meiji history. The second section -- which we are working on right now at User: Timothy Perper/Sandbox3 -- deals with the history of manga after WWII. The third section, to come soon, will deal with the history of manga before WWII, and that is where Rakuten Kitazawa and others will go.

In that pre-WWII section we will also include the following:

"The Four Immigrants Manga: A Japanese Experience in San Francisco," 1904-1924, by Henry (Yoshitaka) Kiyama. Stone Bridge Press, 1999. Translated with commentary by Frederik L. Schodt. (Original publisher: Yoshitaka Kiyama Studios, San Francisco, 1931).

In case you are unfamiliar with his book, Frederik L. Schodt's 1986 "Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics" (Tokyo: Kodansha) devotes much of his Chapter 2 (pp. 38-49) to the history of manga before WWII, including Charles Wirgman, Georges Bigot, and other Westerners. Schodt discusses Rakuten Kitazawa on pp. 42-43 and includes an illustration of his on p. 48. This section of Schodt's book includes a number of other illustrations from this period.

Moreover, Paul Gravett's 2004 book "Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics" (New York: Harper Design International) also discusses Kitazawa on p. 21.

Also in case you are unfamiliar with it, The Comics Journal (Special Edition, Volume 5, 2005) has published a heavily illustrated article on Saseo Ono (pp. 4-21) and his work in manga and in WWII anti-American comics. He too will have his place in the same section.

So I am afraid you have been too hasty in your conclusion that we know nothing about the history of manga before World War II. You may also have been too hasty in concluding that our work is merely "nonsenses."

May I invite you to participate with us in revising the Manga entry? Someone like yourself, familiar with this history, will be able to make a solid and much-appreciated contribution to our effort.

Since this article is appearing in the English-language Wikipedia, we feel that it will be most useful to readers to have many, but not all, references to materials in English.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns, and I hope you will join with us in our effort.

Timothy Perper 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was heated a little while ago. I will watch the progress of your work. (When your work stumbles, please ask me. I might be able to help your work. I know pre-WWII manga and mangaka to some extent, and can retrieve some Japanese materials.)--Kasuga 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! We will certainly ask your help, particularly with Japanese material. I'm very glad that you will be helping!

Timothy Perper 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, take a look at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox3 for the type of treatment Rakuten and other pre-war mangaka will receive. - Peregrine Fisher 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm enjoying the history lesson here. :D Yet, looking at all that, eventually, much of that material may wind up in the linked History of Manga article - only to be replaced by some sort of summary. However, that's not something to worry about now - until the manga article as a whole becomes too long. Just something to think about for later. KyuuA4 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to see this material in one place. The same problem will come up when we reach the biographical material in the main manga article -- I'd like to move them to the entries for the artists they discuss. But, at the moment, I'm not going to do that.

The material we've added is harder to summarize than it seems. It's already summarized, and a double summary runs the risk of making errors in the name of sheer shortening. So I agree that that can wait.

And thanks for moving the unused references!

Timothy Perper 09:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you're finding it interesting, why should we shorten it? Timothy Perper 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia:Article_size. For a prime example, see World War 2. For an extensive subject as that, even its main article is "suffering" from a large article size, despite being cut up into numerous sub-articles. In any case, as I said before, this is not a concern currently; but it is something to take note. Normally, articles are allowed to grow and be cut up later on. KyuuA4 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one calculate size, I mean in practice? The rule of thumb of slicing up an article > 100kB sounds clear, but the illustrations add size, and we've been removing them, pending a re-selection later. No, I'm not going to worry about it now, but a way to track length in kB would be useful. Timothy Perper 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Old References

Books

• Gravett, Paul. Manga: 60 Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Collins Design, 2004. ISBN 1-85669-391-0.
• Kern, Adam L. Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyôshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2006. ISBN 0-674-02266-1.
• Schodt, Frederik L. Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley, Calif.: Stone Bridge Press, 1996. ISBN 1-880656-23-X.
• Schodt, Frederik L. Manga! Manga!: The World of Japanese Comics. New York: Kodansha International, 1983. ISBN 0870115499 ,

Journals

• Masters, Coco (2006). "America Is Drawn To Manga". Time. 168 (7): A5. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Comment

This was a list of book references included in the article. If these can be used as citations into the text, please do so. If they're already used as citations, then simply cross them out. Thanks. KyuuA4 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up first lines

I cleaned up the first (italicized) lines right under the title and added a sentence telling people to look under individual articles for individual manga series, plots, and artists. That will help when we decide how to deal with the biographical material in the original article, as mentioned in a previous comment.

I also added a subheading for the first part of the Origins section. The next two parts will have their own subheadings.

Timothy Perper 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Some subsequent changes were made, but the subhead will remain. Timothy Perper 06:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New material added

New material (up through the middle of the shōjo history subsection) has been added. Please comment and make suggestions. Once again, my thanks to Peregrine Fisher for his help!

We'll finish the shōjo history subsection in a few days, and then start on the shonen history subsection.

Timothy Perper 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We need opinions

As we add new material to the Manga entry, we need to make space. This means either deleting or moving the older material. At the moment, that means the Osamu Tezuka material immediately below the shojo manga material we're adding. Does anyone mind if we MOVE the Tezuka material from the Manga entry to the Tezuka entry itself?

We're working Tezuka into the revision as we go and adding new references. The references in the present material are not ideal, and include, for example, one link to amazon.co.jp in Japanese.

What are your feelings about this?

Timothy Perper 05:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have advocated removal of the Tesuka section before. Despite how important the man is to manga, I see no reason for him to have his own section. However, I have no objections to him being mentioned heavily in the prose itself. --SeizureDog 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Seizure Dog. We're on the same wavelength about this. Yes, he will be mentioned more than once in the entry itself! Timothy Perper 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Tezuka Section

Here's the old Osamu Tezuka section. Some of this can be added into the History section. Or, some of this can be used in some other aspect. KyuuA4 05:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, KyuuA4! Yes, we'll weave some of this into the new material. Timothy Perper 12:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka

Main article: Osamu Tezuka

Manga art first originated in Tokyo, Japan. Manga spread by the Showa Modan culture in around 1930. Manga in this era was made from low-priced paper and ink. It was sold not in bookstores, but in toy shops for children. The Imperial Japanese Army came to influence Manga strongly when the militarism of Japan strengthened in around 1940. (For instance, Norakuro is a popular poetic justice manga written by Suihō Tagawa in 1931.) When World War II ended, the United States culture was introduced into Japan again. Osamu Tezuka was influenced by Fleischer Studios and Walt Disney's styles, and developed the cartoon to Manga. The story and the tragedy were introduced by Tezuka Osamu. He had a strong influence on a lot of Mangaka. In around 1950, many young Mangaka came to the apartment Tokiwa-sō where Tezuka lived. The residents included Ishinomori Shōtarō, Akatsuka Fujio, and Fujiko Fujio.

Tezuka introduced film-like storytelling and characters in comic format New Treasure Island, in which each short film-like episode is part of a larger story arc. The only text in Tezuka's comics was the characters' dialogue and this lent the comics a cinematic quality. Tezuka also adopted Disney-like facial features where a character's eyes, mouth, eyebrows and nose are drawn in a very exaggerated manner to add more distinct characterization with fewer lines, which made his work popular. This somewhat revived the old ukiyo-e-like tradition where the picture is a projection of an idea rather than actual physical reality. Initially, his comic was published in a children's magazine. Soon, it became a specialized weekly or monthly comic magazine of its own, which is now the foundation of the Japanese comic industry. Tezuka adapted his comic to almost all film genres of the time; his manga series range from action adventure (e.g. Kimba the White Lion, also known as Jungle Emperor Leo) to serious drama (e.g. Black Jack) to science fiction (e.g. Astro Boy, Ambassador Magma), horror (e.g. Dororo, The Three-eyed One.) Though he is known in the West as a creator of the children's animation Astro Boy, Many of his comics had some very mature and sometimes dark undertones. Most of his comics' central characters had a tragic background. Some criticize Tezuka's extensive use of tragic dramatization in his stories. As the manga generation of children grew up, the market for comics expanded accordingly and manga soon became a major cultural force of Japan. Tezuka also contributed to the social acceptance of manga. His qualification as a medical doctor as well as the holder of Ph.D in medical science and his serious storylines were used to deflect criticism that manga was vulgar and undesirable for children.

POV

"While 'manga' is defined as "a Japanese comic book or graphic novel",[52] some people contend that manga defines a style rather than a country of origin. This viewpoint can most predominantly be seen by the manga publisher Tokyopop, which markets original English-language manga. "Manga is like hip-hop. It's a lifestyle. To say that you can't draw it because you don't have the DNA is just silly." —Stu Levy, Tokyopop CEO[53]"

This is a POV statement, to counter it, you need an opposing POV statement or it'll break neutrality. You can also try a different lead in as well. Kind of minor, but I thought it would be important to note if this article is to be GA.--Hitsuji Kinno 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point - Peregrine Fisher 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comment. You are raising some interesting points.

May I ask where you're getting the sentence you quote that reads "'manga' is defined as "a Japanese comic book or graphic novel"? The first sentence in the revision reads "Manga (漫画?) listen (help·info) is the Japanese word for comics (sometimes also called komikku コミック).[1][2]" Are you perhaps discussing an older version of the article?

I agree that TokyoPop's CEO has a point of view, in fact a *distinct* point of view. My guess is that they want to take advantage of the panache and marketability that the word "manga" conveys, and so they call their line of American comics artists "Rising Stars of Manga." Not surprising, either, since they're in the business of selling manga in the US.

In our Introduction, we mention that other nations, explicitly including the US, have adopted and adapted manga under various names (it's in the last sentence). I felt -- since I was the person who did the first draft of the Introduction, with much help from other people, including Peregrine Fisher -- that the article is **primarily** about manga, meaning comics of specifically Japanese origin, and not about TokyoPop's desire to expand the term for their own financial and marketing benefit in the US.

The issue about style is very difficult, since manga has so many styles. The next major section -- it'll come after the History/Characterization section we're dong now -- will be about manga stylistics. Then we'll get into different ideas about style, including la nouvelle manga of Frederic Boilet.

So we're using the word "manga" in the same sense that Fred Schodt used it in the title of his book, for an artform that appeared first in Japan and has been developed in its modern form for half a century in Japan. The word has a long history in Japan, going back at least to the late 1700s (see the Kern reference in the article), and we need to respect and recognize that history while also respecting how other nations and individuals have adopted manga for their own artistic purposes.

Once again, thanks for raising these points. And I hope that you will continue to help us refine this revision!

Timothy Perper 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The first section before I say "This is a POV statement..." is part of the article... if you look at the article proper itself, you'll be able to see where I got it. Despite that, it's still a POV statement. Thus it should be revised in such a way it's a neutral statement. (And you don't have to read the rest of the article to get it to counter the statement.) A search for the phrases will get you to the section you're looking for. If Stu Levy states this, then shouldn't there be a counter statement in the same spot. *or* you can do something like this...

While manga by X people (specific names) is defined as a media which is only produced by Japanese.[citations] Some people do not think this is the case. For example X people (cite more than Stuart Levy) feel that manga is merely a media that is not tied by genetics or where its used.[citations] [Intro to next section, etc one sentence transition.]

Since you do raise another interesting point--one could easily argue that the statement is a promotional statement in favor of Tokyopop's line of manga. Thus having it backed by a few sources and moving his quote to the citations probably would be a better move. The above would be more neutral speech...--Hitsuji Kinno 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think you'll find that our revision addresses many of your concerns about how manga is defined. I don't want to get into a Nature/Nurture argument about DNA! Why don't you read the new material and let us know how it can be improved? Many thanks!

Timothy Perper 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving and Deleting Material from Old Version of Manga Article

Now that we're moving ahead in revising the Manga article, we're thinking of moving or deleting some sections of the old article. These include --

Section #6 "International Influences," can be moved into the existing article "Manga Outside Japan." We will cover *some* of this material, but in a different light and with many references.

Section #4.1, "Dojinshi," can be moved to existing article "Dojinshi."

Section #7, "Language," is now redundant and can be removed.

Sections #5.1 and #5.2, "Types of Manga" and "Genres," have no citations of any kind and are therefore not Wiki-Verifiable. As a result they are Original Research without any reliable sources. So, in principle, I suppose they could be deleted but I'd prefer to work some of the content into the revision with proper citations and eliminate other parts that seem to be unreliable opinion.

The other sections we don't YET have ideas about, but that will change.

We also suggest removing many of the images associated with these sections.

Please let us know your reactions and opinions.

Timothy Perper 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. We need some refs for "Gekiga" and "cultural importance." A quick overview for "international Influence" with a link to its main page. Find a few viewpoints for "Classification of Manga." Remove "Types of manga," because that's covered in the history section and it has no refs. Finally, convert "Genres" to prose and add refs. - Peregrine Fisher 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to object to our suggestion for moving material, so we'll proceed to move section 4.1 (Dojinshi) and section 6 (International Influences), and delete section 7 (Language) for the reasons described above. Any problems with that, anyone? Timothy Perper 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Shōjo subsection is now in; starting now on shonen manga

We just put up the final part of the shōjo subsection of the revision of the Manga article.

We are now starting to work on the next subsection, about shonen manga at Timothy Perper/Sandbox5. If you would like to contribute and comment, please feel free to do so!

Timothy Perper 15:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that you really should be adding wikilinks to your prose. Such as for manga series that you mention for the first time.--SeizureDog 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. This is a step-by-step process, and we're fixing up small glitches as they come to our attention. Wikilinks is one of them indeed. Please let us know about other problems when you find them, and then we can adjust the text. Timothy Perper 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a bunch, still some more to do. - Peregrine Fisher 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Forestalling an Edit War

The manga entry says at the start that it's about manga from East Asia. International manga -- my own term for manga drawn in other nations -- has its own entries, "Manga Outside Japan" and "Original English Language Manga" for work in English.

I know a number of people who become furious -- truly enraged -- when anyone even hints that non-Japanese manga isn't "real" manga. Those people might well be very angry if we take out section 6 from the present article.

But removing section 6 from this article has nothing to do with whether non-Japanese can draw real manga. Instead, the manga article opens by saying it's about East Asian manga, and when we started this big revision, we inherited that statement. We're stuck with it, and with word limits that we didn't invent either.

Ideally, it would be WONDERFUL if we could include as much on international manga as we are including (and will continue to include) on East Asian manga. But we don't have the space -- the word limits are too stringent.

So we have to make a decision. How do we divvy up the available space?

My suggestion is that we use the main manga article for East Asian manga, and the other two for international manga. If someone wants to rename the manga article something like "East Asian Manga" or "Japanese Manga," that's fine with me.

But we don't have space for all of it in one article. We just don't.

As the title says, I'm hoping to forestall an edit war about this. I don't like flame wars, and won't participate in them. So once again I'm asking for reactions and opinions BEFORE we move material.

OK?

Timothy Perper 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What's with this "East Asia" phrase? I don't want manhwa creeping into the manga article... Otherwise, I'm all for removing the sections concerning non-Japanese "manga".--SeizureDog 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know the origin or intent of the phrase -- it was there when I got here. It reads "This article is about the comics published in East Asian countries. For other uses, see Manga (disambiguation)." That's pretty clear -- OEL manga and other manga-like comics belong in different articles.

I can see reasons for changing it to read "This article is about the comics published in Japan. For other uses, see Manga (disambiguation)." And adding "and translations" if someone wants to be ultra-picky.

Manhwa has its own article and so does manhua, which covers the two largest East Asian areas of manga-like comics production outside of Japan.

OK, that makes 3 people who want the "International" material moved, and, so far, no one who doesn't. I'll give these invisible people another day or so to materialize, then the sections get moved.

Timothy Perper 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Manhwa and manhua should get SOME mention. As well as OEL manga. Like it or not, they're all related stylistically. KyuuA4 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

International Manga

To answer the question: "So we have to make a decision. How do we divvy up the available space?"

I'd say - focus on manga's effects to the "comic" market upon various countries -- or as a whole. The global extent of manga is certainly having an effect upon other countries, particularly among Doujinshi -- and -- the promotion of manga beyond Japan (at a production stand-point), by already established manga artists. See the book, Manga without Borders.

Of course, the concept of manga as purely Japanese sustains itself because no other "manga" artist outside Japan has produced anything reputable. I suppose, there's the OEL manga such as Dramacon or Van Von Hunter, but they're still as comparatively as... say Ranma 1/2 or Sailor Moon. On that note, Wiki isn't a crystal ball.

Nevertheless, we cannot deny the idea of non-Japanese already attempting to produce "manga". KyuuA4 06:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. And they will be mentioned. My guess (at the moment, that's all it is) is that we'll have space for perhaps one or two paragraphs and some cross-references to the other articles. Not only are manga, manhwa, manhua, la nouvelle manga, and OEL manga related stylistically, but they're indexes of how much influence Japanese styles have had on cartooning worldwide. And that means they deserve some space in the manga article along the lines you've suggested.

At the moment, though, my question is whether the manga article we're revising needs the current length and detail (although it's not referenced detail!) devoted to these other forms of manga when there are articles about them already. As I've said, I think it's better to move Section 6 and its subsections, not only to create more space here, but also to put together in one place all this material on non-Japanese manga.

So, with the understanding that we are NOT going to ignore international manga, but give it a few paragraphs, I take it it's OK with you to move section 6. Then that makes four people who agree it should be moved, and, so far, no one who wants it kept.

Timothy Perper 06:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want the article to ever state that manga is an (singular) artistic style. I have fought very hard to keep this mindset at bay. Everyone may think moe style shonen and shojo when manga is mentioned, but we must not forget that most family-centric manga (which tend to be extremely simple, e.g. Sazae-san), seinen manga (which tend to be realistic), and alternative manga (which are all over the place) don't follow these conventions.--SeizureDog 06:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Not a single style of anything is 100% distinct. If you take any form of art (music, movies, paintings, literature, etc.), sub-categories tend to overlap. Even if they start out "distinct", others will copy and emulate the "popular" styles. That's human nature.

As manga does indeed consist of a set of styles -- that makes categorization even more difficult. Nevertheless, manga does have a set of mechanics (a set of rules), that differentiate it from "comics". After all, there are tutorials all over the place. If those differentiations can be noted, then we have something. Of course, I only speak on the visual aspect. I haven't even covered the "story" part. By the way, I tried to take that kind of approach with anime. KyuuA4 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Size

You're knocking on an open door so far as I'm concerned. I haven't been spending many hours writing about all the varieties of shōjo manga to claim that manga is ONE thing. And wait till you see the shonen section (you can read my drafts on TP User/Sandbox5 if you like).

The problem is that we have only so much space and no more. So we have to choose examples of different subgenres and subsubgenres, and inevitably something gets left out. What I want is to depict the range and variation of manga in a balanced way, without claiming one is better than the other and without ignoring important trends and directions.

OK, more later.

Timothy Perper 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On that note, the "History and Characteristics of Manga" section is getting overly long. It looks like a lot of it will need to be moved to the History of manga, Shōjo, and Shōnen articles.--SeizureDog 07:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. If you do move those sections, three things will happen.

First, I will revert all your changes, and that really **will** start an editing war.

Second, I will simply quit working on this project, and I mean just stop cold.

Third, you can kiss goodbye any chance that this article can achieve an A-level in excellence or come even close to being made into a Good or Featured article. I have not met anyone so far on Wikipedia who has my general level of knowledge and experience in this area. I've met lots of fanboys and otaku, yes, but not beyond that.

I've published in this area in peer-reviewed scholarly (print) journals, my wife Martha and I are doing a book about graphic novels, and she and I are working with one of the large US manga publishers doing an adaptation of a certain manga for them. You need that knowledge if you want to improve this article. In brief, you need subject matter specialists like me.

Absolutely nothing forces me to work on a Wikipedia article. If you, or other people, don't like my work -- for example, it's TOO LONG! WHO WANTS TO READ ALL THIS??? -- then you yourself can complete it, hack it up, do whatever you want.

A general entry, like this one, MUST include material that deals with, and connects to, all the subtopic articles, like history and like shojo and shonen manga. That comes with the territory of writing a general article. It touches on many topics and directs readers to the sub-topic articles for more information. If you don't understand that or don't like it, or if you don't like my writing style, then I'm outta here. It's as simple as that.

Either we all cooperate and understand together what we're doing, or you can pick fights. That is entirely up to you. Now, do you want me to continue to work on this main article or not?

Beware: if you say No, then I'm outta here.

Right now, I was going to correct a few typographical errors in the Manga article and add a reference. But I'm not going to until this issue is settled. It's up to you.

Timothy Perper 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size allows for pages that have 6,000 - 10,000 words, not counting refs, see also, etc. This article is at 5,500 now, As an example, another comics related FA is Batman, which has 7,700 pages, so we have some room. Highly technical subjects should have smaller word counts, but manga isn't a technical subject. Some redundancy between pages is also acceptable, so some of this text can be copied to History of manga without requiring that it be removed from here. - Peregrine Fisher 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By making threats to stop working on this article I have lost any and all respect for you guys for working on the entry. You act as if the manga article is the only article worth editing and that all of the sub-articles are completely beneath your attention. The fact is that the history section as it stands is 34 kilobytes long, over half the length of the article, and you say how you're not even done. So either one of two things will happen:

• a) you'll have too much information on the history of manga as compared to its other aspects and thus fail to give a fair and equal summary.
• b) you add just as much information to the other sections, sending the article size up to over 100 KB which WP:SIZE says that it should "almost certainly should be divided up".

I'm not going to do anything until you guys are actually finished with the article, but don't be surprised if I split a lot of it off then. If you don't like the fact that you don't own the article and want your work intact on manga's most important page then I certainly do suggest that you stop now. It is really helpful work you've done, but don't get cocky about it.--SeizureDog 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Psst. I already noted to them about article size. But yes, article splitting can be done later. Not something to worry about now. So, best to cool some jets everyone and proceed safely. If there's one thing many of us cannot deny, this article actually looks better now than before. KyuuA4 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did a rough count on the new material we added, not counting the old material. I came up with about 2900 words.

I don't own this article. We've gone out of our way to invite people to help us revise and edit, including you, SeizureDog. If the other articles bother you, why don't YOU start revising some of those other articles -- rewriting, adding references, moving or deleting non-verifiable material and so on?

So cool it. You're on a wild goose chase about things that haven't happened. Timothy Perper 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All I was doing was pointing out that eventually the "History and Characteristics of Manga" section's text will need to be moved to the main article of History of manga while the Manga article's text will have to be made more succinct. I wonder if you misunderstand and think I mean to move all of the text into History of manga and leaving only a link.--SeizureDog 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As it is proper procedure to move all that text to History of Manga, while leaving behind a shorter summarized version. Regarding content, it's great stuff. KyuuA4 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll deal with it when we get there. Now just drop it. You're beating a dead horse. Timothy Perper 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one upset about it. Topic dropped.--SeizureDog 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture for opening the article

We have to choose an image to open the article, to go way up at the top. Here are the problems. I have a suggestion below for how to solve the #1 problem. Now listen up.

1. We add a picture of Sailor Moon -- screams and howls break out -- "She's got a page already!" -- "That's not typical of manga!" -- "Why use shojo? Why not shonen?" -- so we use a picture of Light Yagami instead -- screams and howls break out -- "He's got a page too!" -- "Wait a minute! Shonen manga isn't ALL manga! -- "That's not REPRESENTATIVE" -- so we put in an image of Hamtaro -- screams and howls break out -- "He's a HAMSTER, for cyring out loud!" -- "That's not representative!!" -- so we put in a picture of Me-Hyou -- screams and howls break out -- "I never heard of HER!" -- "Can't use that, it's HENTAI!!!" -- "That's not representative!!!" -- and so on endlessly no matter who we choose.

We can use ONE and ONLY ONE picture, and no single picture of a manga character could possibly represent all manga, Anybody we use will seem to slight all the other possibilities.

2. Here's what I suggest. I have an image, which I already sent to Peregrine since he's the one who will put it in, that shows the Japanese calligraphy of the kanji for manga taken from the earliest example known of the word, a 1798 book cited by Adam Kern (the reference is in the article).

It says it all: manga. And the word by definition DOES represent all of it. And it also illustrates the opening sentence of the article.

That's the one I recommend we use. It's also quite elegant. The caption will say "The word manga in Japanese calligraphy from 1798."

Comments?

Timothy Perper 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Manga in old Kanji... hmmm. Worth a try. KyuuA4 21:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but does anyone happen to know which manga was the first to be published in tankōbon format? If old enough, it might even be free use.--SeizureDog 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use Image:Hokusai-MangaBathingPeople.jpg, Image:Kotaro nagahara.jpg or any from Hokusai's commons page. - Peregrine Fisher 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)