Talk:Mukokuseki

Undo

User:Orchastrattor, regarding your edit, none of the sources cited say that anime characters have "stereotypical European features", moreover, one of the sources cited says The Western audience is inclined to perceive all animated characters as white unless they have a marked trait specified by the storyteller or stated otherwise..

Pus, Kotaku is not the only source who says that anime and manga characters don't have "stereotypical European features," The Atlantic and one research on Academia.edu sayed the same.

Mukokuseki is defined as: "is the use of ambiguous racial features of characters in Japanese culture," and "to suggest the mixing of elements of multiple cultural origins, and to imply the erasure of visible ethnic and cultural characteristics." So, what makes you think that they look European or white?

In an article by Jstor: Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The main concern was just crowbarring content into the first two paragraphs to prove a point without concern for whether or not the lead is properly summarizing the overall ideas of the article, that's going to be a textbook case of Battlegrounding regardless of what is being said.

Going through the citations for the claim itself, CBR phrases it as a "Caucasian-looking lead character among a Japanese-looking cast" with no further qualification as to the cultural or social context of such a characterization, while the Gruyter article abstracts it as "the mixing of elements of multiple cultural origins" or "taking patterns and traces from foreign culture and mixing them with domestic elements to create something completely new"; The end product is "neutral" but it does not go against any of the sources to describe individual elements as specifically foreign. Some Mangaka like Masashi Kishimoto also specifically use blonde hair and blue eyes as visual shorthand for an exaggerated American-ness (I can't find the issue at the moment but there's a fairly well-known Shonen Jump interview where he states that "Naruto has blue eyes and blond hair, so any child actor in America could play him") so even within the non-Western culture in question there is still the capacity to read certain traits as European or not in a very similar manner to how they would be read in the West.

More importantly though the term is already defined as "[a depiction] without a concrete ethnicity or nationality" in the lead, the sentence you were trying to edit is merely giving one potential example of how the subject might appear to the sort of viewer presumed by the given sources. Absolutely nowhere is it said that all mukokuseki features are Western. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The end product is "neutral" but it does not go against any of the sources to describe individual elements as specifically foreign.

Foreign is different from Caucasian and "stereotypical European features". And describing "individual elements" is different from describing, albeit in general, the overall features of ALL (or most of) anime characters as "European-looking."

And regarding your argument on Naruto, we are not talking about certain character or certain show, we are talking about the overall characteristics of anime characters in general. Anime has thousands of thousands of characters with different shapes and looks. If we were going to talk about certain character then I can bring Biwa and say that all or most anime characters look Asian, or bring Canary and say all of them look African. PLUS, I would like to add that white people are not limited to Europeans (Middle Easterns, Ashkinazi Jews, Americans, Canadians, Aussies, White Latin people... etc) the same thing goes for the traits of blonde hair and blue eyes because many ethnicities that are non-white can have them, like those who live in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, and many others.

the sentence you were trying to edit is merely giving one potential example of how the subject might appear to the sort of viewer presumed by the given sources. Absolutely nowhere is it said that all mukokuseki features are Western.

No, I have to disagree on that, because it didn't give me, as a reader, the sense that the lead was even trying to use an "example" as to "how viewers may perceive it". Otherwise, it stated it as a fact and it bluntly said that it is a rule of thumb that they may either look European or any other nationality. When we put the European ethnicity side by side to "all other ethnicities", it implies that the frequency of appearance of a European looking character is equivalent to the appearance of all other ethnicities compined. And moreover, for the word "European" being put first, it gave me the sense that anime characters are more likely to look European than not. And the question is; why the "example" has to be about European ethnicity when we have hundreds of them? If anything, it is to imply that it is the main one that is used in anime, which is not true.

And as for "the main concern," we can definitely fix that, because my problem was only with using the word "stereotypically European." ☆SuperNinja2☆ 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Then Biwa and Canary do not exactly qualify as mukokuseki, do they? All of the sources agree on round eyes, pale skin and light hair as core aspects of the style, if anything one could argue those two just prove that artists specifically code characters as non-white by way of breaking from mukokuseki conventions.

The point is that when anime and manga artists aim for cultural neutrality in the depiction of a character they trend towards types of features that a significant portion of both authors and commentators demonstrably characterize as in some way Euro-American, there really isn't any way to phrase that except for how it appears in the article.

[I]t didn't give me, as a reader, the sense that the lead was even trying to use an "example"

I'm sorry, but I don't see how there is any other way to read "such as when [...]", that's just the dictionary-level grammatical meaning of such a phrase.

The focus on readings of characters as Caucasian is also directly inherited from the sources; CBR names such a reading directly, De Gruyter frames the entire essay around a pair of lets-plays by white, Euro-American youtubers, and Ruh criticizes such a reading but does not actually name any alternatives; It's always either "Caucasian" or "neutral". Admittedly this might come down to my reliance on open, English-language sources published in the West when creating the article but as it stands there just isn't anything else that can be included there without inviting even more controversy and challenge. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources agree on round eyes, pale skin and light hair as core aspects of the style, if anything one could argue those two just prove that artists specifically code characters as non-white by way of breaking from mukokuseki conventions.

Light hair? You mean colorful hair?

Anyways, Canary is mukokuseki because the story is depicted in a fictional world where there is no real-life ethnicities. But Biwa isn't and that by no means implies that Japanese animators are trying to break from mukokuseki "European-looking conventions" but rather trying to use real racial lifelike features to convey the story and break from mukokuseki ambiguous features and there are many examples for using "stereotypical European features" for non-mukokuseki characters in series like Monster (anime), and Moriarty the Patriot and many others of mukokuseki where the character has dark skin like Killer Bee from Naruto, and the list goes on. I just wanted to clarify that and leave it as a side note, BUT as I previously sayed, we are not speaking about certain show or character, so, if sources didn't explicitly say what you are trying to prove with your argument, then that's called WP:OR. So, we're not going to discuss that any further.

The point is that when anime and manga artists aim for cultural neutrality in the depiction of a character they trend towards types of features that a significant portion of both authors and commentators demonstrably characterize as in some way Euro-American

Which authors and which commentators? You are backing your argument up with one article but I gave you multiples (including researchers and a dictionary) that refutes that. Even the article that you're citing didn't even mention that!

And regarding controversy, I'm more than confident that using the word "stereotypical European features" is more controversial than removing it. I just think that it doesn't make sense to use it when the definition of mukokuseki clearly and literally says that it means "racially ambiguous." If mukokuseki is defined as using ambiguous features, then using European features cannot be ambiguous. It is just so confusing and doesn't make any sense.

And by saying that Canary is not mukokuseki just because she has clear lifelike features then that makes Naruto and all European-looking characters non-mukokuseki because they also have clear unambiguous features, so you're contradicting yourself.

☆SuperNinja2☆ 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, it's not OR to note whether or not the visibly obvious characteristics of a design match the description given by sources for a certain visual style, I brought up Kishimoto because he makes for a particularly prolific example of someone applying an ethnic coding to typically mukokuseki features without any of the sort of cultural bias you were concerned about. Canary doesn't match the descriptions cited by the article so her being mukokuseki would have to be verified separately, but it would be perfectly reasonable to match Naruto to said description just by looking at him.

Again, the dictionary definition of the subject is already given by the lead sentence and the reading of something as "stereotypically European" only comes up as an example of how someone unfamiliar with the subject might recognize certain instances of it. That's why I was so concerned about battlegrounding to begin with, it's not actually applying directly to anything outside of its two immediate sources. The phrasing in question is already sourced to CBR, and even sources like Ruh or Atlantic still bring up 'Caucasian features' as a potential reading even if they criticize it as a biased one, all without mentioning any other culturally non-neutral readings. If CBR is contradicted by other sources that doesn't mean you can just remove the information wholesale, the conflict would have to be mitigated in the text - Something that the article arguably already does with the citations to Ruh and Gruyter after the reader has already been familiarized with both the formal definition you are concerned about and with the more specific interpretations brought up by the given sources. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is WP:SYNTH, therefore it is WP:OR, because it reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source

As I told you before, blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin are not limited to European people. And not all Europeans have blonde hair and pale skin for example, Sámi peoples have features similar to Asians. Therefore, it's not similar to the sky being blue and it need to be cited.

and the reading of something as "stereotypically European" only comes up as an example of how someone unfamiliar with the subject might recognize certain instances of it.

Anime and manga fans are not limited to western people. CBR mentioned that The Western audience is inclined to perceive all animated characters as white unless they have a marked trait specified by the storyteller or stated otherwise and Gruyter article cited this video that shows that Japanese people see anime characters as Japanese and as different ethnicities from around the world. This reading that your talking about is only a small portion of white people's.

even sources like Ruh or Atlantic still bring up 'Caucasian features' as a potential reading even if they criticize it as a biased one,

again, that is WP:SYNTH.

The phrasing in question is already sourced to CBR, [...] If CBR is contradicted by other sources that doesn't mean you can just remove the information wholesale

It's not mentioned by CBR in the first place. CBR didn't say that these features are stereotypically European. Which means that "Stereotypically European" is an original research. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some more research and found:

1. A study finding that Japanese media depictions of features such as light skin and hair were, in a majority of cases, expressly associated with non-Japanese people as the "quintessential representation of foreigners in Japan", with American characters being the most heavily affected group of non-Japanese characters.

2. A paper discussing mukokuseki directly and quoting Christine Yano as saying that "what is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ is actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race" (p. 65)

As I told you before, blonde hair and blue eyes and pale skin are not limited to European people. And not all Europeans have blonde hair and pale skin for example, Sámi peoples have features similar to Asians.

Yes, that's why we're talking about fictional examples and not real-life ethnic groups. Americans aren't all blond either, Kishimoto was making an inaccurate generalization that associated blue eyes and light hair with the Occident the same way a Western perspective might.

The article never claims mukokuseki characters appear as anything to anyone, just that certain features associated with the mode are described by some as looking more European than they do Japanese.

I also feel like you're discounting the term "stereotypically" here -- Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sources can criticize certain associations of a given term, but as long as those associations exist they would be reasonable to include here, in this case as something qualified twice over as both only one possible example and as a potentially inaccurate stereotype.

Perhaps we could compromise on "perceived as having" in place of "depicted with", just to sidestep the issue of authorial intent entirely?

Again, that is WP:SYNTH.

How? You were concerned about "lumping" non-white ethnicities together under "racially ambiguous" when none of the sources bring up any alternative besides either Caucasian or neutral, they identified two possible readings and stated one to be correct and the other not. If you have sources covering how non-white, non-Japanese cultures perceive mukokuseki characters I'd be happy to see them.

CBR describes it as "Caucasian-looking lead character among a Japanese-looking cast", is this seriously about the semantic distinction between "Caucasian" and "person of European descent"?

Orchastrattor (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy break 1

still, it's not mentioned in the sources that these features are stereotypically European and as I said before, foreign features is a different thing from stereotypically European features. And obviously, the first source wasn't speaking about mukokuseki, it was speaking about American and foreign characters representation in anime. So, it's out of context. And the second source is not talking about anime, it's taking about a "Tokyo Metro Campaign" advertisement. So, it's also out of context.

You were saying that CBR said that these features are stereotypically European features and kept mentioning it all the time but when it was made clear that it didn't, you looked for other sources that said things you wanted to prove. You didn't make a research, research is looking for the truth but you already made your mind before conducting the research. You were just WP:CHERRYPICKING. Are you trying to adhere to the sources or trying to prove something?

And why do you keep bringing up Kishimoto? Even if Naruto is inspired by Americans, it doesn't mean that all anime characters are. So bringing them up won't prove anything.

How?

Just read WP:SYNTH carefully before asking me.

CBR describes it as "Caucasian-looking lead character among a Japanese-looking cast", is this seriously about the semantic distinction between "Caucasian" and "person of European descent"?

CBR here is describing Yagami Light.

Perhaps we could compromise on "perceived as having" in place of "depicted with", just to sidestep the issue of authorial intent entirely?

I think that I was clear enough that my problem is with "stereotypically European", not with "perceived as having".

Lastly, no matter what you say, if it's not explicitly stated in the sources that "anime and manga characters features are stereotypically European" it won't help. And to put it side by side next to "racially ambiguous" in the lead section, you have to prove that the use of European features in anime and manga is equal to the use of all other races features and racially ambiguous features combined. And to put the word "stereotypically European" before the word "or racially ambiguous feature" you have to prove that the use of European features surpass the use of any other features in anime and manga. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 05:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"anime and manga characters features are stereotypically European"

No, the claim being made is that some instances of mukokuseki characters are perceived as having stereotypically European characteristics. You're just ignoring the grammar of the article for the umpteenth time, there is no other possible way to interpret that sentence.

CBR is identifying an example as a mukokuseki character by describing him as having features one might reasonably perceive as Caucasian, that is point-for-point what the article is claiming. Neither Ruh nor Atlantic bring up anything to support removing the phrase, they just state that (paraphrasing) 'mukokuseki characters are sometimes perceived as white' and then go on to criticize such a reading, they do not mention any other ethnic group reading mukokuseki as their own. You can't ask me to add information not present in the sources and then accuse me of OR instead.

Having "racially ambiguous" come after "European" is also just grammar; They're both ambiguous, one is just less ambiguous than the other. It would be completely unnatural for an either/or statement to go from the more general clause to the less general one.

The Oana-Maria paper was literally the first relevant result when I typed "mukokuseki" into my university's Novanet, I'm focusing on it over CBR because CBR isn't a scholarly source, it's just what the statement was sourced to originally. Oana-Maria is also literally already a source for the article from another paper, where she also cites the same work by Yano for the definition of the term, she just doesn't bring in Yano's discussion of nationality and race the same way she does for this other, equally prominent paper.

Oana-Maria was using Yano to make a general point about Japanese visual culture, Yano's original work isn't about advertising at all and is instead about the characterization of Hello Kitty across the world, where "Yano argues that (Hello Kitty's setting in London) can still be considered mukokuseki because in most cases, anything but a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant is considered “ethnic culture” by most people."

I never claimed the Language Awareness study was about mukokuseki, just that you can't dismiss racial ambiguity around Westerners as that of "a small portion of white people". Kishimoto was just one example I had before I went and looked up the statistical evidence. Yano is Japanese-American herself, shouldn't her reading take precedence over something like the Ruh or Atlantic articles? Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the claim being made is that some instances of mukokuseki characters are perceived as having stereotypically European characteristics.

that is not mentioned explicitly in the sources either.

You're just ignoring the grammar of the article for the umpteenth time, there is no other possible way to interpret that sentence. [...] Having "racially ambiguous" come after "European" is also just grammar; They're both ambiguous, one is just less ambiguous than the other. It would be completely unnatural for an either/or statement to go from the more general clause to the less general one.

Don't make it look like it's my fault. You can't tell me that I'm misunderstanding the sentence when you literally phrased it to look like that and made it appear like it's the norm for anime characters to look European. If you put a phrase in the definition then it's no longer just an example. It's now part of it's meaning. And if putting the word European before "racially ambiguous" is a grammatical problem then it should be removed. And I asked this before and I will repeat it again. If you claim that "European" is just an example, why did you choose the example to be European, not any other race?

CBR is identifying an example as a mukokuseki character by describing him as having features one might reasonably perceive as Caucasian

"CBR isn't a scholarly source," you said that. AND, mentioning one character as looking Caucasian doesn't mean that it's ok to generalize and say that it is the case for most characters AND it is not enough for it to be included in lead, not to mention the definition. AND if we suppose for the sake of argument that we have a consensus on adding it to the article then we should add other points of views next to it and explain why it is controversial.

Neither Ruh nor Atlantic bring up anything to support removing the phrase,

whether you agree with Ruh or the Atlantic, whether you think they provided sufficient evidence to support their point of view, or whether or not they defended their point of view good enough, this doesn't matter in editing Wikipedia because Wikimedia is not a forum. It's enough to be mentioned in reliable sources for it to be included in the article.

You can't ask me to add information not present in the sources and then accuse me of OR instead.

I didn't ask you to add anything.

where "Yano argues that (Hello Kitty's setting in London) can still be considered mukokuseki because in most cases, anything but a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant is considered “ethnic culture” by most people."

That doesn't prove anything. She didn't say anything about anime characters having European features. She just stated that Anglo-Saxon culture is not considered an ethnic culture by most people. Out of context again.

The Oana-Maria paper was literally the first relevant result when I typed "mukokuseki" into my university's Novanet, I'm focusing on it over CBR because CBR isn't a scholarly source, it's just what the statement was sourced to originally. Oana-Maria is also literally already a source for the article from another paper, where she also cites the same work by Yano for the definition of the term, she just doesn't bring in Yano's discussion of nationality and race the same way she does for this other, equally prominent paper.

this doesn't address the concern of cherrypicking or including only information that supports your preconceived notions

Kishimoto was just one example

That's the problem, you can't generalize that most anime characters have stereotypically European features based on one example. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 08:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"[W]hat is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ is actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race”, direct quote which the Nichi Bei review makes perfectly clear has nothing to do with Oana-Maria's example and is instead about Japanese visual culture as a whole.

Basic textual interpretation also isn't the same as taking something out of context; CBR is clearly only using Light as an example of a larger trend - "there is a large cast of Asian characters, and one of them [...] looks more like a Caucasian character", before using the idea of a "Caucasian-looking character" to segue from Light to the wider concept. Light doesn't even come directly into the prose except as "[one of the characters, who is] usually the protagonist, like Light Yagami" (added emphasis); The Nichi Bei review also directly names mukokuseki as the subject of Yano's argument in the excerpt in question, it's saying mukokuseki characterizations avoid "ethnic culture" by way of WASP characteristics. Anglo-Saxon is also obviously a subgroup of Europeans, they're all saying the same thing.

CBR, Atlantic, Ruh, and Yano (and by extension Nichi Bei and Oana-Maria) all state some variation of "some mukokuseki characteristics are perceived by a significant portion of the viewerbase as Caucasian". None of them make mention of any ethnicities beside Japanese and Caucasian so those are the only ethnicities mentioned directly in the article, you're literally asking me to add information not present in the sources.

You can't tell me that I'm misunderstanding the sentence when you literally phrased it to look like that and made it appear like it's the norm for anime characters to look European.

Is English your first language? Open an RFC or third opinion and have literally anyone tell you what "such as [...]" means.

If you put a phrase in the definition then it's no longer just an example.

The sentence after the lead sentence isn't the definition, the lead sentence is the definition. If it's obviously phrased as an example then it's obviously an example.

And if putting the word European before "racially ambiguous" is a grammatical problem then it should be removed

Both are present in the sources, the order in which they are presented in is an incredibly minor issue you're battlegrounding over by to try and justify removing sourced information.

CBR isn't a scholarly source

Corroborating a claim between multiple sources isn't OR or cherrypicking, in fact it's the polar opposite of OR and cherrypicking. CBR is a non-scholarly source the same way Kotaku and Atlantic are non-scholarly sources, mitigating a conflict between CBR and Kotaku just isn't going to improve the article the same way mitigating a conflict between Ruh and Yano is.

Maybe Yano isn't talking about anime in particular but in that case CBR is the source for "European features" in anime and Yano is the source for visual media in general. "[A]nime and manga" are already qualified as only the "most prominent" of the mediums in question, in case you needed that pointed out to you as well.

[W]hether you agree with Ruh or the Atlantic, whether you think they provided sufficient evidence to support their point of view, or whether or not they defended their point of view good enough, this doesn't matter in editing Wikipedia because Wikimedia is not a forum. It's enough to be mentioned in reliable sources for it to be included in the article.

What does this have to do with FORUM? I never had anything against the article discussing alternative viewpoints under "analysis", that just clearly isn't what you're attempting to do.

[T]his doesn't address the concern of cherrypicking or including only information that supports your preconceived notions

How is it my fault if its literally the first result I got? If the first result quoted a world-renowned scholar of Japanese-American culture in claiming "there is no significant association between mukokuseki characterization and features typically seen as Caucasian" then I would be more than happy to compromise on something in the direction of your preferred version, but that isn't the reality of what the sources say.

You were invited multiple times to provide sources mentioning any ethnicities other than Japanese or European and did not provide anything. Your account has more than enough edits to qualify for WP:Wikipedia Library, its not my fault I'm not compromising if I just don't have anything to compromise on. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You were invited multiple times to provide sources mentioning any ethnicities other than Japanese or European and did not provide anything

You don't get it. I don't have to bring sources mentioning any other ethnicity to prove my point. What you're implying is WP:SYNTHESIS. AND you can't say that because European and Japanese ethnicities are the only ones mentioned in sources then that means that mukokuseki is precived as European if that isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources. Am I being clear enough? Please have a look at WP:SYNTHESIS, it's explained clearly there. We are going in circles because I already explained that multiple times and you keep bringing this up again and again.

CBR is a non-scholarly source the same way Kotaku and Atlantic are non-scholarly sources, mitigating a conflict between CBR and Kotaku just isn't going to improve the article the same way mitigating a conflict between Ruh and Yano is

You just said that Kotaku is an "unreliable gaming rag." Then what makes CBR better according to you? But this isn't my problem in the first place. CBR did not explicitly say that "some mukokuseki characteristics are perceived by a significant portion of the viewerbase as Caucasian." Eliciting this is WP:SYNTH.

Maybe Yano isn't talking about anime in particular but in that case CBR is the source for "European features" in anime and Yano is the source for visual media in general. "[A]nime and manga" are already qualified as only the "most prominent" of the mediums in question, in case you needed that pointed out to you as well

One: Then, why are you phrasing it like the source stated that they were talking about anime and manga? Two: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source: WP:SYNTH.

CBR is clearly only using Light as an example of a larger trend - "there is a large cast of Asian characters, and one of them [...] looks more like a Caucasian character", before using the idea of a "Caucasian-looking character" to segue from Light to the wider concept. Light doesn't even come directly into the prose except as "[one of the characters, who is] usually the protagonist, like Light Yagami"

But it didn't say that most of the anime characters have European features. It just said that it gets interesting when it is the case. It didn't provide any additional information about the subject. However, it gets interesting and somewhat problematic when there is a large cast of Asian characters, and one of them -- usually the lead character, like Light Yagami -- looks more like a Caucasian character

CBR, Atlantic, Ruh, and Yano (and by extension Nichi Bei and Oana-Maria) all state some variation of "some mukokuseki characteristics are perceived by a significant portion of the viewerbase as Caucasian". None of them make mention of any ethnicities beside Japanese and Caucasian so those are the only ethnicities mentioned directly in the article

The Atlantic and Ruh clearly stated the opposite. Concluding that they did just because they mentioned the European race is WP:SYNTH.

The sentence after the lead sentence isn't the definition, the lead sentence is the definition. If it's obviously phrased as an example then it's obviously an example.

If there's disagreement among sources, we should move the controversial topic from the lead to a section where the conflicting views can be explained.

Both are present in the sources, the order in which they are presented in is an incredibly minor issue you're battlegrounding over by to try and justify removing sourced information.

None is. These information aren't sourced. The only source you are talking about is Yona's and it isn't included in the article. So these information isn't sourced.

If the first result quoted a world-renowned scholar of Japanese-American culture in claiming "there is no significant association between mukokuseki characterization and features typically seen as Caucasian" then I would be more than happy to compromise on something in the direction of your preferred version, but that isn't the reality of what the sources say.

I told you about Ruh saying "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless" but you said" CBR, Atlantic, Ruh, and Yano (and by extension Nichi Bei and Oana-Maria) all state some variation of "some mukokuseki characteristics are perceived by a significant portion of the viewerbase as Caucasian" ". It seems to me that it is not what you're trying to do.

Lastly, my question is, which sources were you backing up your claim on? Yona isn't cited in the article and CBR didn't explicitly say that. And you said "all of the actually good sources agree on Japanese occidentalism as a major factor in regards to the subject" but you didn't mention any of "all of the actually good sources" here. And now you say Yona said this and that after "conducting more research"? Phrasing a sentence then searching for sources to back it up is against the rules and is cherrypicking. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 09:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yano clearly states mukokuseki characters are perceived as Western despite originating from a context where they might be presumed to be Japanese. Her claim obviously applies to anime and manga as an aspect of Japanese visual culture, CBR is just corroborating that specific aspect of her claim to support the article bringing up anime and manga as a specific manifestation of nationlessness ahead of other mediums. They do not mention any other ethnicities. If you can't demonstrate that Yano (and all of the sources corroborating or supporting her) are in the minority then this discussion is over.

European and Japanese ethnicities are the only ones mentioned in sources then that means that mukokuseki is precived as European

That is plainly not what I said, at this point you're just conflating different arguments I made to draw out the dispute. I defend the stated relation between two groups with reference to the sources, you do not contest the relation and only complain that I don't bring up some third group, I raise a second defense that those groups are the only ones in the sources, and then you act like my counter-objection was my original defense for the relation.

I concede on Ruh, but his work isn't as directly relevant as Yano's and the Atlantic doesn't even seem to mention mukokuseki by name, why should we include it but not the Language Awareness study?

I never said CBR was better than Kotaku, I'm using this dispuite to put together better sources for the future of the article, that's how wikipedia works. Kotaku and Atlantic aren't as good as CBR here because CBR isn't being directly contested by people like Yano and Oana-Marie.

CBR plainly states that the type of mukokuseki characters they are discussing appear Caucasian, basic textual interpretation isn't SYNTH.

[I]t didn't say that most of the anime characters have European features

The article never states anything about the majority of anime and manga characters, it is an example. Please be aware that basic competence in the English language is required to contribute on the English wikipedia.

If there's disagreement among sources, we should move the controversial topic from the lead to a section where the conflicting views can be explained.

I offered to change the wording to something more neutral and you refused, don't complain to me about it.

Lastly, my question is, which sources were you backing up your claim on?

I can ask the same question of you, since you opened just by fixating on the issue of West-centrism only to completely drop that angle once I demonstrated both statistical evidence on Japanese visual media and an actual Japanese-American person's analysis of the same.

I'm not going to do that though, since as I linked to earlier Wikipedia is not about winning. The article is only a couple months old, CBR was sufficient to back up the given claim when it was published but now we have all of these additional articles to both corroborate existing claims and to expand the content further. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I offered to change the wording to something more neutral and you refused, don't complain to me about it.

My problem wasn't with the wording alone. I think it shouldn't be included in the lead section. How about moving it to its own section? And what should we call it? If you're okay with that, we will discuss the wording later. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's in the article then it should be in the lead, "controversy" isn't really applicable to article structure outside of WP:FRINGE. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy break 2

Third opinion

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by SuperNinja2

I don't think that we should say that anime and manga characters have "stereotypical European features". I don't think this claim is supported by enough sources. None of the cited sources says this but rather two cited sources say the complete opposite. But if we were to include it, we should rephrase it and explain it's controversy in a special section not in the lead.

Viewpoint by Orchastrattor (talk · contribs)

Claim is fully backed by the sources given in the discussion above.

"[W]hat is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ is actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race”, Yano, Christine. Pink Globalism: Hello Kitty's Trek Across the Pacific, quoted by Oana-Marie, corroborated in the case of anime specifically by CBR characterizing mukokuseki characters as someone who "looks more like a Caucasian character" in a context where they might otherwise be assumed to be Japanese.

That source doesn't support as an example of mukokuseki "when a character is depicted with stereotypically European features in a setting where they might otherwise be assumed to be ethnically Japanese".

Yano's perspective is that mukokuseki design ("without nationality") is often/actually "very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race". This can be included in the article but is an analysis/criticism of the concept, and doesn't change the definition of the concept which is approximately "the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality".

Also, as SuperNinja2 pointed out, there is at least one source which states "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a subjective concept, the dictionary definition is just how other people have analyzed and critiqued it. It's not in the lead sentence, why should we discount Yano's claim just because it's less specific or more abstract than others?

As was already discussed multiple times over above, the original version also isn't claiming 100% of all mukokuseki characters are Caucasian, just that it ends up being a significant conflation. The lead is supposed to help readers identify the subject of an article for themselves, the sources support it as a potentially identifiable characteristic. Yano doesn't seem to mention anything about "racially ambiguous" features either, it's there as part of an either/or statement to represent the variety of opinions on the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately I simply agree with SuperNinja2 that "I don't think that we should say that anime and manga characters have "stereotypical European features". I don't think this claim is supported by enough sources."

Based on the sources I've seen we can only say that some people, such as Christine Yano, consider mukokuseki characters to have European features. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There aren't enough sources to say they appear neutral or racially ambiguous either, source conflicts happen all the time. The important thing is that the original way of phrasing it just makes the article better, all of the sources support their definitions of mukokuseki by comparing the mode to established depictions of the specific ethnic groups relevant to the point they're making. The lead sentence brings up nationality as part of the direct definition and then the second sentence gives context to that definition by bringing up how different authors see mukokuseki characters' relationship with real nationalities. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion by IOHANNVSVERVS

I agree with SuperNinja2's position and modified the lead, removing the bit about "stereotypical European features", which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. I am still openminded to hearing Orchastrattor's view/counterpoints. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's stating that mukokuseki can apply to to characters identified by Caucasian characteristics, how is that not exactly what Yano is saying? Orchastrattor (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There weren't a lot of participants in this RFC, so even though there was a pretty firm majority for No on 1, I can only say that there was a rough consensus for it. The general arguments in favor were that some sources say so; the arguments against were that other sources dispute it. Since this is very fact based, I don't really see either side of this argument as inherently stronger, but the fact that the No side had clearly more people implies strongly that it was more convincing. There were fewer people who expressed a clear opinion on 2, so between that and the sparse number of participants overall I find that there is no consensus. Supporters said it was relevant, opponents said it wasn't about mukokuseki. Again, very fact dependent, and there wasn't a clear majority here so it doesn't seem like either of these arguments was too much more convincing than the other. Loki (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

---

1. Should this article say in the lead that Mukokuseki is when a "character is perceived as having [...] stereotypically Western characteristics"?
2. Should this article mention the Language Awareness study? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• No to #1, per above discussion. This was also discussed at DRN here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• To #1, I do not think that there is enough agreement among sources to state this as an undisputed fact in the lead section. Rather, the disagreements and multiple viewpoints among sources can be summarized in the article's body, without taking a side as to which one is right. So, a "no" to stating that as fact in the lead. As to #2, the mention of any individual studies should be based upon whether either the study, its author, or the publication it appeared in, is especially noteworthy or significant. I do not see enough information above to determine whether that's true or not for the Language Awareness study in particular, so I'm unsure on that question, as it's ultimately one of due weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  The lead is stating it is a way the subject is perceived in criticism, how is that in dispute given the sources?

  It is placing it as a possible interpretation alongside "racially ambiguous" and "culturally "neutral"", how is the lead taking any sort of stance on the question? Orchastrattor (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to both but rewrite. It tends to draw criticism when a Caucasian actor plays the role of a character that is mukokuseki. This would be an effect, not necessarily an example, of mukokuseki. However there are cases where Western characteristics are imposed on East Asian characters, especially during certain decades, so you may want to find more sources that discuss works from those eras. Senorangel (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes #1, the sources do not agree on any specific characteristics of the subject so highlighting different viewpoints directly is the only option for any sort of substantial lead paragraph, why are we only discussing the last and most heavily sourced viewpoint of the three given, and not the other two? Oana-Maria's article is the first relevant result for "mukokuseki" on my university's database and Yano's view on the subject, cited therein, has demonstrable traction outside of academic publishing, granting them equal prominence (at least) alongside other viewpoints is the only way to meet due weight. A CBR article on the subject cited elsewhere also identifies the concept as "Caucasian-looking character[s]" and is in the top three or four results on google excluding wikis and forums, so there is strong precedent to think this would not be controversial in the lead for the general English-speaking public. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment The lead does not say "mukokuseki is when a character..." it says that critical writings to make use of the subject do so in one of the three given ways. Orchastrattor (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter: No to 1 because, I think that the lead mentions Yano's unique POV on the subject and favors it over many other sources that think otherwise without good reason. There is at least one source that says: "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless," but the lead mentions only Yano's. Why is that? That sentence is disputed between sources in top of being controversial, so it should be discussed further and it should be represented with other POVs in order to meet WP:DUE and the lead is not the place for that. And I would like to add that even Yano agrees with other sources on that "Mukokuseki means characters without a concrete ethnicity or nationality" but she adds and analyze this idea further and deeper to say: what is interpreted as ‘without nationality’ is actually very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race. So we can safely say that all the sources including Yano agree on the definition I suggested. But analyzing of the details shouldn't be in the lead. That is why I suggest analyzing it in its own section. The lead is supposed to give an overview of the subject and is not supposed to be trafficked with extra information. And not to mention the wording itself (stereotypical western characteristics) which is not even used by Yano and is very misleading.

No to 2 because the study is off topic, it doesn't talk about Mukokuseki at all and doesn't mention entertainment media at all. So its place is not here. And the only purpose of including this study into this article is to conclude an idea that is not mentioned in the source which makes it Wikipedia:SYNTH. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 03:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

the lead mentions only Yano

Have you considered reading the article before voting?

Before the DRN it was already contrasting Yano's view against the Gruyter article's interpretation of it being "racially ambiguous", the current version was the one I proposed as a draft to reintroduce the term "neutral" after it was removed by a third party over a technicality, good to know you literally didn't even read anything I wrote.

Your proposal for the lead just removed anything that didn't define the subject as "culturally neutral", which is plainly not the same as Yano's definition of it being "imbued with" a particular culture.

Ruh doesn't even come up with that quote until a fair bit into his article, how is his analysis any less subjective than Yano's? Your proposal was to put him as the sole definiton and cut Yano's view out of the lead completely, that is plainly a violation of WP:NPOV. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to keep regurgitating stuff from the DRN discussion you didn't bother to read, "Western" is obviously synonymous with "Euro-American culture or race", its incredibly hypocritical to split hairs over an obvious definition in order to claim Yano is somehow being misrepresented by the lead, only to immediately then claim that anyone who doesn't openly and specifically disagree with your POV is therefore secretly in support of it. This whole RFC is just you WP:BLUDGEONING an article you haven't read with sources you don't understand to support a personal POV you can't be bothered to admit to. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• No to #1 "Stereotypically Western characteristics" means very different things to different people. Upon reading the lead my first thought was "since when do most anime characters have large noses, prominent brow-ridges and deep-set eyes?", as these are the features that define Europeans to me (and coincidentally, image recognition AI neural networks). These features may be common in some anime (such as Monster or JoJo's Bizzare Adventure), but they are very atypical compared to more generic styles. As has already been pointed out by multiple sources cited in the article (and many more that could be included), the idea that anime characters look "European" or "Western" is caused by the convention in the West that a white male is the default person. This results in any less-than-fully-realistic drawing as being perceived as a white male first and foremost for those subject to this kind of social programming. Out of all the English speakers in the world, it is mostly European or European-Americans that are subject to this frame of thought. The very large percentage of non-white English speakers will read the lead and either wonder why this article is written in such a Eurocentric fashion, or wonder if the article is only considering the relatively small proportion of anime where most characters actually do have Western facial features.
• No to #2 This study talks about the physical markers that are assigned to Caucasian characters in order to explicitly mark their race (big noses, blonde hair, more prominent facial contours, etc). This is essentially the exact opposite of the purpose of this article. If it were to be included in the article, it should be in its own section on how Caucasian characters are commonly given physical features to signify their race in anime, not as a non-sequitur in the already poorly focused "Analysis" section.

Side note: I'm wondering why this RFC is even necessary when it seems like it was already agreed upon to remove the implication that anime characters are "Caucasian looking" from the lead. Seems odd that Orchastrattor would unilaterally re-add the idea after it was already agreed upon to be removed. Biosaurt (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's cited to Oana-Maria and Nichi Bei, both quoting Christine Yano. Source conflicts happen all the time, the current version post-DRN is the only one to represent all three identifiable views in accordance with the sources available.

Removing a claim because you don't personally agree with it is plainly POV, and it is furthermore very hypocritical to claim the article is being West-centric when the best source available for mukokuseki characters being culturally neutral is actually Brian Ruh, a white man, and is contradicted by Yano, an Asian-American being paraphrased very directly by a major Japanese-American newspaper.

In fact I don't even like or watch anime myself, everything I added to the article was just restating what the sources say. Yano's view is a major perspective on the subject with as much due weight in the lead as those of Ruh or the De Gruyter article, and furthermore doesn't even say anything about facial features, that is entirely something you're projecting onto the article. Her and Oana-Maria are primarily talking about a variety of abstract marketing mascots without real human features, and the rest of the article also applies it to things as abstract as Super Mario or the writing style of Murakami.

None of the previous discussions reached any sort of consensus, majority opinion is not the same as consensus. People would just stop responding to me after I debunked their arguments and then escalate to a different forum, to the point where the requestor here essentially admitted to not even reading any of my arguments on the DRN. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment Split "Analysis" up into two new sections based on a suggestion here, in part to better separate the Language Awareness study from the bulk of the article filled out by Ruh, Strecher, and Yano. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Close Dead thread submitted by someone who hadn't even familiarized themselves with the current version before going to RFC. No one except myself has made any attempt to engage with opposing arguments so if @Snowmanonahoe:, @Piotrus:, or @ARandomName123: can quickly close this as obvious no consensus on both points that would be appreciated. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Update User:Biosaurt has also made the juvenile decision to disrupt related pages with edits removing sourced content like this edit to anime rather than properly engaging with multiple attempts at a constructive discussion so the closer will have to clean that up as well. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• comment I agree with User:IOHANNVSVERVS ([1]) and User:Biosaurt that Orchastrattor unilaterally re-added the wording in question after it was already agreed upon to be removed and that is considered as type of edit warring and thus his edits should be reverted. There seems to be an implicit consensus on this point at least. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is reached when the rationale in favor of one option outweighs the rationale for a different option, not when an arbitrary majority of voices is reached. You demonstrably didn't even bother to read my arguments on the DRN or the current version of the article, you just replied with "TLDR", escalated to RFC, and then copy pasted the exact argument I had already debunked here. That's not consensus, that's using WP:ICANTHEARYOU to create an illusion of consensus. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Still, you're edit warring to force your POV and that is unacceptable. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Each edit was accompanied by an extensive discussion on the talk page or DRN, failure to engage with community discussion does not make any edits you disagree with a case of edit warring. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (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.

Thanks Loki. So, I can remove the "stereotypically Western characteristics" statement without being accused of edit warring, right? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Loki (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)