Talk:Otaku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Japan / Culture (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:10, March 22, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Culture task force.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Popular Culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

How is it pronounced?[edit]

That ought to be added to the article, so I don't sound like an idiot when I read it out loud.  ;-) - Theaveng 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I still don't know the answer. I've heard people say O-ta-ku with emphasis on the O, and O-tak-u with emphasis on the middle syllable. Which is correct? ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about stress, but because of the way syllables work in Japanese the first is correct as far as how the word is broken up (letters in Japanese almost all represent consonant-vowel pairs). There's a pronunciation in there now though. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
All of the syllables are said with the same stress. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Otaku in Japan[edit]

Just wondering how 'derisive' a term it is in japan. If i'm not wrong i believed the ex japanese prime minister (Aso?) paraphrased something along the lines that the latest culture of japan is one that is 'otaku'. And furthermore implicitly implied that he was a manga otaku... Dont have any citations atm but i thought it may be worth noting the larger acceptance of 'otaku' culture in japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.41 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is this Japanese show aired in HK where the culture minister(or someone along that line) used Cantonese to express that he is an Otaku. That episode is about a prize giving ceremony of the foreign language manga in which it happened to be two Hong Kong artist who got the first two position(and thus held in HK). Also, Japanese pop stars often appear in shows that are otaku based, a lot of pop stars even openly said they are otaku and are very active in anime casting. The main problem is that those are pasted shows and their own blog entry that are extremely hard to track back to source. MythSearchertalk 08:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How society perceives otaku is currently a very hot topic in Japan. You should be fully aware of the relation between otaku and anti-otaku that is almost a media-war. If you take one side, the article will inevitably become one-sided. 18:00 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.69.203 (talk)

Relation to AS?[edit]

I don't necessarily disagree with the linking in related subjects to Asperger's Syndrome, but I'm not sure there is any hard support for that correlation. It seems right, but it should be cited before adding. user:john.ohno —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole section was a mess. I kept the most relevent wikilinks and removed the rest. The presents of many of the wikilinks appear to be pushing a POV that connected otaku with mental illness. --Farix (Talk) 20:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper Lexicon Missing[edit]

I can't help but notice that the actual Japanese alphabet spelling of otaku is glaringly absent and symbolised as '???' - is there no one that can correct this? It seems a fairly important detail for an encylopedic entry rather than so much of the cultural analysis (though woot for Gibson)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.173.69 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Otaku (おたく or オタク) - right in the opening. Are you having trouble seeing Japanese characters? You might need some Help:Japanese. Biccat (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct Japanese Spellings[edit]

We provide the spellings for Japanese of Otaku as "おたく or オタク" - is this correct? An online translation says the first means 'home' and the other 'mania'. Mania makes sense but i just wanted to check this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.32.3 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The traditional word (お宅, おたく) means home, while the newer slang (おたく、オタク) means "mania" ("mania" being another Japanese word with a slightly different connotation than in English as explained in the article). —Tokek (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The first generation of otaku used hiragana to spell otaku, so it was おたく, following Akio Nakamori's original article. In the 1990ies, former Gainax member Toshio Okada and self proclaimed Otaking tried to improve the image of otaku, held lectures in universities and published several books on the topic. He used the katakana spelling オタク and it has since then become the standard spelling. Though members of the first generation like Eiji Ōtsuka, editor of Manga Burikko, still use the hiragana spelling even today. NextEven (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wota"[edit]

From the article on Japanese Wikipedia, the spelling variants are おたく (otaku?), オタク (otaku?), ヲタク (wotaku?) オタ (ota?), and ヲタ (wota?). The last one ヲタ (wota?), doesn't have any difference in meaning from the other spelling variants. However on English Wikipedia, wota is treated as a subcategory and wota redirects to ota-gei (otaku that specialises in geinoujin), but I think this is based on a misunderstanding. —Tokek (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MOE[edit]

Can someone please make a refer-to page useing Moe & than write a bit explaining the difference & similarities of Moe & Otaku? Or even give Moe it's own page?

egirl630 on Veoh says: "moe- A Japanese slang term (ironically, first employed by otaku) used to refer to the fetish for or sexual attraction to idealized people, usually a fictional perfect young girl. Since then, moé has come to be used as a general term for a hobby, mania or fetish (non-sexual or otherwise). This is contrasted with otaku, which would be taking the specific hobby, mania or fetish."

It also seems to refur for favorite types of pairing fetishes, & the more tabboo they are, the more desireable they are. Student-teacher, bodyguard-bocchama, twin brothers, human-mazoku, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Me thnks what you're trying to say is there is a correlation between these two terms. I say there isn't, and is a case wherein "correlation equal causation".
There are neither similarities nor differences.
Explain why, so that we may discuss on this in further detail. The user egirl630 on Veoh is not a reliable source of info, btw. --Animeronin (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Moe is a term used for describing things, Otaku is used for describing people. They are totally different terms, and your English needs to be improved before you try to understand Japanese loan terms. Moe is mostly used by otaku to describe things that are favourable.(It would be very unlikely to meet a non otaku that understands what moe means in Japan, quite a lot of story in Japan uses that as a plot device for conversations between otaku and their friends that are not otaku.) MythSearchertalk 11:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative views of "otaku"?[edit]

I'm pretty sure it would be appropriate for wikipedia to have some sort of controversy or negative views section on the otaku article. I think encyclopedia dramatica (Despite being satirical the opinions on that site are still based on those of *channers) could be reference enough. --Ogremagi (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Especially since the meaning of otaku inside and outside Japan are different. While in Japan it has an extremely negative connotation that involves being shut-in, obsessive, gross etc, outside Japan it usually refers to any person who likes anime/manga. Komeirin (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

where is criticism?[edit]

Well? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't done anything considered super negative. So, there is no criticism about them. Besides, there isn't much of an article for the cartoon fans. Besides, they don't go lunging at people to be just like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.67.38 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about the stabbing in Akihabara? And several other crimes commited by otaku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.69.8 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What stabbings are you talking about? --66.168.67.38 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Never mind, Found it. Doesn't mention rabid Otakus, sorry to say. It mentions a guy who killed some Otakus, but, it didn't state that he was one.

Tsutomu Miyazaki. (Momus (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Missing subject in beginning sentence of introductory paragraph[edit]

In this essay he observed that this and most notably, animationist like Haruhiko Mikimoto and Shōji Kawamori.[3] (He observed WHAT???)-72.186.159.68 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Otaku and Wapanese aren't the same[edit]

Otaku are people who love manga and anime. I thought wapanese were people who love Japan. It isn't the same. The should be a different article for that term.Ariana-hime (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Weeaboo[edit]

Weeaboo isn't a portmantu of anything. It's from an old word filter on 4chan. 173.9.5.45 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I cleaned up that sentence to make it clearer. 72.70.18.242 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

What does this sentence mean? "Otaku is derived from a Japanese term for another's house or family (お宅, otaku) that is also used as an honorific second-person pronoun."It is at the beginning of the etymology section. Can someone who understands what it means rewrite it in a clearer fashion.

Michalchik (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

pop culture list[edit]

Can we limit it to main story line only? Say, the NGE entry is only a minor charater being an otaku(furthermore, without source) seems to be only making the list becoming hard to read and not notable. MythSearchertalk 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken English!![edit]

The main character Morisaki Kouta who is an otaku living in the residense of Higansou apartmen. When suddenly a 9 year-old girl approches him and claimed to be his daughter.

Sound weird? Yes. Copyvio? Maybe.

TheListUpdater (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Shadowrun[edit]

Replying to the comment in the revert, if "there's no need for a section on the usage in one game" because "the word is used similarly (albeit in an extreme way)," then there also is no need for an English/international section separated out from a Japanese section. Exactly the same argument applies. As to the cultural importance of this one game, check out my comments on Shadowrun's influence above.

Would this section flow better were I to emphasise differences rather than similarities? I rather thought that the concept of *literally* preferring to live in the Matrix rather than the real world defined the essential difference, but a different approach may be preferred. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.247 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine to have a section like that in the Shadowrun article, but not in this article. Shadowrun does not have enough of a global influence for mention in this article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. While the importance of relevance is understood for any Wikipedia article as a whole, I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy which demands global influence for every subsection, only that each subsection have relevance to the topic. The Shadowrun usage of otaku certainly meets that criterion. - Tenebris
Try WP:Trivia. If your logic works, then thousands of relevant series would be included into this article. MythSearchertalk 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Does not apply here. This is not a tangential pop culture mention in one medium or another, but core to the understanding of what otaku is. I understand that the nature of otaku is to focus on the value of one to the exclusion of all else, but here the otaku-focus is being applied to exclude an influence of close to equal influence, for all the reasons I have already given in this talk thread. Before you dismiss as trivia, you might answer the arguments given to that effect in the other section above. - Tenebris
The most that could be included is something along the lines of "In the roleplaying game Shadowrun, "otaku" is a character class." Anything beyond that (from the section you tried to include) would be original research. You can include the information in the Shadowrun article if you can find a way to do it that isn't original research, but there is no valid reason for including it here which doesn't run afoul of WP:TRIVIA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that most otaku don't even know what Shadowrun is, so I doubt it's "core to understanding what otaku is". The article no more needs a secion on the Shadowrun class than samurai needs one on street sams. — Gwalla | Talk 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Police profiling[edit]

It appears that in Japan, profiling based on an individuals' appearance by police is prevalent in areas such as Akihabara, where people who appear to be "Otaku" are singled out and searched for weapons.

I may be able to provide more sources if needed. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Now if it would only appear in a reliable source... ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested link and comments on writing style[edit]

I'd like to suggest the following link for inclusion in the reference section:

I had added it to the article but another editor was not happy with the web page author adding a link to his own article. Fair enough, but I think this is a useful link, so I am adding it to the talk page for your review. If you consider it useful, please consider adding it to the links.

Also, I'd like to point out that the article's writing style seems very disjointed. It looks as if some people have added sentences into the article, especially the top part of the article, without considering the flow of logic of the writing, so the first two paragraphs of the article don't actually make sense. Continuing down the page, the writing style in the "In Japan" section is so disjointed that it almost seems nonsensical. --Sljfaq2 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, from the first paragraph, the two sentences in bold here seem completely disjointed from the paragraph, and the net effect is that the first paragraph makes no sense at all:

As an honorific second-person pronoun Otaku is derived from a Japanese term for another's house or family (お宅, otaku) that is also used as a honorific second-person pronoun. The modern slang form, which is distinguished from the older usage by being written only in hiragana (おたく) or katakana (オタク or, less frequently, ヲタク), or rarely in rōmaji, appeared in the 1980s. In the anime Macross, first aired in 1982, the term was used by Lynn Minmay as an honorific term.[3][4] It appears to have been coined by the humorist and essayist Akio Nakamori in his 1983 series An Investigation of "Otaku" (『おたく』の研究 "Otaku" no Kenkyū?), printed in the lolicon magazine Manga Burikko. Animators like Haruhiko Mikimoto and Shōji Kawamori used the term among themselves as an honorific second-person pronoun since the late 1970s.[4]

--Sljfaq2 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that it would be linking to a discussion on a newsgroup. Anyone can participate there, and newsgroups are never considered reliable at all. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the so called net effect, it is probably a matter of logical thinking method here.

As an honorific second-person pronoun Otaku is derived from a Japanese term for another's house or family (お宅, otaku) that is also used as a honorific second-person pronoun. The modern slang form, which is distinguished from the older usage by being written only in hiragana (おたく) or katakana (オタク or, less frequently, ヲタク), or rarely in rōmaji, appeared in the 1980s. In the anime Macross, first aired in 1982, the term was used by Lynn Minmay as an honorific term.[3][4] It appears to have been coined by the humorist and essayist Akio Nakamori in his 1983 series An Investigation of "Otaku" (『おたく』の研究 "Otaku" no Kenkyū?), printed in the lolicon magazine Manga Burikko. Animators like Haruhiko Mikimoto and Shōji Kawamori used the term among themselves as an honorific second-person pronoun since the late . .[4]

The second bolded sentence shares the same source as the Akio and the sentence above it, also bolded is the first media appearance of the word. Everything above that is only an intro to the word rendered in Japanese. I don't see disjointments here. You can try to make it into two paragraphs so the second paragraph starts with the Macross quote, this may help. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing something in a style which requires "logical thinking", as if it was a puzzle, doesn't seem a good idea to me. --Sljfaq2 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am saying it is how you look at it, it is not a puzzle, you only need to try to use other ways to read it. You seems to tend to think that every sentence has to have something to do with the previous sentence, this is not always the case. This paragraph is giving facts, not analysis, each sentence presents a fact, and the Macross mention till the end is pretty much only a re-sentenced version from the source. I don't see why it is hard to understand or disjointed like you suggested. You can try to improve it by keeping the facts and sources, feel free to do so, but I don't think I can offer any more than what have been written(and I wrote it, so probably I can understand my own logic anyway) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"You seems to tend to think that every sentence has to have something to do with the previous sentence" - yes, that's a reasonable summary of what I think. Anyway I'm sorry if I offended you by criticizing your writing style. Wishing you the best. --Sljfaq2 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if anyone criticize my writing, feel free to change it if you can, I know my writting can be hard to understand sometimes, however, I don't think every sentence should be related to the previous. Even commercial writings do not do that as a must. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll second your reference, reading the wikipedia article it does not capture the essense of the word. The reference may be disjointed but the information is correct. An Otaku is someone with next to no social skills who is unhealthily obsessed with their obsession (which is why okaku also means one's home, as in house bound). Simply put its like calling an idiot mentally retarded. Tea Man 20:09, 24/2/2012 —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Needs a source[edit]

The line "In Japan there has been some negativity towards otaku and otaku culture, incidents including the Akihabara Massacre and the Osaka School Massacre, just a few of the crimes related to "otaku hatred" or "obsession" " need a verified source, I have looked at the articles on the two incidents mentioned, and neither of them had Otaku Hatred as any of the reasons for the crime, just because a crime takes place in an area known for a certain group, doesn't mean its against that group, in the first incident, it could have been very well only chosen for the high population of potential victims, and not what the victims were regarded as.~metalica11~06/07/2009 1:46 am est —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalica11 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs a source (again)[edit]

I have to agree with the very first point made on this discussion page. There is still no source regarding a link between the Osaka School Massacre o the Akihabara Massacre and otaku. Nor does the English wikipedia page for the massacres mention it. Maybe someone who can read Japanese can verify a source for this somewhere? Otherwise I think the reference to these crimes needs to go. 24.201.152.243 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can the remove the "needs source, as contains original research", as I have added contemporary references. Being Lazy - I've not tracked down the online articles, even though I'm sure the magazines will contain them - so not added hrefs. Will make the page neater, so: Someone with power, please do so, ta 109.154.144.90 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) ( as "Lazy" Saccade. Ie, not signed in)

How do I pronounce the word Otaku???[edit]

I asked this question all the way back in 2007 and still don't know. It would be nice to inform the readers in the article by providing an English pronunciation. ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a Japanese word, so you would pronounce it as oh-tah-kooh basically. See this page on how to pronounce Japanese vowels if you're still confused.  mx3 (Sorafune) 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Do We Really Need Another Article For the World Nerd/Geek[edit]

Seriously, at least this isn't as bad as having different articles for seiyuu and voice actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.187.104 (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any articles for nerd or geek worlds. But if you're talking about the words, then yes, we do. Geek, nerd, and otaku are not the same thing.  mx3 (Sorafune) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

"Yamanote dialect" removed.And a point of"in understandable English" is not possible to understand for me "What is understandable"(;´Д`)(´Д`)(´Д`;)・・・It thinks extremely fortunately if it mends appropriately. (by Machine translation[1])--大和屋敷 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your additions have not been in understandable English, which is why I removed them. If your English capability is so poor that you have to rely on machine translations like that above, I think you should consider editing on the Japanese Wikipedia project instead. --DAJF (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

あなたがただしい英語になおせばいいだけではないか。出典付の情報をむやみに削除するな。(Do you only have not to translate into correct English?Do not delete information with the source excessively. )--大和屋敷 (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)I apologize for becoming the instruction tone. Please do not delete information with the source excessively even if it is described by the English word and the English grammar not interpreted easily for you. You can participate in the edit of Wikipedia by correcting it to an easy word and an easy English grammar. Thanks.--大和屋敷 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition as well. For one, I really couldn't tell what it was all about because the quality of the English was so poor. The external link was to a website that wouldn't pass the English Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source either. I'm also not sure what exactly the link is suppose to source. —Farix (t | c) 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor source?[edit]

The dictionary site[2] makes this book[3] a radical. Is that good though it is also possible to delete the link and to introduce this book directly? --大和屋敷 (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the website that indicates that it is a reliable source. Anyone can throw up a website, but that doesn't make it reliable. And the second link you provided is giving a 404 error. Also, if you don't know English well enough to write coherently, then editing articles on the English Wikipedia may not be the thing for you. —Farix (t | c) 11:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Woops! 404(´Д`)[4](It is a Japanese document.東京方言集)--大和屋敷 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Because it is atmosphere that the contribution block seems to be done, the after is good for you&you. --大和屋敷 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ore no Imouto[edit]

I think Ore no Imōto ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai should be included as well. There are also plenty of parodies of the treatment of otaku by the media, otaku and others. -69.237.109.158 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What would be the equivalent phrase or word in English?[edit]

Since the article says it has very negative connotations in Japanese, would "nut-job" or "wacko" be an equivalent word in English? In other words, saying to your friend, "He's some sort of bird-watching wacko" or "He's one of those 60-year old nut-jobs who still plays with those little green army soldiers, reenacting the Battle of the Bulge every evening". Does that convey the same sort of meaning that it does in Japanese? Jimindc (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nerd/Geek would be pretty much the same. The negative connotation of the term is more towards the social culture in Japan, people hate to be called as a different group than others, since it took away their social status of belonging to the society. Any words you suggest in English will not carry the same effect since people are less concern of being different from the rest.(many are even happy to be different) Think of it as like being called as a Aspie, psycho, just because having a different hobby than others. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiragana/Katakana[edit]

おたく returned 6.58 million results and オタク 31.8 million. Also, when I did the first search, it even prompted if I was looking for the latter. Yes, I know the Hiragana one is correct and the latter is not, yet it is so wildly used that it is worth some mention. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Single-sided Intro?[edit]

As of July 31, 2011, the intro section of the article has the following text: "Otaku (おたく / オタク) is a Japanese term used to refer to people with obsessive interests, particularly anime, manga, or video games."

Upon examining the entire article, it would indicate that the intro is taken from the "In English" section, which begins with: "The term is a loanword from the Japanese language. In English, it is usually used to refer to an obsessive fan of anime/manga and/or Japanese culture generally, and to a lesser extent Japanese video games."

One potential issue with this is that, since the intro section is meant to provide an overview of what a particular subject matter entails, the single-sentence intro appears to promote a narrowed, single-sided, and unbalanced interpretation of the word "otaku" by many circles around the world, while ignoring what the original meaning of the word is and how the modern slang usage of the word came about in Japan (note: referring to my edits to the article on August 1 and 2, 2011). For people who are unfamiliar with the term to begin with, the intro text has an undesirable effect to lead one to believe that:

  • anime, manga, and video games are all "obsessive interests;"
  • all otakus are "obsessive" individuals;
  • or, it is okay if one goes out to an arcade to play video games on a random basis from time to time, but if he/she does the same at home, then holy moly, the person must be obsessed or the hobby must be an obsessive one!

Given how well-read Wikipedia is globally and how links to Wikipedia often come out at the top of search engine results, I am sure many would agree that articles on Wikipedia should always strive to maintain a neutral point of view and encompass multiple viewpoints including negativity and criticism. However, the existing intro text of "otaku" potentially breeds wide-scale misunderstanding and unnecessarily disparages a specific group of people. As such, it is my sincere hope that my contributions to the article will be kindly reviewed and reconsidered, otherwise unfortunate incidents such as revision 443452790 are bound to reoccur.

Oscar 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the intro adequately summarizes the content of the article as a whole. The etymology of the word (meaning "one's home" or "you" in Japanese") is properly explained in the "Etymology" section immediately following the introduction. I disagree that the article paints anime, manga, and video games of their fans as "obsessive", but it certainly (correctly) describes "otaku" as somewhat "obsessive" since that is part and parcel of the meaning. The editor above also seems to be confusing the original meaning of "one's home" as being related to activities done at home - which is not the case. "Otaku" activities are certainly not limited to home - as exemplified by railway otaku or cosplay otaku, amongst others. --DAJF (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to object once again to the discriminatory tone and narrow-minded view carried by the main article, particularly in the opening sentence. According to a 2013 survey conducted by Mynavi, a career development and public opinion research agency in Japan, more than 50% of people under the age of 30 consider themselves as an otaku, with the term now commonly used to describe anyone who is familiar with any given hobby or interest, but without the derogatory "obsessive" connotation. The survey has a sample size of 137734 respondents, one of the largest in recent years; its results and some of the responses can be seen at http://news.mynavi.jp/news/2013/04/27/076/.
In comparison, the view currently expressed in the English version of Wikipedia article is obscene and clearly outdated. It comes across as an mean-spirited opinion piece written in late 1990 / early 2000 with a thin-veiled despite of Japanese language, culture, and society. It ignores how the term has positively evolved in the last decade, and as a result, the article is neither balanced nor neutral by today's standards. Prior to the American Civil War, language and publication in which a portion of the population were unjustly discriminated were commonplace. Today it is no longer the case in most corners of society. The intro section of this Wikipedia article, in my personal opinion, presently functions as an attack banner that encourages bias and prejudice, and should be remedied regardless of original intent. -- Oscar 10:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

More stuff[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Differences between Male and Female Otaku[edit]

I really feel that this should be removed as WP:SOAP (Opinion pieces). While I understand there are differences between Male and female Otaku I feel that the section does not help the article and is too narrow in scope, that and it just talking about spending habits (Anime and Manga) and not Otaku as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Otaku/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Ok on that front. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References are a problem. There are some unreferenced claims; some sentences are missing citations making me dubious whether the cited offline source is really used for them, and finally, there are missing reference information (ex. page ranges; in same cases - authors, article titles...). All refs should be converted to Wikipedia:Citation templates for consistent formatting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Some come from ebooks which have no pages. Like the one I just cited Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World. How should I best resolve this issue. The reference converting is ideal, I'll see about getting to that later. I've never converted them before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Do you have the physical copy or an ebook? In my experience only bad Google Book scans don't have pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    No, I am using the Google Books ebook. You can verify the content yourself in said material, but no page numbers are given. While not ideal, I do not see how this will be a barrier because the material is verifiable in the sources. Same as the Wrong about Japan link. The "May 2006 issue of EX Taishuu magazine" cite can be dropped because it is already cited once. I have other material I can replace it with. Same with refs 5-6. Those are "trivial" sources as far as I am concerned and are easily replaceable. So for the immediate time, the only matter should extend to Wrong about Japan and Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World for pages because I am going to replace the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    I've asked about good practices for this at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_a_book_without_page_numbers.3F. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I doubt whether the article is broad in coverage. 1028 words for a major popculture topic - this is still barely a C-class in that regard. It fails to mention a number of books that deal with this topic, for one almost random example: Patrick W. Galbraith (25 June 2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's Guide to the Subculture of Cool Japan. Kodansha International. ISBN 978-4-7700-3101-3. Retrieved 12 August 2013. . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sorta confused here, because this is page is intended to be definition, usage and history of the term, not an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups. In a review of the material before I nommed, I was confronted with that problem and the details of the subculture versus the definition of the word is massive and the groups included are huge. The disconnect between Japanese usage and English usage is also important and I was told that the detailed subculture should not be discussed on this page. It would actually be rather confusing and unfeasible for a single page to cover "otaku" properly because you have train otaku, history otaku, vending machine otaku, idol otaku, fishing otaku, and others that are distinct subgroups that have nothing in common with each other - much less anime and manga. In English, the term describes anime and manga fans, but even that is not a major term and it is not a subculture. One page cannot hold the information, and it would need to be more indepth than Trekkie if such a page was going to be nommed. I will address the types of otaku to make this more clear though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am not sure who is the intention-making party in "this is a page intended"; I certainly disagree with such an intention and consider the page grossly incomplete as long as the coverage of "an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups" is not added. If you disagree with me, we will have to ask for another reviewer's opinion here (if you'd like a second opinion, please request it at WT:GAN). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oh don't get me wrong here, I recognize the omission, but did not want to quibble over the 12 recognized groups and the government's recognition or impart an unbalanced view of Anime and Manga otaku. I will address the issues you've raised immediately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree with the assessment that the article, as it currently stands, is a "fair representation without bias" due to the use of word "excessive" in the opening sentence. As pointed out by ChrisGualtieri in the coverage section above, the article is meant to provide a definition of the term "otaku" without an extensive analysis of its subcultures and groups because the "groups included are huge," that there are "distinct subgroups that have nothing in common with each other," and that it is "unfeasible" to cover them on a single page. Yet at the same time the article name-calls on all of these groups as having "excessive" interests right at the beginning. There certainly are individuals who excessively pursue their interests, but that's a behaviour issue on an individual basis and is not what unifies all of these groups as "otaku." An otaku is someone who has a hobby -- in other words, a hobbyist. To call anyone who has a hobby as someone who has an "excessive" interest is an inappropriate overgeneralisation. As a remedy, I suggest using words like "specific" or "particular" in place of "excessive" in the opening sentence. Oscar 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Only one picture is not enough; there should be several pictures illustrating various self-identified otaku groups and their culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    This is not a requirement for a GA level. I will try to find some free photos and do what I can though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Depends on the reading of the requirement; at this point the article has no room for more pictures, so the issue is somewhat moot. But if it is expanded as it should than it will need more images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. Moot for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am putting this on hold on the off chance this can be turned around in a week or so, but just the problem of coverage, requiring reading through at least one book and probably a number of articles suggests that taking this to GA level is a work for a number of weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've done some major reworking and added the psychological development and history of the subculture, the evolution and its recent positive leanings - all without getting into the specifics of a single otaku group. Gundam was key for solidifying the collective interests and ultimately led to the expansion and identification and self-affirmation of the subculture. I hope this is what you were wanting to see added. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I believe I have addressed those above issues. Added more links, went and used the Comic Party and Genshiken mentions and added NHK, Watamote and Otaku Unite. Purged the redundant ones out of the "see also" section. How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I asked some others to comment on comprehensiveness, but so far there are no other comments, and it looks like we are at least touching on most points I can think of. At this point we just need to finish the ref cleanup: introduce cite templates, add the missing pages where required, etc. Note this also means adding missing authors to some article pieces, at least one entry (r15) doesn't have access date or publisher. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe the refs need to all be of one type or completely filled in for GA criteria, but I will get to them tomorrow. It is an acceptable amount of hair splitting - since it helps me get used to the higher standards of FA works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
All converted to ref templates. With Google preview I can't get the chapter from Wrong about Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:ChrisGualtieri: Almost there, but please add missing cite info where available:

  • ref 1: publication date
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • ref 2: author, publication date, page numbers, language field, does the title really begin with ">"?
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • ref 4: I'll let this pass w/out page numbers, but please add quote(s) supporting usage. And ISBN.
  • Yes check.svg Done Made a note to extract the quote. I also found another Arai reference pointing to Patrick W. Galbraith's Otaku Spaces, I've read some of Galbraith's work before and found it very authoritative, so I will also note his specific claim. I've linked that introduction two his photographer's blog and a more mainstream media outlet that contains the relevant excerpt for verification. I will make no attempt to place the citation without verifying the page numbers personally. I think its been satisfied for now.
  • ref 5: do we really need a ~30 page range? Explain or narrow
  • Yes check.svg Done The specific quote itself is on page 167. And I found a public link for it through the official website.[5]
  • ref 6: publication date
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • ref 7: publication date
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • ref 8: publication date, URL is broken, restore/remove
  • Yes check.svg Done Not broken, displays fine for me.
  • ref 11: romanization needed, is there no author?
  • Yes check.svg Done It translates as "Open Letter" and this is from the NGO-AMI group. It can be literally translated as "NGO-AMI Everyone" - Everyone (at) NGO-AMI - where 同 denotes "All of us". So I just attributed NGO-AMI.
  • ref 12: author, URL is broken, restore/remove
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • ref 13: is in Japanese, so please add Japanese title, publisher an author (plus romanization), pub. date
  • Yes check.svg Done I translated the title to better English, its probably not the correct title as a result. Rest done.
  • ref 14: romanize, add author, pub. date
  • Not sure what you mean here, as its not Japanese to start with.

That's for the first half of ref. I hope you get the idea of what's missing; please do the same for the other half (otherwise I'll have to post another list like that).

  • Yes check.svg Done

Also, [6] is a dead elink, please remove/derot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Easy fix.

How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, all issues addressed, seems to me to be GA level. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the GA pass! I don't particularly like the referencing system as you did, but it is consistent and its allowed - it probably makes it easier to upkeep though. So I'll let be. I'll begin preparing it for FA levels! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Ok, I'm going through the article and doing a copyedit. Here are a few sentences that confused me:

  • "after the release of works like Mobile Suit Gundam before branched into Comic Market" I'm not sure I understand here.
  • "Other institutions have split it further or focus on a single otaku interest" I get the first part, but "Other institutions ... focus on a single otaku interest" is a bit unclear to me.
  • "The economic impact of otaku has been estimated to be as high as ¥2 trillion ($18 billion)." I assume this is because they buy a lot of products? Might want to spell that out.
  • "applied the term to unpleasant fans in caricature" A little unsure of the meaning here, what do you think of "used the term to caricature unpleasant fans"?
  • "but noted that Fan Rōdo (Fan road) contained the same otaku attributes under "culture clubs" which was published in 1981" how about 1981" how about "but noted that Fan Rōdo (Fan road), published in 1981, contained the same otaku attributes under "culture clubs" or something similar?
  • "interviews the novelist, artist and Gundam chronicler Yuka Minakawa." maybe just use one title to describe her? Perhaps something general like "writer".
  • You might want to explain a bit about the Otaku murderer, or at least why he's called that.
  • ""When these people are referred to as otaku, they are judged for their behaviors - and people suddenly see an “otaku” as a person unable to relate to reality".[7][8]" You should say who's being quoted here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I see that the key issue is context for esoteric things. I'll have to explain a few points better, but I am glad there are not too many issues. Though I believe I may end up having to find or create a collected sterotype of otaku as a result of these concerns. Page 2 of this source contains an English translation of the original 1983 essay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You might want to include a brief parenthetical explanation of Japanese words that might be unfamiliar to most westerners, like "a self-mockingly pejorative Japanese term for female fans of yaoi material (describe yaoi)." That might just be my preference though.
  • Check for common words that don't need to be linked (like "fan") or words that are linked more than once in the body of the article.
  • Are there differences in the way the term is used in, say, the US vs how it's used in Japan?
  • " Of these groups, comics was the largest, with 350,000 individuals and ¥83 billion market scale ... Travel otaku was the largest, with 250,000 individuals and ¥81 billion." Make up your mind here, which is largest? :)
  • "The third type is the "media-sensitive multiple interest" otaku, whose interests are diverse yet strong hobbyists who is open and shares their interests with others." I think you meant to say something else here, rather than "whose interests are ... hobbyists" It sounds like they're interested in other hobbyists. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, every thing helps, I've been tinkering and trying to address the issues, but I suppose I'll need to wait a bit and come back with fresh eyes before trying to make this even better before submitting to FAC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The Gundam sentence, I think it is talking about a specific anime boom event, where the director and creator of Gundam, Yoshiyuki Tomino held an event with the release of the first Gundam Movie and made a speech called "New Century of Anime Declaration"(アニメ新世紀宣言). Which led to an otaku boom, kinda like a coming out event where otaku cosplayed in public as characters of the show. It is possibly sourceable in Fan Road and here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 12:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Fan Road doesn't have it I'm afraid, but the source didn't draw a clear parallel to one series, but I've never seen it tied to the movies which were largely cut content from the show. The impetus seems to be the identification of a subculture that social outcasts would draw them in and change anime to cater to their interests. They embodied the "loser's culture" and disappear as soon as it goes mainstream, according to the essay on otaku. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the movies is when Gundam hits mainstream media. The TV show did not have a lot of viewers so it was cut to only 43 episodes(planned to be 50). Fan Road is a source suggested in the Japanese article. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
And the other source I have says that when something hits the mainstream the otaku leave it because its not a refuge, I don't want to have a possible synthesis here where something could be factually incorrect as a result of reading into this. Also, it wasn't just Gundam. I guess something needs to be done though... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tomohiro Machiyama's involvement in Otaku no hon[edit]

"Later that year, Tomohiro Machiyama wrote a book called Otaku no Hon (おたくの本 lit. The Book of Otaku?), which delved into the subculture of otaku and has been claimed by scholar Rudyard Pesimo to have popularized the term.[7]"

Tomohiro Machiyama didn't write that book, according to Wikipedia he was the planning editor. He is not credited in the publication.

It is a collection of 19 articles by as many authors, among them Akio Nakamori, the original person to coin the term otaku. The editor credited is Shinji Ishii.

It was released as the 104th volume of Bessatsu Takarajima, a "magazine on knowledge of your contemporaries".

I will change the passage as follows:

"Later that year, the contemporary knowledge magazine Bessatsu Takarajima dedicated its 104th issue to the topic of otaku. It was called Otaku no Hon (おたくの本 lit. The Book of Otaku) and delved into the subculture of otaku with 19 articles by otaku insiders, among them Akio Nakamori, who originally coined the term. This publication has been claimed by scholar Rudyard Pesimo to have popularized the term.[7]"

NextEven (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why he is credited and cited as its author and why ANN and other books refer and acknowledge him as the author.[7][8] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)