Talk:Bara (genre)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bara (genre). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302093017/http://en.akibablog.net/archives/2009/02/weeklyakibawords_gachi_muchi.html to http://en.akibablog.net/archives/2009/02/weeklyakibawords_gachi_muchi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding outdated tag

I'm adding Template:Update to this article, for two primary reasons:

1. The article doesn't seem to have been substantially edited in 2-4 years now, so there is a fair amount of outdated information - publishing imprints and magazines that have folded, major works that have been released, etc.
2. This is more contentious, but I think it's worth re-visiting whether "bara" is is still the best and most appropriate nomenclature to refer to this genre of works. I'd argue that in the subsequent years since this article was written, the more neutral (and more accepted by the creators of the genre) "gay manga" has become more accurate a descriptor. Morgan695 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The main problem I see with "gay manga" is that it would seem in a literal sense to include yaoi. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I get the confusion, but "gay manga" is a discrete category, rather than a descriptive term for "manga with gay content." It's an genre and a classification that is distinct from yaoi. "Bara" is also inaccurate, as many of the major creators named in this article explicitly reject the label. At bare minimum, the section on the etymology on "bara" needs updating to reflect how the term is considered a pejorative in Japan, and the article in general needs to be clearer about how "bara" as a descriptive term to refer to this kind of art is a purely western phenomenon. Morgan695 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, I guess my overall read here is this: it seems like a majority of this article was written nearly a decade ago, in 2009-2010, when "bara" was a term used by Western fans to describe a style of art that they shared on a message boards and blogs and the like; primary research on the matter either didn't exist, or wasn't in English. Now that we have sources like that - books like Massive and The Passion of Gengoroh Tagame, actual firsthand interviews with Tagame and other creators - a lot about the article seems out of date, both in terms of actual facts (e.g. publishers that have gone out of business and the like, as I mentioned) as well as the limitations of the term "bara." Morgan695 (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be correct, but keep in mind that the determining question is not what it's called by Japanese sources (and what the creators prefer), but what it's commonly called in English sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Massive: Gay Erotic Manga and the Men Who Make It, which is more or less the definitive English-language primary source for information on this topic, uses "gay manga" and specifically eschews "bara." I reviewed WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and it doesn't seem to provide a specific remedy for when the 'correct' term used in primary sources ("gay manga") conflicts with a popular colloquial term ("bara"). Perhaps Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves is the best option here? Morgan695 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll save the topic of a name change for a future date - though I still think it's worth discussing - but for now, I have revised the page to the best of my ability, sourcing Massive: Gay Erotic Manga and the Men Who Make It to further explain the etymology of "bara" and revise outdated info. Morgan695 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hi, this article looks to be in a pretty good state! I have a couple questions about images and sources, one MoS nitpick, and a few comments on prose. I also included a number of suggestions for improvement which aren't strictly related to any of the GA criteria (and which, therefore, you're obviously free to ignore - if you'd like me to reorganize my comments to clearly separate them out, let me know). Feel free to reply to comments inline.

Initial review

Minor MoS layout issue: portal bar should go in the bottom matter, not in "see also", per MOS:ORDER.

Re WP:RS: the first citation is to a tumblr post, http://gaymanga.tumblr.com/post/102108686772/i-see-that-the-wish-to-move-away-from-the-term, which set off my spidey sense. I don't think that makes it automatically unreliable, but I wanted to ask: is the author of that blog considered a subject matter expert on bara? For the claim that the term "bara" has historically been used in Japan as a pejorative for gay men, I wonder if you could find a more obviously authoritative source (e.g. a dictionary)? I can understand using self-published sources like this for some other claims (relating to the history of the term's use on the internet).

Re images: I'm not sure whether it's possible to find any appropriately licensed images to accompany the article, but I think it's worth discussing. Being such a visual subject, it would be really nice to have an image or two in the article. Have you already tried searching for bara artists who have licensed any of their work under CC? At the very least, I bet you could find a photograph or other non-bara depiction of the sort of body type typically depicted in the genre, for use in the "Characteristics" section?

Could you mention the literal meaning of "rose" in the Etymology section? It would help contextualize, for example, the comparison with "pansy". (I realize it's given as a gloss in parentheses in the lead, and referred to obliquely in the Etymology section, but I think it bears an explicit mention in that section)

I don't think the link on "umbrella term" to Hyponymy and hypernymy is helpful. There are some other wikilinks that I think are on the borderline of overlinking (e.g. colloquialism, genre), and a few that are bordering on WP:EGG (e.g. the text "history of homosexuality in Japanese visual art" pointing to Homosexuality in Japan § Pre-Meiji Japan), but this is more a matter of personal taste than correctness.

"Characteristics" as a section heading is a little vague. Do you think something like "Subject matter" or "Content" might be clearer?

The term "bara" has... per MOS:WORDSASWORDS I believe bara should be italicised in contexts like this, rather than in quotation marks.

Er, actually, bara should probably be italicised throughout according to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, right? (And same with yaoi?) I don't see any MoS guidance about foreign words as words. Looking at a few articles listed at List of Latin legal terms, it seems like they mostly keep the term italicised and don't apply any further formatting or punctuation. A priori and a posteriori uses quotation marks around italics in the words-as-words context, but doesn't even do so consistently.

The History section has a "See also" hatnote that points to a couple articles in ja wikipedia. What do you think about instead using {{ill}} to give redlinks to English versions of the articles, along with bluelinks to the Japanese versions? (Same comment on the ja wiki links in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article)

as well as stories based on age-, status-, or power-structured relationships. The stranded hyphens are a little awkward. What do you think about rewording along the lines of "as well as stories of relationships structured around age, status, or power"?

Tagame's illustrations of muscular, hairy men in G-men (which Tagame co-founded in 1995) have been cited as a catalyst that shifted fashion and aesthetics and among gay men in Japan, away from... Structure of this sentence is a little off (specifically the parallel structure of "and among gay men").

Jiraiya's has appreared in apparel created by several American fashion brands, including Opening Ceremony[25] and Pretty Snake. Jiraiya's art? Jiraiya's characters?

Yaoi (やおい, also known as boys' love or BL) is an additional manga genre that focuses on gay male romance and sex. The genre is a distinct category from gay manga...

It wasn't until this point that I really noticed the article was using the term "gay manga" throughout instead of "bara". In this particular instance, it becomes confusing if the reader interprets "gay manga" in its compositional sense (i.e. manga depicting gay characters/relationships), rather than as a technical term equivalent to "bara" as it's used in the west. What do you think about using "bara" instead in this sentence?

Regarding the larger issue of "gay manga" vs. "bara" throughout the article, is the former term used as often as the latter in English sources? And if not, is there a compelling reason to use "gay manga" anyways? I'm no subject matter expert on this, but it does seem a little odd that "bara" is the title of the article, but another term is used in its place in most of the text.

Yaoi has been criticized for depicting stereotypical portrayals of gay men, and for failing to address gay issues. Homophobia, when it is presented at all, is often used as a plot device to heighten drama or show the purity of the leads' love.

Why does this belong in this article, rather than in yaoi? It seems like it would only be relevant here if, in making these criticisms, commentators contrast these aspects with bara. Or if they criticise bara in the same breath for the same reasons.

In certain contexts, gachimuchi (ガチムチ, "muscle-curvy" or "muscle chubby") has represented a crossover between gay manga and yaoi, with considerable overlap of writers, artists, and art styles.

Could you provide a little more context here? e.g.

• "In certain contexts, the gachimuchi (ガチムチ, "muscle-curvy" or "muscle chubby") sub-genre of gay manga has..."
• "In certain contexts, depictions of the gachimuchi body type (ガチムチ, "muscle-curvy" or "muscle chubby") have..."

The hatnote "See also" link to Billy Herrington § Internet meme seems a little weird to me. Nothing in that article relates to the topic of "crossover with yaoi". I think just having the link under the "See also" section is probably sufficient. Alternatively, if you think Billy Herrington is a noteworthy example in the context of bara, I'd mention it somewhere in the text. Colin M (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delay in responding to this. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. To answer your concerns/points:

• Portal bar has been moved.
• The Gay Manga Tumblr is maintained by Graham Kolbeins, who is also the editor of The Passion of Gengoroh Tagame: Master of Gay Erotic Manga (link) and Massive: Gay Japanese Manga And The Men Who Make It (link), the two definitive English-language primary sources on gay manga, as well as a founder of Massive Goods, the largest distributor of gay manga in the English-language world. I've added a substantiating source from Massive (p. 40, "Literally 'rose', bara is an antiquated slur for gay men.")
• Added photos to the "Characteristics" and "Notable creators" section.
• Made bara/rose connection explicit in Etymology section.
• Removed some overlinking.
• Renamed Characteristics to "Genre characteristics" to clarify what is being discussed.
• Made italicization of bara consistent throughout the article.
• I tried using the link structure you suggested for the External links to the Japanese Wikipedia, but it looked very strange to have red links in that section, so I decided to leave it as-is.
• Rephrased as "structured around age, status, or power dynamics."
• Fixed wording in Tagame and Jiraiya under Notable creators.
• Changed used of bara in the yaoi instance you mentioned.
• Clarified definition of gachimuchi in crossover section and removed Herrington meme.
• Removed criticism of yaoi from that section. I agree it's not relevant; I think it's a carry-over from when yaoi and bara were not split into separate articles.

Regarding the broader question you asked of bara vs. gay manga: it's one that I've struggled with (and one I posed when I started updating the page and in a peer review request that ended up going nowhere). On one hand, "gay manga" is the nomenclature used to designate this genre within Japan, the nomenclature used in trusted English-language sources when discussing the genre, and is preferred over bara by creators of the genre. On the other hand, per WP:NCUE the use of the term "bara" by an English-language audience to refer to this style of art is an observable phenomenon, and is still used widely as popular vernacular by that audience, so I also don't think it would be correct to scrub "bara" from the article entirely. My compromise was to better explain the context around bara as a pejorative, explain the use of bara as a colloquialism used by non-Japanese audiences to refer to a specific art style, and use "gay manga" to discuss the genre itself. Morgan695 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Round 2

Looks great! There's just one small verifiability issue I'd like to take care of, then I'll be happy to pass this.

The term was revived as a pejorative in the late 1990s concurrent with the rise of internet message boards and chat rooms, where heterosexual administrators designated the gay sections of their websites as "bara boards" or "bara chat".[1] The term was subsequently adopted by non-Japanese users of these websites, who believed that bara was the proper designation for the images and artwork being posted on these forums.

The citation for these two sentences ([1]) doesn't seem to substantially support them. It talks about the fact that bara isn't widely used in Japan, and that its use to describe gay manga is a recent, Western invention. But it doesn't support the explanation of how the western usage originated (heterosexual administrators of message boards and chat rooms, etc.).

In particular I think describing the revival of the term as "pejorative" is contentious enough that it should be cited. (The tumblr source only goes as far as describing the revival of the term as a 'misappropriation') Colin M (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: Ah sorry, that was a referencing error on my part. I've updated the references to substantiate the message board claims with a different post from the Gay Manga blog and Massive (relevant sections excerpted below):

[Gengoroh] Tagame explained the background of bara as an antiquated gay pejorative akin to "pansy” and its irrelevance within Japan’s current gay nomenclature. It turned out bara had been adopted as a genre label by confused heterosexuals reading bootleg scans of early gay manga from Bara-Komi on online communities like the popular 2channel. By the time the content was reaching the hands of foreigners as "bara,” Barazoku had long since ceased publication and the Japanese term bara had become a vestige of an earlier generation. – Ishii, Anne; Kidd, Chip; Kolbeins, Graham, eds. (December 18, 2014). Massive: Gay Erotic Manga and the Men Who Make It. Fantagraphics. p33-34

The Internet, as it tends to do, complicated matters. Just as the word was becoming obsolete in Japanese parlance in the early ’90s, “bara” found new life internationally through online message boards. “The organizers and the service providers and the people running these forums were straight, so they called the gay board the ‘bara’ board,” recalls Tagame. “A ‘bara’ chat room or a ‘bara’ board. The Internet conversations that were taking place about gay content were shaped by straight people, and then of course the Internet is how foreigners discovered our work. They saw that this whole section was called ‘bara,’ so that’s how I believe foreigners started to use and appropriate that word. (via Gay Manga!)

18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also – do you think it would be acceptable to use the cover to G-men #1 as the lede image in this article, similar to how Yuri (genre) uses the cover to Shiroi Heya no Futari? The fair use rationale would be similar to the one used on that particular image in the Yuri article:

• The image depicts the cover of a topic discussed in the article.
• The image illustrates an educational article related to the entity that the image represents.
• The image is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
• The image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media
• The image is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value, nor could one be created.
• The image is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the image.

Morgan695 (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on fair use, but my guess is that this would not fly (and that the usage of the cover in Yuri (genre) is probably not appropriate, but it managed to fly under the radar so far). The aspect of WP:NFCCP that I think this fails is 1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

I think this criterion is interpreted pretty strictly. For example, I know that non-free photos are basically never permitted for articles about living people because, as long as the subject is alive, someone could in theory take a photo of them and release it under a permissive license (even if no free photos currently exist). Similarly in this case, even if there's currently no extant gay manga art licensed appropriately for use on Wikipedia, it's not impossible for someone to make some at some point. The G-men cover is okay for the article about G-men itself because there's no conceivable free alternative that would adequately illustrate the subject. Colin M (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sourcing update. I've marked the article as a GA. Really nice work on the article. It's well written, organized logically, gives a good introduction to the topic for an unfamiliar reader, and it's tremendously well sourced. Congrats! Colin M (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gay Manga at BIGGYM, Ikebukuro.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Mens' Love" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mens' Love has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23 § Mens' Love until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)