Talk:Oh My Goddess!

Storing extra references

There is a new template that can be used for storing extra references.

References

• "Ah! Megami-sama: Tatakau Tsubasa". Newtype USA. 7 (2) p. 16. February 2008. ISSN 1541-4817.
  This article is about the television special that follows the angel-eater story arc.
  • Fujishima, Kosuke. "Fighting Wings". Oh My Goddess. 24 (155) pp. 133–157. October 2006. ISBN 978-1-59307-545-3.
  • Fujishima, Kosuke. Oh My Goddess. 25. December 2006. ISBN 978-1-59307-644-3.
  • Fujishima, Kosuke. Oh My Goddess. 26 pp. 3–68. April 2007. ISBN 978-1-59307-715-0

The references I put inside may be useful after the article has been cleaned up. – allen四names 08:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 26#Template:Refbox but {{hidden}} works for this. delldot ∇. 02:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrected capitalization. – allen四names 02:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mania.com review: Series 2 part 1 Series 2 part 2 Series part 3 --KrebMarkt 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• ActiveAnime: manga new ed. #16 manga #26

• EX overview (archive): Mini-Goddess

-- Lucia Black (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OVA 2

I've found an episode labelled "OVA 2: Together Forever", dated 2011. It is about 28 minutes in running length, so does not seem to be the same as the one mentioned in the article. Is the information here correct? or is the OVA being confused with the OAD? (Which seems likely due to the length given.) CFLeon (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! My Goddess OAD Series

There's some confusion regarding the new OAD anime series. These are new anime productions that are bundled with the manga of the same title on a limited run basis. "Together Forever" is the first OAD episode. There is a second episode that has been released that is identified as "Hunters and Hunters". Currently, only two OAD episodes have been released.68.62.28.213 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oh My Goddess!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080531010635/http://www.kodanclub.com:80/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=009-00002-01-023 to http://www.kodanclub.com/cgi-local/comic.cgi?id=009-00002-01-023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oh My Goddess!. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060325092102/http://www.animeondvd.com/specials/primers/yuaprimer.php to http://www.animeondvd.com/specials/primers/yuaprimer.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Oh My Goddess! is a harem series and it should not be described as such in the infobox.

I'll admit that I should've posted this discussion before I made the change but I stand by what I said in the reasoning box when I made the edit. I am a knowledgeable fan of the series; I'm the admin and main editor of the Oh My Goddess! wiki on Fandom, and I've both read and watched the series in it's many forms, so can I say from an authoritative standpoint that Oh My Goddess! is not a harem series. A "harem" is a genre where one character (usually male) is the target of attraction from three or more people (not two, as that would be a "love triangle" story) at the same time and is usually surrounded by women. With a scare few exceptions (as in literally one-chapter stories), there is only one character, Belldandy, who ever truly attempts to be with Keiichi Morisato, and certainly the series proves that it isn't harem with the manga's final arc, which literally revolves around the challenges of Belldandy and Keiichi undergo as they attempt to get married.

I furthermore dispute the validity of the three sources provided. Not only are they very old (2007-2009), they only offer a surface-level examination of the series (if any) and only state that it is a harem series without actually proving it. These sources seem to believe that simply having a man surrounded by women makes that series a harem, but I don't agree with that at all. Is The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya a harem anime simply because the main protagonist Kyon is surrounded by three female characters (Haruhi, Asahina, and Nagato)? No, because that would just be an asinine, surface-level observation. Oh My Goddess! is the same way. If the people behind these sources actually read the manga or watched the anime, they would know that that series is simply not a harem.

Thus, I believe that the mention of "harem" should be removed from the infobox as it's simply not accurate. DishonorableKnight (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why the fact that the sources are old should be a reason to not consider them reliable or valid, and I don't get how they should "prove" that it is a harem series, then Viz Media has to explain why Dragon Ball is an "action-adventure-fantasy-comedy-fighting series" to have them cited in the article? should we apply the same logic in every work of fiction? I'm sorry, but the fact that you're a fan or edit the wiki of the series doesn't mean anything for this site purposes. Genres are based on what reliable sources say and these three sources calling it a harem series (there are probably many more) are considered as such per WP:A&M/ORS. Now, if there are reliable sources (not personal blogs, forum discussions and such) disputing this, arguing why it should NOT be considered a harem series, then we would have something to discuss here. Xexerss (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that these sources are old is very relevant, because the manga ended years later in 2014, meaning that these sources do not take into account the series' ending where Keiichi and Belldandy get married in a very non-harem fashion.

You're telling me that the sources don't need to "prove" that Oh My Goddess! is a harem series, but you're asking me to provide sources that prove that it isn't one? That Dragon Ball example is an apples-to-oranges comparison: we all know that Dragon Ball (that is, the original series and not Z) is an martial arts, action-comedy series; no one will dispute that. There are only two real authoritative sources to come to my mind: Kosuke Fujishima, who has never referred to the series as a harem, and Dark Horse Comics, the company who translated and published the manga in the western market, which has also never referred to the series as a harem.

John Oppliger's source is literally coming from his personal blog. His whole argument that it he doesn't "believe that it’s necessary for any or all of the supporting cast to have a romantic interest in the protagonist. It’s only necessary that they surround the protagonist." Sorry but that's just asinine. I mentioned The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, but how about an ever better example: Neon Genesis Evangelion, where series protagonist Shinji Ikari interacts with multiple female characters (namely Asuka, Rei, Misato, and Ritsuko among others). Based on Oppliger's definition, Evangelion would be considered just as much of a harem series as Oh My Goddess! but both you and I know that isn't correct. You know what is a harem series, though? Neon Genesis Evangelion: Shinji Ikari Raising Project, a game and manga series where Shinji Ikari has the opportunity to have romantic relationships with several characters.

Show me to where people call Oppliger an "expert", because he isn't one to me. The same goes for Carlos Santos and Jason Thompson, both of whom declare that Oh My Goddess! is a harem series without any proof. None of these three people were involved in the official licensing and distribution of the series by Dark Horse, who again have never stated that Oh My Goddess! is a harem series. With regards to Oh My Goddess! specifically, these people are not experts or reliable sources of information any more than you or I am. DishonorableKnight (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You want to talk about reliable sources, then let's take a look at Wikipedia's own definition of "harem" which describes the genre as "focused on polygynous or polyandrous relationships, where a protagonist is surrounded by three or more androphilic/gynephilic suitors, love interests and/or sexual partners". That definition does not suit Oh My Goddess! in which Keiichi Morisato has only one love interest, Belldandy. DishonorableKnight (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked all the sources cited in the harem article and none of them seem to support the definition in lead, so it seems pure original research (Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by the way). Also, most of these sources are self-published blogs and user-generated websites, that's why the article has the 'more citations needed' tag. I don't know how relevant is whether the author or the English publisher have called it a harem series or not, since "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" (note that I'm not saying that citing primary sources is wrong). As you said, the citations are from 2007–2009, when the series was past half the story (around volume 34 or 35), so what? Is that not enough to define a genre? Should only the last chapters be considered to call the series...something?

About the reliability of the authors and websites cited in the article, in WP:A&M/ORS you can find the discussions for each one, where the consensus was that they are indeed reliable. My point is, these authors consider the series a harem; you don't, and that's fine, you can disagree, but to discredit them, you've just giving your opinion and not something by a reputable writer (a published article, post, etc.,) that can support you stance of why it should not be considered a harem series. I'm not saying that their opinions are absolute because they are considered reliable, but I don't think either that simply saying that at least three reviewers are in the wrong because you think differently will be enough.

Ok, you can mention Haruhi, Evangelion or whatever series you want that could fit Oppliger's definition of the term, but, as far as I know, there are no reliable sources that have ever called them harem series. The sources cited in the article are expressly calling Oh My Goddess! a harem series, that's the difference here. My example of Dragon Ball was silly, I know, but I don't get why they should justify the genre or how are they supposed to "prove" it. Xexerss (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

As you said, the citations are from 2007–2009, when the series was past half the story (around volume 34 or 35), so what? Is that not enough to define a genre? Should only the last chapters be considered to call the series...something?

The point I'm trying to make is that Oh My Goddess! isn't a harem series in volume 1, nor in volumes 35-36 (around the time the sources were published), and especially not in volume 48. Oh My Goddess! has consistently never been a harem series. From our discussion thus far, I assume you've never read or watched Oh My Goddess! (otherwise I don't think this discussion would've lasted as far as it has), so you may find it hard to understand exactly how blatantly incorrect the three sources are, but take it from someone who knows the series inside and out. In no fashion does Oh My Goddess! fit the basic definition of a "harem", that is, a series where one character is the target of affection from three or more other characters. That is not an opinion that can be disputed, that is a fact.

Just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean they can just say something based solely off conjecture and don't have to cite any additional sources or appeal to logic to prove their case. It's not true for anime/manga, and it's not true for any other field worthy of academic discourse. Experts can make a mistake just a layman can, and this situation proves that to be true.

Look, you want a source that proves that Oh My Goddess! isn't a harem series? Take a look at this page off of Dark Horse Digital's website for the first volume of the manga. Notice how there's a "genre" label that specifies two main genres for Oh My Goddess! those being "humor", and "fantasy". Notice how "harem" is absent. We can talk about the opinions of the experts, but at the end of the day, those experts are secondary sources, while the Dark Horse website is a primary source, and that takes precedence when discussing this matter specifically. Let me say it again, the official western licenser for Oh My Goddess! does not consider the series to be "harem". And "harem" is a common and well-defined genre these days isn't it? It's not a situation of Dark Horse simply not using the term to describe series that could fit the label, it's really that they just don't think it fits. This is the only "source" proving my point that you're going to get, because it's ultimately the only one that really matters.

Ok, you can mention Haruhi, Evangelion or whatever series you want that could fit Oppliger's definition of the term, but, as far as I know, there are no reliable sources that have ever called them harem series.

I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Those other series meet the criteria for a "harem" series just as OMG! does based off of Oppliger's own definition, but they aren't called that just because no source has ever said so. So you wonder if that definition is... I don't know, arbitrary? DishonorableKnight (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

How is the fact that a publisher doesn't use a particular tag for a series supposed to be an argument to confirm that it is not something? Where does it say that primary sources/the publisher take precedence over secondary sources when discussing genres? As far as the discussion is, your argument to refute these authors is your supposed "authoritative standpoint" as a fan of the series, but again, to effects of this site, that's pointless. "In no fashion does Oh My Goddess! fit the basic definition of a "harem"", you said it, "basic definition", because there's more than one form to define the genre, as Oppliger's comment implies. It is not a strict term that always must meet specific conditions, and that's why other authors call it a harem without necessarily being wrong. You're giving your definition, or at least the idea that you've got about what the harem genre is, that, or what the poorly sourced harem article defines. I don't find none of your arguments convincing because they're based on absolutely nothing. You're not giving anything concrete to prove that they're wrong, no sources to back up why OMG! is not a harem, just a source that doesn't label it as a harem, and therefore should not be considered a harem... "And "harem" is a common and well-defined genre these days", well there's already an opinion from someone considered an expert in the field that doesn't agree with your definition of the term, and from others that also consider it as such. Don't assume that everyone has the same concept of the genre as yours, even if you consider it something carved in stone. So that's it, the views of three writers cited in the article against your word. Xexerss (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Those other series meet the criteria for a "harem" series just as OMG! does based off of Oppliger's own definition, but they aren't called that just because no source has ever said so."

What I'm trying to say is that Oppliger's comment to argue why he considers it as a harem should apply just to THIS particular article (because he's talking precisely about the series) and not extrapolate it to other articles, because THAT would be a personal interpretation. It doesn't matter if Evangelion or whatever series could fall under Oppliger's definition and should be considered a harem under this reasoning. If someone thinks that Evangelion should be included as a harem, then they should provide a source from reputable authors stating that it is a harem and not rely on Oppliger's definition. Now, how many authors would seriously consider it as one? probably none, and in that case I think that there's nothing to discuss. Xexerss (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the definition given by John Oppliger from AnimeNation to consider it a harem is reasonable (no idea if you actually checked the source). 1) "I don’t believe that it’s necessary for any or all of the supporting cast to have a romantic interest in the protagonist. It’s only necessary that they surround the protagonist." 2) "The series needs only to either concentrate focus on one protagonist or have a distinctly skewed gender ratio." Regarding Haruhi, I haven't watched it, so I could be wrong here, but apparently the series focuses on more than just one male protagonist and the female characters don't drastically outnumber the male ones, so based on Oppliger's comment, it shouldn't classify as a harem. Also, I've never seen a reliable source calling it a harem, unlike OMG!. You could disagree with Oppliger's statement and the other reviewers cited in the article, but they are considered experts in the field, so their opinions (for the site's purposes) have more weight than your "authoritative" definition of the term. If you want to refute them, you will need something more concrete than your own word. Xexerss (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I've been watching this talk from afar and made this account specifically to chime in. First off, I do agree that merely because a source is old, does not mean it is no longer invalid. Many sources are still only used because sometimes they have been cross-referenced rigorously and verified, and are still to believed even up to 100 years later. So I believe Xexerss is correct here.

However, the semantics of using "experts" is dubious at best. What claim do these writers have?

Let's take the only expert that's actually been published in a literary publication: Jason Thompson. He says this in the cited source, "Manga: The Complete Guide": " One of the classic otaku manga, Oh My Goddess! started out as a neutered Lum⋆Urusei Yatsura and then fathered an entire genre of "shy guy living platonically with beautiful girls" manga, aka "harem manga" (such as No Need for Tenchi!)."

Any manga and anime fan worth their salt who has read/watched Urusei Yatsura knows that not only is the only similarity between UY and OMG is the magical girlfriend aspect (which is an actual genre that has been appropriately attached to OMG in fandom/series analyses), but that Ataru, the "Keiichi" in this situation...is perceived by all of the women in the series as disgusting and lecherous. He hunts AFTER the women and they all beat him, reject him or outright try to kill him. The only woman who wants him is Lum.

Saying that OMG is like a neutered UY is like saying that Ghost in the Shell is a neutered Bubblegum Crisis.

Yet Urusei Yatsura has NEVER been classified as a harem...because it isn't! The Wikipedia page on it clearly demonstrates, and proves, the point: just because a series has a bunch of women in it, don't mean it's a harem.

So by the fact that Thompson doesn't seem to have watched the correct series to compare to OMG, he is a false expert.

By the way, has anyone actually read the book? Because curiously, the Internet Archive has it, and well, it's quite funny how Thompson classifies. I will provide the (cleaned-up) screenshot, but below is the transcription:

"Aa! Megamisama!, "Aa! Great Goddess!" (ああっ女神様っ) . Kosuke Fujishima . Dark Horse (1994-ongoing) . Kodansha . (Afternoon, 1988-ongoing) . 34+ volumes (ongoing) . Shо̄nen, Romantic Comedy, Science Fiction, Fantasy . Unrated/13+ (infrequent partial nudity, occasional sexual situations)"

Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/HeudvU9

Book: https://archive.org/details/mangacompletegui0000thom_l3e2/page/n13/mode/2up

By the way part two: OMG is a seinen, not a shounen. it was published in Afternoon, a seinen magazine. So another strike against the expert Thompson.

In fact, it's quite horrendous that someone quoted the extremely wrong paragraph about OMG as a harem, and not the section where...the harem classification is nowhere to be found. I find it funny, mind you, but I would have gotten a wallop in my university days.

Now let's take the oft-mentioned John Oppliger. He does not source anything to back up his claim of what makes "Oh My Goddess!" a harem anime. In fact, something that should have been mentioned since the beginning, is that he himself starts his answer with "my personal and subjective answer" to the question of whether this series is harem or not. I'm sorry, but I believe in high school and university classes, especially ones related to research (or specifically, university library classes that every student has to take), it is quite emphasized that when taking things into consideration for analysis, we must disregard that which may be personal and subjective and instead look at cold, hard facts.

Dark Horse Comics, the American licensor for the series, has decided to list this series as "Fantasy, Manga, Humor." (https://digital.darkhorse.com/books/a48b550bc11643c9ac8380c19aed4e5f/oh-my-goddess-volume-1-tpb)

Meahwile, Seven Seas, the American licensor for the "True Tenchi Muyo!" novels, has classified these novels as "classics, harem, science fiction, light novels." (https://sevenseasentertainment.com/series/true-tenchi-muyo-light-novel/)

The facts then say that we must not classify OMG as harem.

In fact, I would wager that Oppliger is not an expert, given that one other blog post blames the female population for why certain anime didn't sell well and not backing it up -- while trying to be very wishy-washy and say that no, it's not really the women who didn't buy it. In fact, he says and I quote: "(I think the shoujo status of the Rayearth anime remains debatable.)" Last I checked, not only was Rayearth published in Nakayoshi (a shoujo magazine), but its audience was primarily shoujo-based; in other words, women and girls. Any evidence of this can be seen in its merchandising and marketing. Exceptions exist of course --I believe the recent release of the Mashin as figures, at long last, are trying to attract the *usually* male-dominated audience of mecha fans--but they are few and far between.

No marketing and merchandising for OMG!, in the meantime, proves that it is a harem series.

(Here is the blog post in question: https://web.archive.org/web/20151121214501/https://www.animenation.net/blog/2014/02/07/ask-john-did-girls-cause-americas-anime-bust/)

I would not be considering Oppliger an expert, and that's only based on the basic fact that he does not source for his opinion.

The other "expert", Carlo Santos, claims OMG as "[...]In a series better known for harem comedy and epic magical combat[...]", but where is his claim? In fact, he likely doesn't need to claim because this is a *review.* Many reviews can be correct...while many of them can also be incorrect. A review does not equal significant literary analysis, unless it has been peer-reviewed and cross-referenced for some sort of literary publication.

And to boot, Santos reviews OMG again for its omnibus: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/right-turn-only/2006-05-02 I note the absence of the word "harem" anywhere. In fact, in the oldest dated review of his, from 2005, nowhere is the word "harem" mentioned nor is it put forward as a possible hook for readers: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/oh-my-goddess-gn-21

It is possible Santos believes that OMG is a harem and had no need to mention it previously. After all, if the series is "better known for harem comedy," then there was no need to repeat it. But he doesn't even work for Dark Horse Comics. Are you telling me he knows more than the people who have worked on the manga in English for 20+ years? They are more experts than you and I, by that metric.

In fact, if we must use reviews as metrics for "experts," then this review for the OVA dub is also an expert: https://web.archive.org/web/20121104081337/http://www.ex.org/2.7/20-anime_amgdub.html Notice the lack of the word "harem." Then this person must be correct as well.

I acknowledge that this is a bit long in the tooth but that's why I placed Thompson first, because I knew that there was a good chance that someone's eyes may glaze over after his paragraph. I will know if you have read the entire thing, and to that, you have my thanks.

I would urge anyone reading this to consider taking a library-oriented class in school or university. It will greatly help you in research and in fact-checking. Especially if you have edited multiple wikipedia pages and have perhaps put those pages at risk of spreading misinformation :) Buggymun (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way part three: I completely forgot but:

https://www.library.rochester.edu/research/primary-secondary-sources

https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary

Feel free to read these and refresh your memory on how primary and secondary sources work. I hope they are useful! Buggymun (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, you lost me when you declared that Jason Thompson is a "false expert", and then followed that up by saying the same about John Oppliger. Ultimately, Wikipedia has to follow the sources - what we have are some sources that say that Oh My Goddess is a type of harem (albeit an early harem, and a much tamer one than many), and some sources which don't say that it is a harem, but equally don't say that it is not. I'm open to finding a method of covering this in the body rather than the infobox, but I'm not seeing much of a case for deleting it out of hand. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for replying. Thank you as well for linking the entries to these respective authors, but I had already read them beforehand when considering my reply. Just because they have worked in the industry in some shape or form, does not mean they're infallible. As proven above, Thompson himself made mistakes when classifying OMG and explaining what the series is about.

In fact, when looking at the Wiki entry for the book: "While Thompson is listed as the book's author, a group of twenty-four other writers helped craft some of the entries, brought in when Thompson "started to stress from all the workload". Thompson then read and corrected the entries if he felt they were inaccurate." Two of the sources cited include his own book and an interview with him. Carl Gustav Horn, editor of the OMG manga, is stated as having been one of the writers who helped Thompson and I would like to truly know if Horn helped with the OMG part and if so, why did Thompson include erroneous information?

That said, I can attest to your disagreement with my usage of "false expert" for him. I was only using it in the manner that has been debated on who's an expert and who's not only based on spurious claims. This is why I noted that Thompson is the only published author, as usually that is more valid than a random blog or review.

As for Oppliger, again, I point to my findings. You may feel free to disagree but again, it's perfectly alright for claimed experts to be wrong once in a while. Nobody's perfect.

Now unfortunately I have to take claim with your statement: "Ultimately, Wikipedia has to follow the sources."

Yet what has been happening in this entire talk has been to diminish the important of two primary sources: the author himself and the American publisher's genre listing. I'd add the Japanese publisher in there too, but I'll stick to the ones where we can understand the lingua franca. Why is one person insistent on only using three sources and disregarding everything else, when -- as you yourself pointed out--we have a variety of sources all conflicting with each other. Were that the original discussion, then of course I believe that can be hashed out -- but the crux of the matter here has been that again, primary sources, something that Wikipedia ALSO depends on...are just not valid because apparently someone said so.

That is primarily why I spoke up in the first place, as well as to provide some sources for why the original three sources aren't exactly to be trusted either. We need to be as clear as possible. Buggymun (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Why is one person insistent on only using three sources and disregarding everything else"; I'm not "disregarding everything else", but the user that started this discussion has not given any compelling reason to argue why the series should not be labeled as a harem, apart from a self-proclaimed "authoritative standpoint" as a fan and an apparent absolute and undisputed definition of the harem genre. About the reliability of these authors, I think that it's getting off topic. I'm not totally against the idea of removing the genre from the infobox, but the only arguments I've read to state that it is not a harem is that there are sources that don't call it a harem, I mean, not sources discussing why it should not be considered a harem, but simply sources that are not using the word to refer to it as such, and that's the reasoning I don't agree with. Xexerss (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is one person insistent on only using three sources and disregarding everything else"; I'm not "disregarding everything else", but the user that started this discussion has not given any compelling reason to argue why the series should not be labeled as a harem, apart from a self-proclaimed "authoritative standpoint" as a fan and an apparent absolute and undisputed definition of the harem genre

Dude, we've told you again and again the most obvious reason why this series is not a harem. Dark Horse Comics is the official publisher of the series in the western market. As the licenser, they have the most authority in describing the basic of facts about the series, including genre, and they do not consider the series to be a harem. If they did, they would have certainly mentioned it on their website, just like how Seven Seas went out of their way to describe True Tenchi Muyo! as a harem series. Now, are you seriously telling me that when it comes to such a basic question, you are going to trust a secondary source more than a primary source? I don't think that's really how Wikipedia works. Secondary sources are not perfect and doesn't mean that the person who authored them can be considered reliable sources of information by defaulTake it from Wikipedia's own page about primary and secondary sources (a page which is not filled with any errors).

Primary sources:

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.

Secondary sources:

'"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.

There you have it. We have a primary source (Dark Horse Comics) which happens to be a reputable publisher, which makes a straightforward, descriptive statement which answers a very basic question about Oh My Goddess! (identifying the genres); this is the most appropriate scenario imaginable where a primary source should be used instead of a secondary source. And it just so happens that this primary source explicitly does not state that Oh My Goddess is a harem.

About the reliability of these authors, I think that it's getting off topic.

Excuse me? That is a very important fact to bring up because it calls into question their entire credibility as secondary sources. Buggymun has already demonstrated that Thompson has made egregious errors about trying to compare Oh My Goddess! to Urusei Yatsura, his book's own description of Oh My Goddess! doesn't include the lable "harem" when listing the genres, and he didn't even author the entirety of the book that was published with his name on it; Opplinger literally only bases his definition off his own personal opinion without any outside sources (is that what experts do?), and Santos reviews volumes of the mange released by Dark Horse, none of which have any mention of "harem" in its description on the cover (again, primary sources!), and he is incosistent with his use of the term "harem" in his published works (why does Wikipedia cherry pick the one review he does of the manga where he mentions "harem" and accepts that as fact, yet ignores the many other reviews which don't?). I won't be so bold as to call these people hacks or charlatans, but it's clear that they're out of their depth when discussing Oh My Goddess! specifically and shouldn't be considered experts. They are no more experts than a random person who writes blogs or reviews for free as a hobby. DishonorableKnight (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, when did they specifically say that it is NOT a harem series? One thing is that they have never referred to it as such and other thing is that they have directly stated that it is not. I could find more citations calling it a harem series and you will continue disagreeing because YOU just don't consider it a harem series. You can disagree with these people and say they're wrong all you want, but you have yet to come with a compelling argument to back up why it is not a harem series. I'm saying that their reliability here is off topic, because the consensus is that they are reliable, and if you think that they're not, then discuss it on WP:A&M/ORS, not here. I insist, I'm not trying to diminish primary sources, but the simple fact that Dark Horse are not tagging it as a harem on their website doesn't automatically imply that they're confirming that it is not, and that's the issue with your reasoning. Your sole argument is basically saying that Love Hina and Rosario + Vampire‎, for example, should not be considered harem series because Kodansha USA and Viz Media, respectively, don't tag them as harem on their websites.[1][2] Then, according to your logic, is it enough that the publisher doesn't use a particular tag for a series to know what it is not? Also, how many harem series have Dark Horse ever published? As far as I know, publishers use these tags on their websites to help their customers to find series based on that particular tag. If they have published one or two series that could be considered harem, why should they have the tag if customers will not find much variation with it? Seven Seas publish several harem titles, so I get why they have the tag. Regarding the reviewers, are they supposed to refer to a series by a particular genre and use it every time that they're making a review? And if they don't, should it be assumed that they no longer consider that it belongs to said genre, and therefore, what they said previously is no longer valid? I'd like to know where all these interesting rules are pointed out on the site. Xexerss (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• not important of, but importance of. I'd edit it but I have no clue how to do so on here. My apologies.

Buggymun (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

> Yet what has been happening in this entire talk has been to diminish the important of two primary sources: the author himself and the American publisher's genre listing.

I'm good with that. Can you link to where they said it was not a harem? That would help things. - Bilby (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, in the post where you said I "lost you," I had already linked to Dark Horse's site where they indicate the relevant genres: https://digital.darkhorse.com/books/a48b550bc11643c9ac8380c19aed4e5f/oh-my-goddess-volume-1-tpb

For Fujishima himself, see no other than his interview with Animerica here: https://archive.org/details/anime-interviews-the-first-five-years-of-animerica-anime-manga-monthly-1992-97/page/70/mode/2up Since the source is old (1994) and we have established that the age of the source shouldn't matter, I believe this is a valid reference. By now, OMG has had enough chapters to properly prove its genre selections.

The entire interview is worth your time, but I'll transcribe the part that is most relevant:

"The saga of a young man who becomes the consort of an honest-to-goodness goddess, Oh My Goddess! can be seen in some ways as the natural offshoot of one of the most popular of the now well-established "magical girlfriend" genre, Rumiko Takahashi's Urusei Yatsura."

In case you do not know what Animerica was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animerica Buggymun (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but unfortunately that is not what we need. What I was hoping for was a source that argues that it is not a harem, rather than a source that doesn't mention harems. - Bilby (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sir, you asked and I quote "Can you link to where they said it was not a harem?"

Now I don't know about you, and I do apologize for my rudeness upfront, but I speak four languages including English, and I believe that if someone doesn't say "this is part of this thing," it usually means it's not. If DH doesn't list harem as a genre, then they don't think it is. If Fujishima has not mentioned harem in an English or Japanese interview, then there's a good chance it's not. He's been interviewed countless times, including in a Japanese artbook called Collections. If you can read Japanese and can find me where he says it's part of the harem genre, then hey, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, you are trying to move a goalpost that doesn't need to be moved because you need a kindergarten level of reading comprehension.

Once more, I apologize for my rudeness but you must recognize how silly this is starting to look? Buggymun (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but what kind of logic is that? Citing secondary sources (that per consensus were established as reliable) calling the series X are invalid, but a primary source that is not even discussing whether X is accurate or not, but simply not mentioning X should automatically imply that X is incorrect? Seriously, I really need to know what part of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia points this out. Xexerss (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's my problem:

• We have multiple reliable sources which describe Oh My Goddess as being in the harem genre.
• We have multiple reliable sources which do not mention harems.
• We have no reliable sources that argue that it is not a harem.

So we can't counter the first set, as we have nothing that says that they are inaccurate in their description. The most we can say is that not all sources define it as a harem - which is true - but that doesn't solve the issue that some sources do. I wish we had something that specifically said it was not a harem, (and I have been looking for such a source), as that would mean it would be easy to justify moving this aspect into the body and addressing it there, but without that source I'm not seeing a really strong argument beyond personal preference. - Bilby (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur. From what I'm seeing, the arguments to deny that it is a harem come from a supposed inherent knowledge and stance that every anime fan should have, which apparently for some have more weight than the word of any reputable author. That, and the omission of a key word in some sources, which magically proves that it doesn't apply to the series. With this kind of argument, I don't know how are we supposed to reach a consensus here. Xexerss (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I found something interesting on the "Notes for this volume" in the third volume of the manga (Dark Horse edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-59307-539-2, page 187): "Oh My Goddess! is often called a classic example of a "harem" anime, where a bunch of cute girls are fighting over a non-threatening male—Negima carries this to its absurd extremes, with thirty-one older women in rivalry over a ten-year old boy—but in OMG! they're not so much fighting over him as fighting through him."[3] So there it is, DH themselves, while stating that the series does not fit the conventional definition of harem, they're not necessarily denying the harem label. So what now then? Is this not enough either to conclude that calling it a harem would not be, at the very least, inaccurate? Xexerss (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Jason Yadao, columnist from Honolulu Star-Bulletin,[4] wrote the following in his book, The Rough Guide to Manga: "From these beginnings, Kōsuke Fujishima has crafted a romantic comedy that has run for more than twenty years as one of the archetypes of harem manga."[5] Now, to be honest, I don't know if there are previous discussion regarding the reliability of the book, but it has been mentioned by sources considered reliable per WP:CMC/REF, like The Comics Journal,[6] and Paul Gravett's website [7]. This may not be enough, but I don't know if there are particular reasons to doubt the reliability of the author. Xexerss (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)