Talk:Yuri (genre)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gokujou Seitokai

I've just recently watched this entire anime, and I have to disagree that it fits within the list of hentai/anime where yuri/shojo-ai is central to the story. Practically all of the yuri content is light subtext or only briefly mentioned, nothing central to the plot. I believe it should be moved to the "stories that include some yuri/shojo-ai" list. Yay/Nay? Soul Colossus 12:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nay. Even if its mostly subtext, the story is centred around the realationships between GIRLS (Save for Eriko), and the anime is clearly Shoujo-ai. Actually, I think no one will actually agree with that. Sorry (Alexlayer 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, I also think like Alexlayer. Haruka 3 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it makes it clearly shojo-ai? The fact that it's focused on relationships between girls doesn't mean romantic relationships between them, none of which even exist in the whole anime except for one one-sided attraction (as I recall). It hardly qualifies as central to the story. However, it is a pretty trivial thing to further argue =P Soul Colossus 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with it being there as well, though I have problems with most of the choices on the list. I think the two lists should just be combined since its all really subjective and too heavily based on personal opinion of the amount of importance people think it has to the story. Granted there are some that clearly fit into each list, Gokujou Seitokai definitely isn't one of them, the bulk of them can easily be argued either way. We should change it to something like "Non-hentai anime and manga with yuri or shoujo-ai elements." ArtimusClydeFrog

Then explain Kaori exhibitting every "I'm in love with..." sign known to man over the President. She's one of the most transparently lesbian characters in anime. Heck, her jealousy against the new student's relationship with the Pres is a key portion of the plot of the first "arc" of the show. Even if it wasn't for the "para para" episode, Kaori's behavior places this show firmly in the shoujo-ai columns. Kyaa the Catlord 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kaori is a totally lesbian character, and, besides, there are many double meanings around Nanaho, as that about the child and the possibility that she was the father. Hacchan 13:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanations

Could somebody please give explanations as to what the Yuri-Content of the mentioned series is? I mean, I consider myself a hardcore InuYasha Fan, yet I have seen nothing that even resembles Shôjo Ai here - so please help me out.

Not a bad idea. While not being a hardcore fan of it, I have similar doubts about Love Hina : girls taking baths together shouldn't count as shoujo-ai in a culture where such a thing is commonplace, no ?

Love Hina does contain a some shoujo-ai. For example, the episode when Shinobu fantasises about Su and her friend and they kiss at the end of it. That could be considered shoujo-ai, in my opinion.

---

So, should Love Hina be listed? It was listed some time back, if I recall.60.49.45.145 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Love Hina's a toss-up, there is definately the Mutsumi x Naru kiss. And Mutsumi is simply a hot bi woman. :P Kyaa the Catlord 05:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Good point. There is undeniably some element of yuri in Love Hina. As mentioned, Mutsumi x Naru exists. Then there's the Kaolla x Shinobu aspect, (fake)Naru x Motoko groping/molestation/rape. So I added it.218.111.186.7 06:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

To tell you guys the truth, I always saw the yuri content in Love Hina as mere fanserivce and not central to the story nor important at all. It only happened once and never came up again, so I don't really think it deserves to be listed at all...Radda 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it is not under "where yuri is central to the story". I always felt that Akamatsu missed the boat on this, he had several chances to explore yuri subplots and never really did. :P (I think he would now if he could rewrite the manga) Kyaa the Catlord 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

--- There's also the panel in the third volume of the translated manga where Motoko accuses Kitsune of "playing for the other team" to which Kitsune responds "There have been rumors of that recently." (page 48 of volume 3 of the TP release) Not a confirmation, but with the artwork its obvious that she was at least open to experimenting with Motoko. Kyaa the Catlord 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The new article

So, I completely revised the article. Honestly it was a mess of random sentences without any real coherency, consistency, or structure, which is about what you might expect given that its history consisted largely of one-line additions and edits by anonymous users. (Hmm, people don't want their names attached to an article called 'yuri'. I wonder why.)

But here, let me give an example: Counterarguments note female-female relationships are portrayed in such a manner sometimes to remove overly dismissive doubt to the nature of romantic relationships between women. What in blazes does that sentence even mean? The new version may be less right, but it's at least more readable -- which hopefully means it's easier for someone to start fixing it. --Aponar Kestrel 06:34, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Merge with shojo ai

If a bunch of people don't come in saying that they think of yuri and shoujo ai the same way (for either parsing of that sentence), this article should probably be merged with Shojo ai -- or, rather, shojo ai should probably be merged with this article. Then we can retitle it "Yuri and Shojo ai", set up redirects as appropriate, and get a real disambiguation page up so you don't have to come here to find Yuri (singer). --Aponar Kestrel 06:34, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

I don't understand the above, but whatever problem it was referring to has probably been aggravated by assigning the title [[Yuri {singer)]] to a Korean singer instead of the previous Mexican one. Yuri (singer) will soon be a Dab between the two former topics.
--Jerzy•t 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I've included the gist of 'shoujo ai' into 'yuri', and I'll leave it to others to delete it. As mentioned, I think it'd be easier to copy over YURI's entry into SHOUJO AI with appropriate redirects, to avoid needing the yuri disambiguation page.

Actually, Mr.-or-Ms. 138.89.139.162, you removed portions of both shoujo ai and yuri and replaced the deleted portions with largely identical inaccuracies. Of special note is that the Japanese do not use shoujo ai to mean what Anglophones do. (appropriate Google Search) Ever.

Really? The Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't seem to support your claims. Tropsy 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, Siroxo has already reverted your changes to shoujo ai, and I've mirrored the reversion over here. I cede that a list of the various definitions isn't notable to anyone save either an otaku or a very dedicated or specialized linguist, and I have thus removed those. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:36, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Shojo-ai Talk

Talk:Shojo-ai

Links

Deleted the link to Manga Bonbons' relevant page. MB being, alas, dead since 5 months, it was about time. Maybe a link to Onna! would compensate this loss ?

Additions to shojoai list/Another idea

I added Bleach to the list, figuring Inoue x Tatsuki is pretty canon.

I also added Air Master, against my better judgement. It does contain shoujo-ai.

Also, has anyone seen this? http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=29037;pg=1

Personally I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this into Wikipedia. It could be changed so that personal opiunions listed next to series were changed to more objective statements like 'contains rape' or 'contains underage sexual content'.

This would naturally be moved to its own Wikipedia page, probably 'List of Shoujoai (Lesbian-related??) anime'.

Please respond if you agree that the above is a good idea. --Zaorish 20:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Objection : Neither Inoue nor Tatsuki are lesbians or have a romantic relationship with each other. Chizuru is a lesbian and likes Inoue, but she only shows up in VERY few references as comic relief, mostly getting injured by Tatsuki as she tries to go after Inoue. --Question2

Regardless of Orihime x Tatsuki, there are a couple of other characters who show up later in the show that definately scream lesbian. Kyaa the Catlord 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Real life," or contributor's fantasy?

"Young same-sex affection experimentation is considered natural in real-life Japan"

maybe not really, extremely rare, or author's misunderstanding of other cultures? In either case, it's not really clear what the author means. --69.212.101.139 29 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Contributor's fantasy. Clearly. TAtom

I agree "On the other hand, homosexuals who do marry, even if they are out, even if they have same sex lovers, are not discriminated in any way." also seems completly impossible. I have personally experienced native japanese reacting with extreme revulsion to any mention or perception of something as "gay" 128.62.213.215 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty dubious statement. --Masamage 05:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Quibble

"Unlike YamiBou and Kannazuki no Miko, Marimite makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to the male demographic..."

This article (http://www.geocities.com/marianaisho/articles/faninterview.htm), containing an interview with a (presumably well-informed) Japanese person, claims the series in its animated form is aimed squarely at the otaku culture. She points out this is the *male* otaku culture. This does seem a bit far-fetched, and would to anyone I know who'd watched the thing, but I thought it was quite interesting. Having no mad wikipedian skillz myself, I didn't add anything or take anything away in the article. *slinks away* --Anon

I've editted this statement out. It is loaded with personal opinion and POV. Marimite doesn't need mecha to lure boys to watch it, it simply doesn't need mecha or fanservice to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's kinda weird. Most guys of *that* kind of demographic hate Kannazuki no miko and don't fancy marimite much either, granted marimite both anime and manga esp are more aimed towards the female demographic. Guys who actually like the former are those who seriously watch yuri for the f/f romance, more is a bonus. * Group watches yuri only for tiltation, hates any real romantic development between female characters and hopes they go back to guys eventually. Digisouth14 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the concept of a series being targeted towards a gender rather than people who share a mentality is rather silly. I know guys who love MariMite for the emotions, and girls who love Gundam for the explosions. Debating which gender an anime is 'for' should probably be left to a message board rather than put in an encyclopedia. DamienReave 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hentai Fact Sheet

Should you or your child encounter hentai on the internets, zip up and then contact teh mounties! We wanna see too! That was good for a laugh. Kyaa the Catlord 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Canadian Mounties -- patrolling the Internets since 1873! I think we can safely file this under Moral panic. -- Miwa 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've not even read past the first paragraph.. not only is it inaccurate and misleading (I mean.. Japan is the sole source of "hentai manga" so you'd expect it to be the world leader...) but they can't even spell 'pixelation'. Shiroi Hane 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the crusade against role-playing games back in the 1980s. Misleading, skewed information and a failure to understand the basic concepts being crusaded against. Sadly, this also has xenophobia tacked on as well. -- Miwa 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious. One wonders what the article was even meant to accomplish. The final paragraph perhaps sums it up the best — that it's the parents' responsibility to monitor their kids' Internet access, and not the Internet's responsibility to cater to kids. And yet, it then says to report all hentai to them! Why don't we just download the Internet while we're at it? ;) – Wisq 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Dangers of Hentai Fact Sheet" was pulled by the Mounties due to the issues brought up above. Silly Canadians. :D Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Anime#National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre Issue. Shiroi Hane 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Really?

"On the other hand, homosexuals who do marry, even if they are out, even if they have same sex lovers, are not discriminated in any way"

I don't think that is an accurate statement at all. I'm not gay and not pushing a 'my people are so oppressed' barrow but that statement is obvious rubbish.

-Irrelevant.

.hack//sign

This was removed earlier from the list of anime containing GL material. If you doubt this, please review the ending of the series. Kyaa the Catlord 09:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not only the end. Tsukasa has a romantic type relationship with Subaru (as stated on .hack//Analisis) since early on the series, and the main reason for Tsukasa to log out was in order to meet Subaru. All this comes to a resolution when Tsukasa finds out that he is really a "she". How he deals with this is what lead us to the end of the series. The main theme of the series is to overcome one's fears and face reality. And it's through Subaru that Tsukasa finaly accepts his reality and logs out (Tsukasa's main fears were his father and the possibility that Subaru wouldn't want to meet him IRL because he was a girl. Morgana uses this as the last resort to prevent Tsukasa from log out). Of course this is Shoujo-ai, not Yuri (there's no explicit scenes), but it definitely has a main role in the story. Kazu-kun 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has a role in the last episodes, but it most definitely is not "central to the story".

I don't remember shoujo-ai being central to ROD either.

In the section after that, it lists F/SN as having some shoujo-ai. This isn't the case. Voretus the Benevolent 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying "it has not" but you don't give any solid argument, and it seems you don't know anything about storytelling either. Just because they find out about Tsukasa in later episodes it doesn't mean it's not central to the story. It's central because it has to do with the main plot (I already have given proof of that). I should clarify that I'm talking about shoujo-ai as a literary device, not as a genre. About ROD and F/SN, I don't really know as I never watched those series. Kazu-kun 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The shoujo-ai component in .hack//SIGN is absolutely fundamental for the final resolution. Besides, in .hack//Zero it is stated that Mariko Misono (Subaru's player) and An Shouji (Tsukasa's player) are dating each other. Do not admit that .hack//SIGN has got shoujo-ai is do not accept the reality of the facts, IMHO. Hacchan 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

shōjo-ai vs. shoujo-ai

As the article says, it's not actually borrowed from a Japanese term; as such I've used its most common spelling, according to Google. (But if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert it, I'm not going to get into an edit war about it.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both spellings mean the same thing. The ō is equivalent to ou. All this means is that the 'o' in ou/ō is pronounced a bit longer than just an 'o'. Therefore, it does not matter which spelling you use, both are equally correct.

Strawberry Panic

Would someone care to clean up the strawberry panic mess at the end? It doesn't link to the comic's article and summarizes the show in a way that goes completely off topic. (What with its emo beautiful people, dominance and enthralled submission, and lust/violence undertones, I'd almost rather classify it as yaoi in a female package...) -- ~

It read like an advert for the show, a very poorly written one. I refactored it. Kyaa the Catlord 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Magic Knight Rayearth?

What is Magic Knight Rayearth doing on this list? I don't remember anything of a shoujo-ai nature in the anime. Was it only in the manga?--Tally Solleni 17:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't remember Nova? She was amazingly flaming. :P Kyaa the Catlord 18:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I did forget about Nova. Nevermind then.--Tally Solleni 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Nova being on this list. Nova was a part of Hikaru, and it was more sick obsession with killing her then wanting to hook up.SSLRranma

Yes, Nova did have a sick obsession for killing Hikaru, but she also had a fascination with her. Kyaa the Catlord 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, her obsession with killing her was actually her way to show her love for her (In a completly wrong way, but that was what she was taught). There's even an little scene where both girl kiss each other. (Alexlayer 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Ah, I just remembered that Nova wasn't in the manga (she created specifically for the anime). So, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere on the page that the shoujo-ai was only in the anime?--Tally Solleni 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the list specifically states "anime containing..." :P Kyaa the Catlord 17:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did something about it, I hope it might be enough Alexlayer 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The big list

Wouldn't this be better as a category? Anyone know how to make one? :P Kyaa the Catlord 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you just add a category link to the bottom of the article. You can also give the category itself a short introduction, as well as making it a subcategory to other categories in the same fashion. For instance at the bottom if this article there is a link [[Category:Anime and manga terminology]]. Shinobu 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a category:yuri yet. We need to make one. :P Kyaa the Catlord 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. By the way, a similar situation exists on Shounen and Seinen, but take it to the talkpages first. Shinobu 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've copied the link to Help talk:Japanese.

The rest of the section contained not enough info to keep for now, mainly stating that the r is an l. To my ear the Japanese r doensn't resemble an l at all, but okay, IANAL.

we already have a help page on Japanese romanization and pronunciation linked. Because there an integral overview can be provided, no oversimplification is necessary, so I think that's the better option. Shinobu 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Explicit vs. interpreted yuri

The "Non-hentai anime and manga with stories that include some yuri or shoujo-ai" section is rather misleading. Mixed in among the shows with actual explicit yuri/shoujo-ai relationships, there are shows like He Is My Master which simply happen to have a lesbian character (who doesn't end up in a relationship with anyone), and then there are shows like Futari wa Pretty Cure that are merely frequently interpreted as having possible shoujo-ai subtexts in what are only ever explicitly shown to be friendships. I'm all for listing shows that are commonly associated with yuri, but that shouldn't be the same list as the shows that actually have it, and the shows that merely have a lesbian among the cast (with no hint of them being in a relationship with anyone) don't belong in this article at all. --Andrusi 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for sources

There are several statements that are presented as fact that are opinion regarding the subtext of yuri. Currently 'magazine' is a placeholder which should be replaced by a source to fix POV sections. Without this, these statements are the authors POV and should be removed. Examples: 'the plot is mostly subtext' (essentially unproveable) and that two characters are 'obviously in a lesbian relationship'. Antonrojo 12:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Noir (there's shoujo-ai in Noir?) SPOILERS

Heck, we even have a kiss scene!! Chloe has romantic feeling towards Kirika, and she's a main character and also the counterpart of Mireille in the triangle formed by Noir aspirants. Her feelings for Kirika have a main role in the story as a driver for her to become an assassin and one of the two "hands" of the Soldats. And also her jealousy is the cause of her end, and that situation is what lead us to the resolution of the story. Defenitly a main role here! Like in .hack//SIGN, shoujo-ai is present in this series as a literary device, not as a genre. Kazu-kun 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mai HiME & Mai Otome appearing in both 'central to the story' & 'includes' lists

Why is this so? I don't think Mai HiME & Mai Otome belong in the 'central to the story' list. But I was wondering about the opinions of others.

In any case shows should appear in only 1 of the two lists.

Yeah, Mai HiME and Mai Otome appear in both lists. That obviously shouldn't happen, but I haven't watched those series, thus I can't help to decide which list they belong to. Can someone give a second opinion here, please? Kazu-kun 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved them so that they only appear in the central to the story list. Otome is totally a yuri/maid lovefest. Hime revolves around relationships, two of which are yuririffic. (Its arguable that there is a third relationship, but I don't like Mai x Mikoto) Kyaa the Catlord 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem: Is there a difference between 'Battle Athletes' & 'Battle Athletes Victory'? Because they are in both sections as well, but link to the same wiki article. Someone please clarify this issue.218.111.185.27 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues

This article sufferes from a large amount of OR and a distinct lack of sourcing. It really needs a complete rewrite. Adding nonsense, like the "magazines" fiasco, doesn't help. I've been toying with rewriting it myself, but November is right around the corner and I have a novel to complete. :) Anyone else interested? Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nanoha x Fate

I'm lazy so I'll post just a fragment (the hints about Fate having a crush on Nanoha are clear, and that's more than enough to be stated on the article):

Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha A's SOUND STAGE 01 (translated by Nagumo on Animesuki forum)

06 Fate no Ketsudan...? Fate's Decision...?

Fate: The water temperature is good. Nanoha you can take a bath first.

Nanoha: I couldn't... it's your house so you should go in first, Fate-chan...

Fate: Ah... Um you really should go in first, Nanoha...

Nanoha: Oh no, I couldn't, Fate-chan should...

Fate: No, really...

Both: Nervous laugh

Fate: I guess the only way to solve this... Okay, Nanoha. Then let's take a bath together.

Nanoha: Oh, that sounds like a good idea Fate-chan.

Fate: Is probably the best way to go about things but... I've only taken a bath with Ami before, but what will I do if the people of this world thinks that's weird..

Nanoha: Fate-chan? ... Fa~te~chan~?

Fate: If that makes Nanoha-chan feel uncomfortable... What will I do? But... I made up my mind to properly tell her how I feel with words...

Nanoha: Fa~te~chan~?

Fate: I guess I'm just going to call up my courage and... Nanoha...

Nanoha: Yes?

Fate: Um... Well... if you don't mind... Um... Um...

Ami: I'm home!

Nanoha: Oh it's Ami-san.

OEL question

I've added 12 Days to the list of manga with yuri/shoujo ai content. I was curious though, since Steady Beat isn't listed, do we not include OEL manga that contains yuri/sa content? Kyaa the Catlord 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Title question

If there can be an article called Shōnen-ai, why can't there be an article called Shōjo-ai? It would be more fair if there was both articles called Shōnen-ai and Shōjo-ai. 82.41.66.173 07:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)DanZie Boy

Actually, rather than that, I believe that the Shōnen-ai and Yaoi articles should be merged into one, since both of them practically talk about the same. (Alexlayer 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

That sounds about right. --Masamage 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination

Someone keeps adding this sentence against consensus: "On the other hand, homosexuals who do marry a person of the other gender, even if they are out, even if they also have same sex lovers, are not discriminated in any way."

A request for page protection failed because, although the addition is from a dynamic IP, they don't do it frequently enough for reverting it to be difficult. A {{fact}} tag was recently added rather than removing it altogether; I suppose this is because reverting it was only making the rest of us risk WP:3RR violations. Anyway, I'm changing that to a {{dubious}} tag to make certain consensus agrees on its exclusion.

I hope the person adding it will come here, and will take note of WP's policies about verifiability. Finding references is the responsibility of the person who wants the material included, not of the people who want it left out. --Masamage 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been writing on the subject of homosexuality in Japan for a long time (I even manage a ML focused on the study of the representation of homosexuality in Japanese media), and, in fact, I'm the author of several chunks of this article on "Yuri" -- the progress of which I have been monitoring practically since the entry was created. I can affirm that, yes, indeed, the ideas expressed in the sentence in question are sound and summarize what is the consensus among cultural anthropologists who have done field research on the matter.

For those who feel that at least some quick confirmation is needed, here are a few quotes from the works of well-known experts:

1) American anthropologist Jennifer Robertson: "As long as an individual's sexual practices do not interfere with or challenge the legitimacy of the twinned institutions of marriage and household, Japanese society accommodates - and in the case of males, even indulges - a diversity of sexual behaviors. This tolerance is extended even to homosexual sex, which, although it is not to be spoken about, is easily available in Japan, where there is no legislation relating to sex between men or sex between women. Hence, many Japanese gay men resist the western notion of 'gay rights.' For instance, one gay man writes into a Japanese gay Internet BBS 'You can do whatever you want with regard to love and sex so why is it necessary to support "gay lib"?' Another man writes that 'being gay is basically a personal problem so I can't agree with gay-lib thinking.'" (quote from: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan)

2) Australian anthropologist Mark McLelland: "Gay men commented that 'Japan has a very different history when it comes to discrimination ... I have never had to face termination of employment because I was gay ... I have never come across someone thrown in prison because he was gay ... there is no religious concept of homosexuality as a vice, drawing out a sense of self-contempt ... for me in Tokyo, subscribing to [the concept of 'gay rights'] is like carrying around someone else's baggage.'" (quote from: Male Homosexuality in Modern Japan)

3) Dutch anthropologist Wim Lunsing (important author, has worked _extensively_ with gay and lesbian groups in Japan): "Sexuality is not thought of so much in terms of what is right or wrong as it is in Anglo-American contexts, but rather as play, something people may engage in if they wish to do so. The lack of religious and legal sanctions against non-marital, non-vaginal sexual expression on the part of men makes sexuality difficult to politicize." (quote from: Japan: Finding its Way, in The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics)

For those of you with an interest in the subject who would like to further research it and wonder where to start reading, these are my recommendations:

1) Wim Lunsing -- Beyond Common Sense: Negotiating Constructions of Sexuality and Gender in Contemporary Japan, London: Kegan Paul International, 1999

2) M. McLelland -- Male Homosexuality in Modern Japan: Cultural Myths and Social Realities, Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000

3) Wim Lunsing -- Japan: Finding its Way, in The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: Nationwide Imprints of a Worldwide Movement, ed. Barry Adam et al., Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999

4) Steven Pinkerton and Paul Abramson -- Japan, in Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: a Multi-Nation Comparison, ed. Donald West and Richard Green, New York and London: Plenium Press, 1997.

(Nemo, 02:02, 6 December 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.0.68 (talk • contribs)

I am very glad that you responded, and will leave the actual assessment of your research to those more knowledgable than I (though it looks sound). Meanwhile, thank you very much for your contributions, and please read over Wikipedia's guidelines on discussion pages and consensus. Since we couldn't get any word from you about the edits, we were all sure they were simple vandalism. Glad to see that wasn't the case! --Masamage 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for posting this information. We continue to seek sourcing for this page and if you could do that on the article itself it would be very helpful. (Especially on the statement about discrimination, since it does seem rather dubious.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing?

There is a vast literature on the subject of sexuality and society in Japan. I mentioned before four very good sources, but I can easily list twenty or thirty more books if wider reference material is needed.

Or are you talking about some sort of Wiki mechanics? (which, I admit, I'm not good at - editing texts is about the only thing I have ever done...)

(Nemo, 14:30, 6 December 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.9.52 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, posting texts is good, but in order to remove the annoying tags, we need to include sources for the statements directly. Unfortunately, WP:OR ties our hands. I've been doing research trying to back up this article, but... to be honest, I don't have the time to do it myself. I have to admit, I love that dubious tag that Masamage used, I need to remember that one. (This article is a mess and has been from way before most of us showed up. Someone did a lot of work, but left it without any real documentation.) Kyaa the Catlord 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered that myself. :) Clearly the best part is that it provides a direct link to the talk page! --Masamage 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't have thought of coming here to the talk page if it wasn't for that link.

(Nemo, 20:05, 6 December 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.23.165 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Your evidence cited does not support the absolute statement "On the other hand, homosexuals who do marry a person of the other gender, even if they are out, even if they also have same sex lovers, are not discriminated in any way." maybe it depends on your definition of discrimination. Are you just limiting it to workplace discrimination? Or bigotry and discrimination in general? I posted before that I lived in japan and personally witnessed feelings of extreme revulsion from japanese from such a supposed "homosexual" act as adult females holding hands. To me this is the same illogical hatred expressed by Americans that we might call "discrimination" in the US. I know you can't cite personal research or whatever but my personal experience does not hold with you claims of absolute non discrimination. Back to the evidence you posted above, the first one says that it is only "tolerated" and "not to be talked about", the second merely says that there is no political or workforce discrimination, the third again says no legal discrimination. The statment in question however seems to (perhaps inadverdently) promote a utopian homosexual vision of the state of sexuality in Japan. On first reading I thought the statment was basically saying that there was "no bigotry towards homosexuals in Japan", for which i see no evidence. wikipedia says that "To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples of social discrimination include racial, religious, sexual, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic, height-related, and age-related discrimination." since your information seems to indicate that homosexuality is not talked about (and therefore taboo?) it seems that there is some form distinction being made between people without regard to individual merit. I propose the sentence be altered to clarify that this is legal discrimination you are talking about. 128.62.214.145 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - discrimination comes in many forms. It still needs clarifying as to what kinds of discrimination a heterosexual marriage will protect a homosexual from in Japan. - Malkinann 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail, way beyond the scope of this article.

Whoever is interested in that level of detail should just look at the sources.

(Nemo, 14:35, 9 December 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.10.148 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

As it is, this page contradicts Homosexuality in Japan - perhaps you'd like to edit that page next. A fuller treatment of the protection that is hinted at here would be appropriate there. - Malkinann 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for me to intervene. A number of good friends and colleagues of mine take good care of that page. :)

(Nemo, 02:35, 10 December 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.3.146 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Not Verified Tag

Well, the latest discussion had very good results, as now the whole article have sources and references.

Because of that, I assume that it is safe to remove the Not Verified Tag, don't you think? If nobody contradict this, I'll do it in short time. If someone is completely sure that I'm right, s/he can do it by him/herself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexlayer (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I think at twelve references we're looking pretty good. Anything left over should just get a {{fact}} tag of its own so that we know exactly what needs sourcing. --Masamage 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I placed the tag, it makes sense that I remove it. Kyaa the Catlord 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Still wishful thinking

I finally just removed Futari wa Pretty Cure myself. I was hoping someone would come along who would be able to go over the entire list instead of just removing one that I happened to know was wrong. Futari wa Pretty Cure features girls who are friends. Friends. They are presented in a context which many people choose to interpret as shoujo-ai, but this is not official in any way whatsoever.

I emphatically request that everyone else take a look at the "Non-hentai anime and manga with stories that include some yuri or shoujo-ai" section, check for shows you're familiar with, and remove any that don't belong there.

Also, the comment is simply evidence that I need to stop editing in the morning. --Andrusi 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"stories that include some yuri or shoujo-ai" section

Wait... Naruto? What the hell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IguanarayD: (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

I second that... 208.124.30.214 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? --Andrusi 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also argue against Bleach, Fushigi Yuugi and Magic Knight Rayearth. IIRC, none of them has lesbians. --84.63.26.231 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Soi Fong isn't a lesbian? Chizuru isn't a lesbian? Seriously. Have you seen Rayearth2? Nova's definately got some shoujo ai "issues".... And Yui in Fushigi Yuugi's response is a bit intense to be nothing but a broken "friendship". Kyaa the Catlord 07:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Nova. I had totally forgotten her, being an anime-only character. Anyway, I never pictured her relationship with Hikaru as lesbian love. After all, she IS just Hikaru's dark side. The whole "I love you" thing is more of a mind game she plays with Hikaru, IMO. She kisses Lantis, too, after all.

It's been a while since I watched Fushigi Yuugi, but I didn't get yuri vibes from Yui. Not to mention that Miaka is totally fallen for Tamahome and wouldn't even notice ^^

As for Bleach, well, Chizuru has the hots for Inoue, but the most that happens is the occasional glomp (always cut short by Tatsuki pounding her). Besides she's, like, the least important character in the whole series. Whether Soi Fong's feelings for Yoruichi - deep though they may be - are really of the romantical kind has not even been stated - the interpretation is viable (and probable, considering the fandom), but not compelling.

Eventually, it comes down to how "inclusive" you want the list to be. The above series, even though you might argue that they show signs of shoujo-ai, are nowhere comparable in this respect to, say, Sailor Moon or El-Hazard, which feature actual lesbian couples. If you ask me, even Cardcaptor Sakura contains more (and people have argued that CCS doesn't really have any shoujo-ai at all)... --84.63.20.148 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some" shoujo ai. Sounds pretty inclusive. Kyaa the Catlord 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some shoujo-ai" is "some shoujo-ai," not "a lesbian character" (Chizuru is a great example of this point), and certainly not "a character who might maybe be a lesbian if you interpret certain scenes the way I do." Wikipedia is not an H-doujinshi (though that would be awesome). --Andrusi 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a character who is seeking a romance with one of the primary characters in the show, that shows some shoujo-ai to me... Kyaa the Catlord 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Seeking a romance" might be a quite liberal interpretation of Chizuru's actions, but I'll concede the point. However, I do think that Nova's "shoujo-ai issues" are not actual shoujo-ai at all, but purely symbolic (being a Rayearth fan, I'd gladly discuss this matter further, but this page is not the right place); and I still don't see any shoujo-ai in Yui's and Miaka's relationship, either. --84.63.61.192 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also some stuff between Orihime and Rukia, also Orihime and Rangiku later in the manga. It's mostly silly fanservice but, it's there. --Iguanaray

Is there enough shoujo-ai content to warrant X/1999 being listed? I know the series pretty well (manga, movie, and show), and I really don't think it belongs on the list. I mean, I'm all for a comprehensive shoujo-ai / yuri listing, but if the series doesn't have enough content to warrant being listed, it's best not to mis-direct people...

LainEverliving LainEverloving 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I seem to remember that two of the female dragons sharing a bed.... Kyaa the Catlord 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Wow, I didn't remember that at all! But, if you say so, that's fine.LainEverliving LainEverloving 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Angel Dust

I added it because of the kiss between Yuina - the main character - and Seraph, one of the angels. Besides, there was Seraph's former lover that was also a girl. Hacchan 00:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "Shojo-Ai"

Technically the term isn't used in Japan, like... at all. At least not in the same or similar sense as shonen-ai. The page is written in the sense that it is. Someone fix?

You should read more carefully. The article makes it pretty clear that shoujo-ai is a Western term, and it's not used in Japan:

"The term shōjo-ai (少女愛) is scarcely, if ever, used with these meanings in Japan; instead, the terms shōnen-ai and shōjo-ai tend to denote pedophilia."

As you see, the term shonen-ai is not used either. Japaneses just call it "Boys Love". Kazu-kun 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture!!

Wow what can I say. Now I have no concept of this topic whatsoever, so this will be based on nothing. But in the picture the lady in purple hair looks like she's supposed to be old or something. Now a more representative picture may be of younger subjects. Someone needs to look into this, and don't forget to invite me. 75.4.231.136 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article linked in the caption for the image. Despite the purple-haired girl's appearance, they're both in high school, and a famous yuri couple to boot. -Malkinann 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitohira doesn't contain yuri content

The story is purely about realizing one's dream and friendship. I think it should be removed from the big list.

And the blushing and fondling of Mugi by Nono isn't suggestive? Nono and the head of the drama club certainly seem to have a history as well. Kyaa the Catlord 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact scene. Do you mean when Mugi was about to have her debut? It doesn't look suggestive to me. And personally I think it should be Mirei and Nono if there's any possible yuri couple in the story. Clearly they have very strong feeling toward each other. By the way I've only watched the anime version of Hitohira, not the manga. So it would be best if someone who has read the manga can provide his opinion. 25 July 2007

Well, the first encounter between Mugi and Nono is rather... suggestive. The whole "omg, Mugi stares at Nono's chest and blushes while Nono caresses her cheek" scene. And yes, Mirei x Nono is rather strongly hinted at. Kyaa the Catlord 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Is there any specific reason why we have the "(animation)" designation in the title? If I'm not mistaken, Yuri also encompasses manga, light novels, visual novels, etc, so having animation in the title of the article seems rather narrow. How about we change it to Yuri (term), or Yuri (jargon), taken from the one-sentance lead.--十八 04:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Yuri is a disabiguation. How about Shoujo ai ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoujo_ai&redirect=no ) which happens to be just a re-direction? After all, in the main anime article, under Genre - it is Shoujo ai that's listed with Yuri provided as an alternate name. Therefore, the primary term for this genre is Shoujo ai. Furthermore, it is a unique term. KyuuA4 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to agree with that as we already have shōnen-ai. But it would have to be shōjo-ai.--十八 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You two should read the article better. It makes it pretty clear that shoujo-ai is a Western term, and it's not used in Japan. Not only that, but when used shoujo-ai refers to "implied" content, whereas yuri, the actual term, may refer to either "implied" or "explicit" content. For all these reasons shoujo-ai can't be the article's title. Kazu-kun 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's how it is, then why do we have the shōnen-ai article, or does Japan use the term "shōnen-ai" and not "shōjo-ai"? Because that's pretty messed up. Although, I'd be on the train that says that shōnen-ai should be merged into yaoi, but that's for another day in another article. Either way, then just go with my original suggestions, because (animation) is too narrow a disambiguation.--十八 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the term anime is a Western term with regards on the context we -Westerners- tend to use it. Therefore, Eastern vs Western linguistics is moot. Yet, for the sake of consistency, then the article title to shōnen-ai must be changed as well. Whatever the case, both articles will remain workable regardless of which terms are used as titles. KyuuA4 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, shōnen-ai is not used in Japan either, but both are different cases. While yuri is also well know in English speaking countries (take a look at the references on the article: they're all about yuri, not shoujo-ai), the Japanese replacement for shōnen-ai, which is Boys Love, is not used at all.

About the title, maybe just "Yuri-term" would do. Kazu-kun 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with Yuri (term).--十八 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, be bold and do it. EDIT: or do you want me to do it for you? Kazu-kun 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just making sure we were on the same page; page moved now.--十八 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, and this is how it shall be.KyuuA4 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Yuri Series

Such lists are better served by Categories - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yuri . I've taken the liberty to add Strikethroughs to any item already categorized. Or, the list can be moved into a separate article. KyuuA4 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The cat is fine only when yuri is explicit, but yuri itself is more complex than that. This article talk about this, and the lists help to illustrate how yuri can be a central element (which doesn't mean explicit) in a story or just a meaningless faservice. When yuri is just a minor element or fanservice, is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article of such anime (the same goes with the cat), but here, where the article itself talk about all the aspects of yuri, the lists become notable. Kazu-kun 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ojamajo Doremi

Okay, so how exactly does Ojamajo Doremi contain yuri? Feiriri 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The List

Sakura Rin(number) has taken it upon herself to edit war over the way the lists are presented, deeming the longer lists first, shorter later to be hell if I know. Of all the spurious things to edit war over... Can we come to a consensus about how we wish these to be presented? Would we like to go back to "how it always was" (aka the previous unspoken consensus) or is there consensus to change it in this manner? Numerous editors other than I have reverted her changes, but she continues to unilaterally change the way these are displayed. Kyaa the Catlord 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, way to blow things out of poportion. Also, is there a need for rudeness of this degree? Hypocrisy, anyone? You called it spurious/ implied it to be :insignificent/dumb etc.. but actually bothered to ask for a vote on the issue? I specifically asked if there was a guideline/rule on this issue but you couldn't even give me a straight answer instead giving me the strawman "numerous editors". The "numerous editors" who also reverted tons of other changes the public made which doesn't include vandalism? How about assuming WP:OWN? In any case, I reverted my own single edit made. Sakura rin24 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who pops up every three day and spontaneously changes the layout of the list for no apparent reason despite being reverted EVERY time you do so. Kyaa the Catlord 07:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So how is it different if another editor consistently reverts my edits? If you don't like it, how about just come out and say you don't. There's nothing wrong with that. Firstly, it's been awhile since I was here so no, not every 'three days' I guess, and secondly for you to come to that kind of 'conclusion' could only mean you've been stalking me. Sakura rin24 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Its often enough that you should have caught on that your change needed discussion prior to being implemented. It may look "neat" but it goes contrary to how most people think. Long first, short second just "makes sense". (Mind you, some of the other lists I've seen just are bloody messes.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You know firstly, if this issue was so hugely significant - you'd think someone would have brought this to my attention on my talk page or something by now, hopefully politely. Where I will address it civilyWP:Civil and let my edits be reverted. Till things get worked out. But, there was none. As I mentioned, I will pause my edits as I don't wished to be accused of this 'edit warring' which I have no intention of. Something bothers me too, that you would just make an assumption on my gender and lambast me on these "female" grounds. You know as well as I do that user_names don't mean a thing on the internet. Sakura rin24 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me as I roll my eyes. I apologize profusely for falsely suggesting that a user with a username that is predominately female happened to be a woman, not that there is anything wrong with being a woman. Nor did I "lambast you on "female" grounds", and I'd love to see your rationale for that claim cause I don't see it. Seriously, quit playing the victim and explain why you think that the longer columns should come last and stop trying to make this into something about you. Kyaa the Catlord 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not playing alright? You could have presented in a factual manner as to why my edits might not be in the best interest but you chose to personally attack me and pretty much call me an 'unreasonable edit war monger' to which I take offense to and you expect to just lie back without speaking up? I'm sorry, but it's tough to just count plain edits and/or reverts as de facto. Who's to say editor 1,2,3 & 4 are not trying to 'own' the article as much as you seem to be accusing me to me too? Which is why I asked for a guideline so if I'm wrong I could happily revert my own edits. Or as I clearly stated above if someone civilly disagrees with me, I'll simply stop till a consensus is reached. If there's one thing I won't condone is rudeness. Hence, perhaps my overtalky replies and my offence. If all I care about is edit warring, I wouldn't have bothered replying but continue on with my edits. All I'm currently interested in is the consensus as to whether a shorter first columm might neaten the layout or not at all? Sakura rin24 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sei & Shiori.jpg

Image:Sei & Shiori.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing the lists

Clearly, there's going to be constant disagreement over whether titles belong on the lists -- especially the incidentals, where sometimes you have to squint with your yuri goggles on to see the subtext. The only way to reduce that is justifications: citations for everything on there. In other words, prove it.

Since inlines for every single one is going to swell the References to unholy size, I have a suggestion: how about general categories. That is, every series containing an openly lesbian character would be tagged <ref name="lesbiancharacter"/> (except for one <ref name="lesbiancharacter">At least one character is openly lesbian.</ref>). And another for "At least one female character desires or deeply admires another female character," and so on. In other words, use footnotes as key coding.

We should probably hash out what the general bins are before applying them. —Quasirandom 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ObWP: The relevant guideline being WP:CITE: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." Individual titles being removed counts as a challenge. —Quasirandom 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when the editor who deleted content didn't give a proper reason; just deleting is not a challenge, it's plain vandalism. Editors must use the talk page, or at least leave a proper edit summary, when deleting content. This is true for any article, without exception. EDIT: I do think we should clean up the second list a bit; "yuri" in some of those series is too minor (or even inexistant).Kazu-kun 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an edit summary should be given as a couretsy, but I'd argue that while deleting the whole list is clearly vandalism, removing selected titles shows specific, thoughtful disagreement with including them. Either way, anything mentioned on the talk page above is obviously a challenge, even if defended successfully, and so needs sourcing. —Quasirandom 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, we need to do some cleaning first. After that we can discuss about reference (your idea about using footnotes as key coding seems interesting).Kazu-kun 01:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Purge the List

It is unnecessary for the article to contain a list when a Category will do the same job more efficiently. Without the list, greater focus can be made on the genre itself. KyuuA4 00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I already answered to that:

"The cat is fine only when yuri is explicit, but yuri itself is more complex than that. This article talk about this, and the lists help to illustrate how yuri can be a central element (which doesn't mean explicit) in a story or just a meaningless faservice. When yuri is just a minor element or fanservice, is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article of such anime (the same goes with the cat), but here, where the article itself talk about all the aspects of yuri, the lists become notable."

If you think the cat can replace the lists, then you should read this article better.Kazu-kun 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Game-related content ?

Should we extend the "shoujo-ai/yuri" content to anime/manga-like video games or do you want to keep it only to anime series and mangas ? WebJiCi 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The example lists

The list is redundant with Category:Yuri. It also violates Wikipedia:Embedded list, which prefers prose over lists. General consensus at WikiProject Anime and manga is also against such example lists (one such discussion taking place here).

The "Yuri or shōjo-ai as a minor addition" section is full of original research. Some I have no idea what they're thinking of when added (where's the yuri in Kanon?), some are misleading (in Strawberry Marshmallow, Nobue does show an attraction to the girls' cuteness, but it's not sexual), and all are inherently non-notable (by being minor). Criteria for inclusion for this section is incredibly low. It appears that if a female character shows any form of love (platonic or romantic) to another female character for as much as a second it gets lumped in the list (most of time, probably just wishful thinking on part of the fans). --SeizureDog 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yuri doesn't have to be "sexual". Didn't you read the article yet? And yes, right now there are some series listed which shouldn't be there, but that just means the lists need some cleaning. Like I told you before, minor elements is also Yuri, so there's no redundace at all. Furthermore, some times Yuri can actually be a main element in a series without that series being classified as a Yuri series. Take for example Noir: Cloe's attraction and jealousy towards Kirika (there's even a kiss there, which is explicit Yuri) is a really important element in the series, yet that doesn't mean Noir belongs to the Yuri genre.

And please, don't compare Harem with Yuri, because while Harem is a genre, Yuri is a lot more than that. EDIT: and BTW, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Even then, in this article, mentioning these minor additions is notable because of the context provided by the article's topic itself. Kazu-kun 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be why citing the lists should be a priority. (That thread should probably be rescued from the archive, to show it's a current project.) Notability isn't an issue; original research is. —Quasirandom 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yuri doesn't have to be 'sexual'", but it does have to be lesbianic. Platonic love does not make one a lesbian. Also, yuri is a genre, just like comedy is. It can either be a central theme (where it's then in the genre) or it can be of another genre, but have yuri elements at parts (like a normally serious film may have a few comic relief scenes).--SeizureDog 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Strawberry Marshmallow is one of the easiest of the incidental yuri series to source: it's been mentioned in multiple reviews, including by Erica Freidman. —Quasirandom 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what SeizureDog said, but if these lists are to exist, we need to realize that they are only examples, and not comprehensive lists. If people really want some examples, we need to choose an arbitrary number (a hand full), and possibly examples at random if no one can agree on which ones. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that a good number of examples already exist within the prose itself. --SeizureDog 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(where's the yuri in Kanon?) Mai and Sayuri? Jeez, you have to be blind.... Kyaa the Catlord 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize again that these lists are never meant to be comprehensive lists. SeizureDog is correct that the article has enough examples as it is. This article is excessive, and uses borderline and highly disputable examples, many with little or no reliable sources. If people really want this list so much, split it off into it's own article, as we would for anything that had a size issue like this (regardless if people think it should exist or not). -- Ned Scott 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I quit here. I've watched this page for years now, reverting vandalism and crap. Ned walks in, questions my common sense, suggests I'm a /b/tard and then calls me batshit insane. Personal attacks, guilt by association, and general incivility with a side of 4rr? Check. I'm done playing this game, do your worst. Kyaa the Catlord 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologies for my two reverts, and rule 34 didn't come from 4chan (nor was I even talking to you in that edit summary). If you'd like to actually make a single argument to keep the list in the article, go ahead, don't let me stop you. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've nothing against having lists in addition to categories, as long as the lists add information, context, or navigational aids that the corresponding categories do not have. I don't see that here. Furthermore, the current lists in this article ought to go, since there are no sources, making the lists original research. That goes against a core content policy. Nick Graves 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Logical flaw. No sources ≠ original research. No sources → not yet verified → possibly original research. That said, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," and pretty much every one of these has been challenged, over the years. Nonetheless most, if not all, of the first list should not be hard to verify, given how much any hint of queerness is likely to tweak reviewers one way or another; the second, well, many of those really are yuri in the eye of the beholder. So see my proposal below. —Quasirandom 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I asked for a link that showed Figure 17 was considered yuri, the response was a link to a fansite. Being yuri-themed and being liked by people who like yuri are two very different things. No matter how you try to word it, it's going to be highly subjective for a great deal of anime listed here. Where are the reliable sources? -- Ned Scott 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Quasirandom: The lists make evaluative claims as to whether a yuri relationship exists, and whether it was a central or minor aspect of the plot. Without a source, that's original research. Maybe people did look at sources when they compiled the lists, but unless they cite them, the material is still presumed to be original research. Regardless, sources are needed. Someone has challenged this content, and until reliable sources are cited, it should be deleted. Nick Graves 16:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

What I would like to see is this:

• Replace the second list with a prose account discussing the uses of yuri-content-in-passing, which uses a few of these as examples. These would need to be sourced that someone(s) have seen yuri in it.
• Keep the first list, but source each item. I say this, and not the category, because in an article they can be sourced. Whether the list belongs here or in a separate article, I'd like to shelve for now (though I note that the guideline prefers, rather than requires, prose over lists), because if it remains in the article sourcing is more likely to happen. And as part of forcing it, I'd like to tag each title with {{cn}}, to force editors (myself included) to go through each one and prove-it-or-lose-it within the reasonable timeframe that dated tags give.

In fact, I'll make that my specific proposal. All in favor or opposed or with alternatives, have at it. —Quasirandom 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I still say that the list in the article should only serve as an example, which is pretty much already covered. If you want additional examples, it shouldn't be as huge as these lists. These lists are not meant to document every single anime with a Yuri element. We simply don't do that with such articles. If the list is doing something the categories can't do, then lets make the list a standalone list, List of anime with yuri elements, or something to that extent. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(Aside) It's not just anime, but manga, light novels, and games too.--十八 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE #2: If we want every series to source its "yuri-ness", then it's possible to require individual articles to source it, either in the text itself or the "yuri" being in the genre section of the infobox. Therefore, any article in the Yuri category must be sourced as such or at least be really damn obvious (Strawberry Panic!).--SeizureDog 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was going to comment that, for many in the first list, it's possible to snag a reference from the series article -- at least from the better ones. —Quasirandom 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A solution I would favor: Move both lists to the talk page, giving people a chance to support the material with reliable sources. As sources are found, start a prose section in the article on particularly prominent examples of yuri. Once about ten examples of source-supported yuri are found, start a separate list, and link to the list from the prose section. Nick Graves 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

References

I've reverted the removal of the citations to Erica Friedman's Okazu blog, as she is the founder of Yuricon and her blog is used to review yuri works. -Malkinann 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if she's the founder of Yuricon or not. It's very rare that Wikipedia is supposed to use blogs as sources, and normally limited to when it's someone who was directly involved (a writer or producer, etc). As it is now, it's self-published, original research. -- Ned Scott (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the guidelines say: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:VERIFY). Erica fits in that category (see AfterEllen's article about her). Kazu-kun (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An article which does nothing to assert her as an expert. Nor is this even an appropriate circumstance to accept self-published material. Her own blog entries note that her definition of some of these shows is border line, and one that many people wouldn't agree with. She might be good at organizing a large scale conference, but this blog is nothing more than her own personal opinions made by her own impression of watching a show. -- Ned Scott (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article asserts her as an expert in the subject quite explicitly. But I see now that it's worthless trying to argue with you. Have fun butchering the article, I am off. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What about this one, Ned? Erica Friedman's Guide to Yuri (AfterEllen.com) "Since she created AniLesboCon in 2000, a website covering lesbian-themed anime, Erica Friedman has become one of the world's top publishers of and experts on yuri..." The article ends: "Read more of Erica Friedman's yuri reviews on her blog, Okazu." Malkinann (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She has also guest lectured at the University of Illinois and talked (on a panel?) at MIT. Malkinann (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading more about afterellen.com, I'm still not impressed. She probably does know a lot about yuri, but I seriously question anyone who puts a show like Figure 17 or Read or Die as yuri. Yuri suggests romantic or sexual feelings, but she seems to believe that any non-blood close related relationship between two female characters is yuri. These are not people who are objective or experts, these are people who are activists. Being a lesbian does not make you an expert on lesbian themed anime, not anymore than a straight person is an expert about anime with heterosexual relationships. If you look in every link you've provided, her only credibility hinges on the fact that she organized a yuri-themed convention.

But this is all getting off topic. Sourced or not, this list is still excessive. Example lists in articles are not meant to be all inclusive like this. And not a single person who wants to keep this list has addressed that concern. -- Ned Scott (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll move the list to its own article. But then we'll still use Erica as a source, as she has been proved by plenty of sources as being qualified to be used as reference. Any complaint you have doesn't change the fact the she has been stated as an expert on the subject.

EDIT: And once we have the list on its own article, we'll add a brief comment to each title, explaining why they are listed and giving some details about their yuri elements. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you won't be adding her blog back as a source, because it's still not a reliable source. She's not an expert, she's just some lesbian activist who likes anime. And to repeat myself "her only credibility hinges on the fact that she organized a yuri-themed convention."-- Ned Scott (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying you're opinion on her overrides a direct statement from a reliable source? She runs a publishing house dedicated to yuri, and is cited as an expert on the subject. Your complain, on the other hand, is empty and only based on your own preconceptions. In any case, I think we have enough consensus to use her as a source.Kazu-kun (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion means nothing, but the facts that she is not a creditable expert are very clear. There are no reliable sources that show she is an expert. All you have are self-published sources and a mention that she talked at some universities (and they only invited her because she started the yuri convention). That's all we have, is just that she started a convention. If she hadn't, no one would even care about what she thought. Being able to do one thing doesn't make you an expert with everything related to that thing. If I started a turtle convention, because I loved turtles, that would not make me an expert on the animal. Notice her publishing house doesn't even have an article here, because it only exists as a part of the convention (surprise surprise). I can't even find any notable bookstores that sell their books. I get the feeling that the reason anyone thinks she's an expert is because there really aren't any other "experts" for yuri. -- Ned Scott (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, two universities had her as a guest speaker on yuri, and she's written for AfterEllen on yuri. I'm confused as to why you don't feel that this is enough to satisfy WP:SPS. Malkinann (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems it's useless arguing with him. Anyway, I'll start with the list when I have some time. If he reverts something against consensus and references he'll be doing nothing but vandalism.

EDIT: and Ned Scott... ALC Publishing's books can be found in Amazon, which I think is a pretty notable bookstore.Kazu-kun (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can sell a book on Amazon, and if you've been in any recent book-related AfDs you'll know that being listed in Amazon doesn't mean much anymore.

Again, there's nothing more than the fact that she started an anime convention, coupled with the lack of experts in on the topic anyways. The fact that you can't find any other references for some of these shows is a good indication that other people don't always agree with Erica Friedman's fanblog. So with that in mind, WP:NPOV comes into play.

And no matter how much you might disagree with an editor, you do not get to call their actions vandalism. The definition of vandalism on Wikipedia is pretty clear, and it's not just something for you to throw around whenever you feel that you are right and someone else is wrong. -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While I still strongly believe that Erica Friedman's status as an "expert" is highly questionable, and that her assessment of what is yuri is flawed, I don't particularly care enough to argue about this anymore. I'm backing down on this, and will not revert or remove citations from her blog. But one last time I must point out, no matter who's calling her an expert or not, when her definition of what is yuri doesn't match up with what other sources define yuri as, you have to wonder how much of an expert she really is, or if it's some form of bias. -- Ned Scott (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that she holds a different personal opinion on what yuri is, but Yuricon holds a broader definition for inclusion purposes for "the yuri fandom". [1] She does have a 0-10 scale for the yuri content, and most of the stuff on the second list of this page would be considered low on that scale - the second list is the stuff of subtext, unrequited love, characters who happen to be lesbians, characters who have really close relationships that could be interpreted as lesbians etc. The reason we were citing them was to show that the yuri-flavour of these series wasn't just OR, that Erica Friedman of Yuricon has said yes, there is some yuri here, or the yuri here is all fanservice, or such-and-such-a-series has oodles of yuri subtext going on. -Malkinann (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, aside from citing references, we'll have to add a brief comment to each title giving some details about their yuri elements: giving some minor in-universe context, and, like you said, explaining if the yuri there is that of close relationships that could be interpreted as lesbians, or just fanservice, etc.Kazu-kun (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All part of the work-to-be-done -- of which, you've been doing a good job on, the past couple days. Yay. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it make the editors happier if I sent them my full CV which includes all my lecture and writing credits on the subject of Yuri? I have been promoting, researching and writing about the genre quite possibly longer than the editors had heard of it, but if they are convined that I am not an "expert" perhaps I can alleviate their concern with that. Okazu is where I express my personal opinions, but I think it is safe to say that my understanding of the genre is deep and wide enough to appease TPTB. - Erica Friedman Yuricon (talk)13:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It might make our task easier, for defending citations, if it was available someplace stable online. Sending it might be useful once, but not in the future. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, this discussion has been settled already. Right now we're using the Yuricon website and Okazu as reference, so I see no reason to keep arguing about it. Let's move on, please.Kazu-kun (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Settled, yes, but without consensus. Which means it will come up again. Best to have as many supporting citations in a row before the day. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilies as floral motifs in yuri

{{editprotected}} Can you please add this citation [2] to the text "White lilies are sometimes used as floral motifs in yuri anime and manga." Thankyou. -Malkinann (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention "white lilies" or the word "motif". In any case, the article was just protected due to edit warring; things like this can wait until it is unprotected. Everyone should focus on resolving the dispute that led to protection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ok to wait until the article is unprotected. On the other hand, I want to address your concern about this source; while it does not state the words "white" o "motif", it clearly says that "lilies" have been used to symbolize same-sex love in manga, which it's clouse enough. We may need to remove the word "white" and do some re-wording, but overall the reference seems to work just fine.Kazu-kun (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for everyone

Hello everyone. Before attempting to add a series to the list, you must be totally sure that the series has notable yuri content. I say this because, as usual, some anime fans have portrayed innocent friendships like those by Mikan and Hotaru (Gakuen Alice) as lesbian relationships. By doing this, those people are introducing these characters into the same sexual level as, for example, the characters from The L Word; I suppose you are getting my point, I hope so. There are thousands of relationships between female characters, and it's a bit difficult to distinguish between simple friendships and real lesbian romances; so please be careful and don't start playing with fire. Wikipedia needs information abouts facts, not about opinions. Happy editing. Twicemost (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what wikipedia needs, but the list on this article needed references and we're working on it.Kazu-kun (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood+ has been removed from the list - rather than reverting it and treating it as vandalism, can we find a citation for it before readding it? -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't revert it because I don't remember any yuri in it, and I didn't find any reference for it either. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good guideline -- don't restore removals without including a citation. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

So, Claymore has no yuri... now what? -Malkinann (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we look for another reference. But if we don't find any, eventually we'll have to delist it.Kazu-kun (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it as dubious on the main page, and put up a header here so that people can find this easily. -Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So why is Battle Athletes listed under "additional" content? It seemed to me that the yuri side was pretty obvious. I think it should be moved to the list with the main focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to the talk page of Battle Athletes. Its yuri is only a secondary element in comparison with the main plot.--Twicemost (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While it isn't exactly main, it is still heavily focused on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me illustrate you an example of why BA is in the second list (additional element): Look at the case of Sailor Moon in its S season: Haruka and Michiru are a clear and declarated couple, correct? They play an important role as they search without rest important artifacts that will save the world, and it's hinted that they are lovers. After all that, the strong friendship between Chibiusa and Hotaru is next, and any fanboy with a filthy mind will see that as a platonic love. Why, even with all that, this particular season of Sailor Moon does not reach to the Yuri level? Interesting question, isn't it? Look closely: Neither the Haruka/Michiru romance nor the Chibiusa/Hotaru strong friendship are notable for the overall plot, but both pairings make Sailor Moon deserve a place for its name in the Additional element section. Let's go back to Battle Athletes. Which is the plot? About a girl that wants to be the Cosmo Beauty? Fine. Does it have yuri elements? Fine. That yuri is involved with Akari's purpose? That yuri is focused formally? That yuri is the special of the day? Can you read in the plot synopsis The series is about a girl that falls in love with another girl? No, no and no. However, what the series offers puts it in the Additional element section, and it's referenced as such with its proper source, so what else is missing? Think it well, OK?^_^. --Twicemost (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Twincemost here.

Aside from that, I want to take this opportunity to say that I didn't like his/her comment about "the reputation of this anime series" one bit. This statement shows a bias against the subject, and it's at odds with the NPOV wikipedia policy. Please, refrain from such statements from now on. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation received. --Twicemost (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The series is about a girl who wants to be cosmo beauty, and in the process, finds love with another female. Seems pretty yuri to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look on South Park: The series deals an insane lot of times with gay themes, as seen in episodes like Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride, Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub , World Wide Recorder Concert, 4th Grade, The Death Camp of Tolerance, South Park Is Gay!, All About Mormons, AWESOM-O, Follow That Egg!, Cartman Sucks, D-Yikes!, Imaginationland Episode III and Guitar Queer-o; and notice that the protagonist characters, as well as the most recurring secondary ones, are the most involved on the gay events (Stan calling Kyle's hat "nice"? Cartman sucking Butter's balls?). But why South Park is not a LGBT series? Why its Wikipedia-dedicated article is not even within the scope of the Wikiproject LGBT studies? Why most of the articles about those episodes aren't within that scope either? If South Park was an anime series, would it be a yaoi one? The answer is the same: The gay themes are common for the series, but only as a secondary aspect. Equally, the yuri aspects in Battle Athletes are present and notable, but that's not the main interest of the series, because it also has science fiction aspects (a very FAR future era, aliens, a sattelital academy) and, of course, content related to sports. This is the deal: Because the yuri of this series is becoming SOOO interesting, you can drag its article within the LGBT WikiProject, but don't get confused: That will only mean that its lesbian content is a target of attention for the Wikipedians involved with the WikiProject, nothing more, nothing else.--Twicemost (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But it IS part of the main story. Like I said, it is about a girl (in a sci-fi futuristic setting) that wants to become the "cosmo beauty", and in the process finds love with another girl (well...girlS). Kris' love is anything but one-sided. Sure it is at first. If you watch the series, it is quite obvious that that love is, indeed returned. Since when did something being schi-fi make something not of another genre? It seems that to you, if something were to be Yuri, it would have to be only about girls sleeping around with each other. If that is the case, then I think you want the hentai section, and not the yuri section.

Yuri IS explicit lesbian sex, the problem is that the correct term for non-hentai lesbianism, shojo-ai, has been almost totally forgotten; in any case, I am already tired for trying to reasonate with you, so better ask for Kazu-kun about this. If you think, prove and show that the series is 111% yuri, yuri and only yuri ... ah, and yuri, then feel free to make the opportune edits, I just hope you don't regret later. I prefer to give up before turning this interesting talk page into a field of edit war. At these decisive moments, I don't even have time to login, but I suppose everybody know who wrote these final words. --200.71.186.242 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the topic of this discussion, you seem to have a misconception here Twicemost. Yuri is not "explicit lesbian sex". As this very article indicates, "Yuri can focuse either on the sexual or on the emotional aspects of the relationship", and shōjo-ai is just the way Western fans sometimes referes to the emotional aspect. In short, the term shōjo-ai is not used by the Japanese; for them (and for manga/anime producers) it's all Yuri. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Twicemost, Kazu-kun is right. Yuri is not explicit sex. It can be sexual though. Shoujo-ai is a term coined in America, basically by a girl (who was mainly a fan of explicit yaoi) who didn't want it to seem like she watched "lesbian sex" That is the story I have heard. Like i have said before. You may be more at home in the hentai section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference that we've got for X being 'additional yuri' also says (paraphrasing) 'don't read X for its yuri content' - like in CCS, two mothers, who I think are both dead in X, had a romantic friendship before the beginning of the series, and it's glimpsed in flashbacks. Unlike CCS, there's no Tomoyo to up the yuri quotient of the series. I propose removing X, as the yuri in the series is fairly close to non-notable. -Malkinann (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, removed! Kazu-kun (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Shōjo-ai

Is this category really needed? Most of the articles in it are already part of Category:Yuri. It seems repetitive to me, so I think that category should be deleted. MayumiTsuji (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)MayumiTsuji

Yes, I thik so too. BTW, there's a CFD for a related cat created by the same user: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_13#Category:Sh.C5.8Djo-ai.2FSh.C5.8Dnen-ai_as_a_minor_theme. Kazu-kun (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuri vs Shōjo-ai

Yaoi and Shōnen ai are two different pages. Shōjo-ai links straight to Yuri. Shouldn't they both be done the same way? TigressofIndia (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because the term "shōjo-ai" isn't used by the Japanese. I would suggest you read this article first before commenting further if you haven't already done so. And besides, seeing how short shōnen ai is, it wouldn't hurt to have it merged into the larger yaoi article.--十八 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuri is yuri. yeah there is some obvious very sexual stuff out there. But most people don't consider that yuri, and just put it in with hentai. I mean come on, nearly ever hentai probably has some kind of girl on girl scene, but that doesnt make it yuri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Juhachi, the yaoi article isn't in very good shape, despite the (comparitive) plethora of reliable sources. Merging shonen-ai in might be a good idea, but yaoi needs a thorough scrubbing up first. -Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

English speakers say "shoujo-ai", Japanese say "girl love". Funny =D Shrine Maiden (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Class S?

There's a wikt:Class S article on Wiktionary that seems like it will be deleted or severely cut. There's not much to link Class S to yuri (aside from a blog by Erica, Marimite being both Class S and yuri, and the obvious parallel of Japanese lesbians), so would it be better to create a Class S (genre) as a See Also for Yuri than let the wiktionary article get cut down? -Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really needs it's own article. How about just incorporate it into Yuri (term)?--十八 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Class S would be possible only in the context of the historical evolution of Yuri (as a part of a section about that), but no as a subsection itself, IMO; they're too unrelated for that. In any case I think it would be a good idea to create a Class S article.

EDIT: Well, I went ahead and created the article myself (Class S (genre)). It'll need some improvement though; we'll have to look for sources. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So... with six sources now in Class S (genre) (only one of them from Yuricon), is it time for WP:DYK?? Is there anything especially DYK-worthy in the article? -Malkinann (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Carmilla defunct?

List of LGBT publications lists Carmilla as being defunct, and the interview with the editor of it is now two years old. Can someone who reads Japanese please check their official website to find out if they are defunct, (I see the last issue is from 2005?) and if they included yuri manga? In the interview, the editor wanted Carmilla to contain "more" manga, so is that confirmation that they did have some manga, but it wasn't much? Also, the editor of Carmilla worked for Mist at one point, and she says it was targetted to heterosexual women - is this worth mentioning? -Malkinann (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mist was a josei magazine (referred to as "Lady's Comic" within the actual magazine), and it was published by Ohzora. I don't know if Carmilla is still on-going, but an anthology of the manga serialized in it was released under the title Girl's Only. Here's the Amazon Japan listing. MayumiTsuji (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)MayumiTsuji

We should make that bit about Mist clear, as currently it is stated in the article as a lesbian magazine. EDIT: Carmilla's Girl's Only compilation is certainly worth mentioning too. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How does Mist being josei cover it not being targetted specifically towards lesbians? the josei article gives no indication that it is specifically a heterosexual women's demographic. That much could be assumed through the fact that most women are heterosexual, but then that would make our writing of the Yuri article heteronormative... Which is an odd thing in itself. Lesbians are women too. Additionally, the interview with Carmilla's editor emphasises both that it is a "Lady's Comic" and that despite its explicit yuri content, it is not targetted towards lesbians. So I figure that we too should emphasise both aspects in the article. -Malkinann (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, "Lady's Comic" and "Josei" are the same thing. Second, this target demographic is for women in general. It's not particularly targeted to lesbian, but it's not particularly targeted to heterosexual women either. It's the same with shoujo and shounen. Would you say a shoujo manga magazine is targeted specifically to heterosexual girls? Such statement would be OR. Let's see James Welker notes about Mist:

"Mist was a ladies' comic (redi-komi / redīsu komikku) magazine, published between 1996 and 1999, which, while not specifically aimed at lesbians, contained a lesbian personal ads column as well as numerous lesbian themed comics and articles. 'Ladies' comics' are manga aimed at women who've outgrown shōjo manga [girls' comics], and often include graphic depictions of sex."

See? He says it is a josei (ladies' comic) manga mangazine: targeted towards women; not specifically to lesbians, but to women in general (including lesbians), which is the reason it had a lesbian column, comics and articles. For us, the best way to handle this is to just state the magazine as what it is: a josei manga magazine. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that "Lady's Comics" and "josei manga" are the same thing. I think it's interesting and unusual that the magazine was not specifically a lesbian magazine, but contained some lesbian-interest topics, such as the column. I feel that this should be reflected in the article, especially as James Welker called attention to the fact that it was not targetted at lesbians, but had lesbian-interest topics in its articles. -Malkinann (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)