text:
Talk:Japanese idol

confused
I came to this page because I was watching a movie featuring a japanese idol group, and i didn't really understand what that was. after reading this page I got the impression they are manufactured pop acts a la Britney Spears, but then I clicked on Beppin mag and that is some sort of mens mag/Playboy/naked centerfold thing? I think this article may need some clarification as to how much of this scene is for teens and how much of it is a sex industry thing aimed at adults, as this seems to me to be an important distinction between the japanese idol scene and the manufactured pop scene in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.74.73 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Were are they now?
What happens to the ones that go out of favor with the public?

 * Well they just return to anonimity and a normal social life, get a job, get married, etc... A few of them try to catch on their brief celebrity for a few months more by appearing as "guests" in TV programs, or even by selling "nude phoobooks" of them, a not-so-rare surprising move for these "innocent girls". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.251.221 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Male
I think this is an interesting article, but it also contains a huge flaw in that it gives the mistaken impression that idols are exclusively female. This is quite clearly false - the role of male idols such as SMAP, V6 and Shonentai is almost (if not equally) as important as those of their female counterparts in Japanese pop culture. Surely they need to be mentioned?
 * Whoops, forgot to sign Poltergeist 09:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote "mostly female", I hope this is OK with you. Maikel (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * marker mostly for myself to come back and edit this: that's not really good enough, because there isn't even a single mention of males otherwise, and the article still gives the impression that idols are exclusively female.  which isn't even remotely true.  johnny & associates, the most powerful idol machine in japanese entertainment, only handles boys. there are a lot of male idols, and some make it just as big as some female ones -- just looking at the oricon charts bears that out.  there is also no mention here of the companies that crank out these manufactured celebrities; should have at least links to those, because without them there would be no idols. piranha]] [[User talk:Piranha|(notify) (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This
"Good examples of this are Ayumi Hamasaki, Noriko Sakai, Ryoko Hirosue and Namie Amuro."

This sentence is vague; what is "this" referring to?

Also, I suggest alphabetizing the list of idols at the end, unless there is some reason why it isn't already (which is why I haven't done it). Commander Nemet 20:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru an idol?
I think she's more of a performance artist... But aside from that, if the definition of "idol" here is appearance-oriented, I would contend that Utada is NOT an "idol", as she is not marketed by her looks. --OneTopJob6 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Utada Hikaru is not an idol. Basically, to be an idol you need to sign an idol contract and follow idol rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.174 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The list of idols
Seems too long and (as noted above) a bit vauge. I'd like to see it cut down to perhaps five. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Ayu, really, nor was she at the beginning of her career. The author is using the term rather broadly, as do many Westerners. Ayu, Utada, they are pop singers primarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.178.126 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I think that the inclusion criteria should be least one appearance on Kohaku (by themselves so groups that invite their sister groups to be a part of their performance wouldn't count) along with at least one number one on the Oricon charts with the exceptions being:

 * If the person in question changed the industry in some way. Onyanko Club would be and example of this with the introduction of sub groups that have been used in many Idols after them;
 * Oldest, youngest debut, biggest selling, most number ones ect If there is a notable source.

I saw Perfume included under "First j-electro group, first girl group to have 5 consecutive #1 dvd releases, 2nd electronic group to perform in the Tokyo dome, won mnet award for best asia pop artist" this is an example of someone not using judgement. First to have #5 DVD releases? Not really that important. DSQ (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out main idols
Possibly the two main artists who come to my mind when I think of AIDORU are Rie Miyazawa and Aya Ueto. I'm suprised that they are not mentioned at all.

And this was mainly prominent in the 1980s, where there was a big movement of idols who were popular, but I see mostly not-so-popular recent artists mentioned.

Also, from what I can see, the list is extremely unorganized and frankly too long. I think just the biggest idols should be listed. I wish I knew more about the subject on a larger scale because personally I think this page does need to be cleaned up a lot. Mizerunmei 14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Namie Amuro
Her album SWEET 19 BLUES was never the best selling album of Japan with 3 million copies. globe with their first album sold 4 million copies only in Japan in 1996, so that's impossible, and only Utada 's album outsold it later. Clouded 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Verificable content?
If you read the Japanese version of this same article there are many important differences. In fact, the english version is poorly accurate about idol definition. For example, Namie Amuro wasn't an idol, but a "post-idol artist" (ISBN:0-674-01773-0) and Utada Hikaru is a Top Artist/composer but not an Idol. Even in Japan the common people can understand about these differences, since they call "aidoru" to just some kind of artists, for example, these with "buri-buri iso" costumes, “purehearted and pretty,” sweet, childlike, humble, and honest people. Same girls or boys, Idols MUST BE into this classification. All other artists are "Celebrities" or "Top Artist" or "Singers", or "Tarento" or anything else. I propose to search Verificable Sources (books, magazine articles, JAPANESE VERSION of this same article, etc) for improve or to accurate the content. --Cbpm 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I see, it's similar to "Boy Band", in that not every group involving multiple male performers is a "Boy Band", it's a specific type of group? (For example, the group Slipknot is made up of male performers, and is a band, but not a "Boy band", whereas Backstreet Boys is). Kuronue 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Slipknot were in their twenties when they started out, so they wouldn't be called a boy band for that reason alone. Maikel (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Produced
In my mind Japanese idols owe their career to being heavily "produced and promoted" by agencies and the media industry, rather than owing their success to personal talent and ambition, and therefore this should be included in the introduction. I won't put it in there personally as I'm not really competent in this matter. What do you think? Maikel (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait What?
I just read "For a fuller understanding of both role play and the idealisation of youth in Japanese media and culture it is worth reading articles by Dr Sharon Kinsella, referenced below" could someone tell me why Wikipedia is telling people to read a book instead of going into detail about something.86.161.70.226 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A better definition and a rewrite
The article needs to be rewritten. The lead section is unclear to those without prior knowledge.

Since the article is largely unsourced anyway and it can't be made any worse (IMO), the solution for me would be to randomly rewrite it (randomly at random times).

Here a citation from myself. Someone asked what the article (in some other language) was about exactly. I can add random stuff like this:

Another citation from myself. The question was about the definition. "Who decides they are cute? The fans or the employer?"

Anyway, you see, no one understands. Something must be done.

I propose (since the article is largely unsourced anyway) to write what we have to write. To write a better definition and add many other stuff so that the readers could actually understand what the article was about. And we can find sources later. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting has started
I have finally rewritten the lead. I must say that the more I edit it, the harder it is going to be to source it. I started with (almost) everything easily sourceable, but since have added much more. I basically have no other choice but to do it like that cause the topic is rather complicated.

I hope no one objects, cause there are basically two choices: 1. to return to equally unsourced previous version that was terrible, too; 2. to leave a version by someone who have been thoroughly thinking about it for, like, two years and after several years of being horrified by this article finally decided to rewrite it a little bit. :)

Since if I don't want to source it now and I would prefer to leave it like that for some time (cause the absence of references makes it easier to read and change), I will now post a few excepts from reliable sources that can prove that what I added is sourceable.

Here it is. I will post more here. Cause when I was writing I was thinking "I've heard this, I remember I've read this somewhere", so there is much more I can find sources for.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One more source we can use: --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There's more than just the "cute teenage girl" kind of idol
This article deals almost exclusively with female idol groups, when in fact male idol groups like the Johnny's ones (Arashi, NEWS etc.) are a big part of the industry too. None of them are even mentioned in the "Selective list of notable idols and idol groups" section of this article, and even though a few male idol groups are mentioned in other sections of the article, the overall focus on the "cute teenage girl" kind of idol creates a misleading picture.

The current definition, "a young manufactured star/starlet marketed as someone to be admired, usually for their cuteness", adds to this misleading picture. There's old idols and idols who are far from being stars or even starlets, who would be excluded by this definition, which is why I'm going to revert it to my earlier version, "an entertainment personality marketed as someone to be admired, usually for their cuteness or coolness". If you think this definition includes people that shouldn't be considered idols, let me know who they are.

MugiMafin (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC) 2. If you think this definition includes people that shouldn't be considered idols, let me know who they are. — Basically, everyone. IMO, your definition doesn't actually define any limitations. 3. Now I will revert to the former version. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm sorry, but it's not done like this on Wikipedia. First, you need to find a source for the changes you want to make. (For "coolness", etc.) Then we will discuss it. I guess you need to find an article that gives a definition of a male idol. Find one and come back here.

 * It should be almost impossible to find a specific definition for "male idol" because it's just common sense that it would be a combination of the definitions for "male" and "idol", and everybody already knows what "male" means. I'm pretty sure you would agree that part of what makes an idol an idol is that it's admired (or marketed as admirable at least), but obviously men are admired for different traits than girls, so I don't understand how one could leave the definition with the limitations "young" and "cute" while at the same time acknowledging that men in their 30s can be idols too (see Arashi). This combination makes the article inconsistent.

 * Saying my definition doesn't define limitations is incorrect (and preposterous even) because "entertainment personality" and "marketed as someone to be admired, usually for their cuteness or coolness" both are limitations. The definition also doesn't include "everyone", as you say, because (obviously) not everyone is an entertainment personality marketed as someone to be admired, usually for their cuteness or coolness. You were the one who asked me to create this talk section, so I would have expected you to be more cooperative, but this just proves that you're anything but.

 * Your reversion is further proof of that. It's clear that claims with sources are better than claims without sources, but in this case it would have been better style for you to simply add "citation needed" tags to the parts of the definition you think are questionable. Your repeated reversions aren't standard Wikipedia behavior, they're edit warring. So in both of our interests (I don't want to report you and you probably don't want to be reported) I'm going to change the definition to a tentative halfway-between version, "an often young entertainment personality of varying stardom, marketed as (and sometimes manufactured to be) someone to be admired for traits such as cuteness or coolness", which admittedly is kind of ugly but also seems like the fairest option at this point. If you think there's a prettier way of saying it that is at the same time just as close to the truth of the matter, let me know.

For example, do you have a source for "coolness"? If you don't, you can't add the word. Your edits violate the Wikipedia policies "Verifiability" and "No original research". Find reliable sources and come back. Right now your behaviour qualifies as "disruptive editing", see "Disruptive editing". I'm sorry, I was prepared to talk to you and I thought you would make a research on the subject and come back with some reliable sources you found. But you decided to start an edit war and you are acting disruptively right now. Again. Please do a reasearch on the subject. Find different definitions. copy-paste them here. We'll look at them and think how we can improve this article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MugiMafin (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you need to find a source for the changes you want to make. If you don't have reliable sources to back up your version of the definition, don't change it again.

 * I was most certainly not the one who started this edit war. You made the first revert and gave as a reason that my definition was too inclusive, without actually saying why you thought it was too inclusive. Then, when I asked you to give me examples to justify your claim, you just said my definition included "everyone", which, as I've pointed out before, doesn't even make sense. And calling my edits disruptive is ridiculous. I've made it clear, right in this talk section, that my edits are meant to bring the definition closer to the truth of the matter, and my last edit was a perfectly sensible compromise too.

 * The coolness part isn't even original research, because it's no research at all. It's common sense that coolness is a trait admired in men (and often even women). This isn't the kind of information that should require a source. And by the way, you say "we'll look at [the sources]", but I don't think there is a "we", since so far you're the only person who has a problem with the inclusion of the word "coolness". I also want to remind you that WP:BURDEN says that "whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material" and to "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". Adding a citation needed tag as an interim step is exactly what I recommended you to do, and I even did it myself to save you some work. But you chose to revert for the third time now, without budging even the slightest bit, even though I made some other changes to the definition that don't even have to do with the coolness part you're objecting to. You have to realize that you're the one doing most of the warring here, while I'm trying to find a good compromise.

 * Since the word "coolness" seems to be your only objection to my last edit (at the moment), I propose we change the definition to "an often young entertainment personality of varying stardom, marketed as (and sometimes manufactured to be) someone to be admired for traits such as cuteness" for now. Would you be fine with that?

 * I'm also going to file a report to the edit warring noticeboard, just in case.

As I've already said, please look for reliable sources. The idea to explain that some people (Johnnys) continue to be marketed as idols when they are well into their 30s (and 40s) is very reasonable. I agree to add a note about this to the lead section. But could you please find some sources that we can use? We need some source. (And we probably can explain that idols don't stop to be idols when they become famous. But I don't really think it needs to be explained. It's obvious.) The truth is that female idols are a widespread phenomenon in Japan, while male idols are (almost) exclusively Johnnys. It's natural that that the definition doesn't work for some Johnnys. It works quite well for most cases, that's what's important. Let's just add a note as I've proposed, okay? But please, please, do some research. Search Google Books, search reliable news sites. I'm sure something can be found. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MugiMafin (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your version is not encyclopedic. "Often young", "varying stardom"? All idols are young when they start their entertainment careers. And it's natural that they become famous. "Such as cuteness" — the article already says "usually for their cuteness".

 * Idols are a pretty unscientific topic and you could find countless definitions from Google Books or news sites that would partly contradict each other. That's just how it is with topics like these. You yourself even said something on this talk page two years ago that's really similar to what I was trying to do: "I propose (since the article is largely unsourced anyway) to write what we have to write. To write a better definition and add many other stuff so that the readers could actually understand what the article was about. And we can find sources later." The article might have more sources now than it did back then, but there's no guarantee they're perfect ones, and I'm sure if someone searched long enough, they'd find sources that are just as reliable as yours but still say something different. What then? In the end, an encyclopedia is supposed to describe things as they are. "Often young" and "varying stardom" are attributes that can be applied to idols, even if they don't sound definite enough for your taste. Compare this random article that says "generally brownish birds". That's not very definite either, but it does the job. "Young" (they don't always stay young) and "star/starlet" (it's not natural they become famous and there's a lot of back-alley idols) on the other hand are attributes that would just leave out certain subsets of idols. The same goes for "manufactured" by the way. Definitions like that, which might work for most elements of a set but don't work for the set as a whole, are the ones that aren't encyclopedic.

 * Adding a note like you proposed is a good idea, but we'll still have to weaken the attributes "young", "star/starlet" and "manufactured" in the definition. This is what I propose: "[an idol is] a certain type of entertainment personality. They start their careers at a young age and are marketed as (and sometimes manufactured to be) someone to be admired, usually for their cuteness. Their careers emphasize the journey towards becoming a star, but only in rare cases are they still marketed as "idols" when they are in their 30s or older." A source for the last part can be found on this page of a book that's already listed as a source (currently number 7) for the entry paragraph. The rest of this definition should be close enough in meaning to the current one to not need any additional sources, and it also includes the subsets of idols that are left out by the current one. What do you think?

By the way, the book you linked actually says Johnnys are cute. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC) The general idea is good though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MugiMafin (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This version is not bad, but it's not precise enough. And I don't like the "They start their careers at a young age" part. It should be made clear that idols are young, not just some people who "start their careers at a young age". (By the way, the word "they" doesn't fit there.) "Idols are young" would be better.
 * 1. You will need to find a source that says something like "[an idol is] a certain type of entertainment personality". 2. Please re-read your version, it doesn't sound coherent. The part "but only in rare cases are they still" doesn't fit the first part of the sentence. 3. The part "and sometimes manufactured to be" doesn't fit there too: "as (and ...)". 4. Your version says "sometimes", "usually", and "but", that's too much rambling. Like, you say that the article you linked says "generally brownish birds". But it doesn't start with a definition saying, "... are generally brownish birds, sometimes also yellowish, usually cute, but in rare cases they aren't birds, but CGI constructs. Some people may call themselves woodcreepers, but they aren't the real ones who are discussed in this article."
 * Your version should be rewritten to be more concise. Like, if you change it to say "young entertainment personality" or "idols are young" and move the part about idols over 30 to a separate sentence or a paragraph somewhere lower in the lead section, the definition will still be correct and will become more readable. By the way, 30 is young. And "only in rare cases are ... in their 30s or older" sounds like a strict age limitation. Why would you add an age limitation to the definition when you yourself say there's no real limitation? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The last definition I proposed is more precise than all the ones before it, including the one currently used in the article. Including a sentence like "idols are young" would however render the whole definition imprecise, because not all idols stay young, as I've pointed out before. You'd have to say something like "idols are young, except when they aren't", which would be silly. "Generally young" would work though of course. Also, you might think "young" includes people in their thirties, but it's definitely borderline territory, and definitions are supposed to be as safe as possible.
 * I don't need a separate source for "entertainment personality" because the currently used word "star/starlet" is a subset of "entertainment personality". Everyone who is a star/starlet is by default also an entertainment personality, so if the former term is safe to use, the latter is too. Just one of the many benefits of vagueness.
 * What you call "rambling" is actually just vague vocabulary too. Vague vocabulary is necessary when you're dealing with vague concepts, and idols are a vague concept. "Only in rare cases are ... in their 30s or older" has just the right degree of vagueness too. Something like "never are ... at 35" is what a strict age limitation would look like.
 * But I'll think about your points and get back to you if I feel like I've come up with something that could satisfy both of us.
 * MugiMafin (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

2. So? The definition you provided is for the general term. And the Japanese article is also more general than the English one which deals specifically with the modern (1970s—now) phenomenon in Japan. (The Japanese Wikipedia definition actually says, "文化に応じて様々に定義される語である. ") 3. I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue the discussion like this. Cause I don't see you wanting to do actual work on the article. The currect definition is okay. There's no consensus to change it. That's all I'm going to say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a hint from the Japanese article, which plays it appropriately safe and doesn't say anything about "young", "manufactured" or "star" in the introduction. Instead it refers to this dictionary entry:
 * https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89%E3%83%AB-10564
 * ３ あこがれの的. 熱狂的なファンをもつ人.
 * "Target of admiration. A person with enthusiastic fans."
 * I decided to use this as the definition for our article too and to degrade the current "young manufactured star/starlet" part from fact to opinion, because of the sources' questionable authority and in accordance with WP:ASSERT. I also moved the sentence mentioning the growth aspect further up and included the note about "borderline not-young" idols.
 * If you see a problem with this version, please discuss the matter in this talk section before reverting anything.
 * MugiMafin (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Why did you change the definition again? See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE.

You simply changed the definition, yet again. Now to a different version. Do you think that tomorrow you can change is to "An idol is a famous person" or something just because no one has specifically objected to that version? And the day after tomorrow to "An idol is a person popular among young people"? It looks like you want to change it to just anything, just because you don't like how it is now. And look at a random version from 2008, it's basically the same cause it defines idols as young and "cute":. Then in late 2015 you came and said that idols weren't all young and weren't all cute and changed it to something vague. And you continued attempting to change it to other vague definitions bacause you don't think they are young and cute... That's how it looks. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to keep it like it is either. And if there's no consensus, we'll have to keep trying to find a good compromise. You're not making any attempts at that though. All you do is revert. And my last edit didn't even stand in conflict with any of your previously mentioned points, so I went ahead and boldly edited. Please be more specific in what exactly was wrong with my last edit and/or offer a new version yourself that takes my concerns about the non-universality of "young", "manufactured" and "star/starlet" into consideration. If you can't do that, I'll file another report to the edit warring noticeboard. And let me remind you that you won't be able to worm your way out with calling my edits unsourced this time. MugiMafin (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version is consensual. More or less recently (in 2014–2015) the definition was tweaked and expanded by Anosola. And Robert II greatly improved the article by rewording the lead section. It is a work of multiple people.

I've asked for a third opinion. I just want to say that we shouldn't change the definition to a Japanese dictionary one for the word "アイドル" ("idol"). Cause this article is about a particular modern-days entertainment-industry phenomenon in Japan, not just a "あこがれの的", "熱狂的なファンをもつ人". A note on the Japanese Wikipedia article. The corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia is called "アイドル" ("Idol") and provides a generalised definition, exactly the same as on the disambiguation page "アイドル (曖昧さ回避)". I don't think it is a good idea to do the same thing here cause our article is called "Japanese idol" and this is not the place to describe the general idea of "pop idols". (By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have articles "Pop icon" and "Teen idol".) Also, the definition in the "アイドル" article has changed several times. At one point, a Japanese user replaced the definition with the one he translated from the English Wikipedia article:, So, for some prolonged time the definitions here and in the Japanese Wikipedia were the same. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't understand why my behavior seems random to you. I've made it clear several times that the current definition is too restrictive. That's been my point from the start and it hasn't changed. I do realize that most idols are young etc., but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that they all are. My different edits have been attempts to show you different ways of making it less restrictive, in hopes you'd accept one of them. I personally think the last ones were good compromises, but I have yet to hear a proper explanation for why you think otherwise (or to see you offer a compromise yourself). You always come up with new objections, and they're starting to get pretty weird now. The Japanese article deals with what's called "idol" in Japan, and that's the exact same thing an English article called "Japanese idol" should be dealing with. You can see from the disambiguation page that it really is the same kind of idol this English article at least tries to talk about (日本の芸能界における「アイドル」とは、成長過程をファンと共有し、存在そのものの魅力で活躍する人物を指す). It says "Japanese show business", not "pop culture in general", and you have the growth process, the supporting fans, the admiration. The only thing that's missing is something about "young", "manufactured" or "star/starlet". Why? Probably because that would be too restrictive. In Japan, the concept of what an idol is has changed considerably in the past ten years or so, with long-running idol groups getting older, the Internet facilitating promotion and making things less manufactured and pretty much unknown people who are far from being starlets ending up falling under the category "idol" too. So it's understandable that the Japanese article would change too with time. But they ended up with their current version now, so that's probably the one that makes most sense today.
 * To really have consensus on the current version, the two of us will have to agree on something, or we'd have to have the people you mentioned take my points into consideration and then decide if they still consider the current version appropriate. As Nihonjoe has pointed out, what we have right now is no consensus at all.
 * MugiMafin (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You see, I do think it was random. And I do think that you just create walls of text on the talk page in which you simply express your own opinion instead of actually researching on the subject and finding something useful that we can use to improve this article. Also, I think that the currect definition works very well for English-language readers. It can be improved, but your versions that say things like "an idol is an often young entertainment personality" look silly. "A rarely old entertanment personality"? Why don't you like the word "young"? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cause your behavior seems random. I don't get it. On April 19 I actually said that your version from 20:47 on 18 April 2016 wasn't bad, but I didn't like how it basically said that a 30-year old person wasn't young and how it had three words that expressed doubt: "sometimes", "usually", and "but". And I said that all these "buts" could be discussed in a second paragraph cause the current definition was correct for the case that was most widely discussed in reliable sources... And I also said that your version didn't seem grammatically correct and didn't quite sound encyclopedic. And I was expecting you to do some work, to improve on you version, to agree to just say "young" and to move a part about people above 30 to a second paragraph so that it didn't look like Wikipedia was saying that a 30-something-year-old person wasn't young. And I hoped that you would (finally) come back with links to some smart articles and books on Japanese idols. Cause this article needed improvement and more sources and every newfound book would be useful. Instead, when you returned you just changed the definition to something completely different that you had just came up with. (The dictionary definition of the word "idol" is nothing new, by the way. There has been half a year or so since you started, and you haven't found a single new source.)

 * If all my behavior follows the same principle, i.e. "make the definition less restrictive", it's clearly not random. My problem with the word "young" is that a lot of people just don't see 30-year-olds as "young". For all those people the current definition would be false, and this could easily be fixed by just saying something like "generally young" instead, or use the version I provided in my last edit. There's the same problem with "manufactured" and "star/starlets" as I've mentioned before. There's idols who can't really be considered "manufactured" (independent net idols for example) and idols who can't really be considered "stars/starlets" (back-alley idols for example). That's a fact, not an opinion, and it's easy to see if you look at the idol culture as a whole, not just certain groups. The editors of the Japanese article seem to be aware of these (relatively recent) changes in the culture, and they have changed their article accordingly. My last change wasn't something I "came up with", it was taken from that Japanese article, and it included all the relevant sources. MugiMafin (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request
It's not really possible to provide a third opinion when there is no dispute. And there is no dispute here, just one person writing their opinion on the talk page, and another saying "Sure, but where are the sources". Moscow Connection is correct, you need reliable sources. That's it really. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC) OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My last edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&oldid=717399302] actually was properly sourced. I guess I should have included a proper summary on the 3O page. Sorry about that. MugiMafin (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture repeated his third opinion standpoint on his user talk page: "Neither you, nor Moscow Connection are arguing from sources. You are arguing from WP:TRUTH and Moscow Connection are arguing that you lack sources and that the current version has a long standing consensus. Neither argument is good. Also, the version that Moscow Connection defends has terrible sourcing. You both needs to find reliable sources and work from there." MugiMafin (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Since the late 1960s a ubiquitous feature of popular culture in Japan has been the "idol," an attractive young actor, male or female, packaged and promoted as an adolescent role model and exploited by the entertainment, fashion, cosmetic, and publishing industries to market trendy products. This book offers ethnographic case studies regarding the symbolic qualities of idols and how these qualities relate to the conceptualization of selfhood among adolescents in Japan and elsewhere in East Asia. The author explores how the idol-manufacturing industry absorbs young people into its system of production, molds them into marketable personalities, commercializes their images, and contributes to the construction of ideal images of the adolescent self."
 * (Book 1.) Hiroshi Aoyagi. Islands of eight million smiles: idol performance and symbolic production in contemporary Japan. Harvard University Asia Center, 2005

"This dissertation focuses on the production and development of a conspicuous, widespread culture phenomenon in contemporary Japan, which is characterized by numerous young, mediapromoted personalities, or pop-idols, who are groomed for public consumption. The research, based on eighteen months of in-depth fieldwork in the Japanese entertainment industry, aims to contribute to the understanding of the allegorical role played by pop-idols in the creation of youth culture. Pop-idols are analyzed as personified symbols that function as vehicles of cultural production. The principal issues suggested in this research include: the criteria of popidol production; the ways in which pop-idols are produced; the perceptions of pop-idol performances by producers, performers, and consumers; the ways in which idol personalities are differentiated from each other; the ways in which pop-idol performances are distinguished from other styles or genres; and the social, cultural, political, economic, and historical roots as well as consequences of pop-idols' popularity. These issues are explored through the examination of female pop-idols. The single, most important function of pop-idols is to represent young people's fashions, customs, and lifestyles. To this end, the pop-idol industry generates a variety of styles that can provide the young audience with pathways toward appropriate adulthood. They do this within their power structure as well as their commercial interest to capitalize on adolescence - which in Japan is considered the period in which individuals are expected to explore themselves in the adult social world. The stylized promotion, practiced differently by promotion agencies that strive to merchandise pop-idol images and win public recognition, constitutes a field of symbolic contestation. The stage is thus set for an investigation of the strategies, techniques, and processes of adolescent identity formation as reified in the construction of idol personalities. This dissertation offers a contextualized account of dialogue that occurs between capitalism, particular rhetoric of self-making, and the lifestyle of consumers, mediated by pop-idols and their manufacturing agencies that function together as the cultural apparatus. The analysis developed in this dissertation hopes to provide theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of celebrities in other social, cultural, and historical settings."

"Kawaiko-chan, or "cute girls and boys," has become a synonym for idols in Japanese, representing carefully crafted public personae that try to appeal to viewers' compassion."

--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Book 2.) William W. Kelly. Fanning the Flames: Fans and Consumer Culture in Contemporary Japan. SUNY Press. 2012.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Going throught a difficult period of of physical and emotional development themselves, adolescent fans can easily empathize with idols who are embarking on their own growth journey: from inexperienced debutantes to experienced public figures and performers."
 * (Book 3.) Timothy J. Craig. Japan Pop: Inside the World of Japanese Popular Culture. Routledge. 2015.

The sources are already used in the article. Case closed. If you are really interested in improving this article, I suggest you add to the history section where you can discuss how Japanese idols have changed in the last 20 years or so. You can also start a new section where you can discuss the ambiguity of the term. When you finish with all this, we'll look at the new sources you have used and we will tweak the definition. But right now, I'm very sorry, I can't continue fighting about two sentences like this. I have other things to do. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC) In your search for better sources? — The sources are already good. You can search for more good sources, though. Note that everything you add to the article must be reliably sourced. And please don't change the definition. (I have to say this just in case you are planning to change it again the moment the protection expires.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is both I and our third opinion contributor think that's terrible sourcing. So it would be nice if you could join me in my search for better sources. The "ambiguity of the term" section sounds like a pretty good idea though. I think I'll add something like that to the article when the protection expires. MugiMafin (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to know why thinks the sources are not acceptable. We have a book published at Harvard, a book published at the State University of New York, and one published by Routledge. All three of the books are either about idols specifically, or about Japanese pop culture in general (and therefore likely cover idols somewhere inside them). All three publishers are respected, academic publishers. I fail to see how they could possible be considered "terrible sourcing". Just curious, and not arguing one way or the other regarding the article. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't really speak for him obviously, but the way I see it Books 1 and 2 are at least partly outdated. The first paragraph in the Book 1 quote draws a general picture starting from the 60s, so it's questionable if it can be used to form an accurate definition of the current state. The "actor" part is particularly telling, since by now the idol spectrum goes far wider than just to include actors. With the Book 2 quote (from 1999) the outdatedness is even more apparent. And that's the quote that's closest to our definition in the article. The Book 3 quote depicts the current state more accurately, and it talks about idols starting out as "inexperienced debutantes" rather than "starlets" and doesn't list anything like "manufacturedness" as a definite requirement. MugiMafin (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So books discussing a phenomenon which covers more than half a century can't be used because they are "outdated"? That makes no sense. Use them to support the parts of the article covering the time periods covered by the books. They obviously can't be used for anything after they were published, but stating they are useless or unreliable (in so many words) is just plain incorrect. Certainly, newer books or articles should be found to support anything newer, but that doesn't invalidate the older stuff. If anything, we should be glad to have at least two books covering a non-English topic in such detail. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they can't be used at all. The books are certainly a good source for historical information, but when it comes to the definition of what an idol is today, which is the point at issue here, we should go with sources that take into account the recent changes the culture has seen. The Internet, in particular social media, has changed a lot, and definitions drawn from the state the concept "idol" and the culture around it were in 20 or even just 10 years ago don't really hold up anymore. MugiMafin (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * These are reliable sources. The definition in sourced.

1. About this tag:. It doesn't apply here cause the statement is sourced. 2. The only sentence you added to the article so far is (technically) partly unsourced and partly an original research. "Although idols are often defined as something like "young manufactured stars/starlets", there are idols who push the boundaries of such a definition, like members of the groups SMAP and Arashi, who range in age from around 30 to over 40." Yes, I know there are sources that say all or almost all of this elsewhere in the article, but where are they? Why didn't you take time to add proper references? And yes, I know that I've asked you to do it already and that you've added a reference. But the reference is for the ages of the members of SMAP:. It's simply their profile on the official site, how can this be used for anything but "Four SMAP members are over 40"? The sentence you added is still unsourced. 3. You said how bad the article was.. Yes, it is bad. But by adding more unreferenced sentences and more original research you are just making it worse. 4. In short, I don't see you wanting to do any work on the article. I was hoping that you do something useful and constructive, but instead you added more unreferenced stuff and "attacked" the definition yet again. 5. If you want more people to look at this discussion, I can suggest you to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. But if you remember, I've already posted there and the only person who came was Nihonjoe. 5. The definition can be improved, yes. But we need more sources. More articles and books on the subject. Go and find them. You won't succeed in changing the definition like this, by force. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to 1: It's not a "citation needed" tag, it's a "dubious" tag. One of its purposes is "to question the veracity, accuracy, or methodology employed by a given source". Another one "to express concerns that the source may have been misinterpreted".[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dubious#Purpose] At least one of the two should be applicable here.
 * In response to 2: It's just logic. If the source says "four members are over 40", then that can also be used to justify the claim "members range in age to over 40".
 * In response to 5: That only one person followed the request in the WikiProject Japan is part of the reason why it would be wise to use other means of getting people to help, like adding the tag I added.
 * MugiMafin (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I decided to start looking for some better sources after all, and it turned out the source needed to improve our definition has been right in front of our eyes this whole time. It's this book, and it's already listed in the references. It starts with a foreword from Aoyagi, who's been dealing with the topic for over a decade now and who even happens to have two of his books (old ones though) listed in our sources. In this foreword (from 2012), he says the following: "Idol performance has demonstrated new turns since I introduced its symbolic significance to the world, and changed in ways I would have never expected: instances are the growing popularity of Japanese pop idols alongside cutesy phenomena, manga and anime, as well as centers of “Cool Japan,” such as Shibuya and Akihabara, among European and American audiences in a form that may be called neo-Orientalism; the influx of Korean idols, such as BoA, Jinki, Kara, and Shōjo Jidai, into Japan’s pop idol scene; the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations alongside emergent hybrid buzzwords, such as erokawa (sexy-cutesy), kirekawa (classy-cutesy), and kawakakoii (cutesy-trendy)". The last part justifies expanding the object of admiration in our definition from "usually cuteness" to "cuteness, sexiness, classiness and/or hipness".

The foreword is followed by an introduction from the editors in which they describe idols in the following way: "Such is the power of “idols,” a word used in Japan to refer to highly produced and promoted singers, models, and media personalities. Idols can be male or female, and tend to be young, or present themselves as such". "Highly produced" is preferable to "manufactured" because it's more neutral and more easily allows for the inclusion of self-produced net-idols. "Singers, models and media personalities" is preferable to "stars/starlets" because it's less open to (mis)interpretation and more easily allows for the inclusion of idols with little stardom. Finally, the attribute "young" is weakened. Idols aren't necessarily young, they only "tend to be young".

MugiMafin (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2. Your version is not bad, but... The quote you cited actually says "cutesy-something", "cutesy-something", and you wrote just "classiness", etc. Why? The quote doesn't say idols stopped being cute, they still are. And where did you find the word "hipness"? 3. And I, yet again, don't like the way you're adding all these "typically", "or", "and/or". "A typically young", "and/or hipness". I think it just doesn't sound encyclopedic. 4. I think it would have been polite if you came here and said, like, "I wrote a new definition. Here's my version. How do you find it?" (I'm sorry that I posted a new warning on your talk page, but I had to. You again came and just changed the definition. How many times did you do it already, five?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Why did you do this again: ? I thought there was an ongoing discussion between you and Nihonjoe.

2. [T]there shouldn't be any further questions about whether the change is justified or not — Why? The current definition is sourced. It is okay, it works very well for the most common case. It is much better than any of your versions. (The definition is not the whole article and it doesn't have to be mathematically correct.) 3. I've asked you several times already to expand this article so that everyone could see how the concept of idols has changed. Then we will look at it and we will think if we should tweak the definition and how we can do it. Also, I hoped that you'll add more sources that we can use. So far you've added only a couple of unsourced sentences. Why? It may look like you don't care about this article in the least, you just don't like the first sentence. 4. That's something I'm definitely going to have to fix. — Don't "fix" it in the article. Propose your changes to the definition here. If you "fix" anything in the first paragraph again, I personally think that this is exactly the case when a block is justified. Cause it will prevent you from making non-consensual changes to the definition, at least for some time. I'm tired of checking the article every day, I think it will profit from a couple of months of peace. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This new (well, kind of new) source is more reliable and less problematic as I explained above. With a clear explanation like the one I provided, there shouldn't be any further questions about whether the change is justified or not. This is the relevant part you seem to have misread by the way: "the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations alongside emergent hybrid buzzwords, such as erokawa (sexy-cutesy), kirekawa (classy-cutesy), and kawakakoii (cutesy-trendy)". It does actually say "classy" and "hip", the "cutesy/something"'s are just listed as additional buzzwords. But now that I re-read my version, it really does kind of sound like idols stopped being cute. That's something I'm definitely going to have to fix. I know you don't like words like "typically", but those are the kind of words needed to describe the current state of the concept "idol". Even the academics dealing with the topic do it. I'm taking your concerns into consideration when they make sense, but I'm afraid I can't do it here. I don't know if this helps, but I guess I can go with the "tend to" used in the source rather than "typically" at least. MugiMafin (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Okay, I didn't notice the word "hip".
 * The current version is sourced, but I already explained why the sources aren't good enough for a modern definition. That Aoyagi guy, who seems to be one of the biggest authorities on the topic, says exactly what I am saying, "idol performance has [...] changed in ways I would have never expected". We need sources that acknowledge those changes, not just any sources, and we need to change the definition to say the right thing. You say it yourself, the definition works "for the most common case". That's exactly what words like "typically" and "generally" mean. They're made for cases like these and they're commonplace in encyclopedia articles, even if you don't like them. Not acknowledging counter-examples isn't just "mathematically" incorrect as you call it, it's incorrect. A block would only be justified if I ignored sensible concerns, but I'm not planning on doing that. MugiMafin (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You did it again: ... Why? I wonder if continuing the discussion makes any sense... --15:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I 've explained everything now... I don't really think it's a good idea for me to continue this discussion. (What for? If you just come and do what you like. It's not like Wikipedia works.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the definition is still in need of improvement. And I took your concerns about my last version (that it kind of sounded like idols stopped being cute and that it included the word "typically") into account, so there shouldn't have been a problem with this edit. The only things I added where things you didn't object to after all. I'm totally willing to continue the discussion, but you'll have to give proper reasons for your reverts. Can you elaborate on what you think was wrong with my edit? MugiMafin (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is wrong? I'm sure, you know it already (see above), but: 1. You don't have consensus to change the definition. (You've been told about WP:CONSENSUS.) 2. The source doesn't say "or", it says idols are still cute. (You've been told that and agreed.) 3. The current definition is simply better (see #1).

 * The source literally says "the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations". You complained about the "and/or" earlier, so I respected that and went for "or" this time. And my last edit does in no way imply that there aren't any cute idols anymore. How would you phrase it, incorporating the "sexy, classy, and/or hip" part? (By the way, you could have just edited it to use your preferred phrasing instead of reverting.) MugiMafin (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(To anyone who will read this. I've told the user many times to incorporate his ideas into other sections of the article. And I've told him that we will then be able to look at what he wrote and we will think if we should change the definition and how. And I hoped he will find new useful sources. But he didn't find one. He comes and just changes the definition over and over. He changes the first sentence, he doesn't seem to care about anything else. It's WP:DISRUPTIVE. I've wasted enough time on this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. It says "more", it doesn't say idols stopped being cute. 2. My preferred phrasing is the current one. The current definition is better than anything you've ever proposed. Re-read WP:CONSENSUS.

 * I meant a phrasing that incorporates the changes Aoyagi mentions in the source when he says "Idol performance has demonstrated new turns since I introduced its symbolic significance to the world, and changed in ways I would have never expected: instances are [...] the transformation of idol imagery from cutesy to more sexy, classy, and/or hip personal configurations". These changes are clearly worthy of being mentioned, especially because the current definition used in the article seems to draw from Aoyagi's previous (now superseded?) account. And since you didn't like my phrasings, I thought I'd let you decide how to incorporate the changes. MugiMafin (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Another quote.

Arbitrary break 1
,, , Can we close the discussion about ages now at least? My opinion is as follows: "young" — ok, "manufactured" — ok (net celebrities don't count, they along with gravure idols, which is more or less simply another word for "model", and other "something idols" can be discussed in a separate section), "cute" — add that they are not only cute, but since 1990s also cool, hip, whatever. It should be understood from the definition that cuteness in the main or common characteristic, but that idols have become cooler or whatever. In short, the first two thirds of the definition stay as they are now, the part after comma (about cuteness) is expanded.

And I have an idea of a quick fix. (I'm just afraid that it is not usually done on Wikipedia.) We can create a section titled "Definition of the term idol" or something like this and put there five or so definitions or opinions about who idols are. Just choose from the ones that are already cited on this talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Moscow Connection - So long as all parties that are involved in the dispute agree to close this, then it's perfectly fine by me. I am concerned that you two may not have your disputes worked out nor do you have the full definition of "idol" taking into account all viewpoints, but the important key here is consensus and dispute resolution. So long as those are met, then we've achieved our first priority. We can always come back and add more to the article later.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Moscow Connection, I just read in one of the noticeboard threads that you're accepting my "a term typically used to refer to" suggestion. That actually helps a lot. If we add that to the first sentence, I don't think we'd need any other definitions or additions at all and could keep the rest of the lead as it is. So "In Japanese pop culture, "idol" [...] is a term typically used to refer to young manufactured stars/starlets marketed to be admired for their cuteness" it is? Can I implement it like this? (I dropped the "usually" before "cuteness" because the "typically" already takes care of exceptions.) MugiMafin (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Moscow Connection seems to have vanished, but we have his word here . MugiMafin (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected
To stop the silly disruptive reverting, I have protected this page to prevent editing by anyone other than an admin. Please come to a consensus about the definition and whatever else you're discussing in the above TL;DR wall of text, and then ask for the change to be made using. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Combining sections
The sections "History" and "Culture" have a pretty big overlap, which is why I'd like to merge them into one. The content of the "Modern idols" section is historical too, so that could go into the merger too. Same with "Net idols". The new merged section would have subsections though of course.

"Virtual idols" and "Photo idols" could go in one separate section like "Other types of idols". Actually, "Photo idols" can be removed completely since it's already covered by the link to the article "Gravure idol" in the "See also" section.

Any thoughts about or objections to any of this? MugiMafin (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 1. But please, source you additions. Here you added a new paragraph (the one mentioning Arashi and SMAP and their ages) but no source. If you continue doing it like this, the article will have complete sections that are unsourced (and will therefore look like an originall research). (You removed this reliably-sourced sentence as an original research, but in the next edits you added your own original research without any sources. At least, the "to over 40" part was an original research cause the source we've discussed earlier didn't say "40". I don't really object, but can you please add references cause otherwise the paragraph does look as an original research?) 2. Actually, I think that gravure idols should be mentioned in prose. Maybe in the "ambiguity of the term section". 3. Could you please not change the lead section anymore for now? (It can reiterate what's already written below, no problem. See WP:LEAD. So you can reuse parts from the lead section elsewhere in the article if you need them, it's completely okay, some repetition is okay.) In short, you can do what you like, you can merge sections, add new sections, whatever, but please don't change the definition. And don't delete anything more from the lead section, you can just copy it instead. We can return to the definition later if you want, now just expand the article, could you please? I mean you will add lots of clever explanations about who idols are, what their ages are, etc., and we will look at it together (and hopefully other people from WikiProject Japan will come). And all together we will tweak the definition using the new data and new sources that will be available in other sections.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, no objections.

 * Alright, got it. I'm not sure if the "to over 40" part can be considered original research though, since the members' birthdates are already listed in the members' respective articles. I guess I can put a link to one member's official profile though, just to play it safe. As for the lead section, it seems more or less acceptable to me now that it's followed up by the ambiguity section, so I don't see much of a reason to change it for now. But if I come across some newer more reliable source dealing with stuff from the lead section that contradicts the current version in some way, I might consider changing it. I'm not really actively looking for any sources like that though, so it's probably not going to happen. MugiMafin (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Japanese idol. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amazon.com/Islands-Eight-Million-Smiles-Contemporary/dp/0674017730
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kinokopress.com/inko/cyber.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090825i1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513085923/http://www9.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/history/history_58.html to http://www9.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/history/history_58.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese idol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024003154/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/culture/AJ201208290008 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/culture/aj201208290008
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/68TMy9rFq?url=http://www.kinokopress.com/inko/cyber.html to http://www.kinokopress.com/inko/cyber.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation 02, Feb, 2018
As a whole the article is well written, focused and unbiased. As noted in the article, sections of it need citation or examples for relevant information. Several of the citations were checked, but did not lead to the actual referenced portion of the source. Reference number 8 for example leads to an Amazon page for the referenced book, and the following references lead to the Google books page with the books in English, but the Google Books page being in Russian. None of the references checked had links to the permission to share the information as noted in the training. A few of the other references such as for the Asahi Shinbun were locked behind a paywall, and not able to be freely accessed. Overall the article citations need work.

The talk page for the article is mostly inactive though it does appear that there has been an effort to rewrite, and improve the article. Some of the references listed on the talk page, however are some of the same ones that have issues as mentioned above. There does seem to be disagreements between the writers, and editors of the article about correct wording, and sourcing for it.

The article is part of the groups as start class, high priority for Japan/Culture, and mid priority Women's History, and Sexuality Discussion of this topic seems mainly limited to what makes an idol, and idol, and who is actually an idol.

My question for the article is this, is there any current work or research being done on the article, and if so who is doing it?EdogawaConan2 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Momoiro Clover Z
The group Momoiro Clover Z is blatantly promoted (WP:PROMOTION) on the article also raising WP:BALANCE issue. All other groups, as is practice in every music article, notability is established on commercial success and that means chart success and selling music records. That's why AKB48, Morning Musume and Babymetal are mentioned in the lead, although instead of Babymetal should be Arashi due to commercial success in the 2010s, however, in comparison to the most notable music act who are selling millions of records and getting certifications, MCZ according to Momoiro Clover Z discography most of the time their singles barely sell 50,000 copes while albums barely sell over 100,000 copies (lowest Gold certification by RIAJ). Their notability is claimed on the basis of journal surveys between 2013-2017 in which "has been ranked as the most popular female Japanese idol group", which again is not made by authoritative Oricon, in which notable poll of 20,000 for "Favorite Artist Ranking" they are not even featured in Top 50 and Top 20 acts for example between 2015-2017, while others are. Hence, placing them in the lead, and as the first image (!), is nothing else but an attempt to promote them on Wikipedia without any reliable WP:WEIGHT credibility. Hence I removed their mention from lead and edited other .--78.2.109.23 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC) I did "refute the promotion, balance, weight" by saying that I think the article is balanced as it is now and that I would gladly appreciate you adding some photos of Japanese boy bands if you have them. I'm not gaming anything. It is you who wants to remove very good photos of very popular groups on the basis that they don't sell as much as your favorite group. I want to keep all the photos because I think they make this article better. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Also, as I've already told you, we don't have many good photos of Japanese idols we can use. And again, if you have some photos of Japanese boy bands, you are welcome to put them in the article any time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Currently the photos represent the major idol projects / talent agencies. AKB48 is Yasushi Akimoto / AKS, Momoiro Clover Z is Stardust Promotion, Morning Musime is Hello! Project, Babymetal is Amuse, Fairies are Avex. I don't see any reason why this balance should be changed. I would gladly add a couple of photos of Japanese boy bands (Johnny's groups), but I don't know of any available on Wikipedia Commons. I suggest you work in this direction and find some new photographs instead of removing the photos that are already present. AKB48 isn't the only Japanese idol group worth a mention (a photo) here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC) You are welcome to add some info about some Oricon surveys and an extensive reliably-sourced third-party analysis of AKB48's "recorded sales, certifications by RIAJ" as compared to other idol groups. Please do that. That would definitely make this article better. But you have just been repeatedly removing the photo, that's all you do here in this article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I hope you will rewrite your addition. And the article can be expanded with a thorough analysis of the Japanese idol scene (if you can find a source like that). --14:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Babymetal is very popular in the West, where it is much more known to the general public than Arashi. But if you have a good photo of Arashi (or of any other Johnny's group), you can upload it and add it to the article, it will be greatly appreciated. (But see Uploading images first, it should be either a free photo or a photo you took yourself.) 2. Momoiro Clover Z has a huge fan following in Japan and deserves a picture in this article. At one point it was more talked about than AKB48 or any other idol artist. And it is loved by music critics, which can't be said about many other idols. And this particular photo is good, it is much better than the one of AKB48. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The article is about Japanese idol groups, whose popularity is primarily based in Japan and not the West. 2. This huge fan following cannot be verified by Oricon sales and RIAJ certifications, nor Oricon surveys, hence there's no reliable WP:WEIGHT to claim their popularity and inclusion among far more popular idol groups. They do not deserve a picture compared to far more significant idol acts. The claim "loved by music critics" is not supported by any source hence it is WP:OR claim, and again, it has nothing to do with Oricon and RIAJ. Picture quality has nothing to do with WP:NPOV and other issues, your claim an obvious example of PROMOTION bias in favor of a subject in question. Actually, you did not show a single argument based on editing policy. Also, don't call me WP:BRD because it is not normative nor with it you're going to halt (WP:OWN) further editing of the article, especially not with such pointless arguments in the discussion. I will not play your WP:GAME.--93.137.172.209 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The image description already says the group is "number one among female idol groups according to surveys" and it is sourced. 2. The arguments I use on the talk page aren't WP:OR cause the WP:OR policy is about article content. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly adding pure WP:OR to this article: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. These sources are not reliable enough, the surveys per se, especially when are not done by the authoritative organization of Oricon, do not bring WEIGHT to the group. 2. That's stating an obvious fact which can be verified on the Wikipedia itself, it has nothing to do with OR. If anything, I will add the Oricon surveys so for proper NPOV. 3. You again did not refute the PROMOTION, BALANCE, WEIGHT and so on with any proper argument and reference. You are gaming the system to promote the group.--93.137.172.209 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The surveys are reliable.
 * You are gaming the system giving undeserved weight to surveys by The Nikkei, while removing and ignoring Oricon polls ! You are the one whose disruptively reverting the article to a revision which is against editing policy! You did not refute by saying, you refute something with arguments and reliable sources. Photo's quality has nothing to do with BALANCE, and you are again giving overweight to the surveys by The Nikkei which results are refuted by Oricon as well records sales. You don't say on Wikipedia "I want this and that", you do not WP:OWN the article. We edit the article according to editing policy, and you are not respecting and editing according to it. You are gaming the policy. Make one more revert and I am reporting you for this multiple breaches of editing policy.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop edit-warring. Momoiro Clover Z is an extremely popular group. The Nikkei surveys used in the Momoiro Clover Z photo description are reliable. There's much more to popularity than Oricon sales. AKB48's sales are artificially bloated cause the group has a system that encourages fans to buy multiple copies of the same CD. Momoiro Clover Z is very popular concert-wise and they are respected by music critics and heavily talked about in the Japanese media.
 * There's no "much more to popularity than Oricon sales", that's your personal opinion unsubstantiated by any reliable source. You again ignore the Oricon surveys (!). AKB48 has recorded sales and certifications, your personal opinion again doesn't matter. There's again no reference for your claim to be "respected by music critics", while "heavily talked about in the Japanese media" in comparison to whom? Again you are intentionally mistaking photo's quality with NPOV. Incredible ignorance.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The photo description is reliably sourced. I don't know why I need to say anything beyond that and why I need to defend this article from your disruptive edits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Verification of the description is not the point! The point is that descripition itself as it cannot be verified by authoritative Oricon polls. Saying that you "defend this article" from constructive edits according to editing policy you 1) again admit that you show WP:OWN behavior 2) do not understand and respect editing policy.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of balance when there's no WP:BALANCE in the order of the images (you are constantly giving higher weight to The Nikkei surveys, while removing and ignoring Oricon surveys, recorded sales, certifications by RIAJ and other), their placement in the sections, there's serious lack of body text and many more? You are constantly lying about the article's content and the issue at question.--78.1.87.210 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are these "Oricon surveys, recorded sales, certifications by RIAJ"? I don't see anything like this in this article.
 * Where are these "Oricon surveys... I don't see anything like this in this article"? You removed them . How you even dare to ask such a question? "You are welcome to add some info about some Oricon surveys", but I already did and you removed it. How dare you to say "repeatedly removing the photo... that's all you do here in this article" when I added Oricon surveys?--78.1.87.210 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. I didn't notice you (finally) added some prose. All the edits you made in the last few days were marked as reverts, so I assumed it was the same edit you made earlier (this one). I've just put the sentence back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the wording of your addition is unsuitable for this article, cause it questions the group's success instead of calmly discussing the overall results of the poll. I think you should instead mention AKB48 and other groups that placed higher in the poll.
 * I've looked of the sources. What are you talking about? AKB48, too, isn't present on the list every time and, when it is present, it is ranked rather low. I think you addition is confusing, I will rewrite it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop acting around you didn't notice, you're simply incompetent to be a Wikipedia editor. Stop placing the MCZ image in the top of the LEAD when there's no overall rationale for doing that, or change the order with proper attribution to The Nikkei, or it cannot be included there. The survey was not done by Oricon and hence basing the popularity on and only on The Nikkei is fraudlent.--31.217.24.109 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Korean idol which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs)

Recent rework
I think you are doing a good job. so I won't interfere, but I'm concerned about you removing the selective list of active idols and some links to particular groups.

I've also noticed that while you removed all mention of particular Morning Musume's sister groups with a rather harsh and dismissive edit summary ("Removed some WP:UNDUE weight on information about certain groups, since this article is supposed to be about idols in general") (and that was despite S/mileage being prominently mentioned in the CYZO article used as the source), you've added links to the articles you've worked on or created, such as "Koharu Kusumi", "Stabbing of Mayu Tomita", and "NGT48" (§ "December 2018 Maho Yamaguchi assault"). And again, you decided to mention the Mayu Tomita and Maho Yamaguchi incidents, but didn't mention the saw attack on AKB48 members that was the third attack mentioned in the source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The article is supposed to focus on Japanese idols in general (hence the article's title) and if we focus on the success of every single group then there is going to be WP:UNDUE weight and WP:PROMOTION issues. Keep in mind that nowadays there are hundreds of idol groups and this article shouldn't document specific successes every single one. That's why I cherry-picked some examples especially ones that had a lot of news coverage. I also didn't include the saw attack because a couple of examples are more than enough, but I don't think it's a bad thing that you added it.
 * Also, throwing in the list of "notable idol agencies" will likely welcome edits for WP:PROMOTION and there's already List of Japanese idols to cover that. There are hundreds of idol groups these days and it's not necessary to add every single one. If you do want to re-add information such as what you mentioned about S/mileage, feel free to do so, but you may need to revise your wording so it doesn't take away from the general topic of idols. The writing should put more focus on the main topic, not the example. For example, I removed the tidbit about Idoling!!! having their own television show since the way the sentence was presented was too promotional, but if you're able to tie it back to the main idea of the paragraph then it's okay to re-add. lullabying (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. You've added the groups back, so I'm done here and (as I've said) I won't interfere with your work. (Cute was definitely one of the major figures of the Idol Warring Period.) I think you "cherry-picked" Kusumi Koharu cause you typed in her name in the news search. :-) Cause the Oricon article is from 2008 when she was indeed very prominent, but since then there have been some AKB48 projects that can be mentioned too. But okay... I will look at the article in a few months, when you are done with it. Don't delete the pictures. :-) Btw, I'm suprised there are so many sources in English. There weren't almost any back when I worked on this article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed some problems with your version. You've removed everything about cuteness and just switched it for "image". While there are multiple sources that say that idols are supposed to to be cute. I was sure you just moved the bit about cuteness to the second paragraph or somewhere like that, but it's nowhere to be found at all. The word "cute" isn't used in the article at all now. Which is a nonsense. I suggest you add a second paragraph to detail which image idols are supposed to have exactly. "Cute", "attractive", maybe "cool", etc. You can explain how their image progressed and how nowadays female idols aren't all just "cute", that that was a requirement a while ago but now there are different idol groups that have different images / are marketed differently. But I don't want to just revert you (I mean the first sentence) cause I see how you are working on the article and expanding it. So it will probably be a good idea for me to stay aside for now and see how this article develops. P. S. I have other plans, so I'm now trying to avoid getting into a lengthy discussion. I guess the best solution for me will be to forget about this article now. For a couple of months or so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "cute" sounds very professional so I used "image" as a more general term. "Attractiveness" might be a more appropriate and neutral term to use so I may add that back in once I get to it.
 * I'm almost done copy-editing but I do have concerns with some of the other sections. Most of the "idol image" sections are worded in a way that comes off as WP:ORIGINAL and there are no sources to back them up. I may expand "Media" to introduce how prolific the idol trope is in fictional works (which is also tied to anime, manga, and other otaku hobbies). Last, but I am considering merging Wotagei to the fan culture section, as the article itself is a stub with unreliable resources and original research. Information about wotagei can be summed up in one or two paragraphs. lullabying (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I just checked the JP wiki article on wotagei at ja:オタ芸 and I think wotagei standing alone as an article is okay on the condition that it is revised (no rush, but the sooner, the better). The current English article is in need of an overhaul in terms of sourcing and describing its history and notability in detail. lullabying (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "cute" sounds very professional — It's quite the opposite, it's unprofessional to not mention cuteness when you're writing about Japanese culture. Search for "cute" on this page, you will find multiple book citations that may help you expand this article. By the way, this article will be linked from the Wikipedia main page soon. It will happen in a bit over 8 hours. More precisely, at 00:00 UTC. See Template:Did you know/Queue/1. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Male idols aren't exactly marketed for their cuteness, though. I think "attractiveness" is a broader term that may touch upon both "cuteness" and other forms of sex appeal that an idol is marketed for... would "sex appeal" be better? Some of the articles do mention that and it's also a broader term. lullabying (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominating for good article status
I think once the original research concerns are addressed (which is basically information on how idols were viewed in each time period), it might be a good idea to nominate this as a good article. lullabying (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First sentence in lead
I thought I'd just note the following. The word "manufactured" is problematic as it is the making of goods or wares for sale. You can say that you can manufacture an image, as this is an attribute of thing (including a person), but it is problematic when talking about actual entertainers as it implies that the entertainer is an object. Objectification is something we want to avoid on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Therefore, I have changed the sentence to say "selected, trained and marketed". I thought it best to explain my edit on the talk page so people understand my reasoning. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, when you say that objectification is something to avoid on Wikipedia, are you referring to any specific policy? In addition, the idol industry is commonly criticized for objectification, because their whole concept, music, and image is manufactured and tightly controlled by their agencies to appeal to specific audiences. lullabying (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the most important thing is to remember that we have policies around neutrality. Criticisms of objectification are quite valid to mention in an article, but we do not hold that position. Thus, stating positively that Japanese idols are "manufactured" implicitly sides with that viewpoint. We cannot do that. In terms of objectification, we need to be careful in our articles to treat each person we write about with dignity and respect. Reducing a person to an object of desire in our descriptions is not only holding a particular viewpoint, but it could be seen as a violation of WP:BLP.
 * Can you think of any situations where an article should objectify someone as solely as a means for sexual desire? Even our articles about pornographic actresses don't do this - we merely state they work in the pornographic industry and ensure that we write about their lives in a neutral way. We treat the actors and actresses as people, and not objects. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you; when you mention that something is to be avoided in Wikipedia, I was curious as to if there is a specific policy on that for reference. I think the concern is valid; however, I think it could be reworded. "Selected, trained, and marketed" is a bit too wordy. Maybe take out the first two words? lullabying (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that specifically says that articles should not objectify people, only the broader principles of neutrality and our biographies of living people policies. I would be happy with selected, however the original authors used "marketed", which is actually accurate and a core part of being a Japanese idol. Perhaps removing the word "training"? That's implied in marketing I suppose. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "selected" is necessary. All entertainers were "selected" to be part of an agency or selected to have an exclusive endorsement deal. Models were "selected" to be part of a magazine. lullabying (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s fair, I’ve reduced it to “marketed”. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Why is this in the Anime and manga wikiproject Qwv (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 * There's a section on this page discussing how Japanese idols are common in anime and manga, and that lots of anime and manga these days are built around idols to sell anime song CDs. lullabying (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, idol voice actors are included as a sub-market too. lullabying (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese idol


text:
From the Life of the Marionettes

From the Life of the Marionettes (Aus dem Leben der Marionetten) is a 1980 television film directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was produced in West Germany with a German-language screenplay and soundtrack while Bergman was in "tax exile" from his native Sweden. It is filmed in black and white apart from two colour sequences at the beginning and end of the film.

Set in Munich, the film charts the disintegration of the relationship of Katarina and Peter Egermann, based on the unhappy couple of the same names briefly featured in Bergman's 1973 miniseries Scenes from a Marriage. In a reimagining of the characters, Peter and Katarina's unhappiness and unfaithfulness culminates in Peter's murder of a prostitute.

Plot
Peter Egermann visits and murders a prostitute named Ka, committing an act of necrophilia. The coroner interrogates Peter's friends for an explanation. Mogens Jensen tells the coroner he is shocked by the murder, claiming there were no signs this could happen. Peter is married to career woman Katarina; they have no children. In fact, Peter had confided in Jensen that he was plagued with homicidal thoughts, primarily aimed against Katarina. Jensen considered the thoughts likely not serious, but advised Katarina to leave town. Katarina dismissed the warning as preposterous, and given it was a busy season for work, she decided it was impossible for her to leave.

Before the murder, Peter considered suicide by throwing himself from a building, and Katarina called a friend to calm him down. Peter came back inside, where he quarreled with Katarina. The two shared an open relationship, as Katarina seeks other lovers. Peter claimed he is the one who knows how to sexually satisfy Katarina. Katarina responded she sometimes had orgasms with Peter, but also that she sometimes faked them and left the bedroom to masturbate, and that on other occasions she only had small convulsions.

The interrogator questions Tim, a homosexual. Tim is a business partner of Katarina and her friend, and by extension, he also knew Peter. The interrogator asks if Tim ever had an affair with Peter; Tim hesitates before replying no. Agitated, Tim reveals he had desires for Peter, and is suffering a guilty conscience after having introduced Peter to Ka. Ka was one of Tim's friends. Tim blames his homosexuality for bringing Peter and Ka together, saying he had difficulties with Katarina and liked the idea that Peter would cheat on her with a prostitute. Slowly, he thought, he would lure Peter to him.

When Peter met Ka at a Munich peep show, Ka told Peter her real name was Katarina, the same as his wife. He tearfully murdered her. Jensen concludes that Peter, having grown up under an aggressive mother and then lived with a similarly aggressive wife, was unaware of his own latent homosexuality and that meeting Ka disrupted Peter's daily routine and triggered an emotional blackout. Peter is confined to a mental institute, where he cradles a teddy bear at night.

Development
Ingmar Bergman wrote From the Life of the Marionettes after being arrested in Stockholm in 1976 and subsequently leaving for West Germany. He stated: "I found myself in a difficult situation, far away from my homeland where I did not want to return. I had already tried to express my pain and suffering in The Serpent's Egg, but without succeeding ... But in From the Life of the Marionettes I found a way, a form, a very definite and distinct form to which I could transfer my pain, my anguish and all my difficulties and reshape them into something concrete."

He based the lead characters after Peter and Katarina in his 1973 miniseries Scenes from a Marriage. Bergman's initial conception for the project was titled Love for No Lovers, but in the rewrite culminating in From the Life of the Marionettes Peter and Katarina were reimagined as a German couple distinct from the Swedish characters in Scenes from a Marriage. Bergman explained the final title: "I think we are all manipulated, more or less, and From the Life of the Marionettes is about the manipulation of human beings, by forces outside and beyond them — forces you cannot control, and you cannot define. The personalities of Pete and Katarina, who appear in the first episode of Scenes from a Marriage, have always fascinated me. In a way, they existed long before [Scenes from a Marriage protagonists] Johan and Marianne, so I wanted to tell more about them. This is their story."

In casting, the filmmakers recruited all actors from the Residenztheater.

Filming
The film was shot in the Bavaria Film Studios in Munich, and at Tobis Film Studios, beginning in October 1979. Bergman's regular cinematographer Sven Nykvist returned for the project. Nykvist and Bergman mainly shot in black-and-white, but at the insistence of television broadcaster ZDF, some colour was added and a red tint was given to the prologue for fear the black-and-white would lose viewers.

German composer Rolf A. Wilhelm wrote the score, making use of timpani and glass harmonicas.

Release
The premiere took place in July 1980 at a minor festival in Oxford, with Tobis Film as the main distributor. The film was originally made for television and had its TV premiere on German ZDF on 3 November 1980; it went to German theatres on 6 November. It was subsequently released in Swedish theatres on 24 January 1981.

On 28 January 1981, From the Life of the Marionettes screened on SVT1. The Criterion Collection released a Blu-ray on 20 November 2018, along with 38 other Bergman films, in the set Ingmar Bergman's Cinema.

Reception
According to author Birgitta Steene, Swedish critics were generally "respectful but not enthusiastic". Janet Maslin credited Bergman for a "forceful" work despite what she found to be "less articulate or analytical" characters, praised Nykvist's shots in dream sequences, and positively reviewed Christine Buchegger and Robert Atzorn's performances. David Denby wrote "I wish [Bergman] had dramatized more and explained a whole lot less". People staff criticized it as "banal" with "no suspense". In his Movie Guide, Leonard Maltin gave the film three and a half stars, describing it as "Powerful, provocative".

The film was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film of the year by the U.S. National Board of Review. It currently holds a 67% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 12 reviews. It is one of film-maker Wes Anderson's favourite movies.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: From the Life of the Marionettes


text: User talk:203.129.239.218

title: User talk:203.129.239.218


text: User talk:68.42.252.242

title: User talk:68.42.252.242


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nenad Prokic

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no concensus according to user:DeathPheonix. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nenad Prokic
While this person may be notable, that cannot be inferred from the article. Substantiate or delete please. Radiant! 09:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tricky one - Balkan playwrights probably don't tend to make a big splash in English language google. Average Earthman 13:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 22:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks probably notable enough, would be good to have someone who can read Serbian weigh in. Keep in mind that his native language is written in Cyrillic, which holds down the Google hits for any given transliteration. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-catastrophism

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-catastrophism
Original essay with a neologistic name. I'd say merge if not for the fact that all content found here is already better explained in other sections. Radiant! 09:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * This nomination has too few votes. It is the belief of this particular administrator that this debate is still on-going.  Due to the change in how votes for deletion is processed, it has been readded so that a consensus may be reached. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Nothing in this article distinguishes between neo-catastrophism and the traditional 19th-century concept of catastrophism. Re-write if it's a meaningful term, delete otherwise. - TB 12:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not terribly well-written essay. Android79 17:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but a weak one. Appears to be attested to, including references in some college courses. Still only 571 Google hits, however. I would agree with both of the above that it is in need of a substantial rewrite. HyperZonktalk 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original essay, neologism. The funny thing is that I think it's a valid and noteworthy observation. There really was a uniformitarian orthodoxy prior to Luis Alvarez' presentation of the asteroid impact theory. Some may remember Immanuel Velikovsky, a nutjob with who wrote a book or books in the 1950s, Worlds in Collision being the title of one of them, full of cockamamie theories about how all sorts of BIblical miracles were explained by planets randomly knocking other planets to leave their orbits at the right time so that they could part the Red Sea, cause the Flood, etc. I think the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was supposed to be edible hydrocarbons from a comet's tail or something. Anyway, he was scorned by the scientific establishment, in part because it was just felt that the universe didn't work that way. Geological events were the results of slow, continuous processes. Then Alvarez came along, and my first thought was "Wow! Velikovsky stuff!" Now we live in a world where all sorts of things are thought be caused by asteroids smacking into planets. There really has been a change in our world view. But such comments probably belong in Uniformitarianism and/or Catastrophism and should be cautious and well-sourced. Well, there's my little original POV essay for the day. But at least I'm not spouting it into an article in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 03:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be nice to have an interesting article on modern catastopist theories, but this isn't it.  Miss Pippa 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete' This is handled at Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide Tunguska Event etc. none of which are linked here. They are more in the nature of encyclopedia reports than essays. This ne is purely a pwrsinal essay. --Wetman 11:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Dpbsmith (and frankly I'm amazed we don't have a Worlds in Collision article yet; Velikovsky is always good for a laugh) Antandrus 17:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this drivel. Please.  Edeans 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete What makes it Neo? I don't see the relevance. Catastrophes happen. If this were supposed to be in contrast to Biblical catastrophes and in support of rare events that drive evolution, then it should be kept.  I don't see any value to the current article.  --Aranae 08:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Catastrophism to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vsmith 17:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.