Talk:Harem (genre)

Controversy?

Ignoring the fact that I fully agree with the statement of "get some real sources", the entire controversy section expresses an opinion with no verification. Firstly there is phrasing, for example 'almost inviting', which expresses a direct opinion on the genre. Secondly there is the statement that "The unrest has been seen particularly in the United States where a mostly female audience find it a sexist misrepresentation of girls and women." I take a couple issues with that, firstly the 'mostly female' item... Citation please? Where do you get the demographics about who is complaining against this particular genre? Isn't this a completely unsupported statement? Then the author proceeds to directly argue with the complete joke of a citation linking to animenation's "Ask John" blog of all things! "Ask John" has this to say: "Based on statements I’ve heard from fans, I don’t think it’s mainly a political or sociological motivation that causes a distaste for harem anime. I think many American fans are simply tired of seeing the same clich� setting recycled so often. I hear fans complain about a lack of originality in harem anime far more frequently that I hear complaints of propagating sexism." Compared to the statement that "a mostly female audionce find(s) it a sexist misrepresentation of girls and women" it seems to me that "Ask John" disagrees! It is as if the author did a random web search for something they THOUGHT would support their argument, and then skipped the ever-so-important step of READING THE SOURCE! Personally, I believe that the entire section "Controversy" should simply be removed. Firstly, given that it expresses an unfounded opinion with no source that actually SUPPORTS the statement it is far below standards. Secondly, I do not believe that there is a reason to express that there are people who don't like the harem genre for this or that reason. That is the equivalent of saying that some people don't like horror movies. It is a given that not everybody will enjoy harems, and it is a given that they will have their reasons. This doesn't qualify as a controversy, it is simply opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.176.46 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The aforementioned "controversy section", which corresponds to the first paragraph of the current version of controversy section, should be removed. In addition, I suggest that the rest of controversy section, namely, the second paragraph, should be modified. I read the referenced webpage, i.e. http://www.comedyvideoscentral.com/Harem_anime.html, and noticed that some points as mentioned in the second paragraph are not present at all. Hence I will modify the second paragraph by removing some phrases. Please let me know should you find my modification unjustified. Zanetu (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will also change the section title from "Controversy" to "Criticism", since the only thing left now is criticism. Zanetu (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God people! Why are you using http://www.comedyvideoscentral.com/Harem_anime.html as a source when the page clearly states "From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, by MultiMedia"? Did any of you actually read the thing before including it here? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen in Wikipedia. A wikipedia article source is actually the old wikipedia article that was erased because of its poor quality. This is worse than the time some you were using the Urban dictionary as a source for heaven's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.11.106.219 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Negima a central harem or peripheral harem?

Negima is listed twice in the harem lists. It definitely starts off as a harem comedy since it's a boy surrounded by girls in his class, many of the chapters have the girls fawning over him. Later on, there's a handful that still are in love of varying degrees. Recommend retaining Negima in the central list. AngusWOOF (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. As the story develops it more looks like a Shounen manga/anime with endless battle. It is at best a peripheral harem in my opinion. Zanetu (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT RESTORE UNSOURCED CONTENT OR ORIGINAL RESEARCH

This is the third time I've removed the lists because not a single entry on the lists are verifiable and without sourcing, the lists are pure original research. Per WP:BURDEN, Please do not restore the list or any items on the list without providing third party sources. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Farix, is the following link qualified as a good third-party source? http://www.anime-planet.com/tags/harem/anime Zanetu (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of a genre page with no list of shows. I saw we get a list together or just do away with the page. Shows like Hayate the Combat Butler are listed as harems on respected site. is it okay to start a list if you use things like that, if not then this page serves no purpose.

Yes, yes that's true, but listing all Harem genre anime here only make this article looks bad, for the purpose of making an example of Harem genre anime, only listing some of them are good enough. Listing them all? Nope, that would only destroying this article. If you want to make anime recommendation it's better to do that on Anime website, but not on Encyclopedia.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Content

Harem Anime have been around for a long time now and there has never been a lack of what the second paragraph of the introduction has. There have always been Harem Anime surrounding men and there have always been Trans characters in them, saying things like removing gender identity seems to be stating that Progressivism is entering Anime and that is a downright falsehood. Titles for the "diverse" nature (or as they're called Reverse Harem) include Ouran HS Host Club, Fruits Basket, Uta No Prince Sama Maji love 2000%, Hana Yori Dongo, Dance With Devils. There are plenty more but the idea that this is a new thing is definitely wrong and should be removed from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.224 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116035437/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2009/04/17/ask-john-what-distinguishes-harem-anime/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2009/04/17/ask-john-what-distinguishes-harem-anime/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Claim: Love Hina as the origin of harem genre

It is objectively false to claim that Love Hina is the origin of the harem romantic comedy. Tenchi Muyo and Ranma 1/2 both predate Love Hina, as do a few other series included in List of harem (genre) anime and manga. This claim included 2 references which are Japanese-language opinion pieces. For a statement of opinion to be considered a reliable reference, the citation should clearly state that the statement is an opinion as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.190.118 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As further evidence to support this point, the Japanese page does not make the asinine claim that Love Hina is an especially noteworthy example of the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:1800:2BA:A165:EB4:573E:C6DA (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)