Talk:Lupin the Third/Archive 2

Renamed for French Broadcast

1. "that has nothing to do with the production": I did originally have it under the sub-heading "Copyright issues" but User:Dandy Sephy took that out and put it under "Production".

2. "nor do we list every foreign rename": but isn't it a matter of interest to know how the anime at least got around the copyright issue?--Marktreut (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dandy moved it because unlike you, he is trying to help this article retain its good article status. And no, it isn't a matter of interest. The source you gave was not a reliable one nor does it stated that the series avoided the copyright issue by renaming the series. You are, yet again, attempting to use a false source to support your opinion rather than actual verifiable content. The French licensor renamed the series, which is extremely common. Unless you can find a reliable source that actually says it was renamed to avoid the issue regarding the copyrights rather than as being par for the course, it isn't relevant and it certainly does not belong where you tried to shove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not stated in the article WHY it was renamed, I am simply stating that it WAS renamed. I don't specify the reason. Given the fact that "Lupin" is one of the most famous names in French literature it would have made more sense commercially and otherwise to market the series under the "Lupin" name. Even the French release of the DVD sells it under the title of "Edgar, le Détective Cambrioleur" rather than "Lupin III". Check Amazon.fr and you'll see it for sale there, complete with Lupin on the box cover.--Marktreut (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The rename is not relevant, period. Your inclusion implies that it was renamed for the copyright, and you are still trying to include a non-reliable source in a Good Article, which degrades the article. Stop reincluding it while a discussion is going on. Two editors have felt it was irrelevant thus far, so your edit warring is disruptive (as usual). Please state exactly how and why the rename is relevant to the production and provide reliable sources that show its renaming was notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the source originally because it seems like a random site, and my attempts at finding a reliable replacement didn't have any joy. Amazon is a last resort site for finding things like release dates, in this case the fact that amazon list it for sale under that title doesn't really affect anything, and probably on't be considered a reliable source. In a random article it wouldn't make any difference, but as stated this article has undergone heavy changes to allow the article to retain its good article status, and that means that every single claim and detail has to be properly explained, sourced and relevant. Now, I understand why the series was released under a different name, but the source being used to support this information does not seem to be what we would call a reliable source. No reliable source, and the information does not belong. Forcing it in there when it was given a reason for removal in my edit summary is not helpful. Find a reliable source to state why the name was changed, and then we can sort something out. Just noting that the name was changed doesn't really improve the article for much the reason AnmaFinotera suggested - it's a common thing. As it stands, the information is from a seemingly unreliable site, and not really improving the article. For the name change to be notable, you have to explain the reason for changing it, but this requires a reliable source to do this. Anything else is interpretation or synthesis. Please do not continue to re-add this information without addressing it here, it may be viewed as disruptive or as vandalism. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For a "non-reliable source" and a "random site" it is pretty extensive in listing almost every cartoon ever broadcast in France and giving very detailed descriptions of the plots, dates etc. I should know since I used to live there. I'm putting in yet another link, this time to a Lupin III encyclopedia which shows that his French name was "Edgar de la Cambriole", the name given to him in the anime — which I know because I got to watch some episodes only the other day. No, I cannot find the specific reason why it was renamed, but can't we have some leeway here? The point of wikipedia is that you put information in and others add to it over time. Evolution, not destruction. There used to be a time when wikipedia was an interesting place where you could find information and improve on it or add to what was already there. Now it seems to be the reverse (especially in the cartoon and anime sections): less not more, no constructive contributions and undo on the spot without so much as a second thought. As for discussions, well, as I see it, most of the time I'm the one who actually starts the discussions AFTER AnmaFinotera has undone my entry. Don't recall many instances of AnmaFinotera querying my work before she undid it.--Marktreut (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

firstly, listing everything ever broadcast means nothing, it doesn't make it a reliable source. Secondly, you've still not given a reliable source, your lupin ency reference only tells us lupins name was changed, not what the name of the show was - thats the very definition of WP:OR (using a reliable source that doesn't support your actual claim is still original research). I for one am not interested in your personal views on wikipedia, we are dealing with a quality article here, which means we follow the quality guidelines and policies. if you can't accept those policies and guidelines, don't edit. You'll find less complaints about your edits if you took more care and notice of advice. And you can take your bad faith elsewhere, this is article talk, not your personal playground. You've made it quite clear that you will add whatever information you see fit despite the advice given to you, so don't come complaining when it gets reverted or changed. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully google translate works much better with French then with Japanese. Planete Jeunesse is clearly a fan database and there doesn't seem to be any claim by the contributors or owners of the site that they are experts in any way. Additionally although they give their own sources, they are just random fansites themselves, and again lack any indication they are run by "experts" in their field. Lupin Encyclopedia on the other hand, is used a a reliable source in the article because it's owned and maintained by a AnimeOnDVD/Mania reviewer with a history of writing Lupin reviews for those sites. However, the useage of Lupin Encylopedia as a source for the french name is misguided, all it shows is that they changed the name of the character, which is of questionable use for this article (as a note on List of Lupin III characters it would be more appropriate). Therefore the source does not support the statemeht it is being used for. So I am removing it yet again based on these logical points raised, and with the support of the policies WP:OR and WP:RS. Attempting to restore the content without fixing these issues may result in it being interpreted as a continued edit war or vandalism. If you don't want your edits perceived as vandalism or edit warring, please discuss before editing/reverting, not after. You only harm your own case, and you should take the advice, rather then ignore it again. This will prevent you getting into arguements on other articles as well. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Hello, is still anyone here? There is an article on the French Anime Land website about the many name for Lupin. Anime Land is French bi-monthly paper magazine on anime & manga so it has the RS status for that field.
The interesting part is that one:
"Une rumeur prétend que les héritiers de Maurice LEBLANC auraient protesté contre l’utilisation abusive du nom de son personnage… Plus vraisemblablement, on peut penser que les distributeurs français, prudents, ont préféré changer le patronyme du héros de MONKEY PUNCH."

"A rumor pretends that the Maurice Leblanc's heirs protested against the abusive use of his character name... More plausibly, we can think that the French licensors, cautious, preferred to change the patronymic of Mokey Punch's hero."

Additionally, on Anime Land issues #153 July-August 2009, page 12, there was a brief news on the French licensor Dybex licensing the four Lupin's TV specials released since 2006. The interesting quote here:
"A cause de vieux problèmes de droits autour de l'utilisation en France du nom de Lupin, le tout est rebaptisé 'Rupan'"

"Due to old copyright issues around the Lupin name use in France, the whole thing is renamed 'Rupan'"

My reading of those two let me believe that no French licensor dared the devil by releasing a localized version using the name "Lupin". The potential copyright issue is purely hypothetical as there is no evidence that Maurice Leblanc's heirs would have sued them.

--KrebMarkt 07:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

More references, including one which specifies that Lupin III was renamed in France.--Marktreut (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the url for the opening theme of Lupin III when broadcast in French and renamed to Edgar, le Détective Cambrioleur. I think you'll agree that it is too elaborate to be a fake and I know for a fact that it is genuine since it is the opening sequence I used to see when watching the series on French TV.--Marktreut (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof lay the one making the statement so you must bring a 100% unquestionable evidence. Second that video is COPYVIO regardless it's trustworthy or not it can't be used as source to support any statement. --KrebMarkt 13:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Marktreut, you are still missing the point completely, it's simply not important for this article if the series was renamed in France, and you aren't even trying to argue that it is. It doesn't matter what sources you use, it's essentially needless trivia to state it was renamed in another country. The insistence on reinserting the information, including the same sources that have been dismissed previously, isn't improving the article at all. The article is finally in a position where it is to the proper standard needed to keep it's GA status. Please don't ruin a month's worth of effort by degrading the page quality, because thats what this ridiculous edit war is doing. You've been given plenty of explanations, so there is no excuse. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that. One of article GA criteria is stability meaning no edit war in for a certain among of time. Jeopardizing the article GA just to add one fact make me really question whatever Marktreut want the best for the article.

@Dandy Sephy The sources, i provided, are sufficient to assert it but i'm deferring to you on whatever and whenever to put them in. You can toss them in the toilet if necessary to settle the issue with Marktreut. --KrebMarkt 14:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the sources you've provided, but like you say, they seem to be referring to it as a conscious decision rather then something forced on them. I'm just at a loss as to what need there is to specify the french name of the series, it's not being used to support a important point that needs making, so I see no reason to make it - especially when they insist on using unreliable sources to support the statement. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith, because this is the sort of thing that the user has been involved with on other pages - ignoring the advice of other editors and constantly re-adding the same things to try and force the point. I don't see any real attempt to resolve the issue from Marktreut's side of the arguement. if this was a c class article, I'd just leave it as it wouldn't be worth the hassle, but it's starting to come off as vandalism to a GA article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Like you, my concern is keeping it GA and knowing from where you started and now to be so close to success at it. I can only understand your position. That why i suggest you to put those information into the freezer until things calm down if possible. Because even if the fact is put with all due RS citation there is 100% probability to have it edited & distorted with an unwelcome personal reading & interpretation meaning POV + OR. So for now we stay focused on the GA and we will have a much time as necessary to solve the issue later. --KrebMarkt 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this information would be more appropriate on the French Wikipedia not the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sorry they put you through that block AnmaFinotera, you were only reverting vandalism. Keep up the good work everyone! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Source

Hollywood Reporter article discussing Lupin along with the phenomenon of manga in general. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

French Lupin III Again

Ok dropping the discussed edit here:

Thus, when the anime was broadcast in France, only a handful of episodes were shown under the title ''Edgar, le détective cambrioleur'' ("Edgar the Burglar Detective"), while the main character was, for legal reasons, renamed Edgar de la Cambriole.<ref>[http://www.objectif-cinema.com/spip.php?article4078 objectif-cinema.com interview with the actors who dubbed ''Lupin III'' into French], held in France in 2004 during a salon dedicated to Japanese culture]</ref>

I started this discussion because the verifiability, interpretation, weight & relevance for the English article are to be asserted.

@Marktreut, you knew that is a discussed issue and still edited the article. That not a consensual way to do thing. --KrebMarkt 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The cited page

The cited webpage is the reporting of voice actors interview during the Japan Expo 2004.
More precisely the introduction section before the interview part.

"En France, pour des raisons juridiques, le lien de parenté entre Arsène Lupin et le héros du manga a été abandonné, et ce dernier a été rebaptisé Edgar de la cambriole dans la série animée, ou parfois Wolf, comme dans le long métrage Le Château de Cagliostro (Hayao Miyasaki, 1979)."

In France for juridic reasons, the parental link between Arsène Lupin and the manga hero has been abandoned, and the latter was renamed Edgar de la cambriole in the anime series or sometimes Wolf like in the movie Le Château de Cagliostro Hayao Miyasaki, 1979).

--KrebMarkt 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliability website

For what i could inquire this website is probably RS for anything related to cinema & film see [1]. The interview can fell within their scope as it is about voice actors who dubbed not just anime but also films & TV series. However i can't give it a free RS stamp for animanga because they are simply outsider from it and their view can't be as accurate and refined than the one of a website focus on anime. --KrebMarkt 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation and weight to give it

What is the interpretation possible for juridic reasons? Real threats of being sued, potential threats to be sued or consolidated hearsays and rumors around Luppin III? Recouping the information garnered from Anime Land, my inclination is for potential threats because neither the Maurice Lablanc's relatives have explicitly stated that they would sue or threatened to, nor the French licensors of Luppin III stated that they feared to be sued.

I can't give the statement too much weight because it comes from a website not specialized in anime and second, for something so volatile balancing the view of few RS is mandatory. --KrebMarkt 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to include the fact into the article

If people manages to find a compromise on the above parts, the question of the relevance of that fact is still to be considered.

The question is simple is it worth adding information in the French release while the article is the English one?

Neutral I personally have no preference. All that matter to me is accuracy and people stopping putting statement not asserted by the cited source or one that doesn't have the credential for that. --KrebMarkt 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the production section once again until there is a consensus on its inclusion. And also, I don't think it belongs there either if it were included. As I said in the discussion thread in WP:ANIME, if we include the renaming of the series in French, the for neutrality reasons, we must also include all renaming in all languages. One way of dealing with this is the inclusion of an "International release" section where licensing, language adaptations, and title changes can be mentioned. This should help globalize these articles as well. --Farix (Talk) 11:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But the French situation is not quite symmetrical with respect to the rest of the world: Lupin's supposed ancestor is a fictional Frenchman chronicled in French works that were still under copyright, with the holders residing in France. As such, it holds the same metafictional relationship as, say, new stories about Holmes and Watson, with the difference being that the Doyle estate has allowed such stories to be published and the Leblanc estate did not -- a sort of metafictional relationship that is very much of scholarly interest. If we can find reliable sources that detail about what, exactly, happened in France (thread of lawsuit? fear of such a threat?), I think it should be documented.

Which brings me to the source above. It does not quite cut it for me -- we learn from it that the voice actors were told the name change was for legal issues, but without clarifying what the issues were. So, yes, remove the statement for now, but keep looking for something better. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The interview doesn't talk about the Lupin III name issue, zero line about it. Only the introduction section of the article mention juridic problem with Lupin III. That why i'm not fan of that reference because only the introduction support the statement and not the interview itself plus the introduction is somewhat quickly done by persons not really experts in anime. That why i don't give much weight to this reference --KrebMarkt 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I recall a mention of the changing of the name being done for legal reasons but the details not made public. This is quite common in out-of-court settlements. You question the validity of my source since it is a site that deals with movies in general and not anime in particular. KrebMarkt mentions Animeland and a page on their site does mention that "Lupin se fasse appeler Edgar pour éviter les problèmes de droits" ("Lupin is called Edgar in order to avoid legal difficulties"). Would this be a more acceptable source?--Marktreut (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is: What is the statement you support with the reference? From what i can tell the Anime Land references can support as far as "potential legal issue" but no further. Your edits implied a 100% certainty of the legal issue that Maurice Leblanc's relatives would have sued but with what we have as reference we can't prove it.

Is the statement worth mention in the article as i wrote above i'm neutral because on one side we don't want in the article every single localized name given to Lupin III from around the world and on the other side that Arsene Lupin's country so there is at least a tenuous link to Lupin III. --KrebMarkt 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More perspective: There is a kind of irony around that potential Lupin legal issue because Maurice Leblanc on his time had a similar issue with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Thus was published Arsene Lupin vs. Herlock Sholmes [sic]. --KrebMarkt 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it the issue you are raising is WHY did they change the name when it came to French broadcasting? How about this: we remove the statement that specifies that it was changed "for legal reasons" and simply put in that: 1) the name of the character was changed for French broadcasting; 2) only some 50 episodes were broadcast; and 3) that this change was in the very country where the name "Lupin" originated. Readers can draw their own conclusions on the issue, but we will have specified the fact without speculating on the reasons.--Marktreut (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's more an accuracy issue. With what we have, we can only support a "potential legal issue" and not a "certainty of legal issue". Your previous edits implied the later and not the former. You were building a demonstration to assert that the name changed because Maurice Leblanc's relatives would have certainly sued which was not proved. That's a subtle difference but an important one. --KrebMarkt 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands at the moment states that the fact that the character was described as a descendant of Arsène Lupin led "to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate" but does not mention whether or not the estate ever threatened to sue either. Should that be taken out, or can I proceed to put in how those issues were pertly overcome in France itself without reference to the legal side of things?--Marktreut (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Call me overly cautious if you want but i prefer "potential" copyright issues because no publishers dared the devil and so no official reaction from the Maurice Leblanc's relatives. Whatever out-of-court settlements happened or not, it's wikipedia and we don't have room for unverified stuff. From my perspective the French "Lupin III" issues are +20 years old so things had time to get deformed & rumors can become realty :( That why i prefer "potential" rather than "eventual". --KrebMarkt 05:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then, let's replace "eventual" with "potential", but still mention the way the character's name was changed for French broadcasting.--Marktreut (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing convincing arguments for why we should mention it. Why is it relevant to readers of the english wiki? There is still no consensus as to why it was done, or if it's actually a "big deal" or random trivia. All we have is conflicting evidence. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

@Dandy Sephy. Thanks for joining in. I feel relieved. I can wipe some sweats from me forehead now. --KrebMarkt 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy issue is fixed or so. What is left is the relevance to English wikipedia issue.

The only argument is the meta-fictional link between Lupin III & Arsène Lupin. Will this be enough to justify addition into the article i leave it to others editors.

I'm French so my judgment from the inside is NOT reliable worse i spend my grade school trying to avoid watching this series. You can conclude that i'm close to the i don't like it level. --KrebMarkt 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still without fixed internet, so sorry for the delay :) That and some time away from the article was needed after 5 weeks of editing the damm thing :P Really I think being French isn't a problem, if anything it's welcome to the discussion. I remain unconvinced, and I can't really add anything that I haven't already said over the last month. I think the fact that the information being added is considered to be "controversial" suggests that it shouldn't be added. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At the worst we wait two years and Maurice Leblanc's rights will expire and the name won't be a problem anymore :p --KrebMarkt 19:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to the Arsene Lupin website. At a glance it appears to be about Maurice Leblanc's old house but it is apparently the closest there is to an official site. Anyway, I contacted the various email addresses and asked them about the background surrounding the Lupin III debacle. Emails were sent back, the senders saying that they would pass the issue on to Leblanc's granddaugther, Mrs Florence Boespflug-Leblanc, but after a week I have not heard a thing. Apparently she and her late father, Claude, are "particulièrement sensible à tout ce qui pourrait ressembler à des pastiches du personnage créé par son grand-père" (French for: "particularly sensitive to anything that may appear to be pastiches of the character created by her grandfather") which might explain a few things. I know that simple emails do not amount to hard evidence but, again, if we avoid mentioning the legal issues we could get away with this. Anyway, I am again raising this point in the article because I stand by the idea that it is odd that the name should be altered in a country where the name "lupin" is as famous as "Holmes".--Marktreut (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So your irrational desire to force in information against consensus has now taken to hassling the estate over the issue, knowing full well that none of this will pass as evidence? This is beyond ridiculous, you are ignoring all attempts to resolve the issue and are acting against consensus constantly by reinserting the same comments that have already been dismissed. Please stop acting in your own personal interests and forcing the issue, or you may be referred to the admin noticeboard. It's clearly passed assuming good faith now, you are no longer acting in the interest of wikipedia, only your own personal mission. It's disruptive and may lead to a topic ban. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The matter of who is being "irrational" is a debate in itself given the fact that clear and reliable evidence to support my claim is being constantly ignored and dismissed. And I was not "hassling the estate" I was simply curious to know what their thoughts were on the subject. Is that now a crime? I knew from the start that any reply would not pass as "evidence", I was simply interested to know their side of the story. One of the correspondents who deigned to reply did say that it was a "relevant" question. As for "personal missions", well, I'm the one who's trying to provide information while others are dedicating themselves to deny it, so who is "no longer acting in the interest of wikipedia"? Consensus is about reaching an agreement and all we have done is agree to disagree, so can we please come to some kind of compromise to satisfy both sides? Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You aren't giving clear reliable evidence though, otherwise it wouldn't keep being contested. Yet you keep inserting the exact same statements using the exact same sources despite repeated objections. It's not a crime to ask the estate, but it's highly dubious as to what your aims were. Theres no way you would have gotten an answer then not tried to use it in the article, and such additions would not be acceptable per KrebtMarkt's comments below. Theres still no real proof that it wasn't anything other then a concious decision, the estate isn't necessariy involved (and the Lupin name was used for later releases, why would they not use the same name as they started with?). You are arguing the information is important, but your only claim for this is simply that it's involving a famous french character. Thats not enough. As for consensus, there are four editors involved here, 3 of them agree and only you disagree. Sounds like good consensus to me. You ask to compromise, but you involve yourself in the discussion, and then ignore that consensus and re-add the information anyway when you think it's died down. Then you come to the talk page and do the same thing again. You've been asked to discuss your edits first and ignore that request too. It's an endless circle and you haven't learned. You also admitted several weeks ago that you won't drop the issue until you have your way, and so far you've kept to that. You've been given chances, and you keep wasting them. That's no ones fault but your own. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Guess it can't be helped :(

Concerning the content and references.

• The first references Marktreut used were not from reliable sources. The link to Youtube video is memorable albeit not RS.
• Second time RS references were twisted in interpretations and meanings to support his views see Anime Land refs.
• Third time he used a "tailored" reference from a RS unfortunately that RS can't claim expertise in anime field beyond the basis, doing so he conspicuously discarded dissonant views from other RS see Anime Land refs again.
• Fourth while Marktreut has the very right to ask the persons involved in the issue directly, he can't as he admitted, use his findings from that avenue to prove his point and yet he is argumenting as if they are which is contradictory. I should note how precarious is the situation as not only the Lupin III name statement can be contested but also Florence Boespflug-Leblanc's position on her ancestor works can also be contested like any BLP related statement.

Concerning the edits from the end of the GA re-assessment.

• If we check article history. Twice Marktreut tried to force the issue by editing first and discussing afterward while he is very aware of the non consensus both on content & relevance. That lead me to believe that Marktreut will accept a comprise not because he think it's the best for the article but because he was coerced to. It means that Marktreut will likely re-edit the contentious part if he get any new element supporting his point and without consulting others editors like he did previously.

I will restate my position: the content must be both accurate & verifiable if not put it into a freezer until it's both and i lack knowledge & empathy toward that series to make a judgment concerning the relevance. --KrebMarkt 09:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut would like to ask some questions:

1) Did the heirs to the Leblanc estate object to the use of the name Lupin III, yes or no?

2) Is the name "Lupin" one of the most famous in French literature, yes or no?

3) Were episodes of the anime dubbed and broadcast for the French market, yes or no?

4) Was the name of the central character changed from Lupin III to something else, yes or no?

Answer "no" to just one of these questions with a persuasive argument and I will drop the matter, otherwise I will persist. As for my references: well, when you add them up they do sort of make a case in themselves.--Marktreut (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AS i wrote, you are building a demonstration that suit your position disregarding others refs which may nuance or contradict your point which is not NPOV. Furthermore adding refs together won't make them neither more reliable nor more acceptable to support your statement. --KrebMarkt 12:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All I've done is ask some questions.--Marktreut (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Which have still not be answered, and leads to the conclusion that I'm right. OK, how about this: at the moment we have a paragraph which appears to be there to stay: "Monkey Punch did not ask permission to use the character's name, leading to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate" and refers to the lupinencyclopedia.com page. Could we add: "which resulted in the central character's name being changed when published or broadcast abroad, including in the US and France", which is (for the US at least) confirmed by the same page and I think it's been proved beyond doubt that the same thing happened in France.--Marktreut (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest source to make my case and one which even Dandy Sephy seems to like: in the lupinencyclopedia.com site, under "Known Aliases", they list the variations of Lupin III's name in a number of countries. No, these are not actual aliases that he himself adopts on his travels, they ARE the names by which he was renamed when his show was broadcast abroad. Ask Luis A. Cruz, the webmaster, if he could confirm that this is the case. As for the relevance: well, the most famous character in French literature is renamed when a series inspired by him is broadcast on French TV — as Quasirandom put it, it is of scholarly interest.--Marktreut (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And as previously mentioned further up the page, that page only gives an alternate name, it does not directly give supporting evidence as to why it was done or why the show itself was renamed. This is the crux of the matter. No one is questioning that the name is correct, they are questioning the evidence and reasons. The page you mention does not tell us the series was renamed for the french market or why, nor does it discuss the effects of doing so. Using that page to support the renaming of the series, the motives or reasoning is interpretation, and synthesis. If Mr Cruz discussed the matter in some actual detail on the site (I haven't found it yet)then it may be acceptable to use, but this is not currently the case. Nor would personal correspondence that you suggested elsewhere and previously above be acceptable, it needs to be clearly discussed on the site itself. You still need to prove it's of scholarly interest. Simply claiming it is true doesn't make it so, the evidence needs to say it is. These are all things I know you are aware of and have been told by neutral parties, but they have to keep being reworded or repeated. If a reliable source doesn't directly support what you are saying, it's no more suitable then a unreliable source. The link above doesn't work as you want it to, however it could be used in conjunction with another suitable reliable source if you or someone else can provide one for discussion first. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia dwelves on what happened without going into the "why" it was done. For example, we have many instances of how historical movies differ from the facts — without specifying why the film-makers did it. To not make the reasons public is actually quite common. I know a lot of journalists who cover stories in which deals are made behind-the-scenes involving lawyers and/or politicians. The details of these deals are often kept secret which means that all the press can do is report on the results rather than how they were achieved. I do no see why that cannot be done here: specify a fact without going into the nitty-gritty of why it was done. If you'd rather, we could put the statement on a separate paragraph with a link to the lupinencyclopedia.com which specifies that the name was changed in the US. (We'll deal with the worldwide consequences later but at least it will be a start).--Marktreut (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the protection has been removed, any reactions to my latest proposal?--Marktreut (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal, again, still has no consensus and still is purely OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How about just dropping it? You've not been able to convince anybody to include the information and tendentious editing will eventually result in you getting blocked. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean OR? It comes from a website which Dandy Sephy has praised. What more do you want?--Marktreut (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

for the last time, thesite does nor explicitly state what you suggest it does, nor does it provide explanation for that specifc change. It only states lupin had a different name in France, not why or that the series was renamed. You are interpreting information again by combining sources that aren't saying what you say they are saying. It doesn't matter how reliable the site is when you are taking statements out if context. Why you are asking to insert something that has already been removed and explained is beyond me. Also beyond me us why you still fail to grasp these simple explanations after over a monthiver the same Issue. It's clear from here andother examples that you have a long standing issue over the proper use of sources. Please stop wasting everyones time by failing to learn or being downright stubborn. All you do is attempt to use the same questionable reasons and exact same methods that have been dismissed. I'm sure there are better ways to contribute to wikipedia. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I understand that the cartoon and anime sections of WP have reached a level of fear and paranoia that is going way out of control, to the point where less information is welcome and more facts are anathema. Even evidence backed by a high court judge would quite likely be rejected, not because it is not true but because it too unimportant and so on and so on. "Less is best, more is evil, facts are irrelevant". It's sad.--Marktreut (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Florence Boespflug-Leblanc has very kindly answered my email that I sent on this issue. She and her father regarded the animes as no more than "pirated" versions of her grandfather's creation. However, "Par courtoisie pour le diffuseur français qui avait acheté ces productions en toute bonne foi, et pour ne pas lui porter un préjudice financier, nous lui avons demandé de supprimer toutes les allusions au personnage d'Arsène Lupin. C'est ce qui vous explique la diffusion de cette série sous le titre de "Edgar, le Détective-Cambrioleur". ("Out of courtesy towards the French broadcaster who had bought these productions in good faith, and in order not to cause him financial harm, we asked him to suppress all references to the character of Arsène Lupin. This would explain the broadcasting of this series under the title of 'Edgar, the Burglar-Detective'".) She adds this was an amicable arrangement and that they did not go before the courts. I realise that an email, even from a good source, is not good enough for certain people, but anyway we have an answer.--Marktreut (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Castle of Cagliostro sells

11K BR --KrebMarkt 11:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)