Ask The Tropers

Yeah, the original entries did contain citations to official sources and interviews which for some reason thatother1dude claims they're questionable.

They further allege misrepresentation of one of the interviews uses as a source, and while whether meddling from a series editor itself qualifies as Executive Meddling can be debated, the point is still proven that it wasn't the author's original intention to include those characters, even if he changed his mind afterwards.

Edited by matruz

... I'd say he made the entry a lot more neutral. There was no need for the entry on one character to start with "dislikes Sakura just as much as the majority of the fandom does" (seriously, you're saying getting rid of that is a "lack of neutral wording"?) and then have three wall-of-text bullet points in there?

And the now-existing entry still seems fine, having two official sources and still making it plain he doesn't like Sakura. Could be a bit more, but good lord, the old entry was needlessly over-the-top. Clear Concise Witty, people.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

^ I disagree with you, because:

• There are many other entries there that are written like that. For example, there's this: "The writers of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic grew to dislike Kennedy as much as the audience did, despite Joss Whedon's love for the character." <— This entry in the Comic Books section is still written as it is. And Sakura is known for being The Scrappy in the Naruto community, much like how Kennedy is known for being The Scrappy in the Buffy community, so saying that "Kishimoto dislikes her just as much as the fandom does" is indeed valid, given the 4 sources that were originally written in that entry that conveyed his dislike for her. If it can be written like that in one section, then why can't it be written like that in another?
• Also, the Sailor Moon entry has two sub-entries that state that Mamoru was hated, so why can't Kishimoto's dislike for Sakura have more than one sub-entry, especially when, again, there are 4 valid interviews where he stated his dislike for her?
• The description of Creator's Pest clearly states that Executive Meddling is one reason for a creator not liking a character. And the 2014 Jump Festa interview clearly stated that Kishimoto's first editor told him to create Sakura (and Sasuke). So she was indeed created because of Executive Meddling, as matruz pointed out, so that is still valid information that did not need to be deleted.
• I'll admit, the entry regarding the information from the 2014 Fuji TV Kobayashi interview could have indeed been trimmed down, but other than that, the rest of the sub-entries should have stayed as they were because they were already concise and they still pertained to the trope overall.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

So, just to clarify, this is the original entry. It's not one, but two giant wall of texts with a third reasonably sized bullet:

• Naruto: Masashi Kishimoto dislikes Sakura just as much as the majority of the fandom does:
  • In this 2010 Jump Festa interview, Kishimoto admits that Sakura hasn't been much of a heroine by that point, and that there is no way she would become Hokage before Naruto. He also confesses that he intentionally made Sakura "detestable" for giving Naruto her infamous fake love confession in Chapter 469:
    Sakura's Voice Actress: With the latest developments, Sakura has...

Kishimoto: That chick is detestable for using Naruto's good will, but, well that's just how I'd think to write a realistic girl. You hear all the time that Sakura is a detestable person, but that's what seems to be the intention.

• In this 2014 Fuji TV Kobayashi interview, Kishimoto reveals that he thought Sakura would appeal to female fans, but he was surprised when she actually became hated. He acknowledges that a lot of people, including young girls, hate Sakura, and it's gotten to the point where he now continues on regretting her character as well. He also explains that the reason why Sakura's parents have never appeared in any canon work is specifically because of her Hatedom—Sakura is that unpopular that even if he expanded on her character by making her parents canon, she would still be hated and both she and her parents would be on the sidelines anyways, so he saw no point in canonizing them. As time went on, it was too late for Kishimoto to drop Sakura, so he tried to increase her popularity by making her more physically beautiful without changing her characterization, but in the end it had no effect because no one noticed. Finally, he states that Sakura was "always a pain to draw."
• At approximately 25:00 of this 2015 Viz Shonen Jump podcast, Kishimoto states that Sakura is not his favorite female character, because she's really violent and "kind of a hard woman."

Moreover, that first bullet is actually irrelevant as-written. Saying that she's written as "detestable" has nothing to do with anything. Joffrey from Game Of Thrones was written as detestable but that's his specific appeal. In fact, the only reason to leave that in is if you want to paint Kishimoto as a misogynist which is... weird.

And take a look at Example Indentation in Trope Lists. It's summed up pretty simply: "The shortest version: Bullet points are for examples, not comments about examples." There's one example. There's no need for three bullet points.

Keep it at one bullet point, ignore the irrelevant 2010 interview, fold in some of the info in the 2014 interview, and move on.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

"There are many other entries there that are written like that."

As the mods have said on more than one occasion, other people doing it wrong doesn't give us license to do the same. That other entries aren't being written in a correct fashion doesn't mean we ignore the ones we can fix.

Edited by sgamer82

^I think "giant walls of text" is a little of an overstatement. The second entry could use some trimming though.

@Larkmarn:

• I'll concede that the 2010 interview does not fit Creator's Pest, so it can stay deleted.
• And I'll concede again that the 2014 Fuji TV Kobayashi interview should be trimmed down.
• However, I think that the 2014 Jump Festa interview regarding Executive Meddling should stay because Executive Meddling did happen with Sakura and it's mentioned in the main description of Creator's Pest.
• I also think that the 2015 Viz interview should stay because it's already concise and to the point.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

You know what, I was operating from an older edit and didn't realize there was a fourth bullet point with another 2014 interview. Here it is:

• In this 2014 Jump Festa interview, Kishimoto reveals that Sakura was included in the narrative because of Executive Meddling. He admits that he didn't plan on creating her because he's not good with female characters.

And... Jesus, that shouldn't be included. The actual quote in the interview goes "I wasn't planning on this initially. But once I established the triangle, it became a lot easier to create the characters after that. I was surprised by how good that advice was." That last sentence is damning. It shows it's neither executive (since it's not a mandate, it's "advice") nor is it meddling since he specifically says it was a good idea.

You're misrepresenting the interview so much I'm beginning to question a lot more of the statements I've been taking for granted.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

• Kishimoto still did not want to create Sakura on his own accord because he said "I'm not good with female characters, so I wasn't planning on this initially." Key phrase: "wasn't planning." So he did not plan on creating her (or Sasuke) on his own volition. And Kishimoto's editor told him to add and establish her (and Sasuke). So Kishimoto's editor did in fact meddle — his editor had to tell him to create Sakura (and Sasuke) because he himself did not think to create them, nor did he plan on creating them, of his own choosing. So it still counts as Executive Meddling.
• I'm starting to think that a moderator should get involved with this, because I don't want this to turn into a full-blown argument that'll get us in trouble. Especially when I've already agreed that at least one sub-entry should stay deleted and another should be trimmed down.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

These examples are not a Wall of Text but it looks like much of the text is irrelevant and some points of the trope are missed - for one thing "he thought Sakura would appeal to female fans" is not in and of itself Character Shilling. So I am actually not awerse towards cutting them.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

@SeptimusHeap: Based on the original entry, I agree that the 2010 interview should stay deleted, no questions about it. But shouldn't the information from some of the other sub-entries be trimmed down at least, and not completely cut?

• For example, the 2014 Fuji TV Kobayashi interview (the information of which was admittedly long originally) has Kishimoto stating that he acknowledges Sakura's unpopularity with the fandom and that he himself regrets her character (here's the exact quote: "Kobayashi asks if there was a lot of Sakura hate, and Kishimoto says there was, and even young girls told him they hate her. Kishimoto said that he continued on regretting Sakura’s character. Kobayashi apologizes for bringing up the painful memories as Kishimoto apologizes for tailing off"). At the very least, Kishimoto admitting that he continued on regretting Sakura's character should stay.
• I've already pointed out how Executive Meddling was indeed in play, and matruz also pointed that out earlier above.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

Advice can come from any quarter. Executive Meddling is when someone can force the original creator to change things. A friend does not have "executive veto" over your work, and they cannot force you to include characters that they suggested.

---

Note: Creator's Pest doesn't mandate that executive meddling be involved. "I'm not good with female characters, so I wasn't planning on this initially." This quote can still be used to show he doesn't like Sakura, but the larger context doesn't support Executive Meddling.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

"Maybe that character is born out/modified because of an Executive Meddling." <— That's on the main description of Creator's Pest.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

Maybe: This is not a requirement.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

@crazysamaritan — I'll agree with you on that, because the description's usage of the word "maybe" does mean that it's not necessarily required. However, again, at the very least, Kishimoto admitting that he continued on regretting Sakura's character, from the 2014 Fuji TV Kobayashi interview, should stay.

Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

That's a nonsequitor; it's the Jump Fiesta interview falsely stating Executive Meddling. Nobody said to remove the Fuji TV interview. Larkmarn specifically said it should be incorporated into the example.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Oh~ I completely misread that. I apologize for not reading that correctly.

However, @crazysamaritan, I'm still confused about what you said earlier: so Kishimoto's quote in the Jump Festa interview can still be used to convey his dislike of her (because he makes it clear that he didn't initially plan on creating her specifically because he's not good with female characters), but how come that doesn't overall fit the context of Executive Meddling? I thought that because his editor told him to create her and Sasuke since he didn't think nor plan to create them on his own accord, it did fit Executive Meddling? I'm trying to understand, that's all.

"In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

Because that's not how meddling works. It's not "meddling" if someone says "you should try this soup" and I go "oh man, I love soup, that's a great idea." It fits neither the definition nor the spirit or the trope.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Moving this Executive Meddling discussion to another post.

"In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

@crazysamaritan why did you already change Executive Meddling? I haven't finished talking to the moderators about that yet. I don't think you should've changed it when there's clearly still disagreement over it.

"In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction

Maybe tell us where this discussion is? Saying "we'll discuss it elsewhere" when the discussion turns against you (since it's not on ATT nor is it on any discussion page) reeks of bad faith, especially in light of everything else.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

At the very least there's nothing of the discussion pages for Executive Meddling, ExecutiveMeddling.Anime, Creator's Pest, nor anything from ~mouschilight in the forums; and the last ATT query to mention Executive Meddling in its opening post I could find when I searched "Executive" is from May.

Edited by sgamer82

No Discussion activity from mouschilight in 2018 at all.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

For one thing, the original entry, besides being a massive wall of text, reeked of Sakura-bashing; it was in dire need of some trimming. All four bullet points said the same thing: fans hate Sakura, Kishimoto hates Sakura. It's excessive; you can get the point across in one small paragraph.

Concerning the various sources and whether they should all be included: again, excessive. One valid citation from a respectable site is enough. You can't include every source you can find as a source; it's not a thesis.

I say we let the example stay as it is. It's not bashing Sakura (it's saying that she isn't Kishi's favorite character, not that he utterly loathes her) and it gets the point across: fans and creator alike dislike this particular character.

- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!

The current entry is fine as written. The previous Wall of Text was cluttered with the usual bile and the wording did not make the entry any more interesting.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer