The most reliable way to determine this is by what manga magazine the series ran in. 69.207.4.244 ( talk) 04:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Seinen, Shōnen, Shōjo, and Josei are simply the audiences which a manga is targeted for. Farix ( t | c) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) So if seinen aka ADULT ANIME (a demographic) is not defined by blood and boobs, then please educate me what you define seinen as. So we go with the demographic of the magazine it was serialized in. 69.207.4.244 ( talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) There is nothing in that link that verifies that it is seinen. But personally I don't really care what wikipoopia does either way. There is no way the demographic for this is shonen with as much nudity sex and violence this manga has. Farix ( Talk) 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC) It's being sold as seinen. Unless you have some other reliable source stating otherwise, the verifiable demographic is shōnen. Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.165.241 ( talk) 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC) This manga ran in Champion Red, which is a shōnen magazine. This series is definitely seinen and I think this does not need citation. I replaced "shonen" for "seinen" in the "demographic" category of the info-box. Cheers, ask123 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Shōnen vs Seinen It is my personal opinion that the show depicts hyperbolized violence - violence that is more accurate than most historical fiction but still hyperbolized nonetheless. Also, please note that, yes, the story does depict violence, but is the level of violence accurate to the violence of the historical time period? That's another matter. If that opinion is so widespread, then it shouldn't be hard. Fifth, if so many reviews cite the story's violence, then include a citation with that claim. If you source that statement, you can write it, but you cannot claim it without sourcing. Fourth, just because the manga says it's story is accurate to the historical time period does not mean it is so. (Is it here?) There are guidelines for writing about fictional works at WP:Writing about fiction and guidelines for writing about manga and anime at WP:Writing about manga and anime. Third, if it's from the manga itself, then it still needs to be properly sourced and should not be taken word for word, as that would be plagiarism. You can't count on readers to just know that. Second, if it's not historical information, then that should be made clear. There are guidelines for writing lead sections in WP:Lead section. Killridemedly 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC) First, if the information before the "Story summary" section is from the manga itself and not from history, then it should be placed outside of the lead section. Also, check EVERY review and tell me how many don't make a note to mention violence. The opening summary is from the MANGA'S opening, not actual historical context. If you would like to express opinions on other people's work of art, please refer to this section on Wiki neutrality policy that explains one of the only situations in which editors are permitted to express subjective views on Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia prohibits original research. I, personally, think it is more accurate than most shows of this genre, but I wouldn't say that unless I could cite a credible expert or source. And, who says that's accurate to the time period. For example, the sentence, " The series is noted for its brutal, unflinching look at violence and depravity of its time period." contains the weasel phrase " is noted for." Noted by whom? Sure, the series presents unflinching violence, but you must attribute a statement like that to a reliable source. It is understood that the seppuku is implemented de facto (no hyphen in de facto, by the way). I also deleted de-facto from the phrase "would eventually be put to death by forced de-facto seppuku." This is a misuse of the phrase de facto. I deleted the parenthetical very, as in "(very) loosely based on." The word is clearly being used as a weasel word in this context and the parenthetical is unnecessary here, being used simply to augment the "weaseliness" of the word.