Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura: Clear Card

Eriol Hiiragizawa's house

Upon watching Episode 8, I was surprise to see Eriol's house, formerly Clow Reed's, still standing. According to Cardcaptor Sakura Movie 2: The Sealed Card: the mansion was supposedly demolished and an amusement park built on top of it where the events involving the mysterious Clow Card, THE NOTHING, took place. Assuming the whole film was an original story escalating the romantic relationship between Sakura and Syaoran, not a canon, until Episode 10 showing Sakura had photos of her time during the play in the film while Akiho is visiting, this is inconsistent in the sequel series. Unless Nakayoshi the author can explain this illusion, the story doesn't add up.

Let me or us know if there's a logical explanation in upcoming episodes. Nanashi II(Talk) March 18, 2018.

In Episode 21, there were clues that the mansion had to be some kind of illusion or reality had been twisted, which the protagonists didn't even notice. June 3, 2018.

Political piece added as reception

I don't see how the link to Anime Feminist actually has anything to do with the reception of the series. It is just a piece of propaganda posted by a user (Historyday01) who specifically adds LGBTQ+ stuff wherever they can. I believe it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakusan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I wouldn't call it a "piece of propaganda," Dakusan, who happened to come out of the woodwork for this specific article, even though you haven't made any edits since 2015. It is one of the many reviews out there, and I thought it was interesting because it is critical of the series, and that it connected back to the original series, making a comparison between the two. I can't say whether the review is right or wrong, because I have not watched Clear Card yet, but it seemed well thought-out to me. And yes, I add LGBTQ+ stuff wherever, but what's the problem with that? --Historyday01 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a completely uninvolved editor, knowing nothing about the subject, but I think this seems "crow-barred" in. Just because a random critic wants an intellectual property to do X, Y, or Z advocacy - is it notable? To devil's advocate, if another critic wanted the property to advocate for less LGBTQ inclusion - would we then include that as well? Unless the subject is notable for advocating one thing or another, I do not see why it needs to be put in. Ifnord (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a a pretty clear-cut case where Dakusan is in the right. The ANN citation at least provides an analysis of the show itself (however short). A random site complaining that a show wasn't as explicit with it's LBGTQ representation doesn't actually seem helpful to somoene wishing to know whether the show was well-received or not. Also the fact that the person thinks the FOCUS of CCS was on 'explicitly representing LGBTQ characters' shows that they're more interested in a political agenda than analysing the show itself. 74.109.246.136 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add to what I already said: A 'reception' section should try to capture a wide-view of what people thought of a given product. Hence why it's good that information about sales is included. Next should be reviews from reputable sources, not niche online sites that only cover niche topics. 74.109.246.136 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I don't see any issue with adding this subject into the article, as it is just ONE perspective, and it isn't even a perspective I agree with (as I thought CCS was actually pretty good). Including it provides more of a "wide-view" of the subject, actually. I would say Anime Feminist is reputable, even if everyone doesn't always agree with what they have to say. Ifnord, I have to disagree with you on this subject as I think it is something that COULD be of interest to readers, especially considering the growing number of pages on LGBTQ topics.Historyday01 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because you are critical of the content of the site and the views of its editors in general is not a barrier to adding it to the article as an evaluation of the show. I, too, have a very negative opinion of this resource, but I see no problem in citing it as a secondary source. If you think that Anime Feminist is generally not suitable as a source, then you have no choice but to post it on the source evaluation forum. "I don't share the point of view of the resource" is not enough. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The point is the review has little to do with the actual reception of the show at large,just that of a niche community. And again I'll reiterate that pretending that 'the explicit representation of lqbtq characters' was never'focus' of the work, that's obviously misleading. As much as that element of the original show now gets praised by a certain type of fan in the West, it's at most a minor element of the show. 74.109.246.136 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is original research. Even if queer themes are secondary to the show, the show still features some very famous queer characters and is widely discussed within LGBT representation and its "different kinds of love" narrative. Not to mention, it wasn't just Anime Feminist who criticized the show's more heterosexual tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if queer themes are secondary in the show, it is still worth mentioning here. And I'd be completely fine with having more sources to the reception section that also criticize "the show's more heterosexual tone" as you put it. Historyday01 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sakura is also a pretty famous character in lolicon circles, but I imagine if I were to post reviews that discussed this fact you'd consider it arbitrary to the show itself. If what X-community thinks of a show warrants its inclusion in the reception section of wikipedia articles, then we might as well include everyone's point of view, whether it actually pertains to a real focus of the show or not. 74.109.246.136 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This may be added to the article if any authoritative sources discuss it. But I don't think that fan-made sexual content with an underage female character can be compared to the discussion of canon queer characters on the show. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree and personally would doubt that any authoritative sources discuss the reported fame of Sakura in lolicon circles, since there are so many characters that enter the so-called "Rule 34" area (thanks to some people), even so much that are said communities on some sites. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think describing it in the article is a very important point, but if it's necessary, you can always add a brief mention that the characters are so widely popular that they even often appear in adult sexual content. That is, far beyond the target audience of the show. Whatever the original show, if its characters are popular in the doujinshi at the comiket, then it's a success. In my memory, only Pokemon and Uma Musume have suffered from this, as the reputation of a kids brand or a real-life sport does not go well with such content. CLAMP doesn't care, they themselves started as a BL doujinshi circle. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. I can agree that describing it in the article isn't a very important point, and it definitely is beyond the show's target audience, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

(Notified from WT:LGBT) After a short glance at this and surrounding articles (esp. LGBT themes in anime and manga#Cardcaptor Sakura) LGBT representation appear to be a well-discussed aspect of this work and its predecessor, and a valid means of comparison to the original. Anime Feminist appears to be an established (if small) online review publication with an editorial staff, making them an apparently reliable secondary source, and not a “random critic” or blog. As such their critique looks due for inclusion. So far, arguments for exclusion seem focused on non-policy rationales (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and dog-whistling about “propaganda” and “political agenda” (WP:AGF) neither of which are persuasive or consensus-building. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I would not call it "small", the site is actively promoted by a number of large anime resources due to ideological connections. For example, Okazu and ANN. Personally, I don't think we should be talking here at all about whether the LGBT theme in the show is important or not. Even if the show didn't preach "all kinds of love" and doesn't had meaningful representation through a number of characters, the opinion of reputable sources would still make sense to add. Regardless of my or OP's extreme skepticism about the resource from an ideological point of view. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no familiarity with the work and am not making an argument about the importance or meaningfulness of any queer characters it may have. The fact that various other sources exist which also discuss LGBT representation in this franchise is evidence that discussion of this aspect of this work is (presumably) notable and deserving WP:DUEWEIGHT. I agree with you that AF’s opinion might very well be notable even if that were not the case. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It definitely deserves due weight, for sure. And whether I agree with what AF is saying here isn't really an issue either. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that sources dedicated to discussing lqbtq media talk about possible lgbtq representation in a show doesn't mean this aspect of the work is notable and deserving of mention. Have you ever heard the expression, 'to a hammer, everything is a nail?' Maybe if this was something that got WIDE ranging discussion outside of circles completely dediated to such things you'd have a point. 74.109.246.136 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The directive of WP:DUEWEIGHT is to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The political leanings of a source, the relative prevalence of a viewpoint among a fanbase or other critics are not especially relevant factors in whether to include a review, only whether (1) AF is a WP:reliable source for this context, and (2) whether this is a “significant viewpoint”. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. AF is pretty unabashed about their views, but I would say that in the case of this series, it makes sense to include them since LGBTQ themes are such a big part of the original Cardcaptor Sakura. I found some other reviews from CBR, IGN here and here, the Animation Scoop, Gamerant (maybe), Den of Geek (or any of the other episode reviews by the same publication), and perhaps this magazine.Historyday01 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think AF is "propagandist" or anything, and in this case, I think it's fine to note their perspective (as with other series) given the relevance other editors have noted; and I say this as someone who blatantly disagree with AF articles most of the time (lol). Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I can agree, and am planning on adding in the reviewers from other sites I mentioned in an earlier comment very shortly, as more reviews can't hurt. Historyday01 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)