Talk:Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru

Removing THEM review

I don't think THEM's review should be listed on the page, simply because the premise of the review is ridiculous and flawed.

Genetic sexual attraction, which the reviewer falsely cites, is when two people (in this case, siblings) are separated at birth and first meet as adults.

The Westermarck effect is when (and he correctly cites this here) early contact of the opposite sex leads to non-sexual attraction.

The example he cites, Koi Kaze, is erroneous because it strictly follows the Westermarck effect, not genetic sexual attraction. Koshiro and Nanoka have a 10-year absence only. That was not the first time they have met, thus clearly not following genetic sexual attraction. In addition, there are many anime that defy the Westermarck effect too: Oh! My Goddess, Nadesico, D.N. Angel, Kanon, Da Capo, SHUFFLE!, To Heart, Lamune, Hani Hani Operation Sanctuary.. heck, every anime where the now-lovers were childhood friends.

Thus, I don't think it contributes to the article in any way. Rather, it is a red-herring to the integrity of all anime (not just this one) and serves no valuable, rhetorical purpose as cited in this specific article.

Further, and this part is my opinion, being 'unrealistic' is an asinine criticism of an anime. The nature of animation is not realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.106.127 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how flawed the review is (or, rather, how flawed you believe it is); THEM Anime has been vetted as a reliable source by WP:ANIME and its reviews are thus valid reception. I have undone your removal of the review; further removals will be reverted as vandalism. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? Talk to Dinoguy1000} 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait let me get this straight. You're telling me that no matter how flawed the argument is in the review (it's not just how _I_ believe it's flawed, I provided unmistakable evidence which you somehow awkwardly don't seem willing to discuss), it should be cited regardless of how reliable the content is? What kind of logic is that if you don't mind me asking. I don't think it's vandalism and your threat is unjustified. I find it outrageous that you are threatening vandalism after only one(1) well-reasoned and cited edit to the page. Then brushing it off that "It doesn't matter how flawed the review is" as long as the website itself is a valid source. I want a valid discussion here, not citing 'bogus' sources due to the fallacy from authority. If the review does not have valid points, it should not be cited. There's a fundamental difference between being a reliable source and having reliable information.

I await a reply, although preferably of someone who his interested in the contents of this article. In the meantime, I'm going to remove that line again (I'd like to discuss how it serves to improve this article before re-including it.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.106.127 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have been clearer about this: reviews are used as reception information, not as sources for stated facts in an article. It would be the height of folly to assume that everything in a review is factually correct; I doubt most reviewers are going to go the extra mile to make sure they are using the correct terminology on a subject as obscure as sexual attraction between siblings/blood relatives (and it is, actually, a fairly obscure subject; most people would simply label it "incest" and call it a day). This is also true here, the THEM Anime review is being used as reception information, not as analysis of the characters' relationships (this is shown by the statement you're having trouble with being a direct quote from the review, rather than a paraphrase). The most appropriate venue here would perhaps be to not use that particular statement from the review, but I don't typically do anything with reviews or reception information, so I'm not the one to make the change. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk to Dinoguy1000} 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, in context, most of what I wrote here is nonsense/incorrect. Unfortunately, I don't have the time currently to more carefully review all this and write a proper response. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk to Dinoguy1000} 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to ask the IP, how does Oh My Goddess! defy the Westermarck effect? Of that series, I have only seen the television anime Ah! My Goddess!, its 1994 OVA, and the movie...and there was no couple in that who grew up together and fell in love. Did that happen to a couple in the manga version? And, also, I do not feel that the Westermarck effect means childhood friends who grew up together, unless those childhood friends lived in the same house from birth or another very young age to the age of six or higher. As the Imprinting (psychology) article says of the Westermarck effect, "it operates during the critical period from birth to the age of six" and "when close proximity during this critical period does not occur, they may find one another highly sexually attractive."

As for you, Dinoguy1000...nah...most of what you wrote here was/is not nonsense/incorrect, but I do feel that the review rejected by the IP above is better left out of this article due to the flaw within it. It is better to not have people confused about the correct terminology. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

THEM anime is a reliable source for reviews. Whether he is incorrect in why he found it realistic doesn't matter. He isn't the first critic to get it wrong, even Roger Ebert has made factual errors before. That's why its there opinion. Simple tweaks address the issue, starting by more properly using the review instead of giving only a one-line snippet from it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Flyer22, yes the only qualification needed for the Westermarck effect is to spend the early childhood years together. In Oh! My Goddess, Belldandy and Keiichi were together during their childhood days until Belldandy left after their "pinky swear."

To AnmaFinotera, this section is WP:UNDUE. This review, which has gotten a lot of factual things wrong, does not need to be included in this section and serves no real purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing undue about it. It is a review of the work and it helps establish notability. Your personal belief that it is "factually wrong" is irrelevant. Yes, it doesn't need to be included. Your removal has been reverted as vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate why it should be included and how it has helped established any notibility of public reception. So far, it has only shown to be just another opinion. See: WP:FRINGE. Jonhan (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't reinclude material which is controversial until it is sorted out. See David Letterman's page for more details.Jonhan (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Its already demonstrated why it should be included. It is a review of the work, fully appropriate and a necessary component of any article on a fictional medium. The material is not controversial except to you because you seemingly disagree. You don't get to remove content just because you don't like it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "fringe" - THEM anime is an accepted expert in the field of anime/manga and their opinions are valuable, same as any other reliable, critical reviewer. Whether is opinion is based in an incorrect perception is also irrelevant. Stop removing valid content. David Letterman's article has nothing to do with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate why this particular review has affected the show in any way other than just another opinion. There are milliions of reviews out there for millions of other pieces of work -- not all of them are included regardless of whether or not they are "experts." To be a notable point of inclusion, it needs to have been notable in some way and you need to demonstrate that. The fact that someone 'does not agree with it' is irrelevant. You seem to be including it for the sake of including it, which is not what we do at Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia page, not a tabloid. Please don't reinclude the controversial material until it is sorted out here.Jonhan (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Its already been demonstrated, and yes we do include every reliable review in reception sections that are available. Reviews establish notability. Please don't speak like you have a clue what "we do at Wikipedia" when you're a newer editor who seems to have absolutely no idea what is and is not appropriate content nor how to edit. You are edit warring, plain and simple. Multiple experienced editors have now told you that you are acting inappropriately and violating Wikipedia's policies, but you continue to inappropriate attempt to remove valid content purely because you don't like their opinion. Stop removing non-controversial material or get blocked. Its that simple. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where has it been demonstrated? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is your argument: every single one of the millions of reviews (by experts) on any given movie/media needs to be included on every entry? Besides the fact that you keep claiming its a 'vetted source,' you have yet to demonstrate any other reason why this review deserves to be on this page. Not only that, but your expanded edit is even more extremely bias and your tone is not in good WP:FAITH. Jonhan (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Go look at any quality article. Articles will not pass GA or FA if they have not properly included all available RELIABLE reviews except in cases of redundancy (and even then, its included) And sorry, but there are never "millions" of reliable sourcable reviews available for any media, ever. There aren't that many reviewers. The review is from a reliable source, period. That is all it needs to be included on this page. You, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate how the review is biased in any way shape or form, and continue only demanding it be excluded because the reviewer made a single, relatively minor, error in terminology that you have also not yet proven, only claimed. Also, note, I've removed your 3O request as this is not a disagreement between two editors and does not qualify for 30. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at quality articles, unless you have something specific in mind, please feel free to link. There are millions of reviews available for movies, but if you want to be more specific -- for a single movie, there are dozens of reviews. What makes this review special, that is you need to ask the question "why should we care what this specific editor thinks?"

Here's an insultingly crude remark, openly 'crossed out' for viewers to see: "Really. Yeehaw I Love Mah Sis, Hyuh! Boku wa Imouto ni Koi o Suru is an unrealistic romanticization.."

But that was not my argument, my argument is that the premise of his whole argument is based on a false comparison, which is where he derives his conclusion. His claim that Koi Kaze is not based on the Westermarck effect but genetic sexual attraction is false (which additionally gives us reason to question their fact checking.) I've proven this, your argument still seems to be 'if it is a vetted source, it has to be included no matter what.' Do you have any other cause that you would like to put forth besides this?

Additionally, the weight of this single review is undue and because of this, there does not seem to be notable reason why this review needs to be included -- it has not seemed to notably affect the show in anyway and there's no evidence it has altered public perception of the movie.Jonhan (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing insulting nor crude about the remark, and it is not for you to question actual critical reviews just, again, because you think he made a minor error regarding the terminology. Fact checking is not an issue for a critical review, it is the opinion of an expert on the quality of the series that is valued and makes him a reliable source. If this were Roger Ebert, you would also demand it be excluded purely because of a minor error? Certainly not. Many reliable sources make mistakes, they are made by *gasp* HUMANS! You still have yet to give any valid reason not to cite a review of the work. Critical reception, including the reviews of reliable critics, are a valid and require part of an article on any film, movie, etc. Removing it does not help the article, it diminishes it. It is a reliable source, and, again, you have given no valid reason to remove it just because you (who, no offense, are not an expert nor a reliable source) disagree with his terminology use. And yes, without a REAL reason to remove it, it will continue to belong and it must be included. Period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you open for discussion or are you trying to assert your belligerency? Knock off the 'period' stuff please.

Now to your points, why it shouldn't be included is clear: it gives a false impression on the page based on a flawed argument that was not fact-checked. It also does not seem to have any effects on public perception of the movie outside of being linked on this page, atleast I'm still waiting for your evidence of this. It is my intention to include receptions that deserve special recognition for some reason, not including every review out there 'just because.'

In addition, you are asking for a double negative fallacy: proving why it should not be used when you are the one to prove why it should be used, then we can discuss that point. Do you have any other argument besides "it is a vetted source" and should be included no matter what? There are dozens of reviews for any given movie, but only the notable ones deserve special mention, which I don't see how this specific review provides this. What are your other reasons? Jonhan (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not give a false impression of anything. He disliked the series. That isn't a false impression. He thought something about it. Again, that is not false. How do you know it has had no effects on public perception? While looking to see if anyone else had reviewed the film, noted several people saying they had read the review. Please prove that ANY review has an effect on public perception. Most do not have notable effects, nor are they required to have some mythical proven effect to be included. Wikipedia does not operate that way. Reviews, like any other content, are included from reliable sources, not based on who might have read them. You continue to be the only one who argues it shouldn't be included, while no less than three editors say otherwise. Consensus already agrees it belongs. You are the one who needs to come up with a new argument to support your solo point of view. You continue operating on a flawed logic and giving flawed arguments. Reviews do NOT have to be "notable" ones to be included, they must come from reliable sources. It isn't a "special mention" it is a presentation of the available information from reliable sources. THEM Anime Reviews IS a reliable source for anime/manga topics. That's all there is to it. Just because you mistakenly believe that reception sources must "deserve special recognition" does NOT make it reality. Wikipedia does not pick and choose which reviews are special. Any review from any reliable sources is included in that article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to continue keeping this civil, whether you choose not to. So, "He disliked the series. That isn't a false impression." isn't what was initially included, nor what I am disputing. Here's what is: paraphrasing the review -- Boku wa~, this series, is unrealistic when compared to realistic films such as Koi Kaze because Koi Kaze does not defy the Westermarck effect (even though it does) while Boku wa~ does defy it. It's a false, misleading inclusive point that is based on flawed argument. This is the only inclusion I really find flawed and misleading in this article.

When I say public perception, I mean it has had a notable impact. For example, the feminists that criticized that Rapelay game at Amazon.com had a notable impact on the game. If the review also further progresses our knowledge of the movie is sufficiently notable too, but claiming it's unrealistic compared to Koi Kaze and leaving it like that is misleading. Jonhan (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never read the series nor the review, I have only read the discussion here. I am not here to judge who is right or wrong, I have no idea what the series or the review is saying. Yet, WP:UNDUE asks for exceptional claims requires exceptional sources, so unless the review is exceptionally not reasonable, or exceptionally minor that no body cares about it(the second is obviously not the case since it seems like more people supported keeping it in the article and only 1 person against it and claimed undue) It should not be removed. Also, wikipedia does not require correctness (per WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth), as long as the source is reliable and verifiable, it could be used. MythSearcher^talk 03:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was another user that agreed that the point about Westermarck effect should be disregarded, but AnmaFinotera so far only seems to be the one vehemently against this.Jonhan (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and also, I am talking about the inclusion of the source as a whole, not a specific wording the source uses. MythSearcher^talk 03:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of this line "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (under the verifiable link you posted of course.) I also have to ask about what you mentioned of WP:UNDUE, the Palin-Letterman incident had an enormous amount of sources but was dubbed undue by admins. I have to also add that the Westermarck effect was the whole basis for inclusion of the source since you said "the second is obviously not the case since it seems like more people supported keeping it in the article and only 1 person against it and claimed undue."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I noticed that the source is considered reliable by the consensus of the related wiki project, thus is should be claimt so unless you address the issue at the wiki project page. Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue. For an example of undue, try to have an article with a few dozen sources and only 1 stating something really unrelated. For example, stating Albert Einstein drank a glass of water early in the morning before he publish his nobel winning paper is quite undue. Having a review using an incorrect term is not undue in any sense. MythSearcher^talk 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So if what the source says is factually wrong, it needs to be included if as long as it is on a reliable source list, is this what you are saying? Jonhan (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what the WP:V page is saying, and it is one of the core policies of wikipedia. Of course if you could find multiple reliable sources stating similar reviews(giving the series pretty much the same comment), you could try to claim the incorrect one undue. Also, you might be able to find another source stating this particular review as incorrect, and include them both per WP:NPOV MythSearcher^talk 04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I doubt the latter will ever come up for such a low-profile piece like this OVA, heheh. Most certainly possible in a blog, but I don't see it happening in a published site as it is not significant enough. The first is possible but alas there are not a lot of review pages on the dubbed "vetted list of sources," and the ones that are on there of course falsely misuse concepts that are then quoted in Wikipedia. So where does that leave us to do.. Jonhan (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It leaves us doing what has already been done. Leaving the source in and moving on to continuing to work to improve the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to try something, try to raise the issue in WP:ANIME about the source not being reliable. I would not recommend you doing this since it is pretty much useless to change the consensus in a not very urgent matter with no help from long term regular editors(and do not try WP:CANVAS and WP:CABAL either). MythSearcher^talk 05:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To AnmaFinotera, that is by far the worst option -- leaving false and misleading information on this wikipage. I am very much willing to add improvements, even if you are indifferent to this page's quality standards.

To Mythsearcher, it is not so much that I would want to change the *source website being reliable*, it's more of the fact that everything published should not be included in entries if they are factually wrong. I'm sure they publish great reviews -- most of which are opinions too, so arguing against everything they publish is not something I want to do. But misusing facts is something I would be against on specific pieces.Jonhan (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not "indifferent" to the quality of the page, its just that I follow Wikipedia's quality standards, not your personal preferences. Whether you think its "factually" wrong doesn't matter. Again, per Wikipedia policy, WP:V, its a reliable source and the review, correct or not, can and should be cited. Again, it is a professional OPINION. Will you also argue that all films based on a "historical" even though be removed because they are incorrect? Will you argue that every last review on Wikipedia that has any minor error be removed because it has an error? And yes, everything published SHOULD be used, particularly in a work like this where there is little available. The review is valid, whether you like it or not. His opinion is valid, whether you like his misusing a term or not. Censoring it purely because of that one point is, frankly, ridiculous and overkill. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Facts are facts, not opinions. Koi Kaze following the Westermarck effect is a fact, not an opinion. You do seem indifferent because you are arguing for the inclusion of misleadingingly false points.

You act as if the Westermarck effect was a sidepoint, when before you edited it, it was the ONLY point in the entire reception. You added a few points about his opinion, but the whole argument revolves around using the Westermarck effect as a comparison, which you are brushing off to the side as if it was a side point. It's not a side point. "Will you also argue that all films based on a "historical" even though be removed" I have no idea what you mean by this, please elaborate. And no, I don't think every review should be used if it is factually wrong, and I question the very concept of a 'credibility list' where anything written by those specific sites are the word of God no matter how wrong it is objectively speaking. The subjective parts are fine imo though.Jonhan (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Westermarck IS A SIDEPOINT. It is not the basis of the whole argument. He didn't like the series, period. He wouldn't have liked it if he had never mentioned the Westermarck. You are the one excessively focusing on a minor part of the review. He didn't like the scenario, he really disliked the central character, and he didn't like the animation beyond the background. He also found it too compressed and rushed for the length. His throwing out the term Westermarck was a very minor point. For my argument, sorry, missed part of the sentence. Many films are based on historical events, but they are factually wrong. Their directors and producers frequently speak of the events in factually inaccurate ways. Will you demand all their remarks be removed because they got their history wrong? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since my attention has been drawn back to this (and only having skimmed the above discussion, so I may be reiterating prior arguments)... Whether the review is factually accurate is not germane to its inclusion here. If it were being used to source information on sexual attraction or the like, with that information presented as fact, then yes, there would be problems with the use of the review. However, it is being used to source the reviewer's opinion. The factual errancy, as AnmaFinotera pointed out above, is an exceedingly minor point and in no way invalidates the rest of the review, especially for use as reception information and for establishing notability. Reviewers have no obligation to make sure they're not talking out of their asses when discussing such esoteric topics in the context of their reviews (though such extra care is certainly nice when it's taken), and anyone using such reviews as authoritative sources of information on those esoteric topics deserves whatever he eventually has coming. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I understand Jonhan's concerns about wrong terminology being used in articles here at Wikipedia, but it is as Dinoguy1000 and AnmaFinotera say. Yes, I stated that I felt that the part Jonhan is against is better left out of this article, but that was because in addition to understanding his point, Dinoguy1000 had seemed to give in to the action of not including it and there were no more thoughts other than theirs on this talk page about it. I was hoping that AnmaFinotera would follow me here, because AnmaFinotera is someone I consider an expert here at Wikipedia regarding fictional character articles and other articles related to fiction, especially anime.

Jonhan, I completely understand your frustration about this, but this is how Wikipedia works. WP:Consensus is not with you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that I gave in, but rather that I decided I needed to more carefully review what the review actually said versus the definitions of the provided terminology and how the whole thing was being used in the article (or, to put it succinctly, I took the wrong route, as I said above). I never found the time to do that, though, and promptly forgot about the whole issue. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that the reviewer's comment about genetic sexual attraction was/is not mentioned in the previous or new version of the Reception section of this article, I really now am not seeing Jonhan's point about not including this review. As Jonhan said when editing as the IP (assuming he was also the IP above), this reviewer correctly cites the Westermarck effect (closely enough, anyway). Jonhan's original main problem with the review was with this reviewer's comment about genetic sexual attraction. Genetic sexual attraction, however, has not been present in either of the Wikipedia versions Jonhan was complaining about. Yes, it exists in that reviewer's article, but oh well. If a reader clicks on that reference and goes to that reviewer's article for that entire review...well, that is them (and they should look up the terms themselves). We, on the other hand, were not presenting that part of his review. Jonhan's problem with the reviewer feeling that the anime is unrealistic because the reviewer points out that it goes against the Westermarck effect, even though the reviewer fails to mention that plenty of other animes go against the Westermarck effect, is most definitely no reason not to include the reviewer's comments about Westermarck effect. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixes Needed

I just removed the plot and most of the character section as it seems pretty clear both were stolen from Crunchyroll way back when the article was new (and just went unnoticed). Both need replacing. I've only read a bit of the manga and I haven't seen the OVA at all, so I can't help much there. Also, the series was released in France as "Secret Sweetheart" (easily sourcable), which should be mentioned. Should also be a good source for more reviews, if some of our French reading editors can help out. :) Finally, I noticed no mention has been made of its being released, untranslated, in the US. Any reason why? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible french review[1] - needs RS check. I've made a request of one of the project editors who works with French sources to check this one and help in adding some other potentially reliable French sources to help expand the Reception section. Meanwhile, I've addressed the issue of the foreign releases and the untranslated release in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

French coverage

Dropping refs first then i will do translation duty as i did in Cross Game discussion page.

Manga News Vol. 1 review:

Sans détour, l'auteur aborde cette relation incestueuse avec aisance, désinvolture et sans pudeur.[...]Un shojo mature attrayant et assez captivant, la question étant maintenant de savoir comment l'auteur compte faire évoluer cette relation. A suivre...

Without turning away, the author approaches this incestuous relationship with ease, glibness, and without shame. [...] A mature shojo manga that is appealing and rather captivating; the question now is how the author will evolve this relationship. To be followed...

Manga News Vol. 2 review:

Le deuxième tome est tout à fait dans le même ton que le précédent. Ce que j'apprécie beaucoup, c'est que l'on est totalement omniscient, et alors on est au courant des pensées et désirs de chacun. Ainsi, cela nous permet de cerner très vite les personnages. C'est un bon début pour la série je trouve, mais j'espère que la relation des deux jumeaux ne va pas tourner en rond! En tout cas, les dessins de l'auteure sont très beaux, et Yori est très touchant dans son rôle. Malgré cela, les scènes d'inceste entre ces deux frères et soeurs sont parfois un peu trop poussées, et je trouve Yûki un peu trop niaise par moment. Mais cela donne également du charme au personnage.

This second volume is in exactly the same tone as the previous one. What I greatly appreciate, is that we are completely omniscient, and thus aware of the thoughts and desires of each character. As such, we can grasp them quickly. I find this is a good start for the series, but I hope that the relationship between the twins won't stay caught in a circle! In any case, the author's art is very pretty and Yori is very moving in his role. Even so, the incestuous scenes between this brother and sister are sometimes pushed a bit too far, and I found Yuki a bit too silly at times. But that also gives so much charm to the character.

Anime Land vol1-2 review:

Sur les sites de fans, ce shôjo sulfureux arrive souvent dans les œuvres les plus lues et appréciées. Au Japon, le succès est tel que, quelques mois après la parution du dernier tome, une OAV puis un film live avec Jun Matsumoto dans le rôle de Yori sortaient sur les écrans. Un succès phénoménal qui ne s’explique toujours pas après la lecture des deux premiers tomes. Serons-nous les seuls assez prudents pour mettre un bémol à l’engouement autour de Secret Sweetheart ?

On fan websites, this sulfurous shojo often makes it among the most read and appreciated works. In Japan, its success is such that few months after the publication of the last volume, an OVA and a live-action film with Jun Matsumoto in Yori's role appeared on-screen. A phenomenal success that can't be explained after reading the two first volumes. Will we be the only ones prudent enough to sound a dissenting note about Secret Sweetheart?

Comment: Can't find a good translation for bémol which is closest to music, note flat.

Looks like mettre un bémol à (lit. "to put a flat on") is an idiom meaning roughly "to dampen enthusiasm toward". A colorful phrase, the French one. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right on the spot. Idiom often used in face of a consensus or chorus, the one who uses it represents a dissonance --KrebMarkt 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also a somewhat similar English idiom, "to sound a dissenting note," which I didn't think of yesterday. It conveys the sense of a single voice in the wilderness that's not effective, rather than a counter-argument that sways opinion. Would that work better? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the dissenting note. --KrebMarkt 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Planete BD vol 1 review:

Cette relation entre les protagonistes est déjà malsaine à la base, mais l’auteur a décidé d’en rajouter une couche : Yori oblige sa sœur à l’embrasser et tente de la forcer à faire l’amour avec lui, ce qui est ni plus ni moins qu’une tentative de viol ! Bien entendu, Iku est plutôt cruche et accepte plus ou moins de se laisser faire et, fantasme assez répandu chez nos amis nippons, prend du plaisir à se faire tripoter de force. Yori, en attendant que sa sœur devienne folle de lui, reste avec sa petite amie (bah oui, tant qu’à faire !), qui est également une amie d’Iku. Vous l’aurez compris, on a déjà vu mieux pour ce qui est du scénario. Quant aux graphismes, ils sauvent à peine la mise. Le trait est fin et le style plutôt épuré, mais les décors ne sont présents que rarement et lorsqu’ils le sont, ce n’est que pour renforcer l’aspect interdit de la relation entre Iku et Yori (église, chambre avec les parents à côté…). On attend la suite pour voir si l’auteur saura relever le niveau de ce premier tome assez moyen.

The relationship between the protagonists is already unhealthy from start, but the author decided to add one more layer: Yori has his sister kiss him and try to make her have sex with him, which is nothing less than a rape attempt! As expected, Iku is rather silly and accepts this more and less without resistance and, following the rather widespread Japanese [phantasm], gets pleasure in forced groping. Yori, while waiting for his sister to become crazy for him, stays with his girlfriend (bah yea, while we are at it!), who is also Iku's friend. You understand, we have seen better scenarios. The art barely saves the day. The lines are fine and the style rather pure, with background details rarely present, and when they are it is only to reinforce the forbidden aspects of Iku and Yori relationship (a church, a bedroom with parents outside). We await the follow-up to see if the author will improve the level of this rather average first volume.

Comment: Some reviewer personal comments are rather baffling but still the most in depth review yet seen in French.

I'm struggling a bit with fantasme -- I'm not thinking of an English equivalent to the sense of an imaginary psychological construction. "Fantastic belief" overstates it. I've bracketed the congnate "phantasm" for the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice that i carefully translated nippons into Japaneses.

Fantasm? Let's play Jeopardy: Imaginary construct, conscious or unconscious, allow the subject who stages itself, to express and fulfill its more & less repressed desires, to overcome its anguish. --KrebMarkt 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Planete BD vol 2 review

Amis de la perversion, bienvenues ! Yori se montre de plus en plus malsain et il renouvelle constamment la pression auprès de sa sœur pour que cette dernière accepte de coucher avec lui. Il ne cesse de l’embrasser et la tripoter à tout bout de champ, que celle-ci soit d’accord ou non. De plus, il se sert de la meilleure amie d’Iku pour assouvir ses besoins sexuels tout en pensant à sa sœur. Et bien entendu, toutes deux sont amoureuses de ce salaud (car il n’y a pas d’autres mots), même si l’une d’elle est forcé d’accepter ses caresses (tout en y prenant finalement du plaisir, cela va de soi). Autant dire que l’idée la plus choquante n’est pas l’inceste, il s’agit plutôt de la brutalité et du comportement odieux du Yori. Coté graphique, là non plus nos mirettes ne sont pas récompensées. En effet, rien ne s’est amélioré depuis le précèdent volume : les pages sont plus fournies mais il y a toujours très peu de décors, et les visages des personnages de profil ou de face ont toujours l’air aussi peu en harmonie avec le reste du corps lors des plans larges… Avec un scénario plutôt déplorable et des dessins plus que moyens, on peu dire que Secret Sweetheart n’est pas une réussite du genre.

Friends of perversion welcome! Yori shows himself more & more unhealthy and he constantly renews the pressure on his sister so that the later bed with him. He doesn't cease to kiss and grope her on every other minute regardless she agrees or not. In addition he uses Iku's best friend to quench his sexual needs while thinking of his sister. And as convened, both are in love with this "salaud" (because there is no others words), even if one is forced to accepted his fondles (while taking pleasure in it, as expected). The most shocking idea isn't the incest, it's rather the brutality and the Yori's odious behavior. Arts wise, our eyes are not gratified too. Indeed nothing improved since the previous volume: the pages are most stuffed but there are still few background details, the characters face side views or face views are still not much in harmony with the rest of the body during broad plan/view... With a rather deplorable scenario and less than average arts, we can say that Secret Sweetheart isn't a success in the genre.

Comment: again same comment as the previous one. It's the same reviewer. Some sentences need to be ironed. --KrebMarkt 07:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Salaud is one of those insults that are hard to translate exactly, isn't it -- slouching around the same semantic space as "bastard" and "jerk". Is it as strong as "asshole"? -- that is, would using it turn an argument in a bar/pub into a fight? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jerk" mostly as there is not always perfect translation. --KrebMarkt 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

General comment: Mixed reviews leaning to the negative. Vol 1 - 9 were reviewed on Planete BD but i want to see how things work with just the first few reviews before adding more reviews from that source because i want to avoid undue weight issue. --KrebMarkt 06:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

General comment 2: Done with that batch please do whatever copy-ed & use then wisely to not fall into copyvio. Thanks --KrebMarkt 07:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split

The information about Boku no Hatsukoi o Kimi ni Sasagu really needs to be split off into its own article, leaving behind cross-references and a note that it's a spinoff series. I mean, that Boku no Hatsukoi o Kimi ni Sasagu won a Shogakukan Award and was a bestseller is irrelevant to Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru, which is the titluar subject of the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, though it would reduce this article's content some. Sasagu is a completely different work on different characters, though the character was introduced here. At the least, its reception info should be moved to the end of the section to avoid confusion and reduce its impact. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That helps as an interim measure. Regarding the translated quotes, I'm forgetting which policy/guideline (WP:V or one of its elaborations) that says that when the citation is from a non-English source, it really needs to include the original and a translation, for those who can and cannot read it, respectively. (This presumably is for when what's being cited is textual, as opposed to something like a publication date, but that's never been clear.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've never heard of such a guideline or policy nor seen it enforced with any FA or FL with foreign sources. It seems like a really bad one, though, it just bloats the references to ridiculous levels. If people can't read them, they can use an online translator same as the rest of us :P. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I slightly mangled it: WP:NONENG, which is part of WP:V, which does require the translation when direct quoting, but not the original passage. Hmmm -- now I'm wondering where I picked up the other half of my claim. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah...so we can trim those down to the direct quotes only? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Boku no Hatsukoi o Kimi ni Sasagu really needs its own article now that it has been made into a movie. Ketat10250 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

other reviews

vol 1 ANN's Right turn only import review --KrebMarkt 20:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Review used. Extremepro (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Auto-Archiving?

I request auto-archiving of this page by User:MizsaBot I because it's current size is 48KB. Extremepro (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? There really isn't enough traffic here to warrant it, and all of the current topics are too new for archiving. A simple manual one is all that is needed, when necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru. 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/20091016194823/http://www.soleilprod.com/album%7C1367%7CSECRET_SWEETHEART-vol.1 to http://www.soleilprod.com/album%7C1367%7CSECRET_SWEETHEART-vol.1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106143633/http://www.egmanga.com.tw/manga/2005_03m.htm to http://www.egmanga.com.tw/manga/2005_03m.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)