Talk:Kasumi Tendo

Ranma being sold out

To not turn this into an edit war:

33.2:

Page 9: Nabiki shows no remorse about running away (and neither do the rest, so this wouldn't be important unless you had mentioned it).

Page 11: Soun and Genma are sobbing in touched regret, Akane gives him a good luck charm, Nabiki is smirking.

Page 13: Akane, Soun and Genma are horrified that Kasumi seems to be strangling Ranma to death. Nabiki is just concerned about cowering her own ass and prepares to leave the crime scene.

Page 15: Nabiki blames the others for reaching the wrong conclusion, despite that she was the one who first suggested it.

Page 16: When everyone is freaked out that Kasumi may become murderously angry after all, Nabiki immediately reacts by determinedly blaming Ranma for everything, and Soun is explicitly shown as mortified enough to go along with her, when Nabiki wants him to support her claim.

So, while the phrase in itself isn't all that important, I don't see how I'm incorrect as such. Dave 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

She does show no remorse at first, and then she flat out questions the morality of everyone (including herself, not just the others) running away and is the first and only one to do so.

See, this reference I don't get at all, because in the translation I've read she never does anything remotely in this way.

She's not completely heartless about what is going on in that instance. It just seemed like that's partly what was trying to be said, so my apologies if that wasn't the intention. But on to the other stuff.

Nabiki places a "we're sorry" sign on Ranma while Genma flat out ties him up with rope so he can't run off, I would consider that somewhat on par with smirking.

She helps to tie him up, and also smirks while doing so. Genma is crying about it.

He and Soun are crying in a bit of a dramatic way as they tend to do sometimes, but they are still more than willing to send Ranma in. Akane gives him a good luck charm so he doesn't need to be "alone," and that's it. She does nothing to actually stop what's about to happen. Genma is the one who actually punts Ranma into Kasumi's path the first time around.

Soun tends to be genuinely compassionate, while Genma is an off-and-to bastard. Akane doesn't stop what's going on but is genuinely horrified along with the others (except Nabiki, who is completely unconcerned about Ranma) when it seems like Kasumi is attempting to kill him.

They might not have a smirk on their faces, but they aren't innocent here.

Uh, yeah, and at no point did I say that they didn't help to send him in, but Nabiki is the only one explicitly completely remorseless and apparently gleeful about it, which is the point.

The fact that Nabiki attempted to run off and passed the blame off at the end asking just who was responsible for saying Kasumi was angry is nothing significant or surprising, especially when everyone else tried to do the same only a few pages before.

Yes, it most definitely is, given that she's showing explicit remorseless determination about it, while Akane and Genma do nothing, discouraged by Kasumi's former apparent overreaction, and Soun is in a too mortified state to counteract Nabiki's statement.

Whether or not Soun is mortified about supporting Nabiki is up to interpretation, I think.

Uh, no, it isn't. He's doing a 'The Scream' impression.

He could very well just be stone cold frightened of the possibility of Kasumi's "wrath" being inflicted on him if she found out what he did to the sweater, just as everyone else was on the page immediately before it.

He's stuttering when Nabiki's pressures him to affirm her statement.

He's in the same pose he was in when they all freaked out over Kasumi asking who was responsible for everything. Basically, Nabiki is not the only one trying to avoid responsibility here so there's no need to single her out explicitly in the article, but that wasn't really the original point of the edit, anyway.

I didn't say she was the only one attempting to flee initially. Soun, Genma & Ranma did as well. That's irrelevant to the fact that she was the only one smirking rather than showing remorse, unconcerned about Ranma getting killed, trying to dump the responsibility for coming up with the idea that Kasumi was psychotic on the others, and was immediately fiercely determined to lie to Kasumi at the end, despite having the risk of murder asserted, rather than simply being beaten up, as the others thought initially.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to start a war. I deleted it the first and second time, not because it was incorrect or because of anything to do with Nabiki's actions, per say. It is an actual fact that Nabiki outs Ranma in the end, you're not "wrong" about that. It's just extraneous, slightly exaggerated considering she really is not the only party involved in that lie, and like you said, it simply isn't important.

She isn't the only party involved, but she's the only one completely conscience-free about it, and the most active pusher.

It's not necessary or essential for the original point the sentence was trying to make. It's just comes off as another statement about something ammoral Nabiki does. Nabiki's article already makes the point several times over (albeit in a bit of a clunky and wordy fashion)that her manga depiction is far from saintly. Sometimes it's nice to know specifics, but it tends to stick out like a sore thumb in this case. It doesn't really add anything to the example of Kasumi's compassion.

Well, she's done _a lot_ of incredibly evil things during the series, so it turns clunky by nature. That said, the reference itself is irrelevant, I'm just being a 'I disagree with that statement' control-freak. And as you say, it's easy for any user to check out Nabiki's profile to see her full established characteristic that way instead.

Several of the character pages now have a lot of similar extraneous info that could stand to be chopped out to make concise and informative articles (as well as help the overall flow of the articles when reading). That's my only intention, I just didn't have the time to go through the whole article and that particular info stood out as I was adding in the episode title to that last paragraph. Obviously I'm not going to touch that edit now, I just hope you try to see what I mean about it and why I made those edits in the first place. kudsy 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

'Chopped out' is usually just a rewrite for 'I don't want the facts to get out' censorship, and I've sifted through the entire manga and noted down every single characteristic reference for every important character in an effort to clean these pages from fanon errors/assumptions, including my own (chapter by chapter 'check the pattern yourself' characteristic reference page soon to be added, together with battle records). If you want to improve the flow, i.e. cutting and pasting together all the related mentions into coherent pieces, while keeping every single fact, that would be very helpful. They could use a lot of improvement on that front. It would likevise be extremely helpful if you or anyone else could use the pattern for Ryoga's profile to fill in links for the blatant chapter references in the profile pages. I.e: Nabiki sold Ranma as a prostitute.<Insert reference> Othervise I'll have to do some more of that myself. Dave 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't being censored. You're being told to cut out your opinions from the articles. Read an encyclopedia, then see how it is done. It is not "rather unfortunate" that any character does anything in the series. It is your opinion that it is unfortunate, regardless of how widely held the belief is. If this were an article about a terrorist attack, it is generally agreed upon that it was an "unfortunate tragedy", but it is not the encyclopedia's place to make that interjection. If you tell me that a certain character made a gesture towards another, or made a face towards another, and then you tell me what that face means without having verifiable, 100% proof that that is what the gesture meant, you don't put it in here. It's your belief, and it can be 10 million other people's belief, but again, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Is a book on pressure points that Kasumi owned proof of her high IQ? Probably. But is it your personal interjection to make the claim as fact? Absolutely. This isn't censorship. Wikipedia's job is to be non-point of view first, all-encompassing a distant second. 90% of what you have written in parantheses is long-winded and unnecessary, the sentences run on for long periods of time, and often are terribly fragmented. Fix the work, fix the point of view, and stop reverting edits that people make when they are necessary. No one is attacking you personally, they're just seeing to it that Wikipedia's primary purpose is fulfilled. President David Palmer 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, I have researched to a _much_ greater degree than anyone previously did regarding these characters. The pages were incredibly unfounded, baseless and _far_ more POV before I started to insert 10-60 explicit references in each of them. Yet, the two of you (or rather Kudoshido informing you) choose this particular moment to object?! Curious... That said, I plan to insert more references in the manner of the Ryoga profile. Dave 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've currently begun to insert all my references for the Nabiki page, but, there's a _lot_ of them, and a reciprocal amount of work. If anyone could help me thoroughly reference all the profile pages, I've set up characterisation reference pages in my sandbox section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A for all the neccessary 'chapter-by-chapter' notes. Thanks a lot. Dave 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do you even KNOW what POV is? Because anyone reading this article cannot possibly come to the conclusion that this is anything but biased, overly-verbose, and grammatically poor writing. That's not my opinion. And I quote: "Her compassion is so great, and her spirit so pure, that she thought she may be overreacting by giving Ranma a light tap on the forehead". If you can't see the infraction of a neutral point of view there, I don't know how I can possibly begin to level with you. Wikipedia is not your personal platform to put whatever you want, wherever you want, no matter how widely held you believe your opinion is. You can't just say "I'm editing everything as I see fit, no matter if people object to it or not". That's what your personal blog is for. If I knew the character well enough, I would be hacking this entry to bits rather than even bothering to discuss it and bring attention to it. President David Palmer 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was explicitly stated that she was an absolute saint in that chapter, and it was likevise written outright that when her anger exploded it made her touch his forehead and consider it overreacting. I don't mind if people reword it/shorten it down, and agree that this particular phrasing is quite lackluster (though I tend to work from what's previously written), but that part remains. I didn't take nearly as much time improving it as, say, the Ryoga, or Nabiki pages, and think it may very well be the worst one I've done here. As for 'personal platform', again, _every single one_ of these character pages were almost completely POV when I came here. I'm one of a select few who actually has taken the time to browse through the references for a few months before writing much down, to actually get some at least semi-NPOV of factual content rather than 'fanon gut feeling' which was the previous limit. Yet you interfere at this particular point, rather than the worse previous state, simply because some begrudged person without a good argument chooses a tactical way to handle it by telling someone else, burningly devoted to this sort of thing, but who didn't mind at all earlier when they agreed with an article almost without any basis.

Also, if you want to help improve the grammatical content, feel free to help, rather than strictly being rude, complaining and insulting. I'd genuinely appreciate it. If you wish to rewrite this page then simply go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Kasumi_Characterisation_Reference and 'pick it apart' as you call it. My 'personal platform'/goal as such is to get rid of the rampaging fanon errors by creating references for all the major characters in an effort to make every visitor capable of checking and contributing matter of factly by themselves, but they still need lots of clean-up. Dave 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw: I've done a quick check-through to improve the more blatant silliness of the article in question. Dave 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel insulted, that's your prerogative, because I didn't insult you unless your skin is too thin to take constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism implies encouragement rather than non-stop derision. I don't feel insulted. I felt annoyed because you seemed to show up from nowhere to single me out simply because someone who didn't mind previous more POV versions selected this time to contact you. Then again, this likely _was_ the worst article of the bunch, so I suppose it's somewhat warranted.

Again, however, it is not your place to state "She is such a saint"...it is your place to instead state that the Manga states that she is a saint, or to say that she is perceived as such. To make a statement of absolute truth is to make some level of assumption on your own part.

And again, I technically agree with this, and have changed these very aspects, but worked with what was there previously, since I was somewhat short on time.

To say that it is OK to put POV into an article simply because the previous revisions had WORSE POV problems is tantamount to me justifying throwing a fast food wrapper on the ground because the guy walking in front of me threw a whole bag of it on the ground.

No it's far from the same thing, because I've never claimed that these articles are good enough (Actually the exact opposite, which is the reason I set up the Ryoga profile as a model pattern). What I've done is considerably improve them from their previous state, and then you appear to give me the blame for not improving them _enough_. Well, that takes _considerable_ time, as the Ryoga and Nabiki profiles show.

And I'll edit the hell out of this when I have more time on my hands for grammar. President David Palmer 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to help. Derek, BrokenSphere and others have been wonderful in this regard. Different users take different functions. It's a teamwork effort. I supposedly write great English (for a Swede) when I create (/take considerable time to continuously rephrase) school essays, but that's not my focus here, it's noting down the research, which takes considerably more work, and is what's been thoroughly lacking for this particular series. I had to cut down on something, and given how slow I am at rewriting, that part had to go, since even casual visitors can restructure it. Dave 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, stop hacking up my talk-page edits into one sentence fragments and replying to them piece by piece. You're making it IMPOSSIBLE to follow what's going on here. This isn't a message board or a private message exchange, it's an open Wikipedia record that no one can make sense of now. President David Palmer 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry about that. Dave 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now further cleaned up the more blatant POVs and grammar. Dave 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very late in getting back to this but there are still things I need to explain on my end for clarification. First things first though, the edits you made to fix the NPOV problems were very well done, David A. It's pretty much exactly what I felt needed to be addressed in regards to the original problems I had, so thanks a bunch for that. There's only really three things that I want to clear up despite them not being a problem anymore, so I'll try to be brief about this.

Thanks for the compliment. As I remember it, my original problem wasn't with the adjustment as such, rather than disagreeing with the comment accompanying it. Regardless, it's no big deal, and I should have ignored it. Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nabiki questioning the morality of everyone comes from the Japanese edition. Her original statement was "全員で 逃げ出すのは マズいんじゃない？". In the scanlation I have, as well as a text translation from here[1], the translation comes very close to the literal translation of the sentence (several of the words have multiple meanings but they all encompass the same definition). It is something to effect of "It is bad/unpleasant for all of us/everyone to run away, isn't it?" So she is actually questioning her and everyone else's actions. That's what my reference is. Viz Media's version just says "If we all run off, we're targets!" so they took some liberty with that line.

Well, I didn't read that as questioning the morality, rather than implying the alternate solution of serving Ranma as a sacrifice in the two next panels, which is considerably less moral to start with. Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a scanner, just a camera, so the quality is not beautiful, but well...as far as I can see, the book kind of clearly shows Nabiki to only be putting the sign on[link deleted], and doing nothing in the way of helping Genma tie Ranma up...so I can't really agree that she helps to tie him up.

Same difference. She helps him in his efforts, and smirks while doing it Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And given Genma's very character, I would be very quick to call his sincerity of that moment into question, especially considering his later action of actively punting Ranma in Kasumi's path without any hesitation[link deleted]. I would consider that to be pretty active participation on his part, much more active than a smirk, even if he was concerned later. So that kind of stuff would basically be why I wasn't so quick to agree with wanting to put the spotlight on Nabiki, but that doesn't matter now since it's already gone and no longer an issue.

Genma is an uncertainty, given that he can either show concern/sentimentality or thoroughly loathesome morality, or both, depending on the situation. What was shown seemed to be the last case. Showing compassion, but not acting on it. You're right in that it may have been wise to point out his culpability in the first place though. Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I said "Whether or not Soun is mortified about supporting Nabiki is up to interpretation", I did not mean "we don't know if he's mortified or not." I know he was, I said he was, and as you mentioned, the image clearly depicts him to be mortified in a fairly common comedic pose. What I meant by that statement is that the reason he is like that is up to interpretation, and it is. It could be only because of Nabiki blaming Ranma, it could be that he's like that because he's just plain still in the pose from the last panel, do you see what I mean?

There could be several reasons and it's all assumption, it's not fact. As I said, he was in that pose before that happened already, and he was still in that pose after, not only just when Nabiki blamed Ranma. His stuttering is a pretty natural effect when someone is stone cold frightened of something. Is he stuttering because of that, or is he stuttering because he's reluctant to agree? It's hard to say for 100% sure, that's where it would turn into another assumption, and that's where I would be quick to leave it out of anything dealing with the actual article content. If there isn't 100% verifiability behind it, it shouldn't be said as a fact, etc.

He was shown as mortified because Kasumi seemed to strangle Ranma. That bit is not up to interpretation. He was also similarly affected due to suspecting that she may have a similar outburst after all. Also not up for different interpretation. Obviously he still retained the same pose from the previous panel, an instant previously, and remained in shock. Incredibly far-fetched alternate interpretation possible. He stuttered while affirming Nabiki's statement, i.e. he's not at his best mental state, while Nabiki is shown as determined, and in full control of her faculties. Likewise extremely explicit, but could be given a 0.5% variance. That he went along anyway in both cases doesn't speak well of his character, but considerably worse in Nabiki's case. You do seem to make a serious effort to built an air castle on incredibly unlikely interpretations here, rather than being sensible about it. A 'seems' or 'appears' is what's generally used in cases of 99% reliability, or no character profiles could be written whatsoever. That said, you are completely correct in that it's extremely important to include these when appropriate. Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this is definitely not about censorship or snuffing out facts, quite the opposite. All of my reasons for questioning certain things lie in Wikipedia policies for writing articles more or less. It's nothing personal, certainly not a "grudge" which I'm not even sure how I would have one over this stuff... it's just about making a great Wikipedia article, and from what I can see it's already improving, so that's awesome. Hopefully there's no hard feelings between us over this now? And again, if there's something you need me to check up on, I can do my best to help out to the best of my ability. --kudsy 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've gone to considerate trouble to criticise articles which are far better referenced than the previous verisions (At least in Nabiki's case. This one was an improvement, but easily my most shoddy work), so my naturally 'suspicious'/pattern-noticing nature can go into automatic overdrive and assume that you're objecting because you have an attachment to the 'fanon' rather than manga versions, as has usually been the case whenever I've talked with another appreciator of the series. Someone was apparently 'weaselly' enough to let David Palmer handle it for them, simultaneously to when your and Tohru's comments appeared, but given that you've been honest and upright in handling it directly, it was silly of me to suspect that either of you were responsible. My apologies for that. Dave 11:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely nothing to do with "fanon," I love the series but I don't let my personal opinions of the show or characters or anything else interfere with my editing on Wikipedia. I have the manga versions as I have already pointed out, and I also have the entire anime series, which is still considered an official source of canon (but just for the anime stuff which would be specifically pointed out anyway), anything I work off of will be from those, and any criticisms I make will be because I'm making an effort in trying to help. I kind of don't appreciate that you take what I say as "unlikely interpretation" and "not sensible" while at the same time accusing me of "seeming" to pull things out of nowhere for the sake of creating an argument. All I'm trying to do here is make clear certain things that should be addressed to avoid things like NPOV tags and other possible conflicts, trying to help, not make it harder. You already have a strong mindset of what you perceive to be going on and are now writing off what I say because of that, the other stuff is not quite as farfetched as you're making it out to be.

Actually I've gone to extremes to avoid the whole fanon deal, by reading through the manga and noting down characterisation references for almost every single chapter for the main characters. That's a universe away from 'making up my mind in advance'. In fact, I've greatly reevaluated a lot of the cast from doing so. That I'm rather firm in this particular case, is because you seem argumentative about incredibly unlikely possibilities, even when the circumstances are explicitly shown, and refuse to give up the point no matter what, while I've been far more reasonable in several other cases. The other stuff is extremely farfetched, whether you agree with my assessment of to what degree or not, or at least you've failed to make a solid case for why it isn't. Otherwise, just say "Ok, I've reevaluated. This actually does sound very unlikely." and let it go. It's the sort of thing which shows you to be reasonable, rather than loosing face. Not to mention, it's far beyond pointless by now, since I've already edited it out for irrelelevant context reasons. I.e. being reasonable about it. Dave 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even saying my views are the right ones, I'm just showing that if you can admit to a variance, then that should be enough of a sign that it shouldn't be treated as an absolute truth in the end. The point of what I'm saying is that it should be made clear that something disputable it isn't a 100% fact (or from Wiki's example, if it's a majority view, say it's a majority view and not just the view, but have the verifiability of the statement for referencing as well) and then it should be fine. I don't care if Nabiki or Soun or Genma or anyone ends up being portrayed "better" or "worse," what I care about is seeing that everything significant taken into account, treated fairly, and that the article meets all the criteria for a good article. I go through the "considerate" amount of trouble because I seriously want that to happen, not because of anything else. And as it stands, it's slowly working towards that with all the work being put into it right now.

Well, variance is taken into account by the "This is technically more or less explicitly shown, but I'll still use the word 'appears' or similar to allow the possibility of variation in interpretation if you really, really make an incredible effort to see it otherwise than presented". So I don't have a problem there. As mentioned above, I've gone to extremes to see as many significant facts/context points taken into account as possible. Check out my profile page if you want help for a character check-through, which you can then use to look it up yourself. Dave 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how the timing of certain comments would seem to suspicious, so I don't blame you for thinking there was an agenda involved and apologize if it came off that way. I can assure you that I have absolutely zero intentions of picking fights or ganging up or anything else you suspected. But I also would like to be as civil as possible and wouldn't want you to think I'm acting under anything other than good faith here. As such, I've pretty much stated my case as much as I can, and I don't really have anything else to say on the matter at this point. I would very much be willing to let go of this dispute right here and now and work towards overall improvment from here on out, I have no wishes to fight over things. --kudsy 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Then let's drop this entire conversation, and just say that regardless if the alternative interpretations seems to have 25% or 1% probability, we have to go with the most likely case (with a sentence structured to show this fact) or no character profile pages whatsoever could be made, certainly not the larger amount which use several 'out of thin air' interpretations. You'll have to give me that I've greatly improved the profiles in that respect. Dave 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)