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, that implies encouragement rather than non-stop derision. I don't feel insulted. I felt annoyed because you show up from nowhere to single me out. 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. What I've done is considerably improve them from their previous state, and then you 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 great 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, given that even casual visitors can restructure it. Dave 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)