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.<ref ...> 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. ~~~~