Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight

Nagi/Alice's gender

Draco Safarius in the edit notes is either misinformed, misinterpreting the source, or lying out of personal beliefs/agenda/bias. Nagi/Alice is canonically a trans woman. Pronouns generally are not gendered in Japanese, so Draco's claims of this are immediately suspect. Draco also claims the reason for the confusion is "bad English versions," but he is so far the only person I've ever seen make this claim. Alice refers to themselves with "a maiden born in the body of a man" which is as blatant as you can get so I don't know why Draco was allowed to publish false information on Wikipedia. Dialogue lines that further confirm Alice is a trans woman are that when Ikki says that Shizuku normally doesn't like men, Alice responds that they are a woman so it makes sense that Shizuku is more comfortable around them. Alice tells Shizuku to "think of me as your big sister" and it's obvious even in Japanese since the Japanese words for "big sister" are often known by English-speakers. Alice wears a one-piece swimsuit at the pool and is shown in the swimsuit montage with men reacting alongside Shizuku and Stella in their bikinis. While Alice enters the men's restroom, this is because trans people are not legally allowed to enter the restroom of their preferred gender in Japan. Alice may dress in fashionable, if somewhat masculine, clothing, but this is because Alice is a more traditional form of a societally-acceptable trans woman in Japan, where it is seen as a social faux-pas for a trans woman to outwardly present as a woman, and instead dress in more gender-neutral clothes while verbally stating they are trans. In the Japanese dialogue, Shizuku, Stella, and Ikki all refer to and address Alice as if she were a woman. The fan Wiki originally makes Alice out to be insane and THINK they are a woman, but if you look at Alice's talk page on the Wikia, you will see that the reason is that the founder of it is transphobic and forcing his own political views into the series he made a Wikia for, even admitting that his reason is that he is transphobia by acknolwedging that yes, while the source says that Alice is trans, he refused to put that in the artical because trans people don't exist aside from being crazy. It has since been corrected to properly reflect that Alice is intended to be a old-fashioned depiction of a Japanese trans woman. I've even spoken to Japanese people who have confirmed that Alice is a trans woman in Japanese culture. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Since this would be disputed, we need a reliable source from the anime and manga industry stating this. I am fine with your change as long as you can provide a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The character herself states "I'm a woman trapped in a mans body" but Draco Safarius provides no source for his claims of bad translations. So why do you require a source from me, but not Draco, especially when this article originally stated that Nagi/Alice was a trans woman? It seems very strange that you require a source for removing an unsourced change, but require no source for changing the original article. I can simply point to the actual anime or manga, but this raises questions of the legality, as I fail to see how I could show you without effectively engaging in piracy. Your claims of "anime and manga industry" are also suspiciously vague, doubly so because you again made no such request to Draco when he originally removed the part about Alice/Nagi being a canonical trans woman (and one of the few confirmed in-story, with Lily from Zombieland Saga being one of the few others). If "actual dialogue in the story confirming this character is trans" is not good enough, then I have to question what you're doing on Wikipedia and why you're inserting your own bias into informational articles and approving of people like Draco doing the same. The fact there is so little media about this anime and you refuse to accept screenshots with subtitles clearly identifying Nagi/Alice as a trans woman because it's not "anime and manga industry" articles, but are fine with Draco's hearsay, makes this very suspicious attemtps to force political bias into fact-based articles. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A woman trapped in a mans body, is still a man. We don't need a source to know his chromosomes would show up XY. Jonchache (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This argument holds no water either from a moral standpoint or by Wikipedia policy. See WP:GENDERID. ThunderPX (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not accept the anti-science practices of transphobic rhetoric. If you insist to try and include them while implying you have not read the site's own articles on transgenderism (or if you have, somehow believe that Wikipedia's own extensive sourcing are somehow incorrect), then I would suggest you try bringing your views to a different site that is more welcoming of your agenda or try going to the articles on transgenderism, argue against the various sources that the site's administrators and scientific researchers have agreed upon, and see what happens. Either that or you could educate yourself on the rules and policies of Wikipedia so as to prevent this display of ignorance, which would be the optimum outcome for everyone, including yourself. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I am entitled to an opinion, lets ease up on the oppression bud. I refrain from making edits that support my POV, same as you (I hope). I see you fail to see the bigger picture, and that's ok, nothing wrong with a narrow point of view. Wikipedia needs editors with all kinds of viewpoints, otherwise we would be left with words like person-hour, personscape, and personfold. Jonchache (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"Chromosomes are tied to gender" is not an opinion. Gender identity is not tied to chromosomes and biological sex is also not tied to chromosomes. You can look it up on various science articles. Your opinion does not override the studies and findings of scientists, researchers, and experts in their fields who have decades more experience and education in it than you do and have scientific consensus on their findings. Please educate yourself here on Wikipedia, as that is what the site is largely for. ThunderPX was even kind enough to link you to a start on how to properly educate yourself on trans issues in Wikipedia editing. Speaking of, you forgot to reply to ThunderPX like you did me. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking up Draco, I also see that he appears to be the sole source online for these claims, which he only provides as hearsay on sites like Twitter and Anime-Planet. He supposedly provided a source for his claim that Nagi/Alice is not a trans woman on some Discord server somewhere, but a reply specifically points out that his own source has Nagi/Alice saying "I'm a woman in a man's body," to which Draco non-specifically deflects. I continue to find it very strange that you insist I provide vaguely specific sources for changing an article back to what it originally was, yet are completely fine with one single man's strange multi-website crusade to insist a canonical trans character is a cis gendered man with no sources to back this up other than his own sourceless claims. It feels oddly biased, Knowledgekid87. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright tackling this in order from the original to the followup reply.

Pronouns for Japanese are mostly ignored due to naming reference, but you have outright uses for male and female, as well as largely male-leaning and largely female-leaning. An example would be something that's almost always said by a man to refer to themselves, or another person, but wouldn't technically be wrong when used by a woman. That said, you can physically go to look at the Japanese yourself to see the author making a conscious choice to use male language for Nagi. It's not as if female language isn't used, the other characters get it, just not him. If you want examples, near end of Chapter 3 in Volume 4 and Chapter 1 of Volume 5. IIRC the second one, the Volume 5 example, can be seen in a preview read. There is also apparently a Mandarin release of the series that sticks to male language, but I've only ever heard that, wasn't able to find it.

The examples brought up don't really contribute anything, as the same line you're citing "A maiden in a man's body" is one piece against the entire text of the light novels. You don't selectively grab one line and use it against the series as a whole to make a point. Beyond that, the Shizuku example is dealing with her not being averse because he doesn't act like the ones Shizuku would avoid. Could also just say Ikki's dialogue for the scene defeats it, but I don't need to pile on more. The bathroom doesn't help in either context, nor does the clothing line.

The wiki part is a whole mess, as if you're referring to Fandom it's almost always a terrible source for what the site as a whole forces with character entries now. They also literally ignore the original text in favor of the localized releases, as was literally stated on there on one of the mod pages talk sections. If a different wiki, then I'm not sure which one you mean.

For the reply, the above deals with that in the first part. That is also in the same mod talk section I referenced directly above this, can link if need be.

You requiring a source is likely because you attempted to revert a change that was explained, though granted I didn't load it with sources, it came off as antagonistic for the reversion. Just general good sense to ask for people to explain/cite claims when they're trying to rage revert.

As for me, no I'm not. Still from that same wiki talk page you get more, and the actual talk page of the character has more, but it's quite toxic. As for Discord, it was Anime-Planet, because they moved character submissions to Discord. I laid out a fairly sizable reasoning that they then ignored, almost as a pure admission of confirmation bias, and you can look for it in the character-submissions channel if you want to. And, again, for the quote, using one quote to try and defeat the text of the whole series is not a strong point, it's the exact confirmation bias move they made. Not a good example to cite. Aside that, the Twitter thing was me venting because of the bad Fandom staff purposely ignoring the original novels, as well as Anilist staff harassing me for suggesting the change. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In any case, what was described above is original research and would need at least two sources seeing the subject appears to be controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for sake of covering bases, since I don't want to look like the guy just making insane claims.

Website for the anime, detailing casting list, site also contains character pages. Would use the light novel one, but it does not include the character in question and is fairly broken as a site (page splits in half and goes below scroll area):

http://www.ittoshura.com/staff/index.html

Another two staff lists lining up with the above:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5100366/fullcredits/

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Chivalry-of-a-Failed-Knight/#:~:text=Main%20Chivalry%20of%20a%20Failed%20Knight%20Cast%20Ikki,by%20Kelly%20Manison%20and%201%20other%20Kagami%20Kusakabe

While both Behind the Voice Actors and IMBD can take community submissions for a character, they still check to see if it matches up with announced official information, in this case being the character called Nagi Arisuin. That's an official confirmation that this is what the character's name is, and while not a 100% confirmation the character is a male, it is a strong point to consider, and it matches up with the next part.

As referenced in my reply, I noted how you could see the specified language in use for Volume 5's preview, since I don't want anyone to have to go spend money to try and confirm. Official JP volume listed on their publisher's site:

https://www.sbcr.jp/product/4797377545/

A few pages in you can see the language examples, as well as noting the character as "Nagi Arisuin," or "Arisuin Nagi" since it's in Japanese. The reason I'm using this combined with the voice actor listing for the character is that while other characters might call him by Alice, as was said to be the preference early on, the author/narrator uses Nagi and male language despite female language being used elsewhere. Since the narrator is not another character simply recalling what they saw happened, it can be inferred to be an impartial and omniscient narrator for what it's describing, thus the most reliable.

Given that throughout the series the author makes a conscious choice to use male language, and the name Nagi, combined with the fact that official sources stick to this naming scheme, I maintain the argument the character is a male.

Additionally, like mentioned in my reply, there is indeed a page with the tagline "A maiden born in the body of a man. His nickname is "Black Thorn(s)." However, given that this is one instance of a source saying maiden in a non-first person sense that also debunks itself immediately in the same phrase citing "his," and that the author purposely uses male language, I do not feel it can be used to try and argue the opposite. It's a spotty position to argue from, and it's essentially against pure word from the author. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is literally a passage in the first novel where the characters discuss Alice's gender with the argument being made that since she wants to be referred to as a woman, the characters should respect that. The fact that you do otherwise says more about you than about the novel. ThunderPX (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the tagline you mentioned does not use a pronoun for that second sentence, so I call into question your supposed knowledge of the Japanese language that you're basing this on. ThunderPX (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've decided to revert the changes, restoring the previously used sources as well as adding the actual volume 1, complete with page number, as a source. If this is not satisfactory, I don't know what to tell you--being transgender is a matter of self-identification, and the character herself saying "I am a maiden born in the body of a man" could not possibly be any clearer. If you don't understand this, I suggest you educate yourself on the subject further before making changes like this. ThunderPX (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, ThunderPX. Draco has been on a one-man crusade against this character being one of the few canonically in-world confirmed trans characters in light novels/anime/manga and nothing backs him up except him using flimsy "name use" arguments and "pronoun translations that I insist are correct" that force western views on trans people onto foreign works that don't match up with societal Japanese views on trans people. He has also edited the TV Tropes article to erase Alice being trans and succeeded. I also find that Knowledgekid87 stating that Draco did not need a source to remove Alice being trans in the first place, yet saying I require two "anime industry" sources to restore his change, to be a very bizarre discrepancy that does not match standard Wikipedia editing practices or conduct. I question what gives Knowledgekid87 the authority to decide such things with obvious bias towards vandals, when that goes against Wikipedia's own other articles on trans related matters and allows blatant one-man misinformation campaigns as Draco has performed on Wikipedia and TV Tropes. I have attempted to revert his change to the TV Tropes article, but I seem to have lost my password and TV Tropes has no responded to my request for password recovery. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s the English version, and unless it’s suddenly the only version in existence it’s not aligning to the JP release, or the Mandarin one if you want to talk official releases that are outside Japan. Gotta ask it be reverted unless there’s some answer from the author. Draco Safarius (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no sources to back you up. You have also asked for more sources while doing nothing to refute or provide rebuttals against ThunderPX's sources. If this is so important to you that you will spend several months trying to demand a character not be considered trans, please bring proper sources. A wiser course of action I would suggest is look at yourself and question why this is so very important to you that you would attempt to vandalize Wikipedia, TV Tropes, Anime-Planet, and the Rakudai Wikia over something only you are trying so hard to make reality against the good senses of your peers.Cyberweasel89 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean I’ve already done so above, and said argument didn’t refute or counter my earlier reply from your initial parent comment explaining the reasoning, only really sidestepped it. Draco Safarius (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Reversed for the edit reasons listed. Additionally, I'm just going to ask a third party admin gets brought in if either of you reverts without the requested source(s) in the edit reason, we can let them sort it out since neither of you seem open to talking, especially Cyberweasel89, and ThunderPX just essentially re-added the prior without tackling why it supersedes despite having access and to the talk page and being able to read the entire argument. Just ignored everything but one point that was supplementing the actual point. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It really did. You didn't address his reasons at all. You keep saying "pronoun is here" (when it isn't, as any Google translate of Japanese text to English is going to mess up gendered pronouns, anyone who's used it to read Japanese webpages can tell you that) and you claim that "the author" using "Nagi" instead of "Alice" has to mean Alice isn't trans even though Japan doesn't see deadnaming the same way the west does (so objective editing of Wikipedia should not force your culture onto a Japanese writer when you're supposed be all about direct 1:1 translations as you confirmed on Reddit) and you claim that material that isn't in the actual story has to bow to what the author allegedly says outside of it even though no one only reading the story would know the author said it. ThunderPX didn't sidestep it, he refuted it. But you haven't once addressed your lack of grasp of the Japanese language, the scene sourced in volume 1 that you won't acknowledge (still), and Alice saying "I'm a maiden trapped in the body of a man" is as clear as it gets yet you continue to avoid addressing it with curious avoidance practices, completely ignoring proper Wikipedia sourcing etiquette. It's like ThunderPX said, this seems more about your issues and lack of knowledge about the subject matter you're trying to vandalize a Wikia article over, so why do you keep ignoring clear points and avoiding the advice we've given about looking at yourself before you vandalize articles?

You're the only one who wants this that I've been able to find, and you want it so hard to the point you'll vandalize Wikipedia articles and artgue with peers who are more educated on the matter than you. Why? Why have you dedicated the last three months of your life to trying to vandalize Wikipedia, Anime-Planet, TV Tropes, and the Rakudai Wiki with your flimsy insistence than Alice isn't a canonically confirmed trans character in a work of Japanese fiction? You've been doing this on four sites for three months, so it must be something very important to you. So why? Why be so fixated on trans erasure for this one character in this one series to the point you'll ignore sources that counter yours and complain that a Rakudai Discord server on Anime-Planet didn't care about your nothingburger of an issue with a trans character existing where you could see her? Your desire to erase this trans character from official records is bordering on desperation, and I can't figure out why you're so fixated on doing so that you've spent three entire months of your life being the only one who wants it and ignoring every single one of your peers who disproves, disagrees, or finds your issue strangely specific. And you won't explain or refute the clear character conversations as early as volume 1 that confirm Alice is trans, suggesting you haven't read the light novel or are insisting that some Author comment and a lone pronoun you say is there (but isn't) supercede the character dialogue for no actually adequately explored reason, to the point you're now in an edit-war trying to vandalize this article and get it to stick. Why? Why so fixated with trans erasure on this one character to the point you'll be a lone renegade no one agrees with and demand everyone else in the world be wrong while you sit alone in your island, content with the idea that you're correct when the entire world is wrong no matter what or how strange your fixation on one thing you want to be right about is? It's such a strange life goal to me. All that time, effort, energy, thought, and focus, all on erasing the canonically confirmed trans identity of this one character... it almost seems monomaniacal to me, so why? Cyberweasel89 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You also claim that the "review" is not valid, even though Knowledgekid87 requested two "anime industry" sources for Alice being trans, and that is indeed one. As a review in anime media, it is more official a source than your claims. I could even link you a second via a video on Youtube reviewing Rakudai where Alice is specifically called a trans woman, and would you also claim it is wrong yet not give a reason why? So the fact you claim it is invalid is very strange to me, as I fail to see why you claim that such a source, directly matching what KNowledgekid87 requested, is somehow invalid for no clear rationality given. You seem so quick to claim it's invalid and not give a reason, so why? If I were to be presumptuous, it seems you don't actually care about accuracy of the article. Only confirmation bias for the single notion you have for one single character and will vandalize articles on four different sites to push on others to try and change the source material to suit your wishes. It's very strange to me... I can't figure out why this is so important to you that you would spend three months running a one-man campaign as the only person who actually has convinced themselves that Alice is not a canon trans character. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Again no, that was the supplementary part supporting the parent argument. If you have a problem with that and feel that was the entirety of the argument then you can feel free to go discuss with every single translator group, or JP savvy reader that had it translated differently. Since you've seemingly not done that then I can only conclude that you both only want to base this off the English release and disregard anything outside of that, even if it's another official release that says otherwise, because you can't look at it outside of your own warped confirmation bias.

And as a bonus, no, it isn't edit warring as per your own edit. We already had a third party earlier up in this chain confirm your edit was unfounded, and since you've restored it without any info that was asked that would be unquestionable, you've gotten into that realm. Though, Wikipedia's edit warring policy is fairly lax, surprisingly, so even though you are you're almost certainly not going to get classed as it.

Regardless, like the above mentioned, I'm just going to grab an admin to third party this when I get a chance in a bit. We'll never agree, and you refuse to let go of a second tier release, so we'll just have someone look at it, make a decision, and be done with it. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like projection when you claim that it's our own warped confirmation bias. "I'm a maiden in the body of a man" is the standard way that trans women in Japan describe being trans due to a lack of a clear, common word for "transgender" in the Japanese common parlance, and you continue to reufse to refute that one. It's as clear as it can possibly be, yet you always avoid acknowledging or rebutting this fact from the source material. The fact the characters also discuss respecting Alice's gender is another matter you repeatedly avoid. No one agrees with you. Japanese people agree that Alice fits their cultural standard for a trans woman. You keep saying that the English release lied, but you have no proof other than bad Google Translates of the Japanese version that you insist are more correct, somehow, and are willing to vandalize Wikipedia with no proof of your translation claim (even with it being actively disproven, with you then claiming that it's debunked a good Wiki editor's bias you accuse them of, while implying you have none when you clearly do).

You still continue to fixate strangely specifically over trying to cling to any flimsy excuse you can think of to erase a trans character from a franchise. Why? Why is this so important to you that you'd ignore clear conversations in canon and vandalize Wikipedia for it? You also are trying to misrepresent Knowledgekid87's strange double standard where I require proof for reverting your original edit but you do not require proof to make the sourceless edit in his eyes.

You somehow believe that, after your clear shows of campaigning to vandelize four sites, a Wikia admin would exonerate your odd fixation with trans erasure on one character? Okay, but I still fail to see why this is such a matter of importance to you. Besides, seeing how vital this is to your life, I fail to see why an admin settling the matter in the favor of everyone who isn't you would stop you from trying to vandalize more articles about Alice. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean I also covered both those things you try to say I never once talked about in any fashion, but please direct this to the dispute form. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm still really confused why you're so fixated on doing this for three months. You're the only one, so why do you want every online article and person to conform to something? Why insist you're right and the rest of the world is wrong? Cyberweasel89 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright let me explain start to finish. However long ago on a Disqus (plugin most anime sites use for replies/comments) notifier I had some guy responded to a comment I left on Chivalry of a Failed Knight when I watched it in like 2019 or something. He mentioned a few characters and I completely forgot everyone's names outside Shizuku in the over 2 years, so I went to the Fandom wiki to look up the char names he was mentioning.

Said wiki was a disaster with locked pages, their talk pages being pure cancer etc. Saw that the actual head mod/wiki owner, one of the mods on their who actually speaks/reads fluent Japanese, and the guy who handles actual changes he notices requests for all saying that the page should've been listed as male/guy, but one of the other mods had changed it because he wanted it to match up with other sites and avoid more people attacking them.

That went down the rabbit hole of seeing all their justification, and tons of linked translator groups, all in favor of the male side. I saw plenty of different TL's that all came out on that side, and looking at it myself with pseudo-pronouns the Japanese use I got the same thing, so I requested they change it. One of the talk pages for the guy I requested it from had a reply lower down the thread (before the random mod changed the page) mentioning how other sites listed it differently, so I went to those and linked/explained the argument, if they thought it had merit and were a site that used their staff/mods to change it then that meant they agreed, or in the case of ones where you can freely edit people are welcome to come in and counter argue, but most of the arguments are basically just them being mad and lobbing insults.

Back to Fandom, the wiki mods were in favor of it, since the new mod didn't know all their arguments for it, and it got changed. Fandom staff came in swinging ignoring everything and assuming that since the mods spoke English they had to use all of the English translations, regardless of there being other official releases saying otherwise, or some attack/skill names being royally mistranslated. (This is also directly against their own site guidelines of letting wikis who translate stuff choose to adhere to fan translations or use official, it's their mod's decision. That was its own disaster, but it's not related.)

The above of going to the mentioned sites took me all of like fifteen to twenty minutes, and the only two I actually *cared* about were here, Wikipedia, and Anilist, since I got notifiers for them in email. Anilst turned into the mods harassing me in DMs for linking them to the JP publisher, and lying in replies followed by deleting my replies showing them lying. Hellhole of a site, gets worse when you look into their forum posts.

The parent comment for this chain that you mentioned with Anime-Planet is a bit special, in that they force you to go onto Discord now, so my initial edit request sat there for like two or three months of nothing happening and they told me to go explain on Discord, agreed with me, but then also just didn't change anything, hence the angry comment on that page.

Big old wall of text drama aside, the argument for it is, as far as I've been able to see, one that makes sense. Plus, when you combine it with how plenty of European and American based publishers release altered copies of stuff they get caught on and have to reprint, and there being other official releases that don't do that then it ends up with it being a very strong argument in my opinion. Since it's not just some random page I corrected a small typo on, and I actually went through with combing translator groups that were all coming out the same to an argument point I agreed with, yes I actually bother to read/fix the page if I think it's a bad edit. It's not really about making other sites do something. Either way, it doesn't matter if I think it's right, or whether there's citations or not since we keep going back and forth, so leave it to the dispute form. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

So your explanation boils down to "western culture influencing Japanese media becuase trans people don't exist in Japan" conspiracy theory, "1:1 translation even though the translation you're using isn't one you have proof is accurate," "lots of hearsay that you don't have proof of," "you being hurt for your obvious excuses for your transphobia so you play victim for your months-long transphobic crusade," "the founder of the Rakudai Wikia being an open transphobic bigot who says that trans people don't exist and gender is tied to genitals somehow means his original writing and locking of the article portraying Alice as mental ill/delusional WASN'T his own bias, all of which you can see in the Alice Talk page where he openly expressed his hostile transphobic beliefs," "You being the only one who cares about this need for trans erasure for some bizarre and likely excuse-laden reason rooted in open transphobia," "you not understand Japanese, transgender identity, or Japanese culture but claiming you do," "more hearsay that you don't have proof of," and "claims that since there's SOME company who needed to reprint a minor error, this is clearly an intentional and malicious trans-ing of a character that wasn't trans in the original even though your claims are all flimsy." Yeah, you're really coming off like an unhinged faux-intellectual transphobe on a one-man crusade who's gotten so deep into sunk cost fallacy that you can't admit you were misguided or mistaken lest you admit fault or weakness. This still doesn't tell me why you've spent so many months obsessed over this absurd notion that trans people don't exist in Japan when "I'm a woman/maiden in a man's body/at heart" is a very literal translation used in lots of manga and light novels, and there's a global conspiracy about western companies forcing trans characters into Japanese media you have. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No, no, and no.

The first point you make was just explaining reasoning as to why using a second tier source as gospel from god is a bad excuse, since there have been translators that purposely change things, and that there are other sources of the same tier that do it differently. If you have 2 things saying red and 2 saying blue, then it's at best purely neutral. I won't fault anyone for trying to use an official release, but when there's other official releases that counteract it the entire point for using it is kind of moot and you should default to the source text or the author's statements if they exist.

The translation thing, as I explained above, is more about the fact that you've got like a decade+ of very different JP fluent groups that translated it that way, readers on the wiki doing so, and then when I looked into it on my own for kanji use (which is admittedly annoying due to multiple meanings on one character) I got the same. Not sure where the hearsay thing is coming in from.

Misreading harder than I thought on that part for being hurt, that was just a full explanation and was after the fact anyway. I only put the whole since if I said "Wikipedia's the only one I still get notifications for" you'd deny it, but then here I am just including everything and you start ridiculously warping it as if it's supposed to be justification. Guess I have to lay out the timeline so, something like this:

- Fandom rabbit hole

- The other sites all at once

- Period of nothing happening

- Then Fandom staff swinging

- Then Anilist mods harassing and deleting stuff

- Finally Anime-Planet starts reading their submission thread and redirects me to Discord, give them the same as the other sites

- You initially in here

- More random time passing

- You getting Thunder to edit for you and so on

Anilist having absolutely awful people as their staff isn't influencing anything else or justification for anything, it was, again, just included since if it and the others weren't you'd either say I was lying and/or insult me again, though it has the added "benefit" of illustrating how toxic people can get over this.

Beyond those "points," no. For the wiki, the head mod is different from the wiki owner as the owner hasn't been active for years, I just bundled them together since the latter is functioning like the owner. Though, yes, the actual owner was hyper toxic, that's why I mentioned the talk page being awful. He and plenty of others were at each other's throats in there. The head mod and the others I mentioned, however, were not, they were chill.

Now for the reprinting, it's varied. You get some where they mistranslate stuff or ever so slightly change a skill/technique name, which is kind of expected so long as it's minor, then you get some where they outright change the story or a character, and then finally you get some where they purposely omit entire passages of text they don't like. Once again, I'm not saying that since some have done that it puts every one else doing English TLs in the same boat, I was using that for explanation as to why using a release in the medium where that happens while ignoring other releases of the same tier was not a good move. And yes, should you ask, in the case for the second and third, original publishers forced reprints, which is more reasoning to not look at some translated release as being 100% accurate and approved by the parent publisher or author, they rarely actually check them. And before you ask, two I can recall off the top of my head were both 7Seas releases.

And for the last bit, really not sure where you're going with this. I'm not crusading anything, and the only person coming off as any kind of pseudo anything is you with saying things are commonly ways of doing something but without anything further than that, and who is also coincidentally the one hurling insults constantly and being overly aggressive with everything, and not just with me. You can still say the thing about being a woman at heart, but like Knowledgekid said way above, unless there's some actual kind of citation for it, then it's just your, or other reader's, own viewing and interpretation of the text/situation. That's why you and me arguing does nothing, hence bringing in the third party. Draco Safarius (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here you can see that the Japanese version of Wikipedia clearly showed Arisu as a woman. I was provided this by a Japanese Twitter user, who also confirmed to me that Alice is indeed seen as a trans woman by Japan.

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/落第騎士の英雄譚 Cyberweasel89 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no horse in this race but fan wikis aren't considered a reliable source regardless of whatever dispute is happening over there, so I really see no basis in it being mentioned. lullabying (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  I went through the entire conversation, so here's what I have to say: Cyberweasel89 and ThunderPX, I agree with Knowledgekid87 that you would need an industry source (preferably secondary or an explicit one from the creator) to back up your statements to prevent further disputes from taking wind. I see that you've mentioned sources from the work itself but the problem with them is that "a maiden born in a man's body" (while definitely language indicative of transgender people) is that it doesn't explicitly state the author's core interpretation of the character (if it really mattered to him in the first place). I'm stating this only because there have been instances in the past where a character from Japanese media has been interpreted as being a trans girl only for someone from the creative team to describe the character as being male in later interviews (Lily from Zombieland Saga comes to mind but that's another can of worms altogether). In addition, there is a lot of bad faith accusations from both parties... please remember to be civil and leave outside disputes out of this. lullabying (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  I legitimately do not know how to interpret "a maiden born in a man's body" in any other manner. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that this isn't 100% indicative of the character being a trans woman. The trait is still important enough that it's a big part of the character's introduction and mentioned in her official bio, so it certainly warrants mentioning in her character info here, so it should not be omitted. Once you do that, you must also make a choice about what pronouns to use--using "he/him" immediately after making a statement about the character identifying otherwise seems like a terrible idea no matter what.

  I apologize, but I do not have the time to read through everything that Cyberweasel89 and Draco Safarius wrote above; it's a massive wall of text and a lot of it appears to be irrelevant, bad faith arguments. I apologize also if I've inadvertently stoked the fire on that by making assumptions about Draco Safarius--this was certainly me jumping the gun from previous experiences with things like this, including the aforementioned Zombieland Saga dispute.

  Skimming through, it doesn't really seem like anyone refuted anyone else's points definitively, so my stance still remains that "a maiden born in the body of a man", stated by both official bios and the character herself, is fairly unambiguous. I see no reason not to write Alice's bio accordingly simply because a hypothetical statement from the author in either direction doesn't presently exist. If the author does say something to the contrary, of course anyone would be free to edit the article accordingly with said source, but we have to deal with the sources as presently presented. The author has not said anything to my knowledge in interviews or the like, so we have to use the work itself as our main source. I'm certain there are also numerous reviews and articles talking about the series where the respective authors also refer to Alice as a trans woman, similar to the ANN article I used as one of my sources. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's exact policy here (I don't edit very often, I admit), but if the general public perception of the character is that she is a trans woman, that would provide a strong argument, would it not? ThunderPX (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Addendum (sorry, I keep thinking of things after I've hit post): I don't see any merit in Draco Safarius' argument that the translated books are an invalid source, because they're... "considered bad"? By whom? Additionally, to my knowledge, the "maiden born in a man's body" line still exists in the Japanese book and the bio (the latter of which I used as a source in the first place). It does seem that the author will use male pronouns for Alice on occasion in the narration--this seems to be something of a sticking point for Draco Safarius as well, so I pose the question: the character self-identifies as a woman, but the narration isn't always on board with this. Which trumps the other?

  For my part, I don't think we should read into the author's intention either way, as that would be OR. Whether he wrote the character without intending for her to be trans, or he's doing something transphobic on purpose, or he wanted to write a trans character but messed up with the pronouns... unless the author says so himself, all of these are irrelevant conjecture, and we once again come down to the bio, and the scene in the book itself where Alice calls herself "a maiden in a man's body", followed by the characters discussing this--capped off by the character Shizuku asking that since Alice sees herself as a woman, the other characters should respect that. For my part, I agree with her. ThunderPX (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is about the statement "maiden in a man's body" is that it can easily be interpreted to something like "this character is male but is in touch with his feminine side" or "someone who sees themselves as equally male and female" as I've seen many times before with other characters. What did the official translation end up with going? lullabying (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like there's a dispute resolution going on with this subject so I'm just going to wait until it concludes before continuing this discussion. lullabying (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not quite. You're missing some cultural context. Japan doesn't quite categorize gender identity the same as western cultures. Sometimes "okama," a kind of gay crossdresser akin to a drag queen in Japan, can say "I'm a woman at heart." However, in Japanese culture, okama ARE considered a form of alternate gender identity, rather than simply "a gay drag queen." It's hard to explain without a lot of knowledge of how society treats and sees people, but an okama in Japanese society is typically seen as simultaneously "a gay drag queen" and "an extravant woman" and is technically treated as both, but isn't quite genderfluid either. Japan lacks common gendered pronouns, but okama are generally referred to with masculine pronouns even while treated like women in other ways.

  Since Japanese language has no specific unified word for transgenderism, "I am a woman at heart" or "I am a maiden in the body of a man" is used as a poetic way to express this, even outside of the okama usage. This can most be clearly seen in Kiku, a character in the manga "One Piece." She is introduced as a woman and when it is revealed she is biologically male, she replies "I'm a woman at heart." This is distinctly separate from the okama characters that also appear in One Piece who also say "I have a maiden's heart" but do not adhere to Japanese cultural standards for trans women (instead adhering to okama standards). Another character who is Kiku's brother is a more standard male crossdresser who is not a trans woman nor does he identify as an okama, he simply dresses as a kind of traditional Japanese feminine dancer but still carries himself with masculine mannerisms and is treated as male. In the official databooks for One Piece, whereas other characters are listed as "male" or "female," Kiku is listed as "Male (Woman at Heart)" which IS a very standard and official way for listing someone as a trans woman in Japan, while the okama characters in the databook have no such distinction and are simply listed with the standard "male." To further cement this, in a hot spring scene, Kiku bathes with the women and they are all okay with it.

  While Alice does typically dress in clothes that, while fashionable, aren't distinctly girly, this is actually seen as acceptable presentation for a trans woman in Japan. In contrast to most western cultures, Japanese culture expects trans woman to dress in more gender-neutral clothes and simply say "I'm a woman inside," and they will recognize the social cues and accept them as a woman. Whereas a trans woman dressing all girly intrudes upon otokonoko behavior and so they are less likely to be accepted as their gender due to not following the right social conventions for acceptable trans woman behavior.

  It's why I mentioned in another post how Draco was forcing western culture into this. Alice is following all the acceptable Japanese culture cues regarding how a trans woman should carry herself socially, they just don't line up with Draco's own western views for how he thinks trans women should act. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is well thought-out but, unfortunately, this is also WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in terms of discussion's topic (how to describe Alice in the article). Also, please remember to be civil. lullabying (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  How is Japanese culture knowledge around a phrase you were doubting irelevant, but your doubts of the phrase aren't irrelevant? I don't see the difference where one is relevangt to the discussions' topic but the other isn't... I was providing an explanation to your misconception, after all, and sharing some cultural context for understanding the source material. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ORIGINAL states in the opening paragraph: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. I never stated that Japanese context is irrelevant in general, but you aren't providing reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. lullabying (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  The official translation of the novel renders the exchange thus--

  "Okay, Alice. Are you, um... a crossdresser?"

  "No. I'm a maiden born in a man's body."

  The translation proceeds to use she/her for Alice thereafter. This Twitter thread from Adam Haffen, who was the editor for the translation, may be of interest: https://twitter.com/ZeHaffen/status/1203881831004852224 ThunderPX (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is resourceful, so thank you for linking this. I also looked at some of the sources that Draco Safarius provided, which also had an excerpt of one of the novels here. From page 17 to 19 of the excerpt, what I can see is that the author is using male pronouns (彼 specifically) to describe Arisuin, while English-language media is using female pronouns. This is the segment I'm seeing in particular:

  「あたしはもう代表選手じゃないもの。ただこれからかがみんと一緒に民間報道の人たちのパーティに出席することになっててね」

  "I'm no longer a member of the national team. However, from hereon out, I'm going to attend a party for private journalists with Kagamin."

  「もうすっかり日下部さんの助手ね」

  "You sure have become her assistant, huh?"

  「それだけの貸しがあるもの。仕方ないわ」

  "I'm doing her favor, that's all. There's nothing I can do about it."

  珠雫の言葉に肩をすくめて返す有栖院。

  Arisuin shrugs at Shizuku's words in return.

  彼が言う貸しとは、少し前に起こった暁学園による破軍襲撃事件のことである。

  The favor that he is talking about is how there was an attack on Akatsuki Academy that happened a little while ago.

  I don't have an answer for which pronoun should be used in the article; however, it seems that there should be a footnote discussing the differences between the two if either of them are used. lullabying (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  彼 can be used both by males and females, though the former usage is more common. 彼 is the more neutral of the two main 1st p. pronouns in Japanese, as 彼女 kanojo only ever means "she." If any pronoun was going to be used for a character of ambiguous gender it would be 彼–small jars tc 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Then that agrees with the point that if the author ascertained that the character is to be unambiguously referred to as female from the start, then they would have used 彼女. I believe 彼 used to be a gender neutral pronoun but in modern use it's more applied to men. lullabying (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes a lot of the above text walls got into stuff that became irrelevant to the topic, should have moved it to either of our talk pages honestly but didn't think of that. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  You claim that Japanese culture around trans people should not apply to something you keep saying can only hinge on the words of the author and the original untranslated Japanese? Huh, so it's true. You really are just looking to be right and don't care about actual fair canon sourcing. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is the third time I've asked you if you could please stop it with the bad faith arguments and keep your outside website dispute out of this discussion. You already have a dispute resolution open. At this point, this is making the discussion on both fronts unproductive. lullabying (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Not reading this full wall-of text discussion, but suffice to say that unless a character actively self-identifies with a specific identity label (in this case, as a transgender woman), or the author specifically describes them as such, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to authoritatively state their identity in those terms. There is a wide spectrum of LGBT identities, and we should not be prescriptive about a character's identity just because they are presented as being non-cisgender or non-heterosexual. E.g., Revolutionary Girl Utena is a series with very obvious LGBT themes, but because the characters do not describe themselves in those terms, it would not be appropriate to say "Utena is a lesbian" or "Utena is bisexual". This is material that would be appropriate for an "Analysis" section, but should not be presented as direct plot or character details. Morgan695 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment can we get some better sources on this issue? I was hoping there'd be evidence such as with Talk:List_of_Attack_on_Titan_characters#Hanji_and_their_nongender-binaryness. What does the English light novel say? What about the manga? Anime? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  The tweets from Adam "ZeHaffen" are good and should be included in the discussion as he was working for Sol Press when they did the translations for the official Chivalry light novel. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  English is different from the Japanese, though the Mandarin release is not, and has no indication there was ever any discussion with the original publisher or author, and as far as I'm aware translation publishers don't usually discuss with the original distributors or creators. Since the idea is just supposed to be them translating and keeping changes to sayings other audiences might not understand, or attaching a translator's note explaining it, and making it grammatically legible for the translated language they don't check their work. A translation distributor would be assumed to not change things on their, or their staff's, whim. Because lack of oversight is more often the norm that's why there's been so many bad changes in translations that are essentially rewrites in anime, manga, and light novels, and given how many times it's blown up in publishers' faces that resulted in reprints it's fairly safe to say the original publishers and authors don't like unwanted changes. Not sure if it's the case with this, but given that the tweet you mentioned, that they brought up, essentially tracks with the same arguments used by several individuals defending changes they then got forced to correct after getting the original publisher involved I would say that it works counter for trying to use it. Also that they don't mention any discussion with the creator(s) over it, so it would be almost explicitly implied it's their, or their team's, opinion, and wouldn't hold any water.

  Unsure on the manga as I've never seen a version that wasn't fan translated, but both it and the anime lack a narrator which was the point of the initial change. If the narrator's presented as all-knowing/infallible then it's just the author themselves presenting what's the case and would need either that same narrator, the author outside of the text, or the publisher to clarify otherwise. Wouldn't matter what other media did different, regardless of the staff's explanation, unless there was express indication, that could be cited, that the author and publisher were aware of it and okay with it. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  As was done with Zoe Hange's section, the description can be rewritten to avoid pronouns altogether, and then have a paragraph discussing how the English translations have interpreted the gender identity of the person. If "woman trapped in a man's body" quote was in the original light novel work, then that can be the starting point, and then list Sol Press Adam's translation, and then the anime interpretation. Just like with Hange, where the manga left Hange as nonbinary, but the live-action had a woman portray Hange. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's also something to be said that if for all intents and purposes the character is referred to by she/her pronouns across light novel, manga, and anime, then use that. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  The first reply idea you had was suggested on the dispute form, and barring just going with strictly what's written (option C for the below RFC voting) it's the best compromise. However, Robert McClenon as the overseeing mod felt it disruptive to add an entire section, either to the character overview or page itself, discussing it when he's not even one of the direct main characters, just supporting main. I'd still say it's the best solution though, as if it's just using the narrator/author people will still try rage editing, and if it's changed to go with their argument then it goes against the author which just makes it factually incorrect at that point. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  See also the description on Haganai for Yukimura Kusunoki. Declares as he/him in the first part of the series, later revealed to be biologically female, but still wants to use he/him. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Gender of Character Nagi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Four different statements have been proposed concerning the gender of the character named Nagi. Which of the statements are acceptable statements about the gender of the character? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please reply Yes or No in response to the question at the bottom of each section as to whether the version is acceptable. Please do not reply to the answers of other editors in the sections for Yes and No answers. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section.

A

• A. This is what is currently in the article.

Alice is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. She is described as "a maiden who was born into the body of a man" and, in the English translation, female pronouns are used to refer to her. Nicknamed Black Sonia, she has the ability to control shadows with her device, the Darkness Hermit. Her Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道) and Shadow Spot. Alice is a very nice person, though she does sometimes tease others. She is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to her. She is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. She had a dark past, being an orphan who lost her friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, she attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, she turned against Rebellion, due to her friendship with Shizuku.

References

Is version A acceptable?

Yes. ThunderPX (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Cyberweasel89 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. lullabying (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Morgan695 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. small jars tc 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Link20XX (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

B

• B. This was previously in the article.

Alice is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. She is a transgender woman. Nicknamed Black Sonia, she has the ability to control shadows with her device, the Darkness Hermit. Her Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道] and Shadow Spot. Alice is a very nice person, though she does sometimes tease others. She is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to her. She is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. She had a dark past, being an orphan who lost her friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, she attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, she turned against Rebellion, due to her friendship with Shizuku.

References

Is version B acceptable?

Yes. ThunderPX (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes Cyberweasel89 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No. lullabying (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Morgan695 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No. small jars tc 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Link20XX (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

C

• C.

Nagi is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. Nicknamed Black Sonia, he has the ability to control shadows with his device, the Darkness Hermit. His Noble Arts include Shadow Bind (影縫い), Shadow Walk (日陰道), and Shadow Spot. Nagi is a very nice person, though he does sometimes tease others. He is a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to him. He is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, which infiltrated Hagun Academy. He had a dark past, being an orphan who lost his friend Yuuri, and was taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In Chapter 36, he attacked Newspaper Club member Kagami and stole her research when she started to uncover evidence of the existence of Akatsuki. However, he turned against Rebellion, due to his friendship with Shizuku.

Nagi prefers going by the name Alice and has described himself as feeling like more of a woman in a man's body, but language in the source text uses male and gender neutral terms leaving the character's gender a debated topic.

Is version C acceptable?

No. ThunderPX (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No Cyberweasel89 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. lullabying (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Morgan695 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No. small jars tc 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Link20XX (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

D

• D.

Alice is a first year student as well as Shizuku's roommate and close friend. Nicknamed Black Sonia, they have the ability to control shadows with their device, the Darkness Hermit, allowing them to travel through shadows and bind others by pinning their shadows. Alice is a very nice person, though they does sometimes tease others. They are a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to them. Alice is born male, but describes themself as "a maiden born in a man's body", and their friends agree to treat them as a woman. However, the narration in the Japanese version often uses male pronouns regardless, making it ambiguous how the character is meant to be viewed. Alice is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, sent to infiltrate Hagun Academy. They had a dark past, being an orphan living on the streets before being taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In advance of Akatsuki's attack on Hagun Academy, Alice assaulted Kagami to keep the existence of Akatsuki under wraps, but their friendship with Shizuku prompted them to turn against the group just prior to the attack.

Is version D acceptable?

Yes. ThunderPX (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes Cyberweasel89 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. lullabying (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Morgan695 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. small jars tc 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Link20XX (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Of the three options where I !voted "yes", my top preference is Option A, secondary preference is Option D, and third preference is Option B. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  To me, all options seem OK except for B, as the narrative does not explicitly mention Arisuin is transgender and Wikipedia should not authoritatively state such. lullabying (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with any option but C, as 1) it strikes me as wrong to use male pronouns for a character who explicitly identifies as a woman, and 2) calling the character "Nagi" feels completely off as the character is never referred to as such in the text, only being called "Alice", "Arisuin" or--when using a full name is appropriate--"Nagi Arisuin". I would compare that to writing an article on Scrubs and insisting on referring to J.D. and Turk as "John" and "Christopher". Nobody calls them that except for their parents or anyone who needs to use their full names, and it's the same in this case.

  I guess I can see why people wouldn't accept option B, but I don't have any issue with it. If I'm not mistaken, I was the one who put the word "transgender" into the article years ago before anyone had any opposition to it, because in my eyes Alice's statement about herself is synonymous with that. ThunderPX (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  In the light novels, is the character most referred to as Alice, Nagi, or Arisuin? What about in the manga and anime series? If they use Arisuin beause they prefer last name honorifics, what given name or nickname do they use most? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  I looked through the book in Japanese and the character is referred to as Arisuin consistently in narration. "Alice" seems to be only a nickname that some characters address the character by. I do not think we should use "Alice." lullabying (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  But we agree that "Nagi" is never used as such, yes? ThunderPX (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, we could use Arisuin throughout the description then. Also, who describes her as "a maiden who was born into the body of a man"? The narrator or Arisuin? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  The character herself, in volume 1, chapter 3:

  "Okay, Alice. Are you, um... a crossdresser?"

  "No. I'm a maiden born in a man's body."

  This description is repeated on the anime's official website, as well as in the special edition booklet for the Blu-ray. ThunderPX (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Character, narrator doesn't touch it and just keeps going male and gender neutral. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's also in the profile section of her character image on the official site for the series, without any quote marks: 男の身体生れた乙女. small jars tc 22:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes but Thunder already mentioned it and wasn't what was being asked. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your attempt to weasel in "BUT NARRATOR MALE" wasn't asked for either, but here we are. ThunderPX (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  By asking whether it was X or Y it prompts clarification for both. X, the character, was already mentioned prior to that and needed no more expanding, Y, the narrator, got explained so a followup reply of "what does the narrator say?" wasn't needed. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Does the narrator then refer to Ariusin as Alice? Since the light novel is from his pov? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  No. It's either Arisuin, Nagi Arisuin, or the occasional use of his moniker/alias Black Sonia/Thorn(s). Draco Safarius (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, individual interpretation is subject to WP:ORIGINAL and is biased. It's best to leave "transgender woman" out of this unless any reliable sources explicitly state such. lullabying (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option C should be avoided because using pronouns that conflict with the official translation will cause confusion for readers using the page as reference while reading/watching the series. Arisuin should not be unambiguously labelled a transgender woman as in option B, as this is original research and a bit of a reductive characterisation. Any sources relating her to transgender experiences (I think there's an ANN article) would be worthy of mention, though. small jars tc 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• My preference would be closer to option A, rewritten more like:

Nagi Arisuin

Nagi Arisuin, known by friends as Alice, is a first-year student at Hagun Academy and Shizuku's roommate. She describes herself as "a maiden who was born into the body of a man".(footnote: light novel dialog snippet including the question "are you a cross-dresser" in Japanese translated. and Japanese anime official website)

(rest of desc)

Adam "ZeHaffen" of Sol Press indicated that Arisuin would be referred to by she/her pronouns in the official English translation of the light novels.(reference footnote twitter threads). The official English anime adaptation refers to Arisuin as (whatever pronouns).

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Should still probably stick to they, them, their etc. Going strictly author/narrator (male and gender neutral together) would be most representative of authorial intent, but would almost certainly prompt future angry edits/reverts. Going strictly off some localized translations and the anime material (female only) would just make it incorrect to the original text and be skewing it by only choosing some releases to acknowledge. Middle ground likely still makes people unhappy, but it's at least halfway there on staying with the source narrator while still somewhat acknowledging some of the differing releases. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I would remove pronouns and replace with statements like: Arisuin self-identifies as "a maiden who was born into the body of a man", and then the later paragraph about adaptations use she/her. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems fair. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Seeing how this has been inactive minus the defunct thread link removal, is it all good to draft up the new version? Draco Safarius (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The version with the most votes is the one that's in the article now, so you should just leave it alone. ThunderPX (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Missed the part where the RFC closer gets to a point where it considers all options, not just leaves it alone. If I'm right in assuming AngusW is the closer for it then the suggestion for a split article section is the verdict, hence asking if it's good to go. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? No closing statement has been made, the RFC tag was just removed by a bot. I don't think it's a good idea to have an RFC based on four options, and then for you to just pull out a fifth option that wasn't part of the vote at all. Don't you think that after we've already been through a dispute resolution where you stonewalled everything, and then had this drawn-out RfC, you should start by involving other editors instead of immediately trying to force through your own idea yet again? ThunderPX (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

When someone shows up, and has a viewable history of good edits, to an RFC discussion and starts considering every single option to reach some semblance of compromise it really only comes across that way. And no, you and Cyberweasel stonewalled by saying the author was wrong. As for other editors, I did ask a few, and random ones would've been notified automatically when this opened. Safe to say by this point that if they opted to not join in then they more than likely won't. So it's just waiting on whoever is closing this, which it seemed AngusW was doing. If not, then it's just going to be more waiting. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't close this since I voted and opined. ;) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and good to know. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"And no, you and Cyberweasel stonewalled by saying the author was wrong." Don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said such a thing. Moreover, I offered plenty of compromises during the dispute resolution and you showed no interest, instead just talking over me the entire time. ThunderPX (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the compromises you both laid out weren't even compromises. You ignored what the author was saying as the narrator, with said narrator not being an unreliable one. That's going against what's plainly stated and really can't come across any way except saying the author's wrong. Draco Safarius (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The author also wrote Alice's dialogue, which is what we were going by. Also, one of my compromises was literally a choice in the RfC, so stop lying. Throughout this entire debacle you have a history of writing off everyone who disagrees with you as hostile, accusing them of "rage editing", bringing people in from off-site to support them, twisting their words to make them sound unreasonable, etc. and it needs to stop.

In the interest of actually moving this forward, I have submitted a closure request, which is what you should have done in the first place instead of assuming a random editor had shown up and taken their suggestions for a closing statement somehow. ThunderPX (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, first off, no. What you wrote wasn't a compromise as that'd be both sides included. You went for an ambiguous middle ground which was still based on the stance that the author using male plus gender neutral was wrong.

That aside, I'm surprised I have to explain this again. Character dialogue is indeed written by the author, but when they then consciously decide to show the case being otherwise through the work's font of information, and said font is never shown to be inaccurate, then it shows their dialogue isn't the case for how things are. Char 1 self describes as a genius and several other characters call them as such, but the narrator constantly says they're in fact anything but a genius. You don't write their entire description as a genius, at best you say they're self-described but in actuality not.

And, yet again, no. The writing off is you, Cyberweasel, and the other one somewhere in the initial discussion who were trying to justify an English release be taken over the original. That's immediately a red flag. Rage editing is a thing, as you both did it and continue to prove the point. Bringing people off-site is also a thing as Cyberweasel got someone from Twitter to come edit for them. And twisting words is a no, as if I can read something and get that impression immediately then that's not exactly twisting, nor is it if it lines up 100% with what you do.

And for a closure request, I would have were that indicated in the beginning of the RFC. Came across as once the discussion was done the closer would just end it. Draco Safarius (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that when the author wrote the light novels, the custom of selecting gendered pronouns or using singular they wasn't popularized in Japan yet. You would have to check when the Japanese language started accommodating for that if at all. Do authors there now put (they/them) in their profiles? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well you'd have to find works that started years after this with a similar situation and I can't think of any since I don't read all too many light novels. Lullabying seemed more informed on them in general use so they might have something to go off. Draco Safarius (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Japanese authors don't do this because it's not typically necessary to address or speak about someone you don't know personally using pronouns. It's considered impolite to do so, so the person's name is generally used where the English version would substitute a pronoun to prevent repetition. ThunderPX (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Well, first off, no. What you wrote wasn't a compromise as that'd be both sides included. You went for an ambiguous middle ground which was still based on the stance that the author using male plus gender neutral was wrong."

Yes... because that was your stance, which myself and other editors didn't agree with. So my proposal had us meet in the middle. That's what a compromise is.

I will not respond to your other allegations as I've already previously explained why none of that is true and you refused to listen.

If you actually read how an RfC works, you would know how closure works. This is not the first time you've refused to actually read Wikipedia policy and just made up something yourself. Stop it. ThunderPX (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A compromise is where both parties concede to a middle ground, each getting something. The argument of "this character should be listed as male since the author's most direct view supports this" versus "this character should not be listed as male since their dialogue and the English releases support this" does not have a compromise of using purely gender neutral language. The compromise for that would be, as AngusWoof mentioned in an earlier reply, a separate subsection in the character's section. That is what I had thrown in as an extra suggestion in the dispute resolution. Draco Safarius (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That idea was already nixed in the dispute resolution by User:Robert McClenon, so I'm not sure why it's on the table again. I'm also not of the opinion that the English release is the final word; I've only used it to show there is precedent for using she/her pronouns for Alice in the English language.

User:Draco Safarius, User:ThunderPX, User:AngusWOOF - Since you called me, I see that this RFC has expired, but has not yet been formally closed. I didn't vote in it. Do you want me to close it, and state what is the consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thunder submitted a close request separate from that, so up to you on whether you want to wait on someone else to pick that up or just go ahead and start going through replies to get to an end point. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not believe the narrator is automatically "the author's direct word". The narration is not omniscient, but usually reflects the thoughts and knowledge of the current POV character--usually Ikki Kurogane, but someone else when he isn't in the scene. I don't think the narration can be taken as proof of anything but what the POV character is thinking, and Ikki admits himself upon meeting Alice that he has no familiarity with anything but the good old gender binary and representation.

We have to make a decision on how to refer to Alice within her character bio. That decision is the entire point of the RfC. Option A received the most votes, followed closely by Option D. I should assume the person who will be along to make a closing statement will take that into account. ThunderPX (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I mean it wasn't nixed, it was just said to seem bloated for a minor type of main character, and I do agree with that sentiment. But, it's really the only compromise.

Regarding the narrator, it's always assumed to be omniscient unless shown otherwise. And while, yes, narrators often explain any character's thoughts on a scene, much of the narration is just detail separate from thoughts. The cases where it's not is usually either mystery or horror novels where you're trying to keep it to their perspective to not reveal too much. Even if it were somehow purely restricted to thoughts from any individual character in this it would then invalidate the dialogue as you'd have every person saying two things and it would be a pure impasse. Draco Safarius (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is the narrator assumed to be omniscient unless shown otherwise? ThunderPX (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a standard of writing. There's first person narration (the character themselves telling you what they experienced/thought happened), third person (someone not part of the story telling you what happened). With first person narration you almost always assume a bit of skepticism since it's one person's perspective. With 3rd, they have to show they're unreliable by incorrectly presenting what's going on, or later contradicting themselves. The noted exceptions still apply as purposeful withholding of information doesn't make them unreliable, as they may reveal it later.

With this it's kind of a bog standard 3rd person narration with the narrator being the info dumper. Said narrator occasionally noting when it's a character's thoughts by saying "X thought, X's eyes witnessed, they heard etc." But outside of those instances where they're expressly telling you that piece is a character's thoughts or perceptions it's a disconnected narrator. Because it's mixing in character perspective rather than wholly written from them, the inaccuracies in observations or thoughts are directly left to the characters and not the narrator's descriptions of the events. Saying "the character thought he had figured it all out" is just saying the character in question is believing something, not presenting it as true.

So to question on whether the narrator is reliable or not you have to determine if the narrator is explaining things and separating out when it's a character's thoughts/observations, and if they are separate is the narrator later contradicting themselves outside of character's thoughts. In this case it does separate general information of things versus people's thoughts. As for later contradictions I'm unsure, as I haven't read past like volume 11 or so, and that was ages ago. If someone else could point the narrator mistaking something, and it wasn't a character's perception, then there would be grounds for saying they're unreliable. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a third person limited perspective throughout. There is no omniscient version of the narrator to use as contrast. I don't know what you're going on about. ThunderPX (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a standard type of intermixed you'd find in like 90%+ fantasy novels. If it was purely limited then there'd be no objective observations and everything would be limited to saying they saw, heard, observed, felt etc. Like previously mentioned, the author uses the removed 3rd person narrator for describing everything but their respective feelings/observations/thoughts, and unless there's something showing said narrator is wrong or another character entirely who is recounting then they're infallible/omniscient. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What the hell is a "standard type of intermixed"? No decent book would constantly qualify that the POV character "feels" or "thinks" something. They're unnecessary filler words. You can infer easily from the narration that the perspective is limited.

The books constantly omit information that Ikki or another POV character doesn't know to build suspense! In volume 1 alone, the entire climax is built around Ikki not recognizing his own deteriorating mental state, even after Alice explains it to him straight up, and the narration reflects that by not making any statements about all the signs of his impending breakdown beyond what Ikki is experiencing. ThunderPX (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What that means is 3rd person limited is never just 3rd person limited as much of the descriptions are still from the PoV of a removed narrator. Not near as much writing actually does pure limited since it's harder to do everything from an individual's perspective, doubly so when you constantly swap characters.

And yes, the omission is like I mentioned before. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

So back to narrator: Is the light novel done in first person or third person? When the narrator refers to Stella, do they use different pronouns than referring to Alice, all after Alice self-identifies, that is? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean the dialogue since the use of "boku" and such is still open to interpretation. When referring to Alice, is the narrator using pronouns consistently with Stella and female characters, or with Shizuya and other male characters, or using a pronoun equivalent of singular they? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Third, and yes. Narrator goes with what is traditionally female for characters like Stella and the others. When it comes to Nagi it's always male-leaning and gender neutral. Forget where else in here but Lullabying did a good description over the ones used. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit confused about the "very nice person". Is that the narrator's take, or was that in a profile? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well generally is pretty nice person, but I think it was from when Shizuku introduced him to Ikki and Stella. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

so: Shizuku describes Arisuin as a very nice person. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am okay with option A or D, though I prefer A. I agree that we generally shouldn't assume a character is transgender based on interpretation. However, since the official translation uses she/her, I would say that should be preferred here as well as discussions regarding similar topics tend to support using the official translation whenever there is doubt. Link20XX (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.