Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 227

Chivalry of a Failed Knight

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Draco Safarius on 22:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Summary of dispute by ThunderPX

The original work has Alice self-identify as "a maiden born in the body of a man". This is reiterated on the anime adaptation's website in Alice's character bio. I see no reasonable interpretation of this other than the character being transgender. This line exists in the Japanese work as well as the English translation. The other characters in the scene then discuss this, with ultimately the conclusion being "Alice wants to be seen as a woman, so we should respect it." External sources also refer to the character as a trans woman and refer to her with she/her pronouns. I see no reason to dispute what is said in the original work, and I do not understand why an explicit statement from the author would be necessary to clarify what is in the literal text of the work, any more than one would need such a statement to clarify a character's hair color or favourite food.

Summary of dispute by Knowledgekid87

My stance is to look at the sources involved when it comes to gender naming. As pointed out here and [1] the kanji used for said character refers to them as male. There is no doubt though that western media such as Anime UK News, and Anime News Network refer to her as a "she". This leaves the issue of respecting the author's original work, versus citing this fictional character as translated into English. My option would be to include both with something like "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender." or something along those lines if possible. If this has blossomed into a larger controversy then it might warrant its own sub-section on the Chivalry of a Failed Knight article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Chivalry of a Failed Knight discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


Zeroth statement by moderator (CFK)

I am possibly opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. It appears that either the only dispute or a part of the dispute has to do with the gender of a character. I see that some of the editors say that the character is a trans woman, a person who was born male and has transitioned into being female. What is the alternate viewpoint as to the gender of the character? Are there any other content issues?

Editors are expected to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I would like each editor, first, to state whether they are willing to discuss in accordance with the rules, and, second, to answer my questions about the scope of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim.
As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I have read the rules and am prepared to participate in the discussion according to them.
The dispute is indeed solely about the gender of the character Nagi Arisuin, nicknamed Alice.
I am of the opinion that the character is a trans woman, so I have nothing to say as to the opposing viewpoint. ThunderPX (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors

Checking back in and saw this section that is probably supposed to be for the initial replies discussion, so just copying my above reply:

All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim.

As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (CFK)

Please read the rules for moderated discussion again.

It appears that the only question is the gender identity of the character known as Alice or Nagi. The article currently states that Alice/Nagi is a transgender woman. One editor has proposed to say, "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender". Is that wording acceptable to other editors? Does any other editor have any other proposed wording?

Does their statement that they are a maiden in a man's body appear both in the Japanese and in the English? If so, is that sufficient to establish that they are, in universe, a transgender woman? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say that is not acceptable wording, barring the nickname or also known as. A better fit would be including it at the end of the character page with a description of preferring the name Alice and also feeling like a woman at heart, or creating a separate section for the article as a whole to briefly cover the issue and list both sides of the argument.
Regarding the statement, however, it does appear in both, but no, I would not say it is sufficient. The author does not use language that would support that, and we should not choose to ignore the author/narrator to purposely skew a viewpoint. If we do it for that then the article as a whole would need to do away with that aspect of the story and it becomes info that can only be supplied via character statements. Draco Safarius (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The "maiden in the body of a man" statement must be seen in its full context. Alice is asked if she is a crossdresser (English translation) or okama (Japanese), which she denies with the above statement. Later in the conversation, the character Shizuku says that since Alice wants to be seen as a woman, the others should treat her as such. The exchange appears to specifically contrast a situation in which a cis male presents in a feminine way with Alice's actual situation. Therefore, I believe Alice's statement is synonymous with being transgender. I would accept the compromise of simply quoting "maiden in the body of a man" verbatim, so long as she/her pronouns are used from thereon out. Additionally, I protest against referring to the character as "Nagi", as the books never do so, only referring to her as either Alice or by her last name Arisuin. ThunderPX (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (CFK)

This is the section referred to in rule 9, correct? I've never done this sort of thing before and it's somewhat confusing and stressful, so my apologies if I put anything in the wrong place. ThunderPX (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (CFK)

This question is for User:Draco Safarius. Please provide the exact language that you think is in order to describe Nagi/Alice.

Other editors may make a one-paragraph statement explaining why the current language, which describes them as transgender, should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I would change or revert the previous edit to the section to put back in the male language and original name, and go with the end of section bit I mentioned above, so that the text would read as:
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. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see my reply to the previous question. ThunderPX (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (CFK)

Like ThunderPX above I do find the rules a bit confusing on layout here, as they don't cover much for each individual section, just giving brief overviews so I apologize in advance if using the back/forth comments section isn't supposed to be used this way. If that's the case just mention it and I'll refrain from it further.

Regarding the above point(s) that ThunderPX lists, I would argue that even if the scene can be read that way the fact the author then purposely goes on for every volume of the series to not address the character with language that would affirm that defeats the arguing point. To put it another way, when the reader is being told something as directly as possible, barring direct statements outside of the series, by the author, through the impartial narrator, it would not logically make sense to set aside the information they are presenting as it can be considered the most accurate unless the narrator is a character recounting the series. And, for the second point, the series does indeed use the name Nagi. The narrator uses either Nagi or Arisuin. The English release version might not, but that was one of the major points in that one should not ignore the source in favor of a less accurate version just because it supports their view/argument. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (CFK)

We have a "black-and-white situation". Two editors think that the article should describe the character as transgender female, and one editor thinks that the article should describe the character as male. I see three ways to deal with this:

  • 1. The minority can defer to the majority, and we can agree that there is rough consensus to describe the character as transgender female.
  • 2. We can request the community to provide consensus on the gender identity of the character by means of an RFC.
  • 3. An editor can write a description of the character that states that the character, who was born male, is of uncertain gender identity, and illustrate this briefly in a way that satisfies both viewpoints. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Each editor is asked to state which of the options are acceptable to them, and we will decide how to proceed. An editor who supports option 3 should write draft language that explains the gender ambiguity of the character.

Statements by editors go in the space for statements by editors. I have been ignoring misplacement of statements because it is more important to get the statements in an orderly manner than to insist on where they go. It is also important that the discussion be civil and concise, which it has been, and that back-and-forth discussion be avoided, which it has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (CFK)

I would say it's actually two editors one way, one the other, and two in the middle (referring to Knowledgekid87 and Lullabying, though the latter only came in after this was opened and is not taking part in this discussion but warrants mentioning for considering both sides).

With regards to the three things laid out, I don't think any of those three options provided are sufficient unless on option three the thing I initially mentioned as a potential resolution of having that be a separate section on the page itself would qualify while retaining the male language in the character section. Should that be the case then I am all in favor of three and would place it either above or below the "Works cited" section of the page, and would phrase it as:


Nagi/Alice Arisuin's Gender

The character of Nagi, or Alice, as has been mentioned as a preferred name, Arisuin has generated debate with regards to gender, and whether or not they should be considered a transgender person. Upon their introduction in the series they mention that they largely prefer to go by the name of Alice and consider themself to be more of a "maiden in a man's body," but this contrasts with how the author uses male and gender neutral language through the narrator when mentioning them in the novels. The conflict between character dialogue and narrator descriptions has sparked debate over what the author was intending them to be and how the character should be classified.


The above aside, between updates on here there was a posted comment reply on the talk page that I think is a good point not previously raised in detail. Draco Safarius (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously option 1 would be most preferable to me, given that it is the shortest route to getting what I see as the correct result. I would absolutely be willing to make use of option 2 to get more opinions on the subject, as right now our sample size is very small. Option 3 is the least preferable to me, but I will nonetheless offer up my take on what such a character description would look like to offer an alternative to Draco Safarius' suggestion:

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. ThunderPX (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


Fourth Statement by Moderator (CFK)

There are four proposed versions of the language about Nagi/Alice:

  • 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.[1][2][3] 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.
  • B. This was in the article until it was changed by an editor who is not a party to this dispute resolution.
Alice is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate. She is a transgender woman.[4][5][6] 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.
  • C. Wording proposed by Draco Safarius
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.
  • D. Wording proposed by ThunderPX
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.

At this point, I am asking each of the editors which of these versions are acceptable to them. That is, say Yes or say No to each version. You may also write another version. After all of the editors say Yes or No to each of the four versions, we will have a better idea of whether we need to proceed to an RFC. If there is an RFC, it will involve choosing between some of these versions of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors (CFK)

I would say A - no, B - No, C - yes, D - no.

There is still also the option for the main body of C excluding the sentence separated from the main description, and moving said separation to create its own topic further down the page like was mentioned in my third parent statement. That is probably the most fair as it follows the idea raised in the talk page comment I mentioned with adhering to a set precedent for a different article with a similar situation, and it does not do away with the original language that is the crux of the issue. The goal should not be replacing and rewording that since that's tantamount to just ignoring the author either in favor of personal bias and/or following a purposely changed secondary source, which is the issue in the first place. The goal should, at most, be creating a part in the page somewhere to mention it that does not detract from, or overwrite, the original, be it at the foot of the character section or its own area further down. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A - yes, B - yes, C - no, D - yes. With a preference for A or B, as D is already a compromise.

I do not find using male pronouns to be acceptable, nor using the name "Nagi" as this never happens in the actual body of work and my request for proof to the contrary fell on deaf ears. I would compare doing so to writing the article for Scrubs and incessantly referring to J.D. and Turk as John and Christopher. ThunderPX (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


Fifth Statement by Moderator (CFK)

In statement 4 I listed four draft versions of paragraphs about the character Nagi or Alice, and asked for comments. Any editors who have not commented should comment Yes or No. Any editors who have not composed a draft should do so. If no one will accept another version so that we have approval by all editors, then we will have to publish an RFC. The RFC, rather than asking editors to choose one out of A, B, C, and D, will ask editors to Vote Yes, this version is acceptable, or No, this version is not acceptable, so that the closer can find the version that has the most general support. I will be composing the RFC within the next 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to the upcoming RFC, please state the objection and offer an alternate plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors (CFK)

No objections to an RFC being opened, I highly doubt we'll ever reach an agreement here and arguing in the back/forth section doesn't really help anyone or this as a whole. However, we can attempt seeing if creating a large section detailing the disagreeing points on the page itself works, a more expanded version of what I suggested before. Break it into three parts, a loose overview, one side, and then the other side. The only caveat I'd be asking for that is that the character section be what I suggested, or near to it by doing ThunderPX's but using Nagi or Nagi/Alice as the name, to leave the actual character overview the base level of what's being plainly written, not what someone reads into, and the end of the character entry mention the disagreement so whoever is reading the page knows to look for it further down instead of going to rage edit the page. Could also protect the page itself, but a decision on that should probably wait.

I won't compose the whole entire section being proposed, as both ThunderPX and Cyberweasel89 would probably want input into that for what they feel are any additional relevant mentions, but for the intro and the point I'd be arguing for:


Nagi/Alice Arisuin Gender Controversy Disagreement

The previously mentioned character of Nagi/Alice Arisuin has drummed controversial disagreements with regard to their gender, the arguments being as to whether the character should be classed and addressed as a transgender woman or a man. The conflict stems from language used in the original Japanese releases of the light novels clashing with a statement given by the character early in the series.

(ThunderPX and Cyberweasel's point below, I'll do a rough formatting for it, but they should get input and raise whatever additional points they feel are relevant. I would, however, say to limit argument points to the JP light novels, anime, and their associated websites like the publisher or anime info releases. Attempting to use any outside sourcing just turns it back into using someone else's opinion as fact, and then we're right back to square one.)

The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a transgender woman, complete with female pronouns and language, deals with a conversation early in the series in which they mention to the main character, Ikki, that they prefer going by Alice instead of Nagi and also feel like "a maiden in a man's body," and then Ikki's younger sister, Shizuku, proclaiming that everyone should use Alice and treat them as a girl. The series goes on with Ikki and other main characters calling them Alice. The anime's associated website also features the same tagline quote of "a maiden in a man's body."

The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a man, using male pronouns and language, comes from the author opting to instead use male and gender neutral language when writing as the narrator throughout the whole series. Being the narrator, they are assumed to be all knowing, omniscient, unless shown to be an unreliable narrator, an example of an unreliable narrator being a character giving their memory or opinion as narration or even a narrator for a mystery novel that would be giving what the characters are currently aware of. Because they are being presented as an omniscient narrator it can be said that the narration is the author's opinion and intent, and that what is written is the most correct or truthful information for the series unless otherwise contradicted or clarified from a statement given by the author directly. This is further compounded with official character listings for the series using "Nagi Arisuin" for the character entry, instead of Alice, for both the voice actor announcement(s) for the anime and its official character entry on the associated website. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

An RFC is the only option, as only Draco Safarius and myself are responding anymore and it's clear we will not see eye to eye on this. I trust others will make the right decision in the RFC. ThunderPX (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator (CFK)

I have created a draft RFC for viewing at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight/Draft RFC. This is a draft RFC, not a live RFC; please do not !vote in the draft RFC. I will move it to the talk page after review.

It is my opinion that the draft section containing a long discussion of the gender of the character is too long for due weight for a character who is not listed first or second in the list of characters, and who does not have a stand-alone article.

Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors (CFK)

Bit of confusion on what you're meaning with the draft containing a discussion. If you mean the actual RFC draft, then yes I'd agree, direct people to read the talk page and this dispute resolution rather than having it all one huge wall of text.

As for the four statements, slight correction. B was the reverted version that prompted this being opened after one user ignored two different editors telling them to stop as their sources used didn't actually defeat the argument being made, that one only features an additional citation that, like the previous version, didn't defeat the argument. It should probably get a note making mention of that in the talk page if it's going to be left in as a vote consideration, though I'd imagine anyone being allowed to vote should have read that entire thing to begin with so it's probably fine.

The only other thing I could think of asking is what would be the requisites for editor voting? Like it goes out randomly, yes, but what's the oversight on making sure people are actually considering both sides and not just doing a quick personal bias vote? Draco Safarius (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be a long section discussing the character's gender, as not only is the proposed section overly long but it has no sources and therefore just reads like a tedious summary of the opinions of Wikipedia editors--in other words, OR.

If the history of version B is at all relevant, t should be noted that it is essentially the same version that was in the article for years until Draco Safarius began making his edits, which I restored after providing an additional source, which he then not considered good enough. The rest is history. ThunderPX (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator (CFK)

I have changed the wording of B.

If one of the editors has questions about the RFC process, they can ask them at the RFC talk page or Village Pump (policy). The closer will consider strength of arguments as well as a numerical vote count. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Seventh Statements by Editors (CFK)

Both good spots to look at, thank you. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion by editors (CFK)

For the sake of clarity, can User:Draco Safarius provide some examples of Alice being referred to as "Nagi" in the text? This obviously discounts use of the full name "Nagi Arisuin". I do not recall in either the official translation or the fan translations that were quite prominent before the series' official availability--which often skewed very literal to a fault--that this ever occurred. Her friends obviously call her Alice, while characters who aren't close to her and the narration seem to use "Arisuin" to my knowledge, so I would like to see examples to the contrary. ThunderPX (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would you remove using the full name if it’s still the narrator doing it? That’s part of the point here, taking the narrator as the author since it differs from character dialogue and if they intended otherwise they’d have done what they were doing with every other character and been using Alice. Selectively setting restrictions for name use while ignoring the point of the entire argument only bogs it down. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The context in which one uses a full name is very different from addressing them by their first name, that much should be obvious--especially when the person in question prefers going by a different name. ThunderPX (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, but only when it comes to dialogue between characters. Using one's full name is roughly in the same vein as using an alias or a title in place of their name for 3rd person writing in that you do not constantly write the exact same thing, similar to how one should avoid starting every sentence or paragraph with the same word or phrase. In this case, we know the characer's actual name is Nagi Arisuin, and not their alias of Black Sonia/Black Thorn(s), so the narrator using either the full or partial bit of the name is not out of the ordinary, and, again, had they intended or meant it to be the other way then they'd have written that instead. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
If you cannot provide examples of the character being referred to simply as "Nagi", then I must disregard your claim to the contrary and maintain that the character should not be referred to as such in the article. ThunderPX (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Then the entire argument would have to be thrown out. The arguing point is that since the narrator, the author, is not following what they are having characters say, opting instead for male/gender neutral language as well as both variations for his name, then you cannot pick and choose which points to use and instead go with the default and what the narrator is saying, male language and Nagi. It is either all under consideration for what the author is intending or there is nothing to argue as that says to ignore the whole thing. This is why in the parent third statement I mentioned one of the recent talk page comments, as it raised a good point in not throwing out labels and changing names/info unless it is hard confirmed in an inarguable sense. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As noted above in the reply, the text does use the character's name of Nagi, but ThunderPX finds that using a full name somehow defeats the point, which is sidestepping the argument's point. And as for Scrubs, which is a good example, I'll give you that, it has the problem of official name being different from actual name. Both J.D. and Turk are called almost exclusively by their nicknames, and the official names for them in related media or outside references from creators/actors are the nicknames. I would also hazard a guess every script uses those as well. That contrasts with how the text for this does not use Alice save character dialogue, and no using the English version as an example does not get around the issue. The author wasn't writing that as the narrator, and associated official media on the Japanese side, that ThunderPX attempted to use as reference to prove their point, uses Nagi as well. So, like the above reply, if the argument is being considered that the author's intent was what they were choosing to write as the narrator for 10+ volumes, then there should be no consideration given to pick and choose or dance around that to supplement names. Move it as an entire thing to a separate section of the article to cover it in detail and not try to sweep it under the rug with changing the character section. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The context in which one uses a full name is not the same as using their first name that the person doesn't prefer using. I've already explained this to you. The Scrubs example is the same because the characters are called "John Dorian" and "Christopher Turk" when it's relevant for their full names to be mentioned. Alice is referred to as "Alice", "Arisuin" or when relevant "Nagi Arisuin" but never simply "Nagi". I'm getting very tired of explaining this. I will not respond to this point any further. ThunderPX (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and I already explained the reasoning for using one's full name as an author, but they are completely different when comparing narration and spoken dialogue yet you continue to ignore that. If a character's name is X, and is listed as such in sources, and by the narrator, you do not just ignore that being the literal correct name in favor of a nickname. That's why the Scrubs example didn't mesh, because despite their names in the show being nicknames those are their actual listed names for the series. In a similar vein, in-universe (spoken dialogue) for this we have Nagi being called Alice or rarely his moniker, Black Sonia/Thorn(s), but as per official info the character name is still Nagi Arisuin. If, by your argument(s), we're now both ignoring the author in their most direct form, the narrator, and official info, that you wanted to try to use, for what characters are called then the page may as well just be marked fan fiction. Draco Safarius (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I have to keep clarifying, using a source different from the original doesn’t do anything. It ignores the argument as a whole since it is, in the most literal sense per their own words, one person’s opinion on the text. Should never have been used, and trying to use it as a defense for the prior page version that was already incorrect just makes the position look worse. Draco Safarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unproductive. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding the close with the subsequent comment replies, that was what I was doing. The content, sources and citations, they were using were not lining up with their argument and were both contradicting themself in supporting the other side, and they were accusing me of what they were doing while also denying all of the conflicting issues they used in this. It is definitely productive to point out how their arguments didn't work as that's part of the discussion's goal, to list out why what they were blindly using was not adequate, and how they were attempting to dodge around their own argumentative points or sources used against them. I do, agree, however, that them throwing out accusations with no explanation, refusing to elaborate how their contradicting points were all consistent despite glaring evidence to the contrary, and essentially insulting the other party is not in any sense productive. Doubt it would have gone any further in replies, but thank you for closing the section. Draco Safarius (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand how using sources on Wikipedia works very well. I suggest reading WP:ORIGINAL to help you with future edits. ThunderPX (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
No that’d be you. Original refers to stuff without a source, as you both got told twice. If you’re using something to argue a point that conflicts with the original source or is just some random site’s opinion with no correlation to the mentioned series then it doesn’t work as a source for the scenario. You keep trying to look at this in a vacuum as if the only thing in existence is what you’re trying to source to twist your point.
As bare bones an example as can be: person A writes a story where something is blue, but person B changes it to red in their release and someone who read it says it was blue. That doesn’t make it blue, nor does it make citing it as blue from a person’s review.
What does happen though is when you, or someone, reads into something. When you purposely start trying to say the narrator is wrong without any citations as to why in the argued source or from its creator, only using opinions and saying something clearly stated isn’t what is being stated. Your English teacher might love the needless analysis of reading into nothing, but that’s literally what you’re trying to say I was doing. This is like the fourth time you’ve either tried to 180 on a source you used or say you weren’t doing something.
Since it apparently needs to be said in a very easy to read format, here’s what you should consider on tiers/sources.
- 1 The original work and author.
Doesn’t even need to be said, but the actual release from the author, their comments on clarifying it (should they exist), and publisher statements on their behalf are the absolute truth. If they write that a character thought a bug was huge, but use the narrator to say it was actually small then it was small. There isn’t any beating the author, don’t try to ignore them.
- 2 Related media of the source.
This would be additional data books, websites, or maybe special chapters. It’s essentially the author and/or publisher doing a secondary tiered release, still of absolute truth but doesn’t hold the same weight as if the author said something in like a Q&A or interview where it would solely be them doing it.
- 3 Anime and its associated media.
Only not in 2 as animation studio staff oftentimes make small changes or cut things out, and more often than not the series creator is not involved. However, it’s still at 3 as it’s from the same country, which largely kills any chance of large changes as they try remaining faithful and are also in the same culture so there would be next to no agenda changes or interpretations.
- 4 Other language releases.
Encompassing both animated and physical media, this is lower than just original anime as the creator and publisher are even less involved than even anime productions. This is where you see large-scale changes most of the time due to script rewriting, but it’s also a random game of who translates it and whether the publisher or studio checks to see if they’re faithful or correct. It’s fine as a source unless shown conflicting info from any of the higher tiers.
- 5 Not actual sources.
Barring websites that cite info releases from the original publisher or studio, these aren’t sources. It’s purely some random people. You can use these to see if they cite something, but unless it is cited, and doesn’t conflict with a higher tier, it’s useless.
What you both have kept trying to do is use 4 and 5 (or 3, but act like the part working against you doesn’t exist), as well as unsourced opinions that the author wasn’t meaning what they were writing since your opinion differs or you can see some people IRL that might fit your argument. That’s ignoring more reliable sources, and injecting your own opinions or biases to try to argue a point. That’s literal confirmation bias, and original research as per the link you used. Two different editors told you guys this in the talk page. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I am begging you to stop writing complete novels about points that aren't being argued and actually read the Wikipedia policy instead of making up your own. You're frankly impossible to debate with, and I was making a last attempt to actually help you understand how things work, but I see that's a waste of time. ThunderPX (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
You keep disregarding your own points, the actual things you're linking, what the editors told you, and what the actual thing you're arguing about is saying. You can say you're not arguing something, but the entire talk page and this discussion is filled with you doing otherwise. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have been nothing but consistent in my points. None of your counter-arguments hold any water, because they don't follow Wikipedia policy or, frankly, common sense. I have no choice but to assume bad faith since you refuse to actually read anything I give you, so I'm going to stop responding to you and leave this matter to the RFC. I hope I don't have the misfortune to ever have to deal with you again. ThunderPX (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
"nothing but consistent." Okay, then you didn't try to use the anime website character page until it was used against your point, and definitely didn't try to say nothing in any source had the character listed as Nagi Arisuin. You also didn't try to use an interview from a guy who had no actual say on the series, and was not the author. You also certainly didn't disregard the entire narrator for nearly 20 volumes by using one statement and your own confirmation bias. Also definitely didn't try to say I was doing original research directly above when you were doing almost nothing but that, yep. If consistency is ignoring things that poke holes in your points or show your sources to not be accurate, then, oh yeah, you've been extremely consistent. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ original text: 男の身体生れた乙女 otoko no karada ni umareta otome "TVアニメ「落第騎士の英雄譚」CHARACTER". Retrieved January 3, 2023.
  2. ^ Silverman, Rebecca (October 18, 2015). "Episodes 1-3 - Chivalry of a Failed Knight". Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  3. ^ Misora, Riku (2013). 落第騎士の英雄譚1 [Chivalry of a Failed Knight, Volume 1] (in Japanese). GA Bunko. p. 93 (English edition).
  4. ^ "TVアニメ「落第騎士の英雄譚」CHARACTER". Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  5. ^ Silverman, Rebecca (October 18, 2015). "Episodes 1-3 - Chivalry of a Failed Knight". Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  6. ^ Misora, Riku (2013). 落第騎士の英雄譚1 [Chivalry of a Failed Knight, Volume 1] (in Japanese). GA Bunko. p. 93 (English edition).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

T.Rex (band)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Romomusicfan on 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Jakarta

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Whatsup236 on 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Next Indian general election

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SharadSHRD7 on 13:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by VoidseekerNZ on 23:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Voivodeship of Maramureș

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gyalu22 on 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Awshort on 07:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Next Indian general election

  – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SharadSHRD7 on 05:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)

  – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Olympian on 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Bryant and Stratton College

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Rent regulation

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Velcroman100 on 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Diwali

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Starlights99 on 10:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

2022–23 European windstorm season

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mitch199811 on 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Al-Bayan (radio station)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Breitbart News Case

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Statute Law Revision Act 1893

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Arkenstrone on 21:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

Association football

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SteadyJames on 09:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion

Azores

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xuxo on 02:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Closed discussion