Epistemic Challenge on Details Presented in “Relationships” Section
This is a proposal for a reassessment on both the admission and distribution of details in the “Friend & Allies” subsection under “Relationships”. Before conceptual elaborations I would like to remind any editors that the primary objection of building this page and any Gintama Wiki entries thereof is not to write a tribute, but instead to introduce viewers—with remote knowledge on not only Gintama but Japanese cultural construct—to the character with comprehensive information in appropriate balance. It is no duty nor right of any editor to elaborate details secondary to the construct of a character’s identity essence to convey subjective opinions. It is proper to state that I forego any challenge to the authenticity of any such details, only their admission and distribution are criticized.
In the “Sakata GIntoki” paragraph a number of statements are made in passive voices disguising the absence of source; also most sentences are ambiguously verbose beside being logically peculiar. Take the statement “it is true that Kagura probably sees Gintoki as an older brother”, first, “it is true that such” lacks a source of statement due to the duel interpretation of “true” being an assertion of authenticity and “true” as the indicative agent of “justified fundamental premise”, but in both cases it is axiomatically false to categorize such subjective statements as any premise in this context; incidentally I would like to remind that the false categorization of a statement as a justified premise does not exempt it from challenges. Second, the uncertainty adverb “probably” contradicts the certainty adjective “true” regardless of the intended meaning of “true”. These two fallacies provides a false premise to Kagura’s relationship with Gintoki and any related or compared relationships thereof. A point also draws my attention is the ill-constructed “it isn’t really nothing that simple” clause, I assume it offers a denial to “it is really [something] that simple” considering the contrast conjunction “even though”, but nevertheless this is a vital grammatical error that reverses the clause intention. This diagnosis is not ad hoc as being critical on mere linguistic disputes but rather an example representing the comprehensive ambiguity and logical deficiency of the entire “Relationships” section.
Elaborations on the selective employments of details is deemed unnecessary, however I have to remind all editors that your objection shall not be to prove a subjective view of a relationship, which also restricts the selective listing of unessential facts in “Okita Sougo” paragraph, unessential being “details secondary to the construct of a character’s identity essence” as aforementioned, Kagura’s ironic remark in chapter 44 for an instant. Beside the list of unessential facts being prominently persuasive, the use of secondary details is not present in any other paragraphs in this section. The intention of such unbalanced structure is in doubt of being objective.
Some lemmata explaining my reasonings behind certain premises used here may be of use in understanding this challenge, however I do believe all axioms here are either self-explanatory or logically obvious, beside my time is limited. Please fell free to reply should any objections arise.
Zhangls1019 (talk) 10:53, May 29, 2016 (UTC)WinPolice
No innuendos please.[]
Agreeing with the point Zhangls1019 makes, I have tried to change it on this page. Similar changes should be made in all articles. Whatever isn't explicitly stated, should not be insinuated by taking a persuasive stance. I have tried to bring this about in other articles I come across, though I was forced to write this up in the talk section since I seem to see Relationships being a particularly debated topic, especially the popular pairings though primarily I plan to deal with Plot updates.
All in all, I repeat my previous statement, What should be written is what is apparent and not conjectured.
LeewardKid (talk) 06:50, February 4, 2018 (UTC)LeewardKid