Talk:Jasmine
Honorifics are usually avoided here unless they are known by that name or it is needed to designate which one - if linking is the problem, a redirect can be created. Perhaps this should be moved back to just "Jasmine"? Scottch 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Jasmine[edit]
"Jasmine first appears in Aladdin as the wealthy and strong-willed princess of Agrabah who is loved by everyone in her kingdom."
Her being strong-willed has nothing to do with why she's loved by everyone in the kingdom. Putting strong-willed there makes no sense for the flow of the sentence.
As far as her beauty, (1) it's not equivalent to sex, (2) calling minors beautiful is deeply engrained in every culture, and (3) even if it was equivalent to sex, age of consent is hardly universally above 16, and (4) it definitely wasn't considered or treated as skeevy in the setting of the movie.
Finally, consensus is a thing that exists. The story doesn't need an omnipotent God to come down to describe a character for it to be valid. It's a major plot point to Jasmine's character that she's widely regarded as beautiful, and that detail is part of the KH series' plot."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the word beautiful is so offensive, can't we use "strong-willed" and "spirited" from the journal entries? And, really, can't we move on to something else before subjective terminology is removed from every article on the wiki? This one word has been edited 5 times in one day already. - Joveus (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The line isn't implying her being strong-willed is why she is loved, and if you read it that way, you misread it. Remove it if you want. Secondly, just because calling mid-teens "attractive" or "beautiful" may be a part of certain cultures or if it is considered normal in the setting of the movie (I find it rather gross you're even arguing with this angle), it doesn't mean it can't be considered skeevy by readers from a neutral point of view. Again, beauty is subjective, and I dislike how the wiki is claiming she's "beautiful" as if it's some undisputable fact. Her age just makes it even worse. Soroxas (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not picking a side here, but Snow White is called beautiful in the actual journal entries from the actual games, and she's only 14. There are many cultures in the real world that do not find a 14 year old girl with icy pale skin and red lips attractive, but that's not the point. The point is that we, the editors of the wiki, are bound within the rules of each individual story and world as they are presented to us regardless of our opinions on what is or isn't "skeevy". If the story of Aladdin and the characters of that world find Jasmine beautiful, then she is beautiful, end of story. - Joveus (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The journal entries are often written by tone-deaf people. I wouldn't ever base my sensitivities and ethical standards simply because an English localization in some video game says so. "If the story of Aladdin and the characters of that world find Jasmine beautiful, then she is beautiful, end of story." That is impossible. That's like saying if a lot of characters in a story find eating tarantulas delicious, then tarantulas are delicious. How about if we mention that "Jasmine is considered by a lot of men, including Alladin, to be beautiful"? Seems far more neutral and dodges the skeevy element entirely. Soroxas (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- "and if you read it that way, you misread it." -- No, Soroxas, it was poorly written. I know you didn't mean it that way, what I'm pointing out is that the sentence is poorly constructed."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree. If you view it like that, then you're basically also admitting it was saying she's loved because she's wealthy. And there's no need to say my username, I find it annoying and condescending, even if people don't mean it that way. Anyway, I tried a rewrite which tries to get the point across in a less skeevy fashion so we can move on with our lives. Soroxas (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- "basically also admitting it was saying she's loved because she's wealthy." -- yes, that's a major point of her story. People want to marry her because she's rich and beautiful, not because she's a fully-developed, three-dimensional person with her own wants and dreams. That's the core feminist message of the movie."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree. If you view it like that, then you're basically also admitting it was saying she's loved because she's wealthy. And there's no need to say my username, I find it annoying and condescending, even if people don't mean it that way. Anyway, I tried a rewrite which tries to get the point across in a less skeevy fashion so we can move on with our lives. Soroxas (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- "and if you read it that way, you misread it." -- No, Soroxas, it was poorly written. I know you didn't mean it that way, what I'm pointing out is that the sentence is poorly constructed."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The journal entries are often written by tone-deaf people. I wouldn't ever base my sensitivities and ethical standards simply because an English localization in some video game says so. "If the story of Aladdin and the characters of that world find Jasmine beautiful, then she is beautiful, end of story." That is impossible. That's like saying if a lot of characters in a story find eating tarantulas delicious, then tarantulas are delicious. How about if we mention that "Jasmine is considered by a lot of men, including Alladin, to be beautiful"? Seems far more neutral and dodges the skeevy element entirely. Soroxas (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, we do not report on the series in a vaccumm. We report on it in the context and framework established by the games themselves and, to the extent they are portrayed in the games, the films that are featured. Therfore, it is not inappropriate or incorrect to portray or describe characters and elements of the game as they are described in the games and related films. Secondly, the argument that there is some sort of inapporpriate connotation in describing Jasmine's, or anyone's, physical appearance as it is portrayed and described in the films is false. Again, we report based on the games and the films as they are portrayed in the games, not from any other perspective. Those kinds of conclusions are left for the reader to determine on their own, not us on behalf of the reader. This isn't the venue for discussing the social morality of what is portrayed in the games or films. Finally, Soroxas, I will ask you once more to refrain from attacking people's characters because you don't agree with their opinions or arguments. It's one thing to reject the argument; that's part of the discussion and collaborative process. However, saying that people are gross, or tone-deaf, is unnecessary and condescending, and will be considered a personal attack if it happens again. 
KeybladeSpyMaster 20:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning that it's in the context of the movies (i.e. how people in the movie view her) and being more specific is very helpful so that people don't get the wrong ideas. It does no harm, and by not being specific, it's sending bad ideas. It may not be "wrong" for you to do so, but when dealing with subjective opinions, being more specific, the better. Secondly, I disagree with you saying there's no "inappropriate" underlying connotations. The ideas and values of society are easily influenced by our language, and calling 16 year olds "beautiful", especially when these Disney characters are portrayed at unhealthy body weights, is very problematic. Whatever, I can't expect much from a wiki which calls girls in the series like Olette to be "tomboys". I have higher expectations. Soroxas (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't the avenue for discussing the merits of ideas and values held in society. That isn't our place, it isn't our role, and we do not allow commentary on the matter here. There are other, far more appropriate avenues for that kind of discussion. Our place is simple: we report only what the games have portrayed, and we are neutral in that we do not report beyond that perspective. This isn't Wikipedia, where the coverage takes the topic in the context of society. We simply take the topic in the context of the games. It is up to the rest of society to determine whether the perspective presented in the games and related films, and covered on this wiki, is appropriate on its own, larger scale, but this wiki does not take a stand either way on the matter. Secondly, this "higher expectation" attitude does not help in having a constructive discussion on any matter, because it implies that everyone else is not fit for having these discussions with you, and if you have such low expectations from us, then perhaps you may want to consider finding a different community with your "higher expectations." I will warn you, though, no one will want to work with someone who continually critiques others with disdain as you have regularly done so on this wiki.
KeybladeSpyMaster 21:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Simply being more specific (i.e. saying it's how men in the movie view her) is far from discussing societal values or commentary on the actual articles of the wiki itself. You can interpret what I say how you see fit. And unfortunately, there's only two major English language KH wikis. I'm only here because it's the more developed one. There's no point in debating anything anymore once an admin steps in because on this wiki, I've seen routinely that it's futile and nothing changes. Soroxas (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't the avenue for discussing the merits of ideas and values held in society. That isn't our place, it isn't our role, and we do not allow commentary on the matter here. There are other, far more appropriate avenues for that kind of discussion. Our place is simple: we report only what the games have portrayed, and we are neutral in that we do not report beyond that perspective. This isn't Wikipedia, where the coverage takes the topic in the context of society. We simply take the topic in the context of the games. It is up to the rest of society to determine whether the perspective presented in the games and related films, and covered on this wiki, is appropriate on its own, larger scale, but this wiki does not take a stand either way on the matter. Secondly, this "higher expectation" attitude does not help in having a constructive discussion on any matter, because it implies that everyone else is not fit for having these discussions with you, and if you have such low expectations from us, then perhaps you may want to consider finding a different community with your "higher expectations." I will warn you, though, no one will want to work with someone who continually critiques others with disdain as you have regularly done so on this wiki.
