# Talk:Poison (Final Fight)

People are constantly questioning Poisons gender. If anyone has any scans of the books where its says she is a newhalf that would help to end debates.
A "newhalf?" --AWF
-I changed it to the better sounding "transsexual".  That should clear it up.  TheHelldragon 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)TheHelldragon
--Actually, that won't work, because she didn't have a sex change. "Transsexual" implies that she did, when in fact "she" is still male.--Kung Fu Man 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
--Okay, read the article there...lemme do a quick fix then to better explain it.--Kung Fu Man 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 "Transsexual" Girls come in pre-op and post op flavours; and the word applies equally to both.  You, sir, are incorrect. SoheiFox (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
---I know what they were trying to imply to begin with...I probably used the wrong word.  Apologies.  Freudian slip.--TheHelldragon 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
---I edited Posion's article to make it less POV.  Before anyone starts, I believe that Posion is a newhalf; just that I removed or merged some sentences which imo, seems to either repeat or argue against a statement made in a previous sentence. Having one sentence saying that the game made a mistranslation of Roxy being female and than having another sentence in another body of the same article, saying it is a recton can confuse the average reader or make it sound as if certain people are expressing their own opinions on Roxy's gender.--Doomzaber 09:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
--- I think you guys are making it too complicated, Poison was/is female, Nintendo bitched about it, so they put a penis on her and called her a newhalf. After people started dealing with the fact that sometimes females are going to get their asses beaten into submission, her story stopped including the fact that she was a newhalf and was more feminine. And I'm no expert but I believe newhalf's definition is a Female with Male organs,(sometimes because of surgical replacement). Due to the fact that she was a pure female before Nintendo had her changed, I would go with she was a female and had a sex change or was born with it. When the facts aren't clear, don't sit there dumbfounded with drool hanging down your chin trying to think of the answer, go with what makes the most sense and roll with it. Just edit the article to say that we aren't really sure what she is (which you probably have, but just let it go). ~ Paladine 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.84.193 (talk)  

It was capcom that initially did the change, Nintendo took it a step further and just replaced her and Roxy with Billy and Sid. And you can't say "we don't know which it is" when even recent sources point out she's really a man (even SvC Card Fighters DS does it! As well as everything else, jeez) Long story short, it's japan: they do that stuff all the time. Oh, side note: newhalf = men with female figures and breasts from birth.--Kung Fu Man 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

- The "All About Capcom" book mentions the newhalf thing.  I don't know if even Capcom knows if she is or isn't, though.  Evan1975 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
http://kotaku.com/gaming/capcom/final-fights-poison-the-final-word-on-gender-333130.php
It says here that Poison's a new half and Roxy is female - Fortunately, we can now put the rumors to rest. Street Fighter IV producer Yoshinori Ono tells EGM in its latest issue "In North America, Poison is officially a post-op transsexual." Well, that clears that up.
"But in Japan, she simply tucks her business away in order to look like a girl," Ono adds. Oh. Well, I suppose there's always Roxy.
--As far as the Japanese Mega CD version is concerned, Poison is indeed a man or newhalf. [1] The Super Famicom version features the same stamement about Poison and Roxy, but don't quote me on that. Jonny2x4 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
WEll most of the comments on that link says she was designed to be a female
Suggesting that trans women are a "trap" at all is the height of offensive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.235.248 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 

The alleged phone call from capcom USA to Japan (Besides being unsourced) makes no sense, as if the change to "newhalfs" is true, then the Billy and Sid replacements wouldn't be necessary. Since the enemies were actually changed, I'll assume that the first part is incorrect, and remove that part. If anyone disagrees, bring it up here, or cite an official source before reverting. -- Digital Watches! 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's you reference link, have a good read on the subject.--Kung Fu Man 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in regards to the request for assessment on the CVG Assessment page.  I have rated this article as B-class, with a few recommendations for improvement-  There are quite a few instances of unencyclopedic tone and weasel words sprinkled throuhgout this article that need cleaned up, though most of those need to be referenced as well.  I haven't looked at the PR for this article, but I hope it's going well.  Oh, and depending on who you get at GA, the "In-universe" part of the infobox might be frowned upon, though at least it's toned down and out of the article itself.  Great job on improving this since I last came upon it!  --PresN 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Notable? for a discussion about this article's notability (or lack thereof). Kariteh (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I got that issue of Computer and Video Games out today..  Julian Rignell the now current editor of IGN said "This is the Nancy boy version with the Women and Black men removed"  So it goes Nintendo of America didn't think it would go with the Family image with Women being beaten up, and changed the sprites to men  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber Shinobi (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 

I've put some improvement templates on the article, as it needs more third-party sources and should not use forum posts as sources. More information about the character's creation and the designer's influences. Cheers. Kariteh (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I think this article needs to be destroyed and merged into Final Fight, I must point out that Poison (along with Roxy) was conceived as a newhalf long before the release of the arcade game. If you look closely at the black and white line art showing Poison and Roxy at Capcom Classics Collection, they're both clearly identified as "newhalf" in handwriting. There seems to be a common misconception (most likely from Tiamat's FAQ) that the character was originally female and then secretly changed her gender after complains from Capcom's US staff. But the concept artwork seems to indicate otherwise. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is All About Capcom and non-Tiamat related subject material do make mention of the change having taken place with the character. If it's a common misconception, line art done in CCC that could easily have come after the fact just leads to a counter speculation is all. It's hardly definitive proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I've just purchased a copy of AAC, just to verify all the "facts" in Tiamat's FAQ, as there's always likely to be a mistranslation. I'm more interested in the development commentary there, if there's any. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can scan and translate the material related to her (and if not translate, I have a few people I know that could assist with that), that would be rather useful. Thing is, even if it does disprove that wasn't said, there are enough sources that apparently believe it enough, to the point that it became an example of censorship (not to mention Capcom's whole flip-flop). So either way still something to discuss and cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the opening statement of "Originally conceived as a female thug in Final Fight and part of the game's antagonist group, Mad Gear, concerns about reactions from North American audiences to fighting women resulted in the character being changed to a newhalf, and further replaced by male characters in the Super Nintendo release of the game." is biased. Even though the story that the character was originally designed as a female and changed due to censorship is a popular one and believed by many, there is a lot of evidence that she was either always intended to be trans or changed so early in development it makes no difference (as her trans status was already in place for the Japanese release, before American censors had anything to do with it). The beginning of the article is very important and a lot of people are referencing Wikipedia and nothing else, so I'd strongly suggest something less biased for the opening, such as this quote from Capcom Database: "During the American release of Final Fight, Capcom stated Poison to be transgender when questioned about the fact players were allowed to hit the female characters Poison and Roxy, as it was highly frowned upon at that time in America. In the SNES version of Final Fight, Poison and Roxy were further replaced with male characters named Billy and Sid due to the fact that Capcom in the U.S. did not approve of violence towards women." It basically summarizes the evidence MUCH better, without the whole 'originally conceived as a female' part which is mostly unfounded and quite problematic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.188.180 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 

...But that's wrong. Capcom changed them to newhalfs at suggestion, not because someone asked anything. And the second part only occurs on Nintendo ports, not the arcade game or others.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, the idea that she was changed after Capcom America's suggestion contradicts a lot of other evidence (cited in this very article). History is a bit hazy on this one, but what we know for sure is 1. if she was indeed changed, she was changed before the Japanese release 2. when Capcom America raised an objection about violence towards women, they got an answer that there are no women in the game and that the girls are transvestites (again, if there was a change, it was already in place by then). Both these points are confirmed by more than one sources. The proposed change summarizes all this without making a claim that the character was originally female, which as a supposed fact is not very well sourced and seems to rely on word-of-mouth stories spread over the internet more than anything else. The only actual source that seems to support the story that she was once supposed to be female seems to be the All About Capcom Head to Head Fighting Games book, but there's no translations of it anywhere and no one has any scans or pictures of it, so I'm not sure how reliable it is (especially considering that it contradicts both other evidence and common sense). How about we change the "Originally conceived as a female thug in Final Fight and part of the game's antagonist group, Mad Gear, concerns about reactions from North American audiences to fighting women resulted in the character being changed to a newhalf. When concerns were brought up by a playtester for the Super Nintendo's North American localization, both Poison and Roxy were replaced by male characters "Billy" and "Sid", and have been for every subsequent North American port of the title on Nintendo consoles and handhelds." to simply "A thug in Final Fight and part of the game's antagonist group, Mad Gear. When concerns were brought up by a playtester for the Super Nintendo's North American localization, both Poison and Roxy were replaced by male characters "Billy" and "Sid", and have been for every subsequent North American port of the title on Nintendo consoles and handhelds." Less repetition, less of a polarizing opening statement and there is an objective mention of that quote from the All About Capcom book later in the article anyway so all the bases are covered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.188.180 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up to whomever tagged this article: You're supposed to say something on the talkpage too, not just driveby with a template.
Anyway, I oppose a merge as this article is a perfectly well sourced and notable subject that would unnecessarily dominate the main article, given the relative length of both.  Ford MF (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Even with all the cited references, I still don't see what's the big deal is Poison. Most of the focus seems to be around the character's genitalia and sexual identity than anything else. The controversy is notable by itself, but the character is not. Outside of Final Fight, she had a couple of cameos in the Alpha series and some obscure Japan-only Quiz game, was a non-playable supporting character in SF III and had a playable appearance in one semi-notable Final Fight spinoff, not to mention two canceled appearances. For the record, the Japanese Wikipedia used to have a separate article about Poison, but it was merged back to Final Fight. Meh. At least the article is a lot better now. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poison (Final Fight)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

"is a video game character from the Final Fight video game series" - don't need to say VG twice
"According to All About Capcom Head to Head Fighting Games" - what's that? (A book?)
"might have gotten a "sex change"" - add wlink, remove quotation marks (are they needed?)
The 2005 in VG link isn't really needed.
"The discrepancy regarding Poison was addressed in an interview featured in the January 2008 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly regarding Street Fighter IV. Capcom's Yoshinori Ono when asked in the interview regarding Poison's gender stated" - a bit overly wordy - eg the repeated "regarding Poison"... give it a trim/reword.
"Poison's alt outfit" --> "Poison's alternate outfit"? (image caption)
Some references (randomly spotted #10) need publisher information.
Some wlinking needed in the In video games section (pole dancing as a random example - check for more)
And please leave me a note when done. Cheers —Giggy 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Cheers, —Giggy 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would capcom change Poison to a transvestite male to avoid the No-men-will-hit-girls-issue? America has a social stigma against Homosexuality! And what about Chun-Li from street Fighter, Mai from Fatal Fury, and don't forget Nintendo's Super Smash bros Games (where, might I add, the player can choose to have men beat up wemon)? It just doesn't make sense. You think by having a Female fighter would bring more of the male gamers over to final fight. I even see fanartists who know about the whole Poison-is-a-guy thing but still depict her as a female (complete with Boobs). You'd think that capcom would revert her back to being a woman, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.101.123 (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 

Controversy sells games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
what's homosexuality got to do with it? There's no indication that she's gay. --86.146.160.234 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the references? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe the above Anonymous was trying to point out that since Poison, according to the current Capcom canon, lives and self-identifies as female, and is interested in men only.  That means she's not a homosexual.  Real life TS Girls really hate it when people refer to them as "homosexual", so we can likely safely assume the fictional ones do as well.   SoheiFox (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the the words transsexual and transvestite should be used interchangeably when referring to Poison.  They imply very different things.  If Poison thinks of herself as a she then it would be most appropriate to refer to her as a transsexual rather than a transvestite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettheblackdog2000 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 

Well I think the distinction here is the whole operation issue. If you notice, "transsexual" is only used in Ono's quote, while transvestite (which is used alongside "newhalf" in Capcom's official material) is used for the actual article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't get why Poison, a mere "secondary" character has an article about her. She is a "background" character, making only minor appearances in videogames...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.220.81 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 
Just because she's even more notable than the main characters. How about reading this? Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In recent interview the japanese verison of Posion has been revealed to be a man who just tucks his stuff!
"Is Poison really a man?
SF4 producer Ono explains that Poison was always meant to be a man and that in the Japanese version of Final Fight Poison is man that simply tucks his “business” away, while in the US version Poison is officially a post op transsexual."
http://www.capcom-unity.com/street_fighter/go/thread/view/7411/626401/Street_Fighter_4_FAQ__READ_FIRST&post_num=3#9043991
Like Admiral akbar has said before "It's a TRAP!"-67.180.225.161 (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dammit Admiral Ackbar! Anyway, yep, that's right. ZappaOMati 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the main image for this page be changed to her most recent official incarnation, Street Fighter X Tekken. I am unsure of how to upload my own file. However I do have a link to the image I am referring to. If someone would be kind enough to change it to this, it'd be appreciated. http://www.fightersgeneration.com/np8/char/sfxtekken/poison-sfxtekken-white.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.115.193 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 

I really have to disagree there...all that image adds is a few inches of leg, and when you cut it down for fair use purposes you get a much less detailed image. Not to mention the added "effect" on her hair doesn't help. Several wikipedia articles for fictional characters don't use the most recent artwork for reasons that the selected work is most recognizable for the character. It should be fine here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Trap" is an offensive term. I believe it should be removed from the article completely as it doesn't contribute any substance to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.9.180 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 

Agreed. I'm going to change the phrase "trap" to trans woman. Actually the trap the IGN article is talking about isn't even in reference to her gender, its about literal traps to catch people in video games. It has no reason to be mentioned like that in this article. Brody's Ghost (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is they state outright it's not a "trap in a gameplay sense". While it can be taken as offensive, wikipedia doesn't censor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"Trap" is a slur. It's an unusually cruel slur that feeds into the ugliest negative cultural stereotypes about transgender women as predators and deceivers. It's a slur that feeds into stereotypes of a kind that transgender women are literally killed over. It's on Wikipedia's List of LGBT slurs. Although it may be wikipedia-notable that IGN used the slur-- I doubt it, but apparently some people here think it is-- by simply uncritically quoting it in multiple places in the article Wikipedia is effectively endorsing the slur. I hope I don't need to drag up a specific Wikipedia policy point to explain why that's unacceptable. Given this, I made some changes: I moved the word out of the header, where it adds nothing; the quote is still in the "reception" section, but it is in the context of transphobic responses to the Poison character by gamers. I would rather remove the IGN reference altogether but it's apparently already been removed and reinstated once and I don't want to start an edit war. Awk (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Following my edit and Talk comment above, "Kung Fu Man" reverted my edits. A discussion then broke out on "Kung Fu Man"'s and my personal talk pages. This is confusing and I would like to consolidate those comments here. I posted this comment on Kung Fu Man's talk page, quote:
Hello, you are repeatedly defacing the "Poison" article by adding a transphobic slant, then claiming "censorship" when your content is removed. If you have concerns, please take them to the talk page rather than further blind RVing. Awk (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Following which Kung Fu Man posted this comment on my talk page, quote:
Hi! I will ask you to assume good faith here: just because you don't like a source, doesn't mean it isn't valid. You're also assuming I'm "pushing transphobic statements into the article", when the source is merely quoting what is there. I'll also be quick to point out you're jumping to a conclusion and some original research as well: while IGN may very well be referring to Poison as a 'trap' in the derogatory sense...the article is about things that surprise the player or otherwise act as, quite literal, traps. Labeling it as such is assuming that was the intention, which while reasonable is still synthesis and the source should still very well stand. I get where you're coming from, but jumping to the conclusion that I'm forcing that into an article that I mostly wrote and pushed heavily to have on wikipedia does incite a bit of a kneejerk.
I'm not going to lie, it does come across as the slur. But it does still have a spot in the lead regarding reactions to it. I disagree that we should assume too that the statement are clear transphobia and probably more a case of ignorance yet still derogatory, which they rightfully are. I'm doing some small modifications to what you added to smooth out the tone, but we could use actual issue and page numbers from OPM if we're going to include that. As it stands the article on the whole needs a few updates anyway.
Have a nice day?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Following which Kung Fu Man's comment was responded to by an anon, again on my talk page, quote:
Been watching this discussion and wanted to chime in briefly since I see that you used something similar to this defense in the past. Intentionally quoting uses of words that are *unambiguously* slurs without even so much as including the traditional 'sic' indication from the editor is not some act of unbiased presentation or a way to 'prevent censorship'. If a slur against a race of people were being used in the piece I suspect the tone of the discussion would be different; if people want read slurs they can click through to the source material. Omitting the slur from the quote does not in any way change the value of the quote unless the intent of quoting the source is to explicitly be offensive/misleading, illustrate something about the piece, or depict satire. None of those things are the case here. No matter what, the authors are still allowed to express their opinions in the source (as you have not altered it) so nobody is censoring them either. Maintaining the slur as a part of the article, or introducing additional slurs, adds no informational content. This is not a defensible case where the slur is a key element of the source being quoted either - as most of the accepted uses of racial slurs in WP articles appear to be.
P.S. what do you mean by 'quite literal' traps? And how does your definition differ from the definition of the slur? It doesn't seem like there's any difference between what you have described in your comment and the *actual definition* of the slur. In this context there is *no* non-derogatory sense for the word to be used because the literal definition of the word is what makes it a slur in this context. The user in question here does not appear to have jumped to any conclusions given that you appear to have held a position strongly in defense of using unnecessary slurs in WP articles for over two years (based on the other article's talk page).
173.167.119.46 (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, the above three blocks were not made here on this talk page originally, they were inlined here by me. Awk (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
And with that out of the way, I would like to respond to Kung Fu Man's 07:51 "Have a nice day" post, which I inlined above. Re "just because you don't like a source, doesn't mean it isn't valid":
1. I am not trying to remove the source. I have not yet at any point made an *effort* to remove the source. My edit simply deleted *one* of the *two* references to the cite on the page.
2. The source is not very good, period. The source is not even *on IGN's site*. The link is dead, and the "cite" goes to an archive.org.
What you are fighting so hard to include is that one time, way back in 2009, one video game blog one time wrote a since-deleted joke article containing some text expressing an opinion and a including hateful pun. Why is this important? Why is this worth including, to say nothing of— why is it *more* worth including than the many internet blog posts about Poison which are *not* quoted in the article? Why is this *one article*, which its own publisher does not appear to stand by, *so important* it needs to show up *both* in the header and in a lower section? I have not made an attempt to remove the source, but still-- I do not think the source should be in the article at all.
"You're also assuming I'm "pushing transphobic statements into the article", when the source is merely quoting what is there"
What we as wikipedia editors do is make editorial decisions about sources to include, how to frame them, and what level of prominence to give them. If you give uncritical prominence to one source, then you (and by extension wikipedia) are editorially endorsing its views. If you repeatedly delete attempts to diminish that prominence, then it would seem you are endorsing the source's content very hard indeed.
Your latest edits remove my note that "trap" is a slur, but besides that-- you now appear to have gone *beyond* your defense of the word "trap" and have now also forced the word "she-male" into the article as well. Since you *added additional slurs in direct response to complaints about slurs*, I *DO* assume that this was done in bad faith. Why is it so important to you that words like "trap" and "she-male" appear *in the article text*? What does this add? It's just gratuitous.
Wikipedia:Offensive material states:

"Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
As far as I'm concerned, the relevant information here-- if *any*-- is that IGN and Official Playstation magazine at various times used anti-transgender slurs to describe Poison, then retracted them. Neither IGN nor Official Playstation magazine stands by the slurs; why must wikipedia not only immortalize them forever, but specially pick out and inline the specific most offensive words used in a simple article about a video game character?
I have to go to bed now; since it is clear that you will RV any attempt to make the article less transphobic I will give up on making edits for now and attempt to research administrative procedures tomorrow. Awk (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's important because it is encyclopedic: it's the words they're using, and we're quoting them for emphasis. Nobody is endorsing any views by stating them: quite the contrary, the terms are outright being called derogatory. Whether or not 'trap' in this sense is being used as a slur is one thing, but yes, comparing her outright to the Crying Game's finale or calling her a she-male is very much derogatory, and I'd rather we not pull our punches pointing that the terms were used. People reading the article should readily be aware what the terms were, how they were used, and what the reaction was. If you still feel this is an endorsement of the statements however, I'll be more than happy to bring it up to WT:VG, and see if perhaps cooler heads could debate it in a more open environemtn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, had this say been an issue of racial slurs (say in the case of Street Fighter's Birdie, where the character's race was changed between games and someone had started using derogatory terms related to that), I would still be pushing the same stance. People should be readily aware at the terminology used and that it was considered offensive in the context of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently whether or not I've participated in this talk page discussion matters. I haven't been part of this because anything I say would essentially be repeating what Kung Fu Man is saying (stuff like "the point of using such terms isn't to 'immortalize' them", "it's encyclopedic", etc.). I hope this is satisfactory as "participating" in this discussion. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Awk; as originally written, the slur added nothing to the article and came across as an excuse to get away with saying a transphobic slur. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historical record, and just because someone wrote something in an article somewhere doesn't mean it necessarily merits inclusion in the relevant page here. It's not "censorship" to decide that a certain word or phrase from a citation does not belong here any more than it's "censorship" not to quote the entire citation verbatim. Every edit is a choice about what information deserves to make it on to Wikipedia, and what does not; slurs directed at a group already disproportionately targeted by violence (most of it motivated & defended by the logic from the quoted articles you keep defending) provide no useful information or knowledge. Making Awk's changes into an edit war just makes Wikipedia's community even more hostile towards trans women than it already was. Zsparks (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
To Kung Fu Man:
"It's important because it is encyclopedic"— this is circular. The content is not important and not encyclopediac. It's internet trash talking.
"it's the words they're using, and we're quoting them for emphasis"-- they're not IGN's words; IGN has removed the article. They're words of some lone, long-forgotten IGN humor writer. Many people have used many different words to describe Poison. Why are these *particular* words important, or more important than other words?
"the point of using such terms isn't to 'immortalize' them" -- then what is the point? You are digging some small instances of hate speech out of the dustbin of history in order to very visibly advertise them on Wikipedia. I see no benefit to this unless the goal is to promote the hate speech. *Many* people have been called racial, homophobic or transphobic slurs. It is simply not the case that every person who has ever been a target of hate speech has a section discussing that hate speech on their talk page, much less *inlining* that hate speech into the page.
BLP has an interesting section on "avoiding victimization" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The article subject here is not a living person, but Poison is not really the target of the slurs. The target is crossdressers and transgender people, who as a whole are degraded by being called "traps" by IGN. Being baldly called "traps" by the current Wikipedia article is similarly degrading to transgender people as a whole. The supposed current purpose of this paragraph is to demonstrate how transgender people are victized by slurs, but the paragraph itself, with *your* addition of "she-male", itself victimizes transgender people by using slurs.
"quite the contrary, the terms are outright being called derogatory… People should be readily aware at the terminology used and that it was considered offensive in the context of the article". This is simply not true, becuase you have personally reverted my attempts to clearly characterize the terms as derogatory. Although I think the transphobia content is overall not encyclopediac and does not belong in the article, *if* it is to go in the article the only sensible way to do so is in the context of describing transphobia in the gamer community. However, the current text does not well contextualize the language as transphobic and in particular does not even describe "trap" as a slur or in any way offensive-- I had a sentence explaining the word is a slur, but you removed it.
I do not believe you are being honest. You are pushing very hard to include slurs, and your justifications for why have not been consistent over time. Again: "quite the contrary, the terms are outright being called derogatory" They are only being called derogatory because I edited the article to label them as derogatory; previous to this, they were not, yet you fought hard for their inclusion at that time. Previous to this, quotes such as the "crying game" comparison had no text to imply they were problematic, and the implication was that the "crying game" response was a normal way to respond to Poison as a character. You fought hard for this text, repeatedly RVing attempts to remove it from its extremely prominent place in the header, and you did not until called out attach any text contextualizing the language as derogatory. Since there was no such editorializing during these early edits/RVs, the clear implication is that you, and those who previously edited the article while leaving this text in place, *agreed* with the quoted text at that time. This previous behavior calls into question your current claims to just be trying to encyclopedically catalogue instances of transphobia. Awk (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How about we assume a little good faith here and NOT accuse people of consciously trying to promote transphobia/being transphobic.
At this rate, (to Kung Fu Man), it would probably better to expand this to WT:VG (and/or maybe WT:LGBT?). Better to get more (possibly diverse) opinions in here than let this go back and forth and nowhere. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not think WT:VG is the appropriate venue for discussion. It does not seem likely to me the video games wikiproject would have the relevant subject experience to discuss transgender issues in a sensible and respectful way. [[WT::LGBT]] sounds more relevant. I have made a post on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Awk (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently the IGN article is used in the text as an example of people treating the character in a derogatory manner. Do we have other sources that corroborate this? On the one hand, if the IGN article is relevant, then wikipedia is not censored, so if that is what IGN said, then that is what IGN said. On the other hand, perhaps we're giving too much weight to the IGN article in this context, especially given that it's no longer live.  --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the case too. There's marginal utility to its use in comparison to the other piece quoted. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In that context I would understand/agree with its removal. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It's harder to tell really, since it is outright making a comparison between Poison and the plot twist from that film, and not in a positive light. Perhaps moving it upwards and leaving the OPM issue the example of derogatory statements regarding the character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The verbiage in the article does indicate a deep misunderstanding of gender and transgender issues. For what it's worth, the "newhalf" verbiage seems to suggest the creators intended the character to be a futanari, which seems to be a uniquely Japanese construct that doesn't quite match up with "cross-dresser," "transgender" or "intersex." I've taken a stab at changing the verbiage throughout to be more consistent about this.  As for the last paragraph, with the most controversial language (and the corresponding paragraph in the lede): I don't think it belongs. There aren't any reliable sources indicating this character has become a flashpoint for transphobia in the video game publishing industry, but it seems like the sources are being cherry-picked to make it seem that way. The character's ambiguous status among fans is already more than adequately discussed in the "conception and history" section. --Fran Rogers (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually had to modify some of that back or at least a mix of the original and your edits, because it changed what the sources were stating (CCC, for example, is calling her a crossdresser, Akiman did object to Billy and Sid as censorship and it's a tossup whether the character is male, female, newhalf or transgender at this point thanks to Capcom's shifting stance). Stating it's a transgender status issue feels weird when it's a bit more than that. I could augment the last paragraph with two sources from Complex, but I'd rather not...reliable or no the tone actually does feel corrosive in those articles by comparison (one stating she's a 'transvestite hooker' stereotype, the other a femme fatale despite having a "dong"...).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with many of your changes, but a couple points I need to point out:
"Her gender has been debated by both fans and media alike" is wrong; her gender is unambiguously female, while her status as potentially transgender, futanari, &c. is what's been debated. (I suppose some misgendering is understandable in the case of direct quotes with the designers, since they clearly weren't enlightened about the issue, either.)
"Transvestite" is a vague, ambiguous, archaic term and should be avoided, unless quoting someone that used it.
Stylistically, I think "futanari," which is (ironically) probably more familiar to English readers, should generally be preferred to the more obscure "newhalf" (though the latter should certainly be mentioned and defined).
As for the last paragraph: does the Complex piece you mention actually talk about the controversial IGN and PlayStation articles (in a "meta" fashion), or is it just another source about the controversy over her status in the first place? What I'm getting at is that we can't state that transphobic articles about this character are a noteworthy phenomenon unless we have independent, reliable sources about the articles stating that. (There's a good three-pronged test for content like this here.) --Fran Rogers (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Works for me, and I'm okay with how the last paragraph reads now. The Complex articles are more or less crass but could still be used as sources by isolating the bits that offer reception. I did remove the bit about Capcom outright disagreeing, as that seems rather iffy there: while Game Over attributes it to a Capcom USA playtester, the change only exists on English localizations of the game on Nintendo consoles. Both the Sega and Arcade versions of the game never got messed with, though even more bizarre is that it is apparently OK to beat up super-deformed versions of women in Mighty Final Fight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the current version, with your most recent changes, looks good. 😊 --Fran Rogers (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.352363-Learn-All-About-Capcoms-Favorite-Transgender-Thug
Apparently, "she" has always been a newhalf. 86.139.196.204 (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really cover anything we didn't already know here, though leaves out the fact Akiman changed her based on concerns. These weren't Nintendo's concerns, but ones during development.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a source for that Akira Yasuda quote? Is it from the All About Capcom Head-To-Head Fighting Games book and if yes, are there any scans or translations? Changing the characters during development seems very strange and pointless, considering that concerns about game content were not expressed until after development: " [...]Phillips's team edited some of the grislier games that came in from its Japanese parent company, although Capcom's own censors weeded out the most offensive touches...When a Capcom USA representative suggested that it was tasteless to have the game's hero beat up a woman, a Japanese designer responded that there were no women in the game. 'What about the blonde named Roxy?' the American asked. The designer [Akira Yasuda] responded, 'Oh, you mean the transvestite!' Roxy was given a haircut and new clothes."
That meeting happened during localization process, after the game was already complete and from the sound of it, the characters were already developed as newhalfs (something the American censors neither knew about, nor approved of). 94.172.188.180 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If you can find a copy of it you should be good to go. I own one personally now, but no scanner to use and it tends to be a rarer book. The bit about Americans finding violence to women as "rude" was actually funny because it was a blatant statement. And yeah there's confusion on that author's part because I own that book too. Poison and Roxy *do* appear in US versions of the game, but not on Nintendo based US versions: the censoring only happens on the SNES, Wii and Game Boy Advance versions. According to Capcom Early Days, the "rep" was a playtester involved in the localization of the SNES version, resulting in the change. This was Nintendo in their uber-righteous glory day after all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea of "original research" is that one looks at material in front of them and draws their own conclusions, based on "what makes sense" and so forth despite having to stretch details to fill the points. The biggest problem here is that one piece of artwork is being cited as "proof": the concept art from Final Fight. With that stated the artwork has no date or accompanying notes regarding the characters themselves other than a "newhalf" text at the bottom. However, the issue regarind Poison and Roxy being newhalfs in FF1 was...already stated by Capcom in their own book. All the book itself states is that Capcom originally intended female characters, but went with newhalfs over worries about how American audiences would perceive violence against women. It never states how long the design was or whatnot, and what occurred with the US Nintendo port is its own matter.
Even Akiman himself in another Capcom art book states the original intention of characters with female bodies was to be a contrast to Haggar. So I'm missing the problem here: the issue is whether or not Poison was female before planning on the game as a whole took place?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh and to help, here's the quote from Arika Nishitani, the fellow in charge of developing the game. "I suppose Poison and Roxy could be male. We were mildly concerned about getting sued by a feminist group if we beat up women in the game. Whatever you see, that's what they are!" (Retro Gamer, issue 37 page 52). This coincides with what the Japanese book states regarding why they were changed, and doesn't require additional stretching.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for posting and explaining. I now understand what you're saying. Here is the problem. There is a persistent myth that holds that in the Japanese release of the game Poison was female, but because Capcom and/or Nintendo feared that women's rights groups in North America would object to having women subjected to violence in games, Poison in the North America version would be "newhalf". After realizing that there would be further controversy around having something so taboo in a video game primarily aimed at kids, Capcom and/or Nintendo decided to have her completely taken out of the first North American release. The first part of the myth is completely inaccurate. The main point the YouTube video was emphasizing was that Poison was never classified as "female" in any official game notes on her, not even in Japan. She was always described as "newhalf". From what you're saying, the book stated BEFORE the conceptual art took place (which also entails before the release of the first Final Fight edition in Japan) Poison was female and by the conceptual art phase, she became a "newhalf". If that is what the book is stating, then there is no contradiction at all. I was merely trying to clearly point out the fact that up to now, she was always described as a "newhalf" in all of the video games she appeared in. 74.108.232.27 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well really the text here does state that: they went with female characters at first then changed them to newhalfs because of concerns. The bit about Nintendo is accurate though too, but only applies to North American versions of the game on Nintendo consoles. Poison still very much appears on the US arcade, Sega console etc versions, while Billy and Sid only appear in Nintendo ports. The bigger misconception comes from people believing that this affected all ports of the games, which clearly didn't happen. If anything I would only go so far as to point out that the concept art says newhalf to quell complaints about it being "improper" and "engrish" when that's the actual word being used. You can cite the game for that, I ripped that for Fighting Street from one of the PSP Capcom Classics Collections games but overlooked it for writing this. As far as the video...it can't be cited. Wikipedia has to deal with reliable sources and when you're drawing your own conclusions and maybes that aren't from the horse's mouth, that's when you head into Original Research territory. Not to mention while it's been a bit since I saw that video, I believe it omits the fact they retconned Roxy as female.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Actually...that last bit isn't true either. Final Fight Revenge never states either, and treats her as female, and SF3 left the subject alone too. It didn't pop back up in games until SvC Chaos with a throwaway line, and more heavily when Ono decided that "oh hey controversy sells!" Making a statement like "she's a newhalf in every game" is drawing your own conclusions, which again fits into the OR thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough on Wiki's standard of research, though accompanying game notes from the company could be construed as from "the horse's mouth". Some (myself included) find it very odd that nowhere in any video game is Poison officially termed "female". Characters such as Chun Li, Cammy and Juri at some point have clearly been characterized as female but not Poison. If there is any official gender description on the character, it's always been "newhalf". So Ono isn't really adding to the controversy, other than the whole "pre-op", "post-op" thing. From what I understand, even in the old arcade versions of the game, there are strong hints in the game that points to the character not being "entirely female". 74.108.232.27 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a couple examples of reliable sources that criticize her for being newhalf; [2] for example. Is there any possibility that more sources could be found that come from that angle? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire " Conception and history" section is only about how Poison is transgendered. It hardly details Poinson's inspiration. I do not know for sure but Poison's design is most likely from Samantha Fox's music video "Naughty Girls Need Love Too"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXEN57rFnIM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.239.158 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Poison (Final Fight). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120718013640/http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/19310 to http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/19310
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220194152/http://falcoon.hp.infoseek.co.jp/ to http://falcoon.hp.infoseek.co.jp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Poison (Final Fight). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204093542/http://www.hobbyfan.com/product_info.php?products_id=4499 to http://www.hobbyfan.com/product_info.php?products_id=4499
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117071423/http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/07/15/capcom_girls_calendar/ to http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/07/15/capcom_girls_calendar/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)