Talk:PokéShipping

Further discussion

NPOV

As previously discussed in the staff forum, this article could do with some editing to make it neutral, not balanced. In short - the evidence needs to be restated in a way that is factual, i.e. "Commonly used arguments for PokéShipping include:" - and present the interpretation as interpretation, i.e. "PokéShippers believe this implies", not "this implies". - 振霖_T 04:33, 18 January 2006 (CST)

Ash's Sexual Orientation

"and furthermore, that Ash is undeniably heterosexual" What, he can't be bi?

Ja that slightly annoyed me too. - Ferret 12:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opinion and conclusions shouldn't be here... I didn't like working through that section either. Of course, this whole thing is opinion and what we should be doing is documenting the opinion, rather than presenting it.

But wouldn't 'undeniably likes girls' be more accurate?

probably saying that there's "no credible evidence supporting Ash having any sexual orientation other than heterosexual" is best. Evkl 22:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone able to go through the japanese episodes and find the original lines for some of these hints? If we're not going to write about dub hints, single them out, and show why they're not taken as evidence by serious veteran Shippers, we shouldn't include them at all.--Archaic 10:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"probably saying that there's "no credible evidence supporting Ash having any sexual orientation other than heterosexual" is best. Evkl 22:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Evkl--I wouldn't say that. Remember Sammy? Ritchie? Gary?

Show me the solid evidence that As is anything but heterosexual. evkl 10:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is none, just as there is no solid evidence that he's not bisexual. Ketsuban 23:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other than the fact that he has yet to shown any real sexual attraction to males. Lionheart08 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence to one side is not the same as "solid evidence" to the contrary. I could just as easily say "Mew has never been shown, in any canon, to be in a romantic relationship with a female pokemon, so it is male and gay." That is no proof what-so-ever. See the similarities between that argument and yours? Mind you, I'm not saying I feel one or the other about Ash's sexuality, and the article never claims that Ash has to be hetero, just that Pokéshippers think so - just don't use such terrible logic. --AuthorX 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the simple fact that Ash has shown attraction to females (on more than one occasion) and none whatsoever to males kills the theory of him being Bisexual. Lionheart08 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

With a kids show, probably best to err on the side of caution. So Ash is straight until proven otherwise... - Cassius335

Image:PokéShipping

Is the image in this article really from Electric Tale of Pikachu? Because, as far as I remember, Misty is older in it, and her hair is black. She seems more like Misty from Pokémon Special to me. -- Luke 08 May 2006

I've Got A Secret

Removed a reference to this, since it's sung by Deliah, not Misty.

It's sung by both of them. Delia sings about the secret of her past (dating Giovanni) and Misty sings about her feelings for Ash. --FabuVinny ^T-C-S 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Didn't see the actual play, but the song sounds like its only the one female singer. Interesting... - Cassius335

Ugh

Uuugh, gay ships annoy me sooo much, if you people were truuue fans, those kindsa ships wouldnt exist! Gosh! -File:Ani491MS.gifKPF☆

Where there are possible couples, there be ships. Fact of the Internet. Cassius335 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And how does your homophobia affect the PokéShipping article? --FabuVinny ^T-C-S 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "Shipping is gay". Cassius335 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Misty's Song

I'm going to remove Misty's Song from the list for now, as it appears to be exclusive to the English version. If anyone finds an official Japanese song in which Kasumi states this, please add that song instead ^_^. AjaaniSherisu 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do eff off. Just because it's a dub song does NOT mean it doesn't count! - Cassius335 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Just because it's English-exclusive doesn't mean it's not usable as evidence. English canon is canon. User:TTEchidna/sig 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are grasping at straws. Pokemon is from JAPAN. The only canon that can be canon is the original, and since the main language of Japan isn't English, we can assume that the dub is not the original, right? There is no such thing as dub canon. Ganging up on me saying "I agree with them, just because it's in English doesn't mean it doesn't count" doesn't make his/her or your point anymore correct. I support Pokeshipping, but I do so with facts that the creators gave, not a company that had no say in the development of the series. The day that dubs become part of an anime's canon is the day fanfics become canon. AjaaniSherisu 06:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate sub purists.

Look, the English version of the show is the official English version of the show, not a fansub or a fanfic. There's a mile of difference. There IS such a thing as dub canon and we're ganging up on you because you're wrong. - Cassius335 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not a sub purist, I just happen to like the Japanese names more. Also you are not ganging up on me because you are correct, you are ganging up on me because you feel that if you do, it makes your statement have more validity. There is no such thing as dub canon, at least not to anyone who actually knows what the word canon means. Only official things can be considered canon, and this proves that the dub is NOT canon, ready for it? They stated in the 5th episode that Takeshi's mother was dead..... wow.. funny how she came back alive and tried to turn the family's gym into a water one in the 1st episode of Pokemon Chronicles. I guess she must of came back from the dead and is now a zombie, eh? They edited this because they didn't want Takeshi to have 2 parents who left the family, so they said she died. They didn't expect her to ever be focused on, so they killed her off. The original version had her not dead, the dub had her dead, which is it? One of them was wrong, and I'm going to put my money on it being the dub.

Protect the page please

We need to protect the page for a bit. A certain someone keeps removing the dubs evidence. --File:Ani048MS.gifケンジFile:Ani183MS.gifガールFile:Ani123MS.gif 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No need. If it comes to it, the admins will ban him. - Cassius335 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cassius, I'm a girl thank you very much, and no the admins won't ban me, but I'm pretty close to asking them to ban you for your repeated reverting of something that isn't true. I agree with Kenji-girl now that we should keep the dub evidence as another look at it, but your repeated attempts at posting that there is uncertainty about whether or not the song is canon is vandalism. You not once back up your claim and only stoop to saying to "go away", as if you wish for what I'm saying not to be true. I hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't canon. It was written by Ken Cummings and John Loeffler, and was made specifically for the 2BA MASTER Soundtrack. If you want to post it as evidence of Pokeshipping in the dub, do so; but don't lie and say that it is unclear whether it is canon or not, as that is a lie. AjaaniSherisu 11:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason you're saying that at all is because you have his strange fascination with decanonizing the entire English version.

Look, Misty's Song is Misty's Character Song, written as part of the soundtrack to the English version of the show. The only way for it to be truly non-canon is if it was out-of-character for Misty. It isn't: her attraction to Ash is pretty much undeniable at this point. But (as I recall) it was never actually used in the show itself, so it's never been shown in context to the show's plot.

Aaand I lost you after "English version", didn't I? - Cassius335 11:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take back my "Nah". Please protect the page. We're in ping-pong mode at the moment. - Cassius335 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a strange fascination, it's the truth. Canon means official. I'm not sure where you got your evidence that it is not "out-of-character" for Kasumi to say that, when neither of her voice actresses even sang the song, nor has most of the evidence on this page been anything other than a product of the dub's dialog changes. Please learn the defintion of canon before you make comments about whether something is canon or not. Check out the link for canon, ok?

Do you have anything other than sub purism to offer? The Japanese version has it's own seperate soundtrack (though with some shared BGM). And the English version is official, because that's what they're paid to make: the official English-lnguage version. - Cassius335 12:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*laughs* And the article you linked to doesn't exist! - Cassius335 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Possibly you meant Canon. Gotta watch those brackets. - Cassius335 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that ^_^;, hehehehe. You have to remember that they don't pay 4Kids to make anything, 4Kids paid them to license it out. That does not mean that the product is canon, just that they have permission to use their product's name and sell it. I'm actually not an sub purist, I just don't like the fact that you are stating that a song that is not in any canon of Pokemon (the original anime, games, manga, or Japanese CDs) is being called unclear of whether or not it is canon.

The fact is the song is not canon, but I don't mind if you use it as evidence as long as you don't state that it is official canon, or that there is uncertainty of whether or not it is, as both are untrue. You don't have to be a sub purist to understand that the Japanese version is the official one. I'm not saying "OMG, the dub is horrible, who watches that rubbish?" I'm just saying the truth that it's not canon, and therefore there is no debate over whether or not it is canon, at least not in people who aren't trying hard to wish the fact isn't true. It in no way makes Pokeshipping not likely, as I'm a Pokeshipper myself and know there is a lot of evidence that actually is from canon that does support Pokeshipping. It's just that the song isn't canonical evidence. AjaaniSherisu 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: The English Soundtrack is designed to reflect on the English version of the show and "Misty's Song" is intended to reflect on Misty's feelings for Ash. That the Japanese version doesn't include "Misty's song" is beside the point; They've got their own songs to sing. In order to be non-canon, "Misty's Song" would have to contradict the show somehow, but it doesn't.

And disregarding the entire English version as non-offical? That IS being a sub purist. - Cassius335 13:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A sub purist is a person who hates all dubs and only watches subs. It is not sub purist to state that a version that has dialog changes to the point where they actually kill off a character that isn't dead is not operating in the same realm as the original. In the original, Lola is alive, in the dub, Lola is dead. Notice how they didn't state that Lola is Takeshi's mother in the dub version of the Pokemon Chronicles episode? That is because they killed her off in the 5th episode, but instead coming clean, they decided to keep up that lie by not stating exactly who she is, giving the dub viewers the option of thinking she is either a girlfriend or someone other than Takeshi's mother.

I actually have watched a lot more episodes of the dub than I have the sub, and I don't hate the dub, nor do I say "OMG, the sub is soo much better than the dub". I just know for 100% fact that the original version is the original version, therefore whatever it says is correct. If they state that Takeshi's mother isn't dead, do you think I'm going to trust the dub when they say she is? I don't think anyone would. Also in order to be considered non-canon, any portion of what that person creates has to contradict. The fact that the dub itself contradicts the original series automatically rules out anything the dub creates as canon. Like I said before, Lola can't be both dead and alive at the same time, so one of them isn't following the same storyline as the other. Until there is proof that the dub is following what the original has done, it is an original idea and therefore not canon. AjaaniSherisu 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the English version has descrepancies with the original version. But to try to decanonize an entire language version just because of those mistakes is madness. Instead, how about taking each mistake on a case by case basis? Sure, Takeshi's mother aint dead, but that's just one glitch in an otherwise mostly faithful translation. It's not like they've changed a whale into an iceberg or something (compared to some of the stories I've heard about 4Kids One Piece, Pokémon got off quite lightly).

Besides, the English version is made by Pokémon USA, a sub-divison of Nintendo Of America, which is but one part of the great Nintendo whole. From there it gets liscenced to 4Kids or TAJ or whoever. In the end, it's the offical English Version Because Nintendo Say So.

Hence my use of the phrase "dub canon": Authorised, organised and paid for by Nintendo, so it's entirely official and canon and everything (Because Nintendo Say So), but doesn't quite sync up with the original language. - Cassius335 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be a sub purist of Pokémon when barely any episodes are subbed in the first place? First, it is silly to assume that Lola isn't Brock's mother in the dub. I don't know why you think they were hiding it but if they were then the bit that gives their past history would have been completely rewritten. Not that that one incident affects this anyway.

So here is my question: Is Two Perfect Girls canon? No one denies Brock's love for Jenny and Joy and it certainly follows the original - Japanese viewers later got Takeshi's Paradise as their equivalent. If you accept that then you have to accept this.

Plus, we can't have a PokéShipping page without mentioning Misty's Song. --FabuVinny ^T-C-S 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be a sub purist of Pokémon when barely any episodes are subbed in the first place?

Touché, but "Original purist" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. :P - Cassius335 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Perfect Girls is canon in the sense that the official version created a similar song after it. We know 100% for a fact that Takeshi loves both Jenny and Joy. We have never seen an official (via the original series) mention of Kasumi loving Satoshi, or Japanese equivalent of Misty's Song however. When the creators of the series acknowledge that the song is canon, then it can be considered canon. The only one who gives the green light to something being canon is the creator of the the product itself, not whoever the creators allow to use it's name. Also you can't bring up Pokemon USA as the fact is it was founded in 2001 and the song was created in 1999, therefore Pokemon USA had no role in the song.

It feels as if it's only being added because people believe if it isn't included that it makes Pokeshipping as false. This is not true, as Pokeshipping has been supported by the original also. I just feel including a song that tried to milk money out of the franchise is not the best, nor is it the biggest piece of evidence. Kasumi saying it or hinting it in the actual series is more reliable and the biggest evidence that could be found that Pokeshipping is true. The fact that Satoshi, regardless of the dub or the sub keeps the lure Kasumi made is more evidence that Pokeshipping is true than a song that the dub made up. AjaaniSherisu 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The creators of the series are Nintendo. So anything they create (or delegate someone to create) is official. The Japanese shouldn't have to put smething in writing that "Misty's Song" is official because it's already an authorised official product as far as Nintendo is concerned, not something "made up".

And you're ignoring a vital point: You say that there is plenty of evidence of Kasumi liking Satoshi. In order to be non-canon, "Misty's Song" would have to disagree with this. But it doesn't. In fact, it agrees wholeheartedly that Misty (Kasumi) likes Ash (Satoshi). There's no descrepancy.

So it's basically canon, just never used in-show. - Cassius335 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are creating a straw-man argument by stating that it's canon because it is authorised. While it is authorised, that does not mean that Nintendo made it canon; they just agreed that it is ok for 4Kids to create the song and sell it. Until Satoshi Tajiri acknowledges the song's existence (I'm highly doubting he has heard it), or there is a song in the original series (like Two Perfect Girls had) that is very similar, then it can't be considered canon.

So... Satoshi Tajiri has to declare a song he likely has never heard canon... or it's not canon? Mr Tajiri is a busy man and he's only one small part of a very large company. What you're asking is logisically hideous, by asking that one man who certainly has lots of other, better things to do to canonise a 10 year old song that isn't even in his native language? Come on.

Would you say that an onigiri is now a donut, because Nintendo allowed the dub to call it that?

I'm not even going to discuss that, because you're using that as anti-dub bait.

There is also a difference between hints and flat out saying something. While there are hints to it in the original, there is no flat out whispering of "I love you" coming from Kasumi in the original like the song was trying to do. It also injects that Kasumi doesn't want to tell Satoshi that she is in love with him because he might break her heart. Now there are hints to Kasumi loving Satoshi, but there are no hints whatsoever that she doesn't say it because she thinks he might break her heart. AjaaniSherisu 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You know why "Misty's" song is so unsubtle? Because in the minds of US executives, US children are morons who wouldn't understand subtlety if it bit them on the backside. This isn't just a Pokemon thing, it applies to (very nearly) every American cartoon in existence. Don't blame one song for something it has no control over.

And really, is the idea that Kasumi might not want to admit her feelings to Satoshi because he might not return them really so farfetched? Yeah, Kasumi doesn't come out and tell us this, but that's that subtlety thing again... we're supposed to figure some things out for ourselves.

Ask yourself: If Kasumi hasn't told Satoshi how she feels for that reason then what is the reason she hasn't told him? Has the original provided an alternate reason? - Cassius335 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)