Talk:Monet

First female character to die?
Alright, this kind of an extension of the discussion from the Villain Definition section above, but more specialized.

I say Monet is the first female character to die in the current storyline. Others like Belle-mere and Otohime died in flashbacks. The Zombie characters of Lola and Cindry shouldn't count because they died long before they became zombies. Their bodies were reanimated, and the people themselves were not reborn, and is therefore not a true resurrection, like Brook's devil fruit would be. And none of our articles say that the Zombies "died" when Moriah took in all the shadows, only that the bodies became lifeless corpses again. 02:45, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

They became new people. They died in the current timeline. 02:48, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

They were never alive to begin with. Making a puppet dance around doesn't mean it's a live, just that it can move. Zombies aren't alive, they're undead. 02:50, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

They are the bodies of dead people with the shadow (and personality) of live people. They aren't their own person, and they are neither dead nor alive. They are undead, and undead things don't die, they do something different from "death". 02:51, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Zombies are brought to life. Something that isn't dead is alive. 02:53, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Or undead. SeaTerror (talk) 02:57, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

The undead are still alive. They aren't dead. 03:00, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

But they aren't alive either. 03:00, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

The only possible classification for something is dead or alive. They aren't dead. They can only be alive. The undead are alive. 03:02, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat SeaTerror (talk) 03:04, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to zombies. And undead is a term made specifically for zombies since they are neither dead nor alive. Learn hwo zombies work. 03:06, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

She just died outside a flashback, so she is the "first female character to die outside a flashback", not in the series at all.--Shay.avigad.1 (talk) 11:12, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

God this sounds like a campaign towards "Zombie Rights" XD

Grievous67 (talk) 21:47, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

You guys do know, that her death is not an objective fact. I do not say she's alive, but neither do i say she's dead. Many people take this site as gospel, to respect the trust the OP community puts in us, we should be as objective as possible. it's bad enough, that she is classified as ddead, without confirmation, but it's appalling that you guys are having other secondary discussions on this  speculation. Monet's death is speculation, nothing more, nothing less. This site may also lose credibiity, if we state things that turn out to be wrong. I think we shouldn't have any more discussion on topics directly drawing from Monet's death, until it is directly confirmed. Eg her devil fruit showing up later, SBS confirmation, etc. Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 17:53, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Sort of Fighter
I think Monet fits to be in the category of "Swordsmen" which is inside the category of "Fighters Who Use Weapons", and not in the latter category itself.--Shay.avigad.1 (talk) 11:16, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

She never used a sword.

Yup, but she might fit in Category:Polearm Wielders. 14:18, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Her weapons look more like daggers compared to her size, imho. I don't know which category daggers belong to though.

Monet's name comes from Claude Monet
I posted in the trivia that Monet's name (obviously) comes from incredibly famous French impressionist king painter Claude Monet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Monet

especially since Claude Monet did several paintings of snow landscapes like this ones

http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Lavacourt%20under%20the%20Snow%20Claude%20Monet.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_qjLGN--pS8/Tvh-zWYqWKI/AAAAAAAAHuw/k1ZaodQqDfk/s1600/Claude+Monet+View+of+Argenteuil+in+the+Snow+1875.jpg

and many others.

However, after posting it a few days later somebody removed it. Why? It's like they called Kanjuro Picasso and said "Oh no, he's totally not inspired off the painter". Personally I think it should be featured in the trivia.

What do you think?

Grievous67 (talk) 18:01, October 17, 2014 (UTC)Grievous67

Pretty sure it's a common French name. Plus, I don't think the name is likely to be based off the content of his paintings, as I think he's far more known for his more colorful spring and summer paintings. 03:04, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think her name was ever written out anyway. People originally used Mone. SeaTerror (talk) 07:16, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Trafalgar Law
Monet didn't really know Law, since she hadn't been present in his past, so I think Law doesn't fit to be listed as her enemy.--844996 11:58, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

No, but Monet knew him because he's been a while in Punk Hazard

Grievous67 (talk) 21:48, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that Law was most likely the one who constructed her into an artificial harpy, much like he did with Brown Beard and the rest of Caesar's henchmen. (Not saying that should be added to the article, just contributing to this discussion) DazzlingEmerald (talk) 03:20, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

That's already on her page in the history section m7/11 - it was confirmed in chapter 675.--Xilinoc (talk) 07:04, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Monet Really Dead?
Why are there many people perstisting that a major character and antagonist is dead in the current storyline? It's not very clear cut. This One Piece. Sure, Ace and Whitebeard in the current near the end of the first half, but there's a major reason for that. Plus it's survival to have your heart stabbed in real life. I'm just saying there many evidence against Monet being killed. Why not leave hear status unknown? It keep this article from being biased. I'm sorry it all really bugs me. If you want me to make my case, I'll show you links to videos and quotes from the comment section for evidence.

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 22:38, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Monet/Archive_1#Dead That's why. Only reason really. Unknown would be better since it isn't speculative. SeaTerror (talk) 22:43, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing this again unless something happens in the manga that suggests otherwise. 22:45, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

^ Citation needed. SeaTerror (talk) 22:51, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

So you agree me that this is rediculious and those people should keep their opinions and speculations to somewhere else than wiki pages?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 23:11, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

The community decided long ago that the assumption Monet has died is a reasonable one. She got stabbed in the heart in an exploding building with no one around after all. 23:16, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Why could you just labled the character's status as unkown? I thought we're suppose to write and edit facts, not opinions and speculations.

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 23:21, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it opinions and speculations, but rather deductive reasoning. if you know for example that there are 3 doors ahead, one white, one blue and the other green, and you can see the blue and white one already, then you can safely assume the door you can't see is green. Same case here. It's hard to please everyone, but the voting about this matter showed the majority is pleased with the assumption she is dead. I hope you understand. 23:26, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but there are rebutals from what you said in first comment like not showing the whole building destroyed, right?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 23:31, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Although I understand your point, by that logic you can question every "fact" presented in the manga with a "what if". Example: Sabo case. Sabo was presented as dead, and although there were the "hints" of him being alive, they were just speculations. Oda decided to make him appear dead until he revealed the plot-twist. Oda can decide to "resurrect" or "save" any character he wants but until he does so, we have to stick what he wants us to think, which is her being dead. Maybe Sabo was not so clear? Well what about Pell? Imagine the chapter where he blew up was just released today, would you consider the possibility of him surviving? What about other dead characters?

The community discussed then if the informations we had was enough to consider Monet dead and it concluded so by majority. I don't know what are the current rules about re-challenging a community decision, but you have to understand that we cannot question community decisions each time just because someone doesn't agree with the outcome. If you bring some new piece of evidence, probably people can reopen the discussion but otherwise it's counter-productive, I think.

Fine. If I find new, legit evidence from the series' chapters and episodes, past and fast, I'll show them. That includes online sources also.

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 00:00, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Questioning it is actually completely valid. We shouldn't state something as a "fact" but we should make it ambiguous. The poll was made before the status template existed anyway so we never had unknown before. It's speculation to say that Monet is dead just as much as it would be to say she is alive. SeaTerror (talk) 00:38, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

I like your arguement, SeaTerror. Keeping it ambiguous, while leaving it come for other to come up with their own theories and predictions to share and come up with their own conclusions.

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 01:16, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

We voted. She's dead until further notice. Drop it. 01:50, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Only 23 people voted there. I say we repoll. Leman-Russkin (talk) 02:28, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

>only 23 people voted

Do you realize how many users USUALLY vote on polls? Like 10. 23 is an unusually high number here, you're not going to get more by re-polling.--Xilinoc (talk) 04:08, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Atleast I've seen, there were way more people voting on polls in wikis. What type of polls are you refering to?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 04:56, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

This poll. As DP said, we voted and the majority was for dead. (the presumed deceased category the poll talks about was later deleted because of another poll)

The system for opening issues again is wait at least 3 months, and bring something new to the table so that we might have a different result. You have brought nothing new to the table, and per our voting rules you wouldn't even be able to vote in the poll. There's no reason to discuss this now. And there's even less reason for this to be an "active discussion".

Drop it. 05:49, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Altright, I think I've found something new. In the archive, you believe that Monet wouldn't be able to survive with her heart being stabed. However, it is possible to survive being stabbed in the heart in the real world. Although it's 1/3 chance, It's been proven a fact. Here's so proof. Here's an ABC 22 news story: http://www.abc22now.com/news/top-stories/stories/Man-Stabbed-In-Heart-Survives-Suspect-In-Custody-157047.shtml

Not convinced? Here's an article titled  " 7 Deadly Things You Won't Believe Most People Survive".

Here's the link: http://www.cracked.com/article_19698_7-deadly-things-you-wont-believe-most-people-survive.html

Look for it in #5.

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 07:31, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

We are NOT discussing this again.

Also, http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Monet?diff=next&oldid=802705 You are gal aint ya? 07:50, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

"and bring something new to the table so that we might have a different result." That's not the rule. But if you want to claim that then I already did. "The poll was made before the status template existed anyway so we never had unknown before." SeaTerror (talk) 09:52, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Chist ST stop whinning, you have to whole wiki against you. Just stop. 09:55, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'd be up for repolling. We should just use unknown status. 10:00, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

If she's back > Alive. If she's not -> Just keep her dead. By the same logic we should keep Higuma "unknown" because MAYBE he mangaed to get out of the sea king's mouth (he wasn't teared apart, he was eaten alive so MAYBE he got out of there, right?), maybe PuddingPudding swam away from Arlong Park, by the same logic we should keep Bell-Mére unknown because a shot through the heart (or head) MAYBE didn't kill her, just like Monet. I mean we saw blood but, we didn't see her after right?

Monet should not get special treatment. If we consider a stab to the heart and a mountain collapsing to be "unknown" then we should change all characters who died in a similar matter.

Grievous67 (talk) 11:08, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute. So they have been lying to me about this?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 15:08, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm a boy. And did you ask me that?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 15:08, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Post in order, not in the middle of the talk.

15:12, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Any of you, actually read what I found?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 15:42, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to take that article seriously, as it takes into consideration that there are actual hospitals in the area of the victim. Monet was alone in a building on a deserted island (with a cut in pieces Vergo), with the building collapsing as it exploded. Recognize the difference? It's not something valid I'm afraid. 15:48, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

By "bring something new to the discussion" I meant something in-series. We've already had the "people can survive getting stabbed in the heart" discussion before. Oda wants us to believe she's dead regardless of her actual fate. I have no problem categorizing her as such, and I will have no egg on my face if she is alive.

But beating this dead horse of a discussion again because one user that does not have enough edits to vote on an eventual poll would be bad for the community, in my opinion. This discussion should be over. 15:56, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry that. I wasn't sure. I'm done with this disscussion. Atleast, for now. One more thing. When you meant by "in-series", do you meant like relevance, impact, and continuity of the narrative?

Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 19:40, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

I believe "in-series" kind of means just that. What happens in real life is mainly irrelevant to what happens in this fantasy story. Sure, in real life, people MIGHT be able to survive a stab to the heart (of course the situations are drastically different), but that doesn't necessarily mean people in One Piece will be able to survive a stab. Even if the situations were similar, it's not actual evidence. We can use real-world inspirations to deduce events in the fantasy world, but that's still speculation. 22:14, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

I have a legitimate question, what is wrong with giving Monet the "Presumend Dead" label. I see no cons, and I see no pros in assigning her to be dead. Especially where what "killed" her is: There is reason to speculate she may be alive. There are no cons from labelling her presumed dead, and nothing is to be gained, from labelling her dead. Rather it does more harm than good, to label her dead when she may in fact be alive.
 * 1) Not definitive death in One Piece
 * 2) There has been no explicit confirmation of her status
 * 3) There are still mysteries surrounding her, which are yet to be revealed. EG Oda brought up the relationship between Monet and Sugar, and their tragic past in an SBS completely unconcerned with them. Post mortem, he gave us more questions than answers.

Bringing up what causes medical death in RL, is inane, because One Piece characters have survived far worse. Excluding flashback characters, apart from Ace and Whitebeard, whose deaths were Crucial for story progression, have any One Piece characters died? Even unimportant characters, like that slave in Saboady was shown to be alive and well later on.

Oda has even gone as far as to state that he dislikes killing characters. I can mention all the in story reasons why it is unlikely for her to be dead, but  I won't. This Wiki isn't a place for Speculation, and that is what saying Monet is dead is: Speculation.

For one, we do not know who through the note to Chopper. If it was Law, he would have needed "Room" and "Shambles". We would have known if Law had used his power to send Chopper the note.

For another, Monet seemingly noticed Chopper's presence, but did not react. Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 18:32, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Monet's Race
The Wiki states that Monet was willingly given arms and legs and a tail by Law.

I want to point two things out. Check this out:[QUOTE="Blaze"]I know this has been pointed out before in the flashback that Monet had normal human limbs, but I still like to think that there is a harpy race out there. Perhaps harpies have a similar aging system to mermaids.*She could be switching between human and harpy form like Kokoro does. We've learned that mermaids over the age of 30 can do that. That could possibly also correlate to harpies. After all, we don't know Monet's age. But when I checked I found something.Monet's picture in volume cover ,her legs look normal.While when you look at her other pics ,her legs are in form of limbs of a harpy/bird.I have provided the pic below. So ,I think Monet is able to transform her normal limbs to Harpy limbs whenever she wants.Similar to that of mermaids. Another thing to note, the tips of her wings match her hair color which would not really make sense if those wings were not hers to start with.Yeah it looks more like genetical relation between wings & hairs ,both being green. Furthermore, the word "Happy" on her t-shirt could be a play on words with harpy ,too much like Oda. Just ,speculating that she might belong to a Harpy race .[/QUOTE]Question about Monet  Regardless, of the speculation of the poster above. It remains fact, that Oda drew her on a Volume Cover(The Volume cover part is very important, because mistakes usually made in the Manga are corrected in Volume releases. Eg Zoro not being among the Worst Generation, the 150 KM in FIshman Island, etc There is no reason to assume Oda made a mistake) with human legs. Given that she has been drawn with Human legs, we cannot now say for certain, that she was indeed transformed by Law. Furthermore, the existence of Lafitte makes it very possible that there is indeed a Harpy race in One Piece. That said, I will respectfully edit thaft part out of the Wiki.Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 15:50, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is speculation, that Law transformed her into a harpy.
 * 2) There is evidence, that supports the possiblility of her being a real harpy.
 * First you start as a normal human, then when you reach a certain age you grow wings and a tail.
 * But you can change back and forth freely from human to harpy limbs.
 * To me, Monet's wings seem too similar to Lafitte's wings for it to be a coincidence ,so Lafitte might be a Harpy too.I also don't know how sure I am since there might be some sort of angel devil fruit that Laffitte could have ate to explain his wings.

Slave SeaTerror (talk) 15:59, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Um, how is it speculatory? Monet had human limbs, and Law gave new legs to Caesar's subordinates. That theory about her being a transforming harpy, meanwhile, is pure and ungrounded speculation. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 15:56, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

@Kaido King of the Beasts, I don't know why the Images isn't showing here. I'll post links to them below: As can be seen in those links, Monet is drawn sometimes with Human legs, and sometimes with bird legs. This makes it possible she's not an artificial harpy. I'm not saying we should use the theory, but there is evidence indicating that she is not an artifical harpy. That part should be removed from her post, until we can confirm what race she actually is. Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 16:43, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) http://i.imgur.com/ALE5u6V.png
 * 2) http://i.gyazo.com/66a6b27107fab5ea6ccceee7540a2bbc.png

It's the anime's fault. If you look at the manga image, you can see she has normal legs for quite a good length before it turns into talons. 16:49, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

@Aurora, you did follow the links I used right? All my pics are from the colored manga, NOT the Anime. Those pictures are Manga pictures, not Anime pictures. So No, you can't blame the Anime. Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 17:26, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

No, those images are from the anime. This is her coloring in the digital comics. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 17:40, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

If you look at picture, you can see that the talon part begins very late in the length of her leg, which explains the coloured manga image you linked earlier. However, if you look at the anime image, you can see that that part of the human leg is a talon's in the anime, therefore making it the anime's fault. 17:45, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

@Aurora, @Dragonus Nesha, it seems you guys are right. I have a complete One Piece collection, so I'll reread PH, to confirm and see if there is variation in how her legs are drawn. Just to confirm, does a difference in the length of her human legs, count as evidence for a possible natural harpy?

There's also the fact, that her feathers matches her hair colour.

What about the fact, that she can turn her transformed parts into snow. SHe even has her skin sword technique. If the body parts are not hers, would she rationally be able to transform them? I'm not proposing that we say she's a harpy or anything, but if we can conclude that it is within the realm of possibilities, then maybe we should remove the part about Law transforming her into a harpy. it was never confirmed, by Law/Caesar/Monet herself, or anybody Credible that Law transformed her into a harpy, and that she was indeed human. I'll get back here, if I can find more evidence. Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 18:14, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Monet is Alive
First of all, in the SBS question where the rabbits thata appeared on the water were brought up, Oda said

"She and Sugar are also sisters".

He didn't say "She and Sugar were also sisters".

I don't know if this has been brought up before, I'd be suprised if it hasn't, but if this is true(It might be a translation error where I read it). This sentence needs to be amended on her page:

"She was also Sugar's sister".

It should be corrected to:

"She is also Sugar's sister"

Emp3r0r.Lance (talk) 16:38, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

You don't stop being related to someone when you die. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:47, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but maybe it's time to reopen the discussion of Monet's status anyway. 17:47, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Are sisters. She's dead. End of discussion. 19:48, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Unknown Status
So with the recent edits it seems many people disagree with the deceased status. I agree that we should change it to unknown since the status parameter didn't even exist when we created the original poll. I assume people would have put it as unknown if we had it then. This would also mean changing the article back to current tense except history sections. SeaTerror (talk) 22:28, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

While I personally believe that Monet is dead, I have to agree. In the poll that decided it all Sff9 said "stating unconfirmed facts in the articles has no advantage, only drawbacks" and he pretty much captured it perfectly. Regardless of the logic behind the classification, it really makes little impact on the article and has mostly only served as a breeding ground for anti-wiki sentiment. Sure, it's not our job to appeal to the masses, but the logic behind the classification is so tenuous it's very hard to counter the masses with facts.

The only real proof we have of her dying is Doflamingo saying in Chapter 759 (per cnet) "Eliminated both Vergo and Monet...". Now, eliminate means to completely remove or to murder, and given his statement it seems that Monet is being presented as dead. While we shouldn't put fan "logic" ahead of what the manga clearly presents, I'm not really sure if that single statement is solid enough to clearly portray Monet as dead. Then of course she was stabbed in the heart. Well, in a series where characters can survive nukes at point blank range and restart their own hearts, I don't really see the merits of applying real-world science into this, at least now.

Do I think Monet is dead? Yes, very much so. But right now, we have nothing to gain from marking her deceased and not much to go on to support it. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 23:03, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Both Monet and Vergo should be "Unknown" status. 23:20, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The unknown status just leads to more arguments between the dead and alive camps. The more definitive answer is the better one. 06:31, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

We cant put a "deceased" status on someone that is never confirmed if hes dead or not. I agree with the unkown status. Dinosel (talk) 07:49, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

DP is right. We have something that says she's dead. It's not much but it's something.

Now, either we say she's dead and that's our stance on it, like with Sabo, or we say she's unknown and this gets debated endlessly.

Honestly I think the admins make the call here, any poll is going to be a mess that we don't need.

17:29, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the unknown status causes debates. It's saved quite a few arguments on Jack's and Pekoms' pages. Usually debates only happen when we've committed to a side and people dispute that side. The only way the unknown status would cause debate is if there's clear evidence one way or the other, which there really isn't in this case. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 18:06, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

In cases like these, I support DP's stance that the pages should reflect what Oda wants us to think - in that case, it was Sabo post-explosion, and the same goes for Monet. Now, she and/or Vergo could show up alive in a future chapter and we could change stuff to reflect that; however, I see no harm in listing them as dead for the time being because that's what we're supposed to believe. The unknown status only really works when there's less to indicate dead or alive status, as with Pekoms, and I'm not a fan of catering to the whiny manchildren who harass us over "making assumptions" about character deaths as if we possess future sight.--Xilinoc (talk) 18:17, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Unknown status is only supposed to be used when it is directly shown or stated, not fan speculation. SeaTerror (talk) 18:49, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Let's imagine for a second, that this wiki was created around the same time the first chapter was published, before we knew Oda's methods for killing and keeping alive. Remember how Luffy first defeated Buggy? He sent him flying off into the sky Team Rocket style, complete with a twinkle. How would we classify Buggy then? Dead? But flying through the sky doesn't mean you die necessarily. Alive? He could have landed in the ocean and sank like a rock because he's a Devil Fruit user. So what do we do? Status unknown. Because there was way too much up in the air (no pun intended) to classify him as dead or leave him be. Law getting shot in the chest repeatedly at point blank range despite his relevance to the plot. The almighty Jack suddenly getting blasted away nowhere to be seen. It is for those situations that we have the status unknown. Monet and Vergo's deaths are not one of those situations. They blew up. Monet got stabbed in the heart before that even happened. Vergo was rendered immobile by castration and even said his goodbyes. Now, they might be alive. Happened to Pell, so why the F not? Until they are though, we have no canonical basis to think they're alive. And personal belief is not canonical basis, sorry. 03:24, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

So then since you mentioned Pell that means unknown is the better choice. Also again, "Unknown status is only supposed to be used when it is directly shown or stated, not fan speculation" SeaTerror (talk) 17:04, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

We would have run Pell under the same treatment and he would have come out as dead. He even had a grave, so there wasn't anything left to question. 04:19, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Her status should stay as dead until it can be proven that she is alive without a doubt. "Unknown" is just too speculative and will cause this discussion to be brought up again and again in the future 17:52, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Having her as deceased is what has caused this to be "brought up again and again". Unknown is a valid option that we use with other characters and would in fact end this until further evidence. 18:02, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Unknown isn't speculation. Saying a character is dead without having been shown it is the speculation part. Would be the same if we had her status as alive. SeaTerror (talk) 18:16, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Kage makes an excellence argument, so I change my stance and support the status of "unknown" 22:51, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Calling it unknown brings about the ire of both the dead and alive camps as opposed to just the alive. It would make things worse. 08:09, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Tell that to Pekoms SeaTerror (talk) 17:35, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

"Eliminated" does not mean dead. If it did, this would be an easy decision. But, in this context, eliminated means they have been removed from the action. For example, when the Straw Hat crew was defeated by Kuma, it was clearly stated multiple times that they were eliminated. Monet and Vergo were pieces in Doflamingo's game, and when they were taken down on Punk Hazard, they were eliminated. Nobody in the series ever suggested that they were dead. We shouldn't default to dead-until-proven-alive. We could say Chessmarimo is dead, too, because we haven't seen him since Chopper landed the final blow. 18:50, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with what DP said.

"Eliminated" is difficult to base things on, as ultimately it is just a translation.

I think it is very important to remember that Monet and Vergo are different cases, even if their deaths were in the same chapter. Ultimately, if you believe that Monet has died, then her death was onscreen. Vergo's was not. Any of the previous cases mentioned are all offscreen deaths, including far too often compared Pell. We didn't see his body ravaged by the explosion. We don't see Chessmarimo or Wapol drowning in the sea. That's the frustrating part of Monet: People are ignoring an onscreen death because of previous experiences with offscreen deaths. We see Monet's heart stabbed, we see her collapse. All onscreen. 18:08, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Pell basically filled everyone with doubt and that doubt has transferred here. We need to remember that Pell was in Alabasta, over 10 years ago real time, meaning the location as well as Oda's view of killing characters could easily have changed, and that we can't keep using Pell as a reference point. His supposed death has nothing to do with Vergo and Monet's actual deaths. 18:13, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

she ded m8 18:18, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

^Bam. 18:31, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

"We see Monet's heart stabbed, we see her collapse. All onscreen." Time to change Pekoms status to dead then. SeaTerror (talk) 18:53, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

But Pekoms was shown to still be alive, like, right away. Monet was never shown alive after her heart was stabbed. As AoD said, she ded m8 19:01, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Actually Pekoms wasn't shown alive either after being thrown into the water. Same thing applies. She isn't dead because it's speculation to say she's dead which is why unknown is the correct way to go. SeaTerror (talk) 19:17, September 1, 2016 (UTC)