Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Significance of pop culture examples
- Ben-Hur: What significance did the crucifixion play in the culture at large or in film history? This is entirely missing
- The Passion of the Christ: This one is probably more justified then the other do to its shear brutality in its depictions. However, finding film critics about the crucifixion and cometary from historians and theologists about the accuracy of the depiction is much needed.
- Spartacus: The crucifixions at the end of the film simply depicts a historical event. However, there is noting explaining the cultural significances this depiction.
- Madonna's mock crucifixion: Why should we care and why is it worth mentioning? This particular incident is actually more forgettable than her other religious provocations.
- Sebastian Horsley: First of all, I wouldn't know this guy from a hole in the ground. And frankly, I don't see him being crucified for inspiration has any significant at all. So it has been removed.
- Crucified Santa Claus: Sourced to Snopes, but it should be backed up by a more reliable source. But this is the type of information that should be sought after. We have an explanation behind the depiction and we have a subsequent cultural affect. If only it had better sourcing.
—Farix (t | c) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) About the POV-section tag, I will explain what specifically concerns me in the near future. I'm concerned that, if I go into detail now, it will be counter-productive, but it seems to me that some recent edits have been too much, with too little consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me the only ones that are significant enough are Ben-hur and The Passion of the Christ. I say delete the Madonna and Sebastian Horsley ones. We could get better sources for our friend Santa.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- And is there any significance to the Ben-Hur depiction in popular culture? —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ben-Hur is a incredibly famous and notable film. It won eleven Oscars. I think it's notable enough.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- But does it make the depiction of a crucifixion significant? After all, the crucifixion isn't what made the film famous or why it won those Oscars. —Farix (t | c) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. However, it can be taken as a specific instance of the appearance of the scene/event in "original" film not explicitly based on the life of Jesus itself. Granted, so could the scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian". I could see mentioning one, possibly both, in the context of the crucifixion as portrayed in what might be called "intentional fiction" (don't want to offend non-believers here) regarding the crucifixion in film. I would also add that some appearances might deserve mention not necessarily because of their relevance to this topic but perhaps to their medium. So, perhaps a sculpture of the crucifixion of extreme importanct to the field of sculpture, if such exists, could probably reasonably be included as well. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- But does it make the depiction of a crucifixion significant? After all, the crucifixion isn't what made the film famous or why it won those Oscars. —Farix (t | c) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ben-Hur is a incredibly famous and notable film. It won eleven Oscars. I think it's notable enough.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- And is there any significance to the Ben-Hur depiction in popular culture? —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Crucified Santa references
- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071223/santa_crucified_071223/20071223?hub=TopStories
- http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/28554-crucified-santa-makes-some-cross
- Moore, Edwin (June 25, 2007). Lemmings Don't Leap: 180 Myths, Misconceptions, and Urban Legends Exploded. Chambers. p. 185. ISBN 978-0550102935. (covers the Japanese department store rumor)
- Other Google book hits.[1]
Merge the anime section with the cartoon section
There really isn't any coherent reason why anime should have its own category. It's a cartoon, why not merge it with the cartoon section? I don't really see a need for an anime section. Should we insert a section about an article's relevance to anime in every article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- What "cartoon section"? TJRC (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with TJRC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I mean the movies and television section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) June 24, 2009
- I'd keep them separate. The anime subsection deals with a particular type of medium with a cultural context related to it. None of that is applicable to the general movie/TV discussion. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's no discussion of cultural context. at best, just one blurb of an opinion. It's not even sourced. 74.249.37.84 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- The introductory sentence of the section states that the context is no different than the usual, Christian-based idea of crucifixion. What exactly is not applicable to the movie/TV discussion? Nobi (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nobi, thank you for asking a reasonable question; my comments below are not directed at you. Actually, it seems to me that the opening sentence of the anime section, which is sourced, describes the context in a way that is based in Japanese (popular) culture, and has nothing to do with Christianity, much as the use of crucifixion in the Meiji era described earlier on the page was unrelated to Christianity. I would argue that this is an aspect of world culture that is quite reasonably encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
hey, no one looks up "crucifixion" to find out what animes it's been in <ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.214.213 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
basically this anime thing is what makes normal people laugh at wikipedia editors and not particpate here <ad hominem removed>
but wait! what about my animes!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.160.110 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
jesus christ anime on this page <ad hominem removed>? You really think that anime is notable at all to anyone <ad hominem removed>? NOBODY WILL EVER COME TO THIS PAGE WANTING INFORMATION ABOUT CRUCIFIXION IN ANIME. <ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.209 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The anime section has no place in this article and needs to be deleted. <ad hominem removed> Tarfa (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
To the editors who have made these comments: I'm sorry, but it is very difficult to take you seriously. After, first, a barrage of edit warring, these comments are a combination of personal attacks coupled with arguments that are, essentially, "I don't like it". For those who may, perhaps, be influenced by religious considerations, please note that there is a separate article on the Crucifixion of Jesus. This article, in contrast, is about all aspects of crucifixion in general, including its role in popular culture. In fact, some of us who have argued for keeping the section have also worked to make it much shorter than it used to be, and I, for one, regularly revert edits that try to add more anime examples. I wonder, however, whether part of the problem is a recent edit that made the images larger. Perhaps they should be made smaller again? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- If that garbage belongs anywhere, it should be integrated with movies and television. Because that's what it is. 74.249.37.84 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the problem is its occurrences in anime is not an important subject AT ALL, and a brief mention in movies/television is all the subject matter needs. Not an entire sub-section and picture. Japan isn't special, and if we're going to have a sub-section on a specific type of popular culture, it should probably be a western one, as the impact of crucifixion on western pop culture is much more profound and notable than three whole paragraphs that gush about Sailor Moon, and for God's sake, Naruto. This whole thing is pretty indefensible, and to keep such a ridiculous, irrelevant section is stubborn at best, creepy at worst. 96.226.235.89 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Japanese culture is no less special than Christian culture. I wonder: why all these edits showing up in a 24-hour period? Has this editing been organized? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the problem is its occurrences in anime is not an important subject AT ALL, and a brief mention in movies/television is all the subject matter needs. Not an entire sub-section and picture. Japan isn't special, and if we're going to have a sub-section on a specific type of popular culture, it should probably be a western one, as the impact of crucifixion on western pop culture is much more profound and notable than three whole paragraphs that gush about Sailor Moon, and for God's sake, Naruto. This whole thing is pretty indefensible, and to keep such a ridiculous, irrelevant section is stubborn at best, creepy at worst. 96.226.235.89 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because the crucifixion of a fictional ninja is certainly no less special then the murder of Christ.
- Crucifixion has more than Christian significance in the west, and your allusions to conspiracy and selective choice of words do little to defend the anime sub-section. Justify this garbage's importance. If we're going to discuss specific cultural depictions of this particular type of execution, preference should be given to media with more significance in pop-culture, if any specifics need be discussed at all. (They don't, anime categorically falls under the movies and television section, and is by no virtue of it's own more important than other visual media)96.226.235.89 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the rack for of course anime references and imagine my surprise when I saw none. <ad hominem removed> I better edit that page immediately and add this earth shattering knowledge. 24.68.150.48 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I really have to agree that an anime section does not belong in this article. It could easily be construed as making light of the subject matter. Worse than that, though - the information just plain isn't useful. Anime is a specialist interest at best and this information just isn't notable enough to the majority of people who would use wikipedia as a reference work. If it were then every page would have a section on its relevance to anime, but I don't see "Spiders in anime" for example, or "Monorails in anime". At best this section should be merged with the movies and television section as suggested above, at worst it should be deleted altogether for its sheer irrelevance. It seriously undermines Wikipedia's credibility. I vote to Merge/Delete, for what that's worth. IgorsBrain (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the previous few posts pressing for the deletion of the anime section. There's simply no need for an entire section to be devoted to crucifixion in the anime context. The argument that Tryptofish makes about it bringing a valuable non-Western perspective would make more sense IF the section was something more than a list of anime scenes where a crucifixion takes place. And the opening line of the sentence is a travesty. I vote to delete.207.38.255.123 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I think the making light issue could apply to any of the popular culture material, such as Piss Christ. The fact that it offends some people is not a valid reason to, in effect, censor it. I'm no fan of anime myself, but it is enough of a non-specialist interest that there is a great deal of coverage of it in Wikipedia. If you feel there should be less Wikipedia material about anime, this is hardly the page to start. The reason the section is here is that it represents a recurring theme in anime, in a way that I assume monorails do not. And we have a responsibility not to have a Western bias in our coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the potential offensiveness of a subject is no reason to censor it on an encyclopedia, but I would appreciate it if you would consider my other point, namely the relevance of the section altogether. If it is here because it represents a recurring theme in anime, then it should probably be moved to the article on anime because it doesn't work the other way around; anime is not relevant to - and has had no impact on - crucifixion. A brief sentence or two in the television and movies section linking to an appropriate section on the anime article page would be more than sufficient. As for the accusations of meatpuppetry below, I would appreciate it if you didn't call my motives into question when I am simply trying to raise what I feel is a perfectly valid point. I only discovered that this article had such a section today and that is why I didn't post about it a year ago! To imply that I cannot have any input on a discussion unless I have first vetted every single article that might include an anime reference for its relevance is pointless and, frankly, counter-productive. If I encounter an article that contains a section I feel is irrelevant I will point that out on the discussion page for that article. This is not a vendetta. IgorsBrain (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- To begin with the meatpuppetry issue, please read again what I wrote. I did not accuse you. If you are not part of any canvassing, then no problem—for you. There is a sudden avalanche of personal attacks on this talk; I was not addressing your motives in particular. Now, about the issue of relevance to this page, as opposed to the page on anime, that's another matter. I fear we could go around in circles about which page it belongs on; Meiji crucifixion is also not relevant to and has had no impact on crucifixion in Western traditions, but, since this page is not Crucifixion of Jesus, we cover it here. Popular culture sections have apparently always been controversial at WP, but it seems reasonable to me to treat societal views, including secular views, in this page, not as a central theme, but as a section at the end. (And if you go back in page history, you will find that I worked at making this section much shorter today than it used to be.) I don't suppose the appearance of crucifixion imagery on music album covers is any more "relevant" according to your discussion, than the anime is. We can talk about specific edits shortening the material, but what I've been hearing so far from this recent talk (not limited to you) has been the equivalent of "Wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing". No thoughtful editor would take that seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see a couple of personal attacks, but mostly I just see other users discussing a point of view you disagree with. I can't see anyone at all saying "wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing" and you are not helping your case by finding such an interpretation where it doesn't exist. I also note the barbed "not limited to you" comment you made. Perhaps it would be an idea to assume good faith, rather than make blanket statements like that and try to browbeat other editors into following your point of view by suggesting they'd be thoughtless to do otherwise? Going back to the subject at hand, I simply don't see how the anime section can be considered a good example of Japanese societal views as a whole. Actually, it could be construed as rather insulting to Eastern cultures to be lumped together under an 'anime' heading! As others have pointed out the section as is basically just lists examples of anime episodes that have included crucifixion beneath a rather vague explanation that this is done to portray the suffering of sympathetic characters. That is by no means unique to anime alone and certainly no argument against merging it with the television and movies section. Regarding your comment on album covers - if there was a section on depictions of crucifixion in music AND a seperate, distinct section for, say, "depictions of crucifixion in German techno" then I would indeed consider that pointless and unnecessary. But we're not discussing the album covers, we're discussing the relevance of a seperate, distinct section on anime as opposed to a line or two in the far more appropriate television heading. I think a more than suitable compromise was suggested by 68.114.130.234 in the above section, and rather than continue to reiterate my point which I believe I have stated perfectly clearly by now I'm just going to throw my vote behind that suggestion and call it a day. IgorsBrain (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- About "not limited to you": I can't find where I said that. Did I? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see a couple of personal attacks, but mostly I just see other users discussing a point of view you disagree with. I can't see anyone at all saying "wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing" and you are not helping your case by finding such an interpretation where it doesn't exist. I also note the barbed "not limited to you" comment you made. Perhaps it would be an idea to assume good faith, rather than make blanket statements like that and try to browbeat other editors into following your point of view by suggesting they'd be thoughtless to do otherwise? Going back to the subject at hand, I simply don't see how the anime section can be considered a good example of Japanese societal views as a whole. Actually, it could be construed as rather insulting to Eastern cultures to be lumped together under an 'anime' heading! As others have pointed out the section as is basically just lists examples of anime episodes that have included crucifixion beneath a rather vague explanation that this is done to portray the suffering of sympathetic characters. That is by no means unique to anime alone and certainly no argument against merging it with the television and movies section. Regarding your comment on album covers - if there was a section on depictions of crucifixion in music AND a seperate, distinct section for, say, "depictions of crucifixion in German techno" then I would indeed consider that pointless and unnecessary. But we're not discussing the album covers, we're discussing the relevance of a seperate, distinct section on anime as opposed to a line or two in the far more appropriate television heading. I think a more than suitable compromise was suggested by 68.114.130.234 in the above section, and rather than continue to reiterate my point which I believe I have stated perfectly clearly by now I'm just going to throw my vote behind that suggestion and call it a day. IgorsBrain (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- To begin with the meatpuppetry issue, please read again what I wrote. I did not accuse you. If you are not part of any canvassing, then no problem—for you. There is a sudden avalanche of personal attacks on this talk; I was not addressing your motives in particular. Now, about the issue of relevance to this page, as opposed to the page on anime, that's another matter. I fear we could go around in circles about which page it belongs on; Meiji crucifixion is also not relevant to and has had no impact on crucifixion in Western traditions, but, since this page is not Crucifixion of Jesus, we cover it here. Popular culture sections have apparently always been controversial at WP, but it seems reasonable to me to treat societal views, including secular views, in this page, not as a central theme, but as a section at the end. (And if you go back in page history, you will find that I worked at making this section much shorter today than it used to be.) I don't suppose the appearance of crucifixion imagery on music album covers is any more "relevant" according to your discussion, than the anime is. We can talk about specific edits shortening the material, but what I've been hearing so far from this recent talk (not limited to you) has been the equivalent of "Wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing". No thoughtful editor would take that seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the potential offensiveness of a subject is no reason to censor it on an encyclopedia, but I would appreciate it if you would consider my other point, namely the relevance of the section altogether. If it is here because it represents a recurring theme in anime, then it should probably be moved to the article on anime because it doesn't work the other way around; anime is not relevant to - and has had no impact on - crucifixion. A brief sentence or two in the television and movies section linking to an appropriate section on the anime article page would be more than sufficient. As for the accusations of meatpuppetry below, I would appreciate it if you didn't call my motives into question when I am simply trying to raise what I feel is a perfectly valid point. I only discovered that this article had such a section today and that is why I didn't post about it a year ago! To imply that I cannot have any input on a discussion unless I have first vetted every single article that might include an anime reference for its relevance is pointless and, frankly, counter-productive. If I encounter an article that contains a section I feel is irrelevant I will point that out on the discussion page for that article. This is not a vendetta. IgorsBrain (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And, I have to ask again: this section has been in its present form for about a year, without any commotion for at least several months. Why the sudden outpouring of complaints in the last 24 hours? It sure has the appearance of out-of-policy meat puppetry. I'm not saying that every editor above is doing that, but if any are, please be aware that I am considering reporting it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You actually think anime deserves as much space as movies+television (when it's the same thing)? Crucifixion has had a much bigger impact in the West than in one country in the East for obvious reasons. Merge it or delete it. Anime is less important and not as big a subject as movies+television. It is a specialist interest. Impact of crucifixion on anime is considerably less than in the whole of movies+television. How is anime different than movies+television anyway? It isn't a different medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.253.60 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
oh yeah by the way implying I have religious bias? What the hell? That the only reason someone would be doubting the earth shattering relevance of anime to all things ever in your world? edit: just looked and you are a japanophile it seems...what was that about bias again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.253.60 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think the anime section is superfluous. The second paragraph about sailor moon doesn't even have to do with the cultural usage of crucifixion in anime, the director is quoted as saying there's no symbolism in it, that it was done cause it looked good. The third paragraph has information about two characters who escape crucifixion and that its imagery appeared in some videogames.
I'm for keeping the first paragraph and merging it with movies and television. Lucidphoole (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
<ad hominem removed> --Unsigned
I don't think anime is anywhere near important enough to get its own section in this article, especially the whole paragraph about Sailor Moon. Condense the important points into a sentence or two and add it to the TV and Movies section. People don't visit an article about crucifixon to find out in what episode of an old Japanese cartoon it appears. 24.175.95.211 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
For reference, the "crucifixion in anime" page was used on a forum as an example of something that had no place on Wikipedia. Once it was coupled with a thread on said forum about a study of Wikipedia losing editors at a faster-than-normal rate, people rushed to attempt to take away this section.
That said, I completely agree. Seeing a section like this on a page like "crucifixion" makes no sense in my mind. Why someone would think it would be a helpful addition for any other reason than showing how much anime they watch is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.37.71 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
To those who are wondering why the sudden onset of discussion about the "Crucifixion in Anime", know that a screenshot was recently posted on a popular forum. It is absolutely ridiculous to have a section on anime, when it could be merged in a single sentence or paragraph with the "movie/television" section. TrashLock (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Heavy Metal
I think heavy metal should get it's own section too. They LOVE crucifixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.183.199 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Concur. The crucifixion motif is popular in many genres of music. I encourage an editor to include a Crucifixion in Scandinavian Death Metal section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.7.252 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for this situation
My thanks to TrashLock for explaining what drew this sudden attention. It appears to me that the website is here, at something called "somethingawful", filed under "General Bullshit/Wikipedias insular culture imploding in on itself". Clearly, a high-quality scholarly site (sarcasm intentional). What happens elsewhere on the web is not and should not be something Wikipedia would try to interfere with, and external criticism of Wikipedia can be constructive and helpful. But it is disingenuous of those editors who found this page because of that posting to fail to acknowledge what brought them here, as if to create the patently incredible appearance that everyone just happened to arrive here independently all at once. What has happened may be a violation of Wikipedia's editing policy against canvassing and meatpuppetry, and I am now going to put a link to here at WP:ANI, to allow administrators to keep an eye on the page and perhaps take action against individual editors if it becomes appropriate to do so. On the other hand, it is possible to have a reasoned discussion of whether the page should be edited to de-emphasize anime, and that is entirely reasonable and appropriate. I, for one, would be happy to participate in that discussion. However, the wrong way to go about it is to stack the deck, when there are mechanisms such as WP:RfC that can be used to attract attention. Feel free to start an RfC if you want. And I shouldn't have to point out that the wrong way is to repeatedly section-blank the article (for which the page has been semi-protected), to vandalize one editor's user-page, or to splatter this talk page with comments about editors being "asspies" and such. I invite new editors to read WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no one from a different website could possibly have anything relevant to say (sarcasm intentional). <ad hominem removed> No one cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
way to ignore the discussion and my points <ad hominem removed>. Coming here from a link to the page isn't against any rules. <ad hominem removed> You arent participating in the discussion at all. <ad hominem removed>.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.136 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I rushed to the scene to revert the page after someone took something asinine out, how dare they edit my baby. In my defense I'll threaten with rules and criticize the source instead of just letting someone remove the damn thing on this COMMUNITY EDITED encyclopedia. Yep, no problems at all with Wikipedia, just keep on going. Maybe it would be appropriate to change "almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site" on the Wikipedia page and add "provided you are willing to argue <ad hominem removed>." 24.68.150.48 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
<ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Jesus christ, nobody gives a shit about crucifixion in sailor moon. Nobody cares about crucifixion in children's cartoons. Anybody who is actually <ad hominem removed> to want a list of animes dealing with crucifixion can go to 4chan (no wait, not even they would want you there either). Nobody can take Wikipedia seriously when absolutely awful sections like "In anime" exist. --74.103.48.134 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Why did the anime section get taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthShallStand (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Needs more not less (but not more anime)
It needs an entire section on the depiction of crucifixion in fine art which seems to be entirely missing. You could actually then subsume the manga/anime section into that if desired. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've been thinking about the need for fine art for some time, and it's very helpful to remind me. However, one point: I think it would be problematic to characterize anime, or any other pop culture, as fine art, so it would probably still have to be separated at least as a subsection. (And just wait to see the discussion of whether Piss Christ is fine art or not!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
how hard do you think it is to characterize anime as television or movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.136 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a potentially finer line than you might think. What we get on mainstream western tv is perfectly well classified in the cartoons section along with all the other kids tv, but manga and anime in Japan, as with some aspects of the graphic arts in the West, definitely cross over into fine art. I think the problem is that the 'culture' section is too limited, which makes the anime part stick out like a sore thumb. The "Always look on the Bright Side of Life" sequence from Life of Brian would warrant far more words by itself than the anime section, as that had a huge impact on popular culture and the 'de-holyizing' (gah! what's the real word) of the crucifixion image. Of course, by this point you might be talking about splitting the article anyway, but.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I remember the Life of Brian used to be on the page, and it was one of the items deleted when we last tried to shorten the pop culture section. Go figure! (By the way, there's another long-time editor of this page who is a defender of the anime section. I don't want to name him, as his page has already been vandalized once during the past day, but I'd definitely want to give him a chance to come back before making any decisions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The list of anime that could be considered fine art would take up less space than this Crucifixion in Anime section. 99.9% of it exists to sell toys to kids. Including the examples listed in this article. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a potentially finer line than you might think. What we get on mainstream western tv is perfectly well classified in the cartoons section along with all the other kids tv, but manga and anime in Japan, as with some aspects of the graphic arts in the West, definitely cross over into fine art. I think the problem is that the 'culture' section is too limited, which makes the anime part stick out like a sore thumb. The "Always look on the Bright Side of Life" sequence from Life of Brian would warrant far more words by itself than the anime section, as that had a huge impact on popular culture and the 'de-holyizing' (gah! what's the real word) of the crucifixion image. Of course, by this point you might be talking about splitting the article anyway, but.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)