Talk:Crucifixion in the arts/Archive 1

Possible addition

Granted, this might seem like a really trivial addition, but the images from the comic book Green Lantern/Green Arrow #89, reproduced here, was part of a run which is described here which, "[i]n comic book terms, The Sixties were over - The Silver Age of Comics had ended". Not sure if it is important enough for inclusion, but it was broadly discussed in the field at the time. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the crucifixion of Wolverine on an X-shaped cross from X-Men 244? (and no, I didn't know the issue number offhand.) DS (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the very definition of fan cruft. Crucifixion in art shouldn't be a trivia repository for X was crucified in episode Y of Z. Discussion of the significance of crucifixion in various media is more than sufficient encyclopedic content. Gustave Pennington (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

True, true. I wasn't completely serious, but of course my tone wasn't conveyed. I really should get around to writing up my guidelines for "in popuolar culture" sections: the key criterion is that it be a work of art/popular culture about the subject/phenomenon. DS (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that this comic book might be a worthy addition to the article. It clearly has a character based off of Jesus. Its biblical allusions, like the character washing his hands of the matter, show that this comic book tells a story that obviously comes from the biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion. If Madonna and Gorgoroth are included in this article, this comic book should appear there as well. Gary (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Music?

Any thoughts on including music here? A possible way to deal with Madonna et al, and, after all, there's a notable history of Easter oratorios, requiems, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cracking idea - and I should have some sources for that --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started the section, but I'll need your help with those sources to see it through. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless they deal specifically with crucifixion, as in the Madonna case, I don't think Easter references belong here.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be true. I'm a biochemist/neuroscientist, not an art or music historian. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are interesting aspects within christian music where the visual and musical depictions change simultaneously over time, which could be commented on. I'd say to try a small section - if it works, then Crucifixion in music would be a possibility. (Unless there's already an article on the subject under a different title.)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, make this page Crucifixion in the arts. There has been essentially no discussion of the new page name. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Added stuff

Been for a browse thru commons, but I'm crap at formatting (really I am). If someone can lay these images out better, please do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The "clear" template is a very useful trick. (Taught to me, as I recollect, by the editor who wrote much of the original anime stuff at Crucifixion, ironically!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines

We need to set some guidelines as to what sort of stuff can be included. I've been working on some general suggestions in my userspace. DS (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for working on that! I've given it a quick look, and offhand, one thing occurred to me. By existing ways of doing things here, so much rests, appropriately, on RS and secondary sources. So, there may be times when a reliable secondary source establishes notability for a particular pop culture item within a subject, even if the pop culture item was, on its face, largely concerned with something else. Thus, existing policies for sourcing remain important for this issue, and you might want to flesh out how your proposal extends or restricts those. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anime section

Lets get this out of the way; Who feels anime should have its own subsection in this new article? Personally I find it irrelevant and that the arguments from the old Crucifixion article still stands: It can be mentioned, but does not need its own section with images. Until its clear that the consensus from Crucifixion has changed I will revert it if its re-added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing shows how anime is a distinct subsection of film-and-TV, but one in which crucifixion doesn't have much real meaning or symbolic value. DS (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather support keeping the paragraph as is. The quote in particular is relevant, because it establishes that there is no real direct reference in it to the factual crucifixion of Jesus, which isn't really widely believed in that part of the world anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a whole paragraph or section about crucifixion's lack of religious symbolism in anime. Maybe we could have a sentence or two, something like this:

"Crucifixion-like imagery is sometimes used in anime, however, this use is generally not backed by religious symbolism. Rather, crucifixion is simply used as an object from religious fantasy."

The above sentences, are, of course, open to suggestions. I just don't see the need to have a long subsection describing why this use of crucifixion is NOT symbolic. It's like if we were writing an article on Grimm's fairy tales in art, and we spent a substantial part of the article discussing just how loosely Disney movies are based on these fairy tales.Gary (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the sourcing is very inadequate. I have some more substantive sources coming, and will revise the section based on those when I have finished reading them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gary, the anime references are barely relevant, and there doesn't need to be a huge paragraph to explain that. Trying to add in an image is even worse.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured you guys may be interested in a section on Fullmetal Alchemist where it discusses how an image of a crucifixion was altered for the North American market. This edit actually raised some controversy that resulted in this report from ICv2. This is probably more relevant for a pop culture section/article then the paragraph about Sailor Mercury. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is the kind of thing that should be added, since it has outside reference and importance.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting addition. I've heard of other instances of religious references being removed when Japanese media was translated for an American audience, though I can't think of one offhand. Maybe an example of the censorship of crucifix-related imagery, such as this one, could be included. This shouldn't be a whole section or anything like that, maybe a sentence or two. Gary (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found a webpage with a few examples of the removal of crosses from Nintendo games, which you can see here[1]. The Wikipedia article Video games censored by Nintendo of America includes a list of censored games, and many of these involve "religious references" with no citation or other information provided. I would bet many of these are crosses that have been removed. If we can find examples of Christian crosses being removed from games I think we could mention Nintendo in this article. Gary (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One idea, if there are any other significant appearances in Japanese art, is to lump them all together into one section. Maybe something like, "Crucifixion first came to Japan through Christian missionaries. It has been played a role in various aspects of Japanese art, including anime and (fill in the blank)." Maybe the idea of it being seen as "mythic" or fantasy applies to other media as well. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I was playing around with the idea of a section on crucifixion imagery from artists originating in non-christian countries for whom the image has no religious meaning at all (positive or negative), but that kind of got too long for a section title. I think there's no harm in leaving sourced anime entries in, the problem isn't that it's too much, it's that the rest of the article needs to grow to match it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed - pointless. Crucifixion is also seen in WWE and non anime animation. Its a joke, _ImmortalYawn|Talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

WP:There is no deadline. And deletion of sourced material should never be done as a minor edit with no edit summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, ImmortalYawn deleted the section again, and I have restored it again. There really is no consensus to completely remove this information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen's edit (big surprise!). However, a minor clarification: the deletion by ImmortalYawn only happened once (unless there was another deletion a long time ago that I forgot). I commented here, but (contrary to popular opinion) I did not revert. And I expect to completely rewrite that section, with much better sourcing, very soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I have amended my note accordingly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK colleagues, I have completely rewritten the section, adding extensive referencing. I believe that, now, there is a substantial basis in reliable secondary sources that not only make the discussion of anime more accurate, but also establish notability and relevance to the subject of the page. Editors who have concerns about the material need to engage with the sourcing now provided, according to policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest using {{Harvnb}} for the shortened references. This will create a link to the primary reference and make it easier from someone checking on them the find which source "Drazen, p. 144." is actually referring to. Example: {{Harvnb|Drazen|2003|p=144}} will produce Drazen 2003, p. 144. —Farix (t | c) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good tip, thanks. (I'm still on a learning curve with some of this stuff.) I'll fix tomorrow if you don't do it first. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for the tip. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Removed, as it was only replaced by a bigger, more ridiculous and more stupid addition after initial removal._ImmortalYawn|Talk 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Registered editor and IP blanking the section are the same individual. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous and removed , Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crucifixion_in_art#Possible_addition for exactly how stupid. _ImmortalYawn|Talk 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:RFPP over the content dispute. Edit waring over his is silly. Especially when those responsible for the disruptive edit warring are likely came from SA. —Farix (t | c) 01:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why where editors come from is significant in any way. 24.23.165.188 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anime is quite a significant artform in certian parts of the world. So it's fairly reasonable to include a mention. If it should have it's own section depends on the quality of the material people are able to dig up.©Geni 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that a section talking about the treatment of crucifixion in the entire medium of television and film has far more attention given to two examples of crucifixion in anime ('CiA') whereas films that directly deal with the subject, such as Spartacus and Passion of the Christ are given a sentence each. I'm not sure if there was a decision made regarding detailing the inclusion of crucifixion in mediums such as comic books (as discussed earlier on this page) or professional wrestling (as discussed on the main Crucifixion page), but I would like to see the same standards applied to anime as you would any other niche form of entertainment. I fail to see why an 'In Anime' section should be included when the current section talks only of two examples, one of which was featured in one episode of a show and never shown again. As a rather inexperienced Wikipedia user, I also question the inclusion of the sourced content as supporting an CiA page or even a lengthy section in this current section. To wit,

The Sarah Stanley citation is misleading, as it is the lead sentence to a paragraph devoted entirely whereas the article itself makes zero specific mention of Japanese comics or cartoons. Either anime/manga depictions are no more notable than depictions found in other countries around the world, which fits with the quotation and would indicate an argument against a new page. Or it is notable than other depictions found throughout the world and would merit removing the citation, as it has nothing directly to do with the topic in question.

The Eric Drazen citation has been addressed in the original crucifixion talk page and is continue to be dubious, particularly since they make up the bulk of the citations used. I fail to see what his qualifications are, beyond appearing at anime conventions. The WP:RS section says that Wikipedia should strive for scholarly and academic material and I see the inclusion of other sources as an attempt to dress up the lack of scholarly/academic connections pertaining to Drazen. That these edits come from someone who has been overly protective of this section for over a year makes me wonder as to what their motivations are.

The Alexander Dolin citation makes no reference to anime or manga. This would be fine if this article is dealing about Christian symbology in Japanese culture (or something similar), but I again fail to see how this citation specifically addresses CiA or why the depiction of CiA is notable.

The Navok Rudranath citation is from a vanity press. Does this seriously count as a reasonable citation?

The Broderick citation includes a passing reference to the depiction of a crucifix and could merit inclusion. But citing the ENTIRE article? This reeks of obfuscation. The attributed quote to Napier saying that crucifixion portrays "messianic figures offering revenge fantasies"? Makes zero reference to crucifixion when you check the actual article. The other citation, "Crucifixion evokes a sense of heroic transcendence" I also do not see in the cited article and do not see how you could arrive to such a conclusion based on what is written. The content, as is, is veering dangerously towards original research.

Secondly, I fail to see how or why the associated picture merits inclusion. The caption is merely reiterating what is stated in the subsection, while hiding behind a lengthy quotation. The image does not appear to how this image meets contextual significance, based on Wikipedia's current non-free content policy. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Again, this image is redundant to what has already been described in the article, the caption is redundant and offers no significant understanding of the subject. The text describes anime characters being crucified. I do not see why including a picture of an anime character being crucified would greatly illuminate things for a reader who is reading about anime characters being crucified.

Finally, I fail to see what Something Awful has to do when discussing this subject on its own merits. I think that it should be appreciated that this issue was brought to attention and continually bringing up their involvement is an attempt to demonize an opinion that another editor may not agree with. Secondly, this 'issue', regarding CiA has been going on for over a year if you check the appropriate talk pages. Something Awful's involvement is predated by the issue and should not be a point of contention. AwesomeInTheory (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AwesomeInTheory, thank you for discussing the issue in terms of the specifics of sourcing. That is the correct way to do things at Wikipedia, and is very helpful in actually working towards consensus, as opposed to engaging in shouting and personal attacks as some other editors are doing. I am happy to try to reply to the specific points you have raised. But first, let me please get something out of the way. Unfortunately, you also comment that you "wonder what [my] motivations are", and then you go on to complain that multiple editors (not just me, and clearly reflecting the consensus and policy of the Wikipedia community as a whole) have criticized the involvement of SA in promoting incivil speech at Wikipedia. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to raise innuendo about my "motivations", it is hypocritical to complain about shining a spotlight on editors who only showed up in a group all at once (when, after all, all I have done is research and add sourced material, and argue firmly on talk pages, whereas some others have edit warred over section blanking and have engaged in completely inappropriate incivil speech on talk pages).

• You make a valid observation that the page currently devotes too little space to other topics in relation to the space devoted to the paragraph that discusses anime and manga. As Elen explains very well below, however, this is an article that only came into existence a few days ago, and it needs to be expanded. The solution is to expand the parts that need to be expanded, and there's a lot to be done there. (As it happens, I frequently argue at WT:BIO that we have too many biographical pages that are skewed towards recentism, and editors there have told me—correctly!—that the solution is to add more pages about historical figures.)
• You raise issues about the Sarah Stanley citation. The citation is for the first sentence of the paragraph, not what comes after the first sentence, and it appropriately supports what the first sentence says. You are factually incorrect when you say that the reference "makes zero specific mention of Japanese comics or cartoons." Page 86 specifically discusses manga, and clearly makes the case that Japanese material is part of the overall theme of the reference.
• Your comments about Drazen (whose first name you got wrong, by the way) misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The only criticism I can recall of him from the other talk page was when another editor correctly pointed out that, where I noted that he had taught in a university setting, he apparently did so as a guest lecturer. In no way does that change the fact that the source satisfies WP:RS. Your argument does nothing to undermine the fact that the source satisfies RS and is a secondary source which is the basis for WP:Notability. The book has its own page here, so editors other than I have deemed it notable in itself. It is indeed written for a popular, rather than academic, audience, but I invite editors to click through the link in the citation, and read the passage. It is clearly a secondary source for Wikipedian purposes.
• Dolin does discuss manga on page 64. The Dolin cite is used to document the statement that the subject is viewed as secular, so what's the problem?
• I didn't add the Rudranath cite. It was put there before by editors who wanted to support the quote from anime producers. I don't care much about it, but I think it may provide some NPOV balance to address the concerns of the editors who object to this material.
• The Broderick reference is unambiguously a scholarly reference that speaks to anime and manga. The Napier quote is the context of Napier's discussion of anime (and she, too, has her own page). The transcendence reference is discussed by Broderick at the bottom of page 35; I did not make it up!
• The image is, of course, what editors really are most worked up about, and that's a pity. The citation in the figure legend establishes from a secondary source that some Westerners have sought to censor this particular image. That's what Drazen was writing about, and the fact that he wrote about it establishes notability for the very fact of the censorship. The irony that people now want to delete it at Wikipedia is remarkable! This chestnut about the text describes it so you don't need an image to show what the text describes is, forgive me, just gaming the system. Look at the three images in the Christian art section. They show what the text describes too. Let's delete them! If the Sailor Mercury image were not shown, could a reader unfamiliar with the topic really know what it looks like, just based on what the other images on this page show? The image from the advertisement for war bonds is about selling war bonds, not about crucifixion, yet it adds to the article and no one yet has objected to it.

The sourcing I provided has pulled the rug out from under the arguments that the material fails notability, as Wikipedia defines notability. I realize that some editors have simply made up their minds a long time ago that the image must go, but they need to engage with the facts. I thank you for, instead, actually discussing those facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the response and apologize for the lengthy delay. I'd like to be more involved with wikipedia. I'd love to delve into this further, but I don't have the time at the moment. :( Thanks for the corrections on a couple of the references, when reading through I missed the relevant portions entirely. There are a couple of things I want to say, which will probably be my last foray into here. I hope more knowledgable editors will use what I've said as jumping off points.

First off, I don't appreciate the implication that I'm speaking out in favor of SA members who came to post here in a negative fashion. My point is that there have been people raising legitimate criticism and the default response by some editors has been 'well, they came from SA.' It's irrelevant where the complaint originated from so long as the complaint itself is legitimate. I feel the discussion has moved past that and continually referencing Something Awful (outside of people who are coming in and going 'you are all are shitheels *section blank*') isn't doing either side any favors.

Second, you made two references that books/authors quoted here have their own wikipedia pages. I don't necessarily think that's a strong enough justification, as sometimes articles are overlooked and they can be deleted. Minor quibble.

Third, regarding the sources.

RE: Stanley, I had meant there was no connection made between crucifixion and anime. The manga reference was to a text about Buddhism.

RE: Drazen. No idea what happened with the first name. Oops! As for the source itself, I'm not certain as to it's reliability. The part that sticks out for me from the WP sections you showed me is 'reliable secondary source', most notably the word 'reliable.' I am not certain as to what Drazen's qualifications are beyond having watched a lot of anime and written a book about it and I am not certain he would be qualified to speak on Japanese cultural values/attitudes if his only exposure to Japanese culture is through anime.

RE: Dolin. The wrong page was cited (page 63) hence my confusion. That said, I don't see how what is written on pg 63-64 supports the statement that crucifixion specifically is viewed in a secular light. In fact, the point he raises is that spiritual material, be it Western or otherwise is viewed in a taboo light and that attitude has stunted Japanese understanding.

RE: Rudranath. A vanity press published book provides NPOV? Or am I misunderstanding? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

RE: Broderick. My bad. I could've sworn that wasn't there my first perusal.

RE: The image (which appears to be gone now), I was going off of what I had read regarding the inclusion of images and how they are meant to enhance a reader's understanding of the issue. I understand that there are other pictures in the article that could be seen as redundant, but my criticism of the Sailor Moon picture is discussing that particular picture on it's own particular merits. The images you quoted above are meant to show how classical attitudes towards crucifixion have changed over time and help to visibly demonstrate the increase of the emphasis on the suffering of crucified victims by artists. The Dali image is meant to highlight the surreal nature of his art and illustrate how it is different from typical depictions. The Sailor Moon image, on the other hand, is included to show that, yes, Sailor Moon characters were crucified. There was no greater meaning to the image and it didn't enhance the understanding of the point that was being made, which was my point. AwesomeInTheory (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I want to thank you for the very positive way in which you are approaching this discussion of content. I'll just agree, at least mostly, with you on a majority of the points you raised, and respond to the few where there are substantive questions. About Stanley, the sentence that the reference is cited to support is the first sentence of the paragraph, which is not specifically about Japanese material, but material worldwide. If you look, for example, at the top of her page 85, she does, repeatedly, discuss crucifixion imagery in graphic novels. What I mean about Drazen is that, while editors can go around in circles about whether they hold his book in high or low esteem, whether they do or do not consider it "reliable" according to personal definitions of "reliable", the book does satisfy Wikipedia's policies for sourcing (WP:RS). About Dolin, please look at the top of his page 63, where he specifically talks about crucifixes. And about Rudranath, I really don't care. As I said, it wasn't me who added it to the page; I simply chose not to delete what someone else had added. The reason that it's there is that some of the editors who object to the material seem to like this reference, because it quotes a producer of anime as saying that they used crucifixion imagery for purely secular reasons. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh, my stomach hurts enough already. I'll transpose this here since it seems more relevant than where I first posted it: Aside from the import companies themselves editing out crucifixion references for fear of censorship, there is no demonstrable official western censorship of crucifixion in imported anime. It's all done by the import companies themselves. The companies who import the material choosing to omit depictions of crucifixion for fear of censorship or backlash is not actually censorship. I object to it being included on the page because it's stupid and it adds nothing, not because I think it should be censored. Some Sailor Moon fan is getting up in arms about this over nothing. It isn't notable or significant. The cited source about that particular episode confirms it. 'We just did it because it looks cool' means that the people who created the image in the first place had no deeper motivation for creating it. If the anime fans editing this page are bound and determined to include copyrighted anime images on the page, at least they could choose something with a little more relevance. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, and "it's stupid". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are the personal attacks directed at? Did you read beyond 'stupid'? Did you read enough to see where I said that THE IMAGE IS A STUPID IMAGE AND A POOR CHOICE BECAUSE EVEN THE CREATOR OF THE IMAGE SAID HE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE IT LOOKED COOL? 68.114.130.234 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion at the deletion discussion about using, instead, the images from Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga. What do other editors think about making that substitution? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was passing by. Thought the section about anime was a little random/heavy-handed. Also, the same cheesy book was quoted about 5 times. I suggest that perhaps there simply be a page on the book itself? No point paraphrasing it and tacking it on to crucifixes in art. -Random reader/wikipedia surfer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.151.142 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject. I find the Japanese section to be unbalanced, contradictory and brief, largely relating to how there is a duality in the portrayal. The section on Messianic views, Transcendence and Rebirth are directly borrowed from Western portrayal, why is the fact that they are not specifically religious even relevant? Why is there only a brief sentence on the portrayal in art of death and rebirth, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That seems to me to be far more interesting, relevant and not-fancruft than a section on Western Censorship of kids' cartoons. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In the midst of a post that seems to have got him/her blocked by Tedder, 68.114 made an interesting point that I am quoting here, as I think it may merit comments

I will restate my objections to that particular image. Sailor Moon, the Comic, is an important and potentially relevant piece of art. It is the Wonder Woman of Japanese Manga; it is liberating to girls in an otherwise oppressive culture. Sailor Moon, the Cartoon, exists only to sell plastic make-up cases and moon wands to 8-12 year olds. Art requires that the Artist had something to say. If you found an identical image from the comic, and some source that said that Naoko Takeuchi had some reason for it being there, I would have little objection. As I said, there are other actually relevant and artistic crucifixions done in Anime and Manga, and I would have no objection to those being included either.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to comment on a line in the fourth paragraph of the Film and Television section. I would have edited out the offending comment myself but the page seems to be protected. The line states " Crucifixion depictions evoke a sense of heroic transcendence[16] and spiritual rebirth,[17] without being specifically religious." How can this possibly be true? Crucifixion is extremely specifically religious. The largest organized religion in the world uses a crucifix or variations thereof as its symbol. I feel that "without being specifically religious" needs to be removed unless someone can somehow show that crucifixion has no specific religious connotations.68.3.115.14 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking this polite question. (I hope that I can try to answer it politely without having other users make a fuss over my doing so.) Of course, you are correct that crucifixion has a very religious connotation in Christian traditions, and these traditions are a major part of world culture. The sentence you quote should in fact be worded better than it is now. However, the sentence is not referring to Christian depictions of crucifixion. Rather, in the largely Japanese depictions that are the topic of that paragraph, the statement is accurate and reflects the cited source. But you are correct that the sentence should be worded better to indicate what depictions it is referring to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed most of the anime references from the In Pop culture section. Graphic Novels from various cultures, as stated at the start of that section more than sums it up, but I have left some further reference there and generally pared it down. And as mentioned above; the pages relevant to the references removed already discuss these points, and there are links to sources and such without having to state them in the article section itself.

Please take a look at the barrenness and lack of information of the other sections of this article, I think that says more than i could about the state of Wikipedia right now.

The addition of anime, and other trivial information, to a LOT of pages, whether through “In Popular Culture” additions or other spurious ways, is a key reason Wikipedia is not taken as seriously as it could be.

The prolific infestation of specific “internet cultures” and other minor groups – big maybe on the internet and certainly in the editorial staff here, but trivial and pointless in a scholarly sense – detracts from the resource as a whole.

Where someone with actual information misses out on having a chance to share it, X number of editors get to water down a page with their own trivial crap, or moderate it for their own purposes. _ImmortalYawn|Talk 18:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edits which were clearly against consensus. The edits were also marked as minor, please do not mark major chanegs against consensus as minor. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about against consensus, that still seems out, and it is quite obvious this article as a whole - as seen from the lack of effort on any of its other sections - is nothing but a petty excuse to grease a few squeaky wheels, very scholarly indeed.

Thanks for the info about incorrect marking. I have re-edited and not marked it as a minor edit. _ImmortalYawn|Talk 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can make out what you are saying is that the article is giving undue weight to the anime section. Please read WP:WEIGHT about this. Have you evidence that the weight is undue using a reasonable selection of WP:Reliable sources? Saying that it detracts from the standing of wikipedia is not a valid reason for removing information from Wikipedia. Would it not be better to develop the other sections of the article if you are so concerned about the bits that you view as pointless and trivial having too much weight comparatively? Wikipedia depends on people who are interested in the areas they develop, it does not need people deleting bits just because they just like them. I will be reinstating the removed bits as the reasons for deleting are not valid as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion imagery in Japan

(arbitrary split, but previous section was getting too long)

Why is a single scene from a single episode of a cartoon only shown in a country in which crucifixion bears no important meaning is relevant to be used as an example on an encyclopedia page on crucifixion? By their own admission in the previously included (and removed) text, the scene was cut from the English version of the show and the director had only added the scene because he liked how it looked.

It is, by any measure, completely insignificant and exemplifies absolutely nothing that adds to the understanding of crucifixion, or art, or even animes._ImmortalYawn|Talk 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this depends somewhat on how you look at things - personally, I find the use of images of crucifixion in non-Western cultures interesting, especially where it (and other religious symbols) are being employed as attractive motifs rather then due to their meaning elsewhere. That those symbols are then removed for Western audiences is interesting in itself. I don't disagree that others may not find it so, but a full coverage of crucifixion in art should reasonably cover a wide range of different forms of expression and cultures. A narrower "Religious depictions of crucifixion in art" would exclude them, but that's something to worry about if this gets too long. - Bilby (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With people always complaining of the English Wikipedia ignoring the non-English world removing things because they aren't in an English version sounds wrong. And I must admit the bit about it being removed for a western audience sounds possibly notable. Overall the reasoning is much more relevant, but makes the deleted part more interesting as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the anime section is way too big in comparison with other more notable examples of crucifixion. Someone suggested to use this instead in the crusifixion talk page a while ago:

"Although it has no actual religious significance to the country as a whole, it is seen as cruel and barbaric, and thus is reflected in modern Japanese popular culture (particularly anime) as a recurrent and prominent motif, where it often serves to emphasize the suffering of sympathetic characters."

I myself find that this would sum up crusifixion in anime/manga in a more satisfying way than the current one. What do you guys think? LossTheMan (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A citation for that opinion would be good, otherwise it is a personal opinion Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this but I'm not sure if that book is notable enough or can be considered a reliable source. LossTheMan (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure - looks like a good source. We may have had it previously. Interesting that in this version Kuniko Ikuhara specifically states that Christ is viewed as a fantasy feature. I think that was edited out of the other version of this quote."Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest this paragraph:

"Crucifixion has figured prominently in Japanese manga and anime. Although it has no actual religious significance to the country as a whole, it is seen as cruel and barbaric, and thus is reflected in modern Japanese popular culture as a recurrent and prominent motif, where it often serves to emphasize the suffering of sympathetic characters."

Also, the anime and manga paragraph should be moved to the Popular Art section from Film and television since manga is neither film nor television. LossTheMan (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If we shorten it the way you suggest, that removes a lot of sourced material. I don't think you have really justified the removal of material based upon sources, as opposed to just upon a desire to shorten it. I agree with the move to Popular Art, though. The source is already cited, as reference 24, but Elen is correct that we may not have sufficiently reflected what the source says. In any case, there seems to be nothing in that source that would say that the other sources are incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

full protection, edit warring, consensus

I've fully protected this article for a short time to keep users from edit-warring and reverting changes. Please reach consensus before adding or removing material. In addition, you MUST use an edit summary to explain what you are doing and why on this article, at least in the near future (say, until the end of 2009).

It isn't appropriate to edit war by adding or removing material, even if you are theoretically "right". For instance, if an editor violates these restrictions, drop the stick; you are not justified in reverting the user. Leave it alone, discuss it here, come to a consensus. tedder (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We already came to a consensus about this (which Tryptofish has violated repeatedly but hasn't been reprimanded for at all while everyone else trying to stop him has, hm), so good job wading in blind and making things worse, guy. Yzak Jule (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could tell the consensus disagreed with Tryptofish. Is it truly the screaming minority that gets its way on Wikipedia? Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The only people who seems to object to minimizing or removing the references to anime is Tryptofish. We've been having this debate for two weeks almost entirely because of his refusal to listen to a consensus that goes against his opinion. --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why new editors are reluctant to sign up or engage with the 'wikipedian process'. One guy can 'play the game' and protect his fiefdom, even if everyone says 'delete'. 24.23.165.188 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT THE CRUCIFIXION ARTICLE </shout> There was a clear consensus to remove all the "use of crucifixion in the arts" material from the Crucifixion article. This article is about the use of crucifixion imagery in the arts. It is not unreasonable to include a section in the use of the imagery in comics and cartoons, or the use of the imagery in anime and manga, any more than it is unreasonable to include a section on its use in comedy, or in music videos, or street theatre or......... There is no consensus to remove the material from here, because there is no reason to remove it from here. What this article needs is more content, not less. Go and find some material on the use of crucifixion imagery in jewellery, or advertising, or French art films or something. That will balance it out, and the anime section will be less prominent. it's only prominent at the moment because the article is still under construction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems awfully upset. Anime, as an art form, isn't particularly notable, and the undue weight it's getting here seems out of hand-- there's no reason for an image of a poorly drawn lolita on a cross when there are many other examples of art featuring crucifxions. As far as 'adding to it', few people can as it's been locked down. What this amounts to is one editors apparent obsession with 'Anime as an art form', and adding what appears to be a vanity press book as a 'source'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I keep having to remove comments that are nothing but personal attacks, which makes me a little cross. I think what we need to do is add the other content, and then look again at the anime content. At that point, if it still looks too much, we have something better to gauge it by.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Elen. As Elen correctly says, the consensus was in reference to Crucifixion. I have not reverted that page to what it was, have I? The consensus was to create this page. I have not blanked sections of this page, have I? I've done more to research and add sourced content to this page than the complainers have. The four comments directly following Tedder's comment refuse to engage content or sourcing, and flirt with violating WP:NPA. The claims that I am the "only" editor who opposes the deletion of the material are patently untrue. At Wikipedia, the coin of the realm is reliable sourcing. With sourcing, the rationale for consensus changes. I am not "screaming". The complainers are. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The WHAT? WHY? AND WOW! of ANIME is not what I would consider a reliable source. Isn't that a self-published book? Should I cite Ulillilia's book in a note about how much powerup Ki it takes to determine steak freshness? Gustave Pennington (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-published? The publisher is Stone Bridge Press. Is there something disreputable about them that I was unaware of? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me take this time to note that I am not religious and I have no objections to "controversial portrayals of crucifixion". Let me also point out that I currently hold a Bachelor's Degree in Asian Area Studies from a highly ranked national university, so to suggest that my objections are based on racism or anti-eastern thought is ignorance and defensiveness at its finest.

Point taken, Stonebridge is not the same as self-publishing, but that doesn't make it a scholarly or reliable source judging by the rest of the books that Stonebridge publishes. Most of the books they publish appear to be fan-wank for trends in television and cinema, out to make money on people who are interested in that particular trend at the moment. They don't appear to be any kind of scholarly study of the trends, merely encyclopedias of facts and comparisons to justify why current trend should continue to be popular and taken seriously. Encyclopedias aren't usually used as primary sources.

Now this book itself is poorly written and poorly sourced. Just for example, a portion of the book directly quoted on the page reads "Referring to Western censorship of these images, Patrick Drazen wrote: "It's ironic that a symbol as potent as crucifixion should be edited out precisely because of that potency. After all, the way it's generally used in anime—when it's used at all—is in a manner Westerners can understand. It becomes a form of torture for someone who doesn't deserve it."[19]" There is no actual justification beyond 'Anime is more serious than western audiences are prepared for'.

However, aside from the import companies themselves editing out crucifixion references for fear of censorship, there is no demonstrable official western censorship of crucifixion in imported anime. It's all done by the import companies themselves. The companies who import the material choosing to omit depictions of crucifixion for fear of censorship or backlash is not actually censorship. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I have just edited out that portion. Anime import companies lacking the guts to even try to put crucifixion on television broadcasts of anime is not censorship, so that paragraph is irrelevant. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting the personal attack. Please read what it says, from an administrator, at the top of this talk section. If I boil down the substance of what you said, there are two points: that you think the Drazen book is of low quality, and that you feel that the material is not notable because the "censorship" was self-imposed, rather than governmentally-imposed. With respect to the first point, you are welcome to your opinion, but you have not made the case that the source fails WP:RS. With respect to the second point, the page never said that it was governmentally imposed, and your argument does not, in itself, address WP:Notability. You do not have consensus for the deletion that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack, first of all. I reverted that section because for a moment I thought I was on the "Crucifixion" page and not the "Crucifixion in Art" Page, and therefore when I realized my mistake, I realized that yes, in fact Anime can be considered relevant to this page, so I took out a portion where I said it didn't belong in this article. I didn't make any personal attacks, I made a general statement that Anime Fans who think that Anime is culturally relevant to anyone but them really need to grow up. I justified that by stating that even in its country of origin, it's irrelevant and viewed as immature Children's Programming.

Second, I think I did make my case. Self-censorship is not actually censorship. If I choose not to say something because I'm afraid of the backlash, nobody has censored me, so claiming that 'Westerners have censored completely justifiable depictions of crucifixion in anime' when in fact, it was the companies that censored themselves does nothing except engender a victim mentality among Anime Fans. If I try and fail, that's one thing, but if I don't even try, I can't claim to be a victim of the system. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Overflow?

Again, we have to be careful not to fill up the article with every single instance of crucifixion in art. The Ballad of John and Yoko was banned from many radio stations because of the lines "Christ, you know it ain't easy (...) they're gonna crucify me"; The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinheadsays that because Peter Pumpkinhead was "too good", the enemies of society "nailed him to a chunk of wood" (and the video makes it pretty damn clear what they're talking about). Do we list either of these? Why or why not? DS (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If every single instance of crucifixion in anime is worth adding, so are ssong references like these, I think. Pompous Trihedron (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the anime dispute is irrelevant. I also think that anything which stirred up a controversy should be represented here. The first of those did cause quite a storm, but I've never heard of the second. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Elen correctly says, the anime material is no more relevant to the decision about whether or not to add the material above, than it is to the decision about whether or not to have material about art in the Renaissance. The right way is to base the decision on secondary sourcing. If, as I infer, the editors are raising the issue of adding material to the page that is not otherwise proposed, and that they actually believe would make the page worse, it reminds me of this and this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can find a secondary source independent of the work itself which significantly discusses the quotation then there is cause for it to be included, that being basically the criteria for inclusion in such articles. I agree that the article should not devolve into just a collection of instances of the idea being utilized or mentioned. Based on on my own limited knowledge, the Lennon line did get a lot of attention, and it should be fairly easy to find an independent source discussing it. I don't know about the Pumpkinhead line, unfortunately. And, if the article does become too long with all the indpendently verifiable instances, it can always be split up into further subarticles and/or lists. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiding comment threads?

Is that an appropriate thing to do when the discussion isn't going your way? I'm unfamiliar with the rules regarding this. It seems like comment threads should only be altered if they are needlessly offensive, and only then by an administrator. Gustave Pennington (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That last looked like it had degenerated into a personal attack to me. It is entirely reasonable to remove clear personal attacks. This talk page is about discussions about improving the article. Discussion should concentrate on the article and not on other editors. I shall reinstate some of the hiding as it seems the appropriate measure. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See Removal of text of personal attacks. Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dmcq. I can also point to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which makes it pretty clear that it is unacceptable to use article talk pages to comment on editors, as opposed to page content. And, as I said in my edit summary [3], I have no objection to other editors reverting the text collapses that I made; it was only a suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are happy with leaving a personal attack up or not I consider that leaving them around is not in the interest of Wikipedia as I believe it encourages incivility. However I will respect your express comment that you are allowing people to show it. Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say I was happy with that, but rather, that I defer to consensus about that. In fact, I've inserted, above, where I would suggest that collapses be restored. And it was other editors, not me, who have restored the personal attacks. You are correct that this has been incivility, and that it is not in Wikipedia's best interests. If, and I'm just saying "if", it is consensus here that incivility is more desirable than what is good for Wikipedia, well then, let that be on other peoples' consciences. Thanks for coming here to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will remove that big lot again. And I regard reinstating a personal attack as a personal attack. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder has al4ready done the job. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And I weeded out even more just now. Some of them are borderline, but are typically from SPAs that seem more interested in baiting than having productive conversation. tedder (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Dmcq and tedder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All criticism of Tryptofish has been deleted and his talk page is protected, so I'm not sure what other "avenues" I'm supposed to take, but I would very much like to know which "facts" I need to "make certain of." And I'd also like to request that you not speak to me in such an ominous, knuckle-cracking tone. I fail to see how that doesn't qualify as a "personal attack." You're nothing but a bully.LouisJordan (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Five pillars for the consensus basis wikipedia works to. WP:Civility is one of the basic pillars. This incliudes WP:No personal attacks. Building an encyclopaedia is the aim of wikipedia and discussions should be directed towards that aim. There are avenues to complain about other editors as discussed at WP:Dispute resolution but even there other editors should be treated with respect whatever ones personal opinion. This is not primarily a social site, its aim is to develop a neutral free encyclopaedia. Any criticism should be directed at the issues and actions never personally against an editor. I am sorry you feel you have been bullied, The whole point of this is to stop people being driven off by uncivil behaviour like bullying. I add a template to you talk page with pointers to the main things like this. Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no other way to communicate with Tryptofish. He isn't immune to criticism simply because he walls himself off from it. You seem to like rules. Doesn't Wikipedia have a rule against exactly this kind of behavior? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE. And someone please explain to me how Tryptofish isn't making "personal attacks" when he bullies other people, reverts their edits, and responds to every comment by threatening people with rules violations, deletion, and admin retribution, but everyone who asks him to treat people with courtesy is? I see he even got a note about it on his talk page, although in typical fashion he hid it from view. How can wikipedia have "consensus" if one person takes over a page and refuses to let anyone else have a voice? I've seen the crucifixion page. The consensus was clearly in opposition to Tryptofish's wishes, but all that did was make him write walls of text and claim that everyone was out to get him. Why is this allowed? I am new to this site - does he have some kind of special status that makes him above the rules? LouisJordan (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers many other avenues to address complaints against other users. Some of the best are WP:WQA, WP:AIV, and WP:RFC/U (in that order). Further discussion of an editor should be directed there, not here. Further, consensus is not voting. Please direct energies at contributing to building an encyclopedia, not this talk page. tedder (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

LouisJordan, did you not notice that Tryptofish LOST the argument at Crucifixion? Dragonfly Sixtyseven and I removed the content from there. In here, it does no harm, because this article is about art (loosely defined) and anime is art (loosely defined). This article needs more content about other art. Why don't you go away and write some, rather than pursue this futile argument. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AS WP:SPADE says 'It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily.'. It is perfectly possible and quite easy to express an opinion about an edit without attacking the editor personally. What was removed was personal attacks. Please do not repeat your accusations of bullying here. Follow the avenues Tedder outlined if you believe another editor is attacking you. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)