Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 13 December 2009

Visual arts Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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, "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. The Misplaced Pages 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 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDrazen2003 (help). —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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 motivations are", and then you go on to complain that multiple editors (not just me, and clearly reflecting the consensus and policy of the Misplaced Pages community as a whole) have criticized the involvement of SA in promoting incivil speech at Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages, 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."" 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)

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

An editor has reverted the addition of the sourced material, claiming "consensus" without having even attempted to respond to the sourcing. I will not revert, but will leave it to other editors to assess. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And now that the removal has been reverted by the administrator, I urge editors to read carefully the instructions previously given at the top of this talk section, and to engage meaningfully with the sourcing and content, rather than just throwing around spurious claims of consensus. WP:OWN cuts both ways, and it isn't me who is edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really rude. 24.23.165.188 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's policy (and stated civilly). And that comment is a little ironic, coming, as it does, from the former User:ShuttheHeckUp not logged in. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it's your job to remind people of policy, and run around saying "it isn't me who's edit warring?" That's rich. As far as my user goes, I stand behind what I said. None of that's changed one iota. Your definition of 'civil' needs a lot of work. You're confusing not swearing and name calling with civility. I'd rather deal with someone who's up front and swears, than someone who hides behind bureaucratic nonsense, throws around the phrase "hate speech" in a meaningless manner, and spends his day wikilawyering. All to defend anime. I said it before, I'll say it again. People like *you* prevent people from meaningfully contributing to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really rude. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth isn't always kind. 24.23.165.188 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is arrived at by discussing the facts, not by shouting insults. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Parking on this page does not make it yours. Crying "personal attack!" does not absolve you of criticism. Nitpicking rules does not grant you authority. I have to wonder, Tryptofish, is there any point at which you might concede that your personal wishes aren't in wikipedia's best interest? Because right now you - meaning you specifically, Tryptofish, you as an individual - are harming the project. I first found the crucifixion in art page not long ago and considered creating an account in order to contribute, as this subject falls within my area of expertise, but I have decided against it. Why? Because I don't want you, Tryptofish, insulting me, filibustering against me, and siccing admins on me if I so much as change a comma. I showed this page to my colleagues and asked them if they'd ever consider becoming wikipedia contributors, and each of them answered with some variation of "Good lord, no, not if I have to waste all my time arguing with someone like that." Misplaced Pages is obviously very important to you, so I ask you, would you have stuck around when you first joined if someone treated you like you have been treating nearly every other editor on these two pages?

Oh, I've stated facts. You just aren't interested in them. And with that, enjoy your animes. 24.23.165.188 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Expand Christian art section

By way of something that would be constructive, I'd like to suggest that interested editors work on expanding the section on Christian art. The historical period it covers is very extensive, and if editors would delve into the scholarly literature on that, I'm pretty sure the section could be expanded about four to five-fold, to beneficial effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean this in the least hostile way possible, but why haven't you done this, considering how much effort you put into other parts of this page? --Pompous Trihedron (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what is in that section, I researched and wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Any takers? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 11 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)

• Unassessed visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles