Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Crucifixion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

RfC: Should crucifixion in anime have its own section in the article on crucifixion?

Latest comment: 14 years ago62 comments33 people in discussion

The article on crucifixion has, among other sections, a section on the use of crucifixion as a motif in anime. Is this cultural information about crucifixion that is relevant to the article? Should the whole section be deleted? Should some of the information be removed, while other information be retained and merged with the TV and movies section, or with other material that could potentially be added? Gary (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. This RfC has been cross-listed at WT:WikiProject Japan and WT:WikiProject Anime and manga. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an involved editor. Completely removing the anime material would be, in effect, censorship, but shortening it would be a good idea. Merging it into other subsections gets to be problematic, in that it is not regarded in Japan as really in the same category as TV and movies (per Elen, above—I'm no expert on Japanese culture). I enthusiastically agree with a suggestion that the page needs more coverage of fine arts. I have low enthusiasm for forking off a separate pop culture page, as this has historically been an excuse to bring the resulting page to AfD. (Please note that this page is about crucifixion in general, and there is a separate page on the Crucifixion of Jesus. Also, re: notability, please note that the section is sourced to a reference, which, if you follow the link, is written by "Drazen, a pop culture academician who has lectured at the University of Chicago".) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have googled and googled and I can't find any of Patrick Drazen's Academic qualifications. He's written one book and spoken at off-hours non-academic lectures sponsored by University Anime clubs, on panels at Anime conventions and animation-related film festivals. This is not to denigrate his work in his field, but he's hardly an Academician. I've been at University sponsored lectures given by James Earl Jones and Charlton Heston, but I don't hold them to the same authority that I hold actual academic lecturers. The one section of his book that is referenced here is little more than a listing of Anime scenes that would be controversial in the U.S., not much different than what's here in this article. There's no in depth written analysis in the book that goes beyond the first sentence of this section. - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter what it is regarded as in Japan (you have no proof this isnt how they regard it anyway, oh sensei of the Japanese culture)? Anime appears on tv doesnt it? Also, how is it censorship? Nobody is complaining that it insults the Christian faith or anything to that effect - just that it isn't notable to warrant a whole section > tv+movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.104.12 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the section as it stands is that it's not there to primarily address how crucifixion is viewed in Japan. Indeed, the bulk of the section seems to bring nothing new to the article at all. WP:IPC sets out that something should only really be added to a "popular culture" section when "a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone" and that doesn't seem to be the case with any of the presented examples. The only cultural benefit to the section is the first sentence, and in fact a large portion of the rest of the section is about a Sailor Moon scene where it's made clear that the example has no cultural significance and was merely chosen for aesthetic reasons. (The image, as well, besides being of questionable fair use, adds nothing to the article as previous images already show how crucifixion works.) Take the first sentence and integrate it into the opening paragraph of the Popular Culture section, and dump the irrelevant exposition on specific examples, or move it to References. --75.7.194.95 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's you. You're the problem with wikipedia. There's no good reason for including anything on crucifixion in anime whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that people like you are the problem with wikipedia and what is bringing it down. Any rational person can see there is no need for a separate anime section on crucifixion. If this discussion didn't come up as it did and someone tried to change it on their own people like you would go back and change it back to it's original(and worse) state within 10 minutes. This is why so many people of value are leaving wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.146.175 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Frankly, only the first sentence of the section is useful, cited as it is and stating that it is a relevant motif in anime. The rest merely consists of specific examples, which are far too much detail; if an article on Crufixion in Anime were ever to appear (highly unlikely) then examples would be a good idea, but otherwise it's too much detail for this article. Therefore, as there's only one sentence left, merge it into the Television and Media section. Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Skinny87. Tryptofish I don't see why you think merging it with TV would be problematic. It may not be regarded as the same in Japan, and we only have your word on that, but most users of the site wouldn't make a distinction. Lucidphoole (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with all these guys. It's way too specific, and should be merged with the TV and Movies section. Anime having it's own section is just redundant. 70.118.245.110 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment - While anime/manga is very important in Japan, it is less important outside of there, and the content probably has WP:UNDUE problems as is. I do think that there is more than sufficient material for a Crucifixion in popular culture article, incorporating other items, and a separate section there might be reasonable. I think the concept is used enough that there wouldn't be much question regarding it meriting its own article. I'd also like to see Neal Adams' image from Green Lantern/Green Arrow of an environmentalist (I think) being crucified from an airplane added, in addition to the various other visual arts and other references which exist in abundance. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John carter.There really is no need to mention crucifixion in anime in this article. A crucifixion in pop culture article would be the perfect home for it, but since that article doesn't exist yet, the section should be taken out or reduced down to a sentence and added to the TV and movies section. Shutdown56 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that crucifixion in Japan seems to have, according to the article, begun after the idea came to the country from people preaching the story of Jesus. On that basis, I have to think that saying crucifixion in Japan does not, ultimately, relate directly to Jesus is a bit of a misstatement, considering the story of Jesus seems to be the impetus for the beginning of crucifixion in Japan. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So has this discussion ended? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

no one gives a shit about what girls do and do not fit on crosses in children's shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.138.23 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this discussion hasn't ended. RfC's usually run for up to 30 days. I haven't said anything yet, for one thing. And the first thing I will say to those who are new to Wikipedia is - anyone who descend to insults and trolling is likely to find themselves in trouble with the admins. By all means express your opinions, even rude ones, but avoid attacking other . The "no one gives a shit...." comment is fine as an expression of your opinion but "It's you. You're the problem with wikipedia." is not acceptable, as it is a dig at another editor. You see the difference. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because no one should point out that the defense of something that's effectively defenseless is stupid, and the protection of it is equally stupid. Wikipedia looks bad because of this sort of thing, and this type of 'editorship' is exactly why. It's crap, and the very fact that someone's able to stand there and whine about their precious animu section is why it's crap. There is absolutely no reason for the section to be in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If this article is to have an "in popular culture" section, it must include the portrayal of crucifixion in the fine arts (I'm thinking it's use by modern artists, not deconstructing the difference between Canaletto and Botticelli). And the anime section should be reduced, it's out of proportion with the tv/movie section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Including a section in this article about anime is kind of demeaning to something a serious as crucifixion. Additionally, if you want to include a section on anime there must be a section about crucifixion on Bollywood. Bollywood is just as or even more important than anime for a majority of the people in the world, and ignoring its artistic uses of crucifixion's symbolism is nothing short or ignorance and intolerance of Indian pop culure. Shutdown56 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Count me ignorant - even though I live in a city with several cinemas that show Bollywood films, I must confess to not watching them. Is it a regular feature? It would definitely be significant if it were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. I was just trying to make a point that there are plenty cultures more valuable and important than anime, and not mentioning any of them while devoting as much space as is given to anime is a little japan-centric and intolerant. I personally have never seen a bollywood film. Does anyone have one they can recommend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shutdown56 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the whole anime section. The article on sandwiches doesn't have "sandwiches in anime". The article on judo doesn't have "judo in anime". I can carry on, but the point is clear. ManicParroT (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I just checked every single page in the Japanese martial arts list. I have trouble believing how anyone could say crucifixion plays a more notable role in anime than Japanese martial arts, but out of the 63 existing pages, ONE SINGLE PAGE mentioned anime at any point. Anime does not deserve a special section in an article about crucifixion Cyrai (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the whole anime section. Japan and Anime aren't special despite what spergelords and neckbeards seem to think. No one, anywere, would look up at an enciclopedia so they can see how crucifixion is portrayed in Anime except for neckbeards so they can see where they can find more material for their Animu-Crucifix hentai fetish collection. That section has no enciclopedic value. Not only that, but shit like Wikipedian's anime obession makes Wikipedia look bad. I may not sound serious but all this anime stuff makes the site look really bad. The section is useless. Only a small part of it is good, and that is the first sentence. Delete the section. With extreme prejudice.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comment. After another day and reading the comments that have come in, I have a further comment. First, I realize that some editors have come to this RfC in good faith. And I want to repeat what I said before, that shortening the section is fine with me, and probably a good idea. However, seeing the large number of comments that, in effect, argue that there are WP:UNDUE issues with the section (as well as noting that there are some comments that have obviously been canvassed), I want to point something out very emphatically. Anyone who has only looked at the pop culture part of the page, please look here. It is true that the material says that the idea of crucifixion came to Japan via Christian missionaries, which makes a good case that crucifixion in Japan is part of the subject of crucifixion in general. However, look at that section. And look at the photograph in that section. Does anyone seriously think that the actual use of crucifixion was in any way religiously motivated in nature? Clearly not. It is a separate strain in the cultural significance of this form of capital punishment. An awful lot of the arguments that the pop culture material is just not relevant strike me as Western cultural insensitivity. It is just plain arrogant to claim that Western perceptions of crucifixion are relevant in this encyclopedia in a way that Japanese (or any other Eastern) perceptions are not. Opinions of meatpuppets (which I do not expect to change) notwithstanding, I hope that the serious editors who will be coming to this RfC will appreciate the need for Wikipedia to refrain from cultural biases. (And parenthetically, I find it bizarre to suggest that it would be encyclopedic not to provide any examples.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard not to see the above comment as attempting to put words in the mouths of others. No one has said that I know of that crucifixion in Japan was "religious in nature", as is said above, except Tryptofish himself. "Inspired by the story of Jesus" and "religious in nature" are entirely separate concepts. And I also have to question the ending of the above commentary as well. Although Tryptofish seems by his comments not to be aware of this, WikiProject Popular Culture was specificallhy created to keep "in popular culture" from being deleted and in accord with policy and guidelines. If he were to contact that project and ask for assistance, and probably also ask some specific individuals, like maybe User:Johnbod, our resident expert on Christian art, I have no doubt that an article on crucifixion in popular culture would be fairly good, and very unlikely to be deleted. And to call opposing pop culture material in general "cultural insensitivity" when the article as it stands has, at least in my eyes, a clear lack of material in western art relative to the comparatively recent development that is anime, including sculpture and graphic arts, stikes me as being at least misleading and disproportionate as well. So far as I can tell, there is no reference whatsoever to crucifixion in art prior to the 20th century in the extant article. To say that a comparatively modern art form, however important it may be to a specific cultural group, needs to be covered more extensively than 1900 years of western art dealing with the subject, displays in the eyes of some a rather pronounced lack of proportion. And, of course, if it were spun out as a separate popular culture article, then all facets of crucifixion in art, both historically and currently, could get much more extensive and serious coverage than they will in one section of a larger article. This page gives a description of crucifixion/crosses in the icongraphy of at least two apostles. Tomorrow, when the local theology library opens again, I'm going to check on the symbolic meaning (if any) of curcifixion in the iconography of saints, which I think most people will probably acknowledge has a greater social and cultural impact than anime does. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I should clarify. I realize of course that emotions are running high here. I'm sorry if you (John) felt that was directed specifically at you; it wasn't. There are editors who are arguing here that this material should be deleted because it isn't important enough, and that it isn't important enough because it is not really part of the Western traditions. I have been saying from the start that adding more material on fine arts is something I have favored all along. No where have I said that anime should be covered more extensively than 1900 years of Western culture. But the solution is not simply to delete anime, as many other editors are arguing, but to add fine arts material, which I, again, support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, nobody is arguing that it should be deleted because it's not part of western traditions. It should be deleted because it's insignificant. Even in JAPAN, Anime is insignificant. The section in the article is nothing but a weak opening sentence and six examples of where crucifixion was -or in the case of one of them, was not- used in certain Anime (although not why or how it's significant, because it's not even significant in the shows that it's listed in, it's just an aesthetic choice). I find it hilarious that Crucifixion in Anime has stirred up such a debate, but there's no trace of the word Smurf on either the Socialism or Communism pages, and Smurfs are arguably far more relevant to those two topics than Anime is to crucifixion. Nobody is talking about whether it's religious or not religious, nobody is talking about whether it's more or less relevant. Nobody's bashing it for being Non-Western. Several people, myself included, have stated that it is categorically insignificant and that the section as it is, is nothing more than a trivial listing of insignificant and irrelevant appearances (and one absurd non-appearance) in Anime. Why can't you get over your imagined insults and injuries that you claim are caused by 'meatpuppets'. 'sockpuppets' and 'canvasing'? All you're doing is trying to trivialize our objections by claiming that we can't think for ourselves, thus validating every criticism of Wikipedia that made us aware of this article in the first place. Other than the fact that a lot of us found this through one message board (a board that has more than 100,000 members, by the way) and all feel strongly about the same subject, there is no coordination going on here at all. This is not a systematic personal attack on you, you're only making it out to be by claiming it is, reverting every attempt to edit or fix the page on a PUBLICLY EDITABLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, despite comprehensive talk about why it was or should be deleted. Unfortunately, based on your behavior, I can see this turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About my "behavior": "reverting every edit or fix"? Really? I've been commenting here, and not reverting. Thank you for finally admitting that you all came here from that external site. I'm sure other editors will, in time, understand what that means. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What it means is that we have a more objective view about how non-editors view Wikipedia Cyrai (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is worth noting that WP:UNDUE is generally taken as being applied to content as it exists, not in reference to some theoretical perfect case where the entire subject is covered extensively. What we have here is a comparatively long section about a subject which is one of the modern popular media in a comparatively small part of the world. We also lack completely any serious reference to the subject as it pertains to a much broader part of the world over a much longer period of time. Saying "the rest should be expanded" does not address the real problem as it exists, which is that the section is clearly disproportionately long. On that basis, I have to say that policy is probably fairly clear here, and that the section should be reduced to a length comparable to its significance relative to the other popular culture sections, until and unless those other sections are developed further. But I cannot see how it does not fairly clearly violate WP:UNDUE as it is, and the policy does apply to the existing form of an article. I personally do not see any good reason not to ensure this article abides by that policy. Having said that, if we were to create a separate article on crucifixion in art/popular culture, or maybe crucifixion in the Orient/Japan, those problems might not exist. But the policy seems to be to be clearly violated by the content in its existing form. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

350 words about the argument on the relevance of the article and that's what you got out of it? You are being obtuse. I just told you, nobody asked us to stir anything up, nobody recruited us to come here, there was no coordination. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's own definition of Sock puppetry or Meat Puppetry, unless you mean this particular line: Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member. If that's the case, then go hog wild. And go ahead and keep reverting, I've watched this single page change back and forth ten times in the last few days. You're the only long-time contributor to this page who is arguing for it to be kept as is, and you're going to great lengths to martyr yourself. I've made absolutely no changes to the topic itself, I've only contributed to the talk section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.130.234 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR! to the preceding comment. Removing the anime section has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with diminishing the dignity or importance of Japan or Japanese culture, it has to do with removing something totally worthless (anime) from a serious, solemn topic. Its worthlessness has nothing to do with the fact it is Japanese. If someone was fouling a serious article about something from Japanese history was something equally worthless from Western culture, say, including a reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate about how Bruce Wayne references the habits of Tokugawa shoguns in Batman #839, I would expect it to be removed with all due haste. It is only because of the obsessive sperglording and total inability to contextualize of users like Tryptofish that the subject is even being taken as a dismissal/disrespect of Japan to begin with.Jadams2484 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I don't have a problem with the mention in the article if commentary on its usage referenced well. I think the larger question is judging the level of significance of these appearances. I presume depictions that are currently given as examples are a bit too specific as the crucifixion itself is not a major component of the story. (Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga also has a one-panel example of crucifixion.) It might be more constructive to discuss anime and manga that actively depict Christianity and its themes such as Chrono Crusade. Arsonal (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the section. If nothing else, it invites fancruft and trivia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

About that point, it may be worth noting that this is what the page looked like in September 2008. Pretty awful from a fancruft/trivia viewpoint, isn't it? Starting here in this talk, we started making it more encyclopedic. I and other editors have been very strict since then in not allowing more material a la "trivia list" to be added back. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone is 150 pounds overweight and goes on to lose 50 pounds, does that mean they should stop right there saying "Oh man it sure is great what I've done to trim the fat" or should they go on to finish losing the rest of the weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.1.109 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it then that it still looks like a trivia list? - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I was alerted to this discussion by a notice placed on WT:ANIME. On read through, the whole "in popular culture" is more or less filled with trivial depictions. All of the depictions mentioned, not just those in the anime section, are unsourced to their relevance to the overall topic. The section does not explain why the depictions of crucifixion in Ben-Hur, The Passion of the Christ, Spartacus, Monty Python's Life of Brian, or Sailor Moon are significant or relevant. In my opinion, the section needs to be completely rewrite based on media critiques of the symbolism of crucifixion and how certain depictions affected the view of crucifixion in popular culture. —Farix (t | c) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All that will do is get the anime fans out of the woodwork to defend the section.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. Most anime fans problem aren't even aware of the section. And the WikiProject Anime and manga has had several battles with the more rabbit elements of anime fandom, particularly in the area of character articles, and usually wins. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What we're asking for is relevance. Simply put, I don't think the crucifixion of animes is relevant enough to garner a subsection. A bullet point, maybe. 66.30.100.140 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete this section. It completely fails on notability. --Woland (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people would need to prove that anime doesn't deserve a complete section. Why would anime, out of all other forms of media, when books and get nothing? Cyrai (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Glorious Nippon is special you stupid Gaijin. Joking aside, It seems everybody opposes the anime subsection.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge to "Television and movies", retain footnoted anthropological material (if any) and delete any breathless "this one time in this one anime Gigantor was cruficied and then this other time in this one anime..." content. I can vaguely see a few footnoted sentences on this topic being useful in the "TV and movies" section, but to give it its own section is some bizarre sort of Anime Exceptionalism. Good grief, exactly how is it some rarefied artform that defies definition as either TV or movie? I would also oppose creation of Crucifixion in anime, but could see it being a subsection of Religious themes in anime or whatever. Sure WP's "not a democracy", but I think we have a pretty much 90% consensus against the current version.MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also be inclined to merge it with "In movies and television", or, alternatively, with the Japanese section in the article (given that I'm not wedded to "In popular culture" sections). As with others, I'd be inclined only to merge the first line and to leave out the specific examples. However, as I agree that the Sailor Moon context is interesting, I'd also like to see a "Religious themes/symbolism in anime" or some such, if it can be done without OR: there's a lot of symbolism which seems to be picked up (such as crucification or, as in the case of Haibene Renmei, angels) without the associated religious meaning, and presuming that there are sufficient RS on the topic I can see a potentially good article on this - although by no means an easy one to pull together. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with the comments of John Carter above. I'd like to point out that the article on crucifixion at ja.wiki has no mention of crucifixion in anime. They certainly have a section devoted to crucifixion in Japan, as does the English article and which is not disputed in this current discussion. Moreover, the ja.wiki article on the crucifixion of Christ mentions films such as Ben Hur, but again, no mention of anime. It seems to me, then, that Tryptofish's claim that deleting the section shows Western insensitivity and arrogance is merely an appeal to political correctness, rather than a valid reason for including this particular subtopic into the encyclopedia. Further, Tryptofish's argument in "Further comments" above conflates the earlier Japanese practice of crucifixion with the Western tradition. From the section itself: "Christ is an object of religious fantasy in Japan." If the (modern) anime examples are based largely on Japanese perceptions of Western crucifixion rather than the adapted practice, then a blurb mentioning that is sufficient. If one wants to include Japanese anime as an example of how the Christian view of crucifixion is adapted in non-Christian cultures, then it faces issues with WP:UNDUE, given that there are no mentions of other cultures. Nobi (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobi, Johnny Carter, you all bring up good points. Hell, we all bring up good points. It seems to me, everybody says that the section should be deleted. The only guy who opposes it is Fish, who thinks deleting it would be "censorship" and a example of Western Nationalism against Japan. It's all paranoiac bullshit. What people are saying is that a bunch of shit cartoons with college girls with G cup breasts, spotlights for eyes, floating eyebrows and men that look like women ain't relevant to crucifixion. You're the only one that opposes it.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's unanimous consent save one, does the discussion still last a month? Who makes the final decision if there's not unanimous consent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrai (talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please good sir, sign your comments by pressing the sign button on the editing box and put a period at the end of every sentece. I'm not sure who makes the final decesion but we'll see.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace Oliveira, please refrain from making any more disparaging remarks about other editors, as you did above towards Tryptofish. Editors you cannot behave in a civil manner or continually engages in ad hominem attacks will find that their editing privileges will be limited. —Farix (t | c) 23:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This whole page demonstrates one of the current major flaws of wikipedia. It took the combined CORRECT efforts of a hundred people to defeat one single objectively wrong editor with a personal stake in the article. Lessons should be learned from and acted upon here. The current publicity surrounding the driving away of competent editors to be replaced with stakeholder editors has been well demonstrated, as has the incredible amount of effort required to counteract them. What happened here was more than the correction of a stupid section. Let's make sure it continues to be such. 71.77.41.139 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that any of the new editors who took part in the debate, stick around to make more contributions and improve other parts of the encyclopaedia. Just click here to find a new article to look at.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It could have been done with far less drama and insults coming from the Something Awful group. Most of those editors didn't provide any useful arguments to begin with. What really turned the tide was when regular editors entered the discussion with more reasonable arguments and far more civility. However, there are no WP:DEADLINEs to settling a particular issue so lone as the the issue is eventually settled through consensus. As for the "driving away of competent editors", I think most of the hubbub over that is related to fictional topics no longer have the free reign they use to have and are now. This has infuriated a lots of fan-editors in the process that they can no longer have their three page article on Obscure Character X who only appears for 10 minutes and will have to settle for a short paragraph, or even a single sentence, on a character list. That is if the character is even listed at all. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. Without the efforts of "new editors", this would have been left alone. Wikipedia has, in general become so insular and flat out weird that no 'casual' editor stands a chance to revert things which are flat out wrong. If you collectively don't stop speaking in code and actually listen to people's concerns, you'll collapse under your own weight.

As a 'regular editor' who found out about this through the SA forums, I'm on the side of the people who claim that it was ridiculous that it took this long to get this removed. It's taken hours of argument and dozens of people weighing in to get past one or two stubborn long term Wikipedia editors who absolutely refused to back down. It's ridiculous that it should take so long to make one change that was absolutely, 100% correct. The SA chaps might have been less civil than Wikipedia 'demands', but they were *right*, and Trypto was *wrong*.

ManicParroT (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, someone deleted the bit about the Sailor Senshi being crucified in two episodes. As a fan of Sailor Moon and a member of WP:SM, I approve of this. Their crucifixion isn't that important to the series that it should get mentioned here. Just saying that crucifixion happens in anime sometimes is quite enough. --Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I saw this RfC mentioned on the page WT:WikiProject Anime and manga. I want to reply using Wikipedia jargon (I've been a casual editor in the past so my rules knowledge is lacking), and was going to research the 'correct' process, but come on. If it is possible to sit there, honestly, and argue that anime references fit within the context of crucifixion in an encyclopedia then I think there is no point discussing this with you. However, for the sake of the greater Wikipedia, if there are rules that support this kind of ridiculous trivia being added to every serious article, then these rules *have* to be changed. Pick any popular culture movie, tv show, comic strip or piece of referenceable mass media, methodically walk through the content and add any reference to anything at all add it to an 'In popular culture' section in the appropriate Wikipedia article. Magnetic fields in Lost. Samurais in Heroes. Nazism in Seinfeld. Space Travel in Final Fantasy. I think you get the idea. Fancy steve (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Absolutely delete. In an article about A, the criteria on mentioning B is B's importance to A, and not the other way around. Dinosaurs are of utmost relevance to the Flintstones, and you see dinosaurs mentioned in the Flintstones article. But you (rightfully) don't see the Flintstones mentioned in the Dinosaur article, much less references to specific characters or episodes. Vessbot (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No - Anime is not a integral part of the subject crucifixion, nor is crucifixion it commonly associated with anime. Delete and start over with good sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, certainly not, as per all above, there seems to be a strong consensus not to have the section included here. Crucifixion is not a prevalent theme in anime, and anime is not a prevalent theme in crucifixion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC).