Talk:Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)/Archive 1

I reinstated the lyrics section
A user removed the lyrics section, arguing NOT. However, that particular guideline says: "Most song lyrics published after 1923 are protected by copyright. The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc."

It can be safely said that as a traditional song, it is in public domain, the article does not contain only the lyrics, and the lyrics are thorougly explained in the next section. I feel that in this case, the concerns of the particular guideline are not met, and the lyrics can remain. If an editor still feels the use of the lyrics in this case is a violation of NOT#LYRICS, please remove the entire section, not just the lyrics - the explanation of the lyrics is meaningless without the actual lyrics to accompany it. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Identification of characters
Please help me identify the two characters that are under Section 9's surveillance. I'm thinking of the scene after the garbage collector scene. The first character looks European; while the other has got long silvery hair and is seen leaving a helicopter. Aboleth (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics
found another translation which is more accurate

does lyrics traditional or by ilaria graziano

Description: Theme

Lyrics: Ilaria Graziano Composition: Yohko Kanno Vocal: Ilaria Graziano

Original / Romaji Lyrics English Translation

A ga maeba, kuwashime yoini keri A ga maeba, teru tsuki toyomu nari

When you are dancing, a beautiful lady becomes drunken. When you are dancing, a shining moon rings. Yobai ni kami amakudarite, Yoha ake, nuedori naku, Tookamiemitame A god descends for a wedding

And dawn approaches while the night bird sings. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you.

Contributed by Blue  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh... I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind could find that "more accurate," this translation makes a lot less sense than the one on the page. Besides, I can tell that you copied this off of Anime Lyrics, Yoko Kanno did not compose this and Ilaria Graziano did not provide the vocals. Everything on Anime Lyrics is user-submitted, so a lot of the stuff on there is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahald (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we noting lyrics anyways? They're a copyvio, and even if they weren't, they'd be trivial and undue weight. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They might not be copyvio (being a traditional chant), however I agree it could well be undue weight. Din Ycae (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the conclusion
Just a clarification. Concerning the part "Kusanagi finally agrees to merge, and the Puppet Master releases Batou and the snipers' targeting systems from its control." I watched the English dub in which she simply looks at the sky and then they merge, I did not see any verbal sign of consent from her side to merge, or is her consent just portrayed like that in the movie, that it was actually only after her consent that the Puppet Master merged. In other words, had she not consented, he would not have merged.

I was also wondering what happens after they merge, what does the "offspring" do, and is the offspring in section 9 anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustav Ulsh Iler (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As the TV series takes place in 2030, a year later, is the child the Major of that series? Hence is this film a prequel movie or is it in an alternative line / universe to the TV anime taking place in 2030? --Bmoshier (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot
Would it be possible to make it more easy to understand for an uninvited reader? Could it explain what Section 6 and Section 9 is in more easily understandable terms? And what it means to ghost-hack someone/something?--John S. Peterson (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot section needs a lot of work. I'll clean up what I can and see if I can find some citations, but I don't intend to do very much work on it. The2crowrox (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
i will be adding some reviews that are too long for find the core details of the review here. i added the shorter ones but don'tknow how to handle these longer ones. i'll be adding more as i search.


 * twitch film review

For now only one.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Setting of the movie is Japan not Hong Kong
In the beginning of the movie is stated that the name of the city is NEW PORT CITY (Niihama). Why is in this movie so much Chinese signs, shops and districts?? Because director Oshii and mangaka Shirow were heavily inspired by Hong Kong architecture. Also we must assume that there was third world war, Tokyo was destroyed and lots of war refugees mostly from China were invited into Japan to fill the labor shortage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.36.70 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't assume things. Thats WP:OR.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Some Help
In ProductionIG's i found some recognitions but i cant find any third party sources that mention these awards and honorableentions. Ill list them here and hopefully someone can help me with these.


 * The World Animation Celebration 1997 - Best theatrical feature film


 * Billboard Top Video Sales Chart - #1


 * 1st Animation Kobe1996 - Best theatrical feature film

If anyone can find sources for these, it would be great.Lucia Black (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting
I've just done some copyediting, but the experts will want to check that I didn't accidentally make matters worse, and some parts may require an additional look. In particular:
 * In the "Animation" section I changed "thermoptic camouflage into "thermo-optical camouflage", following the world of Ghost in the Shell article. I hope that's the correct spelling. Should it link to the relevant "world" section?
 * In the same section, these lines sound strange:
 * Tanaka converted code in a computer language displayed in romanized Japanese letters to numbers before inserting them into the computer to generate the credits. The origin of this code is the names of the film's staff as written in a computer language.
 * What exactly happened there? Computer code is displayed in romaji (as opposed to what, kanji? Wouldn't computer code usually employ the Latin alphabet, even in Japan?), Tanaka converts it into numbers (how?), feeds the numbers to a computer and then turns the result into the opening credits (again, how?)? And what does it mean to write the staff's names "in a computer language"? That should be clarified.
 * This is actually really complicated and the specifics are vague in the video... So I will copy the quote. The question asked is "What significance do the numbers have in the opening credit sequence?"
 * His response is, "First, I converted Romanized Japanese letters into numbers, than I converted it again into a computer medium. If you were to look at each frame, say step by step framing on a laser disc, you would see that it is probably correct by comparing it to the code in a computer programming dictionary. That is, of course, for those who have a lot of spare time." The narrator adds, "So we see that the numbers in the beginning credits are actually the names of staff members written in computer language."
 * Context is key here... but the exact method (language) is unknown, but the names of staff in romaji were converted to numbers, then those numbers were rendered as computer code. It would be OR to say that the chain "logically" is Kanji -> Romaji (not really a conversion - depends on Hepburn or other adaptation) -> Numbers -> Entered into computer medium? Converted? It is not binary for one. Anything more is OR - but the whole bit is awkward. I've never gotten a better answer on the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The rest was mostly minor grammar and spelling corrections. Huon (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reception section has a long list of X praised Y stating, "Z." We should add a little more variation. Also, is that comma correct?
 * Thanks for the copy edit! I gave the full info for above if you want to try and fix that. I got no ideas myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Critical source
This book chapter would be a pretty good source to expand the Critical analysis section. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Major changes Oct 30
I'm in the process of reviewing this article for GA. I notice that there were many changes on Oct. 30, resulting in a considerably different product than the one I viewed when the review began. One of the big changes is the removal of a section on "critical analysis." I'm not complaining, mind you. But I am concerned that the changes may or may not result in the nominator wanting to re-consider the nomination for a GA. Are we still on track with that nomination? If so, I intend to review the article based on the Oct. 31 version, not the version that I first saw when the GA review began. Is this OK with all who may be concerned? Thanks to all who have been working on this article. It gets a lot of views, so it's important that we get it right. Jburlinson (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Niemti's removal is a problem. I'll drop a message on his talk page. The critical analysis of the work is important and is published in a reliable source. I have restored it. Saying the person's opinion is not important as a reason to remove it is to remove a key figure in academia on the level of Susan J. Napier. His ignorance should not negatively impact the review, he did not realize that Sharalyn Orbaugh's work mattered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll proceed with the review of the article as it is now that the critical analysis section has been restored. This will include all the other edits up to and including those of Oct. 30.  Will that be OK?  Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Niemti did a good copy edit. I'm gonna drop another note thanking him for that. He's really good at cleaning up my bland prose. By all means, review the current version. I had asked him to take a look at another article, but he unexpectedly helped me out here. We don't edit war with each other - we may agree to disagree, but I pointed out Orbaugh's academic credentials as Professor and Graduate Advisor, Asian Studies of the University of British Columbia. Her extensive work in anime and manga topics are the reason I used her published work - because they've been in four or five books I've read and numerous essays and they have been well received. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On another note, the production can be cut down a bit. A lot of how its written is at interview by interview base. since interviews are first-party information, i don't necessarily think we need to exploit them as interviews, just say that he said it. or even summarize the quotes too because some of them just are a little too long and don't clarify each point he makes. Unless its imperative that this information has to highlight them as quotes, It can definitely be expanded/summarized.Lucia Black (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I found that a full quote from Oshii to be preferential to rehashing it. A director should be given a few words to describe his personal desire and philosophy which he brought to the creative process. Besides, removing the quote would only lead to a more disjointed and poorly thought out paraphrasing of what was said. Also, this type of information brings clarity and understanding - do not try to go chopping into it. Oshii gets one paragraph. That's completely reasonable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lets think like editors, not like fans. Stating comments like  A director should be given a few words to describe his personal desire and philosophy which he brought to the creative process. and ''. Oshii gets one paragraph.'' is mentality of a fan, not a impartial editor. It would be best to paraphrase each statement to give equal weight to the them and clear understanding of what exactly he is saying. the way its set up is like as if Wikipedia is the interviewer, and Oshii is the one being interviewed. it should be summarized or paraphrased to more direct-to-the-point. If you want, even the quotes can be put into the refs.Lucia Black (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Quotes are acceptable and if you are just going to constantly be rude, I'll request the interaction ban again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are acceptable, but not always the best choice when conveying the meaning. And it wont hurt to paraphrase it, or summarize the details. especially if there are multiple interviews being cited as well. And interaction ban threatening wont work here. It's more leaning toward the fan ideology if we're not basing our ideas on whether it would benefit Wikipedia, but to play tribute or honor a specific author/director. At the moment, it's not exactly clear. and you're not giving much of a defense other than that their acceptable in general.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't read anything I write, do you? I cannot help you with your problems, but don't make a flimsy pretext to create ones for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What problem are you referring to? I'm not making any flimsy pretext to create one. I'm bringing up a real issue on the article. we shouldn't keep a quote out of "personal" preference, right now we can make convey the message clearer. Finding "quotes" is also subjective matter, one can divide them up to 3 different quotes if one wanted to.Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Read my post again. If you still continue to be negative and call me a like a "fan" or "personal preference" by dodging my stated reason, I will simply stop talking to you. I don't have time to deal with your battleground behavior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the sake of civility, why don't you just "clarify" rather than continue to point me to your comment and saying i haven't read it. because i did, and i addressed it well. We can't have reasoning based on what you brought to keep such quotes. And quotes can be used regularly, but we still need to use them in a manor that informs the reader. If there's an easier way to clarify we should find a way. A good example are reception sections that do both paraphrasing and quoting.Lucia Black (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"rehashing" is subjective. its just dividing and clarifying each point he made and giving it proper focus rather than to use a full quote all mashed together on several distinct points. Also note that other interviews are noted, but not fully quoted, just paraphrased. Again, reviews in a reception comes to mind when it comes to both paraphrasing and quoting. but i dont believe the particular quote is all that useful or perhaps its the way its presented. Usually quotes are good, but the prose should also do some effort to clarify the quote before presenting it..Lucia Black (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I found that a full quote from Oshii to be preferential to rehashing it... removing the quote would only lead to a more disjointed and poorly thought out paraphrasing of what was said." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You got nothing huh? Okay. Bye. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you dont want to discuss this further, i will find a way to clarify it myself, and it will be a bold edit, and once you revert it, per BRD rule, you will have to continue to discuss it until gaining consensus, and that ultimately will cause problems with GA status per stability issues. So rather than dismissing everything i'm saying in a disrespectful manner, you should discuss this now and save the trouble of making another GA status once it is stable.Lucia Black (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this an edit war over whether or not we need to point out that Oshii's reply contains multiple reasons before we quote it in full? Even assuming it does, I don't see why that needs to be highlighted. Furthermore I doubt the source explicitly says those are multiple reasons, which per WP:BURDEN would mean we shouldn't say so if that's disputed. Finally, maybe it's just me, but this sounds like an attempt to hold GA status hostage over a triviality. I don't think that's appropriate. Huon (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its about that. Oshii doesn't even give "multiple reasons", it is singular. The second sentence is probably unnecessary, but the third and fourth are more important." I stated above that it would lose its impact and become disjointed if it was paraphrased. And, yes, I'm concerned that she announced she would do this to disrupt the GAN and then continued reverting the "bold revert" to force discussion... which she wants to do to disrupt the GAN. I've been addressing the concerns and doing all that I can to ensure its accuracy, integrity and completeness. The idea to cut the production section is just more A&M drama which I do not want to venture into at Sven's RFC. She broke her topic and interaction ban to call me a "GAN nom ninja" last time over the GITS matter. It just seems she's intent on ensuring its failure as revenge for my failure of the manga/franchise article which touched off this whole affair. But that's just my opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand the question you gave. But we have to clarify in order to provide needed context. If we go by "When asked about 'X' author/director stated, 'Y'" it doesn't fully inform the reader properly. Which is why i believe some paraphrasing is needed to further clarify the quote and this is done the majority of the time for reviews. Also note that saying they are multiple reasons and Oshii providing answers is basically the same thing. If you can argue that meaning is construed, then please do so.

But over all, i'm simply saying that we need to discuss things properly. one editor dismissing a needed discussion in order to get it to GA, is a serious issue. And i'm informing Chris that if he doesn't discuss, he's allowing the edits to occur. So in turn, he's promoting edit wars by not wanting to discuss what is needed. Wikipedia doesn't favor one editor over the other, so in turn, just because Chris doesn't want to discuss it, doesn't mean progress should be at a halt. And which is why i informed him will hurt the GA nomination due to stability issues if he does not wish to end the discussion needed.

SO please don't assume any bad faith such as "taking the GA status hostage". i'm saying that we should discuss it. And even then i compromised by providing context without removing the quote so that paraphrasing wont be needed.Lucia Black (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * He's giving at least "two" reasons which in turn means "multiple". Also note that the "quote" is subjective in the sense of being one individual quote or multiple. Which is why i'm saying its considered one reason, because the information was decisely taken as one. So if multiple points are for one reason, they can still be referred to as "multiple reasons". It's not an issue of Original Research or construing the facts. but if you're stating that second sentence is unneeded, but the third and forth are, then paraphrasing would be needed anyways. This is what i'm trying to discuss.Lucia Black (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * let me just put up the quote here, and prove to you that there is multiple points/reasons in here. My intuition told me that this story about a futuristic world carried an immediate message for our present world. I am also interested in computers through my own personal experience with them. I had the same feeling about Patlabor and I thought it would be interesting to make a film that took place in the near future. There are only a few movies, even out of Hollywood, which clearly portray the influence and power of computers. I thought this theme would be more effectively conveyed through animation."


 * So with that giving a different point, we can say the disjointing of the quote, we can safely divide it into two pieces. But even if you claim. overall, whether stating its one reason with multiple points, or multiple reasons, it doesn't construed the original thought of the quote.Lucia Black (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit does nothing but state that Oshii's reply contains multiple reasons. Does the source say so? I'm all for context - provided that context is supported by reliable sources, not by our own interpretation. Furthermore, I don't see what context that edit provides. Why does "the following quote contains multiple reasons" provide any information beyond the quote itself, or any context to it? Do we assume our readers cannot determine the number of reasons themselves? Huon (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucia does not realize he is giving only one reason. She is misinterpreting a source and detracting his authority on his own work by making a baseless self-assertion that there are "multiple" statements. She did this before, edit warring by bringing two completely different characters together and claiming to know more than the production crew in the process. And when I decided to not bother with it anymore, she says I called her a troll and made an essay to attack me for "ad hominem tactics to avoid talking about the main issue at hand." Simply put, Lucia has a lack of WP:CLUE. If the developers, the content and the sources all say you are wrong; don't edit war your own OR - or in this case; don't make up things not in a source you can't bother to check. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok let me clarify the current/previous rendition goes, "when asked about subject X (it does not present X in the prose, it only states X is in question) author provides answer Y (in quote form, not often time doesn't get to the point or reason that they expected. And sometimes large quotes such as that, may cause issues to fully understand, and may even lose the meaning of the question that was previously stated) so in general it sounds like an interview is taking place in Wikipedia, rather than citing the interview itself. And its redundant to even cite the source in prose if its used as reference (unless the given time and place is relevant to the subject). And does the source "need" to say such? if it doesn't "construe" the general meaning. And even if we don't use "multiple reasons" we can still paraphrase/clarify in other ways that doesn't have to say that there are "multiple" reasons. But the reason why i "phrased" it as such because there's no middle ground between "reason" and "reasons" and there was no word i can think of that didn't give the context needed. it was difficult to put it as "Mamoru Oshhi gave an answer why he chose Ghost in the Shell in an interview" I'm not defending that reason would be the best choice (definitely not as bad you make it out to be to be unusable, that's for sure), but i'm still defending that paraphrasing or re-clarifying rather than simply stating the questions and what answers he provided. One is more informative.


 * It's going too far to consider it deviation from the source. Because this isn't something new to Wikipedia. a lot of editors do the same thing such as use "author A reasoned" or "Director B clarified" or "Writer C debated" using such words doesn't harm the meaning in the first place, and it is not subject to a reliable source, its subject to the quote used in the source..So no matter what wording (even if appropriate and keeping the original meaning of the quote) it would still seem off because the wording wasn't provided in the RS. to me, its a bit extreme to even consider OR if it doesn't even construe or give any new meaning at all, it just paraphrasing.Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note, that this type of thing, especially when it comes to citing interviews (which is the vast majority of what articles source for development/production information) isn't new and don't change the meaning. And these are articles that are GA and even featured articles aswell. And I believe its so common that even both you (Huon and ChrisGualtieri) are aware of this type of phrasing in articles when citing Interviews. To claim that stating Oshii gave multiple reason is construing the source just because its "one statement" is ludicrous. You're both making it out as if its providing "new ideas" in which it is not.Lucia Black (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SAY states we should be careful with synonyms for "say", and it explicitly mentions "clarify" as a more loaded term we should avoid. So I find your examples of what other editors may do elsewhere unconvincing. More to the point, the version of the article before your edit said Oshii was asked why he directed the movie, and it said Oshii replied. Do you disagree with those assertions? Whether or not Oshii's reply was on topic is an unrelated issue, and one on which we should not issue an opinion without a secondary source. Whether he gave multiple reasons or multiple aspects of the same reason is debatable. So why exactly should we step into this quagmire instead of plainly stating undisputed facts? If you dislike mentioning that Oshii replied to a question (though I don't see that as a problem myself; rather, it sounds like you want to remove context), how about this:
 * On his reasons for directing the movie Mamoru Oshii said: [...]
 * Regarding the "redundant to even cite the source in prose" line of reasoning, that seems rather far-fetched. All Wikipedia content should be based on reliable third-party sources, so all content arguably is redundant to the sources, and we could get rid of articles altogether and just have lists of sources... Or are you opposed to all quotes on Wikipedia and think we should never quote but always paraphrase? If not, why should this quote be considered unnecessarily redundant to the source and removed? Huon (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't change the actual meaning, but what you were arguing more is that if the source didn't say in fact the word "reason" we couldn't use it. Which meant you were stating that the only way we can provide the information was if the current rendition. but again, paraphrasing is still a valid choice, especially if ChrisGualtieri considers certain parts of the whole statement unnecessary (sentence 2). So what i'm saying is that we don't need to say "when asked about question X director stated this and this" and then cite interview A. Ref A states this.(citation of ref A). understand? if i said "in the foreward, author X stated this" and then use the forward itself as a source. it would e redundant to mention where the information came from in the prose if the ref already covers where it came from. Whats important is the statement, not the background of the statement. Which is by choosing what is more relevant, as long as we present whats relevant accurately. Paraphrasing is still acceptable. So we can most definitely use the example you gave.Lucia Black (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what I said was that we shouldn't claim Oshii gave multiple reasons when that's in dispute and no source says so. Secondly, I thought you wanted to provide context to the quote? Now we should not say in what context Oshii made that comment? Sorry, no, I don't understand your point. As I said above, I'm all for context as long as we have sources for that context. Huon (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't need to say so. And i already used your rendition despite making claims of WP:SAY. And providing context to the quote is bring the subject to matter. such as we don't need to cite the interview in the prose and as a reference at the same time. EXAMPLE: "Chapter A of book B stated C. ". That is what i'm saying.Lucia Black (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sound
I'm sure the production of sound is relevant to production, but i believe its more relevant in the soundtrack of the film. Not only that but some analysis information not related to production is in the music section.Lucia Black (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If no one has a problem with it, i'll merge them together. Afterall, the Soundtrack only has an infobox and a tracklist. not sufficient information.Lucia Black (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, per MOS:FILM Jburlinson (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * there's no summary, all there is an infobox and a tracklist. not much of one at all....also note that any "reception" is in production. which should not.Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Critical Analysis
I find that there's too much notes being don to defend a general idea. It would be better to present whatever relevant information there is in the prose instead. Critical Analysis definitely needs to be expanded by who said what exactly. It just seems to be taken as fact, and not enough "analysis". Something along the lines of the last sentence. Also because its analysis, its relevant to bring what books its referenced in the prose, and will not be as redundant (but necessary). If its referencing something such as "analysis of Ghost in the Shell film" sort of speak, it might be best to just cite the books existence and what the book contains in general.Lucia Black (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not even understand what you are talking about. You have absolutely no idea about anything in this entire section and it is extremely obvious. This is relevant prose. And absolutely everything is cited here. You seem to be having some very big WP:CLUE issues here. Or is this just more of you trying to actively disrupt and derail this GA as pointed out above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether its cited or note, but whatever there is shouldn't be in notes. And whatever information is presented, should be presented as analysis, not known facts. For example: The juxtaposition, in the first five minutes of the film, of her reference to menstruation with the scenes of her cyborgian replication, immediately underscores the fact that this film's theme is the problematic of reproductive sexuality in a posthuman subject. This note sounds more like an opinion but presented as a fact. It doesn't state who said it, it doesn't state if its commonly accepted. or anything. And this note is also meant to cite this: The film depicts Motoko's identity and ontological concerns, ending with the evolution of a being with full subjectivity, through a new form of reproduction with the Puppet Master. another opinion-based source.

Which i know very well that we should treat Analysis the same way we treat reception. Such as provide facts as facts, and opinions as opinions.Lucia Black (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note 3 is indeed opinion - it's a quote. That's why it's in quotation marks. Whether that particular note is helpful in that place is debatable; it seems more relevant to the preceding sentence on menstruation than to the one on what happens at the end of the film.
 * Regarding "it might be best to just cite the books existence and what the book contains in general", I strongly disagree. Vagueness of the "The film has been discussed in books X, Y, and Z on subjectivity in Japanese popular culture" kind is exactly what we don't need. We should summarize what those books say about the film, and that's what we currently do.
 * In general, unless the statements are disputed, there's no need to always use a "X said Y" format, particularly not if several consecutive statements are based on the same scholar. Huon (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

These notes are better off being in the prose, rather than in notes, and its not really clear if they are quotes or not and that's the problem. But even then, the information being used in, doesn't provide the information as an opinion (as analysis is).

Another thing, please quote the entire message, not part of it. Or else your conveying a completely different meaning. I'm not saying in general we shouldn't generalize, but it is part of a broader impact than the analysis itself. Example: If unofficial fanbooks out there have been released, its more important to cite the existence of such fanbooks rather than citing whats in the fanbooks. In here, i'm not saying we shouldn't add any information on what these "analysis books specific to a series" (hypothetically there was a book titled "Analysis of Ghost in the Shell" that is leaning closer to fanbook) it would probably be best to cite the book's existent as the primary piece of information and what it contains as second. But since in here, Ghost in the Shell isn't a subject of a book dedicated to it, its much more relevant to cite exactly what it contains (rather than broad generalizing).Lucia Black (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of it has been clarified and it looks much closer to an analysis section should. Overall, expansion to move them into the prose and not as a source i suppose would be a choice rather than necessity.Lucia Black (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Huon, I added a line to expand upon the quote - I didn't realize that it would be hard to connect those two ideas without additional context. Lucia; you seem to not understand what "Critical analysis" is and I think your misappropriation of Young Magazine's publication by Tohru Nozaki is pretty off here. First of all, it contains official interviews and it is done in a major publisher, another source draws heavily upon it with the two interviews translated and used in its own analysis. I do not believe that Lucia understands anything here, because the argument made was on a pretty big set of misconceptions - but as long as its done with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The changed version sounds good to me. I have no idea why "fanbooks" feature in this context - the sources for that section to me look like scholarly works published by academic publishers or in peer-reviewed journals. If there's an issue with less reliable sources, a little more specificity would be nice. Huon (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucia has not even seen or read the works - but noting that it was an official publication says it was not a "fan book" and the critical analysis of the work comes from Professors whose body of work and length of study spans over a decade. When you start debating the finer points in terms of Donna Haraway or Jungian psychology we go from "fan" to scholarly pretty quickly. Though fans are capable of such discussions, given Shirow's actual commentary, design and notes on the Ghost in the Shell setting, it is apparent that a work which contains psycho-technobabble routed in science, culture and even religion is not meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It'd be really hard to question the sources used, simply because I used the absolute best ones I could for the material and avoided even master's level studies of the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I only gave additional advice if there ever would be a fanbook, or an analysis book completely dedicated to Ghost in the shell film. Unfortunately Huon misquoted me andi had to clarify something that was completely precautionary. And I find it extremely uncivil to continue to state that I don't understand Critical Analysis sections. You making really far off assumptions and I don't appreciate it. You're disrespecting me and shooting personal attacks. May I remind you every incivil comment is being saved ffor future purposes.

Back to the matter at hand, I know enough to what a critical analysis should look like, and even if the author intended such analysis to be true, it should be presented as opinion (in which you may have not agreed here, but actions speak louder than words when you indeed clarified) some notes seem to act like specific sources to more general ones. So it might be better to bullet list the general source and use. Especially if the notes are just Quotes. Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucia; you called an official publication used in this article a "fan book" that contains two important interviews. I have not made a personal attack, but clearly, you have significant lack of understanding that is repeated throughout the topic space. The publication is Analysis of Ghost in the Shell. We did not misquote you - you stated it. Just like you inserted false material with the Puppetmaster/Puppeteer matter; you get all mad, throw around false allegations and start screaming how much you "hate me". I got better things to do then entertain this nonsense. Next time; its going straight to Arb Com - I'm done dealing with it. I'm telling you now; I'm not even replying to you. There is no point in continuing any discussion with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No I did not do such thing Chris. You are making EXTREME assumptions. And you've been doing it for quite a while. I've stated that if there was any official fanbook or someone dedicating an analysis completely to Ghost in the Shell, we would cite the book first, and whats in it second. that's all i have said. So even if i did make such a claim, it doesn't change anything to what the point is. I did not give any specific real example that affected the current critical analysis. I did not state what was official, and what was not. Like i said, it was all precautionary additional advice in case we would add such a book, and yes Huon completely misquoted me.

this is what Huon quoted: ...it might be best to just cite the books existence and what the book contains in general

this is what Huon left out: If its referencing something such as "analysis of Ghost in the Shell film" sort of speak...

And you are mistaken, there are no specific Ghost in the shell-based book here. The only one that could be considered is Carl Silvio but part of a larger series of science fiction studies and i'm not even sure if it its just one article, because the rest of the book isn't found. But other than that, the most problematic part was already solved. And because Huon's misquote, it made it seem like i was highlighting something completely relevant, when i was merely clarifying the "additional" advice. And even if it was relevant, whats there to change? that there would be citation of these books existence first? I mean it would be a lot to cover what an entire book completely dedicated to Ghost in the Shell would be. So thats why generalizing what they cover would be good. But that's only if their completely dedicated and individual to Ghost in the shell. And i'm not trying to say that fanbooks aren't worth citing or that they are low-quality sources. Often times they contain interviews (like you said) or other diagrams that are actually official. But the fact that those analysis books exist, should be cited in.

Basically, from all this, just because of some additional advice in case one were to find such a book, we would citte the existence first. But i'm talking literally the title "Analysis of Ghost in the Shell".Lucia Black (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Two issues. Firstly, I apologize for "misquoting" you; that was not deliberate. I had misunderstood your point. However, my reply remains largely the same: Even if there are works entitled "The Analysis of Ghost in the Shell", we should not cite them for their mere existence - unless they are mentioned by third-party sources which discuss the amount of coverage Ghost in the Shell has received, and then we should cite those other sources.
 * Secondly, there is a work entitled "The Analysis of Ghost in the Shell", and we cited it until about two days ago, when ChrisGualtieri substituted it by another source that, if I understood him correctly, is based on The Analysis and/or cites it. Per my first point I do not think we should cite this work for the fact that it exists. Huon (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really change much for a GA, they are both high-quality sources to use. verification is verification, its not affected by third/first party sources, although the most origin of the information is most desired. third party sources isn't about about verifying information, its about providing notability. Wikipedia doesn't condone first-party verification. It does not make sense to attempt to verify using third-party sources for critical analysis (subject to Ghost in the shell) for information that came from first-party sources. It seems more confusing.


 * Still, if you're using information that originated from Analysis of Ghost in the Shell, the origins of the analysis should be mentioned. it's more informative to the reader to do so. it's like an interview, you can get it from the source, or you can get it from a third-party cite. the fact that interview comes from someone directly related to said media makes it first-party information.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Some things would be interesting for a reader

 * How long the production took?
 * What was the Shirow's opinion, and possibly part in it?
 * Add Roger Ebert: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ghost-in-the-shell-1996

--Niemti (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree in particular that Ebert is worth adding. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2008 Remake (retouch)
This movie has been remade/retouched, dubbed Ghost In The Shell 2.0 ... I'd add it in myself but the article isnt nicely written so i wouldnt really know where to start it putting it in... source : http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-06-08/ghost-in-the-shell-to-return-to-japanese-theaters --Vylen (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I bought Ghost In The Shell 2.0 on Bluray from Best Buy today. From what I can tell, based on what is already stated in the article about the North American release:
 * It's single disc
 * It is not by Warner Bros. Home Entertainment but Manga Entertainment and distributed by Anchor Bay Entertainment
 * The original, unedited movie is included as a Special Feature and apparently in HD-quality, although it hasn't been cleaned up any.
 * Of the English track, it seems as if it has all the new Version 2.0 audio effects (new sound effects, "6.1 DTS-ES Discrete", etc), but the English track is still the same--that is to say they didn't redub it.
 * I dunno if this helps any but at least the 2.0 section could be updated with this info. - 66.92.0.62 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a detailed scene by scene look at the differences between the original and version 2.0 here, http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=825158 May be useful if expanding this section Jonpatterns (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Themes/ Philosophy
Would a sub heading about the themes covered in the movie be useful? At the moment it is left up to the critical analysis section. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if there's interest in bringing the article to FA status, a section on themes would be necessary, among other things. Good idea to pursue; there's considerable literature available to support a more detailed discussion of themes. --Jburlinson (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look into it, was they any literature in particular you thought would be useful?
 * I've found this page now:Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell.
 * Maybe a 'cut down version' of the 'philosophy of' would be suitable for 'Themes' with a link to the 'philosophy of' article.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not cut down this article because another exists. That article is a mess and unspecific vs the film which is very different in tone and themes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, meant adding some of the ideas from the 'philosophy of' article to a new Themes section in this article. Also, possibly linking to the 'philosophy of' article.  I didn't meant removing anything from this article. I've edited my original comment to better reflect this. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of good sources: Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii, by Brian Ruh. pp. 119-41 and Anime and Philosophy: Wide Eyed Wonder edited by Josef Steiff and Tristan Tamplin. --Jburlinson (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. I can take a peek, I think I still have Anime and Philosophy somewhere, but sometimes the level of the writing and the ideas presented are considerably conjecture from less-than scholarly figures. I tend to prefer Napier and Orbaugh's work over others as a result, and much of the commentary on GITS has been done by non-experts with substantial errors in the underlying premise. I particularly dislike the essays that begin by saying Motoko is a robot ala "I, Robot" and that she's overly sexualized by the male members of her team. Two things which suggest that the writer has never actually gone through the material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any books in particular? Searching came up with Mechademia 3 - Limits of the Human http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/mechademia-3 Jonpatterns (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for critical analysis of the film, I suggest searching for "ghost in the shell" film in WorldCat.org and Google Scholar. WorldCat.org shows the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Google Scholar has some additional results here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Table vs prose
placed a banner on this article instead of discussing it first, so I have removed it (because it greatly impairs a peer reviewed Good Article) with the edit summary: Section would be better presented in prose and should be expanded to include character information, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Cast subheading) The decision to display the cast in a table versus the plot prose or an independent character analysis is one of balance and readability. Also, the linked discussion just started, but has nothing to do with the display status of the voice actors. The decision for a list is for appearance and readability, separating the actors from the plot. Noting the voice actors after first mention of the name departs greatly from the flow, a readability issue, and adds nothing of context. A separate character section is not required because the Plot already integrates the very bland and basic characters adequately, there is no need for an in depth analysis or description of any of the characters in this balanced article. However, returning to the table format to list cast, it is a clean and easily followed table that lends to expansion or cross-checking that is superior to being impacted into the "plot" For instance The Castle of Cagliostro has three voice actors, it surely would detract even more from the plot than this would. For readability, this choice was made and it is arguably the best choice to display the information in a concise and clean manner. So unless you really desire an extra section dedicated to rehashing the basic character descriptions, which I do not, this is the best option I know of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is another discussion on the main project regarding cast lists the information would be better presented in prose via a characters list rather than a stand alone cast list. The cast list gives the reader basic information, it should be expanded to show the characters and their roles in the plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot already gives all the cast information this film needs for context, the discussion you linked just started and is in no way related to the display of information. Specifically the topic is "I propose that the subheadings that list the voice actors in articles be changed from "Cast" to "Voice actors"." The cast list is entirely appropriate by MOS and readability, you have not made an argument and you seem entirely unaware that the characters are already described including their roles, in the plot itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You (both) may take a look at Featured articles: 300 (film), ? (film), Alien vs. Predator (film), etc, and MOS:FILM. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Those FA's seem to have a bit of both so it looks like a good agreement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST specifically states: "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)" Bolding mine. A simple table works here versus the Hollywood productions because in-line credits to the Plot are best with single actors - not a separate Japanese and English voice actor who is never "on screen" and has no physical depiction of any sort. Changing the audio changes who you are listening to, this is a big departure from live-action films where the Terminator is going to be still played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in English, French, Spanish, German and Japanese. As the "sub vs dub" is radically different, I find that FILMCAST's table suggestion to be the most accessible and readable option. It is also the recommended format after all for this specific medium. The only reason I do not have a "character" section to do so is that there is almost nothing that isn't covered in the Plot section already. It would be unbalanced (and pointless) to repeat the basic character information on the article again just to place the English and Japanese voice actors in prose instead of a simple table. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ghost in the Shell (1995 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913090659/http://sky.crawlers.jp:80/news/koukaku-ver2.html to http://sky.crawlers.jp/news/koukaku-ver2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101105623/http://bookclub.kodansha.co.jp/bc2_bc/search_view.jsp?b=2080087 to http://www.bookclub.kodansha.co.jp/bc2_bc/search_view.jsp?b=2080087
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112152253/http://bookclub.kodansha.co.jp/bc2_bc/search_view.jsp?b=306591X to http://bookclub.kodansha.co.jp/bc2_bc/search_view.jsp?b=306591X
 * Added tag to http://sp.tsutaya.co.jp/item/rental_dvd/130984225.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031200451/http://www.mania.com/ghost-shell_article_73613.html to http://www.mania.com/ghost-shell_article_73613.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523152706/http://www.totalfilm.com/features/50-greatest-animated-movies to http://www.totalfilm.com/features/50-greatest-animated-movies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual identity
When editing this section, can we refrain from coding Motoko as explicitly male or female because of her genitalia? Plenty of trans people do not conflate a male or female persona with the presence of a penis or vagina respectively, and that's what's being opened up for discussion in this topic pretty blatantly. The first time I edited out a blurb that said Motoko was 'male' because she couldn't menstruate, another editor just said "what?" And added it right back without question. The language in this section is insensitive to trans people, and there needs to be a way to discuss themes in this film without doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19b:4000:3cf3:8870:8b6b:6e24:dda1 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kubrick's 2001
"Not only is Kokaku Kidotai an essential film in the canon of Japanese animation, together with Kubrick's 2001 and Tarkovsky's Solyaris it completes a trio of book adaptations that transcend the popularity of their originals and [give] a new meaning to an already popular brand." -> maybe it's worth to point out that Kubrick's 2001 is not adaptation of the novel; rather Kubrick and Clarke worked on the script and later Clarke made novelization, or maybe he wrote a book in parallel. Point is - the movie is not adaptation so this is just plain incorrect statement. Nimdil (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghost in the Shell (1995 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227081611/http://twitchfilm.com/2012/01/review-ghost-in-the-shell-personal-favorites-48.html to http://twitchfilm.com/2012/01/review-ghost-in-the-shell-personal-favorites-48.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusion about minor characters and the scope of the narrative
I'm not sure that the current plot section makes certain points very clear. For instance, I don't know who exactly Daita is, why he is attempting to defect, why the diplomat is offering him asylum in the first place, and what if any relation any of this has to the film's over-arcing plot. I could simply be overlooking something, but this is one of those scenes I never could wrap my head around. Could the plot section perhaps be reworded to offer some clarity here? 75.63.209.97 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"withoduction"?
The Theme section has this passage in the second paragraph: "... ending with the evolution of a being withoduction with the Puppet Master."

I don't know what the writer was trying to say, but it would be nice if someone could correct the typo. 150.108.60.10 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternate spelling for "Bato"
Re: the name, I see a fansite with the name "Bateau" but i don't know if any official materials ever used that spelling http://web.archive.org/web/19970606050809/http://www.hollywood.com/movies/ghost/phtghost003.html WhisperToMe (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The typical way to romanize バトー is Batou. Peacetype (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)