User talk:Tetragrammaton

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Samw 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I don't care about using or just ending, same thing to me. As for your notes about the article quote, they do that in American print, not Japanese print. There's a difference. The person being interviewed didn't type out his statement and turn it in, he talked. You don't talk out a question mark in parentheses. It's an editorial comment. No plans have materialized for any continuation of the series. If/When they do, the discussion can be revisited.

As for the references removed, I did not remove the references, except the death list one, I removed the pictures, because linking to imageshack isn't approved of or allowed (an entire scan of a magazine page is generally frowned upon). — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it yourself -the writer of the article is unsure. The writer is not Sunrise. The writer is the magazine. The magazine is quoting Sunrise and are themselves unsure of Sunrise's statement. Sunrise is not unsure of itself, it did not question itself.

(On an extreme off-note, I never said I was "The Guardian of the Lelouch Lamperouge wikipedia entry" as you've so piously quoted me saying, I said I have been a dedicated guardian of it for the past year. So I don't see what you're getting at other than to put words in my mouth.)

You have made it very clear that you think Lelouch may be alive (and have suggested it canonly-so to a wikipedia admin). Your motives for wanting to keep the quote vague are blatantly obvious, and the simple fact that you are so rigorously battling making the statement more clear is testimony to the fact that it is not clear in the first place, and that without the addition of the word 'tone' Taniguchi can be erroneously interpreted by readers as having said "the events of the ending are open to interpretation." You know it, and that's why you don't want the word in there. Not because you don't want me 'putting words in Taniguchi's mouth'.

Let's establish some things:

-There is absolutely no cannon material that hints even vaguely to the possibility of Lelouch's being alive. It all lists him as dead. Period.

-Lelouch is cannonly dead. Are you arguing that he may not be or that anyone has suggested otherwise in canon? Zero Requiem (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero_Requiem we are arguing apples and oranges here. I'm not saying Lelouch is alive. I'm saying that Taniguichi never said anything about the "tone" of the ending. He simply said the ending was up to the veiwer to decide so that is all we can say about the interview and we should. In the interest of your concern over the status of this character I saw fit to add that Taniguichi said nothing of Lelouch being alive. That should make it clear without lying about what Taniguichi actually said in the Newtype Interview. To keep it NPOV we can report/edit in that Taniguichi did NOT say Lelouch was alive thus assuring that no one gets the wrong idea.Tetragrammaton (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better than just eliminating it altogether, but it's still very awkwardly worded, much more so than just adding 'tone'. And it causes the readers to ask themselves "Why would they mention that?" which inevitably will cause confusion. I definitely support us working together to re-word the whole thing though instead of continuing to endlessly duke it out.

I still fail to see where NPOV comes into this at all. There are no points of view here, only facts. I wish you'd stop clinging onto that term. Zero Requiem (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mention NPOV because it is what Wikipedia strives to be; neutral. In regard to this article the problem is/was putting words in Taniguchi's mouth. We can't do that or else it becomes original research or our own point of view. However, we can say what Taniguichi does not say in the article so long as it doesn't put words in his mouth; for example: we can say the he didn't say Lelouch was alive thus harmonizing his statement in Newtype with that of Okouchi. I'll try and reword the line so that it is crystal clear Lelouch is dead and that Taniguichi simply said the ending is open to interpretation. The use of the word Tone is not what the Director said and thus becomes opinion. Therefore the line needs to be reworded.Tetragrammaton (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then you can agree that while Taniguchi did not directly say it, he meant 'tone' and not 'events'? Zero Requiem (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that if we say that Taniguichi said anything that was not in the article we would be lying/giving our own opinion about what he may have meant. Therefore to prevent confusion we must indicate what he didn't say because we know what he did not say in the article with regard to Lelouch. Put another way, if we're honoest about this instead of putting words in Taniguichi's mouth then we create a deterent to any of the "alivers" coming in here and editing this article needlessly. If you leave out Taniguichi they will argue he said the ending was vague and ambiguous, if we add it and lie about it then they can say their interpretation is different then ours and thus they have an argument. You can thank Sunrise for that BTW, they're the ones pushing some of this crap with their Promotional posters and press releases, they're not helping. If we edit this article in a Neutral Point of View and say what Taniguichi did say (the ending was open for interpretation) and what he did not say about Lelouch (ie. that he is alive) then we have a neutral article which makes Wikipedia happy. Thus we can't say how Taniguichi felt, what he implied, or what he meant. As you pointed out, we have to use the facts and the facts are he said the ending was up to the viewer to decide and he did not say Lelouch was alive.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit should work nicely;

With regard to the death of Lelouch Director Goro Taniguchi simply stated that the ending is left for the audience to interpret but clearly did not imply that Lelouch was alive.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's right. Let me work on it some.

So what could Taniguchi have meant by his statement?

1.) "It is up to the viewer to decide whether they think of the ending as 'happy' or 'sad'." (Like Okouchi's statement.)

-or-

2.) "It is up to the viewer to decide what they think happened in the ending."

Let's see, what do we know? We know it's not #2 because it unites with Okouchi's statement and the rest of the canon material. So it must be #1. This is not POV. It's point-and-look common sense. Zero Requiem (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I go back through this interview in Newtype (slowly) I realize that we have to be careful not to put words in his mouth. In the interview there is a point where the interveiwer annoys Taniguichi by asking him again whether Lelouch is alive and Taniguichi tells him "my intent was not for the audience to focus on Lelouch's death but on what happened [came?] afterwards." If we can find a way to add that/reword it then that could act as a clarification since Taniguichi confirms Lelouch death in that statement. We could reword it as follows;

With regard to the death of Lelouch, Director Goro Taniguchi simply stated that the ending [its nature] is left for the audience to interpret but clearly confirmed Lelouch was dead.

Brackets are used for something added by the author/writer of an article. I'm going out on a limb because it's still not NPOV to do that but, maybe we can get away with it here since we would be saying that we are calling it the nature of the ending rather than Taniguichi as a sort of clarification. In that case we could in fact use [its Tone] if you would prefer, but it must be in brackets to indicate it is our addition not his words.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not worded quite right. But wikipedia article aside for a moment. Are we (you and I) now clear that "Tone" is indeed what's being discussed in BOTH interviews, regardless of actually being mentioned? Zero Requiem (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Edit:' actually, going back and actually re-reading both of those interviews, Taniguchi actually DOES say that he likes to think of the ending as a happy one as well. On that issue, Taniguchi and Okouchi say nearly exactly the same thing. So on that note I've united their statements in the article more cohesively. I've mentioned nothing of 'tone' since I believe that it's automatically implied when both of them mention 'happy' and Okouchi mentions 'tragic'. I've also included a new bit from Okouchi's interview which serves as the pretense of Lelouch's death being concrete. Zero Requiem (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]