Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls

From EvaWiki
Revision as of 07:20, 15 April 2009 by Ironfoot (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

I can edit this alright. Just need to sort the info from the Wall of text... and find some source for some of the claims. That Evangelion 2 game for the PS2 maybe? A lot of it seems like speculation to me, but I'm not familiar with that game, or much beyond the series itself. Also... for a bit of context, it might be a good idea to add some basic info on the actual Dead Sea Scrolls. User:Dartz 23:26 IST 26/06/08

Wow, there is a lot of flagrant speculation here. EEWWWWW. As for NGE2, the translation (or something pretending to be one) is right on the site. Anything the show itself mentions should be included. Drawn-out speculation should be segregated to a theory page. There are lots of forum discussions about the SDSS from which to draw content for a theory page, should anyone be insane enough to tackle one (and some that attempts to put the CI stuff into perspective, as well).
Adding info on the real-life DSS would be good. Just make sure to note sources. And sources don't include Wikipedia. --Reichu 17:04, 26 June 2008 (PDT)
I've begun the process of bringing this page up to standards. Please forgive the disorganization.--UrsusArctos 19:13, 28 June 2008 (PDT)

Reorganized much of this mess. It still needs some fine tuning, which I'm still working on... --Ironfoot 23:07, 14 April 2009 (PDT)

I added a flag encouraging the sourcing of statements that need it (using <ref> tags and the reflist template). Also, some of the mentioned stuff is unnecessary (e.g., notes on canonicity of CI is gratuitous in a non-CI article, for example); not everything about the scrolls that's mentioned in the show itself is here. There's a blurb of runaway speculation that is a bit too casual for its own good; not that it's necessary BAD speculation, it's just presented in totally the wrong way. Article does need quite a bit of help. See what you can do, it's appreciated. --Reichu 23:13, 14 April 2009 (PDT)
A lot of the stuff in "Notes" could probably stand to be moved out and developed further, as well. "Notes" has a bad habit of being used as a dumping grounds for whatever people don't feel like incorporating into the actual article text (<-- useful hint for article cleanup in general). --Reichu 23:51, 14 April 2009 (PDT)
Lol, sorry about making over 9000 edits. Kinda funny seeing them all, though I imagine it's probably a nightmare trying to figure out exactly what I did on each one. I have a habit of saving my work frequently and its being reflected here.

I added References throughout the article and got rid of much of the speculation. Think I'll clean up the Notes section next. --Ironfoot 00:20, 15 April 2009 (PDT)