Talk:Stand Alone Complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus'.


Contents

[edit] Redirect

I redirected this to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. I'm not sure why it was changed to the philosophy in the first place...If there's a good reason, then change it back I suppose.--Pyg 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stand Alone Complex is the complex introduced in the series. It is described in the GitS:Philosophy article. There is a For the series, see Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex in case some articles don't link to the right place (they should be corrected, though). Reverting. -- Rcog 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deletion Proposition

Okay, some guy without a Wikipedia username [IP address 132.205.95.25] is the one who put those annoying boxes in this article suggesting deletion. First off: it does belong in a Wikipedia Topic: Fiction >> Anime >> Ghost in Shell: Stand Alone Complex. For this reason I'm getting rid of the box: it does fit into a Wikipedia topic.

As for putting it into the Wikinationary... I don't know. ARBlackwood

It is not an annoying deletion template. It's the template:notability. If I had wanted an annoying deletion template, I would have used PROD. template:prod 132.205.45.148 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)
So i disagree with deleting or moving this original article certainely the best related and documented you can find anywhere concerning SAC theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.126.153.225 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] clean up

I did a little clean up and fixed the introduction. The introduction seemd to be an intro to the series, not the stand alone complex itself. Also, because its the complex that is being described, I felt there was no need for and extraneous information about the series such as its Japanese title.--YGagarin 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on the cleanup, I removed most mention of the plot of the series. Even though this is technically an article about the series, I thought such information was extraneous. - Kalarchis 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that at least a little should be included as to give the user a introduction to what this article is about.--YGagarin 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that's handled quite nicely with the line "The phrase is coined from the Japanese anime series Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex." We could add a line stating that a Stand Alone Complex has never been seen outside of the anime, though I couldn't tell you how true such a statement is. Other than that, I don't think the article needs to be further clarified with examples from the series's plot. We don't want to go around restating the plot of a series on every subpage of that series; I, at least, assume that anyone who wants information on the plot will simply read the main article. However, if you think that brief synopses of the two Complexes will really help the article, I'm willing to put them in. - Kalarchis 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one would be fine for the purpose of an example.--YGagarin 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I added a lot of things today. If anyone would like to expand on any particular concept or has anything to say about any particular section, please help out. Thanks. --lyylyy 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] excised

Moved to discussion from article:

The Wiki incorrectly refrences the time when the term Stand Alone Complex is first referenced (being Episode 26). This is wrong, it is actually referenced in one of the earlyer episodes by Cheif Aramaki after vising the Superintendant General in the Hospital. He names the phenomenon that happens when the Superintendant General has an attempted assanation by multiple simulatanious attackers when Kusanagi asks the Cheif's opinion on what happened. This happens in Episode 6: MEME
Someone had written this in the article itself, so I moved it here.--YGagarin 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You know I vaguely recall the Stand Alone Complex was mentioned earlier than that. I believe it was described with the episode describing the phenomenon and popularization of the laughing man. Laughing Man pranks, a Laughing Man band, and lines of Laughing Man merchandise all manifested as result of the first genuine Laughing Man incident. I believe it was in the exposition of these happenings the S.A.C. was first suggested. 68.48.160.243 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neologism

I edited to fix some of the vocabulary. It's important to note that "stand alone complex" is a neologism, link it to the idea of a "borganism", and clarify the difference between cybernetics and cyberware, etc.--TankRamp 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

As Ned Scott is merging most of the major S.A.C. articles, should this go with that merge? 132.205.95.25

I have suggested it. 70.51.8.73 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully with all the added sections and infos now, it doesn't need to be merged with others any more --lyylyy 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
stop merging things since SAC expand with good materials and original contents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.126.153.225 (talk • contribs) .
Hell no ;-) It's an individual philosophical conceit seperate from the plot and an idea often discussed seperatly from the anime(I even remember being taught about it in class) and needs explanation in depth for people who want to explore it further. Very useful article - keep. 81.152.196.46 00:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, since Stand Alone Complex as a philosophical concept deserves it's own article, shouldn't this one be restructured to be an actual article intead of a redirect with a couple of paragraphs? Also, wouldn't most of the stuff in the Ghost in the Shell philosophy page under 'stand alone complex' go here? --Dragontrapper 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] terms?

If this term exists as an article, why doesn't "Ghost" also exist? 70.51.11.34 05:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there's already a large section on it in the main article. - Kalarchis 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Also wasn't "Ghost" kind of an improper translation for spirit or soul? Kind of like how they keep saying "barrier", when what they mean is firewall? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.160.243 (talk • contribs) .
ghost was used to avoid religious conotations associated with souls, it's used in the same way as the german Geist meaning, mind, spirit or soul. No real need for another article because it's a term that refers to an already concept of soul/mind/spirit etc. that is established in articles under a different name; whereas SAC is a (more)unique concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] tachikoma sacrifice stand alone complex on it's own

based on the assumptions and observations made by this article wouldn't it in fact also represent a team stand alone complex in relation to the tachikomas sacrificing their AI satelite to prevent the nuclear attack. They demonstrated not only the ability to operate independently of a leader, but with a common aim for the organization (section9) thus it would seem that although a computer generated AI regulated by a cenbtral server (similar to the kuza hub) the tachikomas reached in a sense the same level as the individual eleven and other stand alones. However their aim was directed at the people that made it possible for their experiences to remain individualized per AI. However I would like to discuss this in more depth since I have noticed no one has previously put this forward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.50.238.181 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know. In fact I'm not even sure the Individual11 qualifies as a Stand Alone, since you mention it. The idea of a S.A.C. is that people operating on their own without any direct interaction should take seemingly ideosyncratic yet none-the-less very similar courses of action.
The idea being that some wide-spread environmental stimuli have compelled a specific behavioral pattern repeated between individuals. It's actually a very deterministic concept, that a series of events that one would expect different people to react differently to, should instead be responded to in a computerised input-output fashion. As such it's arguable that such phenomena would be much more characteristic of a cyberized world such as the Major's.
It's also worth distinguishing S.A.C. from mob mentality. A mob through -perhaps base- communication and self-organization forms itself into it's own entity. A S.A.C. remains a collection of independantly operating individuals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.160.243 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Real word examples?

Is there any link towards the stand alone complexes in the show, and the internet and society today? I think a great deal could be addedon this, and I'm only putting it out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.201.193 (talk • contribs) .

Al-Qaida, obviously. MyTwoCents 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
/b/. -Anonymous

Galicia (Spain), Summer 2006. In one week, more than 150 fire focus appear on the territory, caused by different people and with different methods, with no apparent relationship between themselves. Big media attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.39.211.149 (talk • contribs) .

The recent French race riots would be a fairly good example IMO, it's definately got the benifit of being widespread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.124.131 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Why is Shirow Masamune not mentioned?

Are we really sure this was Kamiyama's or Oshii's idea? I mean, I don't know, maybe it was. Assuming that Shirow was the source of every idea in the Ghost in the Shell series is a little like supposing that Josef Stalin was responsible for everything in the Soviet Union. I'm just a bit surprised with Ghost in the Shell being Shirow's baby and all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.160.243 (talk • contribs) .

Shotaro Suga,Scriptwriter ( wrote scripts for Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Solid State Society (S.S.S.) along with the director Kenji Kamiyama and Yoshiki Sakurai )
"I always think of Kamiyama-san when I hear the title S.A.C. It started with Kamiyama-san and ends with Kamiyama-san."
he reffers of course to Kenji Kamiyama [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.126.153.225 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks. That does clear that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.160.243 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Article Deletion and Redirect

As far as I can tell, Ned Scott unilaterally deleted and redirected this article to the main Ghost in the Shell article without any discussion, let alone sane reason. This borders on vandalism. I'm reverting to state prior to deletion. --LocusSolus 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree with LocusSolus
Ned Scott delete lot of things ... concerning SAC and now SSS 82.126.153.225
As Ned Scott put it in his edit summary, "redirecting. it's been tagged as OR for months and still not single reference". He was referring to the OR tag between the article title and foreword. This seems to be a standardized template, which yes has been there quite accurately for months without comment or discussion.
(This should not be confused with the below discussion on notability. A particularly paranoid side of me wonders if the contributor who was dissatisfied with the rejection of the notability template simply looked for another rationalization for purging the article. Maybe, maybe not. If so, then so what if they are?)
The templated was posted by a contributor Kunzite. I do not know if this is a previous incarnation of Ned Scott, and again so what if it is? Even if it were, it's not a clear-cut case of sock-puppetry.
Kunzite did post the template somewhat unilaterally, failing to broach it in the discussion section. It seems to me this amounts to a failure on both sides. Kunzite, and later Ned Scott should have opened up a dialogue, not as far as they were in any way required to do so, but as far as I think this incident could have been avoided. Also someone should have responded to the template rather than paying it no mind whatsoever, as yes most of us are all guilty of doing from time to time. (There is a short and abortive discussion farther down speculating on Ned's crusade to merge GitS articles. I don't think that quites satisfies the criteria of a discussion on the template.)
I'm actually not absolutely certain what Kunzite wanted when he placed the template. Nor am I certain what would satisfy Ned Scott. It may just be that they think that if one is going to have an article on a subject of human behavior or philosophy it should be sourced from actual authoritative books on such rather than from an anime. As far I'm concerned that's not a valid argument simply because there's no rule establishing the superiority of one source over the other. And indeed much of wikipedia would be inappropriate then. (Although there is certainly a movement within wikipedia that either believes that, or at least feels wikipedia should be less of an inane pop culture shrine.)
It gets trickier with the elaboration on the subject. Most of the arguments made do not have a clear basis in the anime, or anywhere else for that matter. Really these amount to little more than fan speculations. On the one hand it's somewhat of a hard standard to live up to, as I kind of doubt anyone is going to do a thesis on S.A.C. appearing in an important psych' journal.
Although needless to say if someone has or does do that, this article should refer to said thesis preferably with large comprehensive quotes, partly for novelty's sake, but mostly because I believe such a contribution would be a valuable addition to the article, if for being an actual expert analysis if nothing else.
This brings me to the subject of the justification for grounding the arguments with references. Someone stumbling on the article may come to the conclusion that they are reading of a real psych or philosophical concept. This is not an invalid concern. We must not allow inane prattlings of fan-boys to be mistaken for the declarations of learned men. However, I believe this issue could easily be resolved with a disclaimer in bold print that the S.A.C. is not -or perhaps is not yet- a concept indoctrinated into the knowledge of science.
Ned Scott may also be dissatisfied with japanese, or other national, philosophers and academics referred to obscurely and half-heartedly in the article. I'm not sure what could be done about this beyond getting better links for them.
Otherwise I have to write that in my opinion a redirect seems inappropriate to me. This is more than merely yet another GitS article in need of a merge. It, if you'll pardon the choice of words, stands alone on its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.160.243 (talk • contribs) .
Heh. I just noticed this discussion today. The article was redirected because it contains nothing but original research, which is a violation of a core (and completely not-optional) policy called Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter if the article is true, popular, or if I like it or not. Placing the OR template is a way to bring attention to the issue incase someone can find an outside source for what is being said here. Since no source was found in the long time the template was placed, the "grace period" had gone on long enough, and I redirected. Other articles already note the concept of SAC, and this article is not needed for that. Instead, it uses fan speculation as a way to write more about this topic. Fan speculation is clearly original research, and any info that wasn't is on other articles. There is no need for this article. This does not require discussion as it was done per a policy.
As far as other things that are being said here, I find the speculation about me very funny. The idea that deleting crappy little fancruft articles and merging stubs to make stronger articles is bad.. is insane. I love GITS, and I hate to see it so horribly represented by badly written, crap-filled articles. I find it funny that people assume you are "against" something because you use words like "merge" and "delete". This is not a negative process, at all, and is helping to make all the GITS articles better.
You might also want to read WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as well as discussions and recommendations by WP:ANIME. -- Ned Scott 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, judging by this respnse, clearly the stuff that you've unilaterally binned was so crappy that no-one misses it. I'm sure deleting this and not integrating any of it into the main article will make it better. As the comment before Ned Scott's says, it's going to be virtually impossible to reference this to any academic standard, given the scarcity of actual referable articles out there; this seems more like informed criticism than anything. Perhaps you ought to come to terms with the fact that Wikipedia is NOT regarded by anyone sensible as a reliable source of concrete fact, and never will be, especially not if people keep running around viciously pruning. On the other hand, I and many others come here for precisely this sort of interpretational information. With this in mind perhaps it would be better to keep the interesting speculation rather than pointlessly destroying all that hard work simply because you're pretending to academic credibility. I'm not going to revert this, at least for now, but I for one don't think it's necessary to destroy it. YourMessageHere 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What about WP:BOLD? I agree that this article should get rid of the speculation and put more clearly that "Stand Alone Complex" is a concept of the anime and not a "real" philosophical concept. Personally, I think that such an article has its place on WP as much as an article on Motoko Kusanagi. You don't delete the later just because the major wasn't a real person! And moreover, the reason normal people can't delete pages is because deletion is a sensitive topic. Hence the usual "nomination for deletion" process. Just because you found a clever way to bypass it doesn't mean you can do what you want. Stop blanking the page please. Rcog 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The topic has a place here on Wikipedia, but it doesn't have to be in the form of it's own article. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, this would let us keep all the good stuff, but discourage people "fluffing" the topic with original research, bad writing, etc, to make it a longer article. Oh, and it is acceptable to reference anime. I work mostly on anime articles, and I don't have a problem with covering fictional topics. We should not look at things getting their own articles as a sign of importance. It's simply a matter of information organization. Far more important topics share an article with other topics, and there are some less important topics with their own article. This is a case where we don't need to split this topic off to its own article, because of organizational methods, not importance or because someone doesn't like the topic. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned if you look at the top of this page you may note it reads "The result of the discussion was keep." You may think No it wasn't the result of the discussion was "No consensus". Yomangani wrote so. Yeah he did. And if you check the edit history of this discussion he wrote so in that template also. And, the template puts that as Keep. There's a reason for that, in addition to No consensus not being what you can take to mean Delete.

Yomangani did also write "it appears that merging/redirecting would be the best idea, but no firm target has been identified". That's hardly a statement of conviction, although yes more for the uncertainty of how to proceed than anything else. But most importantly of all he wrote "A discussion on the talk page would be a good way to go". I think you made a big mistake by apparently either considering that elective, or that the previous discussion satisfied Yomangani's call for a discussion. It was not, and it did not.

At the very least, the discussion for deletion should rather than being considered a blank check, a permission, or a marque for you to blank the article, should instead be considered step one in a cooperative process. Maybe your thinking forget that I'll never get any sort of cooperation from this crowd. I would invite you to take a more gracious appraisal of your fellow man.

A not invalid concern of Yomangani's and of mine as well is where should the article redirect to. You have chosen the GitS: SAC article. Yet, I see no sections in that article describing the S.A.C. This of course can be fixed. But I think that if we do that, at least it should start with a discussion here. In particular, a discussion would be necessary to decide what summary of the old article should be kept and what is disposable "fluff". And, I note that you've made no effort to broach this subject. 68.48.160.243 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not everything has to be discussed on Wikipedia. It's very obvious that this shouldn't be it's own (pardon the pun) stand alone article. The article isn't deleted, and we can easily get content off of it if we need to. While there might not have been a consensus on what to do, I think it stands to reason that this layout is not desired. This is no different than moving a section of an article to the talk page in order to work on it, since it's current form isn't really.. article worthy. There's no reason we have to display a poor article in order to discuss where it will redirect to, or how we might include content on another article. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like the opinion of others (at least some registered users) on the issue. I don't think that the multiple dialogue are relevant and also think that we could put links to the more relevant article (Jean Baudrillard, memes, the japanese philosopher that I forgot the name, etc.) So my question is: Could we fit the relevant content of the former article into the Ghost in the Shell (philosophy)#Stand Alone Complex section or should we take actions against User:Ned Scott for unilateral actions/vandalism? Rcog 04:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? There is no action you can take, as what I've done is not vandalism nor against any policy (if you don't believe me then take it up with WP:AN). Just because you don't agree with what I'm doing doesn't mean you get to call me a vandal. The problem here is that people make the assumption that only one option works. Once we get Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex up to speed, I doubt anyone will have any objections. Rather than trying to cling to that crap article, lets actually improve the core ones. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Please Ned there is no consensus see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stand Alone Complex so don't delete or redirect unilateraly ! --82.126.131.25 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus to delete, that is all. Many people wanted to redirect or merge. I think it's fair to say that most did not want things to "stay the same". Do you disagree with where the redirect points to? Or do you think we should merge more content to another article? We can do those things without making this an article. -- Ned Scott 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"The article contains mostly original research, and was tagged with the OR tag for a while, and received no references or notable improvement".That's WRONG since the article was under RECENT IMPROVEMENTS.It seems to me you don't care about the NO CONSENSUS.Yes i disagree and considers you simply ignore others point of view and want to delete it since the beginning.Improve first redirect later if needed is my opinion PEACE --82.126.131.25 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Beginning to understand edit wars now? In the eyes of the user, redirection = deletion. You said "Not everything has to be discussed on Wikipedia" yet, you may learn that a lot of things needs to be. When you decided to act, you also took the responsibility to justify your action. I had a similar opinion to yours, yet I still maintain that the means were wrong. And yes, one can ask for arbitration (or user ban, or article protection) in an edit war case, and you are never in a confortable position when you acted on your own, without the support of the community. Try to be more constructive this time. No hard feelings.

Message to the frustrated users: stop complaining and expand the section in GitS:Philosophy until it deserves its own article (if it ever does). -- Rcog 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What a waste of time ...In fact i agree with you Rcog ...except that it as nothing to do with GitS:Philosophy--82.126.131.25 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Not every little detail needs to be discussed, but there was discussion about GitS article revamps and the AfD, where most people wanted to merge or redirect. It's fair to say that I'm not the only one who thinks this shouldn't be it's own article. It's not my job to explain that to you and one anon because you guys don't understand. I can attempt a reasonable explanation, which I did, but there's only so much one can do before moving on. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Your job is either to explain or to revert the edits to this page for the next years. If you chose the hard way, it's up to you. I merely tried to make you a little more open minded.
Regarding comment by 82.126.131.25, the GitS:Philosophy is composed of the implications of concepts brought forth in GitS. A tachikoma is not a branch of philosophy, yet it brings questions, hence the corresponding section. The SAC in itself is just an english buzzword that Kamiyama created and that eventually came to represent concepts better known under other names. --Rcog 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Ned Scott revert and blank again and again AND AGAIN and because he will always wipe without merging and WITHOUT CONSENSUS nor DISCUSSION i will stop any action now in edition.At least i add a link to talk:Stand Alone Complex in GitS Philosophy Talk Page ( where Ned Scott acts like usual pleading for OR without linking any related discussion) and i finally copy/paste the content in the so called Philosophy Page.Now wait and see the upcoming disaster.

Good Luck ! --82.126.186.178 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of things like guidelines is so that we don't have to have the same discussion over and over again. We don't have to re-invent the wheel, especially with such a simple and non-controversial action as this. It's been very clear on this talk page that people jumped to conclusions about me and my motives. I've tried to explain my reasons, calmly, and showing that these articles will be better organized this way. I don't know why, but the anon user seems convinced that I am a "bad guy", and has done so in a very unreasonable way. I don't need to spend my time explaining myself to rude editors such as him. This is a no-brainer redirect, and if you want a grand discussion with lots of people who agree, I can do that easily, but I didn't think it was worth anyone's time. This situation is very common, in that when some inexperienced editors see something being redirected, deleted, or otherwise, they automatically think something bad is happening without truly considering the situation. I've tried and failed to explain it to this user in the past, and it's no longer worth the effort. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Digging the complex "Stand Alone" thing was under way ( see history ) because it refers to something not linked to GitS only ( reason why you kill the thing... ) and I actually found some new cross references under Meme, Baudrillard and some japanese wiki pages.Sorry beeing rude but i really don't care about flaming now.I have enough wasting my time with your narrow view that's all.Please just remember you are not alone.PEACE {eof} --82.126.247.147 01:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Edit because of a lie

Wikipedia does have moderators, so I changed :

It might be viewed that all society is but a single stand alone complex. Wikipedia could also be viewed as one, as there is no moderation by administrators; it is trust in (the contributions of) others that keeps this site succesful.

to

It might be viewed that all society is but a single stand alone complex. Wikipedia could also be viewed as one, it is trust in (the contributions of) others that keeps this site succesful. We do have mods, otherwise we would not be able to ban people who edit the wiki with garbage. --WngLdr34 17:52 10 November 2006 (EST)WngLdr34 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Delete this please!

I agree that Stand Alone Complex is the title of the series but it is also a philosophy (or a re-named philosophy) that is put forward. As I still haven't got my head around the philosophy, I came to this article to try and help my sort it out. I would rather have input from others rather than outright deletion. At the very least, good cross-refencing and placement elsewhere. There's my two cents. 70.49.15.68 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:NOR. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source.Some references were added recently before you ask for deletetion.So please explain your OR position.Don't simply redirect without discussion or improvement.--82.126.131.25 05:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S.A.C. and mass hysteria

It occurs to me that Stand Alone Complex could be considered a precondition, a category including, or even synonymous with mass hysteria. Thinking on that it occurs to me that S.A.C. may perhaps even long before the series (although it has been stated here it originated with the director Kamiyama) either have been euphemism for mass hysteria, a rhetorical rationalization for the belief in mass hystia, or something else along those lines. As such there may be previous references to S.A.C. in japanese circles of crypto-psychology.

On the other hand this may be an entirely accidental coincidence. Although I think an exploration of the parallels between the two may still be in order either way. 68.48.160.243 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Crap Ned Scott changed it back. 68.48.160.243 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Whatever some of you think, this page is for those who want to know whats beyond the anime. To see more depper it. I could compare it to Evangelion. Someone did wrote an entire website about the fact that Evangelion is joining the religion, what the ending means, what the moon means in somes episodes. Same thing here, execpt, its going on the philosophical and theriocal part. The guy is helping us to feed our mind, the creativity of it. Its not only the same thing than this page : [[2]], its going depper and further to explain, in some maners, what it can be related to and the significance of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.157.14 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not saying it's not interesting, or that no one will want to read about it, but things that are "beyond the anime" are mostly original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. This is also covered by a second policy, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia isn't always the best place for those kinds of things. -- Ned Scott 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that..."--82.126.131.25 06:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not limited to just that. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag added

This article has no sources listed and for all any reader could guess it's all original work. It's also listed as a disambig page which is supposed to just list a few sentences pointing readers to another article... not contain any large amount of information. This isn't really a disambig page. It needs to seriously be reworked or deleted. Alatari (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I made it into a true disambig page and put the text into the Ghost in the Shell philosophy section where it flowed into it nicely and is easily accessed thru the disambig link. Hopefully the phrase Stand Alone Complex will get further usage in scholarly circles to attain a full article on it. As for now it doesn't have that kind of support. Alatari (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)