It may be worth noting (perhaps in the "Without Hell" section) that the original doom games were not entirely consistent with respect to the background of the enemy. E.g. the MAP11 intermission text:
...NOW YOU ARE THE ONLY HUMAN LEFT ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET CANNIBAL MUTATIONS, CARNIVOROUS ALIENS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE YOUR ONLY NEIGHBORS
MESSAGE FROM SPACE: \"SENSORS HAVE LOCATED THE SOURCE OF THE ALIEN INVASION...
...THE ALIEN BASE IS IN THE HEART OF YOUR OWN HOME CITY...
-- Jdowland 09:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, all of that cames from the same source, text found when passing i don't know which level of doom II, however, this refers that humanity saw demons not as demons, but as aliens (they were not aware of uac contacting hell, it was still secret), besides "evil spirits" as the text describes "neighbours" is the translation of the name of cacodemons in greek mythology, or demons. So, that pretty much says the evil spirits are demons from hell. -Anonymous, 25/07/2006, 11:02 (UTC)
That's your interpretation, mine is that the doom plot is a thinly constructed thing rife with inconsistencies. Both your interpretation and mine are still merely speculation. -- 188.8.131.52 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Common interpretations may as well be noted in the article, as long as they are specifically shown as an interpretation or a speculation, and the point of view remains neutral. 184.108.40.206 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- The key word being "common", according to our original research policy... Ryan W 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A modern or futuristic society is hardly likely to jump to the conclusion that a bunch of invading monsters are "demons". Furthermore, creatures from another dimension would be considered aliens anyway, in that they're extra-terrestrial. It's made pretty clear that they're demons from Hell otherwise. 220.127.116.11 14:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the use of the term aliens in the literal sense of extra-terrestrial is very likely given the level of sophistication used in the rest of the game text. I think it's far more likely that the plot text was written in a rush without much thought for consistency. -- 18.104.22.168 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Through the long evolution of this page and its many edits, the article became messy, disorganized and all sort-of lumped together into two or three enormous paragraphs. I took the liberty of making it look more like an article.
This is my first major edit in this Wiki. I am sure I left a few errors in there, and some parts added may seem verbose or otherwise deemed unnecessary. I welcome any improvements!
Importantly, I added a few references to Doom's plot, which as has been noted is frequently inconsistent with itself and is almost always interpreted differently by any two people. I kept this in mind as much as I could and made references to the Doom FAQ and ending text to help solidify my statements. Still, if you feel that I'm jumping to conclusions and need to NPOV-ify the article a bit more, please correct me.
Thanks :) Zack 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good work! I like the article, and the POV is fine throughout the text too, IMO. -- Janizdreg 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The NPOV and restructuring are great! About the "interpretations" issue, I'm no expert myself (not brave enough, I think), but the stuff in this article looks reasonable now. In the ethereal heights of theory, community opinions are carefully distinguished from our opinions by citations, as would occur in a scholarly monograph. However, community opinion is an extremely ephemeral topic, and we haven't really built up a lot of precedent for how to handle it. IMHO few statements here are sufficiently controversial for the distinction to apply anyway. Maybe we won't worry about it quite yet. Ryan W 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)