Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV right out of the window

The whole Evangelion section on Wikipedia suffers from this problem. Editors aren't just talking about what happens on screen, they are presenting their opinions on the implications of what happens on screen. Since the implications of anything in this anime are hard to assess, at best, that makes such judgements opinion. Since there's more than one possible conclusion to be drawn from so many things about this anime, the fact that editors frequently draw unwarranted conclusions displays bias. Since I happen to disagree with some of the conclusions drawn, I'd rather not see them in Wikipedia. I don't want to see my own preferred conclusion in Wikipedia either, what I'd like to see is an acknowledgement of plurality. In short, a Neutral Point of View. I've no intentions of getting into the middle of this myself, because I don't have a better version of the text in question to present, but I do ask you to consider whether you are drawing conclusions, rather than stating facts.

Besides, I've been scared off. I posted some changes once, to find them almost instantly reverted, as though they represented vandalism. Whether that was a justified revert or not, I'm not inclined to get involved in Wikipedia again, just yet. Soluzar 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, my primary complain in the peer review was that the articles lacked references. Without references, everything is assumption and/or original research. In this article's case, I believe you can add a {{fact}} template after every sentence you think is original research, or directly add the {{unreferenced}} and {{Original research}} at the top of the article. Please do give Wikipedia a second chance by editing again. Remember to always assume good faith when others do something you don't agree. If your edit is reverted, talk in the article's talk page about why you think your version should not be reverted. If nobody complains after a couple of days, go ahead and do it again. Remember that nobody owns articles, so they can't just keep reverting you without explaining why. If you have any doubts, just drop a line at my talk page. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a lot of opinionated content in the NGE articles, having tons of fact and citation tags throughout each article will make them hard to read and look really bad. Something that might not be a bad idea is to put disclaimers in each section that contains a lot of obviously POV and/or opinionated content and limit the fact and citation templates to the info that screams out for the appropriate tag until such time as that material can be removed or edited. Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I usually find the intrusive citation tags to work better than the article or sections tag. Users are more likely to try to get the citations required by the citation tags than the ones at the top of the article. In example, if you add something, and there is already a [[tl|unreferenced}} tag at the top of the article, nothing happens. However, if someone adds a sentence, and immediately after someone else adds a citation tag for that statement, either the user references his addition, or the addition is removed after a week or so. -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

No fair use rationales
No references
Wild links (these -> 1)
Some possible problems with tenses

The content looks good, but it needs to be referenced. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is needing a fair use rationale? I checked the images, and aside from the note about resizing the pic of the characters, all of the images have fair use templates associated with them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No image has a fair use rationale. -- ReyBrujo 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Figured out what is being asked for...if no one else gets to this and I have time, I'll see what I can do about it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on the tense issues but it's tough enough to navigate tenses in Evangelion to begin with and the article isn't any better nor is it easy ot make it any better. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research

As far as I can tell, the first four paragraphs of the "Influences" section are blatant violations of WP:NOR. Has anyone of notability ever suggested the ideas they discuss? If not, they need to be removed. -- Schaefer (Talk) 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The section Psychology, psychoanalytic theory, and philosophy is entirely unattributed as well. Unless someone notable has suggested and written about this Eva-Freud connection whose works can be cited with proper attribution, this section needs to be removed in accordance with WP:NOR -- Schaefer (Talk) 17:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add "citation needed" tags to Psych/Psych/Phil for now. Enough of it is blatantly obvious in the series itself that I'm sure someone has written about it. If it isn't cited after a month or two it should be removed. -HKMARKS 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted, some references in the series are very obvious, but the conclusions some draw from those references diplay an ignorance of the history of the referred ideas. A perfect example is how existential philosophy saturates the series, and yet a reference to say, Thanatos or ego is attributed to Freud when Hegel and Sartre both use the term as well, and Sartre in an explicitly anti-Freudian critique in advancement of existential psychoanalysis (the last section of Being and Nothingness). I think a good idea might be a polite historical summary of certain concepts referenced in the series without interpreting what correllates to what specifically in the series, which would be tedious and subjective. I contributed the paragraph on Fichtean/Hegelian instrumentality, which I think just gives a historical context for the reader. I think a similar sort of basic historical framing of Sartre and Kierkegaards existentialism and the differences from Freudian theory of mental mechanisms would be far better than referencing a dozen papers written about the same subjects, all with their own private meanings added. It may require collaboration to get it all right, but that is just my own suggestion. -StaticAge 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Freud is strongly associated with the terms as related to psychosexual development, which is why he's credited. Psychosexual development is a major theme of the series. I'm really not sure about the Sartre and Hegel references in this article. Historical context is only important if the series references it-- did Anno get any ideas right from them, or just indirectly through Freud & psychoanalysis? They really need to be connected directly to NGE. As is, they seem to be just randomly thrown in. I almost deleted them but I thought I'd ask for their importance first, hence the {{importance}} tag. -HKMARKS 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Context of the series would explain why Sartre is important. The plot of the series is not to provide Shinji the excuse to say "I cant" ala Freudian drives, but to define himself by his own choices, which is Sartrean existentialism (for a really brief summary, the wiki article on existentialism might frame why this context is important given the aim of the series.) As for Hegel, there was a reason Anno said to use to word "instrumentality" instead of "completion" and that is that it references a concept born out of German Idealism outlined by Hegel and Fichte which both Sartre and Kierkegaard's philosophies were reactions against. In other words, the claim on the Instrumentality page is entirely wrong- the invention of the term was established long before Cordwainer Smith by German philosophers for a sort of cultural evolution towards the Absolute, specifically attacked by Kierkegaard and Sartre in the name of individual identity (who felt that personal identity would be swallowed up by such an idea)- one of the most important themes of the show.-StaticAge 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's put it this way. First: if someone doesn't know anything about existentialism (like me, majored in psych), and is not going to read the article on it, where does the show specifically and explicitly reference them? What concepts, exactly, does it reference? Second: who says so? What's the proof?

Look, I agree that it is obvious that Freud is being referred to, but my point is within what context? Clearly, existentialism also runs through the whole series. Practically any paper written about the series makes mention of that fact. Sartre addresses Freud head on in his work, that is also a fact. To me, it seems obvious why both should be mentioned when psychotherapy is being discussed, not alone, but in reference to Eva. "Sartre emphatically rejects the idea advanced by Freud that certain mental events have unconscious causes. Emotions, he says, are not outside the control of our wills, if one is sad it is because one chooses to be sad; we are responsible for our emotions; we are, ultimately, responsible for our own behaviour. According to Sartre, man is free and being conscious of this fact, can bring on pain, or anguish; and typically we try to avoid the consciousness of our own freedom."- [1] -StaticAge 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference gives Smith's book as Anno's source for the term "Instrumentality" in the translation (I don't know if it's right or not) but no reference (that we have) says that he ever read Hegel or Fichte or Sartre. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying prove it. -HKMARKS 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference you point to is Carl Horn making the claim it refers to that book (which is a literary reference anyway, and not philosophy). Anno says that he was influenced by Clarke's book and, like I said, insisted on the word "instrumentality" in translation, but nowhere is the connection made by Anno himself that he was referring to Cordwainer Smith- that was Carl Horn's claim. The Instrumentality of Smith is unearthing man's past history, Fichte's Instrumentality (adopted by Schelling and incorporated into Hegel's Absolute Idea) is an evolution of mankind into a collective. Which reference fits the story told by Anno? Check this paper as an original source why Hegel and Sarte and Kierkegaard are important in context with the Instrumentality Project: [2] . Even if no one wants to read about certain philosophies, the series still refers to them.-StaticAge 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, did a big edit to the Philosophy section. Added Arthur C. Clarke ref; kept Cordwainer Smith ref as it had as much support as any of the others; trimmed the philosophers down to just Hegel and Sartre, because the refs barely mentioned the rest, and tried to tie in the philosophy directly to the series. Do I ever hate philosophy jargon. Wow. I'd forgotten. -HKMARKS 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was working on a summary to do the same thing (tie in the philosophy to the series). Unfortunately, unless you do philosophy, a dry explanation may not suffice, as you had pointed out last week. I posted my own revisement, which I believe makes it understandable, but it is longer than just concise historical framing.StaticAge 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also as I mentioned below: "For the DVD commentary for Death and Rebirth/End of Eva, they got some guy who had done a lot of analysis of NGE's symbols to explain many of them. I have no idea who he was or how to do it, but the commentary track should probably be cited as a source." It points out many of the symbols, and I have a feeling it was used as an unattributed source. -HKMARKS 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also added ((fact)) tags to the "religion" section, for parts that are not merely explanations of the allusions. - HKMARKS 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you really have to put in ((fact)) tags for ALL the statements? I mean if you watch the episodes, I think it's bleeding obvious you see images of crosses - ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_(Neon_Genesis_Evangelion)#Lilith. The Lance of Longinus hardens the fact that it is a Christian reference. I also believe there were references in the dialogue in the series that the EVAs came from the first Angel, Adam, or had implements from it (can someone confirm this?). And it's well known in Christianity that Eve was created from Adam's rib. Take a good look at your edits, and really determine whether something needs the tag or not. I'm removing the tag for the cross statement. -- Permafrost 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than clutter a whole section with fact tags, if a section contains many disputed statements, etiquette/best practice is to (a) mark the whole section as disputed, unsourced, whatever, and (b) discuss specifics on the talk page. Avt tor 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions

The intro says "Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion?) is a controversial and highly popular Japanese animated television series," however there is no controvery section and any reference to why it was controversial is shallow at best so either that wording should be changed or good info should be added about it, same with it being popular and this has to be real sourced info not opinion. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. At least it requieres a reference. Or a section that says why its controversial. I can see why it can be controversial, but I haven't read anywhere about that being an issue in NGE. --Guille2015 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

goofs

In episode 19, Shinji enters unit 01 in his normal school clothes, but in episode 20 his plug suit is seen floating in his absence. this was verified watching the Platinum collection, just in case there may be differences.

--Freelancepolice 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that myself. I always considered episode 19-20 my fav episodes so I pretty much caught it around my second viewing, but I'm not 100% if it was an accident of if there was some symbolism behind it. What do you think? It wouldn't be a suprise if it was actually a screw up, but I don't really think that the animators could miss such a major mistake. Ironstove 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure, but that kind of mistake happens all the time (although it's more common in film than animation). Knowing NGE maybe it was intentional... or maybe just couldn't afford to fix it. - HKMARKS 02:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While there may have been some symbolism to it, the event as depicted in the manga (which was made after the anime) shows Shinji's street clothes exiting the pod without him. Considering that, I'd say it's just a goof. >> DesireCampbell 24.222.232.225 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While most likely a goof, there is still the posibility that there is a more metaphysical explanation behind it, an idea that is explored in an article found here: http://articles.theotaku.com/view.php?action=retrieve&id=1178. I think it would be best for me to leave it to someone else to decide whether or not these ideas or even the article should be mentioned/linked on the Eva page, since, well, I wrote the article, and I'm really not prepared to make claims about the validity of my own ideas! Wiki advises people to be bold, but I'm afraid I'm not quite THAT bold. Lithiumflower 02:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was intentional. The name of the chapter "kokoro no katachi, hito no katachi" means "the form of the soul is the form of the man (meaning the body)". That plug-suit appears again in episodde 26 (TV) where Shinji says "Eva is what I am". The significance is that Shinji is not an individual but the Eva pilot that the others want him to be. 200.45.167.6 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC) During the 400 % sinchronization inside the Eva, Shinji experiences a little "Complementation process" with his mother, so he loses the form of his body (like in the final episode during the Third impact), and his soul still in the Eva "chooses" what form to show to the others.

If you wan't to say that it was intentional (as if making mistakes like this had any profound significance), prove it please.

"so he loses the form of his body (like in the final episode during the Third impact), and his soul still in the Eva "chooses" what form to show to the others.": he just turned into LCL, or simply dissolved in it. Folken de Fanel 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to prove it was a mistake. 200.43.35.216 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistake, so you have to prove it wasn't. Folken de Fanel 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about finding a place where you can just mention the facts? He went in with street clothes. The next episode, the plug suit is floating there. Then say how the manga, which came out later, explained it. You don't need to call it a goof. The reader will figure it out.--GunnarRene 11:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anno made the script of the tv series, Sadamoto made the script of the manga. Sadamoto said the manga was his own interpretation of the series, so it is not a reference. The next episode, the plug suit is floating there, until Shinji comes back. That image of the plug suit floating inside the entry plug is shopwn again in the episode 26, during the Complementation process: 200.43.74.233 12:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

- This is... - Me! - It's the form of me that I show to others. - It's the symbol that is me. - So is this, and this and this! - Shinji lkari\NSo is this, and this and this! - They're all just things that represent me. - They're all merely what other people recognize as me. - Then, what am l? - "Where do I exist?" - Is this me? - The real me? - The false me?

We're still wainting for proof. Folken de Fanel 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are we discussing including this in the article? I don't think that minor continuity errors are very interesting for this article, which is rather large allready. Since this is not a general NGE discussion forum (you're welcome to join TrivialBeing, EvaMonkey, or whatever), I'm going to just archive this discussion thread, unless you have good arguments against it. --GunnarRene 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Major edit for organization

I'm doing a big edit to reorganize the page (it may take a couple of days to finish--I promise I'll try not to remove anything that makes sense although I might condense it). This will mainly involve making the plot section reflect the plot-- moving/removing interpretation to other sections; also, removing details that are on other pages, like the meaning of Human Instrumentality Project, etc. The plot will need to be checked over. It's been over two years since I've seen the series, and while I remember it in general some of the specifics are fuzzy. So please, someone, anyone help correct it-- but don't spoil too much, eh? :) --HKMARKS 06:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through the edits in detail, but just glancing through the edits you made, it looks like you did a good job. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, finished phase 2, Characters and Symbolism. Also: For the DVD commentary for Death and Rebirth/End of Eva, they got some guy who had done a lot of analysis of NGE's symbols to explain many of them. I have no idea who he was or how to do it, but the commentary track should probably be cited as a source. -- HKMARKS 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On to phase 3: moving stuff around until the sections are logical, cover roughly one major topic each, and contain most or all of the relevant info on that topic. //\\// I've also suggested a merge on List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media, so drop by over there if you have an opinion on the subject. -- HKMARKS 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, also removed: "The series was under production at the time of the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway on March 20, 1995, and began broadcast about six months after the attack." It seems like it's probably relevant somehow, given the impact that must have had on the national consciousness, but darned if I can find somewhere to put it. - HKMARKS 04:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay! found somewhere to put it. -HKMARKS 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ReDeath

I don't see why ReDeath needs to be merged into the main article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the ReDeath article may be incomplete, but I don't see how that qualifies it for merging. Bigpeteb 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it should stay as its own article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it needs a better plot synopsis by someone who actually saw ReDeath. Erisie 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation notes section

The Other words sub-section belongs in Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary though three of the terms are not in there (Eva, Child, and Angel). If there are no objections I'll add what's currently on the main page for the missing three terms to the glossary page, remove that sub-section add the link to the glossary page to the section, and rename the entire section (while removing the lead in to the section and the title sub-section heading) to Translation notes on the title since I lack originality and can't come up with anything better. --Miss Ethereal 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead-in should be moved to International releases, rather than deleted. Agree on the rest. -HKMARKS 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it... the ADV version was the one released in other English-speaking countries besides the US. (Canada, the UK, etc.) Going to tweak International Releases, I think. -HKMARKS 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been done as per discussion. --Miss Ethereal 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

International releases

The International releases section seems a bit excessive... is it really necessary to have so much detail on past TV broadcasts? There's probably some value there from a historical POV but it looks a little like an old TV Guide as is. -HKMARKS 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking of a way to handle this, and the best idea that I can come up with is moving this section to the List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. It seems like this may belong there. If there are not objections than I'll move it today... or tomorrow. --Miss Ethereal 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. --Miss Ethereal 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anno's "frustration"

It's a popular theory that Anno became frustrated and changed the series ending for that reason, but is there any backup that he was actually frustrated/upset with how things were going or fan response? Or may it just have been creative decisions or other factors? --HKMARKS 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't change the end, the end is shown in the opening sequence and is the same you can find in the opening. What he changed was the references to terrorist groups as in the Aum case.200.45.167.6 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

He changed the end at least 3 times. You don't see the end of the show in the opening sequence. And you know why ? Because the ending was written just a few weeks before the broadcast of the last 2 episodes. There were many changes in Evangelion due to time restrains that you aren't aware of, obviously. Folken de Fanel 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read the lyrics.200.43.35.216 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What lyrics ? Please don't be nonsensical. Anno absolutely didn't thought of the ending before episode 24 was finished. We have proof of that in interviews and various documents.

As I said, we actually have proof of 3 different endings that were not chosen. The first synopsis of the whole series, shown to the sponsors at the very beginning, was completely changed. Then in the middle of the series, Anno came up with an ending that was changed also. Then when it was time to actually produce eps 25 and 26, the original script for 25 was abandonned because it was censored and because they had no way to make it in time. This original script was re-used in the movie Episode 25' : Air.

And please stop harassing people with these comments, if you have no proof it's useless. And anyway, what you're saying is heavily contradictory with what happened in reality. Folken de Fanel 08:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing something, you don't have to be so emotional about it. When I say "the ending" I don't mean the script, I mean the way Evangelion will end (with Shinji deciding the future of the Humanity and making "the good decision". You should explain that difference in the article, because it seems like they didn't know "how it was to end", and not "they didn't know how to make the script". Now I'm reading the ADV english translation of the lyrics and it is not so obvious, so try to look for a more literal translation so you can see it by yourself. 200.43.74.233 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, Anno didn't know "how it was to end". Period. It was said in various interviews and very well documented. Again : "he did not know how the show would end, nor what would become of the characters." Anno said it himself. There's no point in denying Anno's own words.

We also know about 3 different endings that were abandonned : one in the original synopsis, one which came during the middle of the series, and one which was the original script abandonned for time restrains, and re-used in the movies. So no, the ending wasn't know until the very moment were it was time to work on the last 2 eps, in march 96.

And finally, please stop with this nonsense, there's nothing in the opening except "open your wings and fly". Which is typical shonen cliché.

Really, I don't know how you can understand "there'll be a 3rd Impact in which all human souls will be merged together, but Shinji is going to choose the seperation of At-fields instead" when someone says to you:

"Just like the cruel angle, young boy, become a legend[...]soon you'll take flight from the windowsill"

ADV's translation is the best, translated it yourself if you're not satisfied. But keep in mind it's the most accurate.Folken de Fanel 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question - where is the line "soon you'll take flight from the windowsill" in the song? I don't remember that being in the lyrics, unless it's in somewhere in the middle (based on the subtitles in the Platinum Collection DVDs). Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm refering to the Platinum translation, and the line is at 01:13 in the TV-size opening ;) Folken de Fanel 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

wikifying reference

I was going to wikify a few of the references, but there is something about the first one.

written before NGE began being produced by Gainax, as recorded in Neon Genesis Evangelion Volume 1, Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, translated by Fred Burke. August 2003. ISBN 1-56931-294-X

When I look up the ISBN on Amazon.com, this is what they have:

Paperback: 176 pages

Publisher: VIZ Media LLC; 1 edition (December 6, 1998)
Language: English

ISBN: 156931294X

Is the book being referenced a later edition then the one listed on Amazon.com? If so, then what edition is it? And on a similar note, what page(s) did the quote being cited come from? Anyways, here is the markup of the first citation

Sadamoto, Yoshiyuki (2003) [1998]. Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1. translated by Fred Burke (2nd edition? ed.). VIZ Media LLC. pp. ? – ?. ISBN 1-56931-294-X. By the way, Shinji's name came from a friend of mine. Misato's name came from the hero of a manga. The name Ritsuko came from a friend of mine in middle school. Even names that have no bearing on anything actually came from everywhere. Even names that have no bearing on anything actually came from the countless rules that govern these things. It might be fun if someone with free time could research them." Hideaki Ano, from his story treatment "What were we trying to make here? {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |origmonth= ignored (help)

--TheFarix (Talk) 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the ref in, but the ref is definitely in the 1st edition (1998, which I own), and I don't know about the second edition. It sounds like they referenced a later printing of the 1st edition. (Mine was 4th printing, 2000.) Otherwise the ISBN would be different. The pages were 170-171 (It should be the same in all printings of the 1st edition). -HKMARKS 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since the same pages is been referenced twice, I'll just cut the quotes and merge the two citations into one citation. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I'll take a bit of each and make inline quotes; not all of it is relevant anyway. -HKMARKS 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be best for that particluar reference, since you are using it twice. Generally, I dislike long quotes in the Reference section. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've finished wikifying all of the citation. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job :) -HKMARKS 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my refs, I was using my library's copy, so I have no idea when it was printed. The quote about not knowing what he was doing was from the story treatment proper, but the bit about names was in sort of a blurb thing hanging off the story treatment. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

End of eva commentary

Talking with my partner, we realised that the end of eva commentary contains the answers to a number of the {fact}ed points. In particular, "Some felt it was Anno's "revenge" for fan attacks against the original endingcitation needed." is explained. I've yet to get to understand the {cite} template, but more importantly, can we actually use this as a souce? The commentary is by the english production crew and experts not related to the series, but I'm worried that this may still count as primary rather than a secondary source. Thoughts? LinaMishima 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It very depends on what is being cited. {{cite book}} works well for the manga, {{cite web}} is used for web publications, {{cite episode}} is used for citing a specific episode, or {{cite video}} for DVD extras and probably the commentary track, {{cite journal}} is used to cite a magazine, and {{cite press release}} is to cite a press release. You can also use one of the other citation templates found at Category:Citation templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we simply use the images of hate mail (directed against Anno; weren't there death threats as well?) in the movies as a source for those fan attacks? --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were 3 people talking. The translator and Eng. director are primary sources when they say things like "We changed children to child because it sounded weird." The analysis otherwise (mostly by person #3) is a secondary source; it's based on research into the show and its background. They had no part in making the series, only in adapting it for US audiences. The show itself (dialogue, images on screen) is a primary source, as well as interviews or statements by creators. (See "cite video" here.) -HKMARKS 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't worry about using primary sources -- encyclopedias are both secondary and tertiary -- just try not to bring your own interpretations into it. -HKMARKS 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Now I'd better look up how to properly use the cite video template. Oh, and Yey for Amanda Winn Lee (even if the IMDB don't credit her properly for her work in producing the dubbed end of eva). LinaMishima 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I put a reference to this in the character section, but I was unable to fill in all the fields. (Yay rentals.) -HKMARKS 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

Yo, I got rid of the Fan websites sub-section of the External links section... however I didn't know which one to choose (wikipedia guidelines say pick one) so I put three into the misc section of the external links. Can someone go into them and pick one out? Thanks. --Miss Ethereal 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eva Otaku and Eva Monkey seem to both have a lot of transcriptions and translations of official source material (like brochures, the Red Cross Book, scripts, DVD covers, etc.). The Fan-Geek Commentary Project, I didn't have time to look at, but it seems to be what it says, commentary on scenes. -HKMARKS 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eva commentary, whilst the commentaries might be good, appears to be offering torrents of the the dvds - and we're not supposed to link to such content. I wasn't too impressed by Eva Otaku, but Eva Monkey actually looks good and well-updated. LinaMishima 12:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for your help, I've removed the other two fansites and left Eva Monkey on. --Miss Ethereal 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here are the sites that were removed (others were turned into citations, WETA art now links to official WETA site):

The Neon Genesis Evangelion Fan-Geeks Commentary Project
Eva Otaku - The Evangelion Otaku Page
Eva Armageddon (in German)
EvaWiki (in Japanese)

These can still be cited as sources (by linking to specific info on those pages) but should not just be listed in External links. -HKMARKS 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Eva commentary" doesn't offer torrents of the DVDs at all, but instead of now out-of-print CD-ROMs containing screen captures and voice-clips from the series. In the commentary itself, the authors have tried not to show too much copyrighted content, and have provided only low-quality screen captures. Besides, what makes this commentary interesting is that it based on translations of the official episode scripts from Gainax. Folken de Fanel 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Soundtracks - specifically Vox

Eva has a fair few soundtracks availible for it, "OST", "Additions", "Refrain", "Death and Rebirth", "End of Eva" and "Vox". The last one of these deserves special mention, as it's not just a collection of backing music. Infact, I don't know how to describe it - rap interpretation of scenes using the tracks? LinaMishima 12:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like it's on the list of other media associated article LinaMishima 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics

I don't think List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics is useful any longer. I'd like to change it to a cast and crew list. All other topics are in the navbox. --HKMARKS 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot summery problems

I've tagged this section because it is mostly written from an in-universe perspective and then switches to an out-of-universe perspective in the last two paragraphs. The whole thing really needs to written from an out-of-universe perspective per the guidelines at WP:WAF. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote a big chunk of it a while ago because it only gave prelude info (ie, Second Impact), a summary of the end, and a big sourceless analysis, without any actual plot. See: WP:WAF#Exceptions -- to give context to ANYTHING else we say, we have to give a basic overview of what actually happens in the series, and who the players are -- it is really confusing to some people, even after watching it. However, yes, the Plot Summary section needs citations. It should at the very least say:

what episode what events happened in
what episode secrets were revealed in
corroborating secondary source if possible.

That will make it more complete, useful, and reliable. But it should not be removed. (Possibly merge episode guide on List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media into this article..? Eh, maybe not.) -HKMARKS 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've when ahead and copyedited the section to make it more out-of-universe. It can still use more work though, so I'm still leaving the tag on. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

requesting citations

If something lacks citations, rather than just deleting it, please add a {{fact}} (for uncited) or {{betterfact}} (for not very good source) or {{citequote}} (for unsourced quote) or {{verify source}} (for a dubious source). -HKMARKS 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've when through and marked a lot of statements that I think needs a reference cited. Also, the entire section on influences did not have a single reference to back up any claim made in that section. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the current citations mentioned the Oshii/Miyazaki/etc thing. I forget which one. Whoever wrote it just had their reference as an external link. -HKMARKS 01:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

The article says that SEELE as well as Gendo Ikari were interested in bringing about the Instrumentality project, but it also says that they both opposed each other at the core of their plans. I don't understand. --Anon.

As best I understand it, it was a matter of intentions; SEELE wanted to evolve into the next, more superior form of life, without AT fields hurting people, and Gendo just wanted his wife back from the Eva. --maru (talk) contribs 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a general question: In the Religion section, there's a comment about Asuka calling the wall between her and Shinji the "Wall of Jericho." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that she was saying that the doorway between her bedroom and where Shinji was sleeping was inviolate space and was not to be crossed by Shinji under any circumstances, and that's all she was inferring with that description. Is there any documentation that says that that line was intended to have a deeper meaning than what could be inferred from the scene? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese version - 2000 Aquila Fighter?

"2000天鹰战士 (literally 2000 Aquila Fighter)" - Was that an official translation? Aquila isn't really an English word; 天鹰 translates to "heaven/sky hawk" or less literally "Eagle." -HKMARKS 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Childhood's End and Little Boy

The article relating to the Arthur C Clarke Novel Childhood's End makes reference to Neon Genesis, stating that Anno admits he was directly influenced by the novel. Furthermore, it maintains that Xenogears was directly influenced by the same source material, a point which may sort out the influence section. Could somebody sort this out?

Also, Neon Genesis has been prominently featured not only in Takashi Murakami "Little Boy" exhibit, but in the art book Little Boy; The Art of Japan's Exploding Subculture. The cover itself features the image of Shinji flying through space. Does it deserve a mention here? -- Amishexmachina 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Childhood's End, that sounds plausible, but it shouldn't be included until we find out where Anno said that. Re: Little Boy-- I see no reason why not. -HKMARKS 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Childhood's End, it was mentioned in one of the refs we already have. -HKMARKS 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more mention to "Little Boy", or at least better redaction. --Erisie 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More citation and colaborative efforts are required. Trust me, I know.

Yeah, I know I can be an a******. And yeah, I know my oppinion is on the far... EOE side of things, but I still think that what was there. I agree that a colab should be done, and this is why I have asked all of my Eva friends, as well as places where I hang out to fix my chickenscratch. I hope I haven't caused too much of an uproar. I am quite clearly not Wiki material. Anyway, if you can work with me on this, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for being the a** that I am bound to be, and I hope I did this thing right... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarage (talk • contribs) .

I decided to edit your post. I consider civility means to both be civil with others, and with yourself. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human. Learning from them is what makes us different from most of the animals. Just keep it up, edit and discuss, but always with a cool head. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the other editors who worked on this article while it was AMCOTW is going to let unverified POV original research to be reincluded back into the article. There are enough unsourced statements in the article as it is — which needs to be dealt with one way or the other. The last thing we need is a new editor to insist that we include unverified POV original research, even though it is against the three principles of Wikipedia. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

where's the criticism section?

i would be very interested in finding this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.18.2 (talk • contribs)

It's difficult to write one that is well sourced and without going into original research. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It should be possible to stitch something together from DVD reviews. I'm pretty sure that ANN has reviews of the Platinum release, and NYTimes.com returns three hits on a search for "evangelion," and Newtype-USA returns dozens of hits. It's doable. The hardest parts are getting the NT-USA issues and finding the time. The nice thing is that some of these sources should at allude to the controversies surrounding Eva.--Monocrat 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are actually thinking of is critical reception, which isn't exactly the same. Critical reception can be positive or negative, but criticism is always negative.

Incorrect. From critic: "In politics, for instance (as in the phrase "criticism of U.S. foreign policy"), criticism almost exclusively refers to disagreement - while in an academic, artistic, or literary context (as in "criticism of Romantic poetry") it usually refers to the activity of subtle interpretation or analysis."--SeizureDog 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As for finding back issues of Newtype USA, this list can help track most of them down. But I warn you that many Newtype USA articles are mostly puff pieces. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, NT-USA articles definitely tend towards puff, But they're print material, which seems to add some gravitas in FAC, especially for plot summaries or character profiles. :)--Monocrat 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eva-R

Should we add an Eva-R article because I know that Spanish Wikipedia has an article.65.49.214.73 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What's Eva-R? --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This:http://www.eva-r.com/. It's an extensive fanfic and dojin manga.

citation needed links

Many of the "citation needed" links in the article refer to the series itself. For example, when saying that Ikari is machiavellian, do you really need to cite a source that says this? It is apparent from seeing the series. You might consider adding the series as a reference in the article, and listing which episode that was taken from, but it's kind of awkward and self-referential. I just think that {{fact}} templates are used in places here where it's not necessary. Perhaps from somebody who had not seen the series, it might be important to add a source for some of the comments in the article, but it's not something you can directly cite any more than you can cite something that says that Big Bird is yellow and Ernie's face is oblong. It's self-evident. 140.90.208.67 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two kinds of citations: primary (from the book or series themselves) and external from the anime itself (books about the series written by analysts, comments by the director, etc). See here for some more information. If someone added the tags, it is because he does not know from where the statement came, and it is best to cite it instead of deleting them, otherwise we are failing at what we are supposed to do: inform the user. -- ReyBrujo 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How do we make a citation about a dialogue line in an episode ? Do we have to make a reference to the episode/DVD and then quote the line ? Folken de Fanel 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing quite so complicated. You can say, for instance, "In episode 14, Ritsuko called Gendo machiavellian" (don't quote ME on that, I just made that up). You don't have to go to elaborate details; different releases have different episodes, some people saw it on TV... but the episode numbers are all the same. -HKMarks 13:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting facts

I was thinking that there should be a separate trivia section with more interesting facts from the show. Like the reference to DHL courier in the episode where Asuka moves in or the name of the battleships are based on works of Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.194.166 (talk • contribs)

A few things to consider before doing so:

Before adding trivia, make sure it's in the right place. For example if it's trivia about Asuka, put it in the Asuka Langley Soryu article.
Make sure it's actually interesting. A real-life courier delivering Asuka's stuff? Not interesting.
Make sure it's notable.
Make sure it's verifiable -- there has to be a source, especially if you're saying what something means or refers to.

-HKMarks 04:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

Well, after a month or so of removing speculation, it's creeping back in. So.

We need sources for the arguments on what End of Evangelion meant. They exist, I'm sure. Go find 'em, someone, please. One source for "it's two perspectives on the same story" and one for "Two totally different stories." Oh, and one for "Anno thirsted for revenge on the fans," while we're at it.
Whoever added the {{Speculation}} tag, please be more specific.
A good deal of the symbolism discussion should be moved to other pages.
The philosophy section is excessively long and some of it violates WP:NOR.

-HKMarks 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First Impact and what happened to Adam

Alright, so as not to get into an edit war: There's a conflict between the information on what happened to Adam to instigate First Contact between this article and the Angels article. My edits to the page were to give the same information in both articles, namely that the Lance was used in the experiment and that Adam was reduced to an embryo. Did Adam actually self-destruct, as Folken's edits say, or did it just release a titanic amount of energy in the experiment? Either way, this article and the Angel article need to say the same thing regarding this for clarity. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Classified Informations" from the PS2 game say that it self-destructed due to its S2 organ artificially going overdrive, and that it degenerated...Yes, both.

The only information about the Lance we have is that the Katsuragi Team attemped to seal Adam again using the Lance but of course it didn't work...We don't know yet if the Lance played a part in the contact experiment itself... Folken de Fanel 10:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the PS2 game considered canon? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the contact with the Lance simply woke Adam up, and the research team reduced him down in order to stop Second Impact from being more like a "bad" Third Impact (end of the world). I think this is stated explicitly later in the series, that the humans initiated Second Impact as a last resort to keep Adam from destroying humanity. Also, in the director's cuts, there's a grainy security camera sequence with a voice narrating the Lance-Adam contact experiment moment-by-moment, and when they make contact is when Adam wakes up. Where in the series do they say the Lance was used to reduce him down to an embryo instead of just waking him up? I'm fairly sure that he was reduced using something built around Dr. Katsuragi's S2 theory, though I can't recall where in the series they say this. Either way, the Red Cross Book says Second Impact was the result of the humans reducing Adam to an embryo, not of anything Adam did. I haven't played the PS2 game, but perhaps Adam self-destructing was just a cover-up story given to Nerv employees, like what Ristuko tells Shinji early in the series when she explains that Second Impact wasn't a meteor but doesn't admit that the research team was responsible for it. Having a second cover-up story for lower-ranking Nerv employees is also suggested by Misato being so angry in EoE when she starts reading the secret documents on Second Impact. -- Schaefer (Talk) 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no cover-up stories in documents like movie programs. There are cover stories in the world of Eva itself, but when the creators of the show give us information outside the TV series, it can't be "cover-story" because we're not characters inside the Eva world.

Also, the PS2 game is canon (well, more precisely, we're talking about the extras called "Classified Information"), it was supervised by Anno, who helped to write the CI.

There's no precise details about 2nd Impact in the series or the external documents. We have only some pieces of the puzzle...

1) In the TV series, we're told in ep 21'that the Lance was brought in Antartica and we understand that it will somehow be needed where Adam is, probably. We are told nothing concrete about it's actual use, but during the incident, the Lance was mentionned ("pull it back !") In ep 23, Ritsuko doesn't tell much except that "humans found a god and tried to make it theirs. They were punished and the god vanished completely".

2) In the movie, Misato says that "they" initiated 2nd Impact on purpose, in order to "minimize the damage by returning Adam to an egg before the other Angels awoke." "They" of course means Gendo and Keel, because they knew what was going to happen and that's why they left 2 days before the experiment. The men of the Katsuragi Team of course knew nothing about it, they certainly did not commit suicide.

And yes "egg" as in "egg cell", because the "embryonic state" in Evaotaku's translations wasn't a good choice of word (despite the overall accuracy of the translations).

3) In the Red Cross Book we're told that Adam was reduced to an egg after being awakened with the S2 Theory, and that 2nd I was caused by SEELE and Gendo's attempt to reduce Adam to an egg.

4) In the Classified Information, we're told that the Katsuragi Team experimented their S2 Theory on Adam, and awakened it. They tried to re-seal Adam using the Lance, but it didn't work. Instead, it's S2 organ went artificially out of control (was this Keel's and Gendo's doing ?), consequently Adam blew up, and in the process was "degenerated" (= "reduce to an egg").

I don't think there's any contradiction in all this...The "embryonic state" seems to be in fact the embryo Kaji gives to Gendo in ep 8, which was apparently regenerated from the egg found in Antartica.

Folken de Fanel 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Inane Philosophy Section

I'm sorry, but the entire Philosophy section needs to be removed/replaced with something sensible. As it is, it reads like a freshman philosophy paper which tried to vaguely connect quotes in the show to various philosophers. This is NOT the place for making speculation and theories about the existential literary background of the show (since it's far more inane than that).

Example: "Søren Kierkegaard criticized Hegel's theory, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favor of the whole unity. He writes:"

How on earth is a lecture existential debate from the 19th century remotely relevant here? SpeedyMuffin 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kierkegaard is vaguely relevant because an episode was named after a book he wrote, but I strongly agree, the section is too long and only of very limited relevance. --HKMarks 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is that the philosophy explains what is going on. Many people are confused by what happens in the instrumentality project. If anyone is familiar with Sartre and Kiekegaard, the allusions made in the series are unmistakable, and if one is familiar with their relationship to Hegelian philosophy and the contrasting tenets, the instrumentality project makes a lot of sense. I majored in philosophy and I loved Eva, but I didnt want to present orginal research, so I tried to simply show what the facts and context of the philosophy pieced next to an example in the series. The main thing that prompted me to mention anything here was the references made in the Psychology section to Freud, whose psychoanalytic vocabulary was extensively used by Sartre as well, although Sartre had a different opinion of the human condition. I figured that was relevant, given that the reference used to explain the Oedipal complex is more Lacanian than Freudian. Given the nature of the show, who is to say which sort of psychotherapy Anno was referencing since existentialism and psychoanalysis are both incorporated in the plot? Like I said before, if you never cared for philosophy, fine, but it is still relevant imo. I really dont have much time to contribute much more, so whatever you end up doing are your choices. I had said I was willing to collaborate, but I dont see how consensus is possible when the only interaction are deletions and faceless criticism after the fact.StaticAge 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, ideally, Wikipedia should not have any kind of theoretical or speculative content in the articles. With NGE, this is really unavoidable since so much of the show's content is up to the individual to determine its meaning, but at the same time any kind of material that tries to draw a conclusion or make a connection about the content of the show that is unreferenced by something in print that's directly related to the show technically falls under the "no original research" clause and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion. If you can dredge up something in print that makes definite connections between the psychoanalytical theories and the show's content, and include quotes and references, more power to you. Without that, you're likely to get shot down. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was really trying to be sensitive to NOR, but I understand. I do want to clarify what I have been saying. In looking back on my posts I think I may be taken wrong. I have two points: First, the series is pregnant with existentialism, especially that of the Sartrean variety. Hegel is related to that aspect, in particular, to understanding the instrumentality project. And I think someone who looks up Eva may have read a review that talks about "existential themes" etc and may want to know why someone would say that. My second point is somewhat minor I suppose, but simply that Sartre put a twist on psychoanalysis that is well known and practiced which contradicts some of Frued's theory in a way that may be relevant to some of the portayals in the show.StaticAge 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When an episode is named after Søren Kierkegaard’s "The Sickness Unto Death" it is "inane" not to present philosophic information. We can maintain NOR by only presenting relevant philosophic information as possible interpretive aids and not as THE correct interpretation. I have lectured on this series, and it is of utmost importance to clear the fog of obscurity from these concepts. This series often leaves those viewing it entirely befuddled. One need not explicitly spell out the “correct” interpretation only to present base elements that can lead the viewer to form a cohesive personal interpretation. This element of a personal interpretation of experience is, after all, a central tenant of existentialist philosophy.--Matt 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly support that this section needs a rewrite; unfortunately, it does come off as rather fanboy. While philosophical references can be made, the style of writing is amateurish and poorly substantiated (I'm not talking about links to references here, just the logic connecting the reference to the content of the anime). Please use more objectivity. TheFilth 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New movies info.

Hey, guys. I added the infomation on the four new movies that ANN reported on. I added it in the "alternate ending" section, with a new subsection. I thought that was appropriate. dposse 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad ANN wasn't able to get the translation right.

By the way, this has already been mentionned at the beginning of the article. I chose to suppress your section.Folken de Fanel 11:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the infomation from ANN. dposse 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant "there's nothing wrong with..." ?

Well, no, there's nothing wrong with the ANN news, except that their translation sucks. There's no "prequel" planned.Folken de Fanel 22:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this? All i see for proof is a website in japanese. ANN is a respected anime website. I don't see why they should be doubted when i see no proof of anything that says anything different than what ANN says. dposse 00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure, because I've actually looked at the japanese site (which is the proof), and it never mentions a "prequel". ANN simply mistranslated the kanji, which, in this context, only mean "first part" and not "prequel".

Besides, the japanese website confirms that the first 3 movies (not only the second) will be based on the TV Series itself, and though it's probable that the movies will contain some flash-back elements, there has been no proper "prequel movie" announced.

ANN pretends there will be prequel, mid-series, sequel and conclusion movies. However, the second movie isn't THE mid-series movie, it's just labelled "second/middle part". So "sequel" and "prequel" aren't accurate here, it's just 1st/2nd/3rd (or later) parts, and the 4th movie is "Conclusion", which will be the actual sequel. Folken de Fanel 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer's Hedgehog's dilemma

Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, was not an easy text to acquire. If anyone wishes to use this text feel free to do so.

One cold winter’s day, a number of hedgehogs huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another. Thus the need for society which springs from the emptiness and monotony of men’s lives, drives them together; but their many unpleasant and repulsive qualities and insufferable drawback once more drive them apart. The mean distance which they finally discover, and which enables them to endure being together, is politeness and good manners. Who ever does not keep to this, is told in England to ‘keep his distance’. By virtue thereof, it is true that the need for mutual warmth will only be imperfectly satisfied, but, on the other hand, the prick of the quills will not be felt. Yet whoever has a great deal of internal warmth of his own will prefer to keep away from society in order to avoid giving or receiving trouble and annoyance.

~Arthur Schopenhauer - Parerga und Paralipomena, Volume II, Chapter XXXI, Section 396--Matt 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I altered your erroneous "to" to "two".Asteroceras 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Evangelion Shin Gekijou Ban (Rebuild of Evangelion)

The 4 new movies appear to cover the entire TV series plus the movies... but taken on a different slant (such as like the manga did)... 70.51.8.35 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing and when enough is enough

User:GunnarRene added in the {{cn}} to a paragraph on the seven eyes motif being a borrowing from the same Biblical motif. I thought this was blindingly obvious, but I rewrote the section to attribute it to fans (since no surprise, I can't find any official sources, but that goes for most things about Eva) and added 3 or 4 links to show that yes, fans do commonly say that the obvious linkage is indeed a linkage. And GunnarRene recently re-added {{cn}}... Does anyone else think it is well-cited enough yet? --Gwern (contribs) 16:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As you know, original research (that is, statements or theories elaborated by the contributor himself or by fans, which do not have any reliable source that backs them up) is not welcome on Wikipedia.

Whether you're not the only fan to think something doesn't really matter here. If you just attribute it to other fans, it remains original research, unless some concrete element is found.

Currently, there's nothing saying that the eyes of the Evas have any significance, nor that they have to be added up, in a "hidden-message" way...Eva 00 prototype even has 5 eyes !

As for now, it's just interpretation. And I would say, fabrication.

It's true that Seele's logo has 7 eyes on it, and it could be taken as a direct reference to the 7 eyes of God.

But deciding that the eyes of the Evas have to be added up, is original research. It doesn't even take into account the other Evas.

You have to understand that Wikipedia really can't afford to be always based on the "obvious", particularly for Evangelion, because what is obvious for someone isn't necessarily obvious for other people. For example, there's a certain number of viewers for whom it is "obvious" that Rei never dies in the show and never gets replaced. Yet when we watch the show seriously, and when we read the various documents written by Anno and his team, we realize it's completely wrong.

However, for some, it was obvious...

So really, the word "obvious" doesn't means anything and can't be taken as "proof" on Wikipedia.

Folken de Fanel 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point about the Eva eyes is well taken. But I don't think your comments apply to the SEELE observation though. --Gwern (contribs) 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I watched one of the neon genesis movies and under the commentary it mentions something about add the eyes up and it equaling seven but that also sounded like a guess by someone on the American team and didn't really relate to the original directors thoughts. New Order 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ending in opening sequence

"Anno stated before production that he did not know how the show would end, nor what would become of the characters."

¿Where did you get that? ¡The ending is in the opening sequence! 200.45.167.8 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Never the less, that is what he wrote before the series was approved. I do not know how you are interpreting the opening, but I can say for myself I never noticed it. --Gwern (contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the ending anywhere in the opening sequence. Besides, we have several interviews and documents proving that the storyline has been constantly and heavily modified throughout the making of the show, we know at least 3 different ways the show could have ended but were not chosen for various reasons. So the statement in the article is true (moreover it's documented) so stop saying nonsense...Folken de Fanel 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some scenes that ended up in the ending may have been used in the opening sequence, but they were probably worked in there either to save money on further animation, or to try to incorporate the scenes already used in the opening. In short, the ending itself isn't in the opening sequence, but scenes that ended up being used in the ending are, though admittedly it COULD have been interpreted otherwise quite easily, since some of the scenes could well be similar (though I haven't seen the opening sequence or the ending in quite some time so I can't be sure what is or is not included in either anymore). Does that answer your question? Nique1287 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot on its own page

I can see from reading through this page and the archive that the Plot section is widely debated, and there are complaints about the length of the article. I propose that we move the Plot to its own page, and just provide a link to that in the main article with a Main tag. Then there's plenty of room for plot expansion (without going into speculation or opinion, of course) without interfering with the length of this article. Many anime on Wikipedia, even some with much less convoluted and detailed plots than Evangelion, have a separate page for their Plots. Giving it its own page would save trouble and allow for a less confusing outline of the plot without making the main article unreasonably large. Any other thoughts? --Nique1287 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I worry that such a page would be vulnerable to deletion or disembowelment, but it seems more satisfactory than the current situation. --Gwern (contribs) 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be no more so than any other Plot page, even considering the popularity of the series and the number of people who would vandalize and/or discredit it, and if it were fleshed out sufficiently (and according to wiki guidelines) it could easily eliminate some of the length problem on this page, and any complaints that it is confusing or leaves certain integral elements out without being subject to deletion. It could include more detailed plot summary without interfering, as it were. Nique1287 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've moved the plot to its own page, Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Feel free to expand, change, etc. as it's VERY imperfect as an independent article. :) Nique1287 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. The plot summary is very badly written. I propose correction in its own article, AND THEN MOVING IT BACK to the main article. Erisie 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Influences/Impact poorly constructed

I found the section mentioned to be -absolutely- atrocious. For one, it was almost entirely written from a "point of view" perspective, and, though true, there were FAR too many "Need Citation" markings, far more than necessary. I took the liberty of rewording it into a more factual base and less opinionative take. As for the "citation" regarding the "influence of Xenogears", it has been largely believed this has already been stated. I myself searched hard for the source but could not find it, however, nothing to the contrary either, yet it is still -strongly- believed the creators disproved of the mass assumptions, and while the whole thing (influences) is much speculation, I don't see the need to single out -one- particular source, as the whole thing is generally a pore example of citations. Either way, I have "doctored" it up, hopefully it will remain more neutral in further updates. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.20 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for an influence/tribute within should we mention the cases where there seems to be major tips of the hat to Michael Crichton's ''The Andromeda Strain''. The reference to a Computer Error Message '601' meaning information Overload (seen in the film version of The Andromeda Strain) occurring during analysis the remnants of an Angel Core.

The Angel Iruel's behavior is akin to that of the Andromeda Strain including its dislike of Oxygen Environments, adaptability and eventual mutation into an effectively harmless form. Also Iruel's growth and changes are following along the path described in the "Messenger Theory "Each single organism would carry the potential to develop into a full organ or a full organism. They would, upon contacting life, begin to grow into a complete communicating mechanism" [Andromeda Strain Day 4, 22 The Analysis]. Iruel grew into a communicating mechanism in the form of a biological computer (the 'circuit board' appearance strongly suggests this) and began communicating with the MAGI computers and overtaking them. 68.9.223.94 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: Move "Fiction and Philosophy" to its own article

That section is too long and poorly written. I recommend some editing on the section, and the core moving it to its own sub-article. That would also leave some space to return "Plot Summary" to the main article. --Erisie 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Plot section took up too much space, and as I said when I recommended it, many other series with less complicated plots have their own separate Plot page, so I don't agree that it should be moved back to the main page, especially since it's a VERY condensed version of the plot and Neon Genesis Evangelion is a very complex anime, so the plot should be expanded upon and that can only happen on its own article. However, I do agree that Fiction and Philosophy should be moved to its own article since it is unreasonably long to keep on the main article, although I don't think we need to keep even a short summary here, just a Main syntax link to the article once it's created. Nique1287 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A good external link to add?

Considering the 'Influence' section makes note that Evangelion has influenced other anime series, would this be a good external link to add?

http://evaxephon.com/gallery1.html

It seems to me that this site would be relevant to the article, as the site's content would exemplify the article's claims of Evangelion influencing other works.

If this would not be a suitable external link to add, please tell me why not. EvaXephon 10:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I understand that the pages of that site are not published by a source that is officially recognized as a reliable source, but I still believe that the nature of the site (Evangelion's influence in RahXephon) makes it relevant to the article (Evangelion influencing other anime). EvaXephon 11:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More discussion about linking to the site here: Talk:RahXephon#A good external link to add?
Discussion about the quality of the comparisons here: User talk:EvaXephon#Other points.

--GunnarRene 18:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarities do not mean influence, it just means that they may or may not be similar. Also, since your username and the site domain are the same, do you own the site? It looks a lot like advertising and/or vanity, which are to be avoided in Wiki articles at all costs. I don't mean to criticize, but to an outside person, it would look like that, you know what I mean? ^^; Nique1287 12:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do own the site, so any attempt to help out an article by providing a link to my site would seem like self-advertising or vanity. That really wasn't the point, though - I thought that a list of similarities between two things could help prove that one may have influenced the other. If you don't conclude that Evangelion influenced RahXephon, then the only other conclusion is that the many similarities between Evangelion and RahXephon are all coincidences - which is a little bit hard to believe. EvaXephon 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You may find it hard to believe. Myself, I don't agree that similarity means influence. It isn't necessarily ALL coincidence, but it isn't likely to all be a direct 1:1 influence. Also, many of your 'similarities' are very circumstantial, like similar lines being spoken ("All is right with the world"), or a blood spot on a hand, or a shot of a vehicle exploding. If they were extremely refined, so that only things that weren't going to be common in this type of anime to begin with, I might agree to posting it, but as is, I have to say no. (Also, 17 PAGES of comparisons? That's going a little overboard, don't you think? Even if, according to your Frequently Received Criticisms, there are "several events" that "occurred in the exact same order in both shows".) Nique1287 12:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"(Also, 17 PAGES of comparisons? That's going a little overboard, don't you think?" The reason there are 17 pages is because that's how many similarities I found between both series, which I think helps support my opinion that RahXephon is heavily influenced by Evangelion. EvaXephon 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You could see it that way, but I point out again that most of your 'influences' are very close to, if not far over the line of, coincidence. (Example: "All is right with the world" being said by two very different characters, in very different situations, yet you claim that the similar wording makes it an influence.) Also, as said in the discussions linked to by GunnarRene, you don't give timestamps for any of the screenshots and you claim at the top of the page that many events happen in the same order. This is misleading, and thus I still do not agree that it is a link that belongs on this article. Nique1287 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most of your 'influences' are very close to, if not far over the line of, coincidence." By this, do you mean to say that you believe that the similarities are not coincidences, and are, in fact, influences? Something doesn't have to be done by the same character and in the same situation for it to be an influence. As long as it's roughly the same event occurring, it doesn't matter who or where it transpired. Many events happen in the same order, and other times, they don't happen in the same order. Nonetheless, they are still similar events, and many occur in the same order even if one or two have events taken from a different point in the series. I don't believe that exact or perfect similarities are needed to prove that one series had at least some influence over another, and thus I still believe that a list of similarities would help support a claim that one series influenced another. True, similarity doesn't mean influence, but otherwise, it could only mean coincidence, and it's very far-fetched to believe that dozens of similarities could all be coincidences. I could understand if there were a few coincidences between the two series. But not dozens upon dozens. EvaXephon 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant that most of your 'influences' are coincidences that you're trying to pass off as influences, in order to get your site listed on Wikipedia as a valid link. And just because you took many screenshots out of context and put them side by side and claim that they show the same thing does not mean that there was an intentional influence. You seem to be claiming that RahXephon is some kind of carbon copy of Evangelion, which it is certainly not. Regardless, I've made my point in this discussion multiple times, and thus I leave the stage open for others to express their opinions if they so wish. Nique1287 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nique: I disagree with some of your assertions. The "All is right with the world" point, specifically. This is not a common sentence in Japanese stuff; it's more common in Western stuff because Browning originated it, but even still it's a pretty rare sentence/allusion. Saying that the repeat in RahXephon is not even a subtle nod to or borrowing from Eva is just silly: they are both in the same genre, produced in the same country; RahXephon was created only a few years after Eva, which is probably one of, if not the most successful anime in that genre, and whose NERV slogan is well-known. --Gwern (contribs) 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if the screenshots are in or out of context. If it's a similarity, it's a similarity. So the creators of Rah didn't put an Eva scene in exactly the same spot, but they put it in, anyway. More than enough similarities are already IN context, so the ones that are out of context merely compliment the ones that are.

"...in order to get your site listed on Wikipedia" I was afraid that merely by trying to add something I consider relevant to a Wiki article, people were going to assume that it was for selfish reasons. Despite the fact that I believe I've provided very valid reasons thus far, it's obvious even to me that should I continue to assert that my site would be relevant to this article, it would unavoidably be seen as myself desperately attempting to get my site on a wiki article. Despite that not being the case, once people have made up their minds, there is little that can be done to change that, and continuing to defend my site will sadly only be seen as being protective rather than trying to assist a wiki article.

It's really too bad that things wound up like this. It wasn't my lucky day, I guess. I hope I can help the article in some other way in the future. EvaXephon 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to leave this alone after my last post, but I feel compelled to point out the number of errors in your assumptions of the scenes now that you're attempting to play the victim.

Not only do you often state that certain scenes DIRECTLY mirrored Eva, frame for frame, -without proof of any kind except your word-, but you also make SERIOUS leaps of faith. For example, red-heads in yellow dresses: actually, Mishima Reika is brunette, as is shown in her picture on the RahXephon Characters page, and as should be known by anyone that watched the series. Also, the number of times you deliberately mislabel things was shocking, once I took a closer look. For example, on the first page you state that the city is abandoned because of invaders, even in Evangelion, while in actuality, everyone in the city is in their designated shelters by the time Shinji shows up on the scene, and the devastation is not due to an outside force (your "invaders"), but due to a force that's been on the planet since the beginning of its time. There are way more things I could comment on, but these were the worst offenders I found in the first few pages.

I can only conclude that you came across screenshots and pasted them together where you felt they paralleled, and made up backstory based on 5 minutes of research on both series, combined. I maintain that you've either done this out of ignorance, or a desire for popularity in an online community based on two stories you obviously don't know very much about. Nique1287 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm noticing that several Wikipedia guidelines are being broken here, namely WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:BITE, and specifically WP:ATTACK. EvaXephon 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm breaking guidelines and/or "attacking" you, and perhaps I'm beginning to verge on annoyed, but the points I made stand: many of your similarities are completely out of context, mislabeled, very much mistaken, or offer no proof at all such as when you simply state that scenes are mirrored. Also, your similarities have a tendency to repeat themselves: you repeated the fact that there are red-heads in yellow dresses, and the fact that Misato and her 'first clone' are both Captains, twice each, just in the first 4 pages. It doesn't seem to be put together very well, if the first 4 pages were any indication of the quality of the other 13, and so many of them are false. Some of the similarities may be influences, homages, or trivial references, but I don't think that many of the supposed similarities on your site truly are worth noting on this article, and therefore worth linking to. Nique1287 01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A disinterested third opinion

I don't watch the show, I came along because something appeared at the Village Pump. I read briefly through the article and may have missed some points. I didn't see the point of view, this article's character is similar to another article's character except in this discussion. Apparently the idea of comparing shows is not a widespread idea and is not done widely. I find it to be interesting. My first reaction is:

User:EvaXephon has pretty much been civil.
User:Nique1287 was civil at first but fell back to an accusatory position when her discussion about reasons for not including the external link were not on solid ground.
The personal website can not be used as a secondary source within the article. It fails WP:V
The site could be used as an external link. It doesn't fail any of the criteria of WP:EL
The site presents a point of view which is not otherwise presented. It presents some elements of good showmanship which might appear in any show, Protagonist Hidden From View By Woman [3], for example. But in presenting elements like these we can compare the emotions on the faces and gain a better understanding of the characters, the differences, the similarities and so on.
In keeping with WP:NPOV's "present all points of view", I would think the article should have the external link. I do recognize there are arguments both ways and I do recognize the personal website is not a reliable published source. One element that makes me think so is the site's obvious stated intention, "a comparison, not a criticism". Terryeo 13:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I've changed "his" to "her" in your line about me, since I'm assuming you're referring to me (I'm female) and my discussion was certainly on solid ground. I provided reason after reason not to add the site, while EvaXephon provided... what? Nothing but the same "But they have to be influences, there are too many!" over and over, and then tried to act like he was in the right but was acceding to some kind of stubborn child.

The site presents a point of view that is not otherwise represented, but it is a VERY misleading point of view, as I have pointed out above in the original discussion, as most of the comparisons are labeled falsely/simply mistaken (examples: Tokyo 3 being abandoned, and the devastation being caused by 'invaders', Mishima Reika being said to be a red-head when she is actually a brunette) and therefore make comparisons that don't actually exist, taken far out of context (He follows RahXephon almost precisely in time-order for the screenshots, as far as I know since I haven't seen RahXephon in a couple of months, but for the Evangelion screenshots he jumps between shots in the series (from VERY different episodes, I might add) and End of Evangelion, while he has the claim at the top that so many events happen in the same order in both series) such that the reader is misled, or in some cases offer no 'proof' at all except the word of someone who has supposedly seen the series, but still makes all those errors in labeling. If you've seen both series, I recommend taking a good read through at least the first 4 pages and making your decision as to whether or not it conforms to WP:EL and, more notably, the second example of Links To Be Avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nique1287 (talk • contribs)

I came here from WP:3O, and I'm inclined to agree with Nique1287. I think that personal websites can be used as reliable sources for some things, mind, as long as it's something that the website would have competence in (for instance, if Stephen Hawking came by to link to his personal webpage on cosmology, well, awesome). And fan analysis sites are certainly valid external links. However, and don't take this the wrong way EvaXephon, but I think that the site shouldn't be linked simply to due to lack of sufficient quality. WP should try and only link to the best sites, and while well-done, this website isn't helpful due to looking a little bit too closely for similarities. A persuasive essay backed by select screenshots would actually be better; as it stands, this is the equivalent in the literary world of saying "Hey, this author uses the word 'sanguine' almost as much as this other author" or "Wow, another sentence in both books that has precisely 7 letter e's." These similarities are too easy to make, and are therefore trivial. Having seen both shows, I think it's pretty clear that RahXephon certainly was influenced strongly by Evangelion. To my knowledge- and this is secondhand chatter, so I can't source it- the creators have in fact said that this was their attempt to do Evangelion "right." They obviously took several elements from Evangelion, changed others, and added some of their own unique touches. If someone can find an interview or other source saying that, that would be a better source. But even if they can't, no reason why RahXephon being a show influenced by Eva can't stay- that's clear enough that it can certainly stand without a source for now. SnowFire 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge- and this is secondhand chatter, so I can't source it- the creators have in fact said that this was their attempt to do Evangelion "right." I have only heard this as an opinion by some of the people who watched the show, saying "They did Evangelion "right"". I don't remember if this is an opinion expressed by any professional reviewers. The creator of the show says he wanted to do Raideen.--GunnarRene 10:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a large amount of this dispute has resulted from not fully understanding my goal or the purpose of my site. I think that one of the disclaimers on my site defines it best: "The gallery's purpose is to be a gallery of similarities, not to convince you that RahXephon copied Evangelion. However, I believe that many of the similarities are proof of imitation, nonetheless. If a similarity doesn't convince you, then simply ignore it." It is a gallery of similar scenes, dialogue, and themes from both shows, many of which may be interpreted as direct influence. From that site, one can easily browse through a large number of similarities, and decide for themself as to whether or not they think a similarity is mere coincidence or a sign of influence. I do sometimes try to make a bit of commentary in the galleries to let someone see it from a certain point of view, but the site's purpose is to be a gallery, not to convince anyone of anything.

I intentionally left dozens upon dozens of unconvincing similarities in the gallery. This is because it's a gallery of similarities. Not a gallery meant to convince anyone of anything.

"Well, there's the problem right there! That makes it too low-quality to present as an external link!" I'd be more than happy to offer an alternative. I could ask people to look through the gallery, tell me which similarities are valid, and then make a single page with only convincing and valid similarities. Would this not be an acceptable compromise, to build a more convincing page and submit that page instead?

As for saying that events happen in the same order, and then posting events out of context, a majority of scenes happen in the same order, followed by a scene or two that was taken from elsewhere in Evangelion. So one or two other scenes were taken from elsewhere - a string of them still happened in order, despite the one or two shots from elsewhere in the series.

"Not only do you often state that certain scenes DIRECTLY mirrored Eva, frame for frame, -without proof of any kind except your word" I'm not sure how you can say that. My proof is in my 150+ screenshots. "Mishima Reika is brunette" I accidently mislabled that "Redhead" part, sorry. Not every mislabeling is intentional. There is such thing as a mistake. "you state that the city is abandoned because of invaders" I'm sorry that I didn't choose 100% accurate syntax, but "Abandoned" implies no people on the streets, and "invaders" implies bad guys, and there were no people on the streets because of the bad guys in both shows.

"I can only conclude that you came across screenshots and pasted them together where you felt they paralleled, and made up backstory based on 5 minutes of research on both series, combined. I maintain that you've either done this out of ignorance, or a desire for popularity in an online community based on two stories you obviously don't know very much about."

This is the sort of harsh, hurtful, insensitive comment that led me to believe that mediation was necessary. These words drip with implied incompetence and veiled insults. That is not the sort of atmosphere you should be creating for a dispute. Not only was the whole of that paragraph entirely unnecessary, but what purpose did it have but to insult me? Honestly, what purpose did that entire paragraph have, but to insult me?

I spent a week cross-watching both shows, taking screenshots where I felt they paralleled, studying the backstories extensively, consulting several experts of both series, and both shows have been my favorites for years. Your accusations serve no purpose but to be hurtful and are extremely far from being correct. I will politely request a favor from you - do not speak in such a way again. I am polite to request this as a favor, as there are already several policies that demand it.

Continuing to refute Nique's misunderstandings about my site point-by-point would become a waste of space. It would be far more effective to explain this in a chat room or instant messenger. If she has further discrepancies with the site's content, I suggest clearing it up somewhere where communication can be faster.

"I'm sorry if you feel that I'm breaking guidelines"

That's not an apology. "I'm sorry if you feel" implies that you feel you've done nothing wrong, and that you are only apologizing because of how I feel, not because of any guilt of misbehavior on your part.

On to what the third opinions said -

"The personal website can not be used as a secondary source within the article. It fails WP:V"

"don't take this the wrong way EvaXephon, but I think that the site shouldn't be linked simply to due to lack of sufficient quality"

Perfectly succinct and adequate explanations. I understand entirely, and find those to be accepable reasons. (You should aspire to this level of civility, Nique.) I'll once again ask if it would be a good alternative for me to make a single page of valid and convincing similarities instead.

And, Nique, if you feel I've made false accusations toward you, you won't remedy that with more attacks. You can't change my opinion of what you've already said. All you need to do to remedy my opinion is to be more civil in the future, and you will hear no longer such accusations. EvaXephon 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, does it really matter that Reika is brown and not red-headed? Asuka is often shown as looking like a brunette, and her hair color isn't all that consistent anyway: I think in the manga she is strawberry-blonde. --Gwern (contribs) 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution

I agree that User:EvaXephon has been mostly civil, and has been forthcoming in resolving a few issues. Now, there are valid criticisms of his site, and I would like to accept the offer to provide detailed feedback (the most important thing he can do is to mark all the screenshots with episode and time stamps), but I think that further discussion about the details should be kept on his user talk page.

This page is to be used for discussing the Wikipedia article itself, so I'd like to get back to that, and only discuss the site as it pertains to the article. I think the site fails WP:EL, so I guess I disagree with Terryeo here. WP:NPOV is inseparably bound to WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The correct way to include comparison information is to use actual reviewers as well as the shows' creators.

The RahXephon article includes a large (perhaps too large) section where reviewers compare shows with each other. For the Neon Genesis Evangelion article, however, a few sentences about RahXephon should suffice since it's not about comparing the shows accross the board but rather to note influences.--GunnarRene 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this: [4] : "RahXephon, a show designed to resemble 1970s mecha shows,^[1] was compared to Evangelion by many English language reviewers.^[2]^[3]^[4]" --GunnarRene 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^ Wong, Amos (2003). "Interview with Yutaka Izubuchi". Newtype USA. 2 (2): 14–15. ISSN 1541-4817. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Hong, En (2002). "Feature: Animefringe Coverage: RahXephon". Animefringe. ISSN 1705-3692. Retrieved 2006-10-13. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Bertschy, Zac (2004-01-12). "Review: RahXephon DVD 7: Crescendo". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2006-10-13.
^ Oppliger, John (2002-08-20). "Is RahXephon an Evangelion Rip Off?". Ask John. Retrieved 2006-10-13.

[ntusabuchi-1] Wong, Amos (2003). "Interview with Yutaka Izubuchi". Newtype USA. 2 (2): 14–15. ISSN 1541-4817. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[damngophers-2] Hong, En (2002). "Feature: Animefringe Coverage: RahXephon". Animefringe. ISSN 1705-3692. Retrieved 2006-10-13. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[rah_ann_7-3] Bertschy, Zac (2004-01-12). "Review: RahXephon DVD 7: Crescendo". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2006-10-13.

[4] Oppliger, John (2002-08-20). "Is RahXephon an Evangelion Rip Off?". Ask John. Retrieved 2006-10-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]