Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion/Archive 4

Removing end of evangelion
we should remove the end of evangelion section, it should have been "evangelion: Death and Rebirth" and still the information in the article is almost the same as the one in The End of Evangelion, still maybe making a "movie" section would be simpler. I think it's obvious that it should be removed but again, there are some of you that don't like removing info, so i put it in discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

hmm...no one seems to be giving me a reason not to...it's really important that i get a reply soon.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove sourced content wholesale, as you did here - per the editing policy, "Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented." I have merged the sourced content to the End of Evangelion article. Please be more careful when deleting. --Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

there is more reasons for deleting. there was simply no need. One, it is already mentioned in re-releases section. Also It should have been Death and rebirth, the original, to be mentioned. the plot was not necessary in this article, the necessary information for end of Evangelion is already posted in re-releases.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The films were mentioned lower down in the re-releases section, but the specific sourced content was not (from Napier etc.). Please don't remove sourced content wholesale, if it is cited to a reliable source, the editing policy says it should be preserved. Please be more careful when deleting content. --Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

if i remember correctly...that section had no source. and if it did i twas probably trivial.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The parts that I saved were sourced, and they talk about fannish discontent with the last two episodes. This is not trivial because it is reliably-sourced, real-world coverage on the reception of Evangelion. It's generally considered important for articles about fiction to contain such coverage, per the notability guidelines and the writing about fiction manual of style. It's ok, the coverage has been saved and is now on the End of Evangelion article, but please be more careful when deleting content. --Malkinann (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, i look at the Re-releases section, i also check in the end of evangelion article, and so far....no source saying so...it's fixed, but i have no idea what your talkinga bout.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You were overzealous in your removal and accidentally removed sourced content about how Evangelion was received as a work. Nearly the entire first paragraph was cited and was real-world coverage on the reception of Evangelion, which is desirable in articles about fiction. When you're removing stuff from articles, it's important to make sure that you're not removing sourced content. I readded most of the sourced content to the End of Evangelion article. Can you see now what I'm talking about? --Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i suppose so, well sorry about that.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, but please be more careful when deleting content - it's hard to take your other proposals to delete parts of the article seriously when you accidentally delete reliably sourced information. --Malkinann (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...why would you put in "Death and Rebirth" over "End of Eva"? D&R is just a preview for EoE.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I suggest there should be automatic archiving by User:MiszaBot I because the current article size is 139KB. Way too long for a talk page IMO and can take a while for this page to load for those with crappy internet (ie. me). Extremepro (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure we can archive anything. The vast majority of the page is BN-related, and what isn't is either very small (eg. I've given up on getting the book in 'Further reading', since I don't know Japanese) or is still outstanding (the Timeline and Genre sections/issues). As long as BN is unhappy & still active on this article, it's too soon to remove those sections to an archive. --Gwern (contribs) 02:52 26 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I'm not usually involved with Eva, so could you clarify what "BN" means? Extremepro (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BN = Bread Ninja, someone who's been proposing (and arguing) a lot of contentious edits over the past month or two...the majority of the space on this page right now is taken up with the discussions over the edits she's wanting to see happen. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the primary media?
As I checked in List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes and List of Neon Genesis Evangelion chapters, it says that the first episode aired in Japan on October 4, 1995 and the first manga volume was released earlier on August 29, 1995. Does this mean the anime is based on the manga? Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) says that the manga was released earlier to "increase public interest", but the ref just says "see takeda 2002".Tintor2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The manga's article is correct; the anime was planned and in development before Sadamoto started the manga. Not surprising, since an episode is much more work than a few stages, though Sadamoto had to finish up most of the character design before he could start the manga, obviously. (One could be forgiven for thinking the manga a herculean task given how long Sadamoto has taken on it...) The manga wasn't the only promotional tool - Gainax also showed the first episode to a few fans at some festival - but that's not worth mentioning. --Gwern (contribs) 01:19 29 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I agree but it needs a better ref than "see takeda 2002".Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a perfectly normal ref; but if you want to add page numbers & quotes, knock yourself out. --Gwern (contribs) 16:21 29 November 2009 (GMT)


 * A normal ref should be formatted with citebook and publisher. I don't think any reader will understand what is takeda 2002.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a direct Harvard reference, and the main bibliographic citation for Notenki Memoirs does in fact use cite book. --Gwern (contribs) 17:10 29 November 2009 (GMT)


 * But to what book it refers?Tintor2 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Removed the "see".Tintor2 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fiction and philosophy
A lot of content there (about Sartres, Kierkegaard, etc) appears like original research. That a source briefly mentions the possible influence of some philosophers, doesn't allow us to produce an overly detailed analysis of their work in relation to Eva. Most of the textual parallels are made by the contributors themselves and are not based on a source. Unless proper sources can be provided for all these analyses, the majority of this essay on philosophers will be removed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of that comes from the Tsuribe essay, which is reliable as it was published in Otaku Fanzine and cited by Broderick and Kirkpatrick. --Malkinann (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The section presents various analyses of character behavior and dialogues in the light of Sartre's and other philosophers' works, and I can't find all that in Tsuribe. Sure, Tsuribe mentions possible influence by these authors so we can safely include it in the article, however this section seems to be a continuation of Tsuribe's essay with original and unsourced comments about human passions and Evas, bad faith and Rei/Ritsuko/Shinji, Hegel's "ultimate being" and End of Eva, Kierkegaard's and Sartre's concept about individuality and episodes 25/26, Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death and the last episode title, Brahmanism and Seele's goal...
 * Also, the section tends to be an overly detailed history of certain philosophical theories, but this article is not the place to analyse Sartre's thoughts and his disagreement with Freud, particularly if it's not sourced, because Evangelion didn't talk about that. Sartre's article appears quite complete, so let's leave philosophy where it really belongs, that's why internal links exist.
 * We can of course report Tsuribe's comment, unfortunately the section tries to go a lot further than that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so fix it. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference in The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya anime
There's a quote made by Kyon referencing Shinji's fight with Ramiel, after he's been hit by a kid in the back. Kyon's quote is "Now I know what Unit 00 must have felt when he got hit by that energy beam". Can't find any valid reference, but I thought I should let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.198.190 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I've been patient and all but it's really been a few weeks and the article has still not been edited. I still suggest removing the religion section completely merely because it's not serving any purpose. I know, i know malkinann you remain unconvinced, but it truly does not hold any reason to stay. the sources are reliable but they do not back up what the section says. It has been preserved for some time and to be honest, i believe the section should never came to existence. When i look at it i think "ok...and the point of showing this is?" there really is no point listing every piece of religious reference to the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

However the article can state something like this. "the series has shown Heavily reference to Religion".Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The website that much of the religion section is referenced to, Otaku Fanzine, has been itself referenced in a journal article - " Like Holding a Bird: What the Prevalence of Fansubbing Can Teach Us About the Use of Strategic Selective Copyright Enforcement", which could make it a reliable source. It may be difficult to prove definitively if it's a reliable source, as Otaku Fanzine has 404ed. --Malkinann (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

this sounds like a Self-published source. i don't think it's a good idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I believe I also pointed out http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue7/broderick_review.html which would make 2 peer-reviewed papers using OF as a RS (Broderick's paper is also cited by Susan Napier's "When the Machines Stop", if anyone had any doubts). I'd also point out that the Internet Archive's ~2002 pages preserve the website, since the hard copies are hard to find (although I did see one collection, http://www.artexte.ca/, has some OF; I wonder if this is where the WorldCat entry comes from?). --Gwern (contribs) 03:18 29 October 2009 (GMT)

these also sound like self published source. plus it appears to be an online self published source, which WIki is against. there is actually a large number of Self published sources. now that i think about it, Carl horn would count some-what of as a self published source. I know we say he is reliable source merely because he was part of the English production. but if you think hard enough, English production isn't much. hypothetically, if a philosopher made a theory on NGe who was part of the alternate language production, would that be added as well? And Carl horn is just putting a theory on, he isn't Confirming anything (which i'm not asking for truth or not, i'm just saying he hasn't confirmed anything on the anime). I don't see how theories help the anime article.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We only have to be more careful that self published sources are reliable, they're not automatically unreliable because they're self-published. The reliable source noticeboard is one part of that. Intersections is a peer-reviewed academic journal supported by the Australian National University, therefore Intersections is considered a reliable source. Reliably sourced theories help articles about fiction because they are part of the critical attention called for in the writing about fiction manual of style. --Malkinann (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

but the self published sources appear to be supported by more self published sources. still particularly this article, it would be difficult to find self published sources for something about an anime since very few people out there are very famous over reviewing anime and manga. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they're not... We contend that Otaku Fanzine is a reliable source because it is used as a source by two academic papers (not self-published works!). --Malkinann (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking in generalities, BN, as usual, so I have no idea what to say. Those are 2 published print peer-reviewed sources, but you seem to be blinded by the fact that we could provide URLs mirroring them. (Maybe in the future I should just use obscure print sources, not include quotes, and keep my online copies secret?)
 * As for Horn, he's worked in the industry for at least a decade now (for a partial resume, see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=12760 ) and besides his obvious role as the translator (and given all the stuff he writes & puts in the manga volumes, I'd call him an interpreter or scholar of all things Anno/Eva) of the Eva manga, has followed & reported on Eva since literally before it came out, and is a primary source not just about the vicissitudes of Eva's international releases but about Eva in general because of all his personal experiences & contacts with Gainax staff etc.
 * I would take the slightest sentences by Horn over multiple articles by someone like Napier. Would that all 'somewhat self-published' sources were half so good as him, and the published sources half as good as them! --Gwern (contribs) 21:21 29 October 2009 (GMT)


 * I agree that I take Carl Horn's word over Napier's anyday, though I would caution that even he wasn't perfect (he does know more than most, but its relative). We have to face the harsh reality, that *no* "academic papers* ever really understood Evangelion: like the Napier articles, they made blatant factual errors, or got confused and thought the religious symbols meant something (they don't).....the fact that a second bad article sourced an earlier bad article doesn't make either one correct: two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, what if Napier "sourced" that gibbering idiot Sean McCoy? The sad fact is that arguably, *you* Gwern know more about the series than Napier, *I* know more than Sean McCoy: we all do here. I support Bread Ninja, in the sense that I want to GUT this article of all of the poorly sourced content which we all kind of know was wrong to begin with. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

gwern, you didnt make sense near the end. Also i would ask where these two acedemic papers are. As for caarl horn, whatever you said, it appears to contradict some of it in the article. making a theory that is against what the creators have said. Still, his theory is very trivial. it doesnt really help the artical, it's just confirmed speculation, but not a direct confirmation to what he is saying. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The papers are:


 * Kirkpatrick, Sean (Spring 2003) "Like Holding a Bird: What the Prevalence of Fansubbing Can Teach Us About the Use of Strategic Selective Copyright Enforcement" Temple Environmental Law & Technology Journal 21


 * Broderick, Mick (March 2002) "Anime's Apocalypse: Neon Genesis Evangelion as Millennarian Mecha" Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context 7


 * Hope this helps. Works can be read in ways contrary to what their creators intended, or even in ways that their creators may not have imagined. (eg. the Marxist reading of King Lear) These readings (if reliably sourced) are considered to be valid critical analysis of the subject. As Carl Horn is a reliable source, his critical analysis of Evangelion is desirable to include in the article to help improve the article in line with the requirements of the writing about fiction manual of style. --Malkinann (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

carl horn is good, but his analysis isnt much but a theory. it would be better if it wasnt put in the form of a theory, or in the a separate section though i still questioning the first website. as for the second it could count, but the first is questionable. AS for the second, it seems to be online only and seemingly self published but i can see it isnt. still these are pretty clsoe to being whati said beforeBread Ninja (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here, especially when you talk about the 'websites'. Could you please rephrase it? Carl Horn is a reliable source, therefore his analyses of Evangelion are desirable to include per WP:WAF. --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think BN is just objecting to Horn in general. I don't know how BN can criticize Horn's analysis given that we don't currently use him in the religion section, just philosophy & allusions & related books. --Gwern (contribs) 01:57 30 October 2009 (GMT)

What I'm trying to say is that we don't need complete coverage over Carl horn's theory. we could mention what the theory is about but i don't think any specific details should enter in the article. what we could do is "Carl horn who has followed the series has made theories about NGe's religious reference despite the creators announcement". something like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

'''While the series uses some religious symbols prominently -- the crosses, for example -- Anno and Sadamoto have openly admitted they were just to "look cool" and had nothing to do with the "themes" or "meaning" of the series whatsoever. That's not what the series was about, it was a social commentary.'''--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i believe VVVVV is agreeing with me on this. carl horn's theory doesn't affect the article directly.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Carl Horn's writings are not used to talk about the religious references. I don't even think he really wrote about it. You're confusing two things. And Carl Horn is a reliable source, there's no questioning that.
 * As for the religious aspects themselves, we all know their real meaning and no one is denying it. However, the interpretation notable people have expressed about it remain interesting, and they really represent what is expected on Wikipedia. The articles are not about the "truth", but about the various views people have expressed on various subjects. If certain notable people thought that religion was, on the contrary, an important topic for Anno, then they deserve to be included on WP. It won't change what Tsurumaki said about it, but it will make a better article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I, too, am confused...because its a lot of text to go through: Bread Ninja, exactly what "theory" of Carl Horn's do you take issue with? (please repost the text in question as a reply to this). Carl Horn is "the Evangelion manga official translation guy" for multiple Evangelion series. He has met and interacted with Gainax creators and ADV, and has quite a lot of valuable insider *production* information. Unless I'm missing something...what "theory" does Carl Horn put forward that we sourced here? Like Folken, it seems we didn't use him as a source for the religious references section; all references we have of him are of mostly technical things or NPOV things like "they changed "Children" to "Child" because it sounds less weird"...localization things which are Non-POV; other things are of the "I heard Anno say such and such at a meeting I was at", and given that Horn is an industry professional, I treat all of these statements as basically true (I don't think he made that stuff up or something). In short: Horn knows a lot of production things, and he's been in the fandom long enough that he remembers interviews and such which are long out of print (for god's sake he watched the original episode 26 off a bootleg fansub *within a week after it aired in Japan*; as the saying goes "he was in the shit"; it doesn't get more original than that)......though I would stress that Carl Horn is not synonymous with Hideaki Anno, and I do not agree with several "open to interpretation" theories he has put forward....but these were always things like "what did the ending mean?" which were always highly interpretable. So if Horn says "my interpretation of the ending is such-and-such", we jumped too far if we then treat it exactly like "Anno said such-and-such"...however, I don't think even Horn ever meant for us to treat him like Anno's vicar in America. Things Horn said tentatively we might have taken as fact, which wasn't even the author's intent. Carl Horn is another one of the "localization" industry people, on at least equal standing with Matt Greenfield for ADV or Mike McFarland for FUNimation. That said...compared to armchair analysts like Susan Napier or the handful of academics who casually glanced through Eva...I seriously think Horn knows more about Eva than these people; he's devoted more time and energy to it, actually tried "researching" things as opposed to "treating my opinions as fact", etc. Like any fan, Horn's positions are not perfect and should not be treated as "received truth", but...but Napier's bad attempt at "analyzing" Evangelion was an insult, Horn generally knows what he's talking about. If Horn were in charge of localizing "End of Evangelion" and not Manga Entertainment, we wouldn't have had the mess of a script that we ultimately got. Long story short: things which Horn openly writes as "this is a theory about Evangelion I developed" should not be treated as "Anno stated this as a fact", but Horn never said that. It is *we* who were quoting things out of context. Horn knows a lot of stuff. (all this aside, btw, one thing I cannot agree with Carl Horn on is his toleration of Sean McCoy...I wouldn't be caught in the same convention as McCoy, and Horn should be concerned that appearing at panels with that idiot McCoy only serves to legitimize McCoy). Nonetheless I think you're being a little too harsh on using Carl Horn as a reliable Evangelion source, Bread Ninja, he is one. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

VVVVV I'm sorry but you are incredibly slow. that was already casted aside, the problem now isn't that he isn't reliable, but to have his theories posted up? Because in reality it's a "theory" not a "confirmation". the theory section seems pointless, especially since it's not even supporting NPOV, if a large number of sources claimed this theories were true, than maybe we could post them. it's not really affecting the Anime article, more the theme. Honestly though, Carl horn could be treated as a reliable source but something that holds fact and/or something he has confirmed within the series (NOTE:Confirmation doesn't mean telling the truth). And Again it's trivial. some of these hold so much detail over the smallest things.


 * Carl horn does appear to be a self published source, but since he has third party sources to back the self published source than i suppose he can stay and is reliable to the areas where he has confirmation on things he knows. Still, we have to wonder if this is really worth reporting. I know, you all seem to have this "fandom" over Carl horn. i hope you all speak in a little less "fan-like" it seems to interrupt the flow of the conversation. though yes i do agree that Carl horn is a notable and reliable source (even though self published) i also believe the theories are "trivial" because they really aren't part of the Anime, they only talk about the anime, which leads me to believe that it could be reworded to a critical reception or something similar. if not than just remove it. why remove? the name of the section is inspiration and symbolism, which is not. And yes i know you say that wiki isn't here to tell the truth, but i think thats wrong. malkinann, you generalized wiki so far to the point where you confuse the sources with Wiki itself. Wiki is here to confirm, not to tell lies or truth. and most of the confirmation has been truth, but the sources themselves give us theories, so the theory section is only speculation. confirmation on something that's being speculated by people who are and are considered reliable sources appears to be trivial. the only time where speculation should be allowed is when the author confirms his speculations and that would be around the production area.
 * but the original problem was the religion section, the article does appear to list a specific reference that does not affect much of the article. though i do believe it's important to notify that there are religious references in general in the article, i don't think actually listing references is very "wiki-like". The problem with the article is that there are large number of areas where the article could be summarized but it seems the article wants to keep more details than simplifying it. the section all about the title seems to be trivial as well, it had a good explanation but suddenly it stops and gives some original research.
 * I would Also say the same for the translation note of the title. and fiction and philosophy has very few sources to even hold it's own section. Also reference in popular media needs clean up. i wonder.

to summarize everything, i'm basically saying the smallest things are too detailed and most some of this is trivialBread Ninja (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you to quote off specifically what "theories" of Carl Horn's are posted here, I could only see "statements of fact"; re-post, here on the talk page, specifically what direct quotes you take issue with. My point is that you accuse this article of using "Horn theories" but I see no "theories", of Horn's at least. The rest of the article should, yes, be gutted of "theory". All you did was restate your opposition to theory; I don't deny that, I'm asking what did Horn say that was theory.'''--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're being civil, here, Bread Ninja. Calling people "slow" or "fan-like" when they're just defending community-approved rules just isn't the way to go. I think people have already told you that before, so could you take it into account, please ? I don't like the turn of this discussion. Now, to go back on topic, references (whether theories or statements) deserve to be on WP if they come from a reliable third party source. That's the case for Horn (and also for Napier, sorry V5). And they respect the NPOV as long as opposing reliable theories/statements (if they exist) are also mentionned, which doesn't seem to be violated in the article (at least concerning Horn). That's all. There is no notion of "confirmation" for reliable sources so I don't see where you're getting at. Also, analyses of artistic works cannot be trivial because they're the roots of Wikipedia. Including "theories" (as long as they're reliable) is only improving the articles. Removing them in the name of a so-called "triviality" would be, this time, a violation of the NPOV (and let's not forget you still have to explain why something would be trivial). Also, please don't play with words and use "confirmation" in place of "truth", you won't trick anyone by doing that. Your claims are still unacceptable if we refer to the wikipedia rules. Articles are not meant to "confirm" anything (and thus, are not about stating the "truth), but to report all the knowledge there is on a given subject. And analytic/critical work is knowledge, whether you find it "trivial" or not (and whether you agree with its conclusions or not, V5). You don't agree with the aim of Wiki, too bad, but being negative about it in every talk page is counterproductive, because the rules are not going to change all of a sudden just for someone not wanting to understand them. Argueing endlessly about the same exact stuff, while ignoring those who remind you of what WP is supposed to be, is not leading anywhere, but just getting on everyone's nerves. BN, there are several original research issues in this article, but you're focusing on the content that is not problematic in anyway; what a waste of time.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Folken you are the least one being civil. So if you don't mind, if you call this a waste of time, then by all means leave. if you feel that this is all for nothing, then please don't be uncivil and talk your mouth off.

Again, anything trivial is problematic. Being negative is nothing bad especially when your pointing out that it needs work. Theories don't suit Wiki, And no i wasn't trying to trick anyone by using the word confirmation instead of truth. but i will admit i got confused by Napier, so forgive me, i meant to argue about napier. but that only changes the positions. napiers theories could be trivial and the section where most of Carl horn sources are being used needs work.

though i still feel the fan-like view, all I'm saying is to remove the religion section. because listing minor references of a theme is trivial. we could state NGE does have a strong reference for religion. but i don't think listing every single detail of those references is necessary. So removing the religion section (because basically what we would be doing is removing the majority of the section itself) but still keeping the general information is good. Also folken, the sources there still aren't backing up the information and has been preserved for quite a while. i would say around 4-6 weeks. and the topic was dropped, well more like ignored after you all couldn't find anymore to debate.

the theories do not keep NPOV. NPOV is to give all "Significant" views from the reliable sources. "significant" meaning important or having meaning. theories have no "meaning" and are not "Important". For example, let's say Napier followed Twilight series and made a theory behind it saying that the twilight series has a large reference to something, but Stephenie meyer denies it. A theory would be fine if there wasn't a confirmation. but again, theories wont keep the article neutral.

but maybe you all mis interpret. just in case, I'm saying that the theories in NGE article are unnecessary, but saying that there are theories about it in general are good.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the information is cited in a secondary source, it's not as trivial as you think it is, and warrants a mention in the article. WP:WAF specifically calls for critical commmentary, which includes reliably-sourced 'theories' about the themes of a work. The religion section should not be removed wholesale, because parts of it are sourced to secondary sources. Although Anno said that the religious themes had no significance, significance has been ascribed to the religious imagery by commentators - thus they should not be excluded, as you are suggesting. I am disappointed that you talk about preservation as if it's a temporary state - it is not. Please be more specific about what you view as being the problematic parts of the article, as not all of the religion section is problematic. Saying that there are theories about NGE without giving as much reliably-sourced information as we can about those theories does wiki readers a disservice. --Malkinann (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, I'm being perfectly civil when I honestly say what I think of your way to interact with others, and your persistance in not taking into account what we've said to you multiple times. Appart from that, what I want to say is similar to what Malkinann has just written.


 * Before saying that "trivial is problematic", explain why it would be "trivial". Obviously, if no one agrees with you and if your claims are not substanciated by any rule/guideline, then there is a problem and you're not going in the right direction. The more you pursue a position opposed to community decisions, the more you risk creating tensions. That being said, there are obviously problems within the Eva articles, but blindly deleting blocks of text is not going to help because you're also removing valid and important content. If Wiki standards define a certain type of content as valid, then it's unlikely you'll convince others it needs to be deleted.


 * Yes, theories perfectly suit WP, as long as they come from reliable, third party sources (and Malkinann has perfectly answered you about their "significance"). Susan Napier is a "Professor of Japanese Literature and Culture at the University of Texas at Austin" (from her bio at ANN), her work on Eva has been published in Science Fiction Studies, an academic journal published since 1973 by the DePauw University, so this is perfectly admissible content for the wikipedia article. That some contributors don't agree with its conclusion doesn't matter because WP's aim is not to publish truths or "confirmations", but to to report all the knowledge there is on a given subject, and analystic/critical work is knowledge. There are thousands of articles about literary productions that use various critical works, that sometimes advance very contrasting hypotheses, and in many cases no critics have any clues as to what the author really intended, it remains "theories without confirmations", as you say. I don't see why it would be different for Eva just because it wouldn't correspond to the personal opinion some contributors have, and excluding Napier for this reason would precisely be a violation of NPOV. Various interpretations have been published by various critics, they deserve to be included on WP, period. Also, don't forget that the authors's original intentions and the readers/viewers reactions are two entirely different things.


 * For the religion section, I've already answered you before. I agree some refs listed are unnecessary, but it's also true religious symbols are one of the core visual themes in Eva, and they deserve more than a single vague sentence. You're always talking about this sections, but there are other, more problematic sections than this one.


 * Also, could you finally explain why critical and analytical work would not be "necessary" for Eva ? Eva uses complex themes, sometimes directly derived from psychology and psychoanalysis, and as a fictional work, Wikipedia asks for its article to contain critical analyses.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

you see i make a last comment, but still no one reads it. Malkinann, properly sourced information still doesn't equal non trivia. Why trivial? these small little aspects of the NGE anime don't give anyone any confirmation, it's just a list of reference with no meaning. that's what i mean by trivial. they hold no real ground, it's like listing the references of "alice in wonderland" theme within an anime simply because all the characters share the names and hold similar story. Would i list the references? no. the article would say "holds many references to Alice in wonder land" and be on it's way.

A theory would be good, but in order for the article to have a "theory" section it would have to be multiple theories. We could simply say that many have made theories about NGE's religious section, but to put in one specific theory is not a good idea. but a mention about theories in general is still a good idea. the list gives specific details about certain little areas in the anime that have no plot to it. instead of adding separate little pieces, we should put it all into one big piece without mentioning the little ones. Also your basically putting your own opinion saying it's complex.

Religious theories in NGE, is a bit of a tackle though.

to be honest, it's not complicated if you don't look for false hidden meaning.

What I'm basically saying is that we should "generalize" these sections. remove any specific detail, but still keep the main idea. And since the section would be too small after removing specific trivial reference list, than

Folken, you really were being uncivil on your first comment. but now you toned it down (please keep it that way). Religion as a visual theme is really meaningless, again there are hundred of articles out there that had religion as a visual theme but never gave a long list of references to what specific areas were.I'm simply going by WP:FAN. this article leads to certain areas where it's not focused on.

Also the difference within Eva and other articles is that Eva is a Anime, has been constantly reviewed and have given many answers by the creators. Something that is still a mystery would definitely have theories that are widely accepted. Still, seeing Napier's theory timeline, i will further investigate. If the confirmation of NGE religious reference holding no significance by the creator was later than Napier's theory. than Napier's theory could very well be an early assumption.

the topics within the article aren't trivial, but the specific areas where they give too much detail on that certain areas within the topic is. heavy detail info that can be described by two or more sentence is fine. the NGE article especially have "reference list". the topics arent speaking in a general view, they lean towards certain areas. As for religious section it's given far toomuch credit. Listing reference isn ot really a good idea for stuff like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been uncivil, I've just explained why you were uncivil and asked you to stop.
 * Now, why are you talking so much about religion ? There are other, more important original research issues in the article that are not linked to it. Also, critical work has focused on many aspects of NGE besides religion. I just don't understand why it's such an issue of you, while there is, in my opinion, content far more problematic. For the section itself, as I've already told you, there is certainly no need to list every minor reference to religion in NGE, however it is one of the main visual themes of the show, and many viewers/critics have commented upon it, to the point that even one of the directors had to explain its significance. Nowadays Evangelion is still known to many people because of its "religious" ambiguity. So the overall theme clearly deserves more than a mere allusion. The article needs to explain why people have been so much confused about religions refs, so listing everything is probably not necessary, but it cannot be reduced to just a single sentence.
 * And I repeat, author's intentions and critical reception are still entirely different things, what critics felt during their own vewing is still relevant. Also, there are still no definite answers to many plot elements, so the window is still open for interpretations. As long as they come from reliable sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

that was the whole point of the section. Still, if you find a source where people got confused over the religious visual themes, than yes, you can enter it, but since the article already states the creators explanation, i don't think the need of further explanation is necessary. the list should be removed though.

still i believe we should generalize the theory section as well, a specific theory shouldn't be entered or maybe a theory could be mentioned but not given specific details.

Another thing we could work on is the way it's placed. too many quotes like "Anno has stated" and statements similar to that. we could summarize it without the quotes. So that's something we can work on. that type of tone seems to be more towards the origin and production section.

As for translation on the title, it seems to have alot of original research. i'll come bakc ina few minutes to discuss more on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anno is not the be-all-and-end-all for how Evangelion is interpreted, so including the critical analyses of other reliable sources is appropriate. The parts of the list that are reliably sourced should not be removed. Making the 'theory section' 'generalised' - glossing over the analyses of NGE without giving them appropriate weight, does the reader of the article a disservice and should be avoided. The information in the quotes by Anno should also be retained - although it could possibly be reshuffled into the production section. --Malkinann (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MAlkinann
 * the source does not back up the information and still list format for reference theme is still very trivial. of course there are many interpretations but that doesn't mean we have to make our own. that's basically what the list is doing, making it's own interpretation. there is hardly anything in that section that says the same thing the sources say. the sources are basically from in-universe. As seen in WP:EVA, in the end folken saved it merely to "preserve". ALso listing religious reference has no meaning. it's a visual theme and can be mentioned into a paragraph, but listing isn't a good idea.
 * 'As for the theory section, generalizing the theory section would be getting the raw idea and any further


 * Which sources don't back up the information? Please be more specific. Text can always be improved per the editing policy, so whether it's currently in a list format is completely irrelevant. You can't remove information just because it's not perfectly formatted, that goes against the editing policy, which holds that the editing process guides articles to higher levels of quality over time. Some of the examples in the list are not cited, but some of them are - which makes them not our own interpretation of the series. The parts of the religion section that are cited should be preserved. There is nothing "mere" about preservation - it is an important part of the editing policy and how we do things on Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

 * Since I'm behind on this conversation and since Folken and Malkinannn seem to be making most of the points & objections I would've (although ironically, V, one of my beefs with Carl Horn is that he's too focused on tracking & analyzing the religious aspects of Eva, as you can see if you look through the archive of his writings on Evamonkey), I'll just confine myself to one:
 * I strongly disagree with the idea that we use too many quotes and too many quotes of Anno in particular. To think that and to consider the logical next step of removing & paraphrasing is very short-sighted. This is not high school, where the teacher will dock you for quoting too much. This is Wikipedia; something like 44k people a month read this article ( http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Neon%20Genesis%20Evangelion%20(anime) ), and this article will last for decades and possibly centuries in various revisions & archives.
 * That far, the original sources may be unobtainable. They may not even be known; more than one of my citations and quotes was simply common knowledge and not cited anywhere except in the memory of a mortal Eva ML member or an obscure Internet Archive page, vulnerable to later robots.txt revisions. (Have you seen my list of sources to follow up on, on the project talk page? How many of those do you think I'll actually be able to find anywhere?)
 * We have a duty to our readers, present and future, to not merely include the bibliographical data but the actual quotes we are using. Paraphrasing would be gratuitously destroying information. Quoting lets people reuse the quote and get as much value as the first person did (and as I have done for these articles!); paraphrasing is playing a needless game of telephone. Eva sites and materials die all the time. I think some of the links, like the translations of the End of Evangelion 'death threats' are on their 4th or 5th host already. (And this is perfectly normal, historically. Read up on the Suda, or take a look at Pre-Socratic philosophy. If ancient authors had been so scrupulous as you, BN, we would have nothing.)
 * Paraphrasing also inserts us into the process. It is OR, pure and simple: you are deciding what is important and putting things in the author's mouth. I recently learned from Carl Horn that Gainax founding president Toshio Okada says "that he was talking about "the base story of Neon Genesis Evangelion" with Anno back when he was still at the company (he dates his departure to 1992)." This is obviously in direct contradiction to the current Origins & production section since Gainax in '92 was still working on Aoki Uru and that didn't fail until July 1993. But because I used quotes from The Notenki Memoirs and didn't use vague paraphrases or random citations, I have some chance of reconciling the 2 accounts (once I get a hold of the Animerica interviews Horn is talking about); without the quotes, I wouldn't know exactly what Takeda was claiming, what I had written, and they compare with Okada.
 * And people like the quotes. Just take the 'all the characters are so sick' quote; at least 20 people/websites have gone to all of the effort of copying it, putting it online, repeated & discussed that quote since I added it to the article, implying countless more appreciated it. Why? Because quotes say something mealy-mouthed paraphrases never will. What could we possibly say that would approach the punch-in-the-gut, the sudden shock, of Anno's quote that "It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the characters are so sick!"? Nothing. Even if you or I could write a sentence that yields such insight into Eva, we would have to strike it from the record for being OR. The quotes say the things we cannot.
 * EDIT: I realize that that may seem a trivial example. Here's another one: Tsurumaki's quote saying that the Christian symbolism was there to be cool. How often does one see it these days in discussions by non-otaku of Eva? It is quoted or alluded to pretty darn frequently. How often did it use to be quoted? Not very often by anyone but a hardcore fan, because it is sourced to an extremely obscure interview for an obscure staffer, and the webpage isn't even working now that I check! Yes, perhaps everybody has been getting it from the evaotaku.com FAQ, but that's pretty unlikely; we know where everyone is reading it - here. --Gwern (contribs) 01:41 6 November 2009 (GMT)

gwern, your reasoning is not very good. most of that sounded like WP:ILIKEIT. you cant speak for other wiki readers and say that people like the quotes. the information within the quotes can be saved, but keeping it in "quote format" isn't. constantly writing as if Anno is informing rather than wiki itself disrupts the flow of the article. the problem is that the information can be generalized. Also gwern it doesn't matter how much effort you and i or anyone else does in this article, if there's a better way, than there is no point going against simply because it's changing something you added.And copy and paste really isn't much of work. the real effort comes into copy-editing. your view is completely one sided.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think it's only copy-paste that went into this article & its quotes, you are badly mistaken. For every quote that appears in this article, I spend hours carefully searching through various databases and old websites and reading page after page and do countless other things trying to track things back to the original and then actually get the original source. That's a little like taking one of Bashi's haiku and scoffing, '17 syllables, that really can't be much of work'.
 * And it's kind of funny that you're lecturing about copyediting being easier than research, because from all the edits I've seen of you, you are incapable of either. If you ever wrote some prose which wasn't hideously mangled, or contributed something new to an article - with a citation even! - maybe then I'd put some credence in your claim that copyediting is harder than research. (Personal criticism aside, the categories for unreferenced articles & assertions are 100 times larger than for copyediting. Why is this? Because you don't need to know anything to copyedit an article, and you can do it in a few minutes. Expertise & large amounts of time are required for most unreferenced articles, though...) --Gwern (contribs) 01:37 7 November 2009 (GMT)


 * I don't think it sounds like WP:ILIKEIT, it's just a good-faithed and realistic justification of a point of view. You have a right to disagree, but dismissing any external opinion just because it contradicts yours is not very civil. If you take it like that, any expression of an opinion on WP can be accused of being WP:ILIKEIT, and clearly that would be betraying the spirit of the original essay. Gwern gave a thorough justification of his POV, and whether we agree with it or not, it is not as if Gwern just said "I like it that way". On the contrary, your answer sounds like I don't like it because you don't even bother to give a detailed answer. You merely claim that keeping the quote format cannot be done and that your way is better, but you don't explain why it would be so. In fact, instead of answering, you just threw a series of accusations at Gwern.
 * Now to get back on topic, Gwern is right in saying that we're constantly losing content. We lost a series of articles about Eva that were published by Manichi Daily News in 2006 for the announcement of Rebuild. They contained sales figures and an interesting interview with Otsuki. Luckily, someone copy-pasted the interview on a forum. And honestly, including footnotes for the reader to verify the sentence he has just read seems to me as disruptive of the flow of the text as quotes. And we're not removing footnotes. However, I wonder if multiplying quotes to preserve them is really advised for the articles. Maybe Wikiquotes is more appropriate for that. But I don't know, we should carefully read the manuals of style. But I think the current number of quotes in the article is fine. As I've said many times now, BR, you seem to be niptpicking about unimportant things, there are more serious issues than quotes here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the MT really burns my noodles with their disappearance from the Web and the IA isn't working for me now. (I suppose you should insert your forum link.) Sources die, and quoting is a backup system; ad hoc, but it works right now and has other benefits.
 * As for Wikiquote: I'm not familiar with their policies, but I don't think I've ever run into a page which contained quotes suitable for writing articles with. They always seem to focus on witty, interesting, or beautiful quotes. Which makes sense, but also makes them not really appropriate for this task. (Why work against the Wikiquote mores, risking their wrath now or years hence, and expend all the effort to move them over and replace them with inferior paraphrase or filler verbiage?) --Gwern (contribs) 01:37 7 November 2009 (GMT)

folken i gave my reasons, the one thing i felt from gwern that was WP:iILIKEIT was when she actually said that the readers "like it". and i didn't give a considerable amount of reasons. so you cant say i'm being uncivil. you just don't see me as a neutral contributor.

sigh... beautiful quotes? i can feel the fancruft out of these sentences but i decide not to talk about it and move on

anyways...the quotes are never truly necessary unless really needed to explain something. there is a large amount of quotes. one or two quotes are fine, but that's not the case here. to be honest, it's not nitpicking i simple see this as a small issue, I'm not the one who is really offended by the idea,. the large amount of quotes falling in the same section makes the article feel like a newspaper. no damage would occur just to summarize the main idea of the quotes. to be honest it seems NGE contributors fear summarizations and losing amount of size within NGE. not everything has to be kept.

Folken it would not disrupt the flow if we summarize the quote and get the main idea and leave the rest to the reader to do research. in fact, that's just being paranoid. someone would read it much faster, and has supporting references. that's what the references are for, to show where we got the info, is it really that offensive just to remove them in quote format? WP:QUOTE also provides us on when to not use quotes. the quotes used in the article seem to fall right in to one or more areas within why we shouldn't use the quotes. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to get clarification. Bread Ninja, are you wanting the quotes completely stricken from the article, or made into footnotes? I don't have a problem with how they are being used in the article currently, but if the majority feels that they could be converted to footnotes then that's fine. I do not support their removal from the article, as they are sourced, notable information. Trying to "summarize" them is tantamount to OR, as was stated recently, and simply striking them for the reasons that you have given is, frankly, nonsensical and harmful to the article as a whole. *crawls back under his rock* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be "harmful". no damage would be done. Again the article doesnt need them in quote format, instead summarize the main idea of the quote. The summarization og the quote can still be sourced. jsut because it's sourced doesnt mean it absolutely has to stay int he same format.

what if a plot is too long but every little piece is sourced? It's most defintely NOT OR! Original research would be info that has no source. Summarizing the information from the quote wouldnt be OR, it's just simply stating what the quote said without saying "Anno said, '_'" Bread Ninja (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Then summarize the 'sick' quote. Without OR. And without dropping the bit about popularity, or the other bit about being 'sick'. I don't think it can be done because to put it in other words without quotes is either to uselessly paraphrase, plagiarize, or bring to bear an entire system & interpretation of Eva (OR); it'd be like summarizing Descartes's cogito. --Gwern (contribs) 00:18 10 November 2009 (GMT)
 * Exactly. You can't take a direct quote from someone else and attempt to summarize and/or paraphrase it without putting your own spin on it of some sort. That is as much OR as coming up with a completely subjective interpretation of something in a media. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sigh...we might as well call the entire articles OR. there is a very possible and probable way to paraphrase it or remove them from quote format. gwern, you are going by your bias point of view, you merely want them there because you like them and think that there is no possible way to go around them. And Willbyr, you simply don't know how OR works, OR is new information not based off any source. if i simply summarize the information, than it wouldn't be OR, because it would be basically saying the same information but summarized. the sumamrization will hold the same points as the quote, so in reality the source the quote was from can still work for the summarize. ALso did any of you read WP:QUOTE?

the quotes shouldnt even exist for these two reasons from WP:QUOTE
 * the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.
 * a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles.

Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "We might as well call the entire articles OR"? Methinks thou stretcheth thy hyperbole past the breaking point. The points you're trying to raise in regards to WP:QUOTE are more applicable to trying to summarize sections of text from a work that is being used as a source than from a personal quotation (and that carries the risk of getting hit with WP:PARAPHRASE), and the first point, at face value, is laughable because the quotes are from the people who were directly involved with Gainax and/or Evangelion itself, whose input is the most valuable of anyone's.


 * For the record, you have no room to be dictating who knows which policies to anyone. Everyone who's worked on this and the other NGE articles has been here a lot longer than you have and has had to wrestle with OR, fair use, and a ton of other policies which the Eva articles have struggled with. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

you're comparing NGE article with other nge articles. which is not a good idea. this is really starting to sound like WP:FAN. there's just far too much fancruft.

Willbyr, don't you understand? the quote is not needed in quote format. yes there input is important, but do we say everything in quote format? again, the raw info that the quotes have is whats important, not the quote themselves.

Also please be a bit more civil.

Example, if the creator gave a simple Plot description we will have to put that in quote format? We can simply say he stated something without the form of the quote, that's what i mean by summarize. Also WP:PARAPHRASE can fall into many categories within NGE article, not just the quotes, because that's the main argument in this article, removing trivia and simplifying heavily detailed explanations, including quotes. Sigh...the information of the quote can stay but just simply removing it in quote format, removing it in quote format, removing it in quote format. ( if eel i have to repeat myself just so people don't skim through my comments)

there are also quotes that seem to be trivial despite coming from someone as reliable as Anno and some are just difficult to decipher.

these are the quotes I'm worried about. (i feel this one should simply be moved to character article) (barely readable, suggests summarize and get the raw idea of what he's saying) (this doesn't seem to fit anywhere, apparently it fits in inspiration and influence, but i dont see how it does)
 * It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the characters are so sick!
 * "General Products had closed shop. We'd pulled out of Wonder Festival [a "flea market for garage kits"] and garage kit making altogether. We weren't taking on any subcontracting work for anime production. We did continue to make PC games – Akai had seen to that – but there wasn't a lot of work tossed our way. With mere pennies coming in, we were having a hard enough time just paying everyone's salaries. Finally the order came down for us to halt production on Aoki Uru. We were simply incapable of taking the project any further."
 * "The people who make anime and the people who watch it always want the same things. The creators have been making the same story for about 10 years; the viewers seem to be satisfied and there's no sense of urgency. There's no future in that."

but it seems no one ever tries to see this at a neutral point of view, when it comes to proposals. this all leads to fancruft, basically implying that everything the creator says about something is important to the article. Well not everything is important, in fact, sometimes what the creator can say trivial things.

Don't type anything yet, i still have a bit more to say.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

the point is, it wouldn't be OR if i summarized or paraphrased a quote, if the information matches the one with the quote, than it would still be based off of the source the quote was originally taken from. OR would be my own interpretation. something added into the summarization that wasn't in the original quote. in fact, it would be easier simply to put the quotes as sources. it apparently has been done in the religion section by quoting the characters within the article but does not match the interpretation the section says. Which is why i proposed to remove the list of references (apparently it had been agreed by one, but not by the other, who has yet to defend her statement)

try not to be so arbitrary about the quotes, give areal reason to why we cant summarize the quotes. Areas that weren't arbitrary reasons were still pretty trivial. the quotes are most definitively not "absolute". it's very difficult to be neutral when everyone dislikes an idea that has no real reason to disapprove.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:QUOTE:


 * "Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves."


 * "When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when:... dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors."


 * That sick quote certainly seems like it fits. The location isn't particularly important, but I feel that it says such an important thing about the characters that someone who reads this article but isn't interested enough to check out the 'character article' (whatever that is) will be left with a lopsided impression, and might think our Psychology section overstates the case. The current location is good enough.


 * And as for the Notenki quote, what's incomprehensible about it? It's perfectly readable to me (unlike your comments), and even someone who doesn't know what General Products is or Wonder Festival or subcontracting gets Takeda's gist: Gainax was

hemorrhaging and dying. (I really should write up General Products since I've gotten ahold of the Notenki Memoirs again.)
 * The 'People who make anime' is also sensible. It is setting forth Anno's view that anime in the '90s (and '00s, given the Rebuild announcement) was going nowhere fast and the craziness of Eva, its complexity and 'plagiarism' are attempts to get somewhere new. This seems like 'inspiration' to me - 'arousing to a particular action or emotion', WordNet says.


 * "Example, if the creator gave a simple Plot description we will have to put that in quote format?"


 * You jest, but Anno does actually give a simple plot summary in the original Evangelion proposal and also 'What Were We Trying To Do Here?', which I have quoted in a few places. Important stuff, since Eva's plot was unfinished during production and constantly shifted (which knowledge affects how we think of the TV ending and thus EoE as well).


 * And I haven't defended the Religion list because entries in it are either obvious or referenced. (What, are you really going to object to listing the cross-shaped explosions, or that the Marduk Institute refers to the ancient god?) --Gwern (contribs) 21:22 10 November 2009 (GMT)

it's really simple gwern i suggest you give a proper reason closest to neutral point of view. This looks almost the exact same style as Wikia's articles of NGE, in fact, i believe many of you have similar thinking to those of wikia contributors. Seeing how quotes just seem to just float in a section but not really contribute to the article.

Religion images & references
anyways for the Religion section, like i said before, isn't properly sourced, or the source doesn't hold any real info that the section says. Again, the list are very trivial because there is no point having it and holds no real ground. Simply listing trivial religious references that seem to be only a visual theme shouldn't be in the Article. So again, i suggested that we remove the list in the religion section, but some of you still don't feel that we should remove it as a section due to some Fancruft ideas.

As for quotes, it's not that big a deal. and no i don't joke gwern. i was being serious. The large amount of quotes are governing certain sections. Like i said summarize the info of the quote. there definitely is a way to summarize them, i don't see why so many of you are against it. maybe too much given importance over the creators word, that you all feel that quotes should be kept. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe...or maybe it's that you're obsessing about a minor issue that no one else who works on the article has a problem with. Here's the deciding factor - if/when this article gets a new peer review, if the reviewers feel that the quotes are overkill, they'll say so. I don't remember if the quotes were in the article in their current format for the last peer review, but if they were, they weren't mentioned in the cleanup notes, which translates to being a non-issue. In the meantime, your high horse routine and this childish petulance you're showing (really, putting the Wikia comment on Gwern's talk page too?!) is not earning you any friends and making you look like a troll. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The version of the article and the relevant peer review are both linked in the talk page headers. The article in 2006 had multiple quotes beginning with the Characters section, but I hadn't edited the page much by 2006 and so most of the current quotes weren't there then. That said, the peer review never complained about the quotes, often complained about lack of citations, and Monocrat outright encouraged us to include much more material on how all the characters interact (and also include the less well-documented production issues). Amusingly, reviewers also complained about the strictly factual/encyclopedic information on international releases.
 * As for the religion section: choose your poison. If the imagery is significant semantically, then obviously it must be included. If the imagery is not significant semantically - if it is just visual & stylistic - then it must be included as a significant feature of Evangelion's appeal, as part of what made it so influential and critically interesting, and as important to RS coverage of Evangelion. (eg. I just sent in an ILL request for the academic paper "Stillness and Style in 'Neon Genesis Evangelion'" and I am trying to get "The Aesthetics of Excess in Neon Genesis Evangelion".) --Gwern (contribs) 18:10 12 November 2009 (GMT)

Willbyr, this isnt an area to make friends, though it seems strong alliances have been made with others. ANd yes i did talk about gwern over wikia. not a big deal. Again, if it's really not an issue, than no one should mind it being summarized, the entire article is over detailed. One way to make it less overwhelming is simply removing them in quote style. since no one sees it as an issue, and clearly there wouldnt be any real damage. so i just dont see why would there be any problems with it.

it's not like i'm removing information or adding OR. it's jsut removing them in that format so it wont take so much space. though some quotes i do believe need to be moved or simply just trivial. like i said, the quote in the character section seems far to trivial to stand alone right there without havinga proper use. I suggest moving it to the characters sections.

As for the religion Section Gwern, like i said, the list of reference is really trivial, it holds no importance to the plot, merely that these reference only appear visualy. Also the Source does not support the information so again, removing the lsit section is perfectly fine, as Folken  agreed. Still one thing we still havent finish discussing is the weight of the section able to stay as a "stand-alone" section. to me it would seem it would fit in inspiration nad influence but to add more detail that although they added the references, they just wanted to look cool as VVVV has said, i tihnk the source is still there. Bread Ninja (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So if the quotes are important, they should be summarized, and if they aren't important, then no one will mind them being summarized & so they should be summarized. I like your logic...
 * I don't think the religion references are trivial. And I've already said why visual or not, they're important either way. (Incidentally, did you ever come up with a summary for the sick quote? Or are you dismissing the concerns as not being "real"? Proof by assertion and No true Scotsman come to mind.) --Gwern (contribs) 01:40 13 November 2009 (GMT)
 * Just a note in passing (I'm no longer bothering with BR's excessive dramatization over non-issues). I said that I did not feel listing every single religious ref was an absolute necessity. Some references may be more obvious and meaningful than others, some points may still be in need of accurate sourcing, but I do not agree with BR's idea to scrap the whole list. The section should be improved with more content than a mere list, but the list itself is not an issue. As to whether or not the religious refs should have their own section, I don't think we should merge everything because we have many concepts to deal with, and just one section for it all that would not benefit the reader. Separating religious/psychology etc is only making a clearer, cleaner article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Folken honestly, do you have to say that? so uncivil...i think we should scrap the list, it's trivial, has no real supporting sources. What's so important about telling the readers that a cross often appears in NGE or that the angels are named off of names of the bible? and whether you find it excessive dramatization (which clearly isn't, I'm merely supporting my idea while you are all dramatizing my ideas believe them to be far fetch, which really isn't). you all say because it's important just because others feel that it is? the list holds no real importance, it doesn't affect the plot of the story.

like i said, merely saying that there are religious references is informative enough and how much impact it gave to fans and others is a plus, but giving every single detail about the religious reference in a form of a list is trivia.

Gwern, i already said for that particular quote to be moved in the NGE characters article (which somehow you misinterpreted that too). AS for everything else some comments are hard to decipher especially the way Anno has said. Summarizing it would serve best to shorten info without removing

if you all find it to be something that's not an issue but definitely can be reworked, and most definitely wont do any damage to an article, than you shouldn't be a problem to edit it. yes the author/creator's input is important, I'm not saying that we should remove the quote or removing information, it's merely removing it in a certain format.

i was thinking about making the quotes into sources themselves since we have external links already and summarizing the quotes on the article to a more subtle point of view, that way information can be moved much easier without worrying too much about WP:PARAPHRASE.

it's hard to know exactly what Anno is saying, though the very concept of what he is saying is pretty easy to read. Still it would be better to find an easier way to read these comments. Anno does have a particular way of speaking that some people have trouble understanding certain areas within his speech. though myself and my friends included it is best not to use it as a notable reason. the only reason why i get worked up is because of reasons like OR or a possible threat to WP:PARAPHRASE. still it's just an idea, though i fully support it. it doesn't have to be absolute.

Anyways.....the translation notes on the title seems to have the most OR. it holds two sources only .the second source appears to not to relate to directly. I suggest removing the OR.

Inspiration and influence section i do believe needs work. like the music section, explaining areas where the artist have added NGE reference sounds unnecessary to mention. merely listing the bands that have added NGE reference is good enough. though of course some do not like the idea of removing list format or any format, let me just ask what you guys want to be done.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, I feel it's really uncivil of you to suggest that people who don't agree with you edit like fans, reason like fans, or that the article is full of fancruft. This is pejorative, and offensive because it implies that others views are clouded by fanaticism and that what they write isn't good, when really what's in the article is backed up by the WP:WAF guideline and by reliable sources (and therefore the editing policy). Maintaining civility helps the encyclopedia because it makes Wikipedia a more pleasant place to be - happy contributors contribute more. Please stop saying that people 'edit like fans' or 'reason like fans' or that the article is 'fancruft'. There are reliable sources in the list of religious allusions, therefore those parts of the list should be preserved per the editing policy and the writing about fiction guideline. It does readers a disservice to exclude reliably-sourced information from the article, as you are suggesting. Decisions on Wikipedia should not be influenced by off-wiki discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

tell me which ones are reliably sourced, because last time i checked it didn't. either way, again, it's trivia. whether a few have reliable sources and it feels almost in-universe (almost, I'm not saying it is). it's just "visual" theme, NGE isnt the first to make religious visual theme, so why make a list of it as if it were the first to do so? it also holds no ground, it doesn't part of the list gave a specific impact to it's popularity, because nothing specific has been mentioned as of yet, and listing every single piece of visual reference is trivia.

maybe a list of which specific piece of religious reference that made the series famous and more recognizable to the would be better, but simply what's already in the series is just fancruft.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NGE is not the first to use religious themes & imagery, no, but it did so to a tremendous extent and is probably still the paradigmatic case; certainly a great deal of the secondary literature mentions the religion. (You can find hits in Google News linking Eva and religion!) Kotani's book on Eva focuses first on sexuality/feminism - and then on religion. --Gwern (contribs) 00:46 16 November 2009 (GMT)

This is in danger of getting uncivil, please continue on the project page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, the references are in the article. For example, Napier, the Feb 95 issue of Animerica, Protoculture Addicts, etc. As you are proposing changes to the article, you need to be more specific about what you find to be problematic. Discussing the religious references in the series is not trivial because religion is a criticised theme of Evangelion. Information on themes and critical attention is specifically called for by the writing about fiction manual of style. --Malkinann (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's trivial information. Religious theme in general is not trivial, listing every aspect that the NGE has shown has is trivial. like i said, it would be better to list areas of religious reference to where there was an impact by plot, or by fans or public (which would have to be explained within the list).

Secondary sources merely mentioning that there is religious reference isn't notable enough to say that it's important.

Malkinann, the list is very close to becoming miscellaneous and has is very close to in-universe, seeing as how it doesn't explain the impact of religious reference within the list or explain how that particular area within is important to mention or how it affected the plot, I'm 'almost' certain that it is miscellaneous, which would mean a miscellaneous list is something to be considered trivia within WP. the list just sits there listing religious reference with no ground.

Also the article barely discusses the religious reference it's more of "listing" than discussing.it is very trivial. and i looked at WP:WAF, i find nothing on something needing to be explained by a specific theme.and if you call this explaining a 'theme', then it doesnt look like it's presenting it well. it most definitely should not be in list format, explaining a theme is explaining what the theme is, not what the theme has.

An example of explaining theme would be:

Religious theme has often appeared within the NGE series, and many have made various theories to Religious reference. Religious references have caught many peoples' attention. The most common scene in religious reference is the names of the angels coming from angelology.

this is just an example, and of course the content inside the example is OR. but something like this would be better explanation, and fit in summary style than a list of explaining specific areas. Showing areas where some have given attention to is trivial unless you explain the impact to the people or how much it had significance within the plot.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And where are we going to get 'impact' or 'significance' except from 'where some have given attention to'? Have you started advocating OR? Surely not... --Gwern (contribs) 17:15 16 November 2009 (GMT)


 * Bread Ninja, the section of WP:WAF which calls for critical commentary is WAF, as an example of information that contributes towards the article having a real-world perspective. Per the editing policy, that the current section is in a list format does not matter, the text can always be improved. --Malkinann (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwern, by "impact" or "significance" I'm basically asking for a bit more critical reception on those specific areas. And if you think it's unlikely to find these pieces of information, all the more reason to remove the list. but of course not the section itself. Unless you have another reason to keep it.

Malkinann like i said, text is trivia within the list. the list does not even fit what the section is talking about, it only says for "plausible". WP:WAF asks for secondary sources having a real world perspective. and again, trivial. the information holds no ground, we cant put information just because we see it reliable, if it falls in trivia, then we rather shouldn't put it in. or what we can do is summarize the ideas. it's really trivial to mention specific areas where religion appears. Even if some have made theories about it, what would be the point in adding it in the theme section? interpretations and theories shouldn't fall int he religion section.

EX> Steampunk is often a visual theme in many mangas and anime, but a certain Anime has brought up steampunk in various way where many scholars and professionals try to determine the timeline of this particular anime, will they list every possible area of steampunk where speculation on what time it was? i dont think so. the article could mention that many have made different theories nad speculations and probably mention an example to one that is widely accepted, but again, better representation of theme would be explaining the theme in a not so specific and a more general way than what this NGE article has it.

another example would be the steampunk article itself, though commonly known as a genre in there, it is also referred to a visual theme. they list minimal examples to explain the theme, they do not list every aspect that every manga/anime had.

I'm actually considering making a "Common theme" section rather than just "religion" due to that there seems to talk a lot more about psychological and psychoanalytic theories. still it's up to consideration.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bread Ninja, I really don't see your point. What you're suggesting (a "common theme" section) is already in the article under the name "Inspiration and symbolism". That religion/religious imagery has its own subsection is only logical because the whole thematic analysis is so huge that it is easier for the reader to order the section by themes. Whether it is named "common themes" or "Inspiration and symbolism", the structure won't change, we will keep it for the benefit of the readers. It seems to me you just want to avoid having the word "religion" written in a subsection header, and if you don't want to explain why, I don't think we will ever agree on it.
 * Also, if we have a section dedicated to themes, then it's only logical to put theories and interpretations there. Otherwise, what would you write ? To me, talking about theme without providing secondary comments would look like an overly detailed plot summary. That's why theories and analyses about religion belong in the "religion" section".
 * As for the list format in the article, there is no problem with it. It's a logical extension to the paragraph about religion, because it clarifies to a reader who has never seen Eva why religious imagery was such controversial for the western audience. It allows to show the variety of the symbols used and they frequency, and it's just easier to read in a list format. To sum it up, as per the various manuals of style, the list format is perfectly appropriate for WP articles, and the subject is not trivial because it is useful for the reader to better understand the purpose of the whole section. Of course, not every reference deserves to be mentionned (notably the very obscure "room of Guf"). But if you really want to continue this debate, please understand that it is not enough for you to merely claim that the list is "trivial", you must justify it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Folken you say that the list is important simply because it helps people understand the section, but that is the exact opposite from what i see. It doesn't help people understand, it only brings more confusion. The article starts off talking about How the creators added christian symbolism but has no particular meaning, than the list completely contradicts that information without any explanation. the list is trivial because it is unnecessary. We can definitely replace the list with an explanation. We don't need the list. It would be extremely difficult to explain Christian symbolism in the format it is right now, so why not explain it with few sentences and leave room for the reader to do further research on anything too specific. Because not every piece of info makes it into Wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't contradict the section introduction at all. Please read more carefully. Religious symbols doesn't have any meaning inside the story itself of for the staff, however, they refer to real-word concept/imagery, they are not fictional, and a reader who has no religious knowledge needs to understand why the name "Adam" (for example) is religion-connoted. If we don't explain that some elements have created controversy precisely because they refer to external notions, then a reader not familiar with either the show or religion will not understand. There is nothing "too specific". An understanding (even vague) of both the show and of religious imagery is necessary to grasp the section, and that's what the list is providing to readers, so it is not "confusing".
 * As for the list format, it is definitely more appropriate for what we're doing, ie writing short definitions/explanations for a series of entries related to the preceding paragraph. Writing it all as "a long sequence within a sentence" is more difficult to read than a list, as per the "lists" MoS. As long as the content is kept, we can argue forever about which format is better, but since you don't point to any MoS-related issue with the list, we can finally end this debate because there are far more important problems than lists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know folken, this isn't a forum where you can just close a thread. you can leave, but you cant end a Discussion. (if you find any uncivility in this sentence i would like you to know that it was not intended)

there is multiple interpretations to the religious sections, so why put the ones Napier used or the ones many other. And you misunderstood.I'm not suggesting a sequential sentence talking about specific religious areas, I'm talking about completely removing that piece of trivia, and giving a straight forward explanation. no implications, no hints. Just give the direct response. The list only benefits the ones who already seen the series because those readers know where these areas are. For someone who never seen the series, it wont give that much affect.

It doesn't matter if the reader believes if Adam is a religious connotation, it's trivia. And yes there are things that "too specific". And yes i do agree that we should explain that some elements have created controversy, but i don't think we should add a list and imply it.

Give straight forward explanation. description =/= explaining. And that what the list does, describe some controversies, but doesn't even say they are controversies. A mere sentence or two saying that many fans and scholars have made multiple interpretations to NGE's Religious Reference is an actual explanation, rather than this unnecessary list. Like i said, it's trivial, almost into a miscellaneous list, and you proved my point by explaining the importance of Adam (which is also trivial) and how it would affect the reader, honestly i see absolutely nothing that could affect the reader, it's just explaining something in-universe. There are far more religious theme than just "Adam", the term GOD and ANGELS and the crucified Lilith is more than enough within the series for someone else to find more connections to religion. And none of these areas need to be explained.

give a real explanation, not a description.

instead of a list describing the controversies within NGE (which i have read thoroughly) we can merely explain that there are controversies in there. A few sentences would benefit, it removes trivial, and make the article a little less overwhelming. Also the reason why i don't use WP: because none of them are forcing a specific topic, they only say that they allow stuff, which in this case it can go for both areas, nothing is against my reasoning, and apparently some things aren't against yours (idk, I'm still going by WP:TRIVIA, which in the way you described the adam example, gave me even more reason to believe it's trivia).Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating "it's trivia", but you don't explain why. I've been asking you to prove your point, but you're merely saying that you don't like it. Really, I don't see why it would be so offensive to say which elements created controversies and puzzled the viewers. This is just for the sake of clarity, to the benefit of readers not having seen the show or not having enough religious background to understand why a name or a design could be ambiguous. And I think we've already spent way too much time on such non-issue, so I'm not going to reply any longer. There isn't any clear policy-related problem, you're just relying on a very subjective definition of "trivia" that is obviously not shared by anyone else. If you refuse to justify your views, I can't say more.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've explained myself almost a dozen times why it's trivial. Don't tell me you skim through my comments. The list is miscellaneous, in fact only explains certain areas, and has no ground, it doesn't explain what the Religion section is about, it only describes certain theories about where Religion could exist in NGE. It is not necessary to be kept

Keeping it would be fancruft, and I'm not trying to be uncivilized, but Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program.

not saying that you are all die-hard fans, but still some of this stuff is trivial.

and like i said, the term doesn't to give a well mannered explanation. it only implies it. it is most certainly not necessary, two sentences saying that many people have made multiple interpretations to these areas and how it impacted fans is important. Explaining what specific areas where people have made there own interpretation is trivial considering that Kazuya said that it contains multiple interpretations. Someone who doesn't know anything about religion shouldn't be doing there research here. We dont describe the religion in NGE, we just inform that it exist.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We have explained to you several times that the religion section is not trivial because information on critical attention (including themes) is specifically called for in the WAF manual of style. We can't control what the reliable sources say, we can only reflect them, as an encyclopedia should. If reliable sources have made their own interpretations, then they should be reflected in the article. If not, the article does not achieve a neutral point of view, instead treating only the creators' interpretations as "good". Once something's published, everyone can have their own views on it - although Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources, of course! Excluding information from the article because you feel it's "trivial" does our readers a disservice by not giving them a fuller picture of Evangelion. --Malkinann (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

it is trully difficult to be civil.....malikinann, you never read my comments carefully, so for the last time, stop saying the religion section is important. i get it, it's important, whats your point? because all i'm talking about is the frickin list.

section is fine, list isn't. (please don't make me repeat this sentence so you can understand)

NPOV? both point of views dont contradict, Creator says religious references in NGE have multiple interpretation, therefore merely mentioning the interpretations of others will not make NPOV>

and again, merely informing that others have made there own interpretation is better than giving out every specific POV, we don't specifically point of everything. Have you read all of WP:NPOV malkinann? there's one sentence that you might have missed '''An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common'''

But again, the form of list in unnecessary, just explain it. removing list and giving a proper explanation to those who have made multiple interpretations is better explaining it from the way it is now. list format isn't working. Folken wants it there for 'further Understanding' for those who havent seen it, but i only see it benefiting fans rather than first-time readers. He also stated it would also benefit those who don't know much about NGE, that is also the very reason why i don't think the list is benefiting. For someone who doesn't know religion can do there own research on it rather than NGE article explaining it for them.

Again, NPOV can be easily explained in a better way, but in the form of list is not really helping especially since these POV's are just plausible and theories, it's not necessary to give them individual importance in form of a list. A sentence or two explaining, is better than giving all plausible areas.

And it is trivial, only fans would see it important. generalizing info is best than listing specific areas.

Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the list. The related manual of style perfectly allows this precise use, and out of the 5 participants to this discussion, 4 said they had no problem with it. You're the only one calling for its deletion, and you still haven't provided valid reasons for it. There is obvioulsy a consensus against you, and continuing to ignore it is not reasonable. Either you respect the consensus, or you try to prove your point.


 * Then, WP:NPOV it states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." What you're proposing is to establish a clear bias in favor of one interpretation (the Tsurumaki quote) and to restrict as much as possible the other views. You won't be allowed to do that. The sentence you quoted, "An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize [...]" is directly contradicting your claims, and confirming what i'm saying.
 * "It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources". This clearly explains that yes, we need to develop every interpretation we mention, and intentionally restricting them to vague generalisations, as you recommand, is a violation of the NPOV.
 * Please give us valid reasons to contradict the rules. We won't do it just so that you can have your own way with the article.


 * Finally, we're talking about NGE, NGE uses multiple religious references, there have been multiple interpretations as to the meanings of these references, so we explain why religious references caused controversy and why. Period. These references aren't "plausible and theories", they are hard facts, that have stirred controversy, if we mention the controversy we mention its roots. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if you don't accept that you can go elsewhere. Our aim is to be thorough and to provide readers with knowledge. If you don't like a particular knowledge, please understand that Wikipedia is not censored. If I follow you, we must delete the list because it benefits too much the reader, because its content is too much useful ? I've had enough of your nonesense. You won't have your own way here, period.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First, stop being uncivil. Honestly, you can leave, I'm tired of you saying your leaving, and tlaking for others. so just stop talking like your the divine ruler, and calm down.

NO they are most certainly not "fact", just another interpretation of someone else.

Folken, it doesn't benefit real readers, it only benefits fans, there is no point helping domeone understand religion in a series if it can be explained. my previous examples prove my point. further understanding for fans, not for real-readers.

another example=

an article is about a book, and the book holds many small references to Pandora's box in the book, but holds no real significance to the story, despite sources mentioning that it exist in the book.

will the article list every Pandora's Box reference simply because a reliable source mentions it? not everything has to be mentioned in an article simply because it's source is reliable.

it's really difficult to converse with you if you think your way is the only possible way to display NPOV. it isn't benefiting the article itself. IF NGE was somehow related to a certain book simply by visual theme and the creator said it had no real meaning yet some have made there own interpretation, will we list every aspect of NGE had that related to the book just to maintain NPOV?

again there are other ways, and the way it is represented in Religion section looks sloppy. A sentence or two saying what the creator said but an entire list for

And no, I find no violation to generalizing the POV's especially if all is one POV.

this is incredibly fustrating. Folken you mention NPOV, even though the list contradicts alot than you seem to ingore, but you still want the list. does the list say Who believes What and why? no it does not, therefore form of a list is not the best way to go. A simple sentence or two explaining who believes what and why.

Still the list hardly contradicts the article, but then again it does not hold true Facts about NGE relating to religion.

let's keep this simple ok? let me separate two groups, group one is PRO for religion having meaning, Group 2 is CON for religion having meaning in NGE.

the list falls in neither. The list doesn't contradict the info on what the creator said, yet, at the same time does not support it. it's trivial, simply listing holding up random info about what religion is shown in NGE. The list talks more about religion in general rather than religion in NGE and how it affects story. The list does not say religion has any meaning in NGE, only states them, yet does not state whether it has meaning or not.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem that I see with the list is that it could use a few more sources, at minimum exact locations of the references in the episodes rather than the general notes that some of them have. BN, your insistence at hammering this issue when everyone else with an opinion is contrary to you is just as "uncivil" as anyone's comments directed at you; frankly, you wouldn't be catching anything "uncivil" if you didn't keep going and going with this argument. I'm thoroughly sick of it myself, I just haven't said anything. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that BR is not even reading any of what we're writing, even when we're directly quoting rules and guidelines. Worse, she doesn't even understand any of the reason behind the "religion" section, she even seems to be misinterpreting the quote from Tsurumaki (i.e. confusing the two acceptances of "meaning": 1) the thing or idea that a sound, word, sign, etc. represents. 2) the ideas that a writer, artist, etc; wishes to communicate through a book, painting, etc.).
 * Really, the list is perfectly fine (of course, it needs to be worked on, but having a list is not an issue) because it allows readers not familiar with Eva to have a better understand of the show itself, and more precisely of the controversy. But her insistance to remove it with no real reason is just irritiating. I could understand if this proposition was motivated by a valid stylistic reason, but there is none. BR keeps hammering her opinion just for the sake of it, but since this opinion has no grounds in terms of content/style policy, it's just down to I like/don't like it, and this is not the right way to contribute here. It's not up to one single user to define new ways of editing. As there is a clear consensus against this proposition, I don't see any reason to keep argueing here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It' just like i said it. you stopped talking about the points i made and clearly you just talking a bout me in general WIllbyr. And again, I'm not saying it because i don't like it, i find very difficulty finding the meaning. but better understanding of the series in what way?

again, i see it only affecting fans rather than real-readers. NO further understanding is necessary, specific areas in a form of a list looks sloppy, but enough about that point.

i am truly depressed at this point, but right now i don't think Wikipedia is the right place to state my very raw opinion on things. You constantly say i don't bring this and that when i actually DO. You just skimm through my comments, i take a decent hour or so trying to talk about every topic you say but it's difficult to keep up.

anyways you keep misunderstanding, the Paragraph on Religion and the list on religion doesn't contradict each other, yet, at the same time, the religion list holds no real ground. Seems to be vaguely related to the opening paragraph. you mentioned a few definitions of meaning though still you need to see how the meaning could apply here. you should rather go for Wiktionary when applying definitions.


 * 1) The symbolic value of something.
 * 2) The significance of a thing, as "the meaning of life"

you cant contradict me with a mere definition on a word and not put it into play within the conversation.Why mention detailed explanations of something so small?

there is most certainly no need of it. if it was removed there wouldn't be harm done. especially towards readers.

Again, the point is that the list contradicts nothing, it just sits there, it doesn't fall in neither PRO or CON on what the director has said so it is not supporting NPOV. contradicting areas would be, one saying that it is significant and one saying it isn't or one saying has several interpretations and the other stating there is only one. therefore miscellaneous. Like i said, the list does not display the Who believes What and why. And yes i do read what you say, are cut them up into pieces and talk about each piece at a time. Like i said it is trivia. The information sounds very miscellaneous and better understanding of something isn't often needed. It's visual theme and hardly affects the story, plot, or anything rather than what is going on within Fan-range. What's there to understand? and again i go by WP:fancruft.

one important quote WP:FANCRUFT says is The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole.

there is no need to keep the information, not really related to NPOV, not stated in a proper way (WHo believes What and Why if it was part of NPOV), just miscellaneous info only benefiting within fan-range.

the list only implies it having meaning but does not state anything contradictory to the paragraph to use it as NPOV, nothing within the list is Contradicting itself, so why does NPOV need to apply here? Further understanding is not necessary, i don't see what there is more to explain about. NOt every single detail has to be mentioned.

i would like to explain in heavy detail, bu i cant be ont he computer all day, so there are somethings i want to say but couldn't. if it were up to me i would take a whole day for each commentBread Ninja (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain what you mean by "the list holds no real ground" or "the list seems to be vaguely related to the opening paragraph". The list contains elements directly taken from the show. We can't help if the Eva staff itself chose to include elements from religion in general. It's a list of the religious references in Evangelion that have stirred a controversy among reviewers and analysts. It is not the expression of a particular viewpoint, it's just a zoom on one aspect of the show, and it explains why we're dedicating a section to it, it clarifies the issue to readers not familiar with the show. Just like stating that Anno is the director of the show. This is knowledge.


 * "Why mention detailed explanations of something so small?" Because it is not so small, otherwise there wouldn't be such a controversy, there wouldn't be scholars theorizing about its meaning, and there wouldn't be comments from the staff. It is NOT "something so small", and for readers who are not familiar with the show or with religion, it is always useful to explain what the controversy is about, why there is a controvery, which elements caused it, etc. The list is an effort to contextualize the dispute to the benefit of the readers not familiar with the show, who may not know Eva is literally riddle with religious undertones. Giving examples is just making the situation easier to grasp for the readers.
 * Now, your turn. Tell me exactly what would be the harm of mentionning these references. You keep saying the list is "trivial", "unnecessary", "fancruft", "not benefitting real readers", "miscellaneous"...which are all synonymous to "Bread Ninja simply doesn't like it". Now find a real reason, based on precise policy elements.
 * Explain also what would be benefitting the readers in removing valuable information ?


 * I don't see why you want the list to "contradict" anything (what a strange idea). The list explains what the controversy is about. The list uses elements directly from the show and is not a part of anyone's theory. It's all just suplemental notes to clarify the issue to readers not familiar with the show. Again, we can't help if the Eva staff itself chose to include religious references. The list is not to be submitted to NPOV because it contains no point of view. It is merely knowledge on the issue. So please stop mixing things up just for the sake of continuing the argument. You're not making any sense.


 * And if "better understanding of something isn't often needed", then I wonder what you're doing here on WP. You're wasting your (and our) time, because Wikipedia precisely exists in order to provide better understanding to readers not necessarily familiar with a topic. What you are saying is nonsensical, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.


 * "It's visual theme and hardly affects the story, plot, or anything rather than what is going on within Fan-range"
 * Are you serious ?
 * I'm just copy-pasting what others and I wrote earlier, because you obviously didn't read it. From Gwern: "If the imagery is significant semantically, then obviously it must be included. If the imagery is not significant semantically - if it is just visual & stylistic - then it must be included as a significant feature of Evangelion's appeal, as part of what made it so influential and critically interesting, and as important to RS coverage of Evangelion." From Malkinaan: "We have explained to you several times that the religion section is not trivial because information on critical attention (including themes) is specifically called for in the WAF manual of style." From me: " it is one of the main visual themes of the show, and many viewers/critics have commented upon it, to the point that even one of the directors had to explain its significance. Nowadays Evangelion is still known to many people because of its "religious" ambiguity. So the overall theme clearly deserves more than a mere allusion."


 * I cannot understand how you can honestly say that what was discussed in academic papers would be "fancruft". See also this comment. Your constant trolling is tiresome.


 * Your quoting of the essay (not policy) about fancruft is a particularly dishonest, because how could a subject wildly discussed both in popular reviews and academic works, and which came to represent Evangelion for a whole generation of viewers, correspond to the sentence you're using: "entire topic is unknown outside fan circles".


 * There is a reason why WP:Fancruft is an essay and not a policy or a guideline. The notion is entirely subjective, it has no precise definition because it would vary according to each contributor discussing it. It is only an essay because otherwise, there could be a risk of people using it as a trump-card for removing what would not suit their liking. That you qualify a subject which received attention both in popular and academic sources, as something "not known outside fan circles" is only an example of this kind of abuse.


 * And since you can only cite dubious essays to back up your claims, since you can only rely on opinions and not on policies or guidelines, I conclude there is no issue whatsoever.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't use "fancruft" for anything. I only use that subject this very once. you say very valid points, but of course, do not exactly support the idea of holding the list.

this whole thing is completely one sided. "If the imagery is significant semantically, then obviously it must be included. If the imagery is not significant semantically - if it is just visual & stylistic - then it must be included as a significant feature of Evangelion's appeal, as part of what made it so influential and critically interesting, and as important to RS coverage of Evangelion. "

^^if it's significant add the points? if it's not then don't mention the points but call it significant anyways and give Reception and mention influential and critical interest?

the second option should be there even if it is significant. Also you have to support what you say. if we have sources saying it's significant then put it in.

"We have explained to you several times that the religion section is not trivial because information on critical attention (including themes) is specifically called for in the WAF manual of style."

^^^ I support the idea of this 100%, the approach the article is taking, 50%. you can guess which half i'm talking about that doesnt appear important info.

'''the main point you are saying is that the information is vital merely because the section itself is. '''

how could a subject wildly discussed both in popular reviews and academic works, and which came to represent Evangelion for a whole generation of viewers, correspond to the sentence you're using: "entire topic is unknown outside fan circles".

^^^^this is why i believe you skim through my comments. and by skimming, i mean not grasping what I'm trying to say. the subject is FINE, the entire topic is known to people outside of the fan group but I'm talking about specific areas within the topic.! i'm specifically talkinga bout the list itself.

focus on the list, not on the topic, the list.

Like i said, I'm not budging not once on this one. i may budge once or twice, about certain things, but i know this information is not necessary within Wikipedia, and it does not support the theme section as much as you all believe it does. Overall it leads to trivia.

First of all, the information is not mentioned within the series, Again, not necessary. it's only benefiting fans. And as much as you say it will benefit

We do not list the various points and further understanding is not necessary. the small points are most definitely not important, no matter how you say it is. The information can be harmful since the article itself is overflowing with information and not following summarize style or paraphrase. the least we can do is remove trivial info.

I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible, it's becoming difficult to "sound" neutral when everything around me is one sided.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Before accusing anyone of "not grasping what you're trying to say", at least try to use proper english. Sorry but it's sometimes too difficult to read your sentences.
 * You're still refusing to answer my question. I will also stand my ground on this one: what harm could cause the list, and on which policy or guideline are you basing your claims that the list would be "unnecessary" ? The consensus here is that the list is fine, you would need a strong justification to contradict it. Mere opinion is not enough.
 * Most of your objections have already been countered in my previous posts. Repeating the same ideas over and over is pointless if you're unable to bring more precise and on-topic answers. Yes, we got it, you find the list trivial, but we do not, so you will have to provide further justification, otherwise this won't go further.


 * <> I agree that some elements of the article are a bordeline OR, and even some points in the list are too obscure to be mentionned, and contain more OR than relevant content. However, the list itself is not trivial. Of course it's not perfect and it needs to be worked on, but the idea of having a list of religious refs is fine.


 * I can only propose you to accept a shortened version of the list, you have to understand that there is no reason to completely remove the list. Maintaining your claims is not going to relax the atmosphere, it will only make the debate more tense. You often complain that the people opposing you are "one sided", but you're not making any effort to adapt your claims to what other contributors told you. Even WP:SUMMARY doesn't support plain removal of information, so we cannot do just anything you want for the sake of it. You're talking about "not budging" on the issue, but you could also try to consider making concessions in a more positive way. You should try to see it not as a personal failure, but as a benefit for the article. We've debated for a long time now, and we have all the elements allowing us to make something that will satisfy everyone. Now it's time to be more constructive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

we need more refs to prove it, and it does not have any refs proving it's significant, it only has refs proving it exist.

ALSO the list has elements directly to the show? why is that necessary?

that list doesnt explain "why" there is contraversy. it just "floats in midair"

of all the attention these points have received in mainstream reviews and analytical works. No matter how you say it is not. And I remind you again that saying is not enough. You have to prove your point.

^^I DID! like i said before, merely giving importants to the point "ingenreal" doesnt mean the smaller points making it up are equally as important as you say. that's why it's fancruft, believe ing every small detail is important to the religion section even if no harm is done. further understanding to this point is most defintly not necessary. we already have two images for NGE (which really should be one).

The list contains elements directly taken from the show. We can't help it if the Eva staff itself chose to include elements from religion in general.

^^why are you even mentioning what the creators say? what matters is what we put in the article, not what the creators say. though there POV is important.

like i said, none of these points are necessary. and you agreed on some of thepoints i have said. the sources dont back any of it.

the problem is that the list really isnt necessary at all. and i'm gettign the vibe that all of you know this but choose to hang on to the very comments you all say.

if a theme had huge significance to killing, and of course, major to the series tiself, will we list every aspect where a fan or non fan took into consideration?

that kind of stuff is trivial. information that simply floats but not connected to what the main point, is simply, trivial. the main idea of the list is what i like, the list itself, isn ot so good and not necessary to be in NGE article.

i want to answer your question but i only have limited time. so for now take what you can from these comments.216.64.190.254 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BN, do try to remember to log in, and also edit the right section...
 * We don't have refs showing significance? What are the Routt and Broderick articles, chopped liver? (And here when I had go to the trouble of getting an online version of Routt...) --Gwern (contribs) 00:29 1 December 2009 (GMT)

Again BN, you claim, but you do not justify. We know your personal opinion on the subject, but it is of no interest to us. You've still not established why the list would be trivial, you're only saying that it "is", and as you know, we don't agree. We have all the references, both in mainstream reviews and analytical works, proving the significance of the subject (and that it exists in many reliable sources, means it's significant). We are not talking about "small details" but pivotal artistic elements that have received attention in various sources, and yes, further understanding of this point is necessary, otherwise there wouldn't have been any ambiguity concerning this topic. Why are we mentionning "what the creators said" ? Maybe because these creators...made the show, and this is what this article is about, the show. Yes, I know, strange to talk about Evangelion in an article named Evangelion, eh ? By the way, I don't see why you claim that a list of religious references wouldn't be connected to a section dedicated to religious references. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, you don't make sense. Please be reasonable and try to work toward a consensus. Stubbornly hammering your opinion won't bring anything, and it will only antagonize you further. I see you complain a lot that people are systematically against you, but the truth is, you're doing everything to make it happen. Try to follow Malkinaan's advice and take a wikibreak, it will allow you to see the issue differently. Because now you're obviously in a logic of competition, the quality of the article obviously doesn't matter to you, you're just arguing for the sake of having the last word and this is not how WP works.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Like i said, due to limited time i can never mention the main points. so for now i'll make things simple.

no, i do not want to argue for the sake of arguing, this is trully becoming uncivil, and you and wilbyr are the most hostile people here. if anything you two should take a wikibreak aswell.

i truly believe it's beneficial for the article to remove that info. Like i said, not every piece needs to be mentioned separately, explain each piece is trivial. not every piece is vital, it was merely the visual religious references itself that got NGE famous, not every one in specific. SO a more general explanation and maybe one example is good enough. besides we already have two images of religious references in the article, further explanation is not necessary.

no, it's not about NGE article talking about NGE, or Religious reference need to be added simply because they are explaining religious reference. not everything has to be mentioned about the topic, just because the topic is vital to the series.

i agree that information in general is important, but not all of it. like i said, two to three sentences explaining what the list implies is much more beneficial. For someone who doesn't know religion, should look for further information on it somewhere else.

i am only mentioning common dubious words, because i have limited time. Again if i had a whole day i would.

but simply using WP: isn't proving much. it only allows certain areas, but like i said, WP barely touches any of this. WP: only says what they allow. and yes i agree that theme should be explained, but again, the format, and the info used, is simply not helping in general.

What i mean by the list floating in the air but does not touch the ground area of the paragraph, is that the list does not try to connect to the paragraph, it simply "floats" it doesn't try to give a further explanation to connect the two separate areas. to give a better simile, it's like a chain that doesn't connect. both are talking about the same topic, but both don't try to chain themselves together

and i will say that there is simply a biased bunch, again WP wont help on this one except trivia, and that is difficult to prove with references and sources, that's why i'm trying to explain it to you. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time to answer correctly, then don't post here until you have time, because arguing for the sake of arguing leads nowhere. If you answer without having anything to say, you're wasting our time.
 * As for the rest of your post, I've already told you: Ok, we know your opinion, but no we're not convinced. Hammering it over and over is not going to change anything. Please provide enough explanations as to why (according to WP policies and guideline) the list wouldn't be necessary, and why it would be so important to remove it. If you refuse to do so, it's useless to reply.
 * I find the list perfectly linked to the main paragraph (the section is about religious references, and the list presents religious references. No problem), since we're giving short definition of several entries, a list is an appropriate format, and the only place readers are going to find info about Evangelion is on an Evangelion article, nowhere else, so a list of religious references in Eva is perfectly relevant in this article. I already said to you that the list is not perfect, some items are unnecessary, others need sourcing. But you seem to be obsessed with the entire removal of the list, which has been rejected. So for once, be reasonable, accept the consensus, and start actually helping to improve the list instead of clinging to your initial idea just for the sake of having the last word. I think we all agree that the list is not perfect and has to be shortened, but by refusing to make compromises, just for the sake of it, you're slowing down the whole process.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Me slowing down the process? i don't see you proposing anything at all. in fact all of you just deny. instead, why don't you propose something else along?

A small list is hardly worth anything at all, the list itself is not necessary because one example is good enough and further examples is not necessary. . And one example in a form of list will take too much space. Again maybe if you gave further explanation to the Opening sentence to the list, then it could possibly chain to the paragraph.

you misunderstood, i said "it's like chain that isn't connected" but pieces are some-what related to the topic, but don't "connect". Again the list simply implies some significance, but doesnt explain why those areas are specifically important.

Self contradiction i sense is that religious references ARE important, yet not everyone needs to be listed even if they were. you see what i mean?

two or three examples are good, but not in a form of a list. the list is basically implying all what you said, but i feel we can be much more direct than that. We could go by WP:NPS, but of course you all want "policy". Again all of this is very loose and multiple interpretations come to play with the list than intended.

Also folken, you really are uncivil. you judge more than what you take. i don't want the last word. i just want what needs to be done. I sense that at least one of you knows what i mean, but for the sake of not removing it you wish not to. Please explain why each and every single piece is important, piece by piece.

it cant be NPOV since both points don't contradict, because one of the creators said multiple interpretations, meaning anyone can give it significance if they interpreted that way. Either way too much self contradictions i see. for instance the gwern comment you mentioned, no matter what significant or not will still have to be mentioned as significant.

it cant be further explanation, that would be fancruft, not everything must be explained, especially as something as religion. If one doesn't know about religion then they must research on religion article. And the list merely implies everything you all said. It would be best for the list to give a more direct and brief explanation than list implying the main idea. Again i realize you are all fans and believe that information should stay. but no one is saying that the list is vital to the religion section.

We need to reduce as much as we possibly can, not every should be reduced, but the list doesn't seem to deem any importance, especially how you all describe it. You all say information is important, but when it comes down to the part where the lsit should be kept, it doesn't really sound as good.

You're right though, we have no control of what NGE says or what Napier says. but we still have control on what is deemed vital. The article has grown too large. Like i said, we can just simply summarize what the list implies and give a more direct answer. As you see the article is overwhelming with info that not all has to be stayed.

Merely wanting the list because it can stay there isn't the best choice of words. Every Aspect shouldn't be mentioned in the religion section but at the same time, if we list only certain areas even though there are sources for more, than we are deeming one piece more important than the other. which we shouldn't do. One piece of reference used as an example will be much more appropriate.

it's a bit fansite-like to deem certain areas important even though the entire visual theme is equally important as the other. One example is good, and two to three sentences is good too. we need to shorten the areas where they can be able to.

Just because the list is talking about the religious references doesn't mean we have to actually add the references in and I'm sure most or all the references in.

Like i said, each piece is important as long as we list all which I'm sure we wont do. because each individual piece isn't important alone unless used as an example (implying that there are more religious references but not adding in to reduce overwhelming.

Small group would leave risk for us to choose favoritism within the references. Also we need to make room even if we cut short the list, the list format still takes large amount of space. the best decision is to summarize.

It wont be a disservice to first-time readers. and it will leave more room for explaining more critical reception on the religious references. Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

took me weeks to understand this, but i'm going to have to be CON with having religious references also. religionin NGE is important, but we cant make it seem important just by adding the religious references in it, instead like what bread ninja said, we should how the public has made it important and add refs on that. Simply because there is mention of it's existence doesn't mean it's notable enough to mention or important enough. i agree that the religion section is important, but the information can be expanded in a much suitable form. Also what would be the point of simply listing areas where people have made there own interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.107.71 (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2009
 * If a topic is important, then we're not "making it seem" important by mentionning it. We're mentioning it precisely because it is important, and thus there is absolutely no reason to censor valid information. Religious references are an important visual theme in Eva that was discussed many times in various reliable sources and as such, they are notable and get mentionned here, period. And yes, if people's various interpretations were published in reliable sources, then they are mentionned.
 * By the way, "listing areas where people have [...]" ? I'm sorry but only Bread Ninja uses the word "area" in such a way. If you are Bread Ninja but trying to make people believe that others support your views, this is going to be problematic. I'm going to request a check on that IP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

you always think ill of me. i would never do that. first you claim i'm out to get people against you. and now you this? honestly, i have not been on for a while, i have been very busy with holidays and i use library computers to get on considering i do not have one of my own. I am not that user. simple as that. Just because someone said "list" and "area" appears very vague to consider me using another IP to support me. Someone who is following the horrid discussion might use words already used in the discussion to not confuse one another simple as that. but very well i have nothing to worry about.

again, censor valid information? to you what is "valid"? Anyways...disregarding what the user has said, i still go 100%. but of course i cannot rely people familiar with NGE articles. i will ask someone who isnt. it's difficult to take mysterious IP users seriously so i'm going by adopters or admins if i can find any.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, you're the only one to blame if others think ill of you. You tried to make people unfamiliar with this topic take your side by telling them a false account of this discussion, all that behind our backs. You insulted us all on others' people talk page. All that you did after this debate was to call us "a bunch of fanatics". So don't be surprised if you're suspected.
 * By the way, you still don't understand that this isn't a correct behavior. You're trying to circumvent a consensus by involving people unfamiliar with the topic, but this isn't how things work. Instead of plotting behind our backs, accept and respect our consensus. Refusing to do so is just worsening your case. And for the last time, stop playing your little games. You now very well I have explained what is valid. That you don't find anything to reply to it is not my problem. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to anyone other than you, though wilbyr was more uncalled for considering he was the least to even approach me. and no, i'm not looking for people unfamiliar with the topic to take my side, i'm looking for someone unfamiliar to the topic to give arbitration. as obvious as it can get, i do not have trust over the contributors in nge for what i have seen in articles. if i call you a bunch of fans, instead of getting offended, you might take it into consideration, just like what i've been doing. yes i think some of your points are valid, but again, i simply do not agree those points are enough. like i said before, the list is vague and appears almost completely random whenever read. and simply because the religious references have been deemed worthy to the public doesnt mean they are important to be listed. something like that would have to be plot-related.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)