Talk:Themes of Neon Genesis Evangelion

OR and usefulness of article
Is this even a necessary split ? Many paragraphs are unsourced, and go into needlessly detailed descriptions. We could remove the list of religious references (or reduce it to the most noted examples such as crosses and angels names - without citing each one of them) and the whole "Religion" section could be included as is in the main article. Same for "Philosophy" section, which is just a duplicate of TV anime content, and for "Psychoanalysis" with a bit of editing and OR removal. Articles are split when they already feel complete, not for the sake of getting rid of content in order to pass GA. I'm afraid this won't go anywhere and will be quickly abandoned if GA is passed with NGE (anime).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Having researched the material already - I've axed the obvious OR out. I'm fairly certain I know who's essay was used to actually cover the psychoanalysis of the characters... make that two essays rather. I got to browse the university circuit some for the citation though. Eva is very big, academically speaking, while others like Ghost in the Shell and FLCL got considerable amounts of attention, NGE's coverage definitely merits a page for it. The individual references need to be fixed to prose, but that aside - its not OR. So I'll be removing it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having read your revisions, I'd say a lot of the previous OR still exists in the article, and the direction you're taking with your own contributions to the "Religion" section is only adding more OR. If Eva is "very big, academically speaking", I'm still waiting to see if that deserves a full article. I'm really concerned about where this article is headed, since existing content should be improved and sourced before you start splitting and advocating your POV on the question. It would help if you provided a list of the sources you're planning to use, to let others relieve you of some heavy work (considering you're already involved in multiple articles) and to check whether this split is going anywhere. I just wanted to let you know that without immediate signs of progress, I'll soon propose for this to be merged back into Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and purged of POV and OR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

POV issue in "Religion"
So as not to leave a tag in the article without explanations...

What I think you're aiming at, is to show that critics have given importance to religious reference in the anime despite commentaries from creators, which could be a valid point. However, to me, it reads as if you were saying these critics are somehow right and the creators somehow wrong, which could be a breach of WP:NPOV.

Certain sentences are really problematic in this respect:
 * "The use of religious themes in the work is debated in part because of the comments from the staff which suggested the material was merely referenced and not researched before hand. " From my experience, these comments do not suggest material was not "researched beforehand". The issue here is possible misunderstanding of these comments, and the meaning you give to "researched".
 * "This is brought into question with the existence of the Neon Genesis Evangelion Proposal document created two years prior to the series debut." What you're implying here and in the following sentence is that there is a contradiction between that proposal and creators' comments. However you're only citing primary sources (the proposal itself) thus it looks like you're presenting your own original viewpoint.
 * "The limited use interpretation conflicts with the analysis of academics who analysis the religious iconography used in the show, suggesting a deeper understanding of the material." And here you're clearly saying academics are right and creators are wrong, as if the creators failed to see the "deeper understanding" (a clearly positively connoted expression that seems to be used against the creators' view). Conflicts between critics' interpretations and creators' declaration is nothing new, but on WP you must be careful with how these things are presented.

I understand you are busy with other articles and might consider these issues can easily be fixed later on, but with NPOV and NOR that's really not how you should work, you can't just leave problematic edits in articles until you've time to improve them. What could help would be to work in your userspace first, and edit them into articles only when you feel they're complete and have enough sources to remove any POV or OR issue. The same with how the whole article shouldn't have been split until it was ready.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to discount the multiple interpretations. Anno is the most credible source for insight into the work and its meanings. Anno consistently advances the grander view, and you have to remember the context of these comments. The first prior to the release and the 1996 comments long before the whole slew of material or the Evangelion Chronicle came out. Many of the comments are dated, but academics constantly have drawn some pretty tight conclusions and found themes - not a gospel or message - as hinted at by Anno. Certain aspects, like the imagery used are one such thing, and how to you reconcile the direct references to the NGE world and very esoteric religious beliefs that are made? Rei is a good example of half a dozen of these major questions, but I have not placed something of my own assertion here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You got me wrong, the problem is not the idea but the way you presented it, which is not neutral and based on your own reading of primary sources instead of secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not my interpretation. I am removing the tag as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tag reinstated. It is your interpretation of the NGE proposal, I don't see any secondary source backing that up. Please be cooperative and work with others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is OR, the definitions come straight from the original materials and do not require any further knowledge. Hence, it is not OR. They were even reprinted in the collected work. Specifically, what issue do you have. What exactly are you calling OR? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "[...] the comments from the staff which suggested the material was merely referenced and not researched before hand. This is brought into question with the existence of the Neon Genesis Evangelion Proposal document created two years prior to the series debut." What you are doing with these 2 sentences is original research by synthesis. You take the Tsurumaki comment on one side, and the NGE proposal on the other, and you make them say something that neither of the sources say individually, ie you're making an original research. Where does it say that the NGE proposal questions the comments by Tsurumaki (or the other way around) ? Tsurumaki merely says there is no specific christian meaning to the show, and christian iconography was just a design gimmick. How does that negate that the show has metaphysical questions ? "The existence of god" is not a christian theme, it is a metaphysical one that is not affiliated to any religion, and Anno's quote from Animerica says exactly that, "What is humanity's relationship to his or her god?", last time I checked, "humanity" doesn't mean "Christians", and Anno doesn't identify "god" strictly with the Christian God. So again, where does it say that the NGE proposal questions the comments by Tsurumaki (or the other way around) ? The answer is nowhere, because that was your own interpretation of two sources, and that's OR. Had this "questioning of Tsurumaki by the proposal" been mentioned in a secondary source, then it would have been OK to include it. But there's no secondary source supporting this interpretation, thus it's yours, and you can't write your own interpretations in an article. That was for the specific OR issue, but the whole POV issue of the section is that you had chosen a formulation that seemed to say that Tsurumaki is wrong in his comment, and that critics who think differently are right. It's a good thing you have removed this sentence, but the OR issue about Tsurumaki vs proposal makes it clear you should rethink your approach for this section.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I'm oblivious to the issue with the proposal, I need it pointed out because the material is explicit and not implicit about the definition, names and details of the work. I don't see how identifying the Japanese definition of the word is OR. 使徒 is the term for Biblical apostles, of Christ. Is that disputed? Is Apostolo as アポストロ contested? You could parse it out to A-po-su-to-ro, but usage as Apostolo is just the conversion. Secondly, since the names and descriptions are of Old Testament angels, as noted in the sentence above from the official document, it is not OR to say that the name was changed. How is it non-neutral? Anno even stated that Evangelion is not about giant robots "in the slightest". I get the feeling you haven't seen or have forgotten Evangelion. Here is a good essay on it. It focuses on the psychological aspects a lot more, but also deals with Anno's emotional break down. Though I must point out that your issues are dealt with by Charles Duan's analysis of this. To say that Evangelion was just whipped up on the fly without a religious meaning is an insult your intelligence. Now, Duan's analysis came out before the whole of Evangelion. Stating, "It seems a little hard to believe that the Evangelion staff just threw Christian symbols together randomly, when those symbols fit together so neatly that it seems more than coincidental. That is, after all, what I am doing in my essay: showing that various elements in Evangelion, when considered as a whole, produce a single, unified message that is too well-constructed to be accidental." The original essay came before the release of the other documents which back, nay, prove, that such depth existed in the proposal, a full two years before the release. And of the manga? Well that's even stronger. Even the title carries a religious theme! Angels, God, forced evolution, apocalypse, secret religious texts decode the "end times", Adam and Lilith - humans as Lilum? The angels specifically referred to as "alternate creations" that "took a different path". Even when we get into the "classified information" this becomes apparent - something which I am pondering on including despite the canon matter of it. I really need an expert like Gwern for this... its been a few years since I last probed into the academic thinking - which was pre-Rebuild. And one last thing: I agree that Tsurumaki's statement is deliberately misleading or gravely misinformed. Anno's later statements confirm this - Evangelion is not about giant robots and has deep religious content throughout all aspects of the show. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completely reworked my previous post and I think you had written the above comment before reading my new post, thus most of what you say is not what I was refering to, and I'll wait for you to write another answer once you've read my updated comment. However some comment of yours such as "The original essay came before the release of the other documents which back, nay, prove, that such depth existed in the proposal" and "Tsurumaki's statement is deliberately misleading or gravely misinformed", have me really worried that you are indeed headed right into a huge NPOV violation with this and I urge you to carefully read WP:OR and WP:NPOV and think about it before putting more content into the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just taken a look at Charles Duan's analysis that you linked to. Though it certainly has its merits as a personal read, I think this is not what Wikipedia considers as a Reliable Source, and thus you won't be able to use it in an article. A reliable source is "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". More precisely, among the criteria for research papers, we find that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." In that respect, PhD dissertations are considered reliable. From WP:SPS we learn that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter".
 * From Duan's introduction: "I am a law student with an undergraduate degree in computer science. I am not a psychology student. This essay is not a Ph.D. thesis. It was in no way connected to my primary fields of study. It was written as a final course paper for an elective [...] This paper was written during the spring semester of 2001, for a course on Japanese Animation taught by Professor Susan Napier." From that disclaimer, the paper does not fit any of the criteria for RS.
 * This is a student's personal essay written for a course assignment, then posted on the student's personal website. The paper has not been published in an academic publication and is thus self-published, as such it has not been not been peer reviewed or vetted by the scholar community, it's not part of PhD thesis either. Though there is a provision that allows self-published source from experts on the subject, Duan is not an expert on philosophy/religion/Japanese animation, as he says himself. The essay does meet any criterion that could make it a RS usable in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will deal with it and remove the tags. You also seem to think the essay was intended for use in the article, which I never claimed nor used, but I could make use of it for a rebuttal. Which I did. Let's get one thing out of the way, have you even watched the show? What about the translations confound you? You treat that comment from Tsurumaki as the final word. I disagree. If you have a problem - make your case. I still do not see the problem - you made a long and good point about the essay I used to try and inform you of a widely-held counterview. Could you to focus on the specific issues rather than making vague statements. What specifically is wrong and why does my previous answers not satisfy you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want a whole section on the messanic Shinji or no? Since this can be a full page, I can definitely stretch my legs here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure there is a difference between your personal beliefs, and what makes it into the article. You can have whatever interpretation you want on Evangelion, as long as in the article, they come from a reliable secondary source and not from your own synthesis of 2 primary sources which don't say what you want them to say, and you don't give these interpretations undue weight. If you disagree with the Tsurumaki comment, you'll have to find a reliable source (so not Duan) to back it up, and the source must be explicit in that, it must not be unrelated comments that you interpret in your way (for example, the ANN review cannot be used as a rebuttal of Tsurumaki, because it doesn't mention it, or religion, at all). As such, you can add whatever you want on messianic Shinji as long as it come from a reliable secondary source, and if you don't use it to contradict Tsurumaki's claim unless the source explicitely states there is a christian meaning to the show (Shinji having messianic qualities is not a christian meaning).
 * I'll review your new edits and see if the tags removal was warranted or not. Be careful, though, that the Psychology section contained unsourced claims last time I checked, or sourced only to primary sources (ie the episodes), so if these are still there (or if your new edits don't solve the issue), tags will return. I think I've been very clear as to what the problems are, and now it's your turn to collaborate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Psychoanalysis and Philosophy sections still contain unsourced claims so OR tag returns.
 * New edits to Religion section highly problematic and still too much OR. I'll remove anything that violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. To clarify, Broderick's comment that you quote absolutely doesn't contradict any of Tsurumaki or Anno's statement.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What specifically is the OR? Answer below if its not Tsurumaki. I want those tags off asap and you seem unable to even identify the problems and confuse simple statements. Do you deny the religious theme of Evangelion as a whole? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already said everything clearly. You only have to read.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Below. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OR
Multiple things have been said under the category "psychoanalysis" which are cited with direct quotes from the series and at times no citations whatsoever. While I am eager to hope the user(s) who wrote these things are correct in their claims, they remain unfounded and uncited since 2013, I beleive. Thus I am going to erase them, and in addition reformat the entire section due to the reason of explicit referencing to an essay by Napir following the first paragraph. Frcstr (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsurumaki
I brought the matter to No_original_research/Noticeboard, simply put Evangelion has a religious theme. Your interpretation of Tsurumaki confuses the theme and meaning. The very overt religious theme is all but unquestioned. Why you can't understand that is beyond me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, let me tell you right away that no one will understand your textwall at the NOR noticeboard because you don't even provide proper contextualization and act as if everyone is familiar with our dispute there, or even with NGE.
 * Second, I'm sorry but you are the one who doesn't understand the Tsurumaki quote. "We did want our story to have a religious theme to help distinguish us [...] There is no actual Christian meaning to the show, we just thought the visual symbols of Christianity look cool." Yes of course, NGE has a religious theme, but it doesn't have a religious meaning ie the creators (Anno and Tsurumaki included) didn't believe themselves in the religious aspects featured in the show, and didn't use them to advocate a Christian lifestyle or philosophy. The "no meaning" part simply means religious symbols were used as narrative devices to build an obscure/mysterious/exotic (for the Japanese) mythology, but otherwise they are not to be taken literally. That is, Anno doesn't tell us to "be good Christians", to "respect the Bible", to "believe in God" etc. Not at all.
 * And that's exactly what Broderick says. That the religious allusions as constructed so as to form a plot, a background for the story, but he doesn't find any religious meaning to the show. That's why you can't use Broderick to contradict Tsurumaki: because he doesn't contradict him. By the way, Kraemer says it even more clearly: "even if some of the imagery is used naively or as a way of making the series seem exotic to a Japanese audience." How you can even think of contradicting Tsurumaki's statement with all that is beyond me. Clearly, you have your opinion on the question, and even an opinion on Tsurumaki as a person, and you're trying to push this POV of yours into the article while no sources say what you're trying to make them say.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said that already and I pointed out "overt religious theme" and you contested the nature. While it may be better to refer to the mere reference, I am not stating of a theological lesson, but it does espouse, within the work, a new genesis. And please explicitly highlight the OR. Wording can be fixed, but there is no OR here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain how "overt religious theme" contradicts Tsurumaki who says "we did want our story to have a religious theme".Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but "meaning" is different than message. I am confused as to why you labeled it OR. You seem to think "religious message" is involved and not just purposely chosen themes which carry a religious meaning. The "meaning" is the word choice here and "meaning" has many meanings. This statement, "There is no actual Christian meaning to the show, we just thought the visual symbols of Christianity look cool." is the contest part. I'm trying to point out the show uses Christian imagery and storytelling as part of its apocalyptic scope; religious themes are important to identifying the meaning and the nature of the work. That is, the religious symbolism used was not without meaning, but are deliberate constructions for this new "Gospel" which carries a profound Christian theme, but is not an attempt to serve as a religious show or indoctrination, of which some anime have been profoundly impacted by the Catholic Church. If I understand you, you are taking "religious meaning" as "advocating or professing a religion" which was one concern, but the esoteric nature also was bad for a PR value - hence why the first essay covers this. I do not see anywhere that Evangelion is advancing a Christian agenda - this seems to be your take and that is radically different from a religion inspired back story and contains numerous themes which carry a religious meaning. The reference to the S2 Engine being the Fruit of Life is one such aspect. The Eva, born of Adam, is the body of a God and the throne of the soul from which the Messiah will elevate humanity to divinity? That sounds pretty religious - its not a mere picking of "terms" as Okada stated. Even the original paraphrasing of the article states, "Assistant director Kazuya Tsurumaki said that they originally used Christian symbolism only to give the project a unique edge against other giant robot shows, and that it had no particular meaning." This is radically different from your assertion of the interpretation I've responded to. Perhaps its because the paraphrasing of the "meaning" is ambiguous based on your interpretation. The best one would be, "Evangelion's basic plot elements are borrowed from some religious texts and myths, but they merely act as inspiration for a different story .Evangelion is not, and never was a religious anime and does not contain any direct commentary on the world's religions."  The symbols used were plot devices, and were used with knowledge, but they do not advance a religious meaning. As I pointed out Duan's essay, Star Wars uses Taoism, but does not have a "Taoist meaning", but the "elements have a Taoist meaning" that were used to develop the story. The differences here are fairly big and given the line as currently used, my comments were appropriate given the context - hence why I am perplexed at your assertions they are OR while the symbols themselves are noted and sourced without issue.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is a needlessly complicated issue...I can't even understand why you did that, but you're basing your reasoning on WP's incomplete paraphrasing of the quote. WP says "it had no particular meaning" and that's wrong because it clearly has meaning within the shows mythology (except some iconography such as the cross-shaped explosions which have no story-wise explanation). But what Tsurumaki says is that there is "no Christian meaning to the show", as in "no Christian advocacy/proselytism", and that's the only way to understand these words. You seem to interpret the sentence based on WP's faulty paraphrasing, which indeed makes it sound like religious allusions are random and detached from the plot, which is not what Tsurumaki originally said. What bugs me is why you would ignore the actual quote in the first place...but whatever. So let's change this sentence and be done with this useless mess. .Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving on. Anno has stated, "Evangelion also includes a "salvation-like" story, but it’s not true salvation. It was a work where, thinking about the destination of mankind, I began by borrowing elements from Christianity. It’s like, thinking about something like the evolution of mankind or the meaning of existence, I tried to make something concerning the destination of mankind." - Would this be acceptable to cite in replacing the error? And I need to bring someone into this. Because I want to make sure this is done properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already changed the faulty Tsurumaki paraphrasing, but you can certainly add this quote to the paragraph (I think it would be best not to paraphrase/reword it too much though, let's be as close as possible to the actual quote). In my view, it doesn't even conflict with what Tsurumaki says. And nice job on finding the quote, I don't remember having seen it before in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I owe thanks to Gwern who hosts these and has the citations listed for such purposes. Though I also think this helps. Religious themes was my starting point, because it was the simplest to deal with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Format
I hate this current break down. It doesn't work for me at all. I think this page should get the context of the work out right from the beginning. That means identifying Anno's role, psychology interest, and religious background for the series all in one small section. This will have to be complimented by the assertions that Evangelion does not carry a religious message (better word choice than "religious meaning") and cements the foundation that religious interpretations of the work are impacted by such statements. The academic consensus is that NGE has such themes, but they do not advance a message, NGE instead builds upon the elements to create an interesting story that has no religious aspirations. Philosophically, this is radically different, occurring after episode 16 by Anno's own interpretation. This context should be covered in that first section. The philosophical aspects will be tied and ultimately linked with the psychological and religious themes... I can't really separate Ortega's out from it and even Broderick's understanding requires a good amount of context setting. I fear that the notes and references will likely become larger than the text itself. This page needs to be entirely re-written. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to really obtain more research materials... I'm going to try and dig up my old academic paper for the purposes of getting these sources back. I am hoping Gwern will come to my rescue here, but barring that, I will be document dropping and trying to re-assemble something which I attempted a decade ago, without interpreting anything myself. I had over 50 pages of notes and references on my paper alone. I think I will consult some other editors for assistance in the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought about that too. There should be a first section with general coverage on the 3 themes (ie the references, comments from the creation team) and then a "critical analysis" section where various commentary touching the 3 topics can be dealt with.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible issue
One weird question. The old rumor about the last line of EoE came out as true, and in a rather disturbing interview. The line was supposed to be "I'd never want to be killed by you of all men, absolutely not!" but was changed to "Disgusting" after a question from Anno. The situation as commented by Miyamura (voice of Asuka) is: "At last Anno asked me, 'Miyamura, just imagine you are sleeping in your bed and a stranger sneaks into your room. He can rape you anytime as you are asleep but he doesn't. Instead, he masturbates looking at you, when you wake up and know what he did to you. What do you think you would say?' I had been thinking he was a strange man, but at that moment I felt disgusting. So I told him that I thought 'Disgusting'. And then he sighed and said '... thought as much.' He said. 'I thought as much.'( Original text mirror, archived )" Now here's the situation. This actually is a very simple analysis - one which I am sure even Wikipedia would allow, but it is of a bit questionable nature. In End of Evangelion, Shinji sees Asuka in the hospital, ends up revealing her body and masturbates to her. Asuka who returns after the Third Impact (questionable prior death notwithstanding) makes the comment "Disgusting" when she is laying beside Shinji. Would simply stating the information as presented be acceptable for the meaning of Asuka's final line, the meaning is so obvious that it is not a synth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we need the voice actress to tell us what's the meaning behind this line, then it's not that obvious, and the whole issue is already covered at End_of_Evangelion (the various interpretation show the line is definitely not straight-forward).Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is the long description, but the line is essentially directorial commentary that Asuka knows what Shinji did and is responding to that and nothing else. That is the question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)