Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page is listed on the bounty board h2g2bob has pledged to make a donation of $20.00 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to good article status.   This bounty expires 2008-10-04.

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
EVA	This article is supported by the Evangelion work group.
	This article was a former Anime and Manga CotW. (19 August 2006) See how it improved – Before – After

	Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series) was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 24, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

Archives
Archive 1 - Talks mainly about edit concerns and references (December 15, 2001-June 29, 2006). Archive 2 - Talks mainly about edit concerns and references (July 9, 2006-September 25, 2006

Contents 1 Citing and when enough is enough 2 Ending in opening sequence 3 Plot on its own page 4 Influences/Impact poorly constructed 5 Recommendation: Move "Fiction and Philosophy" to its own article 6 A good external link to add? 6.1 A disinterested third opinion 6.2 Possible solution 7 Newtype Top 25 anime - Evangelion takes top spot 8 Question about the opening credits 9 Meaning of Romance? 10 "Response" section 11 Requesting "Rei's interactions with Shinji" to be added onto Rei's page 12 Major semantic error in the abstract 13 Split out manga? 14 Further reading 15 Spam at bottom of page? 16 Beginning of the Great Cleanup Campaign 16.1 The Quest For Sources 17 Should an Evangelion fan response section be added? 18 Episode guide? 18.1 Adding it in 19 Here's a link someone can cite 20 Manga's own article? 21 Excessive "citation needed" tags? 22 Avemarian? 23 Original comic? 24 Timeline 25 Footnotes 26 Change page to be about the franchise and not the TV series 27 Reference Nr. 15 - Factual mistake 28 American version totally changed from Japanese version 29 Inspiration and symbolism 30 GA criteria not met 31 Note to self for future writing 32 Lead Section 33 Death and Rebirth error 34 Pronunciation? 35 AfD for Plotline article 36 Psychology and psychoanalytic theory 37 Neon Genesis Evangelion Renewal 38 Another screenshot 39 Xenogears 40 FLY ME TO THE MOON 41 No talk of DVDs? 42 Genre, or, Seinen/Shonen? 43 Fair use rationale for Image:Characters of Evangelion.jpg 44 Fair use rationale for Image:Eva cross explosion.png 45 Reception 46 Any Wagnerian influences? 47 instrumentality 48 Murder trial

[edit] Citing and when enough is enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, for some, it was obvious...

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ending in opening sequence

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Plot on its own page

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Influences/Impact poorly constructed

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

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

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

[edit] Recommendation: Move "Fiction and Philosophy" to its own article

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

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

[edit] A good external link to add?

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

http://evaxephon.com/gallery1.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] A disinterested third opinion

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

• User:EvaXephon has pretty much been civil.
• User:Nique1287 was civil at first but fell back to an accusatory position when her discussion about reasons for not including the external link were not on solid ground.
• The personal website can not be used as a secondary source within the article. It fails WP:V
• The site could be used as an external link. It doesn't fail any of the criteria of WP:EL
• The site presents a point of view which is not otherwise presented. It presents some elements of good showmanship which might appear in any show, Protagonist Hidden From View By Woman [1], for example. But in presenting elements like these we can compare the emotions on the faces and gain a better understanding of the characters, the differences, the similarities and so on.
• In keeping with WP:NPOV's "present all points of view", I would think the article should have the external link. I do recognize there are arguments both ways and I do recognize the personal website is not a reliable published source. One element that makes me think so is the site's obvious stated intention, "a comparison, not a criticism". Terryeo 13:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On to what the third opinions said -

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Possible solution

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

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

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

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

[edit] Newtype Top 25 anime - Evangelion takes top spot

This is the link: [3]

Apparently, Newtype USA held a poll for the top 25 greatest anime of all time. Neon Genesis Evangelion took first place, with Cowboy Bebop in second place. Should this be included in the main article?

If someone knows how, that would be great.

--g8or8de 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would go in the section about the reception and reaction. Actually, Evangelion is bound to have received some actual awards, so how about finding some of those? --GunnarRene 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the opening credits

This really isn't of pertinence to the article, but I figure this is the best place to ask...in the opening credits, during the scenes where the female silhouettes move across the screen over Shinji's head, who is the last one? The first three are obviously Rei, Asuka, and Misato, but I haven't been able to tell if the last one is Misato again or someone else. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Romance?

I've heard that the A/S relationship is supposed to show how two people are trying to understand eachother. Anno has stated that both A/S and R/S can happen, but I haven't found a meaning to the R/S relationship. I've heard some that states that Shinji's relationship with Rei is purely Mom-son relationship , but I don't believe this. I don't know if its the same thing, so I hope you guys can help--Ganderman 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may not be what you're looking for, but to be completely honest, saying that a relationship is "possible" or that it "can happen" is not an incredible insight for these characters. Anno may have given the statement without thinking much about it. Shinji's character was definitely what we could describe as desperate... he would have accepted any kind of relationship with just about anyone. His ready acceptance of Kaworu I think is an example of this. I know this is a grey area, but... Kaworu is not the kind of guy that other guys warm up to immediately. But Shinji, like many or probably all of the other characters in this show, is in a distraught emotional condition and isn't being picky. And I'm not saying you're reading too much into this(I wouldn't say that about anything in any part of Eva), but I think it is possible that there isn't a "meaning" to the R/S relationship, or the possibility of one. On the other hand, I would say that to sum up the A/S relationship as being "supposed to show how two people are trying to understand each other" is probably far too simple. The simple relationships that the characters actually have speak volumes of the emotional states of the characters, and it's probably best to take all of that at face value. KevinJRussell 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Response" section

Right now it just seems like an exposition of the circumstances surrounding the ending movies in particular. It may need some critical response to the TV show as well to make it more complete (some of the content in "Influence" could be used in response, perhaps showing how well it was received by both the masses and the critics [at around the time of release], statistical popularity, etc. , transitioning into reception of the series towards the end and transitioning into the end movie section already there). --Dch111 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting "Rei's interactions with Shinji" to be added onto Rei's page

Since Asuka has her own interactions that shape Shinji's character, I think we should have one for Rei as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderman (talk • contribs)

This could work; however, I think a lot of the information that would go under this section is already in Rei's article, and would just need to be moved and re-organized. Don't forget to sign your posts. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The reason I want to do this is to give some R/S-er's a chance to allow a relationship. Also a chance to think about why Shinji stares at Rei alot and other mysteries anbout the relationship. Not just a mom-son, but also a romanic relationship. After all, Anno has never claimed R/S and A/S to be true.--Sandmen never sleeps 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Ganderman 12:57, 30 November 2006

Uhhhh...if you're basing the need for this section on "shipping," then it doesn't need to happen; Wikipedia isn't the place to venture speculation about who Shinji might've formed a romance with. The section, if/when it's made, could benefit from mentioning the differences between the depiction of their relationship in the anime and the manga, but only from a purely content-driven angle. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but I believe Wikipedia should have a section dealing with Shinji and Rei's relationship based on the mom-son or romantic relationship. Sorry about that, would the things I just said be alright?--Sandmen never sleeps 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Ganderman 8:56 30 November 2006

I think so. If I get time, I'll try to work on this soon. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is how many different opinions on the relationship will be. We'll have to stick to certain evidence on how Rei affects Shinji's character. May it be how she interacts with Shinji and how she helps him. And what the light the relationship may be in to show mom-son or romantic. I don't think we'll get any ansewers into how Rei and Shinji's relationship is, but we'll show how her character changes Shinji.--Sandmen never sleeps 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major semantic error in the abstract

The abstract for this article says that one of the movies either "supplants" or "replaces" the final episodes of the series.

These words are synonyms. Change one. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Split out manga?

I think it'd be a good idea to split out the manga part. It's a separate work, both artistically and in terms of when and by whom it's being made, from the TV series (which this page is ostensibly about - it's not supposed to be a list of all EVA media). It just makes sense (and would save me from embarrassing mistakes :) It may not be all that long of an article, but I think it just needs a little love when it is split out and it'll be fine. --Gwern (contribs) 17:52 13 December 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Further reading

Trawling through WorldCat, I noticed two books that might be worthwhile future sources:

• Evangerion kenkyu josetsu., by Kabutogi, Reigo. (OCLC: 63073050). A Japanese book held in the Toronto Public Library (of all places). It's listed as fiction, but it's description is "Pedantry of neon genesis evangelion", which seems to me to indicate it's criticism of some sort, and so potentially useful.
• On a more conventional note, "Neon genesis evangelion: the unofficial guide" (2004; ISBN: 0974596140), by Kazuhisa Fujie, trans. by Martin Foster, is in English and explicitly about "mysteries and secrets". Certainly sounds useful, and odds are we could cite quite a bit of speculation from it, which would definitely be good. I've used this.

So! Fellow editors: keep your eyes open for these books! (If you read Japanese and live in Toronto especially!) --Gwern (contribs) 01:04 18 December 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Spam at bottom of page?

I noticed someone posted a somewhat rude comment about Wikipedians at the bottom of the references on this page, but I couldn't find any area to remove it when attempting to do so. Anyone who is better at editing check it out and remove it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.112.50 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Erm... what did you see, exactly, and where? Because I can't see any rude comments in the references. Maybe it was just some vandalism that someone reverted already? Nique1287 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of the Great Cleanup Campaign

Whereas I love NGE, and think this article has a lot of great material in it, I feel it's a shame that NGE isn't even a GA. I will do what I can to bring it there, as I think it's the better-suited anime to be carried to FA, in terms of notability, fandom, encyclopedic material, etc...

The first thing I did is to tag all of the "psychology, etc" section for facts. Given the almost endless online reviews of NGE available online, my guess is that everything and its opposite have been said, so it shouldn't be too difficult to source most of the statements done there. Some parts, however, have nothing to do there, no matter how well sourced. I understand a brief description of the different philosophers implied when an episode bears the name of a famous book. An extensive discussion between Sartre and Kierkegaard, however, is not an option. Before deleting big chunks, I would like to discuss where to put them, as they are really nice and I hate to throw away information. Is there an NGE wiki somewhere?

There will be lots to do before this can approach FA, but cleaning out the irrelevant stuff and sourcing all that can be should be the first step. Oh, and creating a "reception" section would be good, too. --SidiLemine 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in by saying "Bravo!" and "I am in." As a Wikipedia contributor on a variety of different subjects, I can say without hesitation that the NGE entry has been the biggest mess I have ever seen on Wikipedia. --NapoleonicStudent 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, there is no NGE wiki.

Why are the discussions of the philosophy not acceptable?

Also, Napoleonic, that's pretty harsh - you mustn't spend much time in Category:Cleanup or in Newpages! --Gwern (contribs) 20:24 9 January 2007 (GMT)

How I understand it is that the psychoanalysis "stuff" is un-sourced and seemingly out of context, so is not working. Like this, "Linebarger was raised in China, became the god-son of the nationalistic leader Sun Yat-sen, and during World War II, worked in psychological warfare on behalf of the U.S. Army, including propaganda efforts by the U.S. against the Japanese. Linebarger's work included strong influences from both East Asian culture and Christianity." can someone tell what this has to do with Evangelion? I'm not lying, this came out of THIS article--Nohansen 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gainax often references Linebarger's fiction. "Atomsk" in FLCL, "Instrumentality" in NGE, and so forth. Those are the most famous ones, anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 05:26 10 January 2007 (GMT)

The discussions of the philosophy will be very hard to present as directly relevant to the anime when it reaches FAC. While I see perfectly why a brief presentation of Sartre and the others is in order (I'm thinking about a sentence max, including a link to Existentialism), the reason why we use so much links is so we don't have to detail every possible thing. I'm thinking, let's present them, and let the reader make his own mind through the philosophy articles if he feels like it. After that, I am totally into detailing every possible philosophic interpretation of the anime that can be sourced. But I would reduce the above Linebarger citation of about half. --SidiLemine 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The philosophers' respective articles are insufficient for the purposes of explaining - NGE is... strange, particularly with respect to how it uses their philosophy. A sentence max is way too little. --Gwern (contribs) 18:26 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Perhaps a separate article for the psychoanalytical stuff? Of course, it should be borne in mind that anything that uncited can be cut. --Monocrat 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At least I removed that "citation needed" tag in the lead and replaced it with a reference to Anno's essay in the first manga volume. The philosophical references that are kept should be more than just "one-liners" with links, though. If explanation is not needed, then we can combine several concepts into one period. But in the cases where NGE use concepts in novel ways - such as how its "instrumentality" is not the same kind of instrumentality that it takes its name from but rather a complementation idea from a part of psychological theory - then we need to spend a little more time on it. Extended debates and related biography can be safely cut though. And I support a reception section very strongly. See Serial Experiments Lain, Excel Saga, and RahXephon. The Evangelion and Lain topics have an advantage over Excel and Rah in that the former two have many published, peer-reviewed, scholarly treatises devoted to them. And of those four, Evangelion is the most famous and controversial one. --GunnarRene 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the philosophy section. In the previous talk pages, someone objected and just removed it all, so I am (pleasantly) surprised it is back. Originally all sources were indeed cited, but many of the references go straight to books and essays in print and not online. The reason for the details is because just saying "it's from this technical philosophy book" doesn't make sense, I felt people would like to know what it is the philosopher said and maybe an example of that as it actually pertains to the anime. Perhaps a separate page could be made ("Philosophy and Evangelion") if it takes up too much space? I don't own Wikipedia obviously, I'm fine with the collective decisions, but I just thought I would make a comment on what I wrote and why. --StaticAge 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should restore it. It's not like it actually hurts the article, and I like to think some of my edits show that if you wait long enough, someone might come along and reference it. And for my part, I don't really care if they are print and not online sources. --Gwern (contribs) 04:39 11 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] The Quest For Sources

Here are the sources I have found yet:

• Anime Jump review of the platinium edition
• Three pretty negative reviews by THEM Anime: First, Second, and Third.
• Review of the first volume by Sci Fi Weekly
• A dozen reviews by Anime on DVD, not counting the OVAs
• An OST Review by Sci Fi Weekly, you never know]
• A very short review by Anime News Network
• TV.com also has a blurb.

In all this I haven't found a single reference to any of the philosophers. Google searches, if promising, promise to be long and hard. If we wish to keep the said section as is, we will need lots of sources. Please list all you have here, so we can make out what's useable and what's not. Anyone has some print stuff scanned?--SidiLemine 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Not sure if this will help you, but [4] has some links to various quite verifiable papers most in pdf format, some even .edu. Didn't explore it too much but hope it helps. — Tutmosis 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidi, what about that "When the machines stop" article I sent you? BTW, Tutmosis, nice to see another editor who frequents the Anime manga web essay archive! --Gwern (contribs) 22:55 12 January 2007 (GMT)

You might also be able to find some academic and published (online) works at AnimeResearch.com and Intersections. Be careful about what papers you cite, though: I know that pop culture has to suffer the inclusion of the best of what there is, but a FAC would I think look askance at papers by undergraduates. Sources have to be verifiable and reliable.--Monocrat 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into them. I'm going through "When the machines stop" in search of explicit philosophers mentions; and through corneredangel to try to sort the actual academic essays from the glorified fanalyses. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Small update: the web seems to be full of interviews of Anno by notorious papers. I'm going to spend some time going through that first, as it's the most authoritative info we can find. I'll list here as it goes.--SidiLemine 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should an Evangelion fan response section be added?

As one of the most popular anime of all time, Neon Genesis Evangelion has generated one of the most prolonged and active fan communities in the animation world. From the popularity (and difficulty) of cosplay and the massive amount of doujinshi, fan-made H games, and original garage models to the remarkable amount of fanfiction both obscure and well-known, the Evangelion legacy has largely continued since 1997 due to the efforts of the fan community. In just the fanfiction world alone, Mediaminer.org lists 539 individual stories, Fanfiction.net 147, Evafics.org 238, and Google has 276,000 results for the search 'Evangelion Fanfiction.' One particularly well-known fan project, Eva-R, has even attracted the attention of American voice actors Tiffany Grant (Asuka) and Tristan MacAvery (Gendo), who've lent their voice talents to radio drama-style versions of the story. Eva-R has also created some of their own animation in the form of trailers for the story.

This all said, the current version of the Evangelion Wikipedia page in relation to the fan response is extremely limited, consisting of only two lines of text at the end of the Characters section, and four lines at the end of the Influence section. It seems that the impact of fans of the franchise, which in no small part has spurred Gainax to make an additional four Evangelion films as well as dozens of 'non-cannon' games and spin-offs to suit the tastes of nearly every concievable fan-pairing of characters, is sorely under-represented. Therefore, I am curious as to whether a section of this article (or a seperate article altogher) should be created to address the fan activities surrounding Evangelion, and their continued influence on Gainax's handling of future developments and continuation of the franchise. If such an article or section were to be created, original research on the topics of trends and pairings in the fanfiction and doujinshi (in particular related to future official changes in Gainax's approach to the property) as well as annalysis of fan approval or unhappiness with the outcome original series could make this an interesting and valuable resource and companion to the already existing Evangelion article.

Is this a worthwhile addition to begin work on? --LainEverliving LainEverloving 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

t is not only worthwhile but direly needed. Please add everything you can source. The said section will also have to give some sales figures, awards, reviews, critics notations, some following works that are officially inspired/influenced by Evangelion, and academic studies of the show.--SidiLemine 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A fan response section will go a long way toward helping this article reach GA or even FA status, especially if it includes reviews from establish critics. The RahXephon article has, IMO, an excellent review/response section, and emulating its format and style would be a good idea. --Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The main criteria are that the section be based on verifiable and reliable sources. It would be nice if a fan section would also include stuff related to the Japanese fan community. Surely that has been written about?--Monocrat 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see also Excel Saga, Serial Experiments Lain and Madlax for more hints. Of course these didn't have the same kind of fan response that NGE had, but the stuff in there should still figure here if possible.--SidiLemine 09:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice. This is a project I would like to work on, but obviously, there's a lot to be done in order to make it good, and much research lies ahead. The biggest problem I have right now is that while I know quite a bit about EVA fanfiction (which was going to be one of my main focus points), there's very little (next to nothing in fact) that can be sourced for this. It's going to end up tagged as Original Research if I put anything in based on what I've collected so far. There is a lot of evidence of fan activity all over the internet, but aside from me collecting data myself and then somehow publishing it in a reputable, linkable source, I'm afraid that the road to getting this kind of information up will be rather long.

What I had wanted to do was write some details about the trends in EVA fanfiction and how they've influenced Gainax's decisions on marketing the characters and such (i.e., Rei/Shinji becomes a popular fan couple, Gainax introduces the Project Raise Ayanami game to allow fans to simulate this couple out-of-canon). You can see though that this would be rather difficult, since I am guessing (I am still somewhat new to Wikipedia) that aside from a sourced interview with a Gainax head confirming this that it would be removed or lower the article's quality. It should be rather obvious based on the amount of merchandise and non-cannon spin-offs that the fan community is impacting this (since without them to buy the products, the products would not be made), but it's hard to write and source this properly. The same goes for fan projects like EVA-R and ReDeath. Thus, other than trying to collect reviews of the series and films (which I am already in the process of doing), I'm a little unsure as to how to proceed and rather overwhelmed by the size and difficulty of this undertaking.

Does anyone have any advice, based on this? --LainEverliving LainEverloving 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, well. You seem to pose several different problems at once. To me, the logical course of action to achieve your goal would be:

1. List all "merchandise and non-cannon spin-offs" you know about, with their release press conferences, etc. Even if it doesn't make it to the reception section, it will need its own sub-section somewhere. I think apart from Gundam, Eva is the most productive anime series in this domain; this should be noted.
2. Try to find any press release from the same period, stating or implying the possible reasons for the release (as you point out, Gainax head is the top; but a small review in a gadget website is OK too, if it has any kind of notoriety and is not a forum.)
3. Try to find notorious anime sites (commercial, reviews, anything that has a certain status; Axela is a good indicator, but feel free to ask here) that list such fan fiction, or at least talks about it. This is the point you said would be difficult, and I agree, but a good google searche, and the help of the Animanga Wikiproject should be enough to find at least one.
4. Borrow as much as you can from the sources you find to make your point ;). You might be able to get a lot about the relationship between Gainax and the fans from the interviews regarding DaR and EoE.

Should you find a fansite dedicated to Eva fanfiction, you should be able to link it as an example, until someone finds a better one. There is always the problem of copyright violation, but my opinion is that as long as they don't actually distribute copyrighted material like the anime, scripts or OSTs, we're pretty safe.--SidiLemine 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. Based on what you've said, I'll continue to gather information for the article and work on it offline as much as possible. My computer was just striken with a spyware attack a few days ago, so I'm somewhat limited in what I can do online until it is taken care of, but I will continue to do my best to research what I can. If there is anyone else who would like to assist on this project and help improve the EVA article, please let me know so that we can try and work together. Otherwise, I will start posting information as soon as I feel I've gathered an adequate amount that is of sufficient quality. --LainEverliving LainEverloving 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode guide?

I am openly surprised that there is no episode guide for Evangelion. Can someone please set up the basic templates, etc. for an episode guide? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

This is available at List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media. The article is a complete mess right now, so replacing the episode list with one like the one at List of Serial Experiments Lain media, List of Excel Saga media or List of Planetes episodes shouldn't do any harm.--SidiLemine 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I see...I meant more like an episode by episode specific guide for each one, but I could write that up based on the template in there....I'll get around to this.... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.137.195 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I'll get on this...eventually. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding it in

Okay, the current "episode guide" lodged into the media list is a mess, so I am going to slap in a rough-cut episode guide which hopefully everyone else can tweak over a period of several days, thus bootstrapping our way to success.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure you want to separate the episode list into its own article? After all there is only one 26-episode season in the series, unlike multi-season shows.

Another example, soon to be featured if we don't find any problems with it: List of RahXephon media (Note that all episodes in that list now has its own article, but that is not likely to be the situation in some weeks from now, I thnk only about half of the episodes will have articles then.) --GunnarRene 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just setting up a basic gridwork; the current "episode" thing is just a list of episode titles. We'll play around with it (consequently I thought Eva actually had 2 seasons and it wasn't considered one big season, but that's not relevant: other series with 26 episodes like Serial Experiments Lain or Planetes appear to have a guide, and I'm just reverse engineering theirs and putting in Eva episode descriptions. This will take more than one day to set up so I'm obviously not going to get it right the first time, and others know more about this than me so if you think it can be written better please help me fix it up. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote up a basic new episode guide here: List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes, as the old one was "a complete mess", and was really just a list of names and didn't actually cover the episodes. Can anyone else please help out in fixing it up? In all modesty I'm not that great at this.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought the link didn't work for a minute, but apparently the "main" template is working fine now....problem must have been on my end....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new episode guide page here: List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes. Please help out. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a link someone can cite

I have no idea how to cite references, nor am I willing to learn. But here's link: http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html. It goes around the 3rd paragraph in "Influence", about how NGE is soft rather than hard science fiction. --Kanangra 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 05:10 25 January 2007 (GMT)

An award for NGE - once a Reception section's made.-Malkinann 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manga's own article?

Considering that "Angelic Days," has its own page, should the official manga have it's own page? --Ganderman 16:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested before, I think. Just no one's gotten around to it. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54 3 February 2007 (GMT)

Since, "Girlfriend of Steel," has its own page here, should the official manga have its own page?--Ganderman 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested multiple times before. Have a look at the Table of Contents for this very Talk page and look for references to the manga for the previous discussions. Nique talk 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be seperate page for the manga itself but i can't find the manga anywhere. [User:jobywonkanobi] 9:14 May 10, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.26.4.146 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Most bookstores don't carry the manga of Evangelion anymore. I was shocked to see a Borders in Long Beach last December that had pretty much the entire run on its shelves, as that's the first time I've seen it available in a bookstore for at least a year. I was expecting the local Barnes & Noble to pick up vol. 10 and re-stock the older volumes, but I had to special-order vol. 10, and the only title I've seen on shelves lately is Angelic Days, which I haven't read any of and am undecided on. Sadamoto really shot himself in the foot with that enormous delay between vols. 9 and 10...has it ever been officially disclosed as to why that break was there? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive "citation needed" tags?

Sorry, total newbie to WikiPedia editing of any kind, but I felt I had to point out an issue that is bothering me a lot while trying to read this article.

From the "Fiction and Philosophy" section:

"In the series, even the mecha Evangelion units turn out not to be machines; Unit 01 moves without a pilot to protect Shinji, and it can fight without the aid of an external power source when it goes berserk.citation needed Eventually, it is learned that its external armor is actually to restrain its freedom and to bind it to the control of NERV, and that they are not just machines or animals, but have souls.citation needed"

I don't understand why someone has gone and added "citation needed" all over the place for these particular points (and many other points). These facts of the story are 100% verifiable by simply watching the episodes in which these facts are revealed to the viewer! Coming to the article as a reader and seeing "citation needed" over and over, I am left wondering why such interruptive links are placed everywhere in the text. If it's believed that someone should add a reference to say "see episode 13" after a certain piece of text, for example, perhaps that should be written here in the discussion page where your typical editor is going to see it, as opposed to after every sentence where John Q. Public is going to see it and get totally frustrated when he's just trying to read about this anime his friend told him about. --24.81.4.244 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In part the frustration is desired. All information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and cited, otherwise it's deletable. The tags are Wikipedians' ways of being honest with the public. Trimming a few won't hurt, but I'd just as soon leave them up. --Monocrat 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a clash of concepts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus, needs to build information from secondary sources. The anime or the manga itself are considered primary sources for our purposes. Please check this about reliable sources. If you are using the anime, or some manga chapter, the citation tag indicates you should supply at least the episode number and title, or the manga chapter and page. Evangelion has 26 episodes, plus some special remade ones and a few films, so you may be safe saying "just watch the anime", but imagine what would happen with Doraemon, with over 1,000 episodes, or Sazae-san, with 10,000 comic strips and 2,000 episodes. So, between putting always the episode number and name and never including them, I prefer the former. -- ReyBrujo 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avemarian?

what is this? http://www.google.com/search?q=avemarian+nge — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.132.93 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Some sort of fan animation project, judging by the comments on Youtube and DeviantArt. --Gwern (contribs) 07:13 6 March 2007 (GMT)

It's a fan animation project using the characters from Maria-sama ga Miteru in the roles of characters from NGE (if that makes sense?). There are two parts to it - one as a parody of the opening credits to NGE, and the other as a parody of End of Evangelion. -Malkinann 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original comic?

Reading through Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Unofficial Guide, I find that in 1994, the authors list "December: The comic serial begins in the manga digest Shonen Ace." But Yoshiyuki's manga is listed in the article as starting February 2005, which would seem to be a contradiction or gap of several months. Who's right? --Gwern (contribs) 04:31 10 March 2007 (GMT)

Never mind. I've found another and better source which says December as well. --Gwern (contribs) 06:01 21 March 2007 (GMT)

It was in the February 1995 issue of Shonen Ace. Do the math yourself: 1st tankôbon published in August 1995, composed of 6 "stages", one per month (Shonen Ace is a monthly mag). August is the 8th month. 8 - 6 = 2. February. Folken de Fanel 11:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the fact is that Yaushiro Takeda (one of Gainax's original employees, who was part of the Evangelion production team), and Fujie both claim the same exact thing: that to drum up interest, the manga started early, in December 1994. Perhaps it did not run consistently (is not the manga notorious for how long it's taken and how irregular the schedule is?); regardless, I have two different print sources, one of which should be unimpeachable, which say December 1994, and all you have is some unreliable mathematical reasoning. Policy is clear about which version should prevail... --Gwern (contribs) 17:21 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Ok, to clear the matter, after a bit of research on the web...Evangelion started serialization in the February 1995 issue of the Shonen Ace magazine, which was itself published on December 26, 1994 [5] (yes, magazines are very often published about a month before the actual period written on their cover). So we're both right, in fact. Perhaps it deserves a note in the article (if there's something about the manga). Folken de Fanel 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. Well, the Infobox people apparently haven't addressed the issue of whether original run is dated from actual publication date or the listed month. Incidentally, wouldn't it then have been published two months early? February -> January, January -> December. --Gwern (contribs) 20:42 21 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Timeline

I'm having some trouble tracking down some Anno quotes. There's an April 14 1996 radio interview (shortly after the March 27 finale) where Anno famously said "anime fans need to have more self respect" and need to "come back to earth", but I can't find a transcript.

This also says "According to Anno, from episode 16 on, he began reading books about human psychology and became very interested. He wanted to explore "what the human mind is all about inside." "I wrote about myself. My friend lent me a book on psychological illness and this gave me a shock, as if I finally found what I needed to say," he says in the November Newtype." which I think would be a bangup source to use for some of the psychology-related {{cn}}s, but I can't really verify it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:43 10 March 2007 (GMT)

Ok, I'm satisfied with what I have for the latter issue, but I still have diddly-squat on the radio interview. :( --Gwern (contribs) 06:02 21 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Footnotes

Several of the footnotes contain citations of the form "Napier 2002", but there's no elaboration elsewhere of what this refers to. Usually, you use such cites as an abbreviation for a source named in full in a bibliography elsewhere - so can we have the full citation of the source instead of these (incomplete) abbreviations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.16.168 (talk)

It's there. Look harder. --Gwern (contribs) 16:58 26 March 2007 (GMT)

OK, I see it now. In which case: seeing as I was reading #41, and that the full reference is way back in #3, a few kilometres of smallish text earlier, wouldn't it be a usability improvement if abbreviated references are anchored back to the full citation, or the footnote containing the original full cite? I've already been caught, I'm making this stand for the poor wretch who ends up at #57! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.105.246 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, you can't use references inside of references. It might make sense to move the full Napier reference and a few others used as often out of the ref tags entirely, though. --Gwern (contribs) 03:15 29 March 2007 (GMT)

But you can use the same reference with multiples footnotes. In that case, you create one ref, to which you give a name (<ref name= ****> blabla </ref>), and then you add this tag each time you want to refere to the "blabla" source: <ref name=****/>...Folken de Fanel 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but if I adopt that style, it means dumping all the quotes and references into the text (which is problematical stylistically), or deleting them wholesale - which I am very loathe to do. --Gwern (contribs) 19:43 2 April 2007 (GMT)

Why not just include the multiply-referenced articles in the Further Reading section? The key issue is that it's difficult to find the article title if it's hidden amongst the other footnotes - usually you'd head straight for a bibliography. Although "Further Reading" isn't strictly a bibliography (it's a set of recommendations rather than an exhaustive listing of everything referenced in the article), I'd argue that if something's important enough to be referenced multiple times across the article and quoted fairly extensively then it deserves to be there, improving the list and solving the footnotes gripe without any need for tag-level tinkering. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.121.115 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not as though you have to have ALL named tags or ALL unnamed tags. I'm pretty sure you can have a mixture of the two within an article. Nique talk 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reading is for references which haven't been used yet, so that's not an option. You can mix named and unnamed tags, but you can't do <ref>"long quote." pg 40.<ref name="napier"/></ref>. --Gwern (contribs) 23:40 3 April 2007 (GMT)

Do you think you could do different sections for citations and references, a la El Greco? It's really confusing to have to hunt through reams of text to find a full reference. Sometimes it isn't even in the work's first citation. For example, Fujie 2004 is referenced in footnote 1, 19, 20, and 27 before its full citation is presented in footnote 33. It's understandable that this might be the case, as the article is being constructed in an ad hoc manner for the moment, so separating the cites and the references would keep things clear, even as the article's being built. Excellent, excellent work, by the way, Gwern. The article's really coming together! Geuiwogbil 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright. If so many people ask, I can hardly refuse. --Gwern (contribs) 06:03 13 April 2007 (GMT)

Thanks muchly! Geuiwogbil 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change page to be about the franchise and not the TV series

So with the upcoming Rebuild of Evangelion tetralogy, there will soon at least 4 different versions of Evangelion (5 if you count ADV's live-action project); in order: the manga, the TV series, the Death/Rebirth/End combination, & the Rebuild. It seems to me that this article should perhaps be about the franchise in general, with the 4/5/6 whatever series in their own pages. The article sits uneasily as it is, containing both an overview of the TV series and the franchise, and the manga (which remember was the first piece of Eva media) doesn't even get an article and has a few mentions tucked away in this long entry. Any thoughts? --Gwern (contribs) 03:18 6 April 2007 (GMT)

I'd go along with that. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By the same logic, I question whether we should make separate articles for "Asuka Langley Soryu (TV series)" and "Asuka Langley Soryu (Rebuild)"--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can't decide that now - we have no idea whether Asuka will be a dramatically different character in the Rebuild as compared to the manga/TV/movie Asuka. If she is, then that might be a good idea; but unless I've missed a lot about the Rebuild, such information isn't yet available. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 13 April 2007 (GMT)

Okay guys, come September we are going to see quite the literal "Rebirth" of Eva. I'm filling out the episode guide as fast as I can and we MORE OR LESS have the character, angel, eva unit, and glossary pages down. MIND YOU, I consider it **4** versions as Death/Rebirth/End is kind of tied into the original TV series, albeit with qualifier, they should be mentioned in the same breath. On top of this there is the manga (I don't read it but it exists), Rebuild, and hopefully Rebuild will spur interest in a live action movie series.......do you think we might eventually launch a wikiproject Evangelion of sorts? (Lord of the Rings was once just a subsection of Fantasy until someone launched wikiproject Middle-earth) Okay it might be something less formal than that...........at any rate, in a few days we need to make a "State of Evangelion on wikipedia" address to take stock of what is "Finished" (i.e. get the "Asuka" article to the point that we're just "maintaining" it when its vandalized or new changes are made), and what is nowhere near finished (the Timeline is a failure, and "Human Instrumentality Project" an apocalyptic disaster). We've got to get off our asses on this one. As for splitting articles....we'll do that if the articles become too long and cross that bridge when we get to it come September.---->Yes, we should rewrite this front page to be more about the franchise itself. Needs much work. Off Topic: I recently started an article for Lucy (Elfen Lied) and I'm running into trouble from the federales about bringing it up to code; could use some help. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to do the census just yet... it's kind of embarassing to have to say, "1. NGE manga: article does not exist. 2. ..." --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 13 April 2007 (GMT)

I honestly don't care about the NGE Manga. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got a rough draft at <sr>[[User:Gwern/Manga]]</sr> Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga) for those who do care, if they want to review it or edit it. --Gwern (contribs) 03:56 15 April 2007 (GMT)

I honestly can't make a better one so okay. Is the ending of the manga any different? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? That's the thing about incomplete series. --Gwern (contribs) 04:08 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Wait, the manga was incomplete?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Was/is. "...it is still running and consists of 10 volumes - each comprised of several "stages" or chapters - out of a planned 12 volumes." --Gwern (contribs) 05:25 15 April 2007 (GMT)

It probably would've been complete by now, but as I understand it Sadamoto took a 2-year break (sabbatical?), so volume 10 has only been released in the USA in the last week. I know it will feature the conclusion of the battle with Armisael, but beyond that I don't know. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know this sounds stupid, but a goal of mine is to slowly get EVERY article on Eva up to speed by September 2007 when Rebuild comes out, if not earlier: the idea is that I seriously think that Rebuild will make a new explosion of interest in Eva, it will be "new" again, we'll work on Rebuild stuff (heck at 4 movies long it is about the same as a whole new Eva series) and then Rebuild causes renewed interest in Eva which kick-starts the stalled Live Action Movie Trilogy....which will literally be the next Star Wars/LOTR, what with Weta being involved and all. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an ambitious plan. I like it, but first I'm trying to render the EvaFics wiki obsolete and actually source the stuff we have now. Remember, slowly and surely wins the race! Better to make a solid beginning and foundation than rush through to meet the deadline. --Gwern (contribs) 20:05 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Actually that's exactly what I was planning as well; might go over for pointers. No one has updated that thing in over a year. I'll get to this in May. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the manga over the weekend, so I'll help with that article as much as I can. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your additions. I haven't been idle either: behold Neon Genesis Evangelion 2! It's not much or pretty, but it and the manga article fills out the last holes in the template.

Which brings up the next issue. While browsing EvaMonkey's forum looking for manga and Evangelions information, I saw mentioned something called Neon Genesis Evangelion Chronicles (or maybe just Evangelion Chronicles), which seems to be a 30 issue magazine series of Evangelion material[6]. Do any of you think it merits an article? --Gwern (contribs) 19:49 20 April 2007 (GMT)

I just found a link to these magazines a coupla days ago...if there was a website that had translated content or images from them, they'd be handy as references, but I haven't been able to find much aside from links selling them. I say keep them on the back burner for now, they don't merit their own articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

So I see no one has objected in the several months my suggestion has been up. In that case, I will start the split tonight. I don't know if I will be able to tidy up all loose ends, however. --Gwern (contribs) 02:17 3 September 2007 (GMT)

So what I've been doing is this: "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is just too generic a term. It can equally refer to the franchise and to the TV series, and this article was suffering badly as I and everybody else tried to make it into an article about both things. Which worked fine as long as there was much material. But it doesn't scale, so I've turned "Neon Genesis Evangelion" into a disambiguation page which links to Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV) which is for the TV series, obviously, and also to Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise which will be the home of all the material dealing with general stuff and derivatives and so on. After this, I guess I need to go around disambiguating links, but what needs to be done is a good thorough cleanup of both articles and a sorting out of a content I don't really have time for right this minute. --Gwern (contribs) 02:54 3 September 2007 (GMT)

It looks great so far, Gwern, but you might want to check out this discussion about the name of the article for the original anime. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Nr. 15 - Factual mistake

In the first/second episodes Eva-01 overcomes Angel, not Shinji himself, who had lost control over Eva. The idea of author is correct - but even more than he wrote.217.198.224.13 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is used to support Shinji's lack of heroism rather than the control of Eva, so should be ok as far as it goes. However, you can add or replace with a better source if you like.

On a side note, I think Shinji didn't remember what happened, so it is left unexplained who was in charge. However, what you suggest is the most probable explanation. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American version totally changed from Japanese version

I'm told that the American version totally changed the script, gave the male character more prominence, cut out many scenes, etc. Can you please add a sub-section that details the differences or the reasons or whatever. As a new watcher, I need to decide if I want to watch the original Japanese version or the completely redone Americanized one.--Sonjaaa 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You should watch subtitled versions just because the Japanese voice actors are often better, sometimes subtleties (those pesky suffixes -chan, -san, and -kun being a good case in point) are lost in translation, and dubs sometimes reword stuff to match mouthflapping better. But the English dubs aren't too bad, as I understand it. Certainly not nearly as bad as they could be. --Gwern (contribs) 22:56 8 June 2007 (GMT)

The English version of Neon Genesis Evangelion is almost exactly the same as the Japanese version, only in English. You seem to be describing a completely different series, Cardcaptor Sakura, where the dub was heavily edited and rewritten to give more prominence to a male main character. Philip Reuben 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration and symbolism

Has any of this article's editors given thought to trimming "Inspiration and symbolism"? I was giving it a look and it sorts of meanders to topics other than series and tries to give a psychological profile of the characters. I've tagged it with OR to see if it gets someone's attention.--Nohansen 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA criteria not met

I have failed the article because, while the sheer number of references is impressive to say the least, it has several major problems that keep it from meeting the Good Article criteria. I will summarize my concerns below.

First off, the positive aspects: you have no problems with article stability, no grammatical errors leap out at me, you've found what appear to be several scholarly references, and you cover all the major points regarding the series that I would expect of a well-written anime article. Your images meet fair use policy, but I would like to see more context explaining exactly how the two in the "After the series" section are relevant. (They don't have any apparent connection to the article text they are next to.) This should be a relatively minor fix though.

The remaining criteria, however, have some issues. The article is good up until the section "After the series", but after that it starts falling apart and losing focus quite badly. Specifically, the bulleted list of religious references in the "Religion" section should be converted to prose and heavily trimmed, as at present it's much too in-depth for a main article and somewhat trivial besides. There's also a lot of synthesis and presumption throughout the entire "Inspiration and symbolism" section, which is especially heavy in the philosophy sub-section.

I realize that the religious and psychological references in NGE are a major part of it, and that removing them would damage our coverage of NGE, but at present those sections are the main thing keeping you from passing GA. So as a suggestion for how to fix these problems, the Inspiration and symbolism section should be turned into its own subarticle, and replaced with a shorter summary here. If that portion of the article were to be trimmed and focused, it would greatly improve the article's readability, reduce its length, and deal with the concerns about Original Research as well.

I apologize for the disappointment, but you are certainly getting close. As a WP:MANGA project member, I look forward to reading the article again once the Inspiration and symbolism sections have been cleaned up. --tjstrf talk 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self for future writing

For future reference: we don't give enough emphasis to Sadamoto's role as character designer here. He apparently came up with quite a lot of distinctive elements and ideas. An excellent source to work from to flesh out mentions of Sadamoto is a 1998 interview translated by Animerica in Vol. 6, issue No. 8. Fortunately, the Eva ML provides a transcription for us here. We can also take advantage of a Der Mond interview (here). We might also want to work in a cute humorous picture Sadamoto drew comparing Nadia with Shinji (here, although needs more provenance). --Gwern (contribs) 22:59 8 June 2007 (GMT)

Thanks a bunch for the links, Gwern. I'm going to put the link to the Nadia/Shinji pic in Shinji's article; I've already put the links to the interviews with Sadamoto in his articles. Come to think about it, that pic would be an excellent addition to Shinji's article here, but I don't know how to make a picture for Wikipedia...could someone take care of that? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

Is it just me, or does the lead section of this article seem too vague in describing context yet too detailed in describing information that really isn't pertinent to a summary of NGE? Refer Wikipedia:Lead Section. I notice the lead section only briefly glosses over the genre of the series, fails to mention basic context such as location / time period etc, and then continues into a blow-by-blow account of the distribution of the anime. Couldn't this distribution/release information have it's own section? I just don't think it is relevant for a lead section if we are aiming for GA or FA standard. I am willing to re-edit the lead section to make it of a better standard. Cottie 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death and Rebirth error

Death and Rebirth are frequently mistaken for being a single movie titled Death and Rebirth, but technically, it was a double feature, and they are two separate movies. The proof is that in the Japanese remastered boxset, Death is on its own disc and not paired with Rebirth. In fact, Rebirth is not in the boxset at all, as it is not its own movie but simply the first half of EoE. The main Evangelion article and the D&R article should be updated to reflect this fact, and the "Evangelion: Death and Rebirth" article should be renamed "Evangelion: Death". I'm a major fangeek, so I know stuff like this pretty well.

[edit] Pronunciation?

Is it a soft-G "Neon Jenesis EvanJelion" or a hard-G "Neon Geneis Evangelion"? I was reading that Blue Gender is pronounced with a hard G "just like Neon Genesis Evangelion". If so a pronunciation guide is in order. Argel1200 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It already has a pronunciation guide, since katakana exist in order to phonetically transcribe foreign words. The characters "ヴァンゲリオン" in the nihongo template in the intro are Japanese for E-va-n-ge-li-o-n.

Are you serious? So basically everyone reading the article should know Japanese if they want to pronounce it correctly in English speaking circles? Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pronounced with a hard g, by the way, though if you wanted to really be accurate you'd find out how the Greek word was said. --tjstrf talk 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would define "correct" as what fans commonly use at conventions, etc. and what's used in the English dub in the show. Is the 'g' in Genesis hard as well? Seems like this is something that should be in the article. Argel1200 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the other option would be adding an IPA pronunciation, I'd think this was the easier method. Kana is easier to learn than IPA is, and if you don't want to learn it you can always copy-paste the character into the search box to reach our article about the letter, which will tell you how to say it.

After looking it up on wiktionary, the correct Greek pronunciation for evangelion is also with a hard G. "Neon Genesis" is a translation into Greek of first two words in the Japanese title, Shin Seiki, by the way, so Japanese pronunciation doesn't come into play. --tjstrf talk 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I went and added a blurb in at the top mentioning the hard g pronunciation. Argel1200 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I went and added it back in. Without a reference at the top new readers will be thinking "soft g" while reading the article and then all of a sudden near the bottom (assuming they make it that far) they will learn they should have been thinking "hard g" all along. Given that the pronunciation is not what readers are likely to expect it seems relevant to let them know in a timely (i.e. early) and efficient manner. Plus, the pronunciation section is buried near the bottom and not listed in the TOC so it may be missed. The initial section in the article is a brief summary of the subject so why is including a brief synopsis on the pronunciation redundant? Should we remove the entire first section because it too is redundant? Additionally, placing it at the top makes it more consistent with other articles that may have pronunciation information at the top but not have a section discussing it in more detail later on (i.e. the existence of more in depth discussion should not force readers to have to hunt for the information). Argel1200 06:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it seems some sort of style guide/policy should be created to deal with this. Argel1200 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a note about the pronunciation in the introductory paragraph, I would prefer it to be the dictionary-style syllabalization (?) of the word and a one- or two-line note at the end of the paragraph that gives the correct pronunciation and directs to the section in the article instead of the current statement; as it is, it feels like it was just stuck in and is jarring to me to read. Also, I really don't think that most people would be upset or irritated to find out after reading the entire article that they might have been pronouncing it wrong unless they were irrationally thin-skinned. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't quite fit in but there is a template directly preceding it so I didn't think I should roll it in with that. Dictionary style would likely look more professional and fit in better. For new comers learning the correct pronunciation is imo important and worthy of more than just footnote status. And not every article will have a discussion on the pronunciation. For those that don't the logical place to put it is near the top. So to be consistent it should be at the top here. We just need to figure out how to make it fit in better. BTW, the pronunciation section at the bottom doesn't really go into how "Genesis" is pronounced -- is it a hard g? Argel1200 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the "Genesis" pronounced with a hard g, ever. The section on the translation appears to hint that using "Genesis" is sort of a word association rather than a direct translation, so I think saying it as it's commonly pronounced is correct. If I get time, I'll try to tinker with this tonight. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Evangelion" is pronounced in the course of the show, with the hard "G" (and with the second-to-last syllable given full weight, which it often isn't in English), "Genesis" never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.238.106.54 (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to propose adding the pronunciation the Infobox animanga template or the nihongo template? Argel1200 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at...the nihongo template is already used for the name of the series. I've moved the note on the pronunciation to the end of the introduction with a Wikilink that goes directly to the section on the translation. How does this look? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The location is a good compromise and I like the wording you chose! Thanks!!!! Argel1200 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Plotline article

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion has been AfD'd. Comments/suggestions? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology and psychoanalytic theory

In this section I find that the last sentence is incorrect in assuming that the world showed in episode 26 was a parody. It was a world shown to Shinji after he said that he does not exist in a world without Eva said in Episode 25 and further enforced in Episode 26 . He in fact is reading the script to the world after it is done showing and came to the realization that he could live in a world without Eva. I would like to edit this section and I promise a source but I want permission first due to the extent of work done on this article.Sun Li 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough is talked about the character's personality disorders. I have some training in psychiatry and Anno obviously used a lot of work by Freud, Jung and especially Kohut when portraying the characters. For example Asuka definately has clearcut Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the change in her mood during the series closely reflects the natural history of the disease described by Kohut (and others). Likewise Misato is Histrionic Personality disorder. Shinji probably has Avoidant Personality Disorder. Rei may have Schizoid personality disorder. If you read the DSM-IV criteria (which is just a checklist) or some research on the disorders (which explains the cause, course and outcome) then they slot in quite well. Logical paradox 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Genesis Evangelion Renewal

Can someone explain to me why nowhere in this article(or the related ones) does it mention Neon Genesis Evangelion Renewal, the DVD release with the remastered episodes and director's cut episodes? Question2 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another screenshot

Not exactly. Actually the word "Tenchuu" is in this screenshot below, not in the one above. Sicaral 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenogears

"The video game Xenogears (1998) bears a resemblance to Evangelion, though its creators (Xenogears co-creator/co-writer Soraya Saga and co-creator/director Tetsuya Takahashi in particular) have denied the speculated influences vehemently."

• I've searched quite a bit, and I can find no such denial of said influence. Unless this can be cited, it should be deleted. Frankly, that they would deny any influence is pretty angering, which is why I'd very much like to see the source. -Etafly 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people deny influence; to say you were inspired by something as popular as Eva seems kind of cheapening, I suppose. For example, the RahXephon guys claimed not to have known much about Eva until they'd already started animating or something like that - which is pretty amusing. --Gwern (contribs) 03:57 3 October 2007 (GMT)

• I always saw it as a series of homages rather than plagiarism, however, if any such inspiration is "vehemently denied", then it looks pretty grim. I've looked again and without any luck, so it's been removed. By the way, I just watched End of Eva. I hadn't noticed that the scene where Asuka surfaces from the sea with ship in hand is exactly the same as when Id emerges from the sand, Yygdrazil in hand. It's a pretty overt reference, and I can't see how anyone could possibly deny something so blatantly obvious. Again, if such an interview exists, I'd love nothing more than to read it.-Etafly 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLY ME TO THE MOON

MISSING IN MUSIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The music could stand to be added in, but it's covered more thoroughly in its specific articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No talk of DVDs?

There are several boxsets out there and I think it'd be helpful (to me!) if someone could add info about those sets, how they are different, etc. Ham Pastrami 09:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a complex topic, which is why I've avoided it. --Gwern (contribs) 12:12 9 October 2007 (GMT)

That discussion would be better suited for the NGE media article, anyway. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some discussion is merited, even if only of the frenzies for the very earliest releases during airing (I think). --Gwern (contribs) 21:41 9 October 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Genre, or, Seinen/Shonen?

So people keep adding/removing/changing the genre field for NGE. This is bothering me quite a bit. People seem to have quite heated feelings and no-one is giving any real reasons for their preferences. Indeed, my personal feelings is that NGE is too protean to be comfortably confined in one or the other.

This is not a situation conducive to a good article. So, until someone comes up with solid and preferably scholarly reference as to what genre - if any - NGE should be considered to be of, or a good argument as to why the current unsettled situation should be further tolerated, I've unilaterally taken it on myself to remove the genre field to the template and revert any and all additions of a genre field. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29 19 October 2007 (GMT)

I'll vouch for it being Seinen, the series strikes me as too complex and deep to be in a genre that is typically associated with family-friendly action and any intricate plot details must be thoroughly explained by characters of the show. Evangelion requires the watcher to have a certain degree of education and intelligence to make the most of it, something that young boys have rarely achieved. The Human Instrumentality Project, the hidden love, the deeper meaning and symbolism. This is a series directed at the mature. --metroid dragon (contribs) 18:24 7 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.70.110 (talk)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Characters of Evangelion.jpg

Image:Characters of Evangelion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

--h2g2bob (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eva cross explosion.png

Image:Eva cross explosion.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

--h2g2bob (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

Shouldn't there be a section on the reception for the series? it heads multiple best of anime lists. I mention this because the cowboy bebop section mentions these lists, so i believe it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'm surprised that this hasn't been included already. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There already is a Reception section, although it isn't very full. I didn't add it, and I wasn't sure what lists to look at - Newtype is an obvious source, but I don't have access to any issues of Newtype so... --Gwern (contribs) 17:57 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Gah, I forgot that section had been added. *forehead smack* Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the reception section of this article needs to list more of the top lists it has one, and it isn't written in a format similar to other reception sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any Wagnerian influences?

I found this interesting discussion by the so called ‘The Imperialist’ on his/her theories on if NGE has any relation to Wagner, and puts up his/her assumptions, and more fully fledged theory later on. Search ‘On Wagner Evageeks’. What do you people think? I find this quite interesting, so is it possible if anybody would be willing to like make this theory more convincing with more ‘spine’ in it? I do have to admit that there are possibilities that NGE is based/influenced by Wagner, but there are a few points, that has to be mended, as he/she didn’t seem to manage to finish it. He/she also seems to have overlooked the fact that Wagner and Anno share the same birthday… --Fieldmarhshal Miyagi (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no particularly strong influences of that; yeah I saw that guys' rant on a messageboard is was laughably implausible. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] instrumentality

I have a subtitled version of NGE where the "Human Instrumentality Project" is given as "Human Complement Project" (might even have been supposed to be "Completement"--there's been at least one similar misspelling) in episode 2. I'd be curious to know what the original Japanese phrase was, and what other translation variants it could have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.35.101 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) -Never mind. The answer's right there in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.211.36.76 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murder trial

I'm not sure where to add this, so I'm archiving it here. Apparently NGE TV has been cited as justification for murder! As written in Mainichi Daily News, December 2, 2003, Tuesday: "Cartoon blamed for man's fatal beating on mom" (Page 8; Domestic news):

YAMAGATA -- A man accused of beating his mother to death with a baseball bat was influenced by a cartoon that made him believe humans were unnecessary beings, prosecutors told the Yamagata District Court on Monday.
In opening statements at the trial of Hiroyuki Tsuchida, 22, prosecutors claimed that watching the science-fiction cartoon Neon Genesis Evangelion had made Tsuchida believe a phrase in it that said, The ultimate conclusion of (human) evolution is ruin. He also came to believe that humans were unnecessary beings who were destroying the world's environment, and in turn began to want to kill people, prosecutors said. They said the man fatally smashed his mother in the head with a baseball bat at about 2 p.m. on June 25, thinking that if he killed family members he would not hesitate when murdering others. A representative of Gainax, the firm involved in writing and producing the cartoon, said it did not think the content of the cartoon was related to the killing. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Dec. 2, 2003)

--Gwern (contribs) 02:02 27 March 2008 (GMT)

"A representative of Gainax, the firm involved in writing and producing the cartoon, said it did not think the content of the cartoon was related to the killing."

well if you think of it in a sense it is not related to killing more or less trying to stop a worse fate for humanity by making it a singular Hyperbeing however then again this quote from the representative is arguable. 69.86.55.242 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)